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.
This decision should be left up to the confidence of the church council. While it is true that a person's opinion could change, or, that the church could change its confessions, this is not limited to that magic period between periods of service, and could potentially happen at any time, including six months after signing such document. Therefore, the agreement as originally signed should continue to stand until otherwise noted. It should also be remembered that the profession of faith is also a covenant very similar to this, since it assumes agreement with the confessions of the church as well as agreement to living a life of faith in agreement with the confessions which indicate scripture as ultimate authority (superior to the confessions). The primary issue is not even whether one signs, but whether one demonstrates agreement in statements, life, sermons, etc. Whether one has signed or not, any professing member would be subject to similar agreement.
Ken P, I shouldn't really respond to this, because I don't think it is that important... but, do you really think that whether elders are elders for life is relevant to this question? At Classis, we don't ask everyone to sign everytime, even though they may not have attended for awhile; only those who have not attended before are asked to sign. An elder who moves from one church to another in the same classis is not asked to sign again if he has attended before. I am fine with your expectations, but as I said, the requirement should be left to the local body to decide.
I would like you to have the last word on this, Ken, but in courtesy to your question... regardless of the answer, whether he wants to or doesn't, isn't the issue. But perhaps, "let your yes be yes", do not swear, (or over ligitize). I suppose we could baptize people over and over too, why wouldn't we want to? why not make profession of faith on a regular basis, why wouldn't anyone want to? Again, we are spending too much time on something of relatively small importance. Protocols, posturing, priorities?
To "protecting victims", I agree with Bonnie's comment above. A truly repentant wife beater will respect and honor the desire of the wife and the church to maintain distance and he should seek another church. While true repentance may eventually lead to reconciliation and change of behaviour, as it should in all cases of sin, in this case some clear evidence of change needs to be demonstrated. That evidence would need to be a fairly significant time of distance apart, as well as other clear indications of a new life. Taking the abuser out of his comfort zone would be the first step, and leaving the abused in control would be important. By significant time apart, away from the church grounds and away from the wife, I mean perhaps a year, before there is a re-evaluation. In the case of a repeat offender as above, two years or more would likely be more appropriate, from the time of the last incident, and then only if elders are convinced he has become a new person. This is not based on personal experience in our church, although I am well aware of some abuse cases within my circle of acquaintences. It would be difficult to assess if the person has become new, with a new heart and new attitude, if he is an experienced liar, so a variety of assessments should be made. It would be difficult to shut the door entirely forever, since this would indicate that God doesn't have the power to restore, or mend, or heal. On the other hand, the healing and mending and newness ought to be clear and evident, and the abused person needs to be comfortable with the decision.
Now perhaps some others may weigh in. We can not all operate in this out of experience, but need to be psychologically and intellectually prepared to deal with this if it happens and we are confronted with it.
How do we change those five minutes a day? As you get older, you may have an advantage in prayer time, when we don't sleep so soundly anymore. I've found on nights when it is difficult to sleep, or if I wake up too early, then it is an excellent time to pray undisturbed. I end up praying for people and things that I have not thought of for some time. And usually then fall asleep eventually, more peacefully. So I consider God gracious in granting me less sleep, to bring me closer to Him.
Matthew, it sounds like to me, that maybe you are saying that there are two kinds of knowledge: one derived from scripture (what God tells us), and one derived from nature or what we see (secular). This is one way of understanding a difference. Craig is hinting at a problem with that in the sense that secular knowledge comes from what God created. Secular knowledge is based on what we see of God's creation, God's natural laws working.
So what is the relationship to morality, eschatology and purpose, you ask? One relationship is that they are directly connected, not disjointed. The laws that God gave us in scripture are related to the creation that He made. The creation that He made reveals also who He is and what He is like, but often we don't understand this very well unless we know scripture. The Bible says His word is all connected. The word that spoke creation into being, is the word of God, and is also the son of God, who is the Word made flesh.
A secular person will try to separate the secular from God, but as Christians, we know it all belongs to Him. We can also see how God's moral laws for us make sense from an empirical perspective, even thought that is not our primary purpose for obedience to God. Scripture provides with a lens and perspective on how to see the laws of nature.... for example how does predation fit in, or how does murder or adultery fit in to nature.... is it natural or unnatural and why? Our value judgements color how we look at empirical evidence; the empirical evidence is what we see, but does not by itself determine whether what we see is good or bad.
In some cases, it is even difficult to determine meaning of empirical evidence without a value framework, or without a world and life view. Is monogamy good or bad... is pornography acceptible or not.... are bribes another form of taxes.... should parents or government raise children.... is it okay if some species become extinct.... does it matter if poor people starve... etc. Usually world and life views even shape the collection of evidence, the way "secular" news is presented, and the interpretation or investigation of empirical evidence. EG. it is true that both the inquistion and Stalin and Hitler killed many people, but which one is more significant to you, and why?
How do you interpret other phenomena for example. Empirically we know that there were giant camels and mastodons and other mammals and large trees in the high artic and the Yukon, some frozen, and some fossilized; we know that there were dragonflies with four foot wingspans and we know that there are many seashells on the tops of mountains. What we interpret is how they got there, and it makes sense for people to derive that interpretation within the context of their world and life view.
Maybe this gets a little closer to answering your question?
That's beautiful, Bev! I would add that the Miss Martha's can also pray, even while they are busy cleaning, cooking, helping. It would be interesting for us to set some goals: for every minute spent on a computer game, spend one minute in dedicated prayer.... for every minute spent watching the news, spend one minute in prayer....
Have you ever been afraid to pray? Sometimes I find that the answer to prayer is scary! God actually listens, and answers! And it makes me wonder: what am I praying for, is it really what God wants....
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.
Posted in: Do Previous Elders Need to Re-Sign the Covenant for Office Bearers If Serving at a New Church?
This decision should be left up to the confidence of the church council. While it is true that a person's opinion could change, or, that the church could change its confessions, this is not limited to that magic period between periods of service, and could potentially happen at any time, including six months after signing such document. Therefore, the agreement as originally signed should continue to stand until otherwise noted. It should also be remembered that the profession of faith is also a covenant very similar to this, since it assumes agreement with the confessions of the church as well as agreement to living a life of faith in agreement with the confessions which indicate scripture as ultimate authority (superior to the confessions). The primary issue is not even whether one signs, but whether one demonstrates agreement in statements, life, sermons, etc. Whether one has signed or not, any professing member would be subject to similar agreement.
Posted in: Do Previous Elders Need to Re-Sign the Covenant for Office Bearers If Serving at a New Church?
Ken P, I shouldn't really respond to this, because I don't think it is that important... but, do you really think that whether elders are elders for life is relevant to this question? At Classis, we don't ask everyone to sign everytime, even though they may not have attended for awhile; only those who have not attended before are asked to sign. An elder who moves from one church to another in the same classis is not asked to sign again if he has attended before. I am fine with your expectations, but as I said, the requirement should be left to the local body to decide.
Posted in: Do Previous Elders Need to Re-Sign the Covenant for Office Bearers If Serving at a New Church?
I would like you to have the last word on this, Ken, but in courtesy to your question... regardless of the answer, whether he wants to or doesn't, isn't the issue. But perhaps, "let your yes be yes", do not swear, (or over ligitize). I suppose we could baptize people over and over too, why wouldn't we want to? why not make profession of faith on a regular basis, why wouldn't anyone want to? Again, we are spending too much time on something of relatively small importance. Protocols, posturing, priorities?
Posted in: How Do We Handle a Domestic-Violence Husband Whose Restraining Order Is Expiring?
To "protecting victims", I agree with Bonnie's comment above. A truly repentant wife beater will respect and honor the desire of the wife and the church to maintain distance and he should seek another church. While true repentance may eventually lead to reconciliation and change of behaviour, as it should in all cases of sin, in this case some clear evidence of change needs to be demonstrated. That evidence would need to be a fairly significant time of distance apart, as well as other clear indications of a new life. Taking the abuser out of his comfort zone would be the first step, and leaving the abused in control would be important. By significant time apart, away from the church grounds and away from the wife, I mean perhaps a year, before there is a re-evaluation. In the case of a repeat offender as above, two years or more would likely be more appropriate, from the time of the last incident, and then only if elders are convinced he has become a new person. This is not based on personal experience in our church, although I am well aware of some abuse cases within my circle of acquaintences. It would be difficult to assess if the person has become new, with a new heart and new attitude, if he is an experienced liar, so a variety of assessments should be made. It would be difficult to shut the door entirely forever, since this would indicate that God doesn't have the power to restore, or mend, or heal. On the other hand, the healing and mending and newness ought to be clear and evident, and the abused person needs to be comfortable with the decision.
Now perhaps some others may weigh in. We can not all operate in this out of experience, but need to be psychologically and intellectually prepared to deal with this if it happens and we are confronted with it.
Posted in: What are best practices for doing the monthly Pastors' reports to the Elders?
How do we change those five minutes a day? As you get older, you may have an advantage in prayer time, when we don't sleep so soundly anymore. I've found on nights when it is difficult to sleep, or if I wake up too early, then it is an excellent time to pray undisturbed. I end up praying for people and things that I have not thought of for some time. And usually then fall asleep eventually, more peacefully. So I consider God gracious in granting me less sleep, to bring me closer to Him.
Posted in: What Is the Relationship Between Secular Knowledge, Morality, and Eschatology or Purpose in the Context of the CRCNA?
Matthew, it sounds like to me, that maybe you are saying that there are two kinds of knowledge: one derived from scripture (what God tells us), and one derived from nature or what we see (secular). This is one way of understanding a difference. Craig is hinting at a problem with that in the sense that secular knowledge comes from what God created. Secular knowledge is based on what we see of God's creation, God's natural laws working.
So what is the relationship to morality, eschatology and purpose, you ask? One relationship is that they are directly connected, not disjointed. The laws that God gave us in scripture are related to the creation that He made. The creation that He made reveals also who He is and what He is like, but often we don't understand this very well unless we know scripture. The Bible says His word is all connected. The word that spoke creation into being, is the word of God, and is also the son of God, who is the Word made flesh.
A secular person will try to separate the secular from God, but as Christians, we know it all belongs to Him. We can also see how God's moral laws for us make sense from an empirical perspective, even thought that is not our primary purpose for obedience to God. Scripture provides with a lens and perspective on how to see the laws of nature.... for example how does predation fit in, or how does murder or adultery fit in to nature.... is it natural or unnatural and why? Our value judgements color how we look at empirical evidence; the empirical evidence is what we see, but does not by itself determine whether what we see is good or bad.
In some cases, it is even difficult to determine meaning of empirical evidence without a value framework, or without a world and life view. Is monogamy good or bad... is pornography acceptible or not.... are bribes another form of taxes.... should parents or government raise children.... is it okay if some species become extinct.... does it matter if poor people starve... etc. Usually world and life views even shape the collection of evidence, the way "secular" news is presented, and the interpretation or investigation of empirical evidence. EG. it is true that both the inquistion and Stalin and Hitler killed many people, but which one is more significant to you, and why?
How do you interpret other phenomena for example. Empirically we know that there were giant camels and mastodons and other mammals and large trees in the high artic and the Yukon, some frozen, and some fossilized; we know that there were dragonflies with four foot wingspans and we know that there are many seashells on the tops of mountains. What we interpret is how they got there, and it makes sense for people to derive that interpretation within the context of their world and life view.
Maybe this gets a little closer to answering your question?
Posted in: What are best practices for doing the monthly Pastors' reports to the Elders?
That's beautiful, Bev! I would add that the Miss Martha's can also pray, even while they are busy cleaning, cooking, helping. It would be interesting for us to set some goals: for every minute spent on a computer game, spend one minute in dedicated prayer.... for every minute spent watching the news, spend one minute in prayer....
Have you ever been afraid to pray? Sometimes I find that the answer to prayer is scary! God actually listens, and answers! And it makes me wonder: what am I praying for, is it really what God wants....