Just a question: if a group only is effective for 18-24 months, is this because it is new? Is the excitement of newness what sustains it? Can a small group mission be achieved in 24 months? How is a small group, or a large group, perceived to have purpose beyond the excitement of "newness"? In a family (which is a type of small group), it takes 16 years to raise one child. And it doesn't always seem new or even effective. Yet there is a need to continue to fulfill the purpose and vision. Is there an analogy here with a small group?
Thanks for your reply, Neil. I agree it is important to shepherd people, not beat them with rods (pastoral, as you say). It is very important to keep in mind how Jesus associated with sinners, with the Samaritan woman, with the thief on the cross, etc., and also with pharisees who always tried to justify their actions. And we should not act in haste. Nor should we make blind rules about too much stuff. But as you say, we do need some discipline and boundaries, even when they are ill-defined or hard to practice as absolutes.
My main point is about the type of thinking we are susceptible to. As you say, Synod 73 said there was a difference between sexual attraction, and sexual action. And that is obvious.
But, my point is just because there is a difference, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Part of the problem is thinking that every attraction to the opposite gender is a sexual attraction, rather than a personality attraction. Some men may prefer the opposite gender in terms of company, not for sexual reasons, but for their perception of personality differences.
What is a sexual attraction for the opposite sex, anyway? Is this ever really defined? 1. Is it just an observation that they are attractive and pretty? (which could perhaps apply to anyone of either gender). 2. or an observation that they are the opposite sex and capable of mating? 3. or a very specific desire to engage in sexual activities with such a person? 4. or is it just a mindless undefinable thing?
I would say that the third option is close to lust. But if it is just based on some physical attributes or quality which is totally separated from the reality of the person, then it is an illegitimate lust which needs to be controlled. At least that is how I understand what Jesus said, when he said that if you lust in your heart after someone else other than your spouse, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
Taking that into consideration, if there is a legitimate attraction (or lust maybe) for someone you are committed to and give your life for, then there is also an illegitimate desire which falls outside of that parameter. Likely none of us is guiltless of that, but justifying that illegitimate desire seems to be the opposite of what Jesus intended. That parameter based on scripture excludes situations of adultery and fornication and homosex. It does not help us or anyone, to simply say that what you think or feel is not a problem. ("As you think, so you are".)
As far as hormone raging teenagers are concerned, it is our job not to tell them that sex is bad or sinful. It is not. It is beautiful, a gift from God. But only when properly controlled and used, in a God-blessed context, based on what God intended it for. And scripture is quite clear about that, right?
Michael asked some very good questions, in a very polite way. I think however, Neil, that your response hints at a rather unfortunate attitude towards this problem. I sense that you are taking on a language of acceptance and excuse. So it seems to me anyway.
For example: you state, "If a person has feelings of same sex attraction, that would not mean a need to repent or be a problem to be solved..." But this is naivete, isn't it? Jesus clearly indicated that what was in our heart was as much a problem as how we lived our physical lives. These feelings are a problem, just as any feelings of covetousness, lust, hatred. They are a problem because they are counter to what God wants for us, and they are a problem when they do not allow people to live as God intended. Do they lead to condemnation? of course not, since God is a forgiving God. Each one of us is daily aware of our need for repentance and forgiveness, and our joy in grace. But are these feelings a problem? Of course they are.
These feelings are also a problem because they so often lead to an enormous motivation for justifying associated behaviours. To deny that these feelings are a problem, is simply living in denial.
What does it mean to acknowledge sexual identity, when the sexual identity is counter to what sexual identity actually signifies? In this regard unclear language and intention about this issue will always lead to confusion and ambiguity.
If there is not an acknowledgement of the problem then it is fallacious to call the approach a "generous spirit". How do we be generous to those who do not have problem....
I agree that we should use good judgement about calling people to repentance. We also don't need to hammer nails into wood, when the nails are already buried in it.
It is difficult to use the gifts of those who deny their sin, or who justify their sins, and in the same way it is difficult to use or appreciate the gifts of those who claim that homosex is not detested by God in the same way that adultery is.
This is an excellent article by John Witvliet. I can't remember reading it in 2010, but if I did, it has taken on new significance for me. Bottom line on this issue is that honesty must prevail. Professions must be honest and sincere, and a formal membership profession using the forms and agreeing to the confessions and being examined on lifestyle must be sincere and honest. It should not be a half-honest profession which skips over or ignores issues or problems or lack of understanding. If children or young people or new christians are not ready for this, then an alternate simpler profession ought to be used, preferably in their own words which signifies their faith in Christ, even while not indicating a "professing membership" in the crc. How I see it anyway.
" At the level of a council, there are a number of things which can be especially helpful:• View the pastor as a partner in ministry; with the elders, a shepherding team..." This comment made above is particularly relevant. However, the suggestions that followed this comment do not seem to follow from it, since they emphasize how the pastor is different, not how he partners. The heavy reliance on the pastor, such as for preaching on christmas day for 25 years, for example, is caused mostly because of the inability of the partners to carry on the task. In order to have true partnership, the elders should be able to be a true shepherding team, and carry on the task if the pastor has personal desires and obligations. It is for this reason, as well as for enhancing the partnership, that pastors should be training the elders, and elders should be training each other. While the primary role of the pastor is understood, and the function of primary caregiver is known, it should never be thought that others are unable or unwilling to carry out the tasks, roles and responsibilities. This alone would relieve a great deal of stress and pressure from the pastor, and would encourage growth of the entire church.
(Article is too long.) But music is the expression of the soul; most christian music is prayer. The soul's sincere desire, Uttered and expressed. Prayer of praise or supplication.
We have our younger children, age10-12, playing piano during the offeratory, or accompanying a few songs during the singing. They get better and more confident every week and every month.
At home we sing 2 to 4 songs (ocassionally more) after supper every day, sometimes after lunch too. We sing most of them by heart; and then we learn a few more. This makes a difference for the singing at church too, so that the kids know some or many of the songs.
In church service, we sing about ten songs most of the time, with some children's songs, some choruses, some hymns, some vineyard stuff. Sometimes we ask for favorites. The variety is enriching, and helps all ages to emote their worship thru music. Today, "Blessed be Your Name" was a favorite.
I'm not sure about the consistency of "Council is at liberty...", and the clause, "councils should not do this without the senior pastor's full consent..." How is this liberty? when constrained by such a condition?
It would be fantastic if every new member was encouraged to make a brief public testimony of their faith, rather than simply answering three formula questions. The questions are okay, but just as faith without works is dead, so agreement without spirit is dead. These testimonies can often have a greater impact on the life of the people in the pews than the greatest sermon ever preached.
Appreciating John Caicedo's comments from my perspective of having spent two weeks in Mexico at a non-CRC mission there (Cuernevaca), his comments make sense. The mystic power of a sacrament by itself to save or convert or sanctify should never be promoted. So while infant baptism of a child by believing parents should be respected in the covenant sense, it should probably not be able to prevent the new believer's response in terms of "believe and be baptized", especially when the infant sacrament is applied in a fashion that approaches a magical and pagan fashion.
I've felt for some time now that the baptists' denial of baptism for infants is what is non-scriptural, and a problem for disputable matters. But perhaps the reformed's unwillingness to discern inappropriately-applied infant baptism is also non-scriptural.
This relates also to the pure administration of sacraments with regard to lord's supper communion. While I have little or no difficulty celebrating lord's supper with christians in other denominations, in spite of not agreeing with them on every single item of theology or practice, I have great difficulty with celebrating lord's supper with those who ascribe mystical and magical properties to the elements of bread and wine which Jesus never intended to do.
I agree with Jeff on the use of 'conservative" vs whatever. It is overused in so many contexts that it is virtually meaningless unless specifically defined, in which case it is better just to not use the term. Scriptural vs unscriptural is generally a better context. Some conservatives are very scriptural, while other conservatives are very unscriptural - so it is not helpful to use the term 'conservative', since the issue is not about being traditional, nor conservative, but rather about honoring God and responding to God completely, whether in a traditional or charismatic fashion, or in some blend of the two.
The working of the spirit does not respond to labels, and is not limited to certain personality types. Obedience to Christ is primarily a matter of the heart first, and outward results second. One man's quiet tears of joy may be as heartfelt and responsive and spirit filled than another man's jumping and shouting in praise, and God knows the truth of both of them.
Thanks, Louis for your refreshing openness. This is a big topic, but I will try to be brief as possible. I have thought about this issue for some time since about 30 years ago when asked by a non-member visitor whether he could participate. Many other circumstances and situations have added to this thinking, including those baptized as adults but not members, those baptized as infants but not adult professing members, those with reduced mental capacity, etc. In addition I had to make decisions on whether to participate in non-reformed churches. Also I noted that in one reformed church only a small part of the membership actually participated in communion, and that I was restricted from participating in another particular reformed church as a visitor because I was from a different denomination.
I think profession of faith has always been an issue of formal church adult membership primarily. It sometimes happens years after someone knows they are a Christian. It is not a gateway to faith in Christ, but a commitment to local and denominational precepts. There is no reason to think that making such a profession of faith is tied to a recognition of a faith relationship to God or to the body of Christ, since if this was so, for many children, it would be done much earlier, and for some people, it should not be done until much later.
I see too often that profession of faith is not taken seriously. The elders who examine do not understand the significance, and the one who professes faith does not renounce sin in any reasonable fashion. It should be noted that simply saying you renounce sin does not prove that you really do. In the same way, professing that scripture is your guide and rule for life and for worship, is not the same as actually doing so. Members who do not renounce sin, who refuse to put on the robe of righteousness/obedience, and who think scripture is out of date, cause problems when they influence others to do the same under the presumed authority of their membership.
We generally consider those who make profession of faith as full members and able to participate in congregational meetings, voting, and eligibility for office. Then we have also in the past added in the ability to participate in communion, and baptism of their children.
I think we should separate these two items. In order to participate in communion, faith ought to be evident, but in general this should be left up to the participant with the general warning that if you do not believe and trust in Christ, that you should refrain from participating. If you believe and trust and follow, then you are considered part of the body of Christ, and thus communion is fitting, since it is participation in the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour.
If someone is participating when it is obvious that there is no repentance, no renewal, no reflection of Christ, then that is opportunity for the elders to talk and visit and witness. This opportunity is a gift from God, not to be neglected.
Membership as an adult is somewhat different, because now distinctions are being made between various confessions of faith, various assumptions about renouncing sin, and various governance assumptions. If we have a significant number of people making profession of faith who do not agree with some of the confessions, then they can easily vote in favor of not promoting infant baptism, or inviting various speakers from any denomination to preach, denying the authority of the elders, or denying the power of scripture over their lives. Membership ought to be clearer. It is not a form of acceptance by the congregation, but a form of commitment to a set of standards by the believer/member.
We ask elders to sign the form or covenant of officebearers, in order to establish what their commitment is. However, by making membership conditions relatively insignificant, there is a side effect on signing of this elder’s form such that it is also not taken so seriously, and thus we have officebearers directly contradicting their agreement both in their understanding of the confessions and scripture and in their daily walk of life. We have seen this in council rooms, congregational meetings and in the banner. If this is not taken seriously, then how can we have the temerity to suggest that it is necessary to make a formal membership profession in order to partake of communion?
A contrast was made for me in the difference between two churches (not crc) in my region, and how they handled church membership. One church had 10,000 members on their books and had seating for only 2000 people in their building and the church usually half empty. Rarely 10% of their membership would attend on a weekly basis. Another church had seating for 1500, with only 250 adult members, where attendance was usually four times the membership, and 80% full. The second includes a statement of faith, as well as a statement of conduct relevant to today’s temptations to which a member must sign agreement. One treated membership as a mystical panacea that covered their sins, while the other treated membership as a commitment with high standards. So the question for me is, which does the crc prefer to be?
We should also make clear that if membership is not contingent on following all of the proscribed confessions, articles, synodical statements, forms for baptism, installation, ordination, etc., then in which instances is there room for divergent perspectives and beliefs? For example, if there is room in the crc for members who wish to be rebaptized, or for those who prefer believer baptism, or for those who speak in tongues, then we should make this clear. If there is room for members who deny that God created man good, then perhaps we should make that clear. If there is room for members who advocate sexual immorality, then we should make that clear. The lack of clarity in a simple document on some of these high profile issues causes problems for members, for those considering membership, for elders, and for any understanding of membership, acceptance and discipline.
In my view, the potential complexities of a membership decision should not be the condition for approving or denying communion in the form of the Lord’s supper.
Alejandro, first, let me say that I think that denying the validity of infant baptism for covenant children of believers is wrong.
However, the other side of the coin is this. Our forms and theology indicates that it is wrong to baptize your children out of custom or superstition. We also believe that baptism does not save, nor is some magic key to salvation, but rather a symbol and recognition of God's grace and our repentance.
We have a problem when children are baptized superstitiously by those who do not truly believe, and who do not teach or bring up their children in the instruction of the Lord. We also have a problem when infants who were baptized are clearly living and thinking as pagans and non-believers when they become adults. I've been in a reformed PKN church in Netherlands where a child was baptized, whose parents never or rarely attended church. The pastor said he was hoping by this practice to encourage the parents to attend. This is a scandal, in spite of any "good" motives the pastor may have had. So we even have the problem in reformed churches sometimes.
The Bible is clear that not all Israel is Israel, meaning that not all who were circumcised as Israelites were truly Israel because they did not worship God, and were not obedient to God but rebelled against Him and worshipped idols. Their circumcision was of no-effect and no significance, and in fact counted against them.
If baptism is understood as an expression of covenant and God's faithfulness, then it might be useful to have an expression of that in the sacrament, joining it to committment and repentance. When an unbeliever comes to Christ, why is his previous infant baptism more significant than the lack of infant baptism of another unbeliever coming to Christ? If the Rom Cath church in latin america generally or often treats baptism as custom and superstition and magical endowment, then we might say that it is not a true baptism in any sense of the sacrament. While it may be difficult to judge every instance, we can say for certain that this often happens. Whether anabaptists have additional aversions to infant baptism is not relevant to our perspective on this. However, it is significant that part of their aversion to infant baptism is based on the hypocrisy and meaninglessness and paganism imbedded in the application of baptism in cases where true faith and repentance is non-existent. In other words, the large numbers of non-christians who have been baptized as children do not add weight to the validity of infant baptism. We do not do ecumenism any favors by falling into the same trap as the Rom Catholic church in terms of applying this sacrament. If we respect the one denomination in spite of theologic differences, we do not have grounds for not respecting other denominations in spite of theology differences.
This is a discussion worth having, because I believe it is an indicator of how we live christian lives in obedience to Christ. It is also a form of witness to those who are considering attending or joining a church community.
Posted in: I See Dead Groups
Just a question: if a group only is effective for 18-24 months, is this because it is new? Is the excitement of newness what sustains it? Can a small group mission be achieved in 24 months? How is a small group, or a large group, perceived to have purpose beyond the excitement of "newness"? In a family (which is a type of small group), it takes 16 years to raise one child. And it doesn't always seem new or even effective. Yet there is a need to continue to fulfill the purpose and vision. Is there an analogy here with a small group?
Posted in: Pastoral Care, Homosexuality and the Elder
Thanks for your reply, Neil. I agree it is important to shepherd people, not beat them with rods (pastoral, as you say). It is very important to keep in mind how Jesus associated with sinners, with the Samaritan woman, with the thief on the cross, etc., and also with pharisees who always tried to justify their actions. And we should not act in haste. Nor should we make blind rules about too much stuff. But as you say, we do need some discipline and boundaries, even when they are ill-defined or hard to practice as absolutes.
My main point is about the type of thinking we are susceptible to. As you say, Synod 73 said there was a difference between sexual attraction, and sexual action. And that is obvious.
But, my point is just because there is a difference, doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
Part of the problem is thinking that every attraction to the opposite gender is a sexual attraction, rather than a personality attraction. Some men may prefer the opposite gender in terms of company, not for sexual reasons, but for their perception of personality differences.
What is a sexual attraction for the opposite sex, anyway? Is this ever really defined? 1. Is it just an observation that they are attractive and pretty? (which could perhaps apply to anyone of either gender). 2. or an observation that they are the opposite sex and capable of mating? 3. or a very specific desire to engage in sexual activities with such a person? 4. or is it just a mindless undefinable thing?
I would say that the third option is close to lust. But if it is just based on some physical attributes or quality which is totally separated from the reality of the person, then it is an illegitimate lust which needs to be controlled. At least that is how I understand what Jesus said, when he said that if you lust in your heart after someone else other than your spouse, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
Taking that into consideration, if there is a legitimate attraction (or lust maybe) for someone you are committed to and give your life for, then there is also an illegitimate desire which falls outside of that parameter. Likely none of us is guiltless of that, but justifying that illegitimate desire seems to be the opposite of what Jesus intended. That parameter based on scripture excludes situations of adultery and fornication and homosex. It does not help us or anyone, to simply say that what you think or feel is not a problem. ("As you think, so you are".)
As far as hormone raging teenagers are concerned, it is our job not to tell them that sex is bad or sinful. It is not. It is beautiful, a gift from God. But only when properly controlled and used, in a God-blessed context, based on what God intended it for. And scripture is quite clear about that, right?
John Z
Posted in: Pastoral Care, Homosexuality and the Elder
Michael asked some very good questions, in a very polite way. I think however, Neil, that your response hints at a rather unfortunate attitude towards this problem. I sense that you are taking on a language of acceptance and excuse. So it seems to me anyway.
For example: you state, "If a person has feelings of same sex attraction, that would not mean a need to repent or be a problem to be solved..." But this is naivete, isn't it? Jesus clearly indicated that what was in our heart was as much a problem as how we lived our physical lives. These feelings are a problem, just as any feelings of covetousness, lust, hatred. They are a problem because they are counter to what God wants for us, and they are a problem when they do not allow people to live as God intended. Do they lead to condemnation? of course not, since God is a forgiving God. Each one of us is daily aware of our need for repentance and forgiveness, and our joy in grace. But are these feelings a problem? Of course they are.
These feelings are also a problem because they so often lead to an enormous motivation for justifying associated behaviours. To deny that these feelings are a problem, is simply living in denial.
What does it mean to acknowledge sexual identity, when the sexual identity is counter to what sexual identity actually signifies? In this regard unclear language and intention about this issue will always lead to confusion and ambiguity.
If there is not an acknowledgement of the problem then it is fallacious to call the approach a "generous spirit". How do we be generous to those who do not have problem....
I agree that we should use good judgement about calling people to repentance. We also don't need to hammer nails into wood, when the nails are already buried in it.
It is difficult to use the gifts of those who deny their sin, or who justify their sins, and in the same way it is difficult to use or appreciate the gifts of those who claim that homosex is not detested by God in the same way that adultery is.
Posted in: From Profession of Faith to Multiple Milestones of Faith
This is an excellent article by John Witvliet. I can't remember reading it in 2010, but if I did, it has taken on new significance for me. Bottom line on this issue is that honesty must prevail. Professions must be honest and sincere, and a formal membership profession using the forms and agreeing to the confessions and being examined on lifestyle must be sincere and honest. It should not be a half-honest profession which skips over or ignores issues or problems or lack of understanding. If children or young people or new christians are not ready for this, then an alternate simpler profession ought to be used, preferably in their own words which signifies their faith in Christ, even while not indicating a "professing membership" in the crc. How I see it anyway.
Posted in: Some Thoughts About Pastoring the Pastor
" At the level of a council, there are a number of things which can be especially helpful:• View the pastor as a partner in ministry; with the elders, a shepherding team..." This comment made above is particularly relevant. However, the suggestions that followed this comment do not seem to follow from it, since they emphasize how the pastor is different, not how he partners. The heavy reliance on the pastor, such as for preaching on christmas day for 25 years, for example, is caused mostly because of the inability of the partners to carry on the task. In order to have true partnership, the elders should be able to be a true shepherding team, and carry on the task if the pastor has personal desires and obligations. It is for this reason, as well as for enhancing the partnership, that pastors should be training the elders, and elders should be training each other. While the primary role of the pastor is understood, and the function of primary caregiver is known, it should never be thought that others are unable or unwilling to carry out the tasks, roles and responsibilities. This alone would relieve a great deal of stress and pressure from the pastor, and would encourage growth of the entire church.
Posted in: We Are What We Sing: Searching for a Balanced Diet
(Article is too long.) But music is the expression of the soul; most christian music is prayer. The soul's sincere desire, Uttered and expressed. Prayer of praise or supplication.
We have our younger children, age10-12, playing piano during the offeratory, or accompanying a few songs during the singing. They get better and more confident every week and every month.
At home we sing 2 to 4 songs (ocassionally more) after supper every day, sometimes after lunch too. We sing most of them by heart; and then we learn a few more. This makes a difference for the singing at church too, so that the kids know some or many of the songs.
In church service, we sing about ten songs most of the time, with some children's songs, some choruses, some hymns, some vineyard stuff. Sometimes we ask for favorites. The variety is enriching, and helps all ages to emote their worship thru music. Today, "Blessed be Your Name" was a favorite.
Posted in: Who Is in Charge of an Ordination Service?
I'm not sure about the consistency of "Council is at liberty...", and the clause, "councils should not do this without the senior pastor's full consent..." How is this liberty? when constrained by such a condition?
Posted in: Membership Transfer From Protestant Reformed Church?
It would be fantastic if every new member was encouraged to make a brief public testimony of their faith, rather than simply answering three formula questions. The questions are okay, but just as faith without works is dead, so agreement without spirit is dead. These testimonies can often have a greater impact on the life of the people in the pews than the greatest sermon ever preached.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Appreciating John Caicedo's comments from my perspective of having spent two weeks in Mexico at a non-CRC mission there (Cuernevaca), his comments make sense. The mystic power of a sacrament by itself to save or convert or sanctify should never be promoted. So while infant baptism of a child by believing parents should be respected in the covenant sense, it should probably not be able to prevent the new believer's response in terms of "believe and be baptized", especially when the infant sacrament is applied in a fashion that approaches a magical and pagan fashion.
I've felt for some time now that the baptists' denial of baptism for infants is what is non-scriptural, and a problem for disputable matters. But perhaps the reformed's unwillingness to discern inappropriately-applied infant baptism is also non-scriptural.
This relates also to the pure administration of sacraments with regard to lord's supper communion. While I have little or no difficulty celebrating lord's supper with christians in other denominations, in spite of not agreeing with them on every single item of theology or practice, I have great difficulty with celebrating lord's supper with those who ascribe mystical and magical properties to the elements of bread and wine which Jesus never intended to do.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
I agree with Jeff on the use of 'conservative" vs whatever. It is overused in so many contexts that it is virtually meaningless unless specifically defined, in which case it is better just to not use the term. Scriptural vs unscriptural is generally a better context. Some conservatives are very scriptural, while other conservatives are very unscriptural - so it is not helpful to use the term 'conservative', since the issue is not about being traditional, nor conservative, but rather about honoring God and responding to God completely, whether in a traditional or charismatic fashion, or in some blend of the two.
The working of the spirit does not respond to labels, and is not limited to certain personality types. Obedience to Christ is primarily a matter of the heart first, and outward results second. One man's quiet tears of joy may be as heartfelt and responsive and spirit filled than another man's jumping and shouting in praise, and God knows the truth of both of them.
Posted in: How Should Older Baptized Members Come to the Lord's Table?
Thanks, Louis for your refreshing openness. This is a big topic, but I will try to be brief as possible. I have thought about this issue for some time since about 30 years ago when asked by a non-member visitor whether he could participate. Many other circumstances and situations have added to this thinking, including those baptized as adults but not members, those baptized as infants but not adult professing members, those with reduced mental capacity, etc. In addition I had to make decisions on whether to participate in non-reformed churches. Also I noted that in one reformed church only a small part of the membership actually participated in communion, and that I was restricted from participating in another particular reformed church as a visitor because I was from a different denomination.
I think profession of faith has always been an issue of formal church adult membership primarily. It sometimes happens years after someone knows they are a Christian. It is not a gateway to faith in Christ, but a commitment to local and denominational precepts. There is no reason to think that making such a profession of faith is tied to a recognition of a faith relationship to God or to the body of Christ, since if this was so, for many children, it would be done much earlier, and for some people, it should not be done until much later.
I see too often that profession of faith is not taken seriously. The elders who examine do not understand the significance, and the one who professes faith does not renounce sin in any reasonable fashion. It should be noted that simply saying you renounce sin does not prove that you really do. In the same way, professing that scripture is your guide and rule for life and for worship, is not the same as actually doing so. Members who do not renounce sin, who refuse to put on the robe of righteousness/obedience, and who think scripture is out of date, cause problems when they influence others to do the same under the presumed authority of their membership.
We generally consider those who make profession of faith as full members and able to participate in congregational meetings, voting, and eligibility for office. Then we have also in the past added in the ability to participate in communion, and baptism of their children.
I think we should separate these two items. In order to participate in communion, faith ought to be evident, but in general this should be left up to the participant with the general warning that if you do not believe and trust in Christ, that you should refrain from participating. If you believe and trust and follow, then you are considered part of the body of Christ, and thus communion is fitting, since it is participation in the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour.
If someone is participating when it is obvious that there is no repentance, no renewal, no reflection of Christ, then that is opportunity for the elders to talk and visit and witness. This opportunity is a gift from God, not to be neglected.
Membership as an adult is somewhat different, because now distinctions are being made between various confessions of faith, various assumptions about renouncing sin, and various governance assumptions. If we have a significant number of people making profession of faith who do not agree with some of the confessions, then they can easily vote in favor of not promoting infant baptism, or inviting various speakers from any denomination to preach, denying the authority of the elders, or denying the power of scripture over their lives. Membership ought to be clearer. It is not a form of acceptance by the congregation, but a form of commitment to a set of standards by the believer/member.
We ask elders to sign the form or covenant of officebearers, in order to establish what their commitment is. However, by making membership conditions relatively insignificant, there is a side effect on signing of this elder’s form such that it is also not taken so seriously, and thus we have officebearers directly contradicting their agreement both in their understanding of the confessions and scripture and in their daily walk of life. We have seen this in council rooms, congregational meetings and in the banner. If this is not taken seriously, then how can we have the temerity to suggest that it is necessary to make a formal membership profession in order to partake of communion?
A contrast was made for me in the difference between two churches (not crc) in my region, and how they handled church membership. One church had 10,000 members on their books and had seating for only 2000 people in their building and the church usually half empty. Rarely 10% of their membership would attend on a weekly basis. Another church had seating for 1500, with only 250 adult members, where attendance was usually four times the membership, and 80% full. The second includes a statement of faith, as well as a statement of conduct relevant to today’s temptations to which a member must sign agreement. One treated membership as a mystical panacea that covered their sins, while the other treated membership as a commitment with high standards. So the question for me is, which does the crc prefer to be?
We should also make clear that if membership is not contingent on following all of the proscribed confessions, articles, synodical statements, forms for baptism, installation, ordination, etc., then in which instances is there room for divergent perspectives and beliefs? For example, if there is room in the crc for members who wish to be rebaptized, or for those who prefer believer baptism, or for those who speak in tongues, then we should make this clear. If there is room for members who deny that God created man good, then perhaps we should make that clear. If there is room for members who advocate sexual immorality, then we should make that clear. The lack of clarity in a simple document on some of these high profile issues causes problems for members, for those considering membership, for elders, and for any understanding of membership, acceptance and discipline.
In my view, the potential complexities of a membership decision should not be the condition for approving or denying communion in the form of the Lord’s supper.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Alejandro, first, let me say that I think that denying the validity of infant baptism for covenant children of believers is wrong.
However, the other side of the coin is this. Our forms and theology indicates that it is wrong to baptize your children out of custom or superstition. We also believe that baptism does not save, nor is some magic key to salvation, but rather a symbol and recognition of God's grace and our repentance.
We have a problem when children are baptized superstitiously by those who do not truly believe, and who do not teach or bring up their children in the instruction of the Lord. We also have a problem when infants who were baptized are clearly living and thinking as pagans and non-believers when they become adults. I've been in a reformed PKN church in Netherlands where a child was baptized, whose parents never or rarely attended church. The pastor said he was hoping by this practice to encourage the parents to attend. This is a scandal, in spite of any "good" motives the pastor may have had. So we even have the problem in reformed churches sometimes.
The Bible is clear that not all Israel is Israel, meaning that not all who were circumcised as Israelites were truly Israel because they did not worship God, and were not obedient to God but rebelled against Him and worshipped idols. Their circumcision was of no-effect and no significance, and in fact counted against them.
If baptism is understood as an expression of covenant and God's faithfulness, then it might be useful to have an expression of that in the sacrament, joining it to committment and repentance. When an unbeliever comes to Christ, why is his previous infant baptism more significant than the lack of infant baptism of another unbeliever coming to Christ? If the Rom Cath church in latin america generally or often treats baptism as custom and superstition and magical endowment, then we might say that it is not a true baptism in any sense of the sacrament. While it may be difficult to judge every instance, we can say for certain that this often happens. Whether anabaptists have additional aversions to infant baptism is not relevant to our perspective on this. However, it is significant that part of their aversion to infant baptism is based on the hypocrisy and meaninglessness and paganism imbedded in the application of baptism in cases where true faith and repentance is non-existent. In other words, the large numbers of non-christians who have been baptized as children do not add weight to the validity of infant baptism. We do not do ecumenism any favors by falling into the same trap as the Rom Catholic church in terms of applying this sacrament. If we respect the one denomination in spite of theologic differences, we do not have grounds for not respecting other denominations in spite of theology differences.
This is a discussion worth having, because I believe it is an indicator of how we live christian lives in obedience to Christ. It is also a form of witness to those who are considering attending or joining a church community.