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.
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.
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.
Communal worship is different than individual.... I like almost everything, in its context, and in a good proportion. I like clapping with some songs, although I tend not to do it myself-I don't mind if others do it, but clapping would often be better if people learned to clap on the off-beat so that we can still hear the words of the songs. I don't mind people raising their hands, and I don't mind people assenting to certain statements and prayers with an "Amen" or clapping of praise agreement, but I have also sometimes found it distracting, and sometimes disturbing or removing the train of thought. When you get more used to it, it is less distracting. I love the various instruments, but sometimes the brass drowns out the words too much, and even sometimes drums and electric guitars are too loud, and thus destroy the worship and the message of the song. These are mere outward things, and sometimes the Spirit simply moves people in ways they cannot really control, but in other situations these outward vibrant actions and sounds simply become part of the cultural norm of a church worship, at times better, and at times worse than a more reserved quiet intense participation.
When clapping, and dancing, and bands, and "Amens" become part of the normal church culture, will they retain the joy and purpose they originally had?
As you hinted, reverence is also important... how we maintain a joyful, exhuberant, vibrant reverence.... witness to God, not first of all to ourselves.... God gave us His Spirit, and our emotional capacity... which should witness to God, to his grace, to his commands, to his awesomeness. Sometimes that means to let go, other times to hold back.
We should not limit what God does not limit.
One person's joy is sometimes another person's sorrow.... One person rejoices in a new birth, which reminds the next person of a recent death and loss....
Consider also family worship time as a time to "let go"! A time when there will be less conflict of emotions, and more control of distractions... more opportunity to demonstrate joy and sorrow.
Is there a place in worship for destroying the "four hundred prophets of Baal"? (as elijah did?)
Prayer may be the best teaching moment of the whole class. If you think you are squeezing prayer in, that will send a subliminal message about the importance of prayer. So I would suggest that prayer is as much of a priority as anything, and therefore the rest of the class can fit around the prayer. Don't squeeze in the prayer; squeeze in the rest.
Lou, in some way, I am finding your comment somewhat offensive. Just so you know. I am curious as to what is a generic evangelical church compared to non-generic? I have also always placed the crc within the evangelical camp in terms of its emphasis on missions and the significance of repentance and faith. I know that you are probably using different nomenclature or categories, but I find it offensive to think that the crc is not evangelical in its attitude towards unbelievers. I also find it offensive that we would put more energy into accomodating erroneous catholic beliefs about baptism than we do for evangelical beliefs about baptism. In spite of the fact they deny infant baptism (which I also find sad), I often find a closer synergy of theology with some of them than with the romcatholic theology and romcath practice. You also ought to be aware of what is called the "Reformed Baptist" camp, in terms of understanding so-called "generic evangelicalism".
Second, you are taking for granted that anti-catholic attitudes should be overcome, yet seem to be displaying an anti-evangelical attitude yourself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the impression you are leaving with me.
This is ironic in the sense that during the reformation in Europe, the RomCatholics would persecute the protestants, and then the protestant state churches would persecute the anabaptists. Pray that that attitude has died several centuries ago.
Generally agree, but interesting that the Liberal (opposition) leader in Canada has recently said he would not permit candidates who disagreed with abortion rights, which it would seem is a moral issue. In any case, would not a common sense approach be that generally delegates should be able to participate and be persuaded by discussion at the assembley, while in certain instances where a tremendous amount of discussion has already ocurred, the council may feel obligated to bind their delegates to a particular position, especially if they have put in an overture, or if their perception of an issue is such that they are concerned that delegates might be persuaded in the moment and come to regret it later?
Alejandro, the form for baptism on Hymnal page 958 in the address to the parents, first paragraph, clearly says this: "We must therefore, use the sacrament for the purpose that God intended and not out of custom or superstition..." In the third point there it also says, "Do you promise to do all you can to teach these children, and to have them taught, this doctrine of salvation?"
Second, I agree that the significance of baptism does not depend on the character of the elder who baptizes, nor on the personal purity of the parents. But its significance does depend on obedience of believers, since it is supposed to be an act of obedience by believers in God's covenant . God said a number of times in the old testament that he did not want the sacrifices of Israel, even though He himself had commanded these sacrifices. God denied the significance of these sacrifices because they were done in disobedience, they had become superstitious rituals rather than acts of worship. Baptism is a form of worship and obedience. If it is done in disobedience, what should we attribute to it? If it is done by unbelievers, or done in the form similar to believing in four leaf clovers or superstitiously not walking under a ladder, what should we attribute to it?
As far as differences between North American and South American romCatholicism, or that in Indonesia, or southern europe vs northern europe, that is a much more complicated topic, which I will not address now. Other than to say that to some degree I agree with you, but yet I leave that judgement to those who have more experience. I myself have had many conversations with a former romcath converted to reformed faith here in north america, and she is more insistent that the Rom Cath church is idolatrous than I would tend to be. I have been in a Rom Cath church in Cuernevaca, and seen a couple in Mexico City, and talked to converts there, as well as having spent an hour talking to a retired RomCath priest from Ontario who enlightened me about a number of attitudes with their hierarchy. And I know a number of RomCath in our town, finding them generally pleasant, and some of them very committed and likeable and sincere.
I believe that we should not condemn missionaries nor preachers who pastorally understand why former RCs would want to break all ties with any baptism performed in such a church environment. This might apply not only to RCs but also potentially to some episcopalian situations or united church situations. As I mentioned before, I once attended a service in the Netherlands in a reformed church where the pastor baptized a child whose parents never attend church. Now if that child grows up as a pagan, which he is likely to do (although God can work marvelous exceptions), and then the child when he is 35 years old, becomes converted and a Christian, then it is possible that his former baptism by non-practising christians may leave him quite cold and disillusioned. We can make absolutes about baptism being once for all and only once, but it will be undeniable that his baptism had not been done in obedience, but rather merely as a peace offering to grandparents or a purchase into "respectability". God does not delight in such disobedience.
I will address your other points in a second post.
Alejandro, let me say I appreciate your earnestness and your "contending for the faith" In regards to your point 3: I have said before that during the reformation, the RomCatholics persecuted the protestants, and the protestants persecuted other protestants, in particular the dissenters and anabaptists. I pray that this has ended several centuries ago. I agree that some anabaptists have a shallow theology and a lack of understanding of covenant. But I am also familiar with baptists who believe in and promote covenant theology, ie. "Reformed Baptists"(a seeming anachronism). I also believe that much theology originates from a gut feeling about what is right and wrong. It is difficult to promote covenant theology when it is misused by churches in the sense of, as it says in Jude "they have turned the grace of our God into a license for immorality..." In the same way they have turned covenant, which is all about the grace of God, into a license for immorality. By their works you shall know their faith. True, we know that baptism does not save, and that not all who are baptized will be saved, but when it is done in deceit and falsehood, or in disobedience, and when this becomes an obvious tolerated trend, then it is understandable why some would have an aversion to such a practice.
As to your point 4: I would not agree to rebaptism for anyone baptized in a reformed christian church as an infant. But I am becoming sympathetic to a discussion on it, putting the onus on anyone who requests it to prove that the original infant baptism was done in deliberate disobedience. Some might call this a "disputable matter." I agree with your emphasis on unity, even on as much unity as possible with other believers in other denominations. But our great unity must have its basis in honesty and obedience to Christ and His Word. A superficial unity of forms and procedures will carry us just as far as it carried the Israelites when they offered sacrifices to God as they travelled to the high places to also offer sacrifices to Baal. And a desire for unity such as the desire of Annanias and Sapphira to be like their neighboring Christ followers, will achieve nothing and will mean nothing if it is done in deceit or pride or envy.
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: 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: 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.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Communal worship is different than individual.... I like almost everything, in its context, and in a good proportion. I like clapping with some songs, although I tend not to do it myself-I don't mind if others do it, but clapping would often be better if people learned to clap on the off-beat so that we can still hear the words of the songs. I don't mind people raising their hands, and I don't mind people assenting to certain statements and prayers with an "Amen" or clapping of praise agreement, but I have also sometimes found it distracting, and sometimes disturbing or removing the train of thought. When you get more used to it, it is less distracting. I love the various instruments, but sometimes the brass drowns out the words too much, and even sometimes drums and electric guitars are too loud, and thus destroy the worship and the message of the song. These are mere outward things, and sometimes the Spirit simply moves people in ways they cannot really control, but in other situations these outward vibrant actions and sounds simply become part of the cultural norm of a church worship, at times better, and at times worse than a more reserved quiet intense participation.
When clapping, and dancing, and bands, and "Amens" become part of the normal church culture, will they retain the joy and purpose they originally had?
As you hinted, reverence is also important... how we maintain a joyful, exhuberant, vibrant reverence.... witness to God, not first of all to ourselves.... God gave us His Spirit, and our emotional capacity... which should witness to God, to his grace, to his commands, to his awesomeness. Sometimes that means to let go, other times to hold back.
We should not limit what God does not limit.
One person's joy is sometimes another person's sorrow.... One person rejoices in a new birth, which reminds the next person of a recent death and loss....
Consider also family worship time as a time to "let go"! A time when there will be less conflict of emotions, and more control of distractions... more opportunity to demonstrate joy and sorrow.
Is there a place in worship for destroying the "four hundred prophets of Baal"? (as elijah did?)
Posted in: How do you handle prayer time in Sunday school?
Prayer may be the best teaching moment of the whole class. If you think you are squeezing prayer in, that will send a subliminal message about the importance of prayer. So I would suggest that prayer is as much of a priority as anything, and therefore the rest of the class can fit around the prayer. Don't squeeze in the prayer; squeeze in the rest.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Lou, in some way, I am finding your comment somewhat offensive. Just so you know. I am curious as to what is a generic evangelical church compared to non-generic? I have also always placed the crc within the evangelical camp in terms of its emphasis on missions and the significance of repentance and faith. I know that you are probably using different nomenclature or categories, but I find it offensive to think that the crc is not evangelical in its attitude towards unbelievers. I also find it offensive that we would put more energy into accomodating erroneous catholic beliefs about baptism than we do for evangelical beliefs about baptism. In spite of the fact they deny infant baptism (which I also find sad), I often find a closer synergy of theology with some of them than with the romcatholic theology and romcath practice. You also ought to be aware of what is called the "Reformed Baptist" camp, in terms of understanding so-called "generic evangelicalism".
Second, you are taking for granted that anti-catholic attitudes should be overcome, yet seem to be displaying an anti-evangelical attitude yourself. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the impression you are leaving with me.
This is ironic in the sense that during the reformation in Europe, the RomCatholics would persecute the protestants, and then the protestant state churches would persecute the anabaptists. Pray that that attitude has died several centuries ago.
Posted in: Is It Appropriate for Council or Classis to Instruct Their Delegates How to Vote?
Generally agree, but interesting that the Liberal (opposition) leader in Canada has recently said he would not permit candidates who disagreed with abortion rights, which it would seem is a moral issue. In any case, would not a common sense approach be that generally delegates should be able to participate and be persuaded by discussion at the assembley, while in certain instances where a tremendous amount of discussion has already ocurred, the council may feel obligated to bind their delegates to a particular position, especially if they have put in an overture, or if their perception of an issue is such that they are concerned that delegates might be persuaded in the moment and come to regret it later?
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Alejandro, the form for baptism on Hymnal page 958 in the address to the parents, first paragraph, clearly says this: "We must therefore, use the sacrament for the purpose that God intended and not out of custom or superstition..." In the third point there it also says, "Do you promise to do all you can to teach these children, and to have them taught, this doctrine of salvation?"
Second, I agree that the significance of baptism does not depend on the character of the elder who baptizes, nor on the personal purity of the parents. But its significance does depend on obedience of believers, since it is supposed to be an act of obedience by believers in God's covenant . God said a number of times in the old testament that he did not want the sacrifices of Israel, even though He himself had commanded these sacrifices. God denied the significance of these sacrifices because they were done in disobedience, they had become superstitious rituals rather than acts of worship. Baptism is a form of worship and obedience. If it is done in disobedience, what should we attribute to it? If it is done by unbelievers, or done in the form similar to believing in four leaf clovers or superstitiously not walking under a ladder, what should we attribute to it?
As far as differences between North American and South American romCatholicism, or that in Indonesia, or southern europe vs northern europe, that is a much more complicated topic, which I will not address now. Other than to say that to some degree I agree with you, but yet I leave that judgement to those who have more experience. I myself have had many conversations with a former romcath converted to reformed faith here in north america, and she is more insistent that the Rom Cath church is idolatrous than I would tend to be. I have been in a Rom Cath church in Cuernevaca, and seen a couple in Mexico City, and talked to converts there, as well as having spent an hour talking to a retired RomCath priest from Ontario who enlightened me about a number of attitudes with their hierarchy. And I know a number of RomCath in our town, finding them generally pleasant, and some of them very committed and likeable and sincere.
I believe that we should not condemn missionaries nor preachers who pastorally understand why former RCs would want to break all ties with any baptism performed in such a church environment. This might apply not only to RCs but also potentially to some episcopalian situations or united church situations. As I mentioned before, I once attended a service in the Netherlands in a reformed church where the pastor baptized a child whose parents never attend church. Now if that child grows up as a pagan, which he is likely to do (although God can work marvelous exceptions), and then the child when he is 35 years old, becomes converted and a Christian, then it is possible that his former baptism by non-practising christians may leave him quite cold and disillusioned. We can make absolutes about baptism being once for all and only once, but it will be undeniable that his baptism had not been done in obedience, but rather merely as a peace offering to grandparents or a purchase into "respectability". God does not delight in such disobedience.
I will address your other points in a second post.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Alejandro, let me say I appreciate your earnestness and your "contending for the faith" In regards to your point 3: I have said before that during the reformation, the RomCatholics persecuted the protestants, and the protestants persecuted other protestants, in particular the dissenters and anabaptists. I pray that this has ended several centuries ago. I agree that some anabaptists have a shallow theology and a lack of understanding of covenant. But I am also familiar with baptists who believe in and promote covenant theology, ie. "Reformed Baptists"(a seeming anachronism). I also believe that much theology originates from a gut feeling about what is right and wrong. It is difficult to promote covenant theology when it is misused by churches in the sense of, as it says in Jude "they have turned the grace of our God into a license for immorality..." In the same way they have turned covenant, which is all about the grace of God, into a license for immorality. By their works you shall know their faith. True, we know that baptism does not save, and that not all who are baptized will be saved, but when it is done in deceit and falsehood, or in disobedience, and when this becomes an obvious tolerated trend, then it is understandable why some would have an aversion to such a practice.
As to your point 4: I would not agree to rebaptism for anyone baptized in a reformed christian church as an infant. But I am becoming sympathetic to a discussion on it, putting the onus on anyone who requests it to prove that the original infant baptism was done in deliberate disobedience. Some might call this a "disputable matter." I agree with your emphasis on unity, even on as much unity as possible with other believers in other denominations. But our great unity must have its basis in honesty and obedience to Christ and His Word. A superficial unity of forms and procedures will carry us just as far as it carried the Israelites when they offered sacrifices to God as they travelled to the high places to also offer sacrifices to Baal. And a desire for unity such as the desire of Annanias and Sapphira to be like their neighboring Christ followers, will achieve nothing and will mean nothing if it is done in deceit or pride or envy.