In the thread of a recent post, the question of sectarianism and the CREC was raised, and I thought I needed to make just a few comments about it. This is one of those issues where context matters a great deal.
I became a paedobaptist in 1993, and this happened in a church with some staunch baptists in it. Without going into the details, some of the baptists left unhappy, but the vast majority of the church, and the vast majority of the baptists in the church, did not want to divide over such an issue. So we didn’t. We worked out a baptismal cooperation agreement, one that we still honor and use. As a friend and a pastor to some of these godly and charitable baptists, I was not about to conduct a purge of them from the church. These were people who had stood by me in a very difficult time. Now, with this mutt of a credobaptist/paedobaptist congregation, what Reformed denomination would you have us go join? We had absolutely nowhere to go.
At the same time, we had become convinced of presbyterian polity — the difficulty of sorting out the baptism question had revealed some pretty sorry gaps in our polity as well. And so we joined together with two other congregations here in the Northwest, congregations that had had an historic connection with us — lots of friendship and common ministry together. That is how the CREC formed — not as a schismatic attempt to increase fissures in the Reformed world, but rather as an attempt to reduce the disunity in our small corner of it. Since that time the Lord has blessed us greatly, and we have seen many congregations come into our confederation. We are very grateful for all of this.
But in the discussion of the catholicity (or lack thereof) in the CREC, this comment was made.
Unfortunately, for Wilson, arguably the CREC founder, and others, that is not enough. Additionally they insist all Presbyterians must tolerate equally these practices equally and there is zero respect for the decision of the presbyters of other(than CREC)denominations, that do not happen to allow for these convictions that landed you in the CREC. By becoming yoked with the CREC, you are yoked with men and woman who enjoy mocking their enemies,(in this case presbyters) and have elevated it to an artform. At some point, this recklessness must become undefensible to the real leadership of the CREC, if such a thing exists outside of Moscow.
Just a few things need to be said here. The first is a factual one, and concerns what we demand from others. Take paedocommunion, for example. I believe that paedocommunionists in the PCA have a moral obligation to honor the decision of their denomination against that practice. I would believe them to be in sin if they unilateraly rejected the authority of their broader church in this. But take it a step further. Could a non-paedocommunionist church join the CREC? Absolutely. We have room for credo baptists, and so why on earth would we reject credo-communionists? On what principle would we reject them?
There is one restriction in this regard, but it applies to everyone — and it is in my mind the “catholicity” requirement. An individual congregation in the CREC can be a credo-baptist congregation, and allow only credo-baptists on the session. This could be what is taught from the pulpit, and settled in their statement of faith. But if a family from a paedobaptist CREC congregation moved to their area, and joined their church, they could not require that the children who had been already baptized be baptized again. They would have to receive those infant baptisms. They would not have to administer them, but they would have to receive them in all charity.
A similar kind of thing could happen the other way. If someone baptized in infancy came to credo-baptist convictions, I could not in good conscience conduct such a baptism myself. But I could help the person find a minister who could do this, and when the deed was done, I should have no problem receiving such a person into fellowship with us.
All CREC congregations have to adopt the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. After that, they have to choose between one of six reformational creeds — the London Baptist, the American Westminster, the original English Westminster, the Three Forms of Unity, the Savoy Declaration, and a modern Reformed Evangelical Confession. There has even been talk about adding the original Augsburg Confession and/or the 39 Articles, but we haven’t gotten very far on that. Christ Church here in Moscow has adopted a Book of Confessions, with the central confession being the original Westminster, but the larger book includes the 39 Articles. All of this represents a very practical attempt at Reformed catholicity. We are very serious about this.
So what about the point that we (meaning me) mock our enemies? It should be extremely obvious by this point that we do not treat fellow believers this way simply because they hold different doctrinal convictions than we do. We are building a confederation that has fellowship and cooperation between such groups built into it as a design feature. And the credo-communionists in the PCA, were they to visit us here in Moscow, would be welcome at the Table with us any and every Sunday. The same goes for all CREC churches. Their children would be welcome too, but let us not get distracted from the point we are discussing. The credo-communionists who hold their convictions sincerely and honestly have nothing but respect from me. I do feel sad for them, but no mockery. None.
What I mock is Pharisaism. What I mock is stacked study committees, and the long, solemn, indignant faces whenever somebody mentions this screamingly obvious fact. What I mock is the bum’s rush for ministers in good standing with no charges filed, no evidence submitted, no proof offered, just raw power from on high — but plenty of that. What I mock is a study committee that gets an important quote from me bass-ackwards, drops it sheepishly when caught, promising to explain it on the floor of GA. By the way, did that happen? What I mock is exactly the same thing that we find mocked in the pages of the New Testament — ecclesiastical stuffed-shirt pretentiousness, and an inability to maintain a sense of godly proportion. You know, camels and gnats, gold and altars, and justice and mercy and tithing from the spice rack. You know, justice and mercy and parsing the covenant of works under a meritscope. What I mock are those who are so concerned for merit in the pages of their systematics, but when it comes to any merit their judicial proceedings might be lacking, they don’t give a rip. What I mock are the traditions of the elders — even though I love, honor, and keep those traditions. But the ones who have those traditions draped over their heads like so many Westminster tablecloths have only obscured their vision and have started bumping into things, knocking them over. When I say something about that peculiar custom, I am upbraided for not honoring the tablecloth. Not at all. Put it on the Table, and sit down, you and your children. You are supposed to eat the food, people, not argue over the silverware.
In short, if you want to know, I am a Puritan. The trouble some are having with understanding this just reveals that they are dutiful curators at the Puritan Waxworks (Daypass $9.95) and need a night in the museum. You know, where some Elizabethan pamphleteers come to life and show us all that Reformation is more like chopping down the redwood of Self-Righteousness with the ax of the Gospel than it is like threading the needle of Condign Merit with the gossamer thread of Supralapsarianism. Whatever that might mean.