Catholic Church and Four Reformed Denominations Agree to Recognize the Validity of Each Other’s Baptisms

Jan 30th, 2013 | By | Category: Unity in the News

Last night, in Austin, Texas, representatives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ signed a document titled “These Living Waters: Common Agreement on the Mutual Recognition of Baptism.”

News reports concerning this event can be found here, here, and here. The Catholic Church has long recognized the validity of Protestant baptisms in which the person was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The validity of non-Catholic baptisms was worked out in a dispute between Pope St. Stephen I and St. Cyprian in the third century. In the last ten or fifteen years, however, there were concerns among Catholic bishops regarding Protestant baptisms in which different names were substituted for the Holy Trinity, or in which a method of sprinkling was used that did not achieve any flow of water on the skin.

The Dutch and German Reformed traditions have generally recognized the validity of Catholic baptisms, as have most Presbyterian churches. The major exception to this were the Presbyterian churches in the United States since the time of James Henry Thornwell in the mid-nineteenth century, especially in the south.1 Thornwell argued that Catholic baptisms were invalid because Catholic priests were not “lawful ministers of the Word.” Charles Hodge represented the traditional Reformed position in opposing Thornwell on this question. Some Reformed denominations in the United States remain on Thornwell’s side of that debate, and still do not necessarily accept the validity of Catholic baptisms. In the Presbyterian Church in America, for example, the majority opinion of the 1987 PCA Study Committee on this question sided with Thornwell, the minority with Hodge. The denomination decided to leave the question up to each presbytery.

  1. See the minutes of the 1845 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, starting on page 34. []

32 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. Just curious. When the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of another church’s baptisms, does that mean she also considers those baptized by those churches to be regenerated as a consequence of those baptisms, even though the church that baptizes them may not hold to that same line of belief? Also, when the other churches recognize the validity of Catholic baptism, does that imply they agree with the Catholic Church that those she baptizes are regenerated through this process?

  2. David,

    does that mean she also considers those baptized by those churches to be regenerated as a consequence of those baptisms, even though the church that baptizes them may not hold to that same line of belief?

    Yes. That doesn’t mean, however, that the Catholic Church believes that such persons perpetually remain regenerate, i.e. never fall into mortal sin. The Catholic Church does not agree with the Reformed notion of once-regenerate-always-regenerate.

    Also, when the other churches recognize the validity of Catholic baptism, does that imply they agree with the Catholic Church that those she baptizes are regenerated through this process?

    No. You can see that if you read the “These Living Waters” document linked above.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  3. “The denomination decided to leave the question up to each presbytery.”

    Really? What kind of a denomination leaves something like that up to the local church? So it doesn’t really matter to them if a baptism is valid? Does anyone get what I’m saying here?

  4. Thanks, Bryan. As I have time, I plan to work through the whole document, and perhaps all my questions will be cleared up. But, in the meantime, if you don’t mind, perhaps you could clear up another point for me that occurred to me when looking at the eight points of the “Common Agreement.” When the Catholic Church agrees that “incorporation into the universal church by baptism is brought about by celebrating the sacrament within a particular Christian community,” does that imply that she does not consider the “universal church” to be identical to the Roman Catholic Church?

  5. Brantly,

    What kind of a denomination leaves something like that up to the local church?

    One that doesn’t want to divide over the question.

    So it doesn’t really matter to them if a baptism is valid?

    That wouldn’t be a fair conclusion to draw. It matters to them if a baptism is valid. That’s precisely why if a particular presbytery believes that Catholic baptisms are not valid, that presbytery will ‘re-baptize’ Catholics who come into the PCA.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  6. Bryan, What I mean is that: (1) whether a baptism is valid isn’t unessential, but essential (I’m not studied on the view of baptism of these presbyterian denoms, so that could explain it) and (2) you end up with a denomination in which some people think that the people in it are properly baptized and other people think that some people in it are not properly baptized. How can you have unity in a situation like that? Again, I’m not positive of their view of baptism, which could make this make sense.

  7. David (re: #4)

    When the Catholic Church agrees that “incorporation into the universal church by baptism is brought about by celebrating the sacrament within a particular Christian community,” does that imply that she does not consider the “universal church” to be identical to the Roman Catholic Church?

    Upon baptism a person is immediately incorporated into the Catholic Church, but, if that person denies some Catholic dogma, or is separated from visible communion with the Catholic Church, then his communion with the Catholic Church is imperfect. See “Baptism, Schism, Full Communion, Salvation.” In Catholic doctrine, the grace and operation of the Holy Spirit, and even elements of the Church, extend beyond the visible boundaries of the Church, such that at the same time baptisms among Protestant communities bring these persons into [imperfect] communion with the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church remains the universal Church Christ founded.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  8. Brantly (re: #6)

    (1) whether a baptism is valid isn’t unessential, but essential

    They obviously do not agree with you on that point.

    (2) you end up with a denomination in which some people think that the people in it are properly baptized and other people think that some people in it are not properly baptized. How can you have unity in a situation like that?

    I agree that that is a potential problem. I think that the PCA’s present position is not intended to be a permanent position.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  9. Bryan (re: #7)

    Thanks again. I read the article you link to, and it was very helpful. I’m still trying to process the implications of all this, though. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that someone baptized in a Protestant church Protestant baptisms in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is considered by the Catholic Church to have been baptized into the Catholic Church. Is that correct?

    I am also still trying to get a better handle on exactly what the Catholic Church understands by the term “universal church” as used in statement I refer to above. Is it significant, for instance, that “universal” is not capitalized? In this context, does it mean the same thing as Protestants mean by the “invisible church”? Or, in this agreement, is it an agreed upon term that has different connotations according to the background from which it is read? And if this is so, is it intentionally ambiguous?

  10. David (re: #9)

    If I understand you correctly, you are saying that someone baptized in a Protestant church [with a] Protestant baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is considered by the Catholic Church to have been baptized into the Catholic Church. Is that correct?

    That person is thereby incorporated into the Catholic Church, yes, but is not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. He is not even under the jurisdiction of canon law. (A baby baptized within the Catholic Church, however, is thereby brought under canon law.) The relation to the Catholic Church of the person baptized in a Protestant community is imperfect, because it is incomplete. That person possesses a true and valid baptism of the Catholic Church (because baptism is a sacrament of the Catholic Church), but does not yet profess the “one faith” of the Church, nor has he come under the authority of the Catholic bishop or the jurisdiction of canon law. So he remains visibly separate, i.e. in what we can call a condition of [material] schism. And on top of that, he has not yet received the Eucharist, which is the highest sacrament of ecclesial unity.

    I am also still trying to get a better handle on exactly what the Catholic Church understands by the term “universal church” as used in statement I refer to above. Is it significant, for instance, that “universal” is not capitalized?

    No. It is a way of agreeing on a term (“universal Church”) even when the parties do not agree [completely] regarding the understanding of the referent of that term.

    In this context, does it mean the same thing as Protestants mean by the “invisible church”?

    No. The Protestant notion of the “invisible church” does not connect it uniquely to any particular visible body. In the Protestant concept the “invisible church” is merely the set of all the elect. In Catholic ecclesiology, by contrast, the invisible dimension of the Church (that is, her divine nature) “subsists” in the Catholic Church Christ founded, much as by the incarnation the Second Person of the Trinity subsists in human nature.

    Or, in this agreement, is it an agreed upon term that has different connotations according to the background from which it is read? And if this is so, is it intentionally ambiguous?

    Yes and yes.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  11. Bryan,

    Thanks for your candor. As a Baptist investigating the implications of Christian unity, I am finding the “These Living Waters” document fascinating (I have read through p. 29 so far). Your comments have been especially valuable in helping me to get a better understanding of the Catholic perspective.

  12. Sorry I haven’t posted in so long! This is great information, Bryan, and a small step toward unity. And what a timely post! I had the pleasure of being a godfather this past Sunday and watching my godson experience the new birth. It is truly what being a born again Christian means, unlike what Jimmy Carter would suggest.

    I’ve been all over Protestantism, from sects that hold a memorial view of baptism to sects that hold a view just shy of calling it “baptismal regeneration.” For those who hold the memorial view, meaning that baptism is NOT a means of grace, they emphasize more of that “personal, born again, space and time experience.” It’s almost to the point where if you couldn’t identify a particular salvation experience in your life, you weren’t saved and the need for an altar called or sinner’s prayer was of utmost importance.

    When I was part of the Reformed tradition, I learned that having the “conscious born again and personal experience” was not necessary because it’s God who elected and regenerated us, and who were we to know the exact and mysterious decree of God of the moment he justified you? They, too, like my former baptist brothers believed in the one moment in time justification, but not necessary the outward human expression. Yes, in my old Reformed tradition, we needed to be baptized (whether as infants or adults and don’t you dare call it baptismal regeneration), but we also needed to regularly participate in the other sacrament – communion (even it is only given once a month or less frequently) – and do other things such as prayer, fasting and hearing the word. But, no, we could never call them “working for our salvation”. So, we knew were were saved for all eternity, but we did good works as an expression of what was already done and decreed. If you did all these things, they were a sign that you were “justified, regenerated and saved” for all eternity. If you sinned, you were still required to ask for forgiveness, but it didn’t have to be through a Sacrament of Penance. My old church services had a special section for reflection of sins and general absolution. It made a lot of sense to me at the time.

    The Reformed had the right idea about some sort of sacramental system vs. a simple born again experience, and that’s what prompted me to dig deeper. Yes, the need for a tangible Christian fellowship was stressed, but no single Christian fellowship that I was a part of made any claim of infallibility or asked me to trust in them for eternal salvation. A sacramental system needs a minister (exception: baptism), and the minister needs to be valid. Ultimately, it concerned me that anyone could declare himself a valid minister based on his own scriptural exposition. A sacramental system also needed to be tied to an institution. It had concerned me that so many sects all claimed to be speaking for God and interpreting the same 66 book standard. But it was only the Catholic Church that could uniquely be tied to Christ and the apostles.

    I am grateful and humbled to have come this far in my thinking, from going to a presumption that I was saved, with sacraments being incidental or even optional, to recognizing that the sacraments administered by the church are how we as the faithful participate in the divine life!

  13. When I was Reformed, I abhorred the “Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Reformed Church in America, and the United Church of Christ.” They are what are known as “the liberal denominations.” I find a lot of their social stances objectionable, but I give them credit on this front.

  14. Adre, #13

    You wrote:
    ” They are what are known as “the liberal denominations.”

    That explains a lot, orthodox Protestant denominations will probably never agree to recognize the validity of each other’s Baptisms.

  15. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, makes an argument that uses the following quotation as its first premise:

    Before the agreement, Protestant denominations of the Reformed Church tradition normally accepted Catholic baptisms, but the Catholic church did not always accept theirs, said the Rev. Tom Weinandy of the Catholic bishops conference in Washington. (source)

    Clark’s second premise is that the Reformed tradition, (as I noted above) has generally recognized the validity of Catholic baptisms.

    From these premises Clark concludes that the Reformed tradition is “more catholic” than is the Catholic tradition, because the former recognizes a wider range of baptisms than does the Catholic tradition.

    One of the reasons why over the last ten or fifteen years Catholic bishops and priests have raised concerns about the presumption of the validity of Protestant baptisms (considered generally) has been the substitution in the baptismal formula of names such as “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier,” for “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” by certain Protestant pastors. The question of the validity of such baptisms went even to the Holy See, which responded in February of 2008 with the answer that such baptisms are invalid. If Clark considers the Catholic Church’s determination that such baptisms are invalid as evidence that the Catholic Church is less catholic than is the Reformed tradition, does that mean that Clark and the Reformed tradition accept such baptisms as valid? If not, then in this respect, Clark and the Reformed tradition are no more “catholic” than is the Catholic Church.

    There is one other reason why Catholic clergy have raised concerns regarding the validity of Protestant baptisms. It has to do with that form of sprinkling that is so light that water does not flow on the skin, but only moistens the skin as a mist or as unflowing droplets, or touches only the clothing. The Catholic Encyclopaedia article on baptism says the following:

    It is to be noted that it is not sufficient for the water to merely touch the candidate; it must also flow, otherwise there would seem to be no real ablution. At best, such a baptism would be considered doubtful. If the water touches only the hair, the sacrament has probably been validly conferred, though in practice the safer course must be followed. If only the clothes of the person have received the aspersion, the baptism is undoubtedly void.

    The matter of the sacrament of baptism is distinguished into the remote matter (i.e. water) and the proximate matter (i.e. washing). Water without a washing, even if the proper formula is used, is not a baptism. Washing is necessary for baptism because baptism signifies washing, not merely being wet or getting wet. The Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church states that baptism

    is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words [valide confertur tantummodo per lavacrum aquae verae cum debita verborum forma] (Can. 849)[Latin]

    Similarly, the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches states:

    In baptism a person through washing with natural water with the invocation of the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit … [In baptismo homo per lavacrum aquae naturalis cum invocatione nominis Dei Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti ... ] (Canon 675) [Latin]

    In each case it is stated that baptism is a “washing.”

    However, regarding this point Clark says:

    We haven’t even gotten to the matter of mode. Rome really insists on “running water”? Really?

    It is not that “running water” is necessary for baptism (as though still water in a basin, font, or lake is unacceptable remote matter for baptism, and only water from a stream or river is acceptable), but rather that the act be a *washing* and not merely a moistening. That is required for it to be a baptism, regardless of the mode [i.e. immersion, pouring or sprinkling] of baptism.

    If Clark disagrees, then on what basis? Does he think that merely misting or merely wetting the clothing counts as sufficient proximate matter for valid baptism? Surely it is at least clear that it cannot be unimportant to have some agreed upon conceptual limitations to the proximate matter of baptism, as we do with the remote matter of baptism (i.e. that it cannot be oil, sap, beer, juice, etc.).

    But here’s the fundamental point. Regarding both the use of the proper formula, and the use of the correct proximate matter, the Catholic Church’s refusal to accept deviations from what has been practiced and accepted by all Catholics through all the centuries does not indicate a deficiency of catholicity. On the contrary, those who reject or replace the traditional formula and proximate matter with novelties unknown to and unaccepted by all the Catholics of all the previous centuries, or accept these novelties as valid, show themselves to be departing in that respect from that catholicity which Chesterton rightly called the “democracy of the dead.”

  16. Protestant denominations of the Reformed Church tradition normally accepted Catholic baptisms

    Perhaps that is his observation of normalcy within the Reformed denominations. My experience as a member under several different PCA presbyteries was that this decision was often left to the local church. The effect was that one PCA church might insist on rebaptism, while another might accept as valid the Catholic infant baptism.

    So I would not say that the PCA churches normally accepted Catholic baptisms. Certainly their approach scored no ‘catholicity’ points for them.

    Peace in Christ,
    Tom B.

  17. It gets interesting when mainline Protestant churches don’t accept mainline Protestant baptisms.

    My sister, baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian Church, tried to join a Baptist church. Long story short, they rejected her infant baptism and tried to get her to be baptized again before she could join their church. That happens quite a lot from what I understand.

  18. Here’s a blurb from the USCCB news release:

    The Common Agreement on the Mutual Recognition of Baptism is the result of the seventh round of the Catholic-Reformed Dialogue in the United States, from 2003-2010, which found that the agreed formula for a valid baptism is that it include flowing water and be performed in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. While other episcopal conferences around the world have similar agreements with Protestant communities, this is the first such agreement into which USCCB has entered.

  19. I was a member of a PCA congregation that accepted my Catholic infant baptism. But I was not aware that when PCA congregations baptized infants, that their intention was the same as that of the Church, that as a result of the baptism, the infant was now regenerate. I was told that baptism brought the infant into the New Covenant but that regeneration would come at a later date when the baptized experienced saving faith in Christ.

    Or have I got this all wrong?

    Peace,
    E.J. Cassidy

  20. E.J., (re: #19)

    The valid baptism of an infant, in both the Catholic Church and in the PCA, is the sacramental instrument by which Christ regenerates the infant. The regenerative efficacy of a valid baptism does not depend on the minister intending that the infant be regenerated by the baptism. The intention for a valid baptism need only be “the intention of doing what the Church does” (cum intentione faciendi, quod facit ecclesia) in baptism. The intention need not include the effecting of all that the Church’s doctrine teaches is accomplished through baptism. Otherwise, since baptism also brings the baptized into communion with the Catholic Church, no baptism administered by one not intending to bring the baptized into communion with the Catholic Church would be valid. But baptisms by ministers not intending thereby to bring the infant into communion with the Catholic Church can be valid. Therefore the intention for a valid baptism need not include the effecting of all that the Church’s doctrine teaches is accomplished through baptism.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  21. Thanks, Bryan…Then what is the difference between a baptism in a Baptist congregation, or Pentecostal or non-denom congregation, and baptisms in Reformed/Presbyterian congregations?

  22. E.J. (re: #21)

    There is no difference with respect to the validity of the baptism, even if the mode is different (e.g. immersion or pouring or sprinkling), so long as it is a washing with water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention doing what the Church does in baptism.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  23. Bryan, I thought sprinkling is not considered a valid form of baptism…E.J.

  24. E.J. (re: #23)

    Sprinkling is an acceptable mode of baptism so long as a sufficient quantity of water is used that it flows on the skin.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  25. Sean,

    Baptists have always been defined by their requirement of “beliver’s baptism” or adult baptism and baptism by immersion, and so have never, or never so far as I know, accepted the infant baptisms of other denominations.

  26. From my years of experience in a local southern baptist church, the rules of accepting other denomination’s baptisms, even trinitarian believer’s baptisms, were clear: you must be re-baptized. However, even fellow baptists had to be re-baptized if their beliefs were too unorthodox. I never figured out what those guidelines were, unfortunately. It boggles my mind. Basically, “we don’t accept their wholly symbolic believer’s/infant baptism, so we will re-babtize you… symbolically.”

  27. I came to faith in Christ at age 27 (and had had no church background whatever), fairly soon joined a Lutheran church, and was baptised as an adult. My wife had been baptised as an Anglican, as an infant. When, after a year, I decided the Baptists must be right (and persuaded my wife of this view), we wanted to join a Baptist church. Though we were both baptised – and I as an adult – we had to be re-baptised. Baptism had not only to be for believers (or at least confessors; who can know the heart??), but must be by total immersion. We were baptised in a stream out of doors. My wife’s mother was quite upset; she had already been baptised, had she not? I, young, enthusiastic, ignorant lout that I was, had no idea or understanding at all, but wanted to do what the church asked.

    I cannot imagine a Baptist church accepting anything but age-of-discretion, total-immersion, baptism. I can easily understand, as well, some examining your doctrine and insisting on re-baptism if they thought it lacking.

    jj

  28. Hi John,

    What I can’t understand is why Baptist/Evangelical/Pentecostal total immersion baptism must always be done with the immersee being laid down into the water, putting themselves completely into the hands of the baptizer, instead of the baptizer just placing their hands on the head and gently pushing down, as is done in Catholic adult immersion baptism (at least the ones I’ve witnessed).

    I always wondered what a Baptist pastor would do if he had to baptize an obese person who was confined to a wheelchair.

    Peace,
    E.J.

  29. E.J.

    A person confined to a wheelchair would often be lifted by others into the pool, however difficult.

    The Baptist position comes from two assertions:

    1. That the Greek term for baptism is used in common parlance solely to refer to total immersion; e.g. of a ship sinking; and,

    2. That baptism “into Christ’s death” must, as a matter of form and of obedience to Christ, resemble death (like a lying-down in a grave), and the “coming up out of the water” must resemble the Greek term for resurrection, “anastasis,” the “standing up again” of the corpse. Thus the Baptist form of total immersion is thought to convey in its fullest possible way the New Testament teaching about being baptized “into Christ’s death” and being “raised with Him,” identifying with Christ’s death and resurrection and “putting on Christ.”

    I myself submit wholly to the teaching of the Catholic Church, but as someone raised Southern Baptist and baptized in that form, I have to agree that the visual picture conveyed by this particular form is an excellent and instructive one — and it certainly complies with the Church’s insistence on “enough water to constitute a flow!” — so if I had my ‘druthers my kids would be baptized in that fashion (but by a Catholic priest). But most Catholic churches lack the facilities. And my wife didn’t join me in entering the Catholic church, so that matter is on hold: A subject of constant prayers on my part, as you might imagine.

  30. R.C.,

    Thanks for the reply!

    The Greek word for immersion is used in the NT to refer to the pouring of water over an object, therefore, pouring of water on the head would qualify as immersion. In a previous parish I belonged to, a heavyset woman confined to a wheelchair was baptized by pouring water on her head. One could imagine the difficulty of picking up an obese woman out of a wheelchair, carrying her down into the font and holding on to her to dip her into the water.

    There is also the fact that first century Jews buried their dead by wrapping there in the burial cloths and placing them in a tomb, not burying them in the ground. (I am pretty sure of this but not 100%.) So how would the Baptist mode represent dying and rising with Christ?

    Peace,
    EJ

  31. E.J.,

    Oh, I realize that the Greek word for immersion can be used for pouring of water. Indeed I’m told it was sometimes used to refer to the ceremonial washings that the Jews performed.

    So I am not, myself, arguing that it only ever refers to total immersion; I am only saying that the Baptists among whom I was raised argued that meant total immersion, either typically or exclusively.

    I suspect what they were doing was taking a dictionary or lexicon which gave the typical meanings of Greek words when found in secular sources of that era: A bit like searching for the definition of the word “Pew” and finding it referred either to a research and polling firm, or a sound people make when encountering a bad smell. The problem of course is that in a religious context it means something entirely different. Likewise, I suspect, with “baptism.” A term, while being a loanword from secular vocabulary, might take on a different meaning when used in a religious context.

    But that was not mentioned when the Baptists who taught my Sunday School classes defended their unique positions. They likewise took episcopos to mean simply “leader” and presbyteros to mean simply “elder, old man.” They would say that Catholics were playing fast-and-loose with Scripture by assigning more detailed meanings to these words, because the “real definitions” — by which they meant the common secular usage one would hear from any ditch-digger in Ephesus — of those words had nothing to do with Apostolic Succession or an indelible character of ordination or any priestly connotations. And of course it didn’t really occur to us seventh-graders to say, “well, what if they were loanwords from secular vocabulary, to which Christians assigned special meanings for their ecclesiastical offices (precisely because they had no other names for those offices), and which came to have a definition in the context of church-y talk rather different than that in secular talk?”

    I don’t mean to bad-mouth my Sunday School teachers, by-the-way. Good decent upright loving folks, every one of them; and they inculcated in all of us a love for Scripture and for Jesus Christ. I am just saying that their approach to terminology-use in Scripture was entirely divorced from history, dependent on a quick lookup in a lexicon or a Strong’s concordance or a Halley’s Bible Dictionary. And they took this approach innocently enough: It was the approach they’d learned from men they trusted, who they knew to be of genuine faith, and who had seminary degrees.

    At any rate perhaps you’re overthinking the question of why Southern Baptists feel that the “trust fall” sort of immersion most fully imaged “putting on Christ?” …and apparently I failed to articulate it clearly in my previous post! I think the reasoning is no more complex than…

    – Dead bodies don’t stand upright; they fall down prone on the ground.

    – Living (conscious) men don’t lie helpless on the ground, they stand up.

    So if you want to represent dying, you lie down; if you want to represent being alive again, you stand back up. And as I observed before, the Greek word for resurrection, anastasis, literally means “standing up again.” (I think that’s right, isn’t it? I’m not a Greek scholar, but I thought “ana” here meant “again,” or “another” and “stasis” meant to stand up?)

    I think that’s all there is to it.

  32. RC,

    Pew…that’s a funny comment.

    Maybe we’re both thinking too hard about the “trust fall.” (I never knew it by that name.)

    Peace,
    EJ

Leave Comment

Subscribe without commenting