Is a graceless Christ still Christ? Christ is full-bodied, perfectly obedient, complete sacrifice, true God and true man. Preaching grace without obedience is not preaching Christ. Preaching obedience without grace is not preaching Christ.
Different methods of preaching (the "how") are appropriate for different audiences, different circumstances, different times. And they are effective in appropriate circumstances. We may say sometimes, "well, I heard the word.. but I didn't like it... he made it sound pretty unattractive..." or, we may say sometimes the converse, "what a speaker! what stories! what alliteration and humor!... but I had a hard time seeing Jesus in the message..." or, "What a gospel! What a Christ! What a life to live! and what a believer who presented it!! I pray God I would die for it!"
Bombast (Depending on how you define "bombast".) may have been appropriate for some of the prophets, ie. Jeremiah, Elijah, Paul, at some times. But underneath it, if you look for it, is the grace to accept the repentance which is called for. We live in an age of "process" and method (the how instead of the what), and often content and substance suffers as a result.
Paul said he tried to be all things to all men, in order to bring them to Christ. Some people find a circuitous subtle approach more appealing, and others find a straight-up blunt approach more appealing. And sometimes we don't know which will be more effective, since the Lord works in mysterious ways. In any case, the essential content and substance of the Word should not suffer, because otherwise the method won't matter. And it all needs to be undergirded with faith and trust in God and his ways.
Back to preaching the word. There seems to be a formal aspect to it, and an informal aspect. We think of preaching the word formally on sundays in a church group setting. But we can also think of the preaching that goes on between members of the body of christ, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries wherever they might be, or the preaching of parents to their children, (and occassionally of children to their parents...).
I think of this: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Shucks, I forgot about Jonah. I bet he was bombastic. Didn't even want to preach to the people of Nineveh. Hoped they wouldn't listen. Can you imagine??? but God worked his miracle, and they repented. Probably a subtle, friendly, apologetic preacher would not have worked; it was not what God wanted. We need to over methodolize less, and trust God more.
Ortho (right) pathy (suffering) affections, sickness. But in this context, we might call it a right attitude of the heart. In a sense though, what we really mean is being born again.... which means having a new heart, a heart which belongs to God, a heart which desires to do God's will, to follow Him, to love Him, to love our neighbor.
Orthodoxy - right beliefs ... reformers often seem to indicate this comes first.
Orthopraxis - right living .... George Macdonald the author and CS Lewis hero hinted that sometimes this comes first.
Jeff, the language... is it conversion, or sanctification?... I've thought that conversion is rather quick, although it may be the result of lots of conversation, experience, bible reading, witnessing. Sanctification, on the other hand is a lifelong process which is the result of the conversion; yet, we are saints already, sanctified completely by Jesus Christ. But even sanctified, our desire is to fight against the sinful desires within us. So we are a bit of a walking contradiction; thanks be to God, that Christ already has the victory!!
Then our desire is that our orthodoxy confirms and guides our understanding of our Lord and Saviour, and guides our orthopraxy, and is in sync with our orthopathy.
A mere orthopraxis is not the same as the orthopathy, the real heart desire to follow the Lord's will rather than our own. Without orthopathy (a true heart), the fruits of the spirit will be lacking. True obedience is really an obedience of the heart, not just of the outward appearance. Several times God said to the Israelites that He didn't want their sacrifices (we might say their orthodoxy), since their hearts (orthopathy) were not right. On the other hand, if our hearts are right, won't we then seek to do what is pleasing to God, and for the benefit of his people, his body, his gospel?
We may get into depth about what orthopathy is. Affections, emotions, feelings, attitude. I personally think it is attitude, since our affections and emotions might mislead us, and we might even misuse them, unless they are guided by a reborn attitude, fruits of the Spirit, and tested by scripture.
Although it is true that participating in communion ought to be a sign of faith, and not a sign of peer approval, the direct connection to making a formal membership profession of faith in a particular denomination is not required by scripture. Of course we would ask and expect only believers to participate. On the other hand, if someone says that they have not read the belgic confession and thus cannot yet make profession of faith in any reformed church, or they agree with most of the confessions, but not with the mandatory requirement for infant baptism and thus cannot in good conscience say that they agree entirely with what is taught on that point, should they therefore be denied participation in the body of Christ? Did Jesus do such? Would we deny christians from ORC, or from NRC, or from Baptist or Pentacostal, or Alliance churches to participate in this remembrance of the body of Christ? even though they have not entered the hallowed "gateway"? If the crc finds a way to distinguish between profession of faith, and a membership committment, then perhaps you might have a point. The two are not the same.
Last night we were at an event which celebrated "friends" who are people with special needs, four in wheel chairs, and others with severe communication problems, cerebral palsy, brain damage, etc. They all participated in putting on a Palm Sunday program, along with their mentors, who are their friends. At the beginning, one individual not necessarily special needs, indicated he had been born again 15 years ago, but had been walking with one foot in Christ's will and one foot in the "world". Six months ago, he had a renewal, which I would call a sanctification awakening. And he was pretty happy! It changed his perspective! He now believed in healing. In the overwhelming work of the Spirit!
Thanks for your reply/comment. First I would respond that in my experience it is indeed realistic that some children would examine the confessions and practices of the church, and begin to make statements about which they agree with, and which they do not. These are usually children who are very committed and who examine scripture and love the Lord. These children can range in age from 14 to 30. They came to the faith from the time they could speak and read, and as we confess in our creeds, they belonged to God from before birth, as evidenced in their daily talk and walk.
Whether we agree with their confessional or practical disagreements or not, on what basis do we deny them communion? They believe in Jesus as their divine Lord and Saviour, and follow Him in their daily lives. What if the clause in profession of faith " “to confess the faith of the church as taught in the creeds and confessions of this church.”" causes them objections? Or from the 1976 form, "Do you believe....that the confessions of this church faithfully reflect this revelation?" What do we do then with temporary or permanent visitors from other places, or from other churches(with different doctrines)? Should communion be tied to membership?
I have participated, as have my children, in communion in non-crc churches. These include Alliance, Baptist, Church of God, Brethern, Luthern, and various community churches. I do not believe that communion belongs to a denomination. Only that communion ought to be practiced in a way to treat each other as the body of Christ, mostly by not being selfish (I Cor.14), since Christ was not selfish. I have also seen some non-members exhibit more christian leadership and committment than some "professing" members. Would we then deny the one and admit the other?
This is different than I thought when I was a child, but it is a real struggle. When we see people making profession of faith who are not renouncing sin, how honest are we being? The 2013 form and the 1989 form seem to place less emphasis on the confessions, but is there no expectation of membership with the profession of faith any longer? Yet it seems to be a gateway to membership, voting, and eligibility for teaching and leadership, yes? Which would at a minimum imply some level of agreement with confessions and practices? And would imply some agreement on christian living? Some other denominations separate this entirely, by making faith and communion separate from membership. Membership then implies a whole 'nother level of committment. Perhaps we could learn from this?
I appreciate the attempt to accommodate various less significant differences, within the ability to participate in communion. I agree with that. But what that leads to then is a problem with membership and committment. I have seen difficulties with members not renouncing sin, or with members saying the Bible is out of date, or with making huge scriptural inaccuracies such as Mary being raped when conceived with Jesus, or Paul being homosexual. Not to speak of those who question whether God really created us good. I have difficulty in communion with people who do that, but even more importantly, such people are deemed qualified for leadership simply because they are members by virtue of their profession of faith? How do we practice the Lord's Supper as the Lord himself did and the epistles instruct us, while at the same time making membership and leadership truly accountable? In the past these two things have been so closely tied together, but are they still?
Sorry for my questions, and perhaps they are not easily answered. The baggage of our history lingers on.
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.
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.
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.
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: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Is a graceless Christ still Christ? Christ is full-bodied, perfectly obedient, complete sacrifice, true God and true man. Preaching grace without obedience is not preaching Christ. Preaching obedience without grace is not preaching Christ.
Different methods of preaching (the "how") are appropriate for different audiences, different circumstances, different times. And they are effective in appropriate circumstances. We may say sometimes, "well, I heard the word.. but I didn't like it... he made it sound pretty unattractive..." or, we may say sometimes the converse, "what a speaker! what stories! what alliteration and humor!... but I had a hard time seeing Jesus in the message..." or, "What a gospel! What a Christ! What a life to live! and what a believer who presented it!! I pray God I would die for it!"
Bombast (Depending on how you define "bombast".) may have been appropriate for some of the prophets, ie. Jeremiah, Elijah, Paul, at some times. But underneath it, if you look for it, is the grace to accept the repentance which is called for. We live in an age of "process" and method (the how instead of the what), and often content and substance suffers as a result.
Paul said he tried to be all things to all men, in order to bring them to Christ. Some people find a circuitous subtle approach more appealing, and others find a straight-up blunt approach more appealing. And sometimes we don't know which will be more effective, since the Lord works in mysterious ways. In any case, the essential content and substance of the Word should not suffer, because otherwise the method won't matter. And it all needs to be undergirded with faith and trust in God and his ways.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Back to preaching the word. There seems to be a formal aspect to it, and an informal aspect. We think of preaching the word formally on sundays in a church group setting. But we can also think of the preaching that goes on between members of the body of christ, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries wherever they might be, or the preaching of parents to their children, (and occassionally of children to their parents...).
I think of this: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
"
Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:9
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:11
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
Acts 8:4
Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Shucks, I forgot about Jonah. I bet he was bombastic. Didn't even want to preach to the people of Nineveh. Hoped they wouldn't listen. Can you imagine??? but God worked his miracle, and they repented. Probably a subtle, friendly, apologetic preacher would not have worked; it was not what God wanted. We need to over methodolize less, and trust God more.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Ortho (right) pathy (suffering) affections, sickness. But in this context, we might call it a right attitude of the heart. In a sense though, what we really mean is being born again.... which means having a new heart, a heart which belongs to God, a heart which desires to do God's will, to follow Him, to love Him, to love our neighbor.
Orthodoxy - right beliefs ... reformers often seem to indicate this comes first.
Orthopraxis - right living .... George Macdonald the author and CS Lewis hero hinted that sometimes this comes first.
Orthopathy - right attitude. .... born again?
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Jeff, the language... is it conversion, or sanctification?... I've thought that conversion is rather quick, although it may be the result of lots of conversation, experience, bible reading, witnessing. Sanctification, on the other hand is a lifelong process which is the result of the conversion; yet, we are saints already, sanctified completely by Jesus Christ. But even sanctified, our desire is to fight against the sinful desires within us. So we are a bit of a walking contradiction; thanks be to God, that Christ already has the victory!!
Then our desire is that our orthodoxy confirms and guides our understanding of our Lord and Saviour, and guides our orthopraxy, and is in sync with our orthopathy.
A mere orthopraxis is not the same as the orthopathy, the real heart desire to follow the Lord's will rather than our own. Without orthopathy (a true heart), the fruits of the spirit will be lacking. True obedience is really an obedience of the heart, not just of the outward appearance. Several times God said to the Israelites that He didn't want their sacrifices (we might say their orthodoxy), since their hearts (orthopathy) were not right. On the other hand, if our hearts are right, won't we then seek to do what is pleasing to God, and for the benefit of his people, his body, his gospel?
We may get into depth about what orthopathy is. Affections, emotions, feelings, attitude. I personally think it is attitude, since our affections and emotions might mislead us, and we might even misuse them, unless they are guided by a reborn attitude, fruits of the Spirit, and tested by scripture.
Posted in: How Should Older Baptized Members Come to the Lord's Table?
Although it is true that participating in communion ought to be a sign of faith, and not a sign of peer approval, the direct connection to making a formal membership profession of faith in a particular denomination is not required by scripture. Of course we would ask and expect only believers to participate. On the other hand, if someone says that they have not read the belgic confession and thus cannot yet make profession of faith in any reformed church, or they agree with most of the confessions, but not with the mandatory requirement for infant baptism and thus cannot in good conscience say that they agree entirely with what is taught on that point, should they therefore be denied participation in the body of Christ? Did Jesus do such? Would we deny christians from ORC, or from NRC, or from Baptist or Pentacostal, or Alliance churches to participate in this remembrance of the body of Christ? even though they have not entered the hallowed "gateway"? If the crc finds a way to distinguish between profession of faith, and a membership committment, then perhaps you might have a point. The two are not the same.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Last night we were at an event which celebrated "friends" who are people with special needs, four in wheel chairs, and others with severe communication problems, cerebral palsy, brain damage, etc. They all participated in putting on a Palm Sunday program, along with their mentors, who are their friends. At the beginning, one individual not necessarily special needs, indicated he had been born again 15 years ago, but had been walking with one foot in Christ's will and one foot in the "world". Six months ago, he had a renewal, which I would call a sanctification awakening. And he was pretty happy! It changed his perspective! He now believed in healing. In the overwhelming work of the Spirit!
Posted in: How Should Older Baptized Members Come to the Lord's Table?
Thanks for your reply/comment. First I would respond that in my experience it is indeed realistic that some children would examine the confessions and practices of the church, and begin to make statements about which they agree with, and which they do not. These are usually children who are very committed and who examine scripture and love the Lord. These children can range in age from 14 to 30. They came to the faith from the time they could speak and read, and as we confess in our creeds, they belonged to God from before birth, as evidenced in their daily talk and walk.
Whether we agree with their confessional or practical disagreements or not, on what basis do we deny them communion? They believe in Jesus as their divine Lord and Saviour, and follow Him in their daily lives. What if the clause in profession of faith " “to confess the faith of the church as taught in the creeds and confessions of this church.”" causes them objections? Or from the 1976 form, "Do you believe....that the confessions of this church faithfully reflect this revelation?" What do we do then with temporary or permanent visitors from other places, or from other churches(with different doctrines)? Should communion be tied to membership?
I have participated, as have my children, in communion in non-crc churches. These include Alliance, Baptist, Church of God, Brethern, Luthern, and various community churches. I do not believe that communion belongs to a denomination. Only that communion ought to be practiced in a way to treat each other as the body of Christ, mostly by not being selfish (I Cor.14), since Christ was not selfish. I have also seen some non-members exhibit more christian leadership and committment than some "professing" members. Would we then deny the one and admit the other?
This is different than I thought when I was a child, but it is a real struggle. When we see people making profession of faith who are not renouncing sin, how honest are we being? The 2013 form and the 1989 form seem to place less emphasis on the confessions, but is there no expectation of membership with the profession of faith any longer? Yet it seems to be a gateway to membership, voting, and eligibility for teaching and leadership, yes? Which would at a minimum imply some level of agreement with confessions and practices? And would imply some agreement on christian living? Some other denominations separate this entirely, by making faith and communion separate from membership. Membership then implies a whole 'nother level of committment. Perhaps we could learn from this?
I appreciate the attempt to accommodate various less significant differences, within the ability to participate in communion. I agree with that. But what that leads to then is a problem with membership and committment. I have seen difficulties with members not renouncing sin, or with members saying the Bible is out of date, or with making huge scriptural inaccuracies such as Mary being raped when conceived with Jesus, or Paul being homosexual. Not to speak of those who question whether God really created us good. I have difficulty in communion with people who do that, but even more importantly, such people are deemed qualified for leadership simply because they are members by virtue of their profession of faith? How do we practice the Lord's Supper as the Lord himself did and the epistles instruct us, while at the same time making membership and leadership truly accountable? In the past these two things have been so closely tied together, but are they still?
Sorry for my questions, and perhaps they are not easily answered. The baggage of our history lingers on.
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: 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: 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: 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.