Here's the bottom line:
...and the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. Acts 2:7
The early church was not a club that people could join. It was an organism
that Jesus Himself formed, and was composed of all His true disciples.
A person could "get in" only if the Lord Himself added that person!
Many of those institutions which pass for "the church" today are merely man-made clubs. So, of course, they require people to apply for membership. We can "join" if we meet the membership requirements.
church membership
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
i totally agree. no bible verse but i think it just shows humility of spirit to join out of a spirit of commitment and wanting to assosiate with those who you agree with in ministry. when we get married we say I DO, no bible verse to support but dont we all do it out of a spirit of commitment. we dont need bible verses for this. just join up and forget about it.JJB wrote:It almost sounds like some people here are afraid of being a church member. I guess I don't understand the fear, unless there is something in a person's past which has caused harm.
Become an active and involved member of your church. You're already attending there, take the next step: be obedient to the authority you are already sitting under.
You can always remove your membership if it ever became necessary, and that is quite simple with a single letter usually.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
If I were criticized by a Roman Catholic for not being a member of a local church, I could understand the criticism, but not when it is a non-Roman Catholic making the demands of church membership. This is because the Catholic Church recognizes only one church in the world, and I am not a member of it. Protestants also believe there is only one church in the world, and I am (along with every Christian) already a member of it.
I often have heard people compare one's commitment to a local church with that of married people to each other. There is no valid comparison, however, since marriage between a man and a woman is an institution of God and has biblical precedent and sanction, whereas (as I have pointed out above) no such institutions as our local churches existed in biblical times.
The very suggestion that an unbreakable, life-long commitment (like that of marriage) would be appropriate for a Christian to make with an individual group defined by man-made boundaries is chilling!
I would be reluctant (I don't think "fear" is exactly the word for it) to join a church if my doing so would seem to violate the spirit and teaching of scripture. This is my main drawback, since Paul rebuked the Christians of a particular town (Corinth) for their professing loyalty to one part of the Body of Christ rather than just to Christ. I see nothing in scripture advocating such group membership, and something in scripture speaking against it. Why should we not be afraid to go beyond scripture in this matter? Violation of biblical principles always risks the incurring of personal harm.
Some people may indeed be afraid to join local churches, because "there is something in a person's past which has caused harm." The number of people who have been driven away from church (and, sometimes, from God) by the power-plays of man-made, religious institutions calling for personal commitment and loyalty to their group are myriad. What if this is exactly what makes some people fearful of church membership? Are you suggesting that they should have learned nothing from their painful mistakes, and advising them to go back in to an unscriptural situation, possibly to be further damaged?
If I am regular in attendance (or even spotty in attendance) at a particular gathering, and my gifts are available to them (as well as to others) why should a true fellowship of believers care whether I am on their membership roles or not—unless they are seeking an exclusive engagement, like marriage? Am I not a part of the Body of Christ without being on some group's membership list? If I have a ministry that a gathering would value and benefit from if I were a member of their church, what prevents them from making use of that ministry without my joining their church? What is added to my Christianity (or theirs) by my becoming a member of an organization, when I am already a member of the whole Church of Jesus Christ locally and worldwide?
Some say that membership is necessary in order to let a pastor know whom he can count on. For what? Financial support? I think any minister either knows (or needs to learn) that he can depend upon the Lord, not man, for such things. For assistance with church projects? Can't the Lord put it on the hearts of individuals to volunteer their services as He has gifted and assigned them? If the church's goal is simply to edify and feed the gathered saints, and not to be a monument honoring the pastor or denomination, then they can easily perform this ministry whether the gathered saints have official title as members of their organization or not. Just do the ministry. Don't worry about how many people you can own.
Official membership proves nothing about whom the pastor can rely upon. Most churches have twice as many members as they have people who are involved or even who attend the church. With or without "membership," is there really any alert pastor who does not recognize which people in his congregation are loyal and on-board with his particular vision, and which ones are not?
It seems to me that the existence of a list of members reflects nothing of these realities, and serves, primarily, to psychologically obligate certain people to a kind of loyalty such as pastors (reasonably enough) prefer for people to have to their group. How can a pastor report to his denomination how much his church has grown without such lists? How can he know which or how many people may be tapped for financial support without such a list? Without a list, how can there be any certainty that most of the people currently sitting under his preaching (and paying the bills with their tithes) will not, next month, begin attending another church in town where the preaching or ministry better meets the felt needs of their families. How can the people be made to feel guilty about such defection, if there is no list?
I am not against the pastors who depend on such lists—my heart goes out to them, because they are victims of their training or conditioning, which should have better prepared them to allow Jesus to lead His own sheep from pasture to pasture, or into such relationships as will benefit His kingdom, or to volunteer their time and money to the advancing of the right causes. Jesus, not some man or organization, is the head of every Christian man (1 Cor.11:3).
As for being obedient to the authority one is sitting under, just what authority should Christians be obedient to? Jesus Christ is the authority in the life of every believer. His word, faithfully taught, should be an adequate mediation of that authority for the saints.
Some conservative Christian ministers, who deplore the elitist attitude of socialists (who believe that the average person does not know how to wisely spend his own income as well as the government knows how to spend it), nonetheless have the same elitist attitude about the ability of Christians to manage their spiritual lives. As the socialistic governments confiscate the money of citizens so as to guarantee that it is not wasted on personal expenditures, so also, many leaders would confiscate the believer's freedom in Christ for fear that (without their controls) the believer is apt to squander his freedom and fail to live as a Christian should.
It is true that some citizens fail to disburse their income ideally, and that some believers do not follow Christ very consistently. However, in the former case, would these ministers prefer that the government seize all private assets for governmental management and disbursal, or would it be better for the inept steward to be taught how better to manage his money?
In the case of the Christian who does not live as well as he should, would it not be more desirable that the church instruct the disciples in the art of spiritual and obedient living, rather than simply collecting them all into an organization and trusting that organization to control and direct their Christian lives? If this is not viewed as desirable, why is membership in an organization deemed necessary to the well-being of the individual Christian or the corporate Body of Christ?
Is elitism more appropriate in the Church of Christ than in secular governments? Not in my opinion. The leaders of the Gentiles wield authority over them, but not so the leaders whom God appoints to serve His people. God's leaders desire to see the lives of Christians—not their own professional ministries and organizations—built-up and established. The latter goal requires official church membership. I do not see any way in which such membership is necessary or beneficial to the former goal.
I often have heard people compare one's commitment to a local church with that of married people to each other. There is no valid comparison, however, since marriage between a man and a woman is an institution of God and has biblical precedent and sanction, whereas (as I have pointed out above) no such institutions as our local churches existed in biblical times.
The very suggestion that an unbreakable, life-long commitment (like that of marriage) would be appropriate for a Christian to make with an individual group defined by man-made boundaries is chilling!
I would be reluctant (I don't think "fear" is exactly the word for it) to join a church if my doing so would seem to violate the spirit and teaching of scripture. This is my main drawback, since Paul rebuked the Christians of a particular town (Corinth) for their professing loyalty to one part of the Body of Christ rather than just to Christ. I see nothing in scripture advocating such group membership, and something in scripture speaking against it. Why should we not be afraid to go beyond scripture in this matter? Violation of biblical principles always risks the incurring of personal harm.
Some people may indeed be afraid to join local churches, because "there is something in a person's past which has caused harm." The number of people who have been driven away from church (and, sometimes, from God) by the power-plays of man-made, religious institutions calling for personal commitment and loyalty to their group are myriad. What if this is exactly what makes some people fearful of church membership? Are you suggesting that they should have learned nothing from their painful mistakes, and advising them to go back in to an unscriptural situation, possibly to be further damaged?
If I am regular in attendance (or even spotty in attendance) at a particular gathering, and my gifts are available to them (as well as to others) why should a true fellowship of believers care whether I am on their membership roles or not—unless they are seeking an exclusive engagement, like marriage? Am I not a part of the Body of Christ without being on some group's membership list? If I have a ministry that a gathering would value and benefit from if I were a member of their church, what prevents them from making use of that ministry without my joining their church? What is added to my Christianity (or theirs) by my becoming a member of an organization, when I am already a member of the whole Church of Jesus Christ locally and worldwide?
Some say that membership is necessary in order to let a pastor know whom he can count on. For what? Financial support? I think any minister either knows (or needs to learn) that he can depend upon the Lord, not man, for such things. For assistance with church projects? Can't the Lord put it on the hearts of individuals to volunteer their services as He has gifted and assigned them? If the church's goal is simply to edify and feed the gathered saints, and not to be a monument honoring the pastor or denomination, then they can easily perform this ministry whether the gathered saints have official title as members of their organization or not. Just do the ministry. Don't worry about how many people you can own.
Official membership proves nothing about whom the pastor can rely upon. Most churches have twice as many members as they have people who are involved or even who attend the church. With or without "membership," is there really any alert pastor who does not recognize which people in his congregation are loyal and on-board with his particular vision, and which ones are not?
It seems to me that the existence of a list of members reflects nothing of these realities, and serves, primarily, to psychologically obligate certain people to a kind of loyalty such as pastors (reasonably enough) prefer for people to have to their group. How can a pastor report to his denomination how much his church has grown without such lists? How can he know which or how many people may be tapped for financial support without such a list? Without a list, how can there be any certainty that most of the people currently sitting under his preaching (and paying the bills with their tithes) will not, next month, begin attending another church in town where the preaching or ministry better meets the felt needs of their families. How can the people be made to feel guilty about such defection, if there is no list?
I am not against the pastors who depend on such lists—my heart goes out to them, because they are victims of their training or conditioning, which should have better prepared them to allow Jesus to lead His own sheep from pasture to pasture, or into such relationships as will benefit His kingdom, or to volunteer their time and money to the advancing of the right causes. Jesus, not some man or organization, is the head of every Christian man (1 Cor.11:3).
As for being obedient to the authority one is sitting under, just what authority should Christians be obedient to? Jesus Christ is the authority in the life of every believer. His word, faithfully taught, should be an adequate mediation of that authority for the saints.
Some conservative Christian ministers, who deplore the elitist attitude of socialists (who believe that the average person does not know how to wisely spend his own income as well as the government knows how to spend it), nonetheless have the same elitist attitude about the ability of Christians to manage their spiritual lives. As the socialistic governments confiscate the money of citizens so as to guarantee that it is not wasted on personal expenditures, so also, many leaders would confiscate the believer's freedom in Christ for fear that (without their controls) the believer is apt to squander his freedom and fail to live as a Christian should.
It is true that some citizens fail to disburse their income ideally, and that some believers do not follow Christ very consistently. However, in the former case, would these ministers prefer that the government seize all private assets for governmental management and disbursal, or would it be better for the inept steward to be taught how better to manage his money?
In the case of the Christian who does not live as well as he should, would it not be more desirable that the church instruct the disciples in the art of spiritual and obedient living, rather than simply collecting them all into an organization and trusting that organization to control and direct their Christian lives? If this is not viewed as desirable, why is membership in an organization deemed necessary to the well-being of the individual Christian or the corporate Body of Christ?
Is elitism more appropriate in the Church of Christ than in secular governments? Not in my opinion. The leaders of the Gentiles wield authority over them, but not so the leaders whom God appoints to serve His people. God's leaders desire to see the lives of Christians—not their own professional ministries and organizations—built-up and established. The latter goal requires official church membership. I do not see any way in which such membership is necessary or beneficial to the former goal.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Church membership?
2 Cor 2:6-7 seems to refer to a group recognized as church members
1Tim 5:9 The early church kept a list of widows
Phil 4:3, Rev 21:27 God keeps a list of believers
1Cor 5:2,7, 12-13 To be excluded from a local church implies formal relationsihp
Church membership indicates a commitment to love and edify one another. No Church shopping, no postmodern church consumerism. It signifies an inward love for God and His ppl 1John 4:20-21. It indicates a willingness to be involved in lives of other beleivers.
Eph 4:15-16 Churches should only allow believers to be members. Growth comes only from Christ, but he uses others at times to cause that growth.
Membership has benefits such as knowing what is expected upon joining, and knowing when someone is falling short of fulfilling these expectation. It provides a unified witness to unbelievers by implementing a statement of faith, encouraging unity, encouraging unity in lifestyle.
Members should see themselves as coming alongside weaker Christians to encourage them along. Come to serve, not to be served.
Pastors are responsible for thier own flock. If you never join, you hinder a pastor from ministering fully to you.
There are more reasons to join: to expose false gospels, to edify the church, for your spiritual protection, for your spiritual assurance, for the sake of GOd's name, for the sake of God's cause.
I hope that gives some food for thought.
2 Cor 2:6-7 seems to refer to a group recognized as church members
1Tim 5:9 The early church kept a list of widows
Phil 4:3, Rev 21:27 God keeps a list of believers
1Cor 5:2,7, 12-13 To be excluded from a local church implies formal relationsihp
Church membership indicates a commitment to love and edify one another. No Church shopping, no postmodern church consumerism. It signifies an inward love for God and His ppl 1John 4:20-21. It indicates a willingness to be involved in lives of other beleivers.
Eph 4:15-16 Churches should only allow believers to be members. Growth comes only from Christ, but he uses others at times to cause that growth.
Membership has benefits such as knowing what is expected upon joining, and knowing when someone is falling short of fulfilling these expectation. It provides a unified witness to unbelievers by implementing a statement of faith, encouraging unity, encouraging unity in lifestyle.
Members should see themselves as coming alongside weaker Christians to encourage them along. Come to serve, not to be served.
Pastors are responsible for thier own flock. If you never join, you hinder a pastor from ministering fully to you.
There are more reasons to join: to expose false gospels, to edify the church, for your spiritual protection, for your spiritual assurance, for the sake of GOd's name, for the sake of God's cause.
I hope that gives some food for thought.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Aole Opala No
“Church membership?
"2 Cor 2:6-7 seems to refer to a group recognized as church members”
There is no semblance here to church membership as experienced by the 21st century American church. Such discipline can be exercised by a fellowship of believers outside of the institutional church. In fact, that which is described in the passage is often left undone by institutional churches. They lose memberships if they discipline unrepentant sinners.
Those outside of the institutional church can simply not fellowship with the offender unless and until he repents.
“1Tim 5:9 The early church kept a list of widows”
Where is the list mentioned in the context, and how would this resemble the church membership practices of our times?
“Phil 4:3, Rev 21:27 God keeps a list of believers”
Indeed. This means church membership rolls are unnecessary. God seems to know those who are His. Ironically, there are many on church rolls who are not on God’s list, and there are myriad Christians who are not on a man-made membership roll, who are indeed on God’s list.
“1Cor 5:2,7, 12-13 To be excluded from a local church implies formal relationsihp”
See previous comments. How do you define “formal” fellowship? Is this superior to another kind of fellowship? Professional versus ameteur, maybe?
“Church membership indicates a commitment to love and edify one another.”
No, loving and edifying one another indicates a commitment to the church, be it inside a cathedral, or inside a doughnut shop.
“No Church shopping, no postmodern church consumerism.”
The institutional church is rife with this.
"It signifies an inward love for God and His ppl 1John 4:20-21."
No it doesn’t. Spiritual fruit signifies a love for God and His people. Jesus said keeping His command signifies that we love him.
“It indicates a willingness to be involved in lives of other beleivers.”
No, being involved in the lives of others indicates a willingness to be involved in the lives of others. Especially when it is beyond the hour and half of pleasantries exchanged on Sunday mornings. Consider that God said some people draw near to him with their lips, but their hearts are
far from Him. And that often times, people attend preaching events to be entertained, and then do not apply a thing they heard. (Is. 29:13; Ez. 33:32)
Love believes all things, but I think you may have a naiveté concerning the maturity of congregants.
“Eph 4:15-16 Churches should only allow believers to be members. Growth comes only from Christ, but he uses others at times to cause that growth.”
Agreed. But the man-made system of church membership neither promotes the latter, nor safe-guards the former.
“Membership has benefits such as knowing what is expected upon joining, and knowing when someone is falling short of fulfilling these expectation.”
This is wonderful if the expectations are Biblical. Damaging, if not.
“It provides a unified witness to unbelievers by implementing a statement of faith, encouraging unity, encouraging unity in lifestyle.”
These things, as practiced by the institutional church have done exactly the opposite. Statements of faith are created to differentiate one institutional church’s pet doctrines from another, often confusing an onlooking world.
“Members should see themselves as coming alongside weaker Christians to encourage them along. Come to serve, not to be served.”
Yes, as members of one another, wherever we are. (Romans 12)
‘Pastors are responsible for thier own flock.”
Jesus is responsible for His flock. Pastors do not have sheep.
“If you never join, you hinder a pastor from ministering fully to you.”
If I never join, how can I minister to the pastor? How does anybody minister to the pastor? In other words, why speak in terms of one-directional ministry when we talk about pastors? How does the unpaid Christian do this? Is it expected? Or is the pastor above such ministry, and unable to receive teaching from a mere congregaent? Whatever
happened to mutual edification?
“There are more reasons to join: to expose false gospels, to edify the church, for your spiritual protection, for your spiritual assurance, for the sake of GOd's name, for the sake of God's cause.”
False gospels are bandied about by institutional churches with thousands of members cheering them on. Again, edification can be done without membership rolls, unless I need to check a person’s membership before I allow them to edify me. Spiritual protection comes from God’s word, and His Spirit. Are these withheld if my name isn’t on the local church roll? Will church membership assure this protection? I have the Holy Spirit bearing witness in my heart that I belong to God (Rom. 8:16). Is this assurance enough? God’s name and God’s cause don’t need our defense, and I am unsure as to how church rolls accomplish this. Do the house churches in China keep membership rolls? It may be difficult with the millions of believers there. Still, God’s cause seems to be moving along just fine.
“I hope that gives some food for thought.”
It did. Thanks!
"2 Cor 2:6-7 seems to refer to a group recognized as church members”
There is no semblance here to church membership as experienced by the 21st century American church. Such discipline can be exercised by a fellowship of believers outside of the institutional church. In fact, that which is described in the passage is often left undone by institutional churches. They lose memberships if they discipline unrepentant sinners.
Those outside of the institutional church can simply not fellowship with the offender unless and until he repents.
“1Tim 5:9 The early church kept a list of widows”
Where is the list mentioned in the context, and how would this resemble the church membership practices of our times?
“Phil 4:3, Rev 21:27 God keeps a list of believers”
Indeed. This means church membership rolls are unnecessary. God seems to know those who are His. Ironically, there are many on church rolls who are not on God’s list, and there are myriad Christians who are not on a man-made membership roll, who are indeed on God’s list.
“1Cor 5:2,7, 12-13 To be excluded from a local church implies formal relationsihp”
See previous comments. How do you define “formal” fellowship? Is this superior to another kind of fellowship? Professional versus ameteur, maybe?
“Church membership indicates a commitment to love and edify one another.”
No, loving and edifying one another indicates a commitment to the church, be it inside a cathedral, or inside a doughnut shop.
“No Church shopping, no postmodern church consumerism.”
The institutional church is rife with this.
"It signifies an inward love for God and His ppl 1John 4:20-21."
No it doesn’t. Spiritual fruit signifies a love for God and His people. Jesus said keeping His command signifies that we love him.
“It indicates a willingness to be involved in lives of other beleivers.”
No, being involved in the lives of others indicates a willingness to be involved in the lives of others. Especially when it is beyond the hour and half of pleasantries exchanged on Sunday mornings. Consider that God said some people draw near to him with their lips, but their hearts are
far from Him. And that often times, people attend preaching events to be entertained, and then do not apply a thing they heard. (Is. 29:13; Ez. 33:32)
Love believes all things, but I think you may have a naiveté concerning the maturity of congregants.
“Eph 4:15-16 Churches should only allow believers to be members. Growth comes only from Christ, but he uses others at times to cause that growth.”
Agreed. But the man-made system of church membership neither promotes the latter, nor safe-guards the former.
“Membership has benefits such as knowing what is expected upon joining, and knowing when someone is falling short of fulfilling these expectation.”
This is wonderful if the expectations are Biblical. Damaging, if not.
“It provides a unified witness to unbelievers by implementing a statement of faith, encouraging unity, encouraging unity in lifestyle.”
These things, as practiced by the institutional church have done exactly the opposite. Statements of faith are created to differentiate one institutional church’s pet doctrines from another, often confusing an onlooking world.
“Members should see themselves as coming alongside weaker Christians to encourage them along. Come to serve, not to be served.”
Yes, as members of one another, wherever we are. (Romans 12)
‘Pastors are responsible for thier own flock.”
Jesus is responsible for His flock. Pastors do not have sheep.
“If you never join, you hinder a pastor from ministering fully to you.”
If I never join, how can I minister to the pastor? How does anybody minister to the pastor? In other words, why speak in terms of one-directional ministry when we talk about pastors? How does the unpaid Christian do this? Is it expected? Or is the pastor above such ministry, and unable to receive teaching from a mere congregaent? Whatever
happened to mutual edification?
“There are more reasons to join: to expose false gospels, to edify the church, for your spiritual protection, for your spiritual assurance, for the sake of GOd's name, for the sake of God's cause.”
False gospels are bandied about by institutional churches with thousands of members cheering them on. Again, edification can be done without membership rolls, unless I need to check a person’s membership before I allow them to edify me. Spiritual protection comes from God’s word, and His Spirit. Are these withheld if my name isn’t on the local church roll? Will church membership assure this protection? I have the Holy Spirit bearing witness in my heart that I belong to God (Rom. 8:16). Is this assurance enough? God’s name and God’s cause don’t need our defense, and I am unsure as to how church rolls accomplish this. Do the house churches in China keep membership rolls? It may be difficult with the millions of believers there. Still, God’s cause seems to be moving along just fine.
“I hope that gives some food for thought.”
It did. Thanks!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
JJB,
Thanks for providing these thoughts. Here are some of mine about your points: You wrote:
"2 Cor 2:6-7 seems to refer to a group recognized as church members"
Agreed, but those who were recognized were all the Christians in the town (1 Cor.1:2; 14:23).
You wrote:
"1Tim 5:9 The early church kept a list of widows"
Not a bad idea, I'd say. A good way to keep track of these special needs people in the church.
You wrote:
"Phil 4:3, Rev 21:27 God keeps a list of believers"
True, but no one except Roman Catholics can seriously suggest that God's "list" corresponds with that of any given congregation. God's list includes only born again people, and excludes none of them. I have yet to see a church membership role that contains the names of every Christian in town, and not one fake. What if we draw up our list, and it is different from God's?
You wrote:
"1Cor 5:2,7, 12-13 To be excluded from a local church implies formal relationsihp"
I believe you are correct. But since when does the concept of "relationship" equate with the idea of being on some list? Does everyone on the church membership roles actually have a real relationship with everyone else on the list? I doubt it. Biblically, Christians are "members one of another" (Eph.4:25) in a sense that does not necessitate organizational membership.
You wrote:
"Church membership indicates a commitment to love and edify one another. No Church shopping, no postmodern church consumerism. It signifies an inward love for God and His ppl 1John 4:20-21. It indicates a willingness to be involved in lives of other beleivers."
The churches in which I have participated, which had no formal membership have been every bit as good (if not better) at fulfilling such obligations as loving the brethren as have those that advocate formal membership commitments. This should not be particularly surprising, since none of these relational dynamics require that kind of membership, nor does such membership in any way guarantee that they will be present.
Have you found that the churches having formal membership are the ones that avoid "post-modern consummerism"? That has not been my observation.
Also, what is wrong with "church-shopping"? Should a Christian family simply join the first church they visit, or can they shop around for one that best suits the theological commitments, the policies, the needs and gifts of their family? If we shop for other things of lesser importance in order to make the wisest choices before we buy, it would seem even more appropriate to weigh the options in choosing a church "home." Ideally, there wouldn't be any options of this kind, because there would be only one unified church in town. It is the idea of church membership existing in distinct groups that has rendered necessary the making of wise choices, which can seldom be made without doing some research ("church shopping").
You wrote:
"Membership has benefits such as knowing what is expected upon joining, and knowing when someone is falling short of fulfilling these expectation."
This is an accurate description of the assumptions attending the modern convention of church membership. All it lacks is scriptural basis. If the preacher does his duty in the pulpit, I will have no problem knowing what is expected of me as a Christian, or knowing when I or someone else is falling short in these area. How does my name being on a role enhance either of these things?
You wrote:
"It provides a unified witness to unbelievers by...encouraging unity, encouraging unity in lifestyle."
I must question the validity of this point, since almost all modern churches have membership, but a unified witness and unity of lifestyle do not seem to be the natural product of such policies. The church has no such unified witness, as it did in New Testament times, when there was no denominational membership. In fact, it is the existence of so many independent churches that I most often hear mentioned by unbelievers as evidence that Christians are not very united. My perception would be that such membership actually is counterproductive to Christian unity.
You wrote:
"Members should see themselves as coming alongside weaker Christians to encourage them along. Come to serve, not to be served."
This would pretty much describe the community life in the best churches I have attended—none of which had formal membership.
You wrote:
"Pastors are responsible for thier own flock. If you never join, you hinder a pastor from ministering fully to you."
With all due respect, I don't find your paradigm for pastoral ministry in scripture. Your statement accurately reflects modern tradition, but nothing more. Any pastor can minister to me as fully as he chooses, whether I join his church or not. I won't hinder him.
You wrote:
"There are more reasons to join: to expose false gospels, to edify the church, for your spiritual protection, for your spiritual assurance, for the sake of GOd's name, for the sake of God's cause."
These do not translate so much into "reasons to join" (in a formal membership sense) as reasons to participate and function as the Body of Christ. I am simply unable to grasp how any of these advantages accrue simply by becoming a member of an organization, or why such benefits as these would be unavailable outside such membership. Perhaps you can explain how your idea of membership is more suited to these benefits than is the biblical idea.
It is very easy for us to assume to be normative any system or policies in which we have been immersed and which we have found helpful. I am not interested in diminishing any such benefits as you describe in the lives of believers. I am interested, however, in checking human traditions against scripture. It is a starting point in my thinking that God's ways are higher (superior) to man's ways. Even if the present traditions are yielding some good fruit, who can say how much better the fruit might be if we did things the way God's word dictates?
Thanks for providing these thoughts. Here are some of mine about your points: You wrote:
"2 Cor 2:6-7 seems to refer to a group recognized as church members"
Agreed, but those who were recognized were all the Christians in the town (1 Cor.1:2; 14:23).
You wrote:
"1Tim 5:9 The early church kept a list of widows"
Not a bad idea, I'd say. A good way to keep track of these special needs people in the church.
You wrote:
"Phil 4:3, Rev 21:27 God keeps a list of believers"
True, but no one except Roman Catholics can seriously suggest that God's "list" corresponds with that of any given congregation. God's list includes only born again people, and excludes none of them. I have yet to see a church membership role that contains the names of every Christian in town, and not one fake. What if we draw up our list, and it is different from God's?
You wrote:
"1Cor 5:2,7, 12-13 To be excluded from a local church implies formal relationsihp"
I believe you are correct. But since when does the concept of "relationship" equate with the idea of being on some list? Does everyone on the church membership roles actually have a real relationship with everyone else on the list? I doubt it. Biblically, Christians are "members one of another" (Eph.4:25) in a sense that does not necessitate organizational membership.
You wrote:
"Church membership indicates a commitment to love and edify one another. No Church shopping, no postmodern church consumerism. It signifies an inward love for God and His ppl 1John 4:20-21. It indicates a willingness to be involved in lives of other beleivers."
The churches in which I have participated, which had no formal membership have been every bit as good (if not better) at fulfilling such obligations as loving the brethren as have those that advocate formal membership commitments. This should not be particularly surprising, since none of these relational dynamics require that kind of membership, nor does such membership in any way guarantee that they will be present.
Have you found that the churches having formal membership are the ones that avoid "post-modern consummerism"? That has not been my observation.
Also, what is wrong with "church-shopping"? Should a Christian family simply join the first church they visit, or can they shop around for one that best suits the theological commitments, the policies, the needs and gifts of their family? If we shop for other things of lesser importance in order to make the wisest choices before we buy, it would seem even more appropriate to weigh the options in choosing a church "home." Ideally, there wouldn't be any options of this kind, because there would be only one unified church in town. It is the idea of church membership existing in distinct groups that has rendered necessary the making of wise choices, which can seldom be made without doing some research ("church shopping").
You wrote:
"Membership has benefits such as knowing what is expected upon joining, and knowing when someone is falling short of fulfilling these expectation."
This is an accurate description of the assumptions attending the modern convention of church membership. All it lacks is scriptural basis. If the preacher does his duty in the pulpit, I will have no problem knowing what is expected of me as a Christian, or knowing when I or someone else is falling short in these area. How does my name being on a role enhance either of these things?
You wrote:
"It provides a unified witness to unbelievers by...encouraging unity, encouraging unity in lifestyle."
I must question the validity of this point, since almost all modern churches have membership, but a unified witness and unity of lifestyle do not seem to be the natural product of such policies. The church has no such unified witness, as it did in New Testament times, when there was no denominational membership. In fact, it is the existence of so many independent churches that I most often hear mentioned by unbelievers as evidence that Christians are not very united. My perception would be that such membership actually is counterproductive to Christian unity.
You wrote:
"Members should see themselves as coming alongside weaker Christians to encourage them along. Come to serve, not to be served."
This would pretty much describe the community life in the best churches I have attended—none of which had formal membership.
You wrote:
"Pastors are responsible for thier own flock. If you never join, you hinder a pastor from ministering fully to you."
With all due respect, I don't find your paradigm for pastoral ministry in scripture. Your statement accurately reflects modern tradition, but nothing more. Any pastor can minister to me as fully as he chooses, whether I join his church or not. I won't hinder him.
You wrote:
"There are more reasons to join: to expose false gospels, to edify the church, for your spiritual protection, for your spiritual assurance, for the sake of GOd's name, for the sake of God's cause."
These do not translate so much into "reasons to join" (in a formal membership sense) as reasons to participate and function as the Body of Christ. I am simply unable to grasp how any of these advantages accrue simply by becoming a member of an organization, or why such benefits as these would be unavailable outside such membership. Perhaps you can explain how your idea of membership is more suited to these benefits than is the biblical idea.
It is very easy for us to assume to be normative any system or policies in which we have been immersed and which we have found helpful. I am not interested in diminishing any such benefits as you describe in the lives of believers. I am interested, however, in checking human traditions against scripture. It is a starting point in my thinking that God's ways are higher (superior) to man's ways. Even if the present traditions are yielding some good fruit, who can say how much better the fruit might be if we did things the way God's word dictates?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
I think some (but not all) of this discussion is semantics
A lot of churches (like the church I attend) have membership but we don't care if attending christians join it or not. It can help with the organization of the organism, but it's not a necessity.
If a church makes membership a BIG DEAL, then yes i'd be against that kind of membership. And maybe many churches do (i assume they do or this wouldn't be such an issue). I can only comment on my experience in the Wesleyan Church where few pastors i've met care about it except in so much as it helps to organize ministry.
The reason i say some of this is semantics is that there is almost zero difference b/w a church that has membership and doesn't make it a priority and a church that doesn't have membership and makes being orderly a priority.
In Christ,
matthew
A lot of churches (like the church I attend) have membership but we don't care if attending christians join it or not. It can help with the organization of the organism, but it's not a necessity.
If a church makes membership a BIG DEAL, then yes i'd be against that kind of membership. And maybe many churches do (i assume they do or this wouldn't be such an issue). I can only comment on my experience in the Wesleyan Church where few pastors i've met care about it except in so much as it helps to organize ministry.
The reason i say some of this is semantics is that there is almost zero difference b/w a church that has membership and doesn't make it a priority and a church that doesn't have membership and makes being orderly a priority.
In Christ,
matthew
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I quite agree. Thanks for your perspective.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
This post could probably go into any of three current discussions.
First of all I would like to say I am in sympathy with much that has been said regarding being a member of a local church. However I must say that most of you probably have a "membership list". Its just not on paper - its in your head.
In Matthew 18:17 is Jesus referring to a local church ("where two or three.....") or the church universal? And when they "let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector" are they not revoking his "membership" whether it is in their heads on or on a piece of paper? Seems to be a distinction without a difference! And in verse 18 Jesus assures them God is behind their decision.
In 1 Cor. 5:4-5 Paul instructs a local church to ex-communicate a man. Do you believe he was, at least in their minds, removed from a list? And what difference would it make if his name was on a piece of paper and was crossed off?
You yourselves acknowledge at least a mental list when you agree that unbelievers also come to church, for you differentiate between them and believers. It seems to me that the problem is not with a list of members but with how it is used and the attitude towards those who choose not to become a member of a certain congregation, or are members of another one.
Where we attend if a person desires to follow Jesus, makes a confession of faith, and is baptized (this does not have to happen "in church") he/she is counted as a member whether they ask to be or not. Its not an issue. Neither are people pressured to become members.
I believe "membership" is in the same category as having a creed: neither biblical nor forbidden, and often put to very bad use.
Secondly I am in much sympathy with the desire of all Christians to be united. Jesus prayed that His followers would be one (literally "a unit"). It is a great shame that it is not so. The congregation we attend is an independant part of the "Restoration Movement", the purpose of which was to unite all Christians by going back to apostolic Christianity. After about 200 years it hasn't happened although things are greatly impoved. I'd like to think we have contributed to the improvement.
The problem with all Christians in a community worshiping and working together is a difficult thing. A great problem is the inability to agree on the most basic doctrine. The Salvation Army claims the name of Christ. They do not baptize. In fact, as I understand it their position is that it is wrong to do so! How can this be? Jesus was explicite regarding how we are to make disciples (Matthew 28:19). So how would we be united with them? Yet we quarrel over the exact nature of the Godhead which Jesus didn't think important enough to explain to us!
Our congregation believes all Christians are our brothers and sisters and we cooperate in any way we can.
First of all I would like to say I am in sympathy with much that has been said regarding being a member of a local church. However I must say that most of you probably have a "membership list". Its just not on paper - its in your head.
In Matthew 18:17 is Jesus referring to a local church ("where two or three.....") or the church universal? And when they "let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector" are they not revoking his "membership" whether it is in their heads on or on a piece of paper? Seems to be a distinction without a difference! And in verse 18 Jesus assures them God is behind their decision.
In 1 Cor. 5:4-5 Paul instructs a local church to ex-communicate a man. Do you believe he was, at least in their minds, removed from a list? And what difference would it make if his name was on a piece of paper and was crossed off?
You yourselves acknowledge at least a mental list when you agree that unbelievers also come to church, for you differentiate between them and believers. It seems to me that the problem is not with a list of members but with how it is used and the attitude towards those who choose not to become a member of a certain congregation, or are members of another one.
Where we attend if a person desires to follow Jesus, makes a confession of faith, and is baptized (this does not have to happen "in church") he/she is counted as a member whether they ask to be or not. Its not an issue. Neither are people pressured to become members.
I believe "membership" is in the same category as having a creed: neither biblical nor forbidden, and often put to very bad use.
Secondly I am in much sympathy with the desire of all Christians to be united. Jesus prayed that His followers would be one (literally "a unit"). It is a great shame that it is not so. The congregation we attend is an independant part of the "Restoration Movement", the purpose of which was to unite all Christians by going back to apostolic Christianity. After about 200 years it hasn't happened although things are greatly impoved. I'd like to think we have contributed to the improvement.
The problem with all Christians in a community worshiping and working together is a difficult thing. A great problem is the inability to agree on the most basic doctrine. The Salvation Army claims the name of Christ. They do not baptize. In fact, as I understand it their position is that it is wrong to do so! How can this be? Jesus was explicite regarding how we are to make disciples (Matthew 28:19). So how would we be united with them? Yet we quarrel over the exact nature of the Godhead which Jesus didn't think important enough to explain to us!
Our congregation believes all Christians are our brothers and sisters and we cooperate in any way we can.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Thanks Homer for your words.
Steve, I cannot recall a church I attended that makes a big deal out of membership. To me it shows a tiny bit of the heart. To be committed to a local body, bumps, pimples and all.....or to remain "free" to graze from whichever pasture appeals to our own desires at the moment.
Selfish motivations or motivations of commitment to the Body.
By church shopping, I meant flitting from place to place without ever stopping long enough to create relationships and place roots.
I see this conversation is going nowhere, so it's time to drop it and agree to disagree. I think it's unforunate Christians refuse to place membership anywhere. It's not that big of a deal unless you have an agenda of some sort. THere is no biblical mandate against it.
Steve, I cannot recall a church I attended that makes a big deal out of membership. To me it shows a tiny bit of the heart. To be committed to a local body, bumps, pimples and all.....or to remain "free" to graze from whichever pasture appeals to our own desires at the moment.
Selfish motivations or motivations of commitment to the Body.
By church shopping, I meant flitting from place to place without ever stopping long enough to create relationships and place roots.
I see this conversation is going nowhere, so it's time to drop it and agree to disagree. I think it's unforunate Christians refuse to place membership anywhere. It's not that big of a deal unless you have an agenda of some sort. THere is no biblical mandate against it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Aole Opala No