[W]hat I am saying is that unchurched folks walking into a Jesus-following community of today would/will find the practice of baptizing just as puzzling, without rationale for them.

Wouldn't they find the Eucharist just as puzzling? I mean... if unchurched folks are so unaware of Christianity to find Baptism puzzling, they'll of course be shocked at eating consecrated bread and wine, that is said to be the Body and Blood of Jesus.

I don't think such argument is very solid. Plus, the example of the Ethiopian eunuch actually suggests the contrary: that Baptism is directly linked to a conversion experience.

In my opinion, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the aforementioned passage is that, in specific cases, the practice of Open Baptism should be considered (which is what the Church has done in some emergency cases and could be expanded to others, I guess).

Luiz Coelho (added by ~ed.) - please sign your name when you comment. Thanks.

It's a persuasive argument and we surely need more discussion about this than a General Convention can provide. Not least with our ecumenical partners with whom, surely, we should talk about this fundamental shift in the understanding of the ONE sacrament we all share.

It does seem to be a heartfelt expression but regrettably not so much a serious inquiry on the issue as just a series of questions about what's "realistic"/"fair"/"welcoming" (rather than how to address the ongoing tension Episcopalians have chosen to embrace between scripture,tradition, reason, and "experience") that seem to have rendered the author unable to find a toehold on any part of the slippery slope that he has posited other than at the very bottom.

J Macy - please sign your first and last name when you comment. Thanks ~ed.

Thanks to my colleague Jim Papile who articulates some of my concerns about the openness of our church.

I see two issues. The first issue is what shall be our stated policy about who is permitted to receive Communion. The second is what we do when people present themselves at the altar to receive Communion.

I am reasonably although not wholly comfortable with a policy which says that baptism is normally a prerequisite to receiving Communion. I am wholly and completely uncomfortable with the notion of having to turn someone away from the altar whose arms are outstretched seeking the love and grace of God as embodied in Communion.

The grace, mercy and love of God as embodied in the Sacraments may be entrusted to the church but finally they belong to God. When people present themselves at the rail to receive the Sacraments, I think it a very arrogant thing even to consider turning them away.

Jim Hammond
retired
Warrenton, VA

There was much testimony on all aspects of this issue at the Committee hearings. No one was advocating checking for baptism at the rail. All were for pastoral care and openess to the process. What was spoken of with the most passion was the 'open font', baptism when asked with no big deal made of needing instruction prior to the event. Baptism is the receiving of grace, it marks us as Christ's own forever. If someone attends church regularly and wants to receive communion, baptism is the way. If they are already receiving communion and have not been baptised, it is time the priest have a pastoral chat with them to see where they are spiritually. No blame, no shame. Open invitation to become Christ's own forever.

Pat W. PLEASE sign your first and last name when commenting at the Café ~ed.

First of all, I don't think anyone's actually suggesting turning people away at the altar rail or having some sort of "card check," and it gets annoying when this keeps getting trotted out. Baptism is the normative prerequisite for receiving communion, which means that the receiving communion in the Eucharist finds its fullest theological and liturgical meaning within the context set by Baptism. If people who are not yet baptized come forward for communion, that's not a time for turning them away. Instead, we need afterwards to use that as an opportunity to talk with them about the possibility of Baptism.

I agree with Luiz. Eucharist is no less a strange and mysterious rite than baptism.

This argument makes me wonder what those who advocate for open table actually feel is happenening in the communion. It sounds like we would be reducing it to the equivalent of the after-service coffee and donuts, with no commitment or understanding of the sacrament required.

Maybe we can fall into the trap of putting up too many barriers to baptism - I'm all for dicussing an "open font" policy.

The Rev. Papile writes: "But what I am saying is that unchurched folks walking into a Jesus-following community of today would/will find the practice of baptizing just as puzzling, without rationale for them."
Well maybe we need to do a better job of explaining that rationale and preaching it more often.

"But what about those who cannot commit in such a way? Then we must ask the individual to wait until he or she feels the power of the Holy Spirit and the welcoming of the community. How fair, or realistic is that? How effective can we expect this process to be in bringing folks from the contemporary culture to Christ?"
I think it's eminently realistic and quite fair (not just to them but to everyone else as well). Being a Christian is a MAJOR commitment, a new way of life that is marked by Baptism. Maybe the church needs to be a witness to the need for commitment in a society that no longer seems to view it as important. What is the church but a different way of being in the world than what the rest of society provides? Otherwise, why even get up on Sundays to go to church?

Also, communion is not the ONLY way that people find the presence of Christ and the the welcome of the Christian community. Maybe we need to have just as much emphasis on the proclamation of the Word and the breaking open of the scriptures as we do in the proclamation of the eucharistic prayer and the breaking of the bread. (Indeed we cannot have the latter without the former.) Perhaps we also need to find ways to provide non-eucharistic forms of worship at other times. Public celebrations of the BCP Daily Office are certainly possibilities, but there are ways to adapt them or possibly even use alternate forms. The main Sunday service should continue to be Holy Eucharist, but everything else doesn't have to be all-Eucharist-all-the-time. Maybe we should also do more work on welcoming newcomers and providing ways for them (and more regular worshipers as well) to become active in the life of the church.

- Kevin Montgomery
Washington, DC

I continue to be perplexed so many voices insisting on Initiation First (IF) fall to arguing from imagining and speculating how it 'must be' or 'would be' for a stranger witnessing communion. Would the person even WANT to receive? What MUST it mean to a person receiving without instruction? Anyone offering communion to all MUST hold a low doctrine of the Eucharist? ("Isn't this what coffee hour is for?")

Something about this conversation reduces Episcopalians who glory in our threefold reliance on Scripture, Tradition and Reason to acting like 'reason' excludes experience (in other words an anti-empirical stance).

Thirty years experience of making and hearing explicit invitation to all to receive tells me that most strangers to church come hungry for God. Is their hunger fully articulated, theologically nuanced, scripturally and devotionally informed? Rarely. Does hearing an open invitation make a difference to them? Do they express wonder, awe, and openness to go deeper? Very often. Do they return to church? Again, experience says often and they come back saying they were moved by us offering the best we have to them when a stranger. Do they eventually seek baptism? Yes, often, and after seeking serious reflection and asking how they can grow in their commitment.

The human phenomenon of the sense this all makes is actually evident in the change we made in 1970 in welcoming all baptized Christians (including infants below the 'age of reason') to receive communion. Small children feel and express their desire to participate in sharing the Body of Christ long before they begin to formulate an understanding of what it means, and we, their parents, sponsors, and members of their community will learn over the years that follow that our understandings of how Christ is present in the assembly and in bread and wine keep growing and changing, in part, thanks to their questions.

Methodists continue to debate what John Wesley meant calling the Eucharist a "converting sacrament," but many of them are with us and ahead of us in finding the power of Eucharist to incorporate people into communion and change their hearts.

Major change in the church's life has always begun with non-standard (yes, non-normative) experience. And consistently the changes we hold dear, changes where we've begun to see the Spirit in new ways point to the feast for all people that Jesus enacted throughout his ministry and interpreted in light of his pending death at the Last Supper, the feast prophesied in Isaiah 25:6-9-

6 On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-matured wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-matured wines strained clear.
7 And he will destroy on this mountain the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations;
8 he will swallow up death for ever. Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken.
9 It will be said on that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, so that he might save us. This is the Lord for whom we have waited; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

I'd really like to see some sort of research where we talk to the interested but currently unbaptized and the newly baptized that were denied communion prior to baptism to find out what _they_ think about this. Did they experience it as being unwelcoming or were they aware of baptism as a big step before taking communion? It seems like I've heard the opinions of a lot of folks who have been baptized and received communion for a long time about what "message" our current canonical restriction gives without hearing if that is the message being received. Sara Miles is a famous example of communion leading to baptism. Is she typical, or not?

I've heard people speak in heartfelt ways about their experiences on both sides of this issue--some who felt that being asked to wait to receive the Eucharist highlighted for them its importance and the importance of baptism in their lives of faith. And I've heard others who've said that receiving communion was transformative and led them to go deeper in faith regardless of baptism. I wonder if some of the difference comes from how we present it? I'm also reminded that individual cases make bad law, and I think it would be very useful to hear more voices on this.

This morning in our informal sermon-conversation at our mid-week service someone asked why other faiths seemed to be growing faster than Christianity these days, and another person noted that other faiths -- both other denominations and faiths outside of Christianity (Judaism and Islam in particular) make more demands on their members than we generally do, and that can lead to a great sense of commitment. I think there is a fine line to walk between making more demands and becoming too dogmatic and rigid, but I do think that understanding that there is commitment involved in a life of faith, that there are demands made on us is important. Upholding our theology that baptism precedes communion is but one of those demands, and not, I think, too much to ask.

I have learned so much from reading this provocative article and the range of comments to it.

But I must say I did feel that that comment from the retired priest who judged it "a very arrogant thing" for any of his fellow clergy "even to consider" continuing the long-held practice of maintaining certain pre-conditions (e.g., baptism, repentance, etc.) to receiving the eucharist to be arrogantly dismissive and exactly the sort of remark that could be expected to terminate any thoughtful discussion of such a potentially difficult topic.

G. Bacca

Just a potentially interesting "factoid."

In 2010 I spent the Feast of Pentecost worshipping at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. The leaflet was translated into 5 languages. At the Eucharist, there was some simple and quasi welcoming language that simply asked that out of respect, people come forward who believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It was more welcoming then I'm paraphrasing.

It was interesting, and no barrier for me, being raised Greek Orthodox and now Anglo-Catholic (and the French RC's somehow seem more liberal then ours). Paradoxically though, I am for the "open table" idea. I have a deep respect that if someone feels called to receive, we should not put forth barriers.

Having expressed my support for open table, those with reservations might consider the language of Notre Dame. Because for someone to read that they are in the "real presence of Christ" and that they can meet Christ in the Eucharist, may well be awe inspiring, and may provoke life changing questions.

If you don't believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, then I really can't see any theological reason not to open the table. So maybe there's a more basic question going on here?

First, profound thanks to Fr. Papile and also Fr. Schell for continuing to lead and guide us in our discussions.
One of the things that I hear over and over again is the "puzzlement" in that those who advocate for and against CWOB just do not clearly see why their "arguments" seem to make so little sense to their "opponents" on the sides of this issue. As I have continued to try to "see" the sides, I begin to think more and more that the reason we cannot "get together" on this is something that goes beyond liberal/conservative divides in our church. We have been so long plagued with having to deal with persons who are continuing to "dialogue" over issues of inclusion regarding sexuality (that stacks up on much more traditional lines) that I think we are failing to see that this discussion is along a divide of a much different kind. To use the words of Phyllis Tickle, I think that we are talking across two different "paradigms" in Christianity and TEC. For the "emerging" paradigm Christians, we have a great deal of difficulty in seeing the "meaning" of keeping what seems to us an arbitrary "order" in the way sacraments are received/experienced. For the "traditional" paradigm Christian, the "order" is integral to what one views the sacraments as being, i.e. perhaps their "purpose" in being. For the "new paradigm" Christian, the sacraments are not so much pre-defined means to a particular end but "thin places" in which the numinous, that is beyond our concepts and definitions (and we really do think that these concepts/definitions are "ours" rather than "God's") can touch the lives of anyone open to them. The "welcome" or "openness" is not one that envisions the "outsider" as one seeking entry into a bounded community with rules/regulations/standards of belief and behavior, but one who is walking or moving "towards" a more loosely defined "community" and who is expected to bring a valuable perspective and experience that will enrich the community in ways we may likely not have expected. As such, to set up "barriers" or "rules" about how one comes in/goes out works in opposition to the "spirit" who calls us from both within and outside our self-defined communities in the larger community of all people, "faithful" and not.
This is, of course, my own "take" on what "emerging" or "new" paradigm Christianity is about, and it seems a very useful way to engage a world that is tired of the endless bickering that characterizes so much of our "internal" debates (see my post under what is blocking/hindering us in "The Lead" earlier this week) over issues such as inclusion of sexual/gender minorities. The "openness" becomes a point in itself in dialoguing with the world of "ho-hum, who cares" and more vociferous anti-religionists who use our "divisions" to further their anti-religious ideals. I happen to believe personally and experientially that compassionately oriented religious practice is physically, spiritually and societally good for humans. We need more, not less of it. If opening our tables can facilitate this, then I see nothing wrong with it, but we need to re-cast our "arguments" in a different language, because we are mostly just talking past one another.

Jeffrey,

I love this:
"I happen to believe personally and experientially that compassionately oriented religious practice is physically, spiritually and societally good for humans."
and
I find everything you've written in this reflection about how we (our church in our several voices) have carried on this conversation very helpful.

Two additional "traditional" vs. "emerging" divisions and points of bafflement or misunderstanding I sense are

- how we see and care about commitment or discipleship (both voices do, but we don't hear or get it in what the 'other side' is saying), and
- the place of rational understanding and familiar articulation of it in formation or maturing as Christian people and human beings, or to put it the other way, the legitimacy of affective and irrational motivation in choices that lead us to growth in compassion and freedom.

And (not hesitating to repeat myself), I really dislike the terminology of "Communion Without Baptism" and am reluctant to give up "traditional" as an unambiguous description of those who advocate for the familiar norm. Tradition-making is too important to opt out of, the the Tradition itself is a great teacher in innovation as well as conservation.

I believe that a large part of the difficulty that we are having with this issue is that we see baptism and the Eucharist as being separate ritual events. And indeed for a long time in the Western Church, they were separate ritual events. They remain so in some communions and in some parts of the Episcopal Church. However, a great deal of study occurred during the Liturgical Movement to show that baptism and the Eucharist are actually united. It was the goal of the revisers of the 1979 BCP to bring that unity back. Unfortunately, that does not appear to have been what is happening in many places. Eucharist has become central to the Church (yeah!) but somehow baptism has been left in the dust.

And yet, ironically, we continue to speak of the Baptismal Covenant and our baptismal identity as being foundational to who we are as Episcopalians. Admittedly I find this very confusing. Is baptism central to our ecclesiology? Is Eucharist central to our ecclesiology? I would like to advocate for a baptismal-Eucharistic ecclesiology (where the hyphen really matters).

Baptism is not a prerequisite to the Eucharist. It is not something we have to go through to finally get to communion. Baptism is the very context for the Eucharist, just as the Eucharist is the very context of baptism. There's no separating the two.

I have the same concern that one of the above posters had that we are watering down the Eucharist. Many of the invitations that I have seen have been along the lines of "If you want a closer walk with God, then you are welcome to the table." My friends, the Eucharist is very much more than just "a closer walk with God." Oftentimes, these invitations do not even mention Christ in them. And yet, we are participating in the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. So, yes, I (and I suspect others) are indeed a bit worried that the real motivation is to water down not just baptism but the Eucharist as well.

In Christ,
Shawn Strout
Diocese of Washington

Thank you, Donald, for putting this issue in the context of giving communion to children before the so-called age of reason, in other words, before the human subject has made sense of what happens to it. "Experience," alas, generally is taken to mean one has figured things out. Here I think the issue is something that is at the limits of expressions of sense or language. We may all be "before the age of reason" in our emotional lives. The Freudian notion of the unconscious or something like it might be useful here.

To claim to know what a sacrament means misses the possibility that things may never or perhaps ought never completely make sense. The failure to understand calls for more thought. One does something and then weaves stories together in an attempt at hermeneutic closure.

Thank you, Jeffrey, a tradition must also be about innovation, about what has not yet and perhaps never will be understood.

Making sense is useful but not everything can make sense.

Not everything in a game need be spelled out, as Wittgenstein said of how high a ball may bounce in tennis.

Rather than a science perhaps religion could be more open to weird juxtapositions of ideas, like a surrealist collage.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Here are some interesting numbers from the Diocese of Washington Journal (available at www.edow.org).
Total number of baptisms in 2010: 634

Total number of children baptized in 2010: 541

Total number of adults baptized in 2010: 93

Only 15% of our baptisms were adults.

Only two parishes the entire diocese had more than 5 adult baptisms in 2010: Christ Church, Rockville at 10 and St. Matthew's Hyattsville at 28 (!!)

My friends, if Communion without Baptism is the evangelistic wave of the future, then where are the numbers? Why are we not seeing a host of adult baptisms occurring?

In Christ,
Shawn Strout
Diocese of Washington

Dr. Shy, the paradigm you claim is hardly new at all, but is rather as old as the hills. And it isn't so much wrong as it is irrelevant. However one may see communion as a "thin place" through which the numinous is seen, the fact remains that it arises out of an ordinance, and it comes with particular instructions for its use. One may likewise glory in the freedom of movement that operating an automobile affords, but if one does not operate it correctly, one is like as not to end up in the ditch.

Tom, I can answer as someone who was baptized and yet was still denied communion. That, perhaps you may remember, was the old practice of the mainline: I distinctly remember communicants' class in the Presbyterian church. I suppose there might have been some small degree of resentment over that restriction, but I got over it.

Gary, I categorically deny that the philosophers are a better guide to the sacraments than the church, to whom the philosophers must turn to even know that sacraments are happening at all. Nor does one need to know what is going on in the sacraments to know how they are supposed to be used.

I think again we're missing an important element in this discussion. Parallel to Shawn's observation, it seems to me that we see Baptism and Eucharist as abstract and independent events. It seems to me that the first encounter the person has with Christ is the Body itself. That is, the first welcome the person should know isn't from the hands of the priest either at font or altar rail, but from the hands of the individual Christian. After all, if we're going to use the model of the Ethiopian Eunuch, his first encounter with Christ was in the person of Phillip the Deacon. It is up to us first and foremost to understand Baptism and Eucharist, not with theological or philosophical perfection, but at least within our own lives and community. If we can do that, perhaps we can understand better in the individual instance how to invite folks, not just to faith, but specifically to faith in God-in-Christ; not just to a welcoming parish community, but to new life in Christ.

Jeffrey, I think we need to take responsibility for looking at the new paradigm and asking, not whether it's new, but whether it's Christian. We've had many opportunities to examine new paradigms in the past two thousand or so years. Do we really think we rejected some simply because we lacked imagination? We shouldn't reject "the new" just because it's new; but neither should we just embrace it, either. We need to be discerning, always, where the Spirit is. Unfortunately, that takes time - time a Facebook/Twitter/24-hour new cycle world seems to deny we have. We do not do well to be blindly stuck in the 6th Century or the 16th; but neither do we do well to be driven away from traditions we have reached through long reflection for fear that the world is passing us by. All things of this world will pass, and most of them will pass quickly with little impact.

I have no problem taking an attitude of "when in doubt, feed," and trusting God to make things work out. I see no reason to pursue either "open table" or "open font" as evangelical opportunities until we're honest that we need to do the most important evangelism - the one-handshake-at-a-time evangelism - first.

Marshall Scott

Marshall,

There's been a good deal more exploration of welcoming all to the Table in practice and in theological reflection than "Facebook/Twitter/24 hour new cycle" and it began a couple of decades before any of us knew any of those terms. On that front. It's hard for those of us who have been moved to make this invitation and include it in shaping a welcoming congregational life have a bit of deja vu. Our sacramentally conservative or conventional colleagues sound much like our Anglican communion partners sounded about the consecration of Gene Robinson - "don't do this yet - we need to do the theology!" So, no, the theology work isn't done, and yes, history and church's consensus may decide that some of us have been quite wrong about this, but some of us see the church in the midst of "long reflection" rather than wondering when it will begin.

AND - I couldn't agree with you more about a wholistic analysis of our embrace of the stranger and parishes needing to critically engage their self image as 'very welcoming.' My work as an itinerant teacher and workshop leader means I visit a lot of congregations. Some of them (including some Rite I, older demographic congregations) offer genuine, heartfelt welcome. Some of them (including some Rite II and emergent younger demographic congregations) talk about how welcoming they are while they greet one another and count on the stranger to introduce himself/herself, negotiate introductions, pursue conversation, etc. Inviting all to communion as a freestanding, quick-fix growth strategy is everything you fear. It can be something different if it's a deliberate practice in sacramental theology in a community that's genuinely evangelistic, welcoming, and formational.

@ C. Wingate. I really don't think that any response is needed as I really cannot think of any. I cannot see how to discuss anything with someone who feels there is nothing to discuss. I am glad your way of being Christian sustains you, and if seeing that as the "right" way is the way you see it, well then, "there you have it." Peace be with you.

@ Marshall. You raise, of course, very valid points. I am not sure what the "emerging" paradigm's boundaries and contours precisely are (perhaps as there are none), nor am I sure that I am "wholly" "on board" with emerging paradigm Christianity in all the forms that it is taking. What I am trying to suggest is that we need to seek ways of discussion and dialogue that begin to value other ways of "knowledge" or "wisdom" that are not necessarily always defendable on purely rational/logical terms. I was not long ago very hostile to the "spiritual but not religious" arguments, as I believe that religious practice and commitment are not worthless but worthwhile. I do agree that this mysterious term "discernment" is going to be central to how these discussions/practices evolve over time. The mere fact that communion-before-baptism or the unlinking of the "order' of the sacraments invites such passionate response suggests that there is an ocean of experience that we need to hear and appreciate, whether one is new/old/emerging paradigm or, perhaps as I am, "none of the above yet." I would offer, however that the question "Is it Christian?" comes close to "fighting words" and "throwing down the gauntlet." I think we might better ask, "Is it true?" and by that, I do not restrict that term to "factual." I also think we need a bit of humility when examining the past and we need to remember that there have been, over 2 thousand years, many different ways of "being Christian."

Call me an old fogey, but I remember too well the excitement attendant on my confirmation...not only could I now 'be a full part of the family of God', but I could serve at the altar instead of just as a junior acolyte for the choir.

Fast forward...I now reside in South Dakota where the confirmation token, given by the bishop, is a Niobrara Cross, which served in times past as the 'admission' to communion for the Native Episcopalians, allowing them to leave their baptismal and confirmation certificates at home
Fast forward...I now reside in South

Anglicanfatherchip - PLEASE sign you name when commenting. ~ed

It truly is perplexing to me why people believe that baptism should not be the legitimate and necessary entry into the full life of the Christian community. All and, I repeat, all the arguments strike me as last gasp attempts to draw more people into our sadly depleted fellowship. It seems to me that many people have forgotten the necessity for thorough and continuing catechesis or the role of the Holy Spirit in informing and convicting people to become Christian.
The liturgy of the Word contains an abundance of riches to feed and prepare the hungry soul for life in Christ.

It seems to me that people who truly want to be Christian will respect certain prohibitions and wait with a good deal of joyful expectation on the time when they will be able to receive the Holy Communion. This certainly seems to be the practice of the early church and the experience of those I know who have come to faith as adults.

I must also wonder why people are so afraid of boundaries? The news is full of the devestating consequences of boundary breaking and those consequences are manifested in our personal lives as well.

The whole liturgy of the Holy Eucharist is a liminal experience unless we have forgotten the joyful wonder of it all. It is best not to leap in unprepared!

I think that, perhaps, this discussion is taking place because we have concentrated our attention on only one aspect of the Eucharist - table fellowship. If that is our only concern, then this discussion may make some sense. However, the Eucharist is much, much more than that and we lose those other aspects to our peril. Carlton Kelley+

No communion without baptism, I say. It's cheap grace, although well-intentioned and not lacking in highly articulate and passionate argument in favor. If baptism needs reform, let's reform it -- not abandon it, which will be the inevitable consequence of communion without baptism.

Dr. Shy, the only lack of discussion I see going on here is your appeal to the supposedly new paradigm in order to simply declare that the "old" paradigm has passed away and does not require refutation. My position is that this "new" paradigm is not new and does not override the considerations behind the supposedly old paradigm. There is a sense in which I do not disagree with the poetic language in which you express the new, but since one can find the sort of language you use among the stalwarts of the old position, it would follow that one does not contradict the other, and that therefore the assertions of the ancient church traditions are not refuted by adopting the language you use.

@ C. Wingate
At the risk of "monopolizing" this conversation, it seems that I owe you the courtesy of a reply. I think, perhaps, you read too much into my comments, namely that I somehow intended to "declare that the 'old' paradigm has passed away and does not require refutation." I certainly do not intend to do that. What I intend to say is that it is possible that we need to broaden our discussion/discernment beyond the "merely" factual and admit that "truth" in a religious sense cannot be merely assent to factual statements which one affirms or denies. I believe that if the church continues to take this as its only path to discernment, it will inevitably fail to do anything other than what it has already done, and it will leave valuable voices out of the process. My "assertions" were only to suggest that one of the reasons that the different "sides" fail to understand one another is that they may have rather different ideas about what constitutes something that is "true." I believe that the "call" for "open" communion is coming from persons who are seeing things from a more "progressive" or "emerging" paradigm view, and the "arguments" made in traditional terms may not be persuasive to them as they do not seem to describe well their non-logical experiential perspectives. On the other side, the "arguments" advanced by the progressives may be seen by those who tend to place more emphasis on "factuality" or "logical refutation" as simply so much "fluff" without substance. If we are to have any "discussion" we need to be aware that there is more "in the room" so to speak, than just logical argument.

What sense does it make to admit someone to Communion if they don't know what it means or what they are committing to by taking it? Make no mistake - by taking Communion you are making a commitment to yourself, to God and to your fellow Christians. You learn what that commitment is when you get baptized (or during the later instruction that your godparents make sure you get when you grow up in the Church after infant baptism).

Why, then, should we not tell someone who might take Communion "Taking Communion is a commitment. It would be unfair to you to let you take it before you understand what it is."

Ron Fox.