Earlier R. Scott Clark wrote A Case for Confessional Membership.¹ There he argued that Reformed churches should seek to raise their standards for church membership. One of the supporting arguments he listed in a footnote was the pastoral advice on church membership published by the United Reformed Churches.² The authors of the report found that “those who desire communicant membership in our churches must assent to the confessions of our church and evidence an educable spirit for continued growth in understanding.”³ I would like to explore this historical understanding of church membership as more evidence that Presbyterian and Reformed churches should expect their members to affirm the confessions.

In many Reformed traditions, ministers, elders, deacons, and ordained professors commit themselves to a high standard by subscribing to the confessional standards of the church.⁴ Upon installation to office and when officially credentialed to be a delegate to a Classis meeting, officebearers physically sign their name attesting that they believe that the confessions of the church fully agree with the Word of God. They also promise to heartily believe and to conform their “preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and living to them.”⁵ This standard remains high because those who keep watch over souls are called to give account for their leadership (Heb 13:17). One study committee in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) described subscription for officebearers in this way: “The form does not commit the subscriber to ‘mere’ Christianity, or to Protestantism in general, or even just evangelicalism, but specifically to the Reformed confessional understanding of the Gospel.”⁶

For members, however, it might seem as if the standard for confessional commitment is somewhat lower. But is a commitment to the beliefs of the church optional for them? The distinction between officebearers and members is not based on any lower commitment to the standards. Even though members do not physically sign their name to a piece of paper, they still make vows to God when they present their children for baptism. They acknowledge that the teaching of the church “is the true and complete doctrine of salvation,” affirming this truth as “confessed in this church of Christ.”⁷

More significantly, we can gain great insight by studying the historical questions that are asked when members are invited into full, communicant membership by publicly professing their faith. In 1932, the CRC Synod officially adopted this question in the Form for Profession of Faith:

Third, do you sincerely believe the doctrine contained in the Old and the New Testaments, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and taught in this Christian Church, to be the true and complete doctrine of salvation, and do you promise by the grace of God steadfastly to continue in this profession?⁸

This question came out of language that was adopted by the Synod of 1890.⁹

What did the church ask members upon profession of faith before 1890? Article 59 of the 1881 Church Order reads as follows:

Do you declare and acknowledge that the doctrine of this church, insofar as you have heard, learned, and confessed it, is the true and complete doctrine of salvation in accordance with the Holy Scriptures?¹⁰

The wording of this question is significant. Perhaps churches today should go back to using this question for confessional membership instead of the later revisions. While officebearers should articulate and defend all of the doctrines confessed, members affirm their agreement with them as to what they have learned and understood. The standard for membership is not so unattainable that they cannot grow and learn in their understanding. As the 1964 Form for the Lord’s Supper reminds us, the warnings of repentance should not discourage the truly penitent to come to the Savior with a “humble faith, with sorrow for our sins, and with a will to follow him as he commands.”¹¹ At the same time, members have to believe that what they are confessing is true according to the Scriptures. It would be difficult for a member to promise to heartily believe when they have a serious doubt about or a settled conviction against any of the doctrines confessed. It would be better for us not to take any oaths at all than to let our “yes” really be “no” (Matt 5:33–7, Jas 5:12).

R. B. Kuiper put it like this:

The question might be asked what a Reformed church should do about a member who is not soundly Reformed in the matter of doctrine but otherwise gives evidence of being a sincere Christian. First of all the Consistory should, of course, try to convince him of his error. If this fails, he should be advised to unite with a denomination where he would fit in better. If for any reason this should prove impossible, it might be possible to tolerate him as a member on condition that he does not disturb the peace and unity of the church by propagating his erroneous views. But if he should prove unwilling to submit to this condition, I would say the only way out would be simply to erase his name from the rolls.¹²

Is Baptism an Exception to Confessional Membership?

It is often cited today that churches may allow into membership those who cannot embrace the biblical and confessional teaching on covenantal baptism of infants. Synod 1888 said that Consistories could not accept members who deny and oppose infant baptism. Yet how do churches deal with members that do not present their children for baptism? The answer then was: “Such parents must be instructed in all meekness, and also be warned, and if this does not produce the desired effect, then the proper steps should be taken.”¹³ We might assume that later decisions of the CRC Synod have allowed for more tolerance for this issue of baptism, but what we will find are a series of decisions that are consistent with the historic understanding that members should affirm the confessions.

In 1964 a middle-aged couple of Baptist background sought membership in the CRC but had difficulty accepting the proof of infant baptism. A pastor in Classis Muskegon protested the Classis’ decision to allow them membership. Synod did not sustain the protest, allowing them to maintain membership. The grounds included the following:

1. Article 61 of the Church Order does not deny the right and duty of a Consistory to evaluate each case of admittance according to the special circumstances of the persons requesting such admittance.
2. In this case the couple agrees wholeheartedly with the Reformed religion, except on the point of direct biblical evidence for the doctrine of infant baptism, and is willing to be further instructed in the Reformed doctrine of baptism.
3. This couple also promised not to propagate any views conflicting with the doctrinal position of the church.¹⁴

Was this particular case a formula for the official position going forward? According to Henry DeMoor’s Church Order Commentary, it was not. For one thing, he says, a middle-aged couple would most likely not be faced with the issue of having to present a child for baptism due to age. Also, “It is highly unlikely that these cases are exactly like the one in 1964. The Synod’s ruling applied only to one particular protest, one particular judgment, and one particular couple’s request. It may not be broadened into existing law when the law would almost certainly contravene the creeds and Article 56 of the Church Order.”¹⁵

When the question arose as to whether or not the CRC would tolerate local discernment about different views of baptism, Synod decided not to study the issue because “the Church Order requires infant baptism to be administered. Our desire to widen the circle of fellowship in the CRC, while good, should not detract from our confessional identity.”¹⁶

In discussing a 2011 report that examined faith formation in light of the sacraments, Synod, by way of a floor motion, deleted the sentence in Church Order Article 59-b that said, “This public profession of faith includes a commitment to the creeds and confessions of the Christian Reformed Church.”¹⁷ Technically this motion should have been ruled out of order because it was a substantive change. Synod 2012 restored the sentence, noting that this requirement for members to commit to the creeds and confessions made at the time of public profession of faith “has been specifically included in the Church Order since the sixteenth century.” They also said, “Churches of the Reformation have always insisted on a mature membership. Those who become ‘confessing members’ not only profess their personal faith but embrace the faith of the church as expressed in its creeds and confessions.”¹⁸ Both Synods 2011 and 2012 approved a principle regarding infant dedication that stated that when parents request infant or child dedication instead of baptism, the local congregations should “refrain from leading rituals of infant or child dedication in public worship services” because it is “not consistent with the Reformed confessions.”¹⁹

Conclusion

As I hope this essay has demonstrated, CRC Synod has taken a consistent view that confessing members need to commit themselves to the Reformed Confessions. I close with one more important distinction that Synod made in 1975. Synod was presented with a report after studying the binding nature of synodical decisions and the confessions. Synod approved a recommendation that said that “these confessions are binding upon all the office-bearers as is indicated by their subscription to these confessions in the Form of Subscription. These confessions are binding upon all confessing members of the church as is indicated by their public profession of faith.”²⁰

Notes

1. R. Scott Clark, “A Case For Confessional Membership,” November 4, 2024.
2. URCNA, “Report on the Level of Doctrinal Commitment Necessary for Membership in URCNA Congregations,” 2012.
3. URCNA, “Report,” Affirmation 4.
4. See Christian Reformed Church, “Covenant for Officebearers in the Christian Reformed Church,” 2012.
5. Christian Reformed Church, “Covenant for Officebearers.”
6. CRC, Agenda for Synod 1976, p. 570.
7. CRC, “Service for Baptism (1976)”; “Service for Baptism II (1976).”
8. CRC, “Form for the Profession of Faith (1932).” The 1976 form says, “Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God revealing Christ and his redemption, and that the confessions of this church faithfully reflect this revelation?” CRC, “Form for the Profession of Faith (1976).”
9. CRC, Acts of Synod 1890, Article 61. Synod adopted these questions to bring them in line with questions which are found in the Compendium, a simplified version of the Heidelberg Catechism used for catechism teaching. See also CRC, “Church Order (1920),” Article 61. See this resource on previous versions of the Church Order at Heritage Hall of the Hekman Library, Calvin University.
10. Free Reformed Churches of North America, Church Order, 81. This question was derived from G. Voetius. Translated from Dutch.
11. CRC, “Form for the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper (1964).”
12. R. B. Kuiper, As to Being Reformed (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1926), 180.
13. CRC, Acts of Synod 1888, p. 19, Art. 57.
14. CRC, Acts of Synod 1964, p. 63.
15. Henry DeMoor, Church Order Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2010), 178.
16. CRC, Acts of Synod 2000, p. 710.
17. CRC, Acts of Synod 2011, p. 830.
18. CRC, Acts of Synod 2012, p. 771.
19. CRC, Acts of Synod 2011, p. 831–2; CRC, Acts of Synod 2012, p. 774–5.
20. CRC, Acts of Synod 1975, p. 44.

©Josh Christoffels. All Rights Reserved.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• Josh Christoffels

  

  Rev. Josh Christoffels is an alumnus of Westminster Seminary California (2014). He has taught English to university students in China, served as a pastor in Chandler, MN, and currently serves as the pastor of the Hammond Christian Reformed Church in Hammond, IN.

  More by Josh Christoffels ›