This whole disappointing comment-conversation is why I am not only grateful for the pastor's story, but grateful that I am pagan: pagans believe all persons are holy, and therefore all share in the communion rites. While we might at times wish to deny it to others, God does not deny any of us sacred breath or sacred blood or sacred life, so I do not see why churches should deny anyone anything holy -- except that churches are too often operated by humyns, and apparently not so often operated by the Divine.

Love bade me welcome: yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning
If I lacked anything.

"A guest," I answered, "worthy to be here":
Love said, "You shall be he."
"I, the unkind, ungrateful? Ah, my dear,
I cannot look on thee."
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
"Who made the eyes but I?"

"Truth, Lord; but I have marred them; let my shame
Go where it doth deserve."
"And know you not," says Love, "who bore the blame?"
"My dear, then I will serve."
"You must sit down," says Love, "and taste my meat."
So I did sit and eat.

--George Herbert

Bien dit, Respirez. Well said, Respirez.

Any time you're not sure who should be invited to Holy Communion take another really close look at the kind of the people who Jesus invited to the first one.

It was cause they were all perfect, right?

And then ask your self what he must have been thinking.

I am always inspired by your pieces, Nadia.

Are the Anabaptists baptized?

I have heard that in Catholic Churches, one is not allowed the sacraments if one is divorced and for some other reasons; and I know you are supposed to absent yourself in some other religions - but I have never before heard of someone being refused. It would have been nice if the author of this article had divulged the reason that was given for a refusal. Is Pater gay? Have some kind of communicable disease? What??? We don't know the full story here. It is nice that they arranged for her to take communion at the airport chapel. I hope that Pater finds a church that accepts her and that welcomes her no matter what her problems are.

One more thing. Blue Deacon writes: " It would be inappropriate for just anyone to do so, because such "love feasts," really, are only for the family of God (which doesn't include everybody)". I'm confused by this; didn't God create us all? Aren't we therefore, by this act of creation, members of God's family? If God loves God's creation, aren't we obliged to love God's creation, including those people we don't like very much?

Those of you who think it's right to bar believers from the communion table appear to have forgotten that Jesus invited all sorts of sinners to join him at the table. He didn't invite them because they were part of some exclusive group! Why wouldn't we therefore follow Jesus' example and accept all who wish to receive?

"The challenge is not to let current events alter theology -- which many of the 'social justice' churches did and do (I used to attend one of those)."

I would argue that many of the "conservative" churches let current events alter theology. They simply do this alteration in a different way from many "liberal" churches, but it's still an alteration from any sort of theology.

However, what you (and your church) might consider letting "current evens alter theology" may not be that at all. It's simply a different theology from the one that you and your church holds.

Perhaps the theology practiced in your church is different, with the temporal being considered separate from the eternal rather than interwoven.

In my specific church it used to be, but that has changed over the last 25 years; today, no church in my city is as involved with justice issues as comprehensively as mine, and Jim Wallis would be welcome. Yet is is also evangelical and very, very conservative. The challenge is not to let current events alter theology -- which many of the "social justice" churches did and do (I used to attend one of those).

As for "500 different denominations," that there are some basics that all of them share, and keep in mind that they arose because they were isolated from each other.

"The problem is that you cannot really deal with the issue of communion outside of theology -- and the exclusionary nature of both."

I agree with you here. Theology is interwoven with the issue of communion.

The question is -- and will remain -- which theology? Which is why we have 500 denominations of Christianity, rather than just one. The theology that my church and I practice is the theology that is interwoven with current events. For instance, my pastor was arrested a couple of years ago protesting the Iraq war. Protesting the Iraq war is a part of her theology ("blessed are the peacemakers") and cannot be separated from it. Now even htough she stood out, protesting the Iraq war, she gladly gave communion to one of our members who was fighting in the war. My pastor is against the war, not against those individual members in our faith community who serve in the war efforts. I'm afraid that I'm not making myself clear here.

In the same vein, my pastor gave me one of its church crosses to carry with me when I travelled to Philadelphia, Mississippi to participate in our march and memorial for civil rights martyrs. One of our other members, a sculptor, sculpted a piece that represents Matthew Sheppard, an Episcopalian who was martyred; murdered only because he was Gay. This sculpture was installed and remains in a prominant place within our church sanctuarary.

"'[I wrote] As for the involvement of politics: most Liberation theologists would claim that current political issues are interwoven with matters of faith. Dr. King was not able or willing to separate politics from his faith. Nor have any of those Liberation theologists who have followed in his footsteps.'

"I'm a Calvinist; thus, that goes for me too. That said, the Scripture informs my politics, not the other way around -- in way too many cases (mostly on the right but increasingly so on the left) the focus is on fitting the Scripture to pet ideologies. Besides, the real issue is that God wants to separate a people unto Himself that will live by His Law and bring blessing to the rest of the world. This is where 'liberation theology' fails -- it just can't go far enough because its focus is on the temporal at the expense of the eternal. Only such people are eligible to take communion."

In my church's theology, the focus is on both the temporal and the eternal. The two are interwoven. Perhaps the theology practiced in your church is different, with the temporal being considered separate from the eternal rather than interwoven. Many people have criticized the churches that work for social justice because they believe that individual salvation is more important -- and also separate -- from working on social justice. They believe that working for social justice takes away from individual salvation. We believe that working for social justice is a path toward individual salvation.

As I've noted: there are around 500 different denominations of Christianity, not just one.

The problem is that you cannot really deal with the issue of communion outside of theology -- and the exclusionary nature of both.

As for the involvement of politics: most Liberation theologists would claim that current political issues are interwoven with matters of faith. Dr. King was not able or willing to separate politics from his faith. Nor have any of those Liberation theologists who have followed in his footsteps.

I'm a Calvinist; thus, that goes for me too. That said, the Scripture informs my politics, not the other way around -- in way too many cases (mostly on the right but increasingly so on the left) the focus is on fitting the Scripture to pet ideologies. Besides, the real issue is that God wants to separate a people unto Himself that will live by His Law and bring blessing to the rest of the world. This is where "liberation theology" fails -- it just can't go far enough because its focus is on the temporal at the expense of the eternal. Only such people are eligible to take communion.

You wrote: "'[I wrote] The theory and practice of Liberation Theology stresses that it is people within the oppressed classes and groups that form the key to salvation -- not only for the oppressed, but also for the oppressor.'

"[You wrote]Not so fast. The problem I see with "liberation theology" is too much emphasis on political liberation and not enough on theology; while the Gospel does have political overtones and implications, it is not primarily political in nature. MLK Jr. has long been one of my heroes, but if you take the commitment to Biblical reconciliation out of the equation -- which, sadly, actually happened eventually -- you are left with a clanging gong."

Liberation theory is committed to Biblical representation. Perhaps not the interpretation that either you or the oppressor groups might favor. Still, neither Martin Luther King, Jr. nor any of his Christian followers ever left out Biblical reconciliation.

The various Liberation Theologies that currently form insurgent and underground churches also study the Bible and strive to follow the Word, especially the Word as written in the Gospels.

As for the involvement of politics: most Liberation theologists would claim that current political issues are interwoven with matters of faith. Dr. King was not able or willing to separate politics from his faith. Nor have any of those Liberation theologists who have followed in his footsteps.

As I believe I've mentioned before in other threads: Three weeks ago, I went back to Philadelphia, Mississippi, the scene of the struggles I was involved in during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. We had a march to memorialize the martyrs who died during the struggle for African-American civil rights. In this march, we held crosses that represented each of the martyrs. Many of the marchers came from church groups. We used Stars of David instead of crosses to memorialize Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman because they were Jewish and we wanted to respect their faith. We commemorated a march that Dr. King had taken 45 years ago to memorialize James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman.

"A misinterpretation may come from the story of the Exodus, which makes clear that one of the reasons Israel was to leave Egypt was to worship the true God properly, and I suggest that one of the reasons Pharaoh resisted was because, in that day, he was considered divine.

"[I wrote] 'So sometimes, we have to not include within our belief structure those who believe in oppressing or outcasting certain people or groups because of who they are or what they believe. This could be understood as a form of exclusion.'

"[You wrote] This actually affected the American church during the Civil War; the Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches split over whether slaveowners could take communion, ending up excluding each other in the process. The irony is that the Southern churches became more theologically orthodox."

Here are two articles about church exclusion, politics, and Liberation Theology. I doubt that (given your past expressed views) that you would agree with them. Which is fine. There are around 500 or so different Christian denominations, each with their own set of beliefs.

I really wasn't trying to argue theology as such. We all have our own theology; we all go to our own churches (or synagogues, temples, or perhaps no place) to worship. What I was trying to discuss are the issues that were brought up of exclusion and inclusion.

Here are the articles. You might want to explore the rest of the site.

God bless!

http://whosoever.org/v14i1/toxic.shtml

http://whosoever.org/v14i1/march.shtml

Yes, it would logically follow. The difference is that the ordination of women has been Canonical law since 1979. The ordination of non-celibate gays still isn't in Canonical law; in fact, Jefferts Schori has placed a moratorium on ordaining non-celibate gays. (Coincidentally, Kathy is a family friend; she went to seminary with my mother.) The same goes for the baptism requirement for communion--Open Table still isn't in Canonical law. My point is that bishops who refuse to ordain women (a conservative approach) are in violation of Canonical law. So are those who ordain non-celibate gays and offer communion to the unbaptized, except that's a more liberal approach. Lots of dioceses and churches in various places of the spectrum violate Canonical law in pursuit of their own theology. And since we're not talking about the Roman Catholic Church, by and large, they do it without being thrown out of the Church! I think civil conversations and openness of divergent viewpoints are probably healthier than lines in the sand, but I digress. God bless--

Yes, it would logically follow. The difference is that the ordination of women has been Canonical law since 1979. The ordination of non-celibate gays still isn't in Canonical law; in fact, Jefferts Schori has placed a moratorium on ordaining non-celibate gays. (Coincidentally, Kathy is a family friend; she went to seminary with my mother.) The same goes for the baptism requirement for communion--Open Table still isn't in Canonical law. My point is that bishops who refuse to ordain women (a conservative approach) are in violation of Canonical law. So are those who ordain non-celibate gays and offer communion to the unbaptized, except that's a more liberal approach. Lots of dioceses and churches in various places of the spectrum violate Canonical law in pursuit of their own theology. And since we're not talking about the Roman Catholic Church, by and large, they do it without being thrown out of the Church! I think civil conversations and acceptance of divergent viewpoints is probably healthier than lines in the sand, but I digress. God bless--

The theory and practice of Liberation Theology stresses that it is people within the oppressed classes and groups that form the key to salvation -- not only for the oppressed, but also for the oppressor.

Not so fast. The problem I see with "liberation theology" is too much emphasis on political liberation and not enough on theology; while the Gospel does have political overtones and implications, it is not primarily political in nature. MLK Jr. has long been one of my heroes, but if you take the commitment to Biblical reconciliation out of the equation -- which, sadly, actually happened eventually -- you are
left with a clanging gong.

A misinterpretation may come from the story of the Exodus, which makes clear that one of the reasons Israel was to leave Egypt was to worship the true God properly, and I suggest that one of the reasons Pharaoh resisted was because, in that day, he was considered divine.

So sometimes, we have to not include within our belief structure those who believe in oppressing or outcasting certain people or groups because of who they are or what they believe. This could be understood as a form of exclusion.

This actually affected the American church during the Civil War; the Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches split over whether slaveowners could take communion, ending up excluding each other in the process. The irony is that the Southern churches became more theologically orthodox.

Actually, in some ways you are correct. Insurgent Christians have to be sometimes exclusive for their survival. By the way, my memory failed me when I wrote mistakenly about Singapore. The insurgent, underground church that Bishop Robinson visited and wrote so movingly about was in Hong Kong, not in Singapore. Nevertheless, this was truly a visit to an underground, insurgent Christian church.

Most of these insurgent, underground churches (both in places like Hong Kong and within the U.S.) practice various forms of Liberation Theology. The theory and practice of Liberation Theology stresses that it is people within the oppressed classes and groups that form the key to salvation -- not only for the oppressed, but also for the oppressor. So sometimes, we have to not include within our belief structure those who believe in oppressing or outcasting certain people or groups because of who they are or what they believe. This could be understood as a form of exclusion.

Jesus told us: Mathew 5

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Those who are unable to reconcile with their brothers or sisters within the Christian community because of beliefs that people of certain races, genders, sexual orientations, castes, or nationalities do not belong within the community: these people would be sent away from the alter to first reconcile themselves with these brothers and sisters that they have rejected.Then they would be welcomed back and included.

That sounds about right. I remember when women were first ordained as priests. Individual churches and dioceses were allowed to ordain or not ordain women as priests. Now that the ordination of priests is a part of Episcopal Canon Law, individual churches and dioceses are still allowed to refuse ordination of women as priests. I believe that our Presiding Bishop Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, has not been allowed to confer communion in certain dioceses because they do not believe in women as either priests or bishops. The same principle applies to the ordination and consecration of Gay Episcopalians as priests or bishops. Individual dioceses are allowed to make their own decisions on this issue.

So I would suspect that when it comes to whether or not to enforce the baptism requirement, that it's up to individual dioceses whether to do so or not. This is dependent on the bishop's personal theology.

I grew up Catholic and loved the specialness of communion. I have since come to recognize that Christ is in every moment I make holy. Friends coming to give Rachel communion was a wonderful holy moment.

In our church the celebrant always says something like, "This is the Lord's table, not ours. All are invited." And I think of the old liturgy that began with "You who do earnestly ... repent of your sins, .... draw near with faith, ..." etc.

Sorry to say this but, biblically speaking, the latter is actually correct and the former is oxymoronic. We don't determine who comes to the LORD's table; He does. Remember that communion is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, and the disciples didn't decide to follow Jesus; rather, He chose them. Communion thus is only for intimates, not for common folk.