Hi Paul! Thanks for your question and for engaging this conversation. Your question about baptism is partially addressed in the report submitted to synod this year from the Team to Clarify Distinctions in Synodical Pronouncements:
Our confessions clearly teach the appropriateness of infant baptism (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74; Belgic Confession, Art. 34). Officebearers should be expected to hold this teaching “without reservation” and to “promote and defend” this doctrine in their ministries. However, while officebearers should be expected to defend infant baptism as the most faithful interpretation of Scripture, this does not require that they completely deny that biblical arguments can be made for credobaptism (Church Order Supplement, Art. 5, A, 2). Agenda for Synod 2025, p. 327-328
In other words, while it is clear that officebearers cannot deny that Scripture teaches infant baptism, the point at which an “emotional struggle” with a particular doctrine becomes a “settled conviction contrary to” that doctrine (the phrases are from the Church Order Supplement, Art. 5-a) is a matter for individual officebearers to discern in communication with their fellow council members - and, if necessary, with the additional input of the classis.
To respond to your examples: it would seem unusual for a CRC church to be willing to ordain an officebearer who, though not actively advocating against infant baptism, appeared by his public actions to not be willing to support our doctrines. But questions about the "fringe cases" would be best addressed by the church assemblies - the council and the local classis - who are in the best position to assess the particulars of a local situation, provided they keep in mind our shared doctrinal commitments such as (in this case) our understanding of God's covenant action reflected in baptism. Any local discussions would also need to keep in mind our past consideration of these questions as a denomination, which would inform a decision about whether or not a council could disqualify (for example) someone who didn't subscribe to Pauline authorship of Hebrews (on that, see Acts of Synod 1961, p. 88).
These are good questions, and I’d be happy to follow up more individually if you’d like ([email protected]).
Thanks, Art, for this question. The CRC has no required pattern for inviting visitors to participate in the Lord's Supper but leaves the oversight of the sacrament to the elders of the local church "in a manner conducive to building up the body of Christ and in keeping with the teachings of God's Word" (Church Order Article 60). In his Church Order Commentary on that article, Dr. Henry DeMoor lists half a dozen different ways that he had experienced the supervision of the Lord's table in CRC congregations, ranging from a pre-service conversation with guests to no announcement at all.
From a theological standpoint, we believe that the Lord's Supper is for those who trust that their sins are covered by the death of Christ, not for unbelievers (see Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 81-82). Thus many CRCs have utilized some kind of public announcement that makes this understanding clear; in many cases, though, the elders then leave it to the conscience of any visitors whether or not to celebrate communion.
Many CRC congregations today do not require baptized children to make profession of faith prior to being welcomed to the Lord's Supper, so it should not be assumed that all who participate in the sacrament are professing members. However, these baptized members are still expected to participate "under the supervision of the elders" (Church Order Article 59-a).
For more information on the CRC's understanding of the Lord's Supper, you might also check out the links at this page.
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Hi Paul! Thanks for your question and for engaging this conversation. Your question about baptism is partially addressed in the report submitted to synod this year from the Team to Clarify Distinctions in Synodical Pronouncements:
Our confessions clearly teach the appropriateness of infant baptism (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74; Belgic Confession, Art. 34). Officebearers should be expected to hold this teaching “without reservation” and to “promote and defend” this doctrine in their ministries. However, while officebearers should be expected to defend infant baptism as the most faithful interpretation of Scripture, this does not require that they completely deny that biblical arguments can be made for credobaptism (Church Order Supplement, Art. 5, A, 2). Agenda for Synod 2025, p. 327-328
In other words, while it is clear that officebearers cannot deny that Scripture teaches infant baptism, the point at which an “emotional struggle” with a particular doctrine becomes a “settled conviction contrary to” that doctrine (the phrases are from the Church Order Supplement, Art. 5-a) is a matter for individual officebearers to discern in communication with their fellow council members - and, if necessary, with the additional input of the classis.
To respond to your examples: it would seem unusual for a CRC church to be willing to ordain an officebearer who, though not actively advocating against infant baptism, appeared by his public actions to not be willing to support our doctrines. But questions about the "fringe cases" would be best addressed by the church assemblies - the council and the local classis - who are in the best position to assess the particulars of a local situation, provided they keep in mind our shared doctrinal commitments such as (in this case) our understanding of God's covenant action reflected in baptism. Any local discussions would also need to keep in mind our past consideration of these questions as a denomination, which would inform a decision about whether or not a council could disqualify (for example) someone who didn't subscribe to Pauline authorship of Hebrews (on that, see Acts of Synod 1961, p. 88).
These are good questions, and I’d be happy to follow up more individually if you’d like ([email protected]).
Posted in: Can Only Confessing Members Participate in the Lord's Supper?
Thanks, Art, for this question. The CRC has no required pattern for inviting visitors to participate in the Lord's Supper but leaves the oversight of the sacrament to the elders of the local church "in a manner conducive to building up the body of Christ and in keeping with the teachings of God's Word" (Church Order Article 60). In his Church Order Commentary on that article, Dr. Henry DeMoor lists half a dozen different ways that he had experienced the supervision of the Lord's table in CRC congregations, ranging from a pre-service conversation with guests to no announcement at all.
From a theological standpoint, we believe that the Lord's Supper is for those who trust that their sins are covered by the death of Christ, not for unbelievers (see Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 81-82). Thus many CRCs have utilized some kind of public announcement that makes this understanding clear; in many cases, though, the elders then leave it to the conscience of any visitors whether or not to celebrate communion.
Many CRC congregations today do not require baptized children to make profession of faith prior to being welcomed to the Lord's Supper, so it should not be assumed that all who participate in the sacrament are professing members. However, these baptized members are still expected to participate "under the supervision of the elders" (Church Order Article 59-a).
For more information on the CRC's understanding of the Lord's Supper, you might also check out the links at this page.