An Australian Perspective on "Communion"

An email exchange between Robert Forsyth and Daniel Webster

Ed. Note: This email exchange is published with the generous permission of both Bishop Robert Forsyth and Daniel Webster. Webster's "What Is 'To Be in Communion'?" article was originally published on our "A Globe of Witnesses" website on January 22, 2004.

Robert Forsyth Responds to Daniel Webster's Article

Dear Mr. Webster,

I enjoyed reading your article on "What is 'To Be in Communion'?" from the AGW (A Globe of Witnesses) website.

You seem to work on the assumption that to be in communion means to share in the receiving the Holy Communion. Have I understood you correctly? Sounds fine at first, but it doesn't work for us in Australia.

But I have an issue. You seem to work on the assumption that to be in communion means to share in the receiving the Holy Communion. Have I understood you correctly?

Sounds fine at first, but it doesn't work for us in Australia at least.

Our Admission to Holy Communion Canon (1973) opens the Holy Communion in Anglican Churches to those who "have been baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity" and "is a communicant member of another church which professes the apostolic faith."

On the other hand our Constitution says that "This Church will remain in communion with the Church of England in England and with churches in communion with therewith so long as communion is consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained in this Constitution."

I have always thought Communion is about recognising other churches as "one of us" in the recognition of ministries etc.

What do you think?

Best wishes, Robert Forsyth
The Rt. Rev. Robert Forsyth
Bishop of South Sydney, Anglican Church of Australia

Daniel Webster Responds

Dear Bishop Forsyth:

My intention in the article was to raise the very question you are asking in the mind of readers. Just what do we mean with this term "communion"?

Our canons also provide for administering Holy Communion to those who are baptised. There are many congregations practicing otherwise across ECUSA. Many clergy and vestries have decided to offer "open Communion" rather than exclude anyone.

Our church (ECUSA) recently announced "full communion" with the ELCA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Essentially the agreement says we recognize the authority of each other's ordained ministers. I have presided at ELCA Communion services and under the agreement the Lutheran members would consider my preaching and presiding to be valid in their denomination.

Open communion rails and interchangable communion presiders are controversial here, believe me. An ordained deacon in one California Episcopal parish usually would not participate in joint Lutheran/Episcopal services. The bishop eventually reassigned him.

Young people are looking for honesty and truth in our society here. They want Christian communities that are true to what they say they believe. If we are to be true to the Great Commandment, young people want to see us living lives of loving neighbors and loving God.

Much of our congregational development here has focused on whether we want to have a "PLUS" church or one that more represents the Kingdom here on earth. (PLUS is "people like us." I'm not sure who coined that, but I, for one, like it.)

Young people are looking for honesty and truth in our society here. They want Christian communities that are true to what they say they believe. If we are to be true to the Great Commandment, young people want to see us living lives of loving neighbors and loving God. They want to see us "walk the walk, not just talk the talk" as someone once said.

Our church in this country is graying, fast. The average age of our church membership nationally is, if memory serves, around 60. We cannot write off young people. We must find ways to connect with them and meet them where they are. That is our biggest challenge.

I believe the answer is truly living the gospel of Jesus, welcoming the outcast, transforming broken lives, ending poverty and hunger in the richest nation on this earth and standing for peace in the face of an unjust war.

But I digress. Apologies for going on so long. The short answer is probably related to the 1886, 1888 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral statement. The four points I mentioned in the article were shortened. The fourth, the historic episcopate is further explained, ". . .locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church."

Ordination of women, allowing polygamy, women serving on vestries, allowing people of different races to receive communion at the same time or worship in the same service, those have all been accommodated by some churches in the Anglican Communion within the past century. Yet somehow we have all managed to remain in "communion" allowing for the local adapatation of the historic episcopate.

Our polity should not preclude us from doing the gospel together. I hope and pray we are able to do that.

(The Rev.) Dan Webster

The Rev. Daniel J. Webster is an Episcopal priest in Salt Lake City, Utah. A media veteran and peace activist in the church, he writes a regular column for "A Globe of Witnesses." Dan may be reached by email at dwebster@episcopal-ut.org