Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches' stance on baptism?
Executive summary
The Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) does not impose a single, communion-wide position on baptism: its governing documents and multiple commentators say the denomination allows member congregations to determine their own practice on paedobaptism (infant baptism) and related issues, and CREC churches include both paedo- and credo-baptist congregations [1] [2]. This accommodation has produced both internal pastoral rules—e.g., instructions on transfers and handling differences—and substantial outside criticism that the CREC’s approach creates doctrinal latitude on baptism and sacraments [1] [3] [4].
1. A legal framework that permits local diversity
The CREC’s own governing documents explicitly avoid taking a constitutional position on the validity of particular sacramental practices and require that differences arising from issues such as paedo-baptism be handled pastorally in transfers between member churches [1]. Multiple accounts drawn from CREC insiders and observers confirm that the communion was formed to hold together churches with differing baptismal convictions—Presbyterian, Reformed Baptist, Continental Reformed, and Anglican—by allowing local churches to keep their confessions on baptism [2] [5] [4].
2. What that looks like in practice: paedo and credo side-by-side
Practically, the CREC contains both paedobaptist (infant-baptizing) and credobaptist (believer’s-baptism) congregations. Some CREC congregations that are Presbyterian-minded expect and practice infant baptism and paedo-communion, while other congregations hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession and prefer believer’s baptism; the communion’s unity rests on a sacramental cooperation agreement rather than uniform sacramental practice [2] [3] [6].
3. Transfer and membership mechanics: pastoral sensitivity required
Several CREC sources and church leaders explain that when members transfer between CREC congregations, differences over membership, baptism, and paedo-communion “must be handled with pastoral sensitivity,” and in some cases churches expect a profession of faith before conferring communicant status if that status was previously conferred by baptism alone [1] [7]. Some churches report that transfer members conferred communicant status by baptism alone in another congregation might be asked to profess faith to local elders [7].
4. Supporters: unity without uniformity as a positive
Proponents inside the movement describe the CREC’s arrangement as a deliberate attempt to reduce unnecessary division among Reformed congregations. Founders and sympathetic writers say the communion enables churches with different sacramental convictions to cooperate while maintaining historic creeds and confessional commitments locally; they argue this fosters “Reformed catholicity” and practical cooperation [5] [2].
5. Critics: charges of incoherence and doctrinal latitude
Critics—both within Reformed circles and external commentators—contend this latitude creates incoherence. Voices on the Puritan Board and several polemical pieces argue the CREC simultaneously affirms and denies infant baptism in effect, and that allowing both infant baptism and credobaptist churches under one umbrella leads to confusing or inconsistent ecclesiology and sacramental practice [4] [8] [9]. Critics also highlight concerns about paedocommunion and broader sacramental practices being permitted variably across congregations [9] [8].
6. How local congregations typically present baptismal theology
Individual CREC congregations often describe baptism as a covenantal sign and seal—testifying to union with Christ, forgiveness, and initiation into the covenant community—and many paedobaptist CREC churches teach infant baptism as part of covenant theology; at the same time, there are CREC congregations that treat baptism primarily as an outward confession appropriate for believers [10] [11]. The variety of local statements reflects the communion-level allowance for divergent confessions [10] [6].
7. Limitations in available reporting
Available sources document the CREC’s permissive constitutional stance and the resulting diversity of practice, but they do not provide a single, official CREC catechetical statement that codifies a uniform baptismal theology for the entire communion; instead, the governing documents and commentaries emphasize congregational determination and pastoral procedures for transfers [1] [2]. Where some writers assert specific consequences (for instance, how strictly transfers must be accepted), other CREC voices and local church statements show nuanced pastoral differences—so the national-level policy is permissive but local practice varies [7] [3].
8. Bottom line for someone asking “what is the CREC’s stance?”
The CREC’s stance is procedural rather than dogmatic: it permits member churches to hold and practice either paedobaptism or credobaptism and requires pastoral handling of differences in membership transfers [1] [2]. Supporters frame this as intentional unity amid confessional diversity; critics describe it as doctrinally incoherent and liable to generate sacramental inconsistency [5] [4].