Faith Formation Committee Interacts with Classes
When Synod gave a mandate to the Faith Formation Committee, they gave a much more comprehensive mandate than to study an issue and bring some recommendations. We have been mandated to lead the denomination in a study and discussion of the issues, and to serve “as a resource for discussion of these topics at a congregational and classical level.” (Synod 2007)
In the Spring of 2009, we issued an offer to spend some time with CRC Classes for such discussions. We have been delighted and heartened by the response.
As of May 1, 2009, representatives of our committee have meet with ten different classes:
Classis Holland
Classis Chatham
Classis Grandville
Classis Central Plains
Classis Northcentral Iowa
Classis Hudson and Hacksensack
Classis Eastern Canada
Classis Heartland
Classis Lake Erie
Eleven more Classis visits are scheduled during the remainder of this Spring and next Fall:
Classis Grand Rapids South
Classis Toronto
Classis Grand Rapids North
Classis Zeeland
Classis Niagara
Classis Huron
Classis Georgetown
Classis Minnkota
Classis Lake Superior
Classis Wisconsin
Classis Columbia
We have been deeply appreciative of the hospitality shown to us, the time allotted in the busy schedules of Classis meetings, and the insights we have gained. At our meeting in April, we spent some committee time musing about these visits and the observations we have come away with. Here is our record of those insights:
a. Appreciation – a great deal of appreciation has been expressed for our work, both the sensitivity and seriousness with which we are taking it up, and the listening stance we have taken.
b. Complexity – as we become more aware of the complexity of the issues before us, so many others have been surprised that the task is so large and so many issues are interrelated.
c. Lack of Clarity – there seems to be little clarity and/or unanimity on either what profession of faith really is and on what the sacrament of communion really does.
d. Diversity of Practice – many are surprised at the broad diversity of practice in the CRC in this matter.
e. Lack of Awareness of 1988 and 1995 – the age for POF has not shifted to younger youth like we thought it had been, largely because of a lack of knowledge of previous decisions by Synod.
f. Anxiety about Youth – the churches have a genuine concern for the faith formation of its youth, is often filled with anxiety about the exodus of youth from the church, but unsure about how to meet these needs.
g. Milestones – many are intrigued by, and interested in, the idea of milestones and we see great potential if certain milestone events can be celebrated wholesomely
h. Caution – while many are thankful we are wrestling with these issues, they are concerned that too much attention here may further divide an already wounded denomination. The concerns are: Will we push a decision on them? Will we further fragment the denomination? Will more controversies erupt? How can we enlist some conservative voices to stand with us? How can we get past the deeply embedded traditional interpretation of I Corinthians 11?
i. Impatience – others want us to get on with it quickly.
Even as we have gain so much insight by conversations with Classes, we trust they have also gained a better understanding of the issues the church is dealing with. If we can continue to work together in this way we believe the church will be served well and the formation of the faith of all will proceed healthily.
Howard Vanderwell, Sec.
