Taking the Body and Blood to the Airport

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

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.")

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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?

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". 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.

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.

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. Colloquially (and probably not officially), I've heard "open communion" refer to having Eucharist open to persons baptized in any Christian denomination and "Open Table" refer to having communion open to all persons, batpized or not.

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

Are the Anabaptists baptized?