Not necessarily, because at times it is indeed appropriate to deny someone communion as a result of church discipline. Since we don't know the entire story, we can't just say that she was simply "cast out" for no reason. (That said, I have problems with the Catholic, Orthodox and some Lutheran churches that practice "closed communion.")

Anyone who wishes to can take Communion at the Episcopal Church. We have an open Communion.

My personal beliefs not withstanding, that's actually not true. The Episcopal Church requires baptism in any Christian denomination in order to receive Holy Communion. Some individual Episcopal Churches do have an open table, but they actually do so in violation of the Canons of the Episcopal Church.

http://www.episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/can...
(Check out Section 7, page 55.)

You are correct. However, my pastor never asked "have you ever been baptized" to people coming up for communion. She announces that it the Episcopal Church has an "open" communion. Technically, she might mean that it is open to any baptized Christians, but she doesn't specify that. Our communion is open to anyone who comes up.

So maybe she's in violation of the Canons. Somehow I believe that God has forgiven her.

Obviously I can't see into your pastor's head, but my Anglican rector says the same thing and by that he means "open to any baptized Christian" (i.e. unlike other Christian denominations that don't allow other Christians to participate). He assumes that people will be honest and only take communion if they're Christian. (When I attend a Catholic Church I don't take communion out of respect for their beliefs. I'd hope a non-Christian at my church would do the same.) I'm sure that's what your pastor intends as well.

And in fact, that's what the bulletins say in the Episcopal churches I've attended as to the eligibility for communion -- "all baptized Christians" (emphasis mine). The same is true in the Presbyterian and Alliance churches and probably most Protestant denominations (some Lutherans excepted).

I don't think that our church bulletin says "all baptized Christians" as I recall. I think that it just says "our communion is open." "l'll remember to look it up the next time I go to church, which should be this coming Sunday.

I went to a Roman Catholic church one time in my life and did not take communion in respect for their beliefs. But this is one of many reasons why I'm not Roman Catholic.

I went to a Roman Catholic church one time in my life and did not take communion in respect for their beliefs. But this is one of many reasons why I'm not Roman Catholic.

Same here. Apparently I have considerably more experience with the Catholic Church than you (perhaps six years of Catholic education would do the trick). A Catholic woman wanted to marry me some years back but didn't want to leave; however, that one detail kept me out and kept us apart.

That said, there does need to be a commonality for those who take communion. 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); rather, those people ought to recognize that they were set apart -- "holy" -- for God's purposes. That's why they cannot be taken lightly.

Hey, WaveTossed-- A number of priests choose not to fuss over the baptism requirement, and it's really up to the priest's bishop to choose to reign him/her in or not. Whether a priest does get reigned in usually has to do with the Bishop's personal theology.

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.

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--

Are the Anabaptists baptized?

Nadia,

Failure to identify the church (or at least the denomination) leaves a big hole in this story.

Some churches would make an issue of your body markings.

No. Every church is allowed to bar believers from the table, and there are good reasons for doing so, as Paul pointed out in scripture. Depending on what is involved, Rachel should either repent, or leave that church. *She should not remain unrepentant.* Maybe whatever reason is one I agree with or one that I don't, I have no idea. But she has obviously stepped outside of the bounds of what that fellowship feels is important. As painful as it is, she should take advantage of the situation of modern Christianity, and find a new fellowship. (Or maybe change her was.) And I speak as one who was banned from leadership or any amount of ministry on stage, because I'm not patriotic. I accepted that that was the teaching of that particular church, and realized it was not for me, and joined the Quakers, where that wasn't an issue.

It's amazing to me that the very church called to bring healing and deliverance to the broken, continue to deny communion to people that will cleanse and make them whole. When Jesus gave the first sacrament, no where in Scripture did he preclude anyone. Surely at their current state, if he had said no sinners can partake, everyone would have left. The same would be true today. We all partake in our sinful, fallen nature. It's purpose is a time of reflection, a time of repentance, a time of healing, and true turning away.

One of the greatest requirements on the life of a leader is to teach those God has entrusted to them. Teach on the power of repentance and the blessing of partaking together with Christ.

Jack Hayford gave a powerful teaching on the communion table years ago that set me free. Now every time I give communion in a service, I teach the same thing prior so that everyone can partake.

Thank God for true believers who dispense grace to those who desperately need to receive forgiveness and healing.

Nadia ~ May you be blessed for your ministry. I am blessed by it, simply knowing your community is out there...

Bien dit, Respirez. Well said, Respirez.

One of my very favorite passages. Philip doesn't put this person through any sort of "third degree" about nationality, "lifestyle" or anything else. All he says is "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."

I still would like to know which denomination refused communion to Rachel and what their reasons were. Would this denomination refuse communion to the eunuch that Philip baptized? Would this denomination refuse communion to Philip because he performed this baptism?

Acts 8

26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

However, the context was far different. In those days Christianity was an insurgent movement that was set apart from Roman society and that, frankly, not everyone could -- or would -- get into; thus, following Jesus in those days really meant something. Thus, baptism represents an "initiation" into the church. One thing to remember is that the eunuch would have been banned from the Jewish assembly (and he was a Gentile anyway).

"However, the context was far different. In those days Christianity was an insurgent movement."

In many ways, Christianity is still an insurgent movement. Though in the U.S. our insurgency involves inclusion rather than exclusion. There are other Christian communities throughout the world that have to be careful for security reasons. Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, in his book, IN THE EYE OF THE STORM describes one such insurgent, underground Christian community in Singapore, a Gay/Lesbian Christian community where he visited. If state authorites were to discover that these people are practicing their Christian faith, they could get arrested or worse.

And there are other groups of Christians in other parts of the world who have been driven underground for various reasons.

So I'm wondering if Rachel were part of any sort of insurgent Christian group.

In many ways, Christianity is still an insurgent movement. Though in the U.S. our insurgency involves inclusion rather than exclusion.

That's an oxymoron -- insurgent movements are by definition exclusive because they believe in absolute truth that no one else gets. We need to understand that the Gospel is actually more exclusive than inclusive and that there is a program, so to speak, that believers are expected to adhere to. (If that sounds crazy, what do you do with Jesus' words "No man comes to the Father except through Me"?.) Otherwise, what would be the point of evangelism?

BTW, the community in Singapore you describe is in danger probably because it's lesbian/gay than because it's "Christian"; that simply doesn't go over too well in the Muslim world.