church membership

[Guest]

Hi JJB,

One thing to consider is that is much easier for a church to lose a family, than it is for a family to lose it's church. If a person is in a single congregation for years, most of their friends and fellowship is wrapped up in that congregation. All their eggs are in one basket, as it were. If there arises some irreconcilable disagreement with the church, the family is the one that must leave the church and often times their friends as well. That leaves the family in isolation for a season of time.

I don't think it's unwise to diversify a little and attend 2 or 3 fellowships regularly. Make close and lasting relationships, but be careful of being too committed to a group rather than being simply committed to Jesus. I know many people frown on this approach, but in an imperfect world with imperfect spiritual leaders, we must do what we can to protect the spiritual well-being of our families.

Just my opinion.

[Guest]

Hi JJB,

One thing to consider is that is much easier for a church to lose a family, than it is for a family to lose it's church. If a person is in a single congregation for years, most of their friends and fellowship is wrapped up in that congregation. All their eggs are in one basket, as it were. If there arises some irreconcilable disagreement with the church, the family is the one that must leave the church and often times their friends as well. That leaves the family in isolation for a season of time.

I don't think it's unwise to diversify a little and attend 2 or 3 fellowships regularly. Make close and lasting relationships, but be careful of being too committed to a group rather than being simply committed to Jesus. I know many people frown on this approach, but in an imperfect world with imperfect spiritual leaders, we must do what we can to protect the spiritual well-being of our families.

Just my opinion.

You know, this has a lot to do with Arminianism. As a child of the reformation, I believe that God is sovereign and will take care of myself and my loved ones. He is the Good Shepherd, not me. He leads me beside still waters.

Yes, there are abuses in churches where Pastors want to lord over their congregation, but prayerfully this would be discovered looong before one commits themselves to a congregation. Happy to be a child of the reformation and trust in God rather than my own self.

Sola Deo gloria!

[_Steve]

Linking Chris' statements with Arminianism is one of the strangest things I have yet encountered on this forum. It sounds as if making wise choices is something that Calvinists don't have to do, because (I suppose) their trust in the sovereignty of God tells them that such caution is not needed.

If joining a church had a scriptural precedent or a scriptural mandate, then we would have to, out of trust in the wisdom of God, subject our families to such things and trust God with the results. However, there is no biblical principle that says we must follow man's traditions, rather than God's word, and then expect God to protect us from our own errors, or blame God for the results.

I believe in the sovereignty of God, and entrust more categories of my life to Him than does any Calvinist I happen to know. My Arminianism doesn't have any adverse affect upon my trusting God.

Calvinism and Arminianism have nothing to do with the issues discussed in this thread. Calvinist churches can go bad and damage people as readily as Arminian churches can, and there is no power promising protection to Calvinists (more than Arminians) from the consequences of their choices.

But, more to the point, we have been discussing what the scriptures do and don't say about the modern phenomenon of membership in an individual church. Calvinists and Arnminians can read the same verses on this subject and can understand them without reference to their Calvinism or Arminianism. It is JJB that has made an issue of Arminianism in this thread, not the Arminians. This appears to be a way of diverting attention from the fact that the attempt to support church membership by appeal to scripture has failed.

[Guest]

Steve, as I said in one of my earlier posts, I have never attended a church that makes membership into a big issue. It is really unfortunate that so many fellow Christians believe that a local church is unnecessary.
Perhpas this post belongs in the church membership thread.

Where do you meet in your get-togethers, Steve? Is it not in a church building on occasion? That church congregation and pastor do not hold membership against you, and that is a wonderful, open, loving thing to extend to you. Would you agree?

As for God being sovereign, Psalm 23 comes immediately to mind, He is the one who leads me when I follow Him. Nothing comes to my life but what has already passed through His hands. Did I suggest we put our brains on a shelf as we travel through life? No. We must be like the Bereans and search the scripture to see if what is being taught comports with what God tells us.

Tradition together with Scripture is how most people practice thier Christianity. Jesus himself practiced Passover, which was not exactly the same in His day, as it was in Moses' day. There were traditions that had been added to it, but he practiced both. Traditions do not have to be thrown out, but neither are they essential.

Also, as I have said earlier, there are pastors who want to lord over thier congregations, but prayerfully and through careful observation and study this should be able to be ascertained before remaining in such a congregation. Unfortunately, not all are able to discern that before damage is done. I agree this can happen in any church. I also know and believe that God can even use those ppl who have been damaged for His glory and His kingdom.

God does permit things to happen to us that we don't understand. Look at Joni Eareckson Tada (sp?) and the wonderful testimony of her life. She believes that God permitted this to happen to her for a reason and she in no wise sounds bitter, hurt or angry. We all have issues to work out. If it were not for the local church, most of us would be wandering around by ourselves. where and how would we connect?

There will always be tares along with the wheat, as man has fallible ways to discern who is a believer and who isn't. THe most reliable being the fruits of the spirit, but that takes time and observation to see, so yes, church membership is not an automatic "in" if you will or will not agree with God's list. God is the only one who knows the heart because it is deceitful above all things.

I was not diverting the subject at hand by bringing up the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism. It was something that popped into my head at the time that i thought may shed light onto one's refusal to join a local body of believers. That's all that comment was meant to be, and unfortunately or fortunately, who knows, it came up in my response to the previous poster.

But I must attest that many of my Arminian brothers and sisters do place their memberships in the local congregations, so perhaps my comment is unnecessary. In fact, I will retract it, due to my friends' choice to participate fully in a local congregation. I am thinking out loud, here, so to speak.

Steve, the bible is also silent on use of automobiles, computers and radios. Does that mean you should not drive, use a computer or listen to the radio? I would like to understand how far you take this line of reasoning.

[_Steve]

It is true that the Bible doesn't mention automobiles, computers, radios, etc., and so far as I can determine, the Bible does not forbid them. I might argue against you, however, if you were telling me that participating in these modern conventions is an essential duty of Christians.

The Bible also doesn't mention the modern political organization popularly called the local church (and might well forbid them, if they had been suggested in those days), but you have suggested that participation in one of them is essential.

I have not forbidden anyone (or even discouraged anyone) from participating in a local church. All of my comments have been addressing the question of local church "membership." That is the issue that was raised in this thread, and I have attempted to stick to the subject.

You have indicated that everyone ought to join a local church. I have suggested that every benefit that accrues to local church membership can be realized without formal membership—unless a given church is pushing for formal membership before it will trust you...in which case, that is a church making an issue of membership.

Telling me that your church does not make an issue of membership, and that you know few churches which do so, doesn't address any of the issues I have raised. I have not started a quarrel with your church or any of the churches you know. I am simply responding to your actual remarks—and you definitely do make an issue of membership, which is why we are still responding to each other.

Some on this forum act as if church "membership" means nothing: "we dont need bible verses for this. just join up and forget about it" (so wrote another poster earlier on this thread). My position is that "church membership" is an expression that sounds like it actually means something. If it means nothing, then we needn't advocate it, discourage it, or even discuss it.

On the other hand, if it means something, then we ought to determine just what it means, and whether that meaning is consistent with biblical teaching or not.

So far as I can tell, "church membership" means making a commitment to one group of Christians in town more than to all the other Christians in town. If "commitment" means only that I intend to worship with these people more often than with others, then I can find nothing biblically objectionable about this.

However, my understanding of the commitment that most churches are requiring of their "members" is something more like an agreement to place a measure of one's loyalty in the group (vis-a-vis other groups in town), to give the tithe to that group, and to "belong" to the group in a special sense in which one does not belong to the rest of the church.

I know that many churches make no attenpt to enforce such loyalty upon their members, but that is beside the point. It is the agreement that they are seeking from members, and if someone joins on such terms, he/she should consider himself/herself bound to those terms, whether or not they are enforced.

My question is whether you know of a different meaning for "church membership" than the one I gave above, and if not, whether this concept jibes with the biblical principles of regional Christian unity, and can it avoid being just another instance of "I am of Paul," "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Apollos."

In an earlier post, you wrote: "It almost sounds like some people here are afraid of being a church member...You can always remove your membership..."

I actually am not the least bit afraid of joining a church. My impression is that most churches would be uncomfortable with me joining them. In my experience, if I am a member of a church, it is not a light or easy matter to remove my membership. Not because the church won't permit me to do so, but because my leaving a church is seldom unnoticed by others in the church. Then there is the ticklish matter of explaining my reasons for leaving without thereby being seen as causing a division. It is much more complex than you indicate. It makes me wonder if you have ever given up your membership at a church. If so, you would doubtless know it to be a very unpleasant process.

My arguments here do not arise out of fear of anything, nor of emotion of any kind, but of my analysis of this subject biblically. So far, no one has presented an alternative biblical analysis to indicate that my conclusions are mistaken. The reason that no one has done so, I believe, is that it cannot be done.

[Guest]

Steve,

You indicated that you believe it would be wrong to be a member of a local church if it meant you were more "commited" to them than other Christians in the same town. I'm unsure what you mean. I agree we must be commited to love all Christians and work together when we can. On the other hand how could you say you are equally commited to those of the Salvation Army in the sense of working together with them in evangelizing the lost?

You and I could work together in witnessing to the lost. We have no practical difference regarding baptism. Our difference is rather theoretical. Could you work with someone who, when you informed a convert of the necessity of baptism, contradicted you and informed the convert that baptism was not only unnecessary but wrong? And if you could not work with the person in making disciples in what sense would you be any more commited to him than an unbeliever? We must be commited to everyone, saved and lost, at least in the sense of loving them.

There are no doubt some who "are of Paul or Apollos" in the sense of being commited to a certain pastor or teacher but the reason for many Christians being in separate congregations is due to differences in what they believe to be essential doctrine.

I fail to see a problem with being a member of a congregation that is compatible with you in essential doctrine as long as you love other Christians and cooperate with them where you can.

Hope to see you when you're up this way!

[Guest]

The original post that began this thread focused on membership classes given by a denominational church. Let's say you changed jobs and moved to an area where you had to choose from a Presbyterian, United Methodist, Episcopalian, Church of God, or other denomination if you want to pick one. You might have some independent churches already existing so you could choose from them, also.

I'm interested in knowing how you would go about choosing one to attend. I see where some of you seem to take "membership" lightly or have had only good experiences with "membership". Based upon some of the current teachings of the denominations, I wonder how you are able to find one that you can just go join unless you are researching more than you indicate. Would several of you speak to this please?

livingink

[Guest]

Homer, you have brought some good questions to the table. In fact, it is your questions that have been rolling around in my head because of Steve's non-insistence on maintaining orthodoxy within his fellowship. By "his fellowship," I mean those who seem to be attracted to his teaching, or those who hang out with him.

Steve has indicated that the trinity is not an issue for him to cavil over. Wherein most orthodox churches, the trinity is an essential doctrine.

Steve, merely because I have not answered you to your satisfaction the questions on church membership or the essentiality of local church does not mean there is not an answer. It means that I probably haven't thought it through long enough and need to study more. If it were truly a thing you could brush off, then why has the local church existed for so long?

[Guest]

Hi JJB,

You seem to be very concerned about maintaining orthodoxy and accountability for believers. I don't disagree with you that this is a good thing. However, I have a few questions for you:

1. How is "orthodoxy" determined, and how is it kept in check? In other words, who or what is the final arbiter for this determination? The church or the Bible?

2. What is your objection to someone challenging something that is "orthodoxy" when the challenge comes directly from the Bible?

3. As the definitions of "orthodoxy" are continually expanded, how do you suggest that Protestant denominations keep themselves from becoming the monster that the Roman Catholic Church became over centuries of slowly, and unnoticeably, refining the definition of "orthodoxy"?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we chuck orthodoxy, but we all feel that the average Christian has the capability of reading the Bible and discerning for him/herself whether or not the church has overstepped it's bounds. In fact, I would even say that we have not only the right, but the duty to do so.

[Guest]

Hi JJB,

How has the global church, most of which has not had formal membership, existed for 2,000 years? Jesus knows his sheep.

Concerning orthodoxy and denominations, would you not agree that many denominations are formed because of their emphasis on tangental issues?

The names alone indicate this. Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Baptist, Reformed, Foursguare, Wesleyan, Methodist, Southwest Mennonite, 1st Church of Chuck Smith, are all formed around the teachings, methods, and/or doctrines of a person or people. Of course, they'd all say they were formed to get back to Biblical purity.

The problem is, they disagree with each other on many issues. The point being, denominations aren't formed to ensure orthodoxy, and many of those who fellowship without a license can certainly fend for orthodoxy themselves.