The Next Big Issue

will apparently be the communion of the unbaptized (COTU), or as it is more trenchantly termed "the communion of the damned (COTD)".

It's prohibited by the rubrics and by tradition but, of course, that hasn't stopped more progressive diocese such as my own (Atlanta) from allowing it.

How do I know it's the next big thing? Well, Episcopal Life Online very nicely signals what the next prophetic thing TEC is called to do by posing questions in its reader response column. My guess is that with COTD being widespread, but not universal, the church wants to make the change to the canons and the rubrics to conform the rules to the reality. And because we're hospitable or whatever.

Here are the money quotes:

From Geoff Brown • Taconic, Connecticut, Sep 18, 2008 The canons need to be changed.

When I bring kids in from our Sunday morning community soccer program for Communion, it has occurred to me that, when a child comes in from this community outreach program, it would be absurd to give the poor kid, who finally has decided that he or she actually wants to come into church, the third degree as to whether he or she was baptized.

Would Jesus have given this kid the third degree about something that most likely would have happened (or not) while the kid was still in diapers, and through no conscious decision of his/her own? Isn't there a pretty clear statement in the New Testament when Jesus tells us not to forbid the children who want to come to him?

It's hard to imagine a clearer example of the universally scorned idea of "church as club" than this, in my humble opinion.

================================================================

From Jean Rutherford • Portsmouth, Virginia, Sep 19, 2008 It seems clear to me that that the cannon and the teachings of Jesus are in conflict. Changing the canon seems like a no-brainer. Maybe we should just eliminate it. I feel that the most authentic base we have is Jesus. He is the authority for Christians. It surely would support our claim of the radical hospitality of Jesus.

=================================================================

From William A. Doubleday • Columbus, Ohio, Sep 19, 2008 I believe there is a related issue. The 1979 Prayer Book and our professional liturgists have raised the bar so high on Baptism that many grandmothers can no longer see grandchildren baptized in an Episcopal parish where the family has worshipped for hundreds of years. Meanwhile, sometimes the same parish is inviting everyone, including the unbaptized, to receive communion. I see merit on both sides of both of these issues, but I think our liturgical vectors should be coordinated. Right now our messages are mixed and sometimes contradictory. It is time for a high caliber group to do some theological and pastoral reflection on these matters. If the canons need to be changed, where is the General Convention? If the canons need to be enforced, where are the Bishops?

The writer is a professor of Pastoral Theology at Bexley Hall Seminary

{ed. I have no idea what he is going on about.}

=============================================================

And lastly one semi-orthodox opinion:

From Thomas Bushnell, BSG • Los Angeles, California Sep 18, 2008 I think that Clay Morris has missed the point. Clergy have made a promise, and it is not unreasonable to expect them to keep their promises, whether their names are Robert Duncan or Clay Morris or the leaders of St. Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco. The answer to the
question posed is that some Episcopal Church clergy have substituted their own judgment for that of the church, and have chosen to dishonor the vows they have made by violating those canons they think ought to be changed.

One question is whether people should honor the vows they have made and keep the commitments they have pledged. A quite distinct question is what our canons should be. But it is entirely inappropriate to suggest that there is some great muddling, or that the question of disobedience is anything other than the question of disobedience. It is entirely inappropriate to suggest that if the canons need to be changed, it is all right for clergy to dishonor their ordination vows and render them essentially a nullity.

It seems to me--as a person myself under obedience--that keeping this distinction is crucial. If I am to be an honorable person, I will keep the commitments I have made, and if I have made a firm decision not to, I will depart gracefully and relinquish the prerogatives of such office as I hold. And, I believe, this is what a decent and honorable person does, whatever his or her name may be.

=============================================================


You can tell how fallen my church has become by the total lack of effort the heretics put into justifying their depravity theologically.

The question for me is no longer "Will I leave?" The question is now "Where will I go?"

One parting thought: Chris Johnson mines that section for comedy gold. I justfind it depressing.