CRCNA Church Plant Openly Denies Paedobaptism

[Ye_Olde_Heidelberger]

There is a church in my hometown that has been rapidly expanding by establishing several "campuses" in the area. It bears all the marks of the seeker-friendly and charismatic, worshiptainment movement, openly marketing itself as a "church for people who don't like church." While my concerns are many -- such as them recommending books on "deliverance ministry" on their Facebook page some time ago -- my questions for the time being are mainly ecclesiological and church orderly. It took some digging, but I was somewhat shocked to discover that their minister is ordained and holds his credentials in the CRCNA, and that the church belongs to the local Classis (a fact that is well hidden and is nowhere indicated on the church's website). The church has a somewhat thin but standard doctrinal statement, with no explicit mention of the Three Forms of Unity. The church's statement of belief on baptism, however, was the most disappointing. They declare the following:

Just like Jesus went down into death, and came up to life - full immersion baptism is the best representation what Jesus did for us. It demonstrations us dying to our old self, and rising in life with Christ.

We practice baptism whereby people are able to consent and understand its significance - have crossed the line of faith. We do not baptize young children who cannot yet proclaim their personal faith; but we do offer child dedications.

My question is this: how is it permissible for a church to remain within the CRCNA and make such statements contrary to the Three Forms of Unity? How can the minister, who presumably signed the Formula of Subscription, teach and practice that which is contrary to his vows? Is it common for the CRCNA to allow church plants or "missions congregations" to have some doctrinal leeway? Is this a case of a minister simply "being on lone" to another congregation?

I understand that the CRCNA allows officer-bearers to submit gravamina to the church council if they have doctrinal difficulties with the Three Forms, as explained here:

Should we come to believe that a teaching in the confessional documents is not the teaching of God’s Word, we will communicate our views to the church, according to the procedures prescribed by the Church Order and its supplements. If the church asks, we will give a full explanation of our views. Further, we promise to submit to the church’s judgment and authority.

But wouldn't a divergent view of baptism be a very serious matter? Should not the minister and congregation disassociate from the CRC if they are persistent in this view?

I am sincerely trying my best to understand this situation, and find myself frustrated and grieved for the state of the Reformed church and witness in my community.

EDIT:

Some articles that also shed light on the "infant dedication" debate in the CRC -- apparently this stretches back at least a decade.

Classes Debate Infant Dedication in CRC

The Official Magazine of the Christian Reformed Church

www.thebanner.org

Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?

Did you happen to catch the question recently asked in The Banner about infant baptism? In case you missed it, the author of the question writes, “A few years ago the CRC synod warned against replacing infant baptism with dedication. Since then, has the denomination lightened up at all and at...

network.crcna.org

Notably, Synod 2012 ruled that ministers “refrain from leading rituals of infant or child dedication.”

 

[J.L. Allen]

The CRC is in a confused and mixed up place. Ever since the harder, straighter views of Scriptural authority was weakened in the 1970s, a clear erosion can be tracked ever since. Granted, the trend in recent years at Synod has been positive.

The classis that this church belongs, if I have my classical boundaries correct, is an extremely problematic classis (think LGBT affirming and more). So this isn't surprising at all. Unfortunately, the congregational tendencies of the CRC (somewhat the case with most Dutch Reformed churches) lends itself to a strange localism, where completely divergent entities exist together with little to no common ground (beyond in-name-only). The local option, which plays out with egalitarian leadership, is a locust that has devoured the integrity of the CRC. Again, good churches are fighting to gut the CRC and her agencies of the woke rot and theological liberalism. In fact, I'm glad to serve such a congregation. Yet, it is why I cannot and will not seek ordination in the CRC and will, rather, stay in the OPC.

That baptistic practices are done in this church (or any CRC) is completely unacceptable. Sadly, this isn't surprising either.

 

[J.L. Allen]

I should add that the existence of "campuses" shows how much they don't understand Reformed distinctives. Bad ecclesiology in a denomination that used to forbid such nonsense demonstrates widespread weakness.

Pray that the men fighting to turn the CRC around would not shrink before the enemy. May the CRC repent of her foolish, worldly pursuits.

 

[Charles Johnson]

There isn't much that could surprise me coming out of the CRC.

 

[sgemmen9]

As a CRC minister, the short answer is, he shouldn't be doing that but there won't likely be accountability. Unless a congregation writes an overture against that minister and synod addresses it OR a synodical deputy deals with it along with classis outside of synod, nothing will happen. As churches tend to believe things in geographic groups in the CRC, I would suspect if a church is doing that the classis is subtly aware and allowing it to happen. It is sad and the CRC is desperately in need of revival. I'm mention this to some of my colleagues and see though if anything happens. Sometimes we can connect with a synodical deputy or write an overture that deals with these matters.

 

[Ye_Olde_Heidelberger]

As a CRC minister, the short answer is, he shouldn't be doing that but there won't likely be accountability. Unless a congregation writes an overture against that minister and synod addresses it OR a synodical deputy deals with it along with classis outside of synod, nothing will happen. As churches tend to believe things in geographic groups in the CRC, I would suspect if a church is doing that the classis is subtly aware and allowing it to happen. It is sad and the CRC is desperately in need of revival. I'm mention this to some of my colleagues and see though if anything happens. Sometimes we can connect with a synodical deputy or write an overture that deals with these matters.

Thank you for the clarity, brother. I will be praying for you and all faithful ministers, consistories, and congregations in the CRC. "Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself" (Ps. 80:14-15).

(Just a note, although I currently reside in Grand Rapids, the congregation in question belongs to Classis Ontario Southwest).

 

[sgemmen9]

Thank you for the clarity, brother. I will be praying for you and all faithful ministers, consistories, and congregations in the CRC. "Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself" (Ps. 80:14-15).

(Just a note, although I currently reside in Grand Rapids, the congregation in question belongs to Classis Ontario Southwest).

Thanks for the encouragement. There are many orthodoxy ministers fighting the good fight. Many left with the URC and other splits over the years. But many, not unlike myself, were raised in or around the CRC and ended up ordained without understanding how bad it is nationally. So we stay and pursue revitalization. I am honestly more hopeful now than I have been in the past 20 years. Revitalization IS happening and there is hope in sight. Denying infant baptism is a symptom, sadly, of a deeper issue, embracing an evangelical worldview with modern streams that minimize significant parts of biblical authority.

 

[darrellmaurina]

My question is this: how is it permissible for a church to remain within the CRCNA and make such statements contrary to the Three Forms of Unity? How can the minister, who presumably signed the Formula of Subscription, teach and practice that which is contrary to his vows? Is it common for the CRCNA to allow church plants or "missions congregations" to have some doctrinal leeway? Is this a case of a minister simply "being on lone" to another congregation?

I understand that the CRCNA allows officer-bearers to submit gravamina to the church council if they have doctrinal difficulties with the Three Forms, as explained here:

But wouldn't a divergent view of baptism be a very serious matter? Should not the minister and congregation disassociate from the CRC if they are persistent in this view?

I am sincerely trying my best to understand this situation, and find myself frustrated and grieved for the state of the Reformed church and witness in my community.

What a mess.

For those who don't know the CRC and its emphasis on baptism, we need to know some history on this.

Dr. Henry De Moor, the longtime professor of church polity at Calvin Seminary (with whom I often tangled), used to view denial of infant baptism as an absolute red line that could not be crossed. He was willing to allow all sorts of awful stuff, but (to his credit) drew the line on homosexuality and that was part of why he left the GKN and came to the CRC. He was as adamantly against tolerating denials of infant baptism as most of us on the Puritan Board would be against toleration of homosexuality, and both were based on an older Dutch Reformed view of the confessions which is very different from the common American Presbyterian views of subscription. Dr. DeMoor was an opponent of many conservative stances in the CRC and wanted a level of centralization that I believe is contrary to Abraham Kuyper's position on church polity, but he was consistent -- toleration of those who deny infant baptism is a crystal-clear violation of the Three Forms of Unity, which are far harder on Baptists than the Westminster Standards. He would have said the same thing applies to homosexuality since bible passages on homosexuality are enumerated in the confessions as examples of gross sin.

I thought way back in the 1980s that DeMoor was dead wrong on his "war against baptistic tendencies," and when I said such things, he made very clear to me that I'd better be glad I wasn't in the CRC because he would fight against allowing anyone into the CRC ministry who held my views that infant baptism is important but secondary. (My position would be standard in American Presbyterianism but an outlier among Dutch Reformed conservatives.) The views of professors are critical on this because the Calvin Seminary faculty votes on who will and who will not be declared a candidate for the Christian Reformed ministry. While there is an appeal process and the final decision is made by Synod, in the real world, if a Calvin Seminary professor is totally opposed to your ordination, you're not going to get into the CRC ministry.

DeMoor being out of the picture changed a lot of things, some for the better and some for the worse.

And yes, in writing this note, I am painfully aware that Dr. DeMoor's views have "evolved" since his retirement. I want to avoid slandering him and I'm not going to say more on that subject without reading the full body of his current work. I'm listening now to one of his speeches and some of it is not what I would have expected of him in the 1980s and 1990s. But he's an ordained minister and I need to be careful to be sure of my facts before I speak.

As much as I would say that someone holding views like this church ought to leave the CRC because they can't subscribe to the confessions, practical reality being what it is, if I were in the CRC I'd rather deal with a de facto Baptist than a liberal. That church probably votes for standard evangelical views on the key issues over which the CRC is fighting and if I were a CRC conservative I'd probably say, "Please stay around until we get rid of our heretics, and then we need to have a good talk with John Piper and Al Mohler about finding a place where we can help you make a friendly transfer."