Home
About Us
Keeping in Touch with Our Work
Video
NEW Lord's Supper Report
NEW Affirming Baptism and Forming Faith
NEW 1 Corinthians 11 Bible Study
Children at the Lord's Supper
Profession of Faith
Resources for Further Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
Around the CRC

Summary of Comments from the 2007 Survey

We?ve grouped the survey comments according to the headings and subheadings below. Comments that touch upon more than one of these categories have been placed in the dominant category.

1. The congregation and/or church leader(s) sense a need for revision of the traditional Reformed understanding of Lord?s Supper, as it concerns children.
A) General comments
B) Biblical issues
C) Theological issues
D) Pastoral or practical issues

2. The congregation and/or church leader(s) believe that revising the traditional Reformed understanding of the Lord?s Supper is inappropriate.
A) General comments
B) Biblical issues
C) Theological issues
D) Pastoral or practical issues
E) Issues relating to profession of faith

3. Concern shown that either Synod 2006 was acting too quickly in this decision, or that the matter was not addressed in local congregations adequately before it moved to Synod.

4. The church leader(s) is more open/eager than the congregation for a revision of the traditional Reformed understanding of Lord?s Supper.

5. The local church has taken steps toward opening the Lord?s Supper to non-professing members of the church.

6. Limited response by the congregation either because the congregation is unaware that this issue exists at all or that the church consistory has not yet formally addressed the matter.

7. The church may be willing to proceed toward a revised stance on the CRC?s view of the Lord?s Supper provided that more convincing arguments are provided or more guidance is given for making this change.

8. Miscellaneous

1. The congregation and/or church leader(s) sense a need for revision of the traditional Reformed understanding of Lord?s Supper, particularly as it concerns children.

A) General comments

We have only talked about it with our shepherding elders. They are eager for it and we do not anticipate resistance.
Strongly welcome children to the Lord's Table!
We've been praying and eager for this decision for a decade.
We are eager as a consistory and studying the issue. I believe that we will pass the recommendations that our study committee makes after deliberation and discussion. There will be a level of trepidation as this is new for us. Furthermore, this may ruffle some feathers in a congregation that has some older and more conservative members. We do feel it will be positively received with little division on this matter.
There are a few who are concerned but the majority welcome synod's decision.
Eager is the only choice that works for my response - although even it is not ideal. A better word for it might be "ready." It is simply not an issue for us ? it is just the way of life for our church that young people of any age are welcome to take part.
These are hard questions to answer, because the general patterns do not capture the exceptions. We have one young girl who has been taking communion but has not made profession of faith. As a council we have decided to wait on the action of synod before we move ahead, but we are open to welcoming baptized children to the table if they or their parents request it. Many of us are eager to open the table to all the baptized, but we wonder what will become of profession of faith, and we wonder if opening up the table will discourage or encourage teens to take their faith more seriously.
This congregation has wholeheartedly accepted and celebrated the 2006 synodical decision. PLEASE do not rescind.
Wonderful. I believed in this position when we studied it in the 80s, but could not get synod to move. Congratulations. For four years I chaired a study committee that felt like a waste of time, but you have taken the position I feel is right. Maybe it was worth it.
Let's continue to encourage full participation in the Lord's Supper for everyone in God's covenant family.
I think it's a wonderful and biblical idea that takes the meaning of baptism seriously.
As parents, my wife and I have always wanted our children to share in the Lord's Supper. As a member of the church, apart from my role as a pastor, I like to see children making profession of faith at an early age, as early as age 7-10.
Children should be participating in the Lord's Supper as soon as they can eat and drink on their own. Like baptism the Lord's Supper is a gift of God's grace.

B) Biblical issues

We were ahead of synod. I have always - having read in the Old Testament that children were an integral part of the Passover - encouraged children to participate, subject to parental supervision. This offended a few older folk, but dialoguing and sound scriptural teaching (i.e. scripture trumps tradition!) usually dealt with this. Now it is not a big deal. I announced last summer that synod caught up with us and that things would continue as they were.
We believe that covenant children should be welcomed at the Lord's Table following the pattern of the Old Testament where children of the covenant were included in the Passover.

C) Theological issues

I have personally wondered many years why baptized children could not participate, given our teaching of the covenant.
Most in the congregation have wanted this for some time. When people come forward for communion they are invited to do so as a family. The children receive a prayer of blessing, and children who have indicated faith to an elder/parents are allowed to participate before doing profession of faith. Like the preaching of the word and the sacrament of infant baptism, communion is also a means of grace that should not be denied from covenant children.
We believe this is the theologically correct position for a church holding to the reformed teaching on covenant and an understanding of the sacraments as means of grace for all members of God's covenant of grace.
We are full out engaging the issue in our church. This involves such a massive cultural shift from seeing Lord?s Supper as a judgment meal to seeing it as a meal of grace and it is just taking us time. To wit, if you have always regarded the meal with fear and as something you need to earn by your good works, good confession, relative sinlessness, true sorrow for sin, then it is profoundly difficult to see it with these new eyes.
Each of our lives is our ?profession of faith.? Thanks for shifting the burden of proof from ?proving my innocence? to ?unless under formal discipline.? Next we will be working on an ?Age Appropriate Profession of Faith? for the younger students at our church through some type of public testimony and will probably adopt some version close to the '95 booklet. At this point most children will do this after they have begun to participate, but I have heard a few parents who may require it of their own children before they participate. So I still have some teaching to do there! I personally cannot wait to serve communion to my three and a half year old son on Good Friday while our ten-month old will have to wait until he can chew better! Also I would like to encourage you/the committee/ synod to continue to lead the way. Any change will be met with cries for ?change back? or maybe even ?change back or else.? I sensed this in our last Classis Thornapple Valley when two members ?cautioned? the churches not to get their hopes up because ?when synod surprises the churches like they did, there usually is a reaction the next year.? I was dismayed by their spreading of fear. We could have had a worthy discussion about how to best implement this; instead it was a wasted moment that was over before I knew what happened. So keep on keeping on. If synod goes back on this decision the churches like ours that are moving with synod will be stuck having ?tasted and seen? yet without the support of the proposed changes to back us up. Two things we have found helpful are: One, we have used with some success in explaining this is "once adopted God starts to feed his children." Second, what helped several elders see this issue clearly was the sermon by Feddes that you posted on your site: http://www.crcna.org/pages/babies_baptized.cfm.
Covenant promises are for all ages.
It is simply consistent theology. Jesus was at the Passover, where the whole family participated. It is the Passover that is "transformed" into communion. The whole covenant family belongs at the table!
I like the idea of children at the Lord?s Supper. It certainly reminds me of the covenantal theology we hold to and the grace of God by which we are saved. As Jesus once said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven,? and, "let the little children come to me..., for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.?
If we baptize infants because they are a part of the covenant of grace, why do we switch gears to require profession of faith for the covenant meal? I find most lay people see this as a "double standard," poor theology, and sometimes even a reason to go to other churches.
We have waited a long time for our denomination to welcome our covenant children to the full means of God's grace. We have everyone who is able to come forward to receive the sacrament. We invite parents to come with their baptized children and are pleased that synod has now come to this theologically consistent position. Thanks for you work on this issue.
I think the issue of children at the Lord?s Supper plugs into deeper anxieties and ambivalence in the CRC tradition. On the one hand we elevate communion to something so sacred that we dare not do it often lest we diminish its importance or special character. I think our anxiety about children participating is related to that elevation of the sacrament. Yet, ironically, this tends to marginalize communion from the central acts of our worship. We deeply need grace, but do not avail ourselves as much as we could of a major means of grace. I think this betrays too narrow an understanding of the sacrament, one that focuses mainly on the death of Christ and the removal of guilt, and takes too little notice of Christ?s life and resurrection, and the ongoing nurture of our spiritual life in him. Younger members of the covenant need that nurturing grace as much as anyone. Until we broaden and deepen our sacramental theology (we should listen to Calvin!), we will continue to struggle with our eucharistic practice. If this task force can help, it will be a blessing to our whole denomination.
Having children at the Lord's Table makes much sense in the light of the covenant and the inclusion of children in the covenant. Any sort of discussion needs to be done in a biblical context.
Just be aware of what a massive cultural shift this is. Despite the good intentions of the reformers the CRC has in fact acquired a sizeable works righteousness ethos in its on-the-ground practice in the churches. Comments we hear around here are, "Well, this makes it just too easy!" The core fundamental struggle here is to comprehend the far-reaching implications of grace.
This takes seriously the issue of children making a profession of faith. They can desire to make one before they are ready and understand out of a desire to be part of communion. It also takes Lord's Supper and covenant more seriously as it includes all members of the covenant in this means of grace.
I fully support the idea that communion is a means of grace that should be accessible to baptized and professing members alike. I look forward to synod ratifying last year?s decision and opening communion to our whole church family.
At the risk of sounding trite, it seems that "being church" (i.e. community of believers) trumps "doing the sacraments" correctly. While obviously both are important, if we can steadily love and care for each person in our church family, there's a pretty good chance that we'll be embracing Christ's intent for the sacrament. On the other hand, making sure we create the right rules around his table won't necessarily get us any closer to the intent of his fabulous feast of grace.
It is an idea long overdue if we are to be consistent in our definition of the sacrament as God acting and not dependent on the faith of the participant (as it is with baptism).
I am thankful we have f-i-n-a-l-l-y become consistent with our theology. We baptize children on the basis of their covenant membership in the community and the old covenant sign of circumcision. We should also welcome children to the Lord's Table. They participated in the old covenant meal of remembrance, the Passover, because they too HAD BEEN DELIVERED from Egyptian slavery, just like their parents, BY THE BLOOD OF THE SLAIN LAMB, even if they could not yet understand it.
As the study says, this just makes sense. The multi-tiered membership status did not... I told our congregation that our membership was like credit cards: you have silver (baptized only), gold (baptized and communion), platinum (baptized, communion, and profession of faith), and titanium (baptized, communion, profession of faith, and over 18 yrs old). The Bible does not create tiers of believers like that, so neither should we.
We have had children come forward with their parents for several years. Last year on Good Friday we invited children to take a stone and place it at the foot of the cross as they reflected upon things in their life they wanted Jesus to forgive. This involves them but maybe not enough. The sacrament is a means of grace and thus can be a significant factor in the faith formation of a child. However, just eating and drinking at the Lord's Supper does no more than just pouring water on someone's head. We wish the committee well as they continue to work out this mater. We pray that you will be given much wisdom in the Lord.
If we believe in covenant and in the Lord's Supper being not just a sign but a means of grace, why would we deny people who are at a stage where they're usually most open to the leading of the Spirit? Unless, of course, it's not a means of grace, but just a memorial.
I just took a call to a new church in July. My prior congregation had a young man eleven years of age who made profession of faith after being mentored by an elder. He is sincere. I just saw him again after six months. His spiritual growth is real and marked. On a separate note; I have done extensive theological research recently on the topic of the Lord's Supper (This hardly qualifies me as an expert though!). I have wondered for years about the tie between circumcision and baptism and the Passover and the Supper. My curiosity is on several levels, not least of which is the prominence of children in Israel at the Passover celebration. How is it we can bring children into the family and then deprive them of the means to grace? Just a question from a curious pastor.
I think allowing children to the Lord's Supper is a proper practice that fits with the Israelite's practice of allowing children at the Passover feast. And if we baptize our children even as the Israelites circumcised their children, shouldn't we also welcome them to the feast that explains their baptism. It's the parent's and church's responsibility to tell our children when they ask us, "Why do we eat at the Lord's Table?." These are teachable moments.
Thanks for your work. We believe that allowing children at the table is consistent with our view of covenant and baptism of infants.
I've believed more and more over the years that our denomination has an over-controlling approach to the Lord's Supper, riddled with extra-biblical rules; and that all the rules about making profession of faith in order to "qualify" to participate in the Lord's Supper are among them. Our responsibility as elders is to encourage people to "examine themselves," and to withhold the Lord's Supper only when there is undeniable evidence that this step of discipline is warranted. As far as children go, their parents ought to supervise their participation, and the elders' role is to help the parents do this. All of this is my opinion, and I recognize that breaking down established legalisms is pastorally very tricky. I pray that God will give our denominational leaders wisdom.
Finally we are getting our sacramental practices in alignment! Interestingly, one of my colleagues who has always had somewhat Anabaptist undercurrents in his life has reacted and objected strongly to Synod's decision. For him the element of personal profession is HUGE. For myself, it is the issue of God's primary covenant statements and promises, to which we but respond, which is HUGE. The Supper is for ALL God's family. I look forward to officiating in it this way.

D) Pastoral or practical issues

I have had some reactions to a moving communion service in which the comment was made, this does not make sense for our children to not be encouraged in the same way ...
As a new church development it has been difficult to monitor or "police" how people handle their children at the Lord's Supper. Some do it because they think it is right regardless of how we try to gently explain it. This is a welcome change.
We have had a number of younger children express interest in profession of faith recently, and most often it?s connected to their desire to participate in communion. There are many young families interested in this possibility, and I would guess it would be generally received well if there was some form of denominational endorsement.
We are ready for this. We have had some children make profession of faith but the process seems kind of forced. It's much better to simply include them at the table.
We believe this is a move in the right direction. It is especially beneficial that it places some faith-nurturing responsibility back on the parents, instead of allowing them to let it be taken by the Christian schools or churches.
We have a very active Sunday School and Catechism program, but it is like a parallel universe in terms of participating in Holy Communion. i.e., it has nothing per se to do with taking communion. Becoming a professing member means becoming an adult, voting member.
Our biggest issue so far with children and the Lord's Supper is that we have many families begin to worship with us from other church traditions. Usually these children are already taking communion and we do not discourage this. But it does mean that there's an uncomfortable discrepancy between children/early teens from CRC families who do not take communion and those from other backgrounds who do. I personally feel this decision last year will move us in the right direction, but it will be difficult for families who have grown up with the traditional CRC view that profession of faith must precede taking part in the Lord's Supper.

2. The congregation and/or church leader(s) believe that revising the traditional Reformed understanding of the Lord?s Supper is inappropriate.

A) General comments

The majority would be somewhat concerned though there is also a significant minority that is eager/somewhat eager.
We are not convinced regarding the rationale given for the change. We will now need to deal with children visiting our church from other CRCs and expecting to participate in the Lord?s Supper, which would be against our policy.
We are concerned that children of any age (even infants) could be included.
This church has made it pretty clear to me that we shall not follow synod on this one if it is ratified.
For many people the tradition that we do not allow non-professing members at the Lord's Supper table is sacred. Our communion forms have consistently emphasized one interpretation of I Cor 11 in which we are cautioned against eating and drinking unworthily. Since that has been a major emphasis in our church's liturgical forms, this will be a radical change for many.
The Lord's Supper ought to remain a sacrament partaken of by those who have professed faith in Jesus Christ.

B) Biblical issues

We are concerned about how baptized children of a younger age can meet the requirements for the Lord's Supper set forth in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 and we have significant reservations about how younger children (under the middle school age category) can meet the standards set forth in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 81.
There was no biblical basis presented for ignoring the directive in 1 Corinthians 11:29, "recognizing the body of the Lord."
Belgic Confession Article 35 and the baptismal form remind the covenant people that there are two parts to the covenant. Covenant children are obligated to believe God's promises, to trust in God alone, profess their faith in Christ, and wholeheartedly live for Christ. We ought to be concerned that people can eat and drink judgment on themselves if they don't rightly examine themselves before coming to the table as I Corinthians 11 instructs his church.
Clearly the big issue is interpreting what it means to discern the body. And clearly a child can not do this so it will be interesting to watch once again how a clear passage of scripture is handled by our CRC.
You should recommend that this decision be revised. It is unbiblical when you consider the need to discern the body - yes, we've heard the rationalization of the relevant passage but are not persuaded. It is also unworkable - if some congregations do it and others do not. What happens when a child visits one with a different practice? We scan the Reformed tradition in vain for any support for this - younger professions of faith, yes; communion without profession of faith, no!
Can our children examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink of the cup? (1 Corinthians 11:27-29) Are they mature enough not to be "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord"?

C) Theological issues

I'm somewhat concerned about the wording of the statement by synod. Lacking any age reference, someone may argue that infants and babies will be made welcome to participate in the Lord's Supper. I doubt this is the intent of the statement, but if it is, then my concern has escalated dramatically.
A traditional congregation questions most change. The issue is largely one of reverence for the sacrament and a concern that it is participated in lightly or without understanding.
The congregation believes the Lord's Supper is not only a means of grace but an active act of professing faith, so that one must be a confessor to partake.
Depending on the work of the committee our church is considering an overture to Synod of 2008 not to adopt this change. There is certainly more to the theology of participation in the Lord's Supper than membership in the covenant. While baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the covenant community, the Lord's Supper seems to us to be a sacrament which is a means of sustaining and confirming the grace of salvation for those who have a clear and knowledgeable understanding of their place in the covenant of grace and the covenant community. We don't see how a six-year-old can really "discern the body" or examine him/herself.
The decision flies in the face of what we've been teaching our church for years as to why we explicitly DON'T allow children at the table without a profession. With this decision you're basically saying, "Our theology has been wrong all this time." We are really surprised at synod.
This marks a significant drift away from our evangelical emphasis. I'm not at all sure if I as pastor support it.
Synod's decision seemed to be made without significant biblical-theological reflection. The denomination would be well served if the task force would compile biblical-theological as well as historical grounds for this decision. At present, it seems the decision to admit children to the Supper is made with little more than a passing mention of the covenant. It may well be time to move in this direction, but it should be done prudently.
I believe that the Lord's Supper is for believers, particularly those who are cognizant that they have placed their faith in the person and work of Christ for their salvation. I would be open to allowing a young person who has a solid faith commitment and an understanding of his position in Christ to receive communion prior to making his profession of faith. I am opposed to the indiscriminate dispensing of communion to children who do not fit the criteria spelled out above. I am especially dubious about including infants, toddlers, or children in diapers at the Communion Table. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches baptismal regeneration, does not permit children to receive communion until age seven or eight. I do not believe the Christian Reformed Church should allow unregenerate people to receive communion. In my judgment, by opening the Communion table to children, there seems to be a tacit assertion that the children are regenerate. After all, we wouldn't give communion to people who are willful covenant breakers, would we? In the final analysis, it is difficult for me to embrace the concept of including all baptized children at the communion table, because I do not believe in presumptive regeneration.
Even though the decision has already been made to go ahead with this, as one who subscribes to the three forms of unity, I wonder how this decision is going to affect Article 35 of the Belgic Confession which clearly states that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is meant to "nourish and sustain those who are already born again and engrafted into his family." It seems to me that this article will have to be re-worded if we are going to allow children (albeit covenant youth) to partake without expecting any kind of profession of faith.

D) Pastoral or practical issues

Our congregation really hasn't reacted since we have not implemented anything yet - we are still waiting for further guidance from the denomination. Our pastor and some elders are eager to move ahead, other elders have some reservations - most center on the question of if and when a child must still make a public profession of faith and when do we cut them off from the table if they fail to make a profession? 18? 20? After college? 25? Upon Marriage?
We continue to be very concerned with the "politically correct," worldly attitude our denomination continues to take on many issues that in the past we were all in agreement on.
This decision was just weird and only serves to alienate.
We have been encouraging younger children to make public profession of faith. This decision has the potential of taking the wind out of our sails on that. In order to make profession of faith (and partake of communion) everyone needed to attend a pastor's class in which they were taught a summary of church teachings. Already there is a lack of commitment to church education. The practical effect of this decision will only further erode that.
There has been some discussion, but mostly about how it would work. One member in particular articulated the concern that a child cannot understand the depth and richness (and enormity) of the fact that this is Christ's body sacrificed for my sins. But their feelings (and perhaps mine) depend quite a bit on the way in which children would be permitted to the table--will there be some requirement of demonstrating faith in some age-appropriate way? If this concern is met, I think that my congregation would mostly be OK with it.
At this point, I haven't heard a great deal of reaction. If it leaned one way, it would be toward "concerned." The congregation doesn't seem to have a problem with children professing their faith. However, to open it up wide without an opportunity to wrestle through the issues would definitely cause some concern. We've discussed the issues at a council level, and have decided to let it sit until synod comes with some more concrete recommendations. I am eager to hear the guidelines.
Several families have reservations based on well articulated theological convictions.
Not upset with the decision, just concerned with how that will work in our liturgy and polity.
Typical out of touch CRC leadership. Do you have any clue what this does to renewal churches or church plants where 50% of the folk have no Christian, much less CRC background? Never asked did you? I figured. Ask next time. This is so counter to what we are trying to achieve. We here are trying to move "Christianization" of so many in our context/culture to a relational, active, verbal commitment to Jesus. This action is a huge step in the wrong direction.
Although we can understand the covenant theological basis for paedo-communion, opening up the table makes things complicated from a technical perspective and raises many questions. Given the emphasis in our liturgical forms on "examining oneself," one cannot help but wonder if this is an appropriate burden to place upon children. There is a disconnection between the celebration of the Lord's Supper as it has historically been understood and practiced in the CRC and paedo-communion. The historic practice of this sacrament will likely continue in this congregation. It is an intelligible system which has worked well for centuries: covenant children receive the sacrament of baptism, and once they are of sufficient age to consciously claim those covenant promises as their own they profess their faith, participate in communion, and become full members.
My pastoral colleague and I both feel that some form of profession of faith is appropriate before taking communion. We disagree with the covenantal argument for children participating in the Lord's Supper. We and the council are concerned that putting the permission for communion completely in the hands of the parents is unwise. An RCA colleague of ours has told us that the RCA's practice of opening communion to all baptized members has caused some problems. As wonderful as it is to have children participate, some parents don't do a good job of helping their children discern what's going on in the sacrament.
I think there is a wait-and-see attitude wondering what the next synod will do with this matter. Initiating pre-junior high profession of faith raised a lot of concern, my impression that this decision if ratified will be very difficult to implement in our congregation.
It appears that the current decision has removed all "guarding" of the table. At Synod this year Dr. DeMoor gave some expression that there should at least be a simple reaffirmation of the meaning of baptism while profession of faith is an indicator of a growing understanding of the teachings and workings of the local church. This makes a lot of sense to us and we wish he had voiced it more strongly at synod. We would like the committee to indicate that it has come to grips with this concept which is not an either/or but more of a both/and.
The council was largely unaware of the decision until I handed out the summary of the major decisions of 2006 and pointed this issue out to them. While two of them were favorably inclined, the rest were shocked. It really involves a paradigm shift, demanding a break from a centuries old practice. I am personally in favor of this, but also feel the dramatic nature of the change.
Understand it, but not eager to implement it because of possible fallout.
We are very much in disagreement with the decision to impose this change on the denomination. Furthermore, we are convinced it will further divide the CRCNA at a time when we desperately need unity. Our questions abound: Why is this being done? Has anyone identified a problem with our historical position and practice that needs to be fixed? Are proponents of this change willing to provide a biblical/theological argument that counters the one underlying our historical position and practice on this issue? Will the changes to the Church Order allow a congregation to continue our historical position and practice without having to depart from Church Order for conscience sake? We were never aware that this was even an issue in our denomination, and we are disappointed and frustrated to see our denomination take this direction with no notice to the churches. We see poor procedure, poor theology, and simply poor manners in light of Synod 2006.
One of the biggest concerns is what will happen to membership in the church and will people see the value of membership and its importance.
I have not heard anything specific one way or the other. I do know that a couple of elders have expressed their concern -- mostly in terms of what to do with a child who actively participates in the Lord's Supper and then "strays from the path" as a young person or even an adult, regardless of a full profession of faith or not. I think that the concern is procedural.
Our council has had informal discussion on this and we believe profession of faith is necessary before coming to the table.
While the council has not taken an official position, several members have expressed their deep concern about such a radical shift in this practice.
We do not see the need for a change from the current practice. We believe that admitting covenant children to the Lord's Table will devalue and minimize the sacrament in the faith experience of the members of the church.
Synod last dealt with this issue in 1991. At that time it saw the wisdom of requiring an age appropriate profession of faith before inviting members to partake of communion. What new information that wasn't available in 1991 persuaded Synod to change its mind? How can we be certain that Synod 2007 won't overturn this decision? Churches that are committed to upholding church order cannot keep sustaining these radical shifts in practice without become frustrated and cynical. We will not be implementing this decision or even discussing this matter until it is ratified by Synod 2007.
We believe that in the early church in order to become a member of the church a person studied the Apostle's Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. After studying this for a year the new believers would be baptized on Easter Sunday. As a church we believe children should understand these three, and have assurance of their salvation. We have all the teenagers memorize four key Bible passages. I John 5:11-12 (Assurance of Salvation), I Corinthians 10:13 (Assurance of Deliverance from Temptation), I John 1:9 (Assurance of Forgiveness), John 16:24 (Assurance of Answered Prayer).
I think this is taking the denomination by surprise. Some, of course, will welcome it. Others will resist because they've long understood as "biblical" the requirement of profession of faith. Something I wonder about personally. Doesn't this take supervision of the sacrament away from the elders and put it in the hands of parents, since it is parents who will know if their non-professing children are "ready" to partake? I question the wisdom of such a change.
We support the idea of children at the Lord's Supper but recognize that this will be a major change and don't want this to divide the church (any more than it is divided?).
Membership has been a significant issue of discussion with some of our local congregations. We struggle with how to promote it and if people value it. Allowing for baptized members to commune could negatively impact an already difficult issue. What differentiates a baptized member from a professing member if not Lord's Supper admittance? How do you exercise church discipline toward someone that is not a professing member, but would like to partake at the Lord's Supper? Why not just continue to encourage children to make profession of faith at an earlier age to make sure that they can "discern the body?"
This is a HUGE decision. To me it de-emphasizes the need for our children to still "receive" Christ. The implied message is that they are Christians simply because of their covenant status. So not only does this decision totally redefine what the Lord's Supper is about, to me, it redefines the Christian faith. The Belgic Confession, Article 35, for example says that the Lord's Supper is ?to nourish and support those who He has already regenerated and incorporated into His family, which is the church." This decision would appear to be saying that our children are regenerated already OR perhaps that baptism regenerates them (the Roman Catholic view). I have no idea how I can implement this decision if it is ratified. In fact I'm not sure I can remain a pastor in the CRC.

E) Issues relating to profession of faith

We believe that a child should make a credible profession of faith before being admitted to the Lord's Table.
We have yet to dig through all of the theological implications of this decision yet, but strategically and pastorally it appears to be a huge mistake. It will be a definite challenge to create a culture where making a public commitment to Christ seems like a significant step when nothing changes before and after the commitment. You will likely make the public profession of faith a useless appendage. Perhaps that is ok in as much as it is an extra-biblical requirement, but we would like to see a much clearer explanation why such a move is warranted, and someone asking the question "Is it wise?"
We will probably continue to encourage a profession of faith before admission to the Lord's Table.
We think this is a departure from having youth and children make a clear commitment to Jesus Christ. We believe this is just going to weaken the commitment of making a public profession of faith. We do not think this is a good idea. We believe it is evidence of the CRC trying to accommodate the culture.
What is concerning about this decision is how it impacts the Reformed understanding of covenant and baptism/Lord's Supper. I am assuming many view this as a way to unite the church of all ages. But my question is will it really strengthen the church or will it weaken it. We believe that baptism is where God declares his promises to a child as he enters the covenant family. That child as a baptized member has roles in the church (for example, asking questions about the faith and the sacrament, like the children did during the Passover), but their role in the Lord's Supper does not need to be "equal" to that of a professing member. Profession of faith and the Lord's Supper are linked because that is a sacrament where the individual/community states "I believe!" . . . "I know through the gift of faith that these promises are true for me!" . . . "I love my Lord who died for me and forgave me!" Yes, a child can say this and believe this, I don't doubt that. But then maybe we must encourage earlier profession of faith, and not bypass the significance of profession of faith linked with the Lord's Supper.
It has taken away the need for making public profession of their faith.
Most congregations in our area, including ours, are very concerned about this and would not welcome children at the Lord's Table without making prior profession of faith. It simply will not happen.
We are also finding that many people cannot get past the idea that the Lord's Supper is primarily a personal profession of faith, rather than a communion of God's people.
What I am most concerned with is how to make profession of faith still a meaningful activity. Already we have youth who seem quite mature in their Christian walk not bothering to profess their faith. I appreciate the move to children at the table and believe it is correct. I am concerned about the next step and don't want to move toward an all at once "confirmation".
This decision will create widely diverse practices throughout the denomination--thus further fracturing the unity of the CRC. In recent years, it seems that young people are reluctant to make profession of faith anyway. If they receive communion as children, why should they make profession of faith at all?
Perhaps the CRC is too far along in the move to allowing the "children" change to even have a committee spend time on this, but I am hoping that the committee deals with the whole idea that this might cause some kids to simply not care about making any sort of profession of faith at all. I'm not saying it is right, but it certainly ties in: frankly, some kids/parents would see no reason for a young person to make profession of faith if they are taking communion already. Currently, and practically speaking, profession of faith gets used as a sort of rite of passage to eat at the Lord's Table in some churches. Not officially of course. So not being allowed to take communion becomes (sometimes) a nudge to keep taking steps of faith (namely eventually profession of faith) so they will be able to. Again, I'm not saying that's why someone SHOULD profess faith, but it is reality, and sometimes it is the nudge a young person needs. Does having children at the table neutralize this tiny, yet sometimes needed, bit of leverage? Should it be neutralized? I would hate to have a whole generation of kids grow up and be content to simply be baptized and not profess faith. Perhaps the question for the committee to address then is: what enticement do we have left? "NOW, you can vote at congregational meetings. YIPPEE!!!!" Do you see what I mean? What kinds of things/programs can replace communion as an "enticer," if you will. I also hope the committee addresses the issue of what kinds of things we can say at a communion service for visitors. Currently, we say something like: "If you are professing member of an evangelical Bible-believing church, believe in Jesus as your Savior, know you are sinner, want to live for Christ, then please join us in participating." What does it become with the change? Is it simply, "If you've been baptized, please partake with us"? Simpler, I suppose. But do we want to say that? Also, I would hope the committee could address the "at what age" issue. How young would kids be coming to eat and drink the supper? Also, how would communion work into a Children's Worship ministry that happens while "big church" is going on? Will communion be celebrated in the Children's Worship area? With elders present? I hope these questions help you.

3. Concern shown that either Synod 2006 was acting too quickly in this decision, or that the matter was not addressed in local congregations adequately before it moved to synod.

Our council has considered the synod's action; we have decided that we will not go the route of synod. We will continue to do what we have been doing, expecting some form of instruction to go along with a public profession of faith. We understand that covenant theology can lead us easily to the position that synod has endorsed in 2006. For us to implement that decision however, on a short notice, without adequate time for discussion and building of consensus, is deemed unwise and potentially divisive. We will continue with our present practice.
I've talked briefly to the elders about this, but I don't think the congregation as a whole has any idea that this is coming.
We have not studied it yet. I personally am puzzled by how synod could make this decision without first putting it before the denomination. I feel it was not done "decently and in order." Members who have heard about it are also puzzled as to how and why this could come about, but we have not received clear explanation on it. Most don't even know about it yet. "Full membership in the covenant" needs to be explained also in light of the comment that "not all Israel is Israel."
The churches were not given adequate opportunity to respond to this significant change in the church order.
Very concerned that an item not on synod's agenda was approved with no allowance for councils to respond. From my understanding no new information or studies had been presented to those reports and studies that were not adopted in previous years. The reasons reported by delegates on the floor of synod were pragmatic and the debate lacked theological and biblical substance. Of course, this is third-hand information. There is a bit of a perception here (in NW Iowa) that synod is doing as they please without following church procedures.
There is a concern because of how rapidly this went through synod. As a church, we were not even aware this was going to an item on the agenda that could possibly be voted upon at this synod. Because of this concern, I appreciate this survey, because the voice of the congregations (even though that should occur with the delegates too) is important in issues like this.
Synod acted and made its decision, but I don't think the case for children at the Lord's Supper has really been made throughout the denomination. The logic that since the Lord's Supper is a covenant meal, everyone in the covenant (baptized as well as professing) should be allowed to participate, is not convincing. People sense that the sacraments are different: in baptism we are passive (it is a sign that is done to us) and in communion we are active (take, eat, remember and believe). So I think there is a bumpy road ahead.
The general reaction is that synod can do what it wants to do. That doesn't necessarily change what we do.
We believe that synod acted in a precipitous and unwise manner. The churches were not given time to reflect on this matter before a decision was made. This has further eroded our confidence in synod.
I was a delegate at the last synod and served on the committee of pre-advice that studied this issue. I am convinced that synod acted hastily in making this decision. I would encourage the task force to present a biblical and confessional rationale that is thorough, persuasive, and clear. It will need to be so in order to get a positive and supportive response from local congregations.
Synod really botched this one. They would not study the issue further (as they were asked) and simply picked and chose from both the majority and minority reports what they wanted to do. This was a capricious decision! The mis-exegesis that has come out supporting synod's decision since then is appalling. The decision needs to be reversed.

4. The church leader(s) is more open/eager than the congregation for a revision of the traditional Reformed understanding of Lord’s Supper.

There are members of the congregation who are ready for this; there are some who believe it has been our tradition not to bring children to the table and we should not begin now, though they cannot point to any particular reason or scriptural grounds for this position. It is my personal opinion that it is about time the denomination moves in this direction!
I would say uncertainty or even "it isn’t broke, let's not fix it" is the widest view. I personally take a somewhat more eager view, but have concerns as well.
I (the pastor) am very supportive, but we haven't made any changes yet.
I offered to introduce the topic for discussion through a newsletter article and some council members were concerned that we could "open a can of worms" that could have negative effect in the congregation. Others thought that a discussion could be healthy for the congregation. We have not had any negative reactions to the announcement of synod's decision in the Banner, neither have we had anyone who asked that their children be allowed to participate in the sacrament.
I am in favor of moving in this direction.
The senior pastor (that is me) is strongly in favor of allowing all children of believers (all covenant children) at the Lord's Supper. He is very happy that synod continues to move to a more truly Reformed and biblical celebration of the Lord's Supper.
I have long sought this solution as a pastor. I am very eager to implement this decision. However, I was under the impression that synod had not given approval until a later synod ratifies. Are you saying that synod already allows such practice for baptized children?
My feeling is that pastors are much more open to this than the average member. That's because for us theology trumps practice, but for the average member practice trumps theology. A bit of an over-generalization perhaps, but it's my observation.
Not many are aware of the decision. The leaders who are aware have had positive reactions but realize there will have to be a lot of education and explaining for people.
The leadership is eager to welcome children. There are a few individuals who have expressed concern based mostly on "this is how we've always done it" mentality. We currently have a team of leaders preparing us for welcoming children and possibly moving us forward in the interim time as well.
I would welcome children to partake in communion but even before synod came out with its decision my consistory took a step "back," requiring that only those who have made profession may come to the Lord's table.
I think this is an important matter to discuss. At this point, I think baptized members should be permitted at the Lord's Supper table. Yet there are others who disagree. This conversation must be had in a respectful, loving manner, lest we run into the same polarization, divisiveness, and schism we have encountered (and continue to experience) in the conversation/argument over women serving in the offices of elder, deacon, and minister. It needs to be discussed, but Christian love needs to temper the discussion.

5. The local church has taken steps in the direction toward opening Lord’s Supper up to non-professing members of the church.

Our church has already been doing what has been recommended by Synod 2006. We currently have a three-session pre-communion class that is attended by children ages 5-10. After the class they are visited by the district elder and the youth elder and talk about their faith and desire to come to the table. Then they are announced to the congregation on the Sunday they take their first communion. They are encouraged to profess their faith in their teen years.
We were ahead of synod. I have always - having read in the Old Testament that children were an integral part of the Passover - encouraged children to participate, subject to parental supervision. This offended a few older folk, but dialoguing and sound scriptural teaching (i.e. scripture trumps tradition!) usually dealt with this. Now it is not a big deal. I announced last summer that synod caught up with us and that things would continue as they were.
We already welcome children to the Lord's Table, and most come. However, some families have chosen to not allow their children to the table until they have professed their faith.
We've been doing since we started the church seven years ago, so our group sees this as a no-brainer.
We like our present system and do not plan to change. Our system allows younger children to partake in communion without the profession of faith step. We believe our three-step system is a great one. We believe that synod's decision this year does not take into consideration the parent's role in training the children as to what is going on as was the custom when the Passover was celebrated.
We have allowed children to participate for a number of years. This isn't automatic, but after parents have indicated that they think their child is ready to do so and have a "talk" with their zone elder.
Our congregation has allowed children at the table for a number of years now.
In the past our church had a tough time allowing young children at the table due to how some from our church had previously interpreted the Church Order. Now that the Church Order is being changed we have decided to move with/alongside/slightly ahead of synod. The initial elder decision was unanimous support. We are currently teaching through this with sermons which equate the signs of the covenant, held a congregational meeting, and plan to start on Good Friday with opening up our communion table to children. Thanks for leading the way.
It was not a very noticeable decision. Children have been participating in this church for quite some time. All they need to do is indicate to their parents that they love Jesus. Then they are allowed. No elder checks up on the situation.
In January, 2006, we made the decision to allow children, starting in grade 6, to participate in the Lord's Supper if they desired and if their parents were comfortable with it (regardless of profession of faith). The Synod 2006 decision makes us in line with the denomination. We also will look for good educational material on the Lord's Supper geared to the grade-five student.
We have practiced this method for some years so it is not something new that we needed to introduce.
Many in my congregation were not in favor of having children participate in the Lord's Supper when I suggested the idea six years ago. It was implemented, however, and has been a great blessing in the congregation. Some who were opposed to it then have had a change of heart and mind.
We invited all members of the covenant family to participate in the Lord's Supper shortly after the Synod 2006 decision. The majority of the parents shared how meaningful it was for them and their children to participate together.
The current practice in our church is that children who want to participate in the Lord's Supper have a conversation with the pastor and an elder who explain the meaning of the Lord's Supper to them. The children then do a kind of private pre-confession of faith and are officially allowed. As the elements (wine and bread) are passed through the pews some parents allow their children to participate, neglecting the official procedure. Pastoral elders and council have not taken any steps to prevent this.
We have had children at the Lord's Table for many years now. We always do a four-session orientation for the kids who ask to take the Lord's Supper. We are eagerly awaiting the next development that Synod 2006 promised in 2007.
We have implemented the decision.
We are in a peculiar situation. Many children already participate and we don't stop them. We do encourage children (and parents) in these circumstances to take our "Children at Communion" class. For this reason, our congregation hasn't had a particular reaction - though some see it as a very positive move.
We were doing this anyway.
No particular reaction because we are already doing it.
We are moving forward with having children partake. At present we are going through an education process with congregation, parents, and children.
Our congregation has been moving in this direction for some years now. Though the reactions are not unanimous, there is strong support for synod's decision.
We have always been open to all persons receiving the Lord's Supper since our congregation is made up of seekers, visitors, and folk from a spectrum of backgrounds in or out of church.
I have invited children to take communion on Maundy Thursday. It was designed to start the bridge to allowing them to take part later on. The idea seemed good but not to the level I had hoped. I have distributed some materials and papers.
A few children have been taking the Lord’s Supper. We are pretty open to such things long before synod dealt with it. The Passover precedent for the Lord’s Supper makes much sense. We still want to encourage profession of faith, but increasingly that is not seen as a priority. I do not think it is affected by the ability of children to come to the table.

6. Limited response by the congregation either because the congregation is unaware that this issue exists at all or that the church consistory has not yet formally addressed the matter.

Have not really discussed it with the council of the church.
We have not heard any reaction yet from members of the congregation - we're not sure that many people in our congregation are aware of the change and we are moving slowly with major changes like this.
We will discuss with the elders our exact process but our church (specifically parents with younger children) is very receptive to the changes.
The decision has been brought forward at an elders’ meeting. The general response was that this is not an issue facing us presently and we can leave reviewing it until later. I personally was a bit disappointed in the response of the elders.
We have a couple of parents who are interested in this; no reactions from others.
We have not really addressed the matter - we will be taking this issue up on Feb. 2007.
Actually, we have only presented this before our council. At the January 2007 meeting we will discuss how and what to present to the congregation at its next congregational meeting.
I am not sure how aware they are of the decision. But it is my hope to have it ratified and have thought (perhaps fleetingly) to bring it before consistory to pre-empt the decision and making it a part of our policy now.
This has not been a pressing issue among us.
I haven't really brought it up because I was waiting for guidance from your committee. I think I will put it on the agenda of the worship committee which will get it before the elders soon.
I don't think anyone really knows it here and if they did, it would only affect one child whose parents will probably insist that she wait until she is older.
Probably many of them have not heard because council has not made a big deal of it; it has been announced, but no real action taken.
We've not dealt with the issue in a public forum.
Because the Church Order change has not yet been ratified by synod, and because I anticipate some significant discussion (and changes?) there, we have discussed this issue very little.
I began discussing this with our elders and they haven't warmed up to the idea. It is going to take a long time before they will be able to adjust.
Contrary to popular belief, our congregation doesn't tend to respond much to what happens in synod. Our council has discussed this proposal, and would support its implementation.
This is because it needed to be brought up. I did so some time ago, but they wanted to wait and see what synod did with this. No action on it yet.
Frankly, I think I'm the only one who knows about it. One or two elders may also know, but no one has brought it up at any time.
I don't think we have adequately informed ourselves about this yet.
No formal response. Elders are eager to study the matter when material is available. General response appears positive.
Some are aware of it and welcome it. Many are not aware. Council is making plans to get this issue on the table at the January congregational meeting.
It hasn't been discussed
I'm not sure that the majority of the people in the congregation have even considered this decision.
Most have paid no attention to it unless I've actually brought the issue up.
Most members of our congregation don't follow synod's decisions. This will not become an issue until the pastors raise it as one. This will happen when synod's decision is ratified in 2007.
I brought it up at the elder's meeting. The leaders basically said, "This is not an issue in our church. We are trying to reach the community; trying to work diaconally...we will file the report, but let's not open this Children at the Lord's Supper issue now.
About the only ones who really talk about this are the elders.
Frankly the congregation seems generally unaware of this as an issue. In the past - as I can tell from the yearbook record - there have been some child professions, but there is no one asking to have their children involved in receiving communion, and so no one is moving in that direction. We have about fifteen to twenty young children who would be 'eligible.' As pastor, I have a sense we have enough on our plate that I am not going to bring this question up for discussion right now.
They really don't know about it -- although this January our elders will distribute a report about the decision and ask for their reaction.
I have not sensed much reaction. Most are still unaware of this possibility. However I believe the vast majority will be eager to embrace this change.
We are going to make this an issue of discussion in council soon, with plans to bring it to the congregation.
We are currently studying it as a consistory, with some significant questions about how to interpret the decision and its big change, and what that says about past understanding.
Our congregation doesn't pay attention to synod.
Our elders are aware of it but have not discussed it.
I'm not sure they are aware of it at all. It is coming up for discussion as we have used the children's profession of faith approach twice and then put things on hold till this decision was reached. Now we need to make a plan so to speak.
My council and congregation are not aware of this decision of Synod. Folks here care little about those decisions until they are finalized and impact the way we do things.
I'm not sure they really understand what was decided.
When I brought up the subject prior to synod's decision, it received a very cool reception. I have not pushed this matter.
I believe the vast majority have absolutely no clue of the recent decision by synod.
I have not really heard anyone mention it.

7. The church may be willing to proceed toward a revised stance on the CRC’s view of the Lord’s Supper provided that more convincing arguments are provided, or more guidance is given for making this change.

There is in our congregation a natural tendency to be hesitant about any change, particularly as significant a change as this one. This is due in part to a congregational culture. Although our congregation has been open to younger children (middle school and in some cases spiritually mature upper elementary students) making public profession of faith and investing them with adult responsibilities when they do (for instance they are allowed to attend and vote at congregational meetings, serve on committees, help in the faith nurture and instruction of younger children and assume many other "adult" responsibilities; about the only thing they are not allowed to do is to serve as an elder or deacon) they are hesitant about throwing the doors wide open to all baptized members, but do want to hear more about this and seem open to the discussion.
Many are very excited about this. A few very rigid folks are VERY concerned (e.g. arguing that this contradicts the Belgic Confession). Many are willing to hear but yet undecided, especially noting the contrast to their CRC tradition.
It has been met with some apprehension but the majority are excited and eagerly awaiting Synod's suggestions
We focused on the place of covenant youth in church (Lord's Supper) for two Sundays and then followed the worship service with a town hall, small group discussion. The majority of the participants favored letting baptized children participate
In our situation we have people from no or various church backgrounds that encourage their children to participate in the Lord's Supper. This has created a strain on those who believe children should wait until they make profession of faith, especially on the child who was asked to wait. The first question asked if our children can take the Lord's Supper. I said "yes," but often that is by parent's choice, not by the church's decision. We would welcome clarity on the issue!
We (Council) were in the process of discussing what to do about children at the Lord's Table when synod made its decision. We look forward to guidelines as to how to implement this in our fellowship.
The request was for a study committee to examine some of the newer scholarship on I Corinthians 11. Our council was a bit apprehensive but wanted to be guided by God's Word. When Synod 2006 bypassed such a study, it really shot any chance of it having a hearing here. Synod acted irresponsibly and has caused greater problems. If it was followed through with a study committee, there would have been open ears. A member of our congregation who is a respected theological professor favors this view, but the hubbub around Synod's actions isn't giving him a hearing now.
Maybe profession of faith is an outdated or incomplete term. In the CRC tradition profession of faith includes two things - professing faith and agreeing to doctrines. Our church has separated these two issues by having table fellowship and then profession of faith which is really reaffirming faith and agreeing to doctrines. We do not think that synod did the denomination a good service by passing the procedure as now outlined. We would be happy to talk to you about our system if you wish.
We regard the "proclamation of the Lord's death until he comes" as an adult-sized commitment, for which some people are ready as young as age thirteen. When non-professing children take part in the Lord's Supper, it serves as our cue that they are beginning to live in relationship with Jesus. We then invite them to normalize their status at church by participating in the new members' class, which is non-binding.
The task force will somehow have to address the issue of a shift that is taking place from an "elder supervised" table to a "parent supervised" table. Conceivably, elders in a local congregation may endorse the full participation of baptized children, yet that decision may not be implemented with respect to a specific child due to the disagreement that the parents have with this decision.
We are wondering what freedom we have in letting parents be the gatekeepers in letting their children participate. We would love to and feel compelled by Scripture to "let the children come". We would not like to wait for a long period of time. This congregation is ready to welcome now.
We can see why a task force has been organized for the purpose of guiding implementation: We don't know exactly how to move forward. Should we educate in classes? Do we include parents? What about instructing the rest of the congregation regarding these changes in practice, in how we apply our theology consistently? Speaking as a pastor, I'm eager to see this increased inclusion and believe that scriptures support such a move implicitly. Still, this makes it a bit more difficult to know what to do with traditional CRC discipline, which has been applied (in my experience) primarily to professing members and included steps such as silent censure. What should such a practice look like under the more open inclusion to the Lord's Table?
Currently we allow baptized children who are age eight or older to ask their parents to request an in-home interview with their family elder to see if the child understands the meaning of communion and if he has faith in Christ. The elder then recommends the child to the council; no public profession of faith is required to participate in Lord's Supper. Though we currently require a faith commitment before allowing children to participate, I think we need to get away from connecting participation in the Lord's Supper with a prior faith commitment or public profession of that faith. This does, however raise the issue of whether or not participation needs to be withheld after a certain age (somewhere between age 18 and 25?) if the person gives no evidence of faith. (If adult children of the covenant have no genuine faith, they may not participate anyway, especially if they drop out.)
Given that we have people from other Reformed traditions coming to our church and that we have a high rate of transience in our membership, we have had others who have allowed their children to partake. We could make no good case not to as our covenantal position strongly encourages thinking along these lines. So, we are relieved to see parity achieved among the covenant signs and our conflict of years finds hope for resolution.

8. Miscellaneous.

We are very interested in the issue but are uncertain how to administer the Lord's Supper to covenant children. It is an issue we confront from members of other traditions (some are Reformed traditions) where children's participation in the Lord's Supper has been the custom. We are particularly interested in the role profession of faith would play in the lives of covenant children. We will still ask those coming into the church from other traditions or who are new the faith to make a profession or a reaffirmation of faith prior to membership and full participation in the life of the church. I suspect the same will hold true for covenant children - at the point in which they wish to participate fully in the life of the congregation and assume adult membership responsibilities. I think I answered my own concern. Thanks for listening.
In the few conversations I have had some are very eager, some are somewhat concerned.
Since over half of our congregation is children, we have the opportunity to allow them to publicly profess their faith at an early age which helps them to know that they are very important to our congregation. They also take certain responsibilities as being part of the church and are given special attention and instruction from the pastor.
There is one family that has requested that their nine-year-old daughter make profession of faith, and we are in process.
I was a delegate and a member of the minority report that was adopted. Sharing how the Spirit moved through that process was well received.
My comment is on the first question about do kids take communion before profession of faith. I answered "no" because that would be usual, but sometimes parents share and sometimes kids take and when that happens we don't stop them.
We are a different culture than the American culture and find children participate at times when they so desire. Though this has been talked about, no action has ever been taken up as leadership feels that it is between the person and the Lord.'
We had some who were eager, and some who were concerned. Overall, the congregation accepted the decision.
We have established a task force to look at the best ways to approach the issue in our congregation.
The whole spectrum of reactions applies to our congregation. Maybe because we were a bit late in the game instituting earlier profession in general, we feel that this new change is a little early for us and taking some of the energy out of the process we only recently completed... But we're not too concerned.
We have appointed several from council to study this. Parents have asked about their children, for the invitation given would seem to include them (their children "get it"), yet they are not allowed to participate. They have asked us for an answer, and we looking into this.
Synod doesn't seem to garner much attention for anything it says or does. Sad, but true.
Council has received it for information, and a two-person team has been put together to work on the "how" to implement it. Questions like "What age? (From birth? 10 years old? etc...and do we have a short class followed by a statement of faith, or just open it up? How does this affect the children of non-members? Etc.
A baptized child needs only to have a chat with the pastor and an elder to be admitted to communion in our church. We refer to children who have gone through this process as "communicant members."
I have been surprised by the wait-and-see attitude. I think it is mostly seen as something that will work itself out in each congregation and perhaps even families.
We'll wait for the task force and synod to consider and act.
The mood of the elders is just plain hesitant about such a move.
I think reactions from individual members would go from eager to concerned.
Our youth education committee is trying to find out if/how Synod 2006's decision will affect our current practice. The general feeling is that we hope our current practice fits within the decision.
Hard to choose a response here. I have heard a mix of responses from somewhat eager to somewhat concerned.
Not sure because we haven't gotten the final "green light" whether or not to proceed. ALL of our children currently gather around the table with their parents during our communion; so that will not be new to them or us. Though they do not commune, the pastor blesses them with words like "Jesus loves you too," or "Jesus died for you." So they're already used to participating in this meaningful way--even though they do not take the elements.
We started to take action, but it was soon pointed out that we hadn't been entirely thorough or successful in the last transition that took place (moving the age of profession of faith down into middle school and below). We agreed that we'd try to clarify our own situation, and let the CRC study committee tell us how to do the next one.
We appointed a task force on the sacraments with a particular focus on how and how often we do communion. We are also interested in who should be welcomed to the table and at what age.
I was not under the impression that the decision was made; my understanding was that a study committee had been appointed to flesh it out first -- not that we were free to open it up already. If this is true -- then we will open it up next week. I guess I'll have to read the Acts of Synod more carefully.
Mixed opinion with our shepherding elders. In the end we ratified an earlier policy and are championing that with the congregation.
We have begun to discuss it with our council. As pastor, I have talked to several people about it.