Thanks Derek - I have been back and forth about this in my thinking. Bringing out the important point of theology and liturgy being the same coin - gives me more to ponder. Basically at this point in my journey I think people should be baptized before partaking of the communal meal but also I don't check credentials - but on the other hand if praying shapes believing and actions are part of prayer- perhaps the taste of the banquet will bring more to baptism?

Ann,
This is the first of three parts (I think that's how it's broken up...), and there is more said later on concerning both of the points you raise--especially the bogeyman of checking credentials at the rail!

Appropos is this issue in the Church of England (with a hat tip to Thinking Anglicans). The reorientation (pun noted, if not intended) of baptismal theology in our current 1979 Prayer Book toward the Eastern Christian tradition of baptism as full participation in the Body of Christ was noted in the revision process and long discussed.

My sermon Sunday was about how faith takes time to really develop (Andrew and another "stayed with Jesus that day" - not just from that day, but also for all that day) and how we are called to show a hospitality that calls folks not just to "Come and see," but also to "Come and stay." While like Ann I'm not asking first, I'm not interested in changing our understanding that normatively the Eucharist is an expression of the life of the Body gathered.

Still, I don't ask; and even so conservative a light as retired Bishop Alex Dickson told me, "When in doubt, feed." If someone I knew not to be baptized were to ask about communion, or to express distress at being left out, I think my first response should be the question Jesus asked: "What are you looking for?"

Marshall Scott

Derek,

Thank you for raising this again for conversation. I look forward to the next two installments and will read gladly, think with you, and offer response, though for the moment, I'll hold back to see where conversation goes.

For now, I'll say the looking forward to rather than immediate response is that it appears you're addressing this piece to those who are practicing "communion before baptism" without theological reflection, intention or rationale. As I may have said before, I prefer describing the practice as communion'before' rather than 'without'baptism, since I don't know of anyone practicing it who isn't also promoting baptism.

You and I have talked enough about this that you know what sort of theological explanation I'll be offering, and I mean, by holding off to give you good room to address some of the scripture, ideas and questions I'll be bringing.

Nonetheless, I want at this stage to offer a tiny reflection on your framing of this in part I.

First, my impression from visiting a lot of churches in a lot of dioceses is I'm overwhelmingly hearing an explicit open invitation to communion rather than either silence of announcement or bulletin explanation that welcomes 'all baptized Christians.' That's obviously anecdotal witness and it may have to do with where I visit traveling, but it includes several churches from seven West Coast diocese, a couple of churches in dioceses in the Midwest, and a healthy number of churches in diocese in the Northeast and the central East Coast. I expect it's more unusual in our Southern Dioceses.

Second, the undoubtedly accurate observation that a good number of clergy and dioceses are engaging this practice without a fully formed or coherent liturgical or sacramental theology is probably accurate. My impression is that a large number of our clergy also work without a fully formed or completely coherent theology of Trinity, Incarnation, or even a single understanding of Divine Providence and the Spirit to 'explain' our practices of intercessory or healing prayer. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. My sense of 'coherent' asks us as honest theologians to talk about the limits of what we understand or know. Anglicans trust shared practice, and you and I are both grateful for that. The dilemma here is that we've got a significant rift in our consensus about practice of the church's central sacrament.

And finally, my impression is that almost without exception the lay people I talk to who worship regularly and care about church is that their interest in thinking about communion and whether baptism must precede communion leans strongly toward welcoming a theology that blesses and encourages an evangelical, converting, and transformative practice of Eucharist welcoming all.

All right, I've said more than I originally intended and less than I hope to before this conversation is over. But having offered this bit, I'd like to listen for a while and see where people take this.

Again, thanks for raising it for continuing conversation, reflection, and prayer.

Derek, I'll be very interested in seeing the remainder of this series - it is an important topic, in my mind at least, especially as we acknowledge our post-Christendom culture and the vast number of people for whom "Body of Christ" holds no meaning, let alone the various meanings that can be given. I currently find myself with an opposing view than you but, I want to mention that, while I agree that "open communion" is not the proper tagline for this issue, neither is "Communion without Baptism." That is no more acceptable than its corollary: "Baptism without Communion." Being baptized into the Body of Christ without ever subsequently sharing in the communal thanksgiving meal that is the Eucharist certainly flies in the face of the intentions of both Jesus and Paul. I believe the issue is better served if the two paths of 'font to table' and 'table to font' were presented as "Baptism before Communion" and "Communion before Baptism."
I think back to the days following my 'love at first sight' meeting of my wife, and the many meals and celebrations with her family that I shared prior to our wedding. With no idea of what I was getting myself into it would have been foolish to marry first. I understand that the analogy breaks down but, the point is: if someone is seeking a deeper relationship with others and God, might not there be more than one point of entry? Getting to know and understand one's community and what their relationship to God is like might be the perfect step for some on the path of discipleship - one that will ultimately lead to the life-giving waters of Baptism.
Jim Harrison

Thanks, Derek, for carrying this discussion deeper. Our parish had a year-long conversation around this question in crafting a welcome statement about communion in our Sunday bulletins. Simply having the conversation was enormously helpful to our community and to our sacramental ministry together.

I look forward to the future installments!

Thanks for this. It's a very important discussion with huge communion-wide and (just as important) ecumenical considerations. It may be that normative communion of the unbaptized is part of the huge paradigm shift (now there's a dated phrase!) we're going through...part of what I have called the "new reformation." If so, it deserves careful theological reflection. My fear is that it is often being done these days in a kind of casual, "knee jerk" manner with consideration of the ramifications. Let's keep the conversation going!

The sad truth is that many congregations already separate Communion from the Body of Christ. They do this every time they baptize an infant or young child, by failing to give first Communion to the neophyte.

That's an excellent point, Deacon Plater. That's one of the points that I think we've properly gained from considering Orthodox practice. In our household, our young girls have been communicated ever since their baptisms and as they get older we reinforce with catechesis at home what their already absorbing from their parish environment about what the Eucharist is and the reverence with which we receive it.

NO communion without baptism ...period. Makes no sense...if you aren't baptized into the Body of Christ how can you partake of said Body of Christ. My parish allows children to communicate ..its up to the parents. The idea of Communion without Baptism is like the nonsense in sydney of Deacons presiding over Eucharist.

One thought initially comes to mind about this question: none of us eats a meal with others before we are born -- so how can we partake of the Lord's supper in the eucharist before we are reborn in Christ in "the bath of rebirth" (Titus 3:5) that baptism is? Birth precedes eating, so baptism precedes the eucharist. The sequence of the old, traditional sacramental order has a coherence that "makes sense."

I like Chad's forthrightness as well as Gregory's question.

I'm firmly against communion before baptism. I don’t say priests should do a baptism check, but it should be in the bulletin, or in the words of invitation, e.g. “…all baptized persons…” I like the practice in my parish, where on occasions in which there might be large numbers of strangers, like baptisms, weddings, the patronal festival--whatever--my rector says something like: “All are invited to come to the altar. If you are baptized, you may receive communion; if not, you may kneel for a blessing.” That’s pretty plain.

People talk about “it’s God’s table”—in fact, I heard this at a church recently. But we forget about commitment, and about discipleship being an intentional act/decision. Jesus called all kinds of people, including, for example, the rich young ruler. But only those who turned and followed--and stayed--were with him for the Last Supper.

I'm convinced that the priests who encourage communion before baptism, talking about "wherever you are on your journey", do so out of laziness at worst, or timidity about evangelization at best. The pastoral, bold thing would be to talk to people about being baptized when they are new to you. The lazy way is to let the attraction of the Eucharist reel them in, and then all you have to do is say “yes of course”, when they say, “I’d like to be baptized.”

Dear Rita: what sort of evidence do you have for your charge of laziness? This does not really contribute to the author's expressed desire for charitable dialogue.
There is no evidence that all the disciples were baptized before receiving the last supper nor the crowds whom Jesus fed. The tradition of the church as been baptism first then communion as well as being in our canons but isn't it really all about control by the institution. That sort of control is breaking down - not to say there aren't good reasons. But most in this day and age do not accept because the church says line of reasoning.

I’m eager to read Parts 2 & 3, especially as it regards “checking credentials at the rail.” Because that’s where the whole thing stands or falls for me. My own sacramental theology, and my own experience, leads me to believe that there’s no better invitation to God’s community than “Taste and see.” But I hear and respect the historical points you bring up.

What do we do, though, with the issue of welcome? How do we welcome guests/strangers/seekers into our communities? Communion is only part of that welcoming process, which happens just as much around the coffee urn as the Lord’s Table. But the question can’t be ignored, not in this era of steeply declining church membership.

I assume we want people from outside our community to come to Sunday worship, don’t we? Weekly worship in the Episcopal Church, at least in my experience, is centered around the Eucharist. Where can guests and seekers find themselves in a service whose heart is closed to them? In the early church, catechumens and other unbaptized people left worship after the service of the Word. Do we go back to that model? Or adopt a model like many Lutheran & Methodist churches I’ve been to, where communion isn’t practiced every week? Or reach out to non-Christian friends at other gatherings besides Sunday morning worship? (If such other gatherings are feasible in your community—not always the case in small parishes)

I’m not meaning to be flip or rhetorical, but rather to really ask these questions. The open table is one sign of welcome. Maybe there are other better ones. If so we have to find them, and show non-Christian guests—in actions as well as words!—that they are welcome. Eucharist may be a sacrament of intimacy within community, but the Church doesn’t exist for our community alone.

Does it matter that the church has never sorted out the problems with its initiation rites? It starts out straightforwardly as someone wishes to become a member of the body of Christians. Fine. Dunk them, welcome them. But they marry another member of the body and have a child. Is this new member of the church family not a member of the body? Do we treat them as an outsider until they can make a personal profession of faith? Not really. We baptize them on the theory that they will grow up in the faith. But while they are young and uncomprehending, we defer participation in the other sacraments, marking a transition with confirmation or first communion. So we act as if baptism is a prerequisite, but needs completion.

And what about those who look to baptism for forgiveness of sin -- isn't it prudent to put off baptism until you've done most of your sinning, and so to be sure that all your trespasses are covered?

The Eastern rites avoid many problems by giving baptism, confirmation, and communion all together to babies. Then they don't have to work out the relationships among the sacraments or the timing. But if the person strays, is it all still good?

How is it that participation in the community isn't enough -- you have to be admitted? Could there be a "common-law" membership?

So who, when, why, how all draw different answers and rationales in churches. I said "dunk" above, because I was raised a Baptist. The church calls at least for flowing water in the rite. My younger daughter was baptized with a damp thumb on the forehead by an Episcopal priest. When we got home, I poured a little water over her brow, just to be sure.

But people here want to talk theology and such. I think Ann may be right that the institutional perspective is one of control. There are signs already in the discussion that the life of the community may be determinative.

Sorry for serial posting. What I was thinking is that the idea of states is problematic. Baptism admits one to a state of grace; marriage to a state of matrimony; ordination to a priesthood forever after the order of Melchizedek. But the world we know is one of change, flux, dynamism. How to talk about the sacraments in this new paradigm?

This discussion recalls how confirmation has been called a sacrament in search of a theology. In the West, it was a historical contingency that confirmation was postponed to later in life. Bishops were absent and wanted to have some role to play, so, after having abandoned the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the eucharist to priests, they specialized in confirming people. Perhaps the eucharist was also separated out from baptism so that more could share in the process. Theology tries to make sense when it reads a rite, as if the temporality of baptism or of sacraments in general were simple, whereas it is ongoing. A sacrament is a promise up to death and as such cannot be evaluated for sure. Faith means a loss or bracketing of certainty.

Whereas confirmation was, prior to ecumenical rapprochement with other Christians, seen as the gateway to the eucharist in the Episcopal Church, today all Christians are welcome. Perhaps in an era in which Christians become more of a minority, nonChristians might be welcomed, in affirming a peaceful co-existence.

In the context of the lead article on how the synod in Liverpool has a motion calling for a new language for baptism, it could be said that all the sacraments are in search of a theology. The apostles were not baptized and confirmed Christians (nor were they ordained) when they participated in the legendary Last Seder.

Ordinary people today seem to be asking for how a rite relates to their experiences, in particular those of injustice and liberation.

A new language is called for, though it too ought to leave room for other languages and metaphors.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Derek,

Can you explicate a bit on this: We are saved from death and sin by putting off our old life along with its old death and are plugged into a whole new life, a whole new energy source, which is the inexhaustible life of God.

Our existence at all and at each moment, baptized or not, turned to God or not, indicates that like it or not we are being given life by God who is inexhaustible. I say this because Anglican theology on Baptism evolved mightily in the debate between Pusey and Maurice, with Pusey's view losing out, thank God. Pusey made of it an ark and a one-time event, Maurice a reception of what is and our ever-present ground (a la Luther). It comes down for me to whether or not we phrase our sacramental theology in ways that imply a swoop-in God (Rahner), which is a sacramental type of memorialism in that Christ shows up for the event and then leaves again, going out of the life of the world.

Baptism is not an event but is explicit reception of the reality of God giving us life and new life in Christ and our being turned to our ever-present ground and relationship to the God who is always at work in the life of the world, in creating, redeeming, and sustaining us.

Plugging in implies for me event rather than ground, suggests that perhaps those not baptized are not being given life which is impossible as they exist in this moment, rather than our explicitly in community receiving the One who does give us life and making this known in the life of the world. The ramifications are huge, from upholding tendencies to anti-Judaism (as if the Word and Spirit were not at work pre-Incarnation) to disenchantment of creation so deadly in our time to Left Behind types of notions of parousia. Rather, God is always coming into the world, to paraphrase Moltmann, is always at work in the life of the world to paraphrase Stringfellow.

Great question, Christopher, I'll need to chew on it a while to give a satisfactory response. Here are my initial thoughts, though.

First, Baptism *is* an event in the most basic sense of that word. It is a ritual moment that occurs within the gathered community and is done once, not to be repeated.

Second, I see us trying to put fragile words around a reality which is far grander than what our minds can encompass this side of the veil. I'm deliberately using the emic language given to me by St. Paul and the Church to explain how I understand the even that occurs then endures in and after Baptism. It appears to me that you're approaching from an etic direction.

The root question that I hear you asking is this: is human life fundamentally *different* after Baptism or apart from Baptism. I would answer yes. Can I describe exactly how using the etic language of anthropological philosophy? No. The closest that I can manage is the emic language that the Scriptures and tradition have lent me. Too, I don't see that "yes" as "upholding tendencies to anti-Judaism" but instead insisting that God's action in Christ is particular and unique and worth lifting up. (I would also agree with the Church that Christ's impact upon the world is from the beginning and not flatly restricted to the time after the Incarnation.)

I know that doesn't answer your question fully, but it's the best I can do now.

Baptism is more a recognition by the community of the beloved status of the one being baptized and commitment to support him or her in their life of faith. I don't think anything happens at baptism that is not already there -- baptism is the outward sign of what is present (the inward grace) in each person. It is our ritual way of acknowledging that we do not "own" our children. Saying they have "new birth" rejects their real birth - seems against everything that Jesus represents (being born of a human mother) and teaches.

Ann, I'm not sure how thinking of baptism as "new birth" could be construed as rejecting a person's "real" or natural birth. Was Jesus denigrating Nicodemus' birth from his mother when he told him, "Unless someone is born anew, of water and the Spirit, they cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:1-21)? In speaking of baptism as "new birth," as the Bible does, I think we're simply acknowledging that we're born into sinful conditions, a fallen creation and a broken relationship with God, so we and the rest of creation are in need of reintegration with our Creator, a reintegration that is possible through Christ Jesus, as he is both divine and human as God incarnate, come to save and reclaim us as his own, if we will have him.

Also, I think baptism is far more than just the community's recognition of the beloved status of the one being baptized and its commitment to support that person in his/her life of faith. Such a "Welcome, we're here for you" description seems to put more weight on the human fabric of the church and leave God out of the picture. Isn't baptism an act of God, an encounter with Christ, effected through the human fabric of the church? The catechism of the Episcopal Church in its Book of Common Prayer seems to think so: "Baptism is the sacrament by which *God* adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ's Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God" and "union with Christ in his death and resurrection, birth into God's family the Church, forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit." Those words sum up nicely the Bible's witness that baptism is a washing away of sin (Acts 22:16), a "bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5), a dying and rising with the crucified and risen Jesus (Romans 6:3-9), an incorporation into Christ (Galatians 3:27) and a "circumcision" marking us belonging to God's covenant (Colossians 2:11-12). (And quite frankly, the Episcopal Church's liturgical expression of that baptismal covenant is one of the richest and deepest I've ever heard or read!) There seems to be much more to baptism than just community recognition and support.

I don't believe we are born into sin in a fallen creation - so you and I part ways of seeing baptism from the beginning. Of course we sin and need reconciliation but I don't think that is our "status' - we are already children of God - where else do we come from? As astronomers are discovering we come from the same matter as stars - not just dust by star dust. Baptism is our recognition of what God has already done.

Thank you, Ann, baptism as a welcoming of the other person works for me. The community affirms the other person in his or her singularity, to borrow a way of speaking from the late French Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. In the case of infant baptism, the parents affirm the future of the child, which they cannot know, see, or predict. They greet in order to let go. The community itself relates through separation. God would be "known" through the ultimate inaccessibility of the other. In any case, this would be a holiness that does not pretend to master the other.

The community promises to take care of the other, to nurture, and let go of.

It recalls the notion of touching, a common New Testament motif. To touch, as Jean-Luc Nancy, and Jacques Derrida teach, is to come very close to the other but that proximity requires separation, a withdrawal, which some might call the holy.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Responding briefly to Ann, I’m sorry if I seemed uncivil to you. It was not my intention. I wasn't in fact levelling a charge of laziness or timidity (you forgot I also used that word) at or in response to any priest on this board! Just expressing a long held opinion, because I’ve never for the life of me figured out what’s so hard about baptism.

(Not, now, to Ann) I totally agree with Derek’s points--so far--re the Body of Christ and how we become members of that Body. To me it is a theological and existential issue, not one of welcome and hospitality, which is how I often see it described. Baptism is about who we are as a community, who we become as individuals. Why would we want to withhold full membership of the Body of Christ to people whom we are *commissioned* to bring into fellowship with him? As the Ethiopian said to Philip, “Here’s water; what is to prevent me from being baptized?”

Baptism is not hard; it is freely offered. Most priests will do it any day of the week (except perhaps during Lent), and there is a ready-made catechism which can be done in one or two sittings. We already baptize infants. So what prevents us? IF we believe it is AS important as the Eucharist, we would be as eager to offer it as we are to say ‘whosoever will may come” to the altar.

Communion without baptism, to my mind, makes no sense. You can eat the bread and drink the wine and feel good about it, but if we believe it is a sacrament, a sign that contains what it signifies--the entire mystery of the Eucharist--it cannot be effective in the same way for someone who is not baptized.

If we move away from sacramental theology, then we can do whatever pleases us with the sacraments. But if not, I do not think we should be making baptism a thing “dubious” rather than a thing “necessary”.

Thanks Rita.
Baptisms are to be held in the congregation during on Sunday during the chief service of Eucharist according to the rubrics, preferably on one of the designated Sundays or the Easter Vigil. Though it can be done at any time and by anybody - the idea is that the community is gathered and surrounds the person to be baptized. Many of the questions and statements have to do with supporting the person in their life in Christ. The rite offers many themes -- following Christ, sharing in the royal priesthood, living a resurrected life, overcoming separation (sin), reception into the church community, becoming servants to one another.
Rather than changing the person's essential being - the rite joins them into the priesthood of all believers.

I have seen congregations invite bishops to celebrate baptisms for some special feast in order to strengthen their connection to the episcopate or, in some cases, to remind themselves that one must find a use for the episcopate. But the presence of a bishop also creates the impression that ordination remains the primary sacrament and that lay people are unimportant. It is as if spiritual power flowed through the episcopate rather than through the congregation welcoming someone with the rite of baptism. Some people go to church to receive a service, whereas the Greek etymology of liturgy suggests that worship is to be the work of the people. Putting something into the order of service about who should receive the eucharist makes it seem the people must remain passive.

Murdoch and I like these words by the Rev. Dr. Steven Crowson, the rector of Trinity Church, Lewiston, Maine: "Trinity Church is a community of baptized ministers of Jesus. We invite you to fully participate in worship and communion. You may become a minister here through the Living Water, Baptism As A Way of Life program and baptism or the transfer of your baptismal record from another church."

http://www.trinitylewiston.episcopalmaine.org/Rector's%20Letters/open-communion.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/4n3qkmu

Rather than merely an invitation to worship, the invitation is to mutual ministry in which the dignity of all persons is to be respected. This common ministry is one of social justice.

The term "open communion," as the Rev. Crowson implies, is no longer a question about determining who should receive the eucharist but rather an invitation for a small committed group of people to serve the larger community:
"We do not gather around a minister, but gather around ministry; we share the view that all of us are ministers in community."

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary, I agree with you that Baptism is "an invitation for a small committed group of people to serve the larger community" and that we are a community of ministers. But I can't stop there either. All of the sources available to me--the Scriptures, the teaching of the church, and my own reasoned experience--cannot allow me to say that Baptism is simply a sign of community acceptance. I am compelled to say that there is more at work.

While I don't see the practice of CWOB as an issue of laziness, I have experienced it, both personally and in conversation with other clergy, as an issue of hospitality that often overlooks some of the hard work that needs to be done in order to create a truly welcoming atmosphere.

I have attended worship in a number of congregations where the invitation to the Table was stressed in most emphatic terms as "open to all," or to anyone who was seeking Christ. The problem was that these same congregations utterly failed to offer meaningful hospitality in almost every other respect. Ushers barely glanced at me when I walked in or shrugged and said they were out of service leaflets, sitting in the sanctuary was a social minefield because of "my pew" or "my seat" behavior, and I've stood awkwardly at coffee hours where I was entirely ignored or only spoken to by either the priest or the one person who was designated to welcome visitors. It has happened when I was a laywoman and again after I was ordained. Since this experience has happened to me at least a half dozen times it has led me to wonder whether it is easier for clergy to be "welcoming" during the liturgy, where we can exercise our own form of hospitality, than it is to change parish culture. Guess what? It doesn't work. Table hospitality that is unaccompanied by hospitality in welcome and fellowship feels false. I'm not saying that this is the chief motivation for offering CWOB, but I think if we're going to innovate it's not a bad idea to examine our motives and figure out whether our congregation are actually as welcoming and inclusive as we like to think they are.

This past fall I baptized a young adult who had been attending worship pretty regularly for a few months before asking to be baptized. She had never presented herself for communion, and we talked about why she needed to wait. This young woman was completely unchurched and had no idea what "sacraments" even meant, but she somehow understood that receiving communion was something she need to wait for until she was ready. We set a baptism date, I admitted her as a catechumen, gave her 8 hours of private instruction, and asked her to attend all the adult formation classes she could manage to attend. I baptized her 7 months after she first came to me with her request, and when we debriefed the experience a few weeks later she thanked me for being so thorough and for asking her to wait. She remarked how special it was to be received into the community and to share fully in our sacramental life in such a public way. During the time of her catechumenate she become more integrated into the congregation, and she is now fully involved as her busy schedule permits.

Was it a lot of work? You bet. Was it worth it? Absolutely. Would I do it again? After that experience it would be difficult for me to do it any other way.

And then there is this being presented at General Synod for new language for the liturgy of baptism. How does that fit with this discussion?

Derek, please, please be careful about assuming superiority for denominations with a more formal liturgy than the Reformed denominations appear to have, to those who are liturgically rich or overly rich. All your points were poerfectly clear to me, born and bred Reformed and Presbyterian. There's no real need to denigrate the non-Lutheran/Episcopal/Orthodox/RC groups, in particular the Presbyterians (I note, in your text). Any who are deeply churched will understand your thesis. Those who are not, will not. Try harder not to set up barriers that do not, in effect, matter to salvation OR to the Body of Christ. Thank you.

Karen, if I had a hat I'd lift it to you. I found myself nodding assent all through your post. Yes, and yes, and yes. What you describe is indeed the welcome we should practice, and the intentional way we should be going about evangelism.

May you "continue...and daily increase..."

Derek,

Just some thoughts as I reflect on your posts...

"...given to me by St. Paul and the Church to explain how I understand the even that occurs then endures in and after Baptism." Your term captures the heart of my concern nicely..."enduring event," which is another way of suggesting that ritual-anthropological language is inadequate theologically or Christianly, that is, as insiders.

Actually, I think we are both approaching this from an emic perspective, but that those perspectives are different ones...both perspectives, however, are the Church's. I am approaching these matters from the emic language of christology found in the Johannine Prologue and some of Paul's christological hymns, as well as canticles in Revelation and Hebrews. Let me explain a bit.

My central question is related to a sense that "plug-in" suggests that prior to Baptism, grace (including not just our being created but the work of redemption and fulfillment of creation in Christ ) wasn't previously present to us and in us and at work on us though unacknowledged, unknown, or even despised and rejected.

This in turn backs me up a bit to the the Person and work of Christ in the totality of the Incarnation (but also as Creator--as Ann hints at, and Sustainer) which verb-wise *is* from the vantage point of God and therefore extends all directions of the linearity in which we view history, if you will.

So before I want to ask if we are changed in Baptism, I want to ask the christological question, Is the world changed by the (totality) of the Incarnation in which God in Christ comes to God's own, in the totality of that--all things made are God's, and becomes a creature.

That is the question that controls my second question re: Baptism.

My answer is yes, of course. But not in a way that implies that somehow the Incarnation were a divine invasion (giving us a completely other nature than the one we had before) rather than the liberation, fulfillment, and completion of creation (and specifically of our human creatureliness and nature), OR that previously the work of the Word and Spirit always and already in creating and being at work in the creation from the beginning and working to repair all that arises from created beings turning in upon themselves (angels and humans alike), that is, sin and evil, and ultimately death in the fullness of what death finally suggests--loss of God, is somehow separable rather than sign and promise of its being accomplished once-for-all in the Incarnation. Repair and fulfillment and completion of God's purpose for creation is shown especially in the high priestly language of Hebrews, which is to show forth God in praise and thanksgiving, self-being-for-others, and transparency (to use iconic language). This is accomplished in Christ for all humanity, not to mention for the sake of all creatures and creation whom we affect. And not in way that suggests from only Christ's Nativity forward (linearity).

So it is that in Christ's Incarnation, once-for-all, heaven and earth are indissolubly united, to use Orthodox terminology (not unrelated to our being united in Christ by Baptism), that for me orients and centers how I in turn understand Baptism and our being changed by Baptism.

Which gets to Ann's concern, I think, as she is raising some of the issues that came up between Maurice and Pusey. How is our adoption to be understood? What type of event is Baptism? What of Sin? Etc.

In the view she is suggesting, which is also closer to my own, because of our being created in Christ and specifically because of Christ's once-for-all Person and work in the totality of the Incarnation, Baptism is sign of what God has already done for us in Christ, which is adopt us in Christ through Whom we are created, redeemed, and sustained ever and always. To say we are adopted children of God in Baptism is to not say we are somehow set apart from the rest of humanity, that is, different from the rest of humanity, but is to say that we have been turned to and have acknowledged and received the One who creates, redeems, and sustains us. Adopted is a most profound way of saying we are God's and ever have been as God's creatures. Baptism is explicit reception of this We are children of God. In Christ, that is the status we have before God. And this in Christ encompasses creation, redemption, and sustaining.

Baptism is explicit receiving of this out of which we in turn live into and up to and are given sign and strength for the journey regularly through Communion, the receiving of Christ's own Person as bread and wine. Baptism communicates indeed that we are God's children, seals us as God's in word and washing (so we always know Whose we are and need not fear or live according to the powers that tell us otherwise), and turns us to go forth daily living out of Whose we are...which is indeed to be changed through and through. We are reoriented in Baptism into Christ and enter into the lifelong work of living out of this liberation of our humanity for God's purposes.

In this regard, what I am trying to get at is that the Person and grace we receive (the liberation of creation in Christ's redemption and fulfillment of it in the totality of the Incarnation) in Baptism is already present to and in us, and ostensibly to any human being because accomplished for all human beings in the Human One, Jesus Christ. Baptism is the explicit sign of this grace and of our being turned to it (emphasis on God's turning us), signed in it, and going forth living it out. In this same way, it makes also of the Church not an ark taken out of the world, but the sign of redeemed humanity in the midst of the world, and indeed sign of God's love for the whole creation once-for-all accomplished and communicated in Christ.

The change in us is there, but it is a change of receiving Whose we are and such a reception does change us and our mutable nature, turns our nature to its properness which is to give thanks to God always and in all things and be a self for others. Our growth is deepening living out of Whose we are as the fundamental ground sealed in us in Baptism.

Where I differ with Ann is that Sin is the condition of being turned to ourselves rather than to God and for others. It distorts everything and we are born into a world fallen and affected but nevertheless a world redeemed once-for-all. There is a tension here related to eschatological tensions. Sin in this regard is to not our true status before God but our existing and living otherwise that as children of God (that is, self turned to God and being for others), living out of separation, alienation, self-turned-on-self. To always return to the Baptismal seal: "You are my child" is powerful antidote to all that tells us otherwise. And we struggle betwixt and between even as our status is not questionable.

Where I further clarify is the christocentricity of this which is distinct from simply being received into any old community. The community doing the welcoming is doing so in a specific way, that is, on behalf of Christ, as recognition, witness, proclaimer, declarer to the newcomer as a created, redeemed, and sustained human creature in Christ. It's not any old welcome. It's Christ's welcome and it will change your life to receive Whose you are. Again it's not just any old community, but the community signed and sealed in Christ, incorporated each and all into Christ's fullness--that is, Christ's Body, not for ourselves but as witnesses and proclaimers (by word and deed) in the world of Whose the world's actually is...Christ's. And proclaimers of Christ's ever-working not only in the Church, but in every social world (the world), and all of creation. And to be witness is to put oneself out there...and sometimes on the line...or chopping block. It is here in the discipleship arena where you and I, I think, share concern about CWOB. Additionally, CWOB leaves the unbaptized without that unrepeatable public and explicit and named upon which to always fall upon. Marking myself everyday with the Cross, I remember I am God's no matter what I face that day. Without Baptism it would require always my self-affirmation, rather than God's affirmation in the midst of God's community.

That our Baptism is not repeatable points us to something I think that is important and distinguishes its eventfulness as ground rather than past. Baptism is our ever-present reality. *Is* is the operative and Christological verb here. Baptism is our status before God, which is to say, it is explicit declaration, sign, proclamation, that we are Christ's and God's children. The word creature itself communicates this same reality even though turned on itself.

I was concerned with event in a particular theological way in relation to its ritual anthropological usage, a way you own "enduring event" clarifies. Yes Baptism is an event in the ritual usage. But at the same time, it is not and ritual usage fails theology unless event here is understood in light of the christological *is*.

Pusey and Maurice argued over the ritual understanding of event in precisely the nature of Baptism. The question for them was it one-time and irrepeatable and thus what you fall back on always as present status before God or is it one-time irrepeatedable and from thence forth you had to find yourself in a cycle of make up in confession and penance. The two different views will characterize such matters as Confession very differently. It is a Reformation question and I fall toward the Reformers on the matter as being very catholic in the deepest christological sense. Confession is to turn again to our Baptism, turning again to our being declared publicly and explicitly children of God, not a make up event after the face of our Baptism in the past.

Christopher Evans reminds me of the Baptist dilemma: since "once saved, always saved," what about the messiness of life after you've accepted Jesus and been baptized? The annual (or twice-yearly) revival meetings draw as many people to "rededicate their lives" as to be saved. Realistic catholic tradition offers confession, because it's expected that Christians will sin, over and over.

We know that there are no permanent states in the material world -- all is flux and change. There's no evidence of a "state of grace" in faith -- there's continuing life and opportunities. We live anew, not just at coming into church, but each day. That's sometimes comforting, sometimes terrifying.