Since I soon won’t get
many chances to check out non-Episcopal churches I decided to attend two neighborhood
churches a couple of weekends ago. On Saturday evening I attended the Roman
Catholic church that is literally around the corner from where I live now. On
Sunday I attended a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church a few blocks down the
street from the Catholic church. If you don’t know much about the WELS, neither
do I, except that they have a reputation for being even more conservative than
the Missouri Synod Lutherans (e.g., while, like the Missouri Synod, they do not
recognize women’s ordination, unlike the Missouri Synod, women are not able
even to vote on church matters in the WELS.)
I knew going in that
neither of these churches would be OK with my partaking of the
Eucharist/Communion. And that was OK with me. I want to explain why since it
seems to irritate or offend a lot of people when they attend churches whose
understanding of the Eucharist, communion, and belonging don’t fully include
them.
Respect
Whether I agree with the
limits this or that church puts on who is welcome to receive Communion, it is
respectful to abide by their understanding when I am in their place – their
house, their rules. Just as I take my shoes of when I visit a mosque and am not
offended by their expectation that I do so, I am not offended by the
expectation that I not receive communion when visiting the RC or the WELS. Abiding
by their rules allows for and respects their otherness.
It also respects the reality
that the Church is divided. That we are not one is a scandal, but we ought not
to pretend the scandal away by ignoring it. It would be presumptuous and
dishonest for me to partake as if those divisions did not matter – even if I
did not think they mattered or understand why they mattered. Nor will I presume
that the fault for our lack of unity lies alone in those with whom I disagree. So,
rather than being put out when I attend churches whose Eucharistic discipline
is less open than mine, I am inclined to pray God’s forgiveness for us all for
the mutual pride, ignorance, and willfulness that has led to our divisions.
Communion
It is
important to note that the communion we are about in Communion or the Eucharist
is not merely a personal communion with God. It is communion with God in
Christ, but it is also communion with the body of Christ, i.e., members of the Church. It is not an exercise
in individualistic piety. It is not just about me and my time with God on my
terms. I disagree with both the RC and the WELS about the terms of that
communion. But, I agree with them that Communion is not just about me and what
I think or want. Or what I think God thinks or wants.
I am
persuaded that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition have it right
that baptism is the sufficient (and essential) threshold for entering the body
of Christ and communing with that body. But, the RC expect more in this regard. They
expect one to belong to (be in communion with) the Church of Rome. I get that.
And since I am not in communion with the Pope, I am OK with not pretending
otherwise. I am also not in communion with every doctrine and discipline of the
RC. If their understanding of participating in communion is that it suggests
that I am or aspire to be, it would be false of me to do so. And it would be an
assertion of my own willfulness.
The WELS
expects an even more precise doctrinal conformity of those who commune
together. I do not think I would meet those expectations. And, in any event, I
have reservations of my own about a church that feels free to edit the Nicene Creed as
they do (changing “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” to “one, holy,
Christian church”) and I profoundly disagree with their teaching on the place of women in church. So, again, it would be false and willful of me to commune
with them given their understanding of what that means.
[A bit of an
aside – though I was not invited to take communion, I was invited to contribute
money to both churches. It seems to me that if one of our concerns is to be
more hospitable, a good place to start would be to stop hitting up visitors for
cash. I would start there rather than changing church doctrine or discipline,
or disregarding church canons. We did not pass the plate at St. Barnabas, Glen
Ellyn. Rather, members know that belonging – communing – includes financial
commitments and know where and how to give.]
I am glad
that members of the RC and the WELS would be welcome to commune at an Episcopal
church. We recognize their baptisms and that is sufficient. But, humility
requires the acknowledgment that THEY MIGHT BE RIGHT. So, I took the
opportunity, while others were communing, to contemplate what it means to
belong and the cost of discipleship and community.
Boundaries
I do not
share our cultural allergy to boundaries. Any body, whether biological or
social, needs boundaries to flourish. Boundaries are what enable a sense of
identity and integrity. They give definition to expectations and obligations. Denial
of this on the biological/personal level wreaks all sorts of havoc –
co-dependence, borderline personalty disorder, disregard for otherness, etc. There are
similar problems with the denial of boundaries in social bodies. And it blinds
us to what bodies (powers and principalities) we might actually belong to or
into which we have been subsumed.
While I
disagree with the boundaries the RC and WELS set for Communion, I do not disagree
that boundaries are good. So, when they name a boundary and ask me not to cross
it, I am not offended. It’s not about me anyway.
I know that
there are folk who have experienced painful exclusion. And I have heard of
examples of priests, pastors, and lay people in both of these traditions being
obnoxious about their boundaries. That does offend and grieve me. But, I do not
think that acknowledging boundaries is necessarily obnoxious. It can be done in
ways that are not so.
Actually, in
neither of the churches I attended was there in any instruction one way or
another, written or verbal, as to who was invited to participate in Communion.
As a visitor, I actually found this rather confusing and thus inhospitable. This
was especially so in the WELS church. Toward the end of the service, but before
the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper as printed in the bulletin, and with no instruction
as to what was happening, the ushers dismissed folk pew by pew. But not everyone
left and some appeared to come back in or move toward the front for what was a
rather perfunctory reciting of the words of institution followed by Communion.
Had I been an uninformed visitor I would have had no idea what was going on or
what might be expected of me. In any event, I chose to abide by their
discipline as I knew it, remained seated where I was, and did not commune.
I will
likely attend the neighborhood RC church again. I am less likely to go back to
the WELS. But, when I attend the RC, I will refrain from partaking of Communion
though I could probably do so without anyone knowing I am not RC. It just seems
the respectful thing for a guest to abide by their understanding in their place.
Posts
