Large Question looming for URCNA

[Theognome]

Recently, a committee was formed from the Midwest synod to discuss and give recommendation concerning some issues arising in URCNA mission churches. One of our elders in on said committee, due to our church being one of the ones experiencing some of the challenges (and indeed brought the issue to synod).

Our elder reviewed the request with the congregation yesterday. Basically, our church plant is in an area with no reformed tradition, and many folks are coming to the mission church (MC) and enjoying the worship and fellowship, but when Paedobaptism comes up, the revolving door begins.

How do they handle it? if they send them to a Baptist church, are they being good stewards of the keys? if they allow exception, are they compromising the creeds? Does a new 'level' of membership need to be created? The committee has deliberated long on this (there are more ramifications than the above mentioned), and a decision is not an easy one to make.

Admittedly, I don't see the issue as being hinged on paedo/credo, but rather authority/accountability. Few churches outside of the Reformed camp actually maintain biblical church discipline and accountability. For many new (or new to Reformed thinking) Christians, being under the headship of Christ's undershepherds regarding life and doctrine is initially repulsive. I'll admit I'm not the most easy-going in the pack- my bible only has black and white (with red for Christ's words) and no shades of gray. Thus as I see it, whether I agree with paedo or credo is irrelevant. I am required to submit to the doctrine of the church that I hold membership with. Only if said doctrine defies the clear teaching of scripture would I have recourse, and as various threads have demonstrated here, paedo/credo isn't as cut-and-dry doctrine. Indeed, I see that whole Paedo/Credo argument as being the result of a different issue, that being of understanding of covenant theology.

None-the-less, the MC's of the URCNA are experiencing quite a turnover right now, and the denomination as a whole is seeking wisdom. Note that in the URCNA, the synods and classis do not have binding authority over individual churches. They can recommend actions, but not enforce them. But hopefully, this issue can be resolved in such a way as to create a uniform agreement across the churches within the denomination. Prayers for the churches in this matter are very much coveted.

Theognome

 

[dannyhyde]

Recently, a committee was formed from the Midwest synod to discuss and give recommendation concerning some issues arising in URCNA mission churches. One of our elders in on said committee, due to our church being one of the ones experiencing some of the challenges (and indeed brought the issue to synod).

Our elder reviewed the request with the congregation yesterday. Basically, our church plant is in an area with no reformed tradition, and many folks are coming to the mission church (MC) and enjoying the worship and fellowship, but when Paedobaptism comes up, the revolving door begins.

How do they handle it? if they send them to a Baptist church, are they being good stewards of the keys? if they allow exception, are they compromising the creeds? Does a new 'level' of membership need to be created? The committee has deliberated long on this (there are more ramifications than the above mentioned), and a decision is not an easy one to make.

Admittedly, I don't see the issue as being hinged on paedo/credo, but rather authority/accountability. Few churches outside of the Reformed camp actually maintain biblical church discipline and accountability. For many new (or new to Reformed thinking) Christians, being under the headship of Christ's undershepherds regarding life and doctrine is initially repulsive. I'll admit I'm not the most easy-going in the pack- my bible only has black and white (with red for Christ's words) and no shades of gray. Thus as I see it, whether I agree with paedo or credo is irrelevant. I am required to submit to the doctrine of the church that I hold membership with. Only if said doctrine defies the clear teaching of scripture would I have recourse, and as various threads have demonstrated here, paedo/credo isn't as cut-and-dry doctrine. Indeed, I see that whole Paedo/Credo argument as being the result of a different issue, that being of understanding of covenant theology.

None-the-less, the MC's of the URCNA are experiencing quite a turnover right now, and the denomination as a whole is seeking wisdom. Note that in the URCNA, the synods and classis do not have binding authority over individual churches. They can recommend actions, but not enforce them. But hopefully, this issue can be resolved in such a way as to create a uniform agreement across the churches within the denomination. Prayers for the churches in this matter are very much coveted.

Theognome

Bill,

I am on said committee and will be writing the report along with Dr. Nelson Kloosterman of Mid-America Reformed Seminary. I agree that we do covet the prayers of God's people in this issue. I will not tip our hand, but let me just comment and clarify, from my point of view, a few things you mentioned.

First, I'm not sure how you have concluded that "the MC's of the URCNA are experiencing quite a turnover right now" given that those of us here in Southern California who practice strict membership are flourishing and growing. In 9 years we have only had one family come and not join because of the baptism issue. It's hardly a revolving door here in an area with no other Reformed congregations.

Second, it is not true that "the synods and classis do not have binding authority over individual churches. They can recommend actions, but not enforce them." I'd encourage you to re-read Church Order article 29:

If any assembly complains of having been wronged by the decision of another assembly, it shall have the right to appeal to the broader assemblies.
An individual’s appeal must proceed first to the Consistory, and only then, if necessary, to a broader assembly.
All decisions of a broader assembly are to be received with respect and submission, and shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved that they are in conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order.
Consistories who are convinced that they cannot comply with a decision of a broader assembly because it does not agree with the Word of God cannot be compelled to do so, provided that they state to the classis the points at which the decision of the assembly disagrees with the Word of God. If a Consistory refuses to comply with the final decision of the synod and a subsequent synod rules by majority vote that submission in the matter is essential for the unity of the churches, the congregation is no longer eligible for membership in the federation.​

 

[Theognome]

Thank you for the clarifications. Our report, though partial, spoke of a larger problem- particularly in our region and to the east. I'm thankful that you have not experienced such challenges.

I trust that the committee has examined the issue with upmost care and concern for the well being of the churches and members therein.

Theognome

 

[A.J.]

Bill, the church I am attending in this part of the world is a URC missions church plant. Our minister/missionary is Rev. Nollie Malabuyo. See my signature on this.

From time to time, I do hear him comment about the state of URC missions. From what I remember, he mentioned that the URCs are trying to avoid the error made in the past by the CRC on this area. I am not aware of all the proceedings within the federation, and the internal problems the CRC had in its missions. So I cannot comment on this any further.

But I do sympathize with the struggles Reformed folk have been having with people who are encountering the Reformed case for infant baptism, and the faithful exercise of church discipline for the first time. My country is predominantly Roman Catholic. So Roman Catholics who have converted to evangelicalism almost immediately and naturally recoil in horror at the thought that some Christians can actually believe in a "Roman Catholic tradition" like infant baptism. In our own Filipino evangelical circles, church discipline is virtually non-existent. So its natural to see a person who attends an evangelical church one Sunday, but is gone in the next. And many evangelical pastors hardly care about that situation. I am a former Roman Catholic and a former evangelical myself. And I am saying this from my personal experience.

Providentially, most of the people attending our mission church are ones who have spent considerable time in the past studying this doctrine. They are convinced that infant baptism is Biblical. They want Reformed worship. Moreover, our pastor was baptistic for many years. So I guess he is able to answer and respond to possible objections from curious evangelicals who might visit the mission church.

In my honest opinion, confessional membership is commendable. We need to pray about this. Thanks for bringing up this issue.

-----Added 2/10/2009 at 12:07:38 EST-----

P.S. Incidentally, most of the congregations of the federation with whom this mission church is seeking affiliation also came out of the local (Filipino) CRC. They left because of the local CRC's departure from confessional integrity.

 

[mvdm]

Bill:

Could you clarify for me when you say a "committee from the Midwest synod" was formed to review this matter? Do you mean a Classis Midwest committee, separate from the synodical committee Rev. Hyde said he is serving on? If so, will your separate committee be bringing its report/recommendation to an upcoming Classis Midwest meeting? I would like to know since I anticipate being delegated to upcoming classis meetings.

Back to the original point, I was involved in some the past discussion at Classis regarding your mission church. I understand the concerns, but as Rev. Hyde said, there are confessional church plants experiencing numerical growth. So the real issue is not how do we change our confession and/or church order, but how do we preach and pray for change in the hearts of those whom we reach.

Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. Imagine the response of an Assembly of God church to the request of a "Reformed" attender who says I would join your church if only you would change that whole speaking in tongues thing. The request wouldn't be given a moment's consideration, except to counsel and pray that this Reformed person receive the second "baptism of the Holy Spirit". When that doesn't happen, they'd understand when the person moves on.

I am not suggesting any of this of your church, but we have to be on guard against birthing an attitude of "apologizing" for our Reformed faith. If it starts, let's strangle it in the crib.

We must accept the fact that some church plants will flourish, some will struggle, some will die. This is the history of the church. Undoubtedly, Christ has this all in mind. In the meantime, we are tested to remain faithful.

For further helpful reading, Dr. Kloosterman has a lengthy set of articles addressing these very issues:

Auxesis.net - Growing Confessionally Reformed Churches

Bill, I do hope you meet you at classis sometime soon!

 

[shackleton]

If I can, I will explain the demographics of the area that kind of points to why what is happening is happening. The area has a church history of traveling preachers, tent revivals, healing services, Holy Ghost outpourings and mass baptisms in the local lake, it is the quintessential "Ol' Time Religion" kind of area. (I don't mean this in a bad way I am just explaining. My mothers family all come from down there, the Ozarks, and even has baptist preachers in gene pool somewhere).

The Assembly of God has a rather large bible college and seminary down there and so there are AoG churches everywhere. It is not an unchurched area. In fact, it is a lot more godly than the area where Theognome and I live. There is also a rather large baptist presence. They have several colleges as well and a good number of churches. They are not too familiar with reformed teaching, it is hard to find even an RC Sproul book in their Christian bookstores. The unfortunate reality is that both groups associate infant baptism with Catholicism, and they hate Catholicism.
I hope this is understood in the spirit it was meant. I am trying to explain the demographic and why the church plant is having the problem that it is. I am also not being condemning of above mentioned way of doing church.

 

[Scott1]

This is helpful in understanding what you are experiencing in the URC.

I am understanding the situation compared to other reformed systems without "confessional" membership. Obviously in a church where members are not required to vow comprehensive knowledge and agreement with the doctrinal standards in order to join, the same issues do not arise.

But I would think there is not a way to abandon infant baptism if "confessional" membership is required (acknowledging there is a somewhat different view amongst dome reformed Baptists, but that is their system, and they could not abandon it if persuaded it is biblical).

In my denomination, infant baptism is a fundamental part of the covenant theology reflected in our doctrinal standards. It could not be "excepted" by an officer so, by analogy, I do not see how it could be "excepted" in a system that requires subscription (and the comprehensive knowledge and agreement that implies) for members.

It seems to me the need to make the case for this doctrine falls primarily with the church officers- to make sure that it is systematically taught through the congregation, including visitors and regular attenders. Clear, expository teaching of Scripture regarding children of believers being included in the covenant community, etc. God will honor right teaching of His Word and give us the faith to allow "the chips to fall where they may."

Understanding this better, I will pray for a resolution that God will prosper, and allow you to grow as a faithful, biblical reformed denomination.