In Support of Open Membership

Posted byChaplainmikePosted inChurch, Michael Bell

I find it difficult to belong. You would think it wouldn’t be that hard. I am a Christian who sees many positive things in many traditions. I feel quite comfortable in many types of church settings. I am, however, in my core beliefs an Evangelical.

The problem is that where I live, Evangelicals are in the minority. In my community of 27,000 there is one Evangelical church. I helped start it. It was a Pentecostal church, and although I am not Pentecostal I figured that having one Evangelical church in town was better than having no Evangelical church, and so I offered my help.

My wife and I served under two Pastors there. We led worship, served on the leadership team, served on the pastoral search committee, taught Sunday School, and organized outreaches and banquets. All the while I was dreading the time when the church would become large enough to receive its “organized” status. For when the church received this status, membership would have to be formalized. We didn’t qualify. Membership required agreement to the statement of faith, and we didn’t believe the Pentecostal teaching on tongues.

Eventually we felt God calling us away from this church community, and we had a very amicable parting of the ways. We ended up at a church in another community, which unfortunately due to competing visions within its elders’ board closed its doors three years later. As we looked at other churches, most had something in their statement of faith that excluded us. They were either too Calvinist, or too fundamentalist, or too dispensational, or too anti-Charismatic for us to fit.

After a long search we found a church in a third community. We quite love it, and I have some very good things to say about it. Again, we didn’t qualify for membership, this time because my wife’s mode of baptism differed slightly from theirs. Although we do not believe in rebaptism (especially for those who have already been baptized as believers), our desire to belong eventually became stronger that our distaste for rebaptism and my wife was rebaptized. We became members shortly afterwards.

Are there others like me who have difficulty belonging? Conversations with people at places like Internetmonk.com make me think that my experience is hardly unique. So here are some questions I would like us to consider:

1. Does requiring agreement with a statement of faith lead to increased fragmentation within the body of Christ?

2. Or are there essentials that need to be agreed upon no matter what in order for someone to be accepted as a member?

3. If Christ has accepted me as a member of his body, are there ways to make it easier for me to be accepted into a local church body?

4. Could we lessen the requirement of membership in many evangelical churches, so that prospective members do not have to give complete agreement to a statement of faith, but instead will agree to uphold it and not teach contrary to it?

5. Are there similar situations in other faith traditions? If so, are there resolution that have been seen to work?

6. Finally, what could you do in your church to help people in my situation become part of your congregation and membership?

I don’t have a problem with a church having a statement of faith. I feel it is a good tool to say “this is what we are about as a church.” Is it not possible to say that “We welcome those who have slightly differing viewpoints” as long as they agree to uphold and abide by the statement of faith”?

Your thoughts and comments are welcome.

190 thoughts on “In Support of Open Membership”

  1. “I find it ironic that Jesus himself wouldn’t qualify for the highest level of membership…”

    I hear that frequently from folks who are opposed to membership. What, exactly, do they mean? It’s easy to say “Jesus would or wouldn’t… whatever”. I’m not sure any of us could say, ultimately, what Jesus would or would not do in all situations.
    The “Jesus wouldn’t – couldn’t” arguement becomes an end-all statement.
    Also, I can appreciate the concern of so many who consider themselves “called” or “gifted” in a particular area of service. Fine. But, I want to know if your “calling” or “gift” allows you to teach my children that they need to be (or, not be) baptized in order to be saved – whether they can lose (or, not lose) their salvation, etc.
    There is a reason many churches require a statement of faith, and it isn’t simply to protect a clique or private club. There are many believers who are earnestly concerned that what their children are taught to believe lines up both with Scripture and their earnestly-held convictions as to those beliefs.

    Like

  2. But of course those you are referring to here would not agree that what happened to you earlier really was baptism in the biblical sense. Baptists, for example, do not believe that sprinkling or pouring water on an infant, or even dunking him, is what Jesus was talking about when he told the disciples to baptize, because at the time of sprinkling/pouring/dunking that infant has not himself believed.

    So for them they are not re-baptizing, they are simply obeying Christ’s command to baptize and make disciples.

    They would say that anyone who does not understand that baptism follows faith and not the other way round does not have a proper understanding of baptism … they would say that “baptizing” an infant is no more biblical or spiritually effective as the Mormon practice of undergoing “baptism” for long-dead relatives.

    Like

  3. Very relevant topic since that is one of the issues my own church has struggled with. In order for it to change, however, it requires a change in ideology among the leaders who enforce the requirements. And I have found that to be very difficult. My own approach has been to walk away from the topic and let the church be forced to deal with it when their numbers of members continues not to grow. At some point, they’ve got to get tired of whining about why more people won’t join and look within and say, “what can we do differently?” Until that happens, I’m afraid that change won’t come any time soon. Some people feel very threatened by the very thought of people not believing every single thing that is outlined in the denomination’s doctrinal stance. To t hese people, not having 100% conformity is as foreign as 100% conformity is to those of us who are more open thinkers. Sometimes I think it’s just easier to move on to a place where one finds more compatibility rather than trying to force one’s views on an institution. That only tends to lead to frustration and a lot of hard feelings and for the cause of Christ, is it worth it?

    Like

  4. cpilgrim,
    It sounds like you have an interesting church experience to be going “home” to when your husband graduates. As a fellow student in church limbo, I understand the excuse-making. My husband and I have finally said, ‘we’re staying here for another year if necessary just so we can settle into a church home.’ It’s been too long for us.
    Re: rebaptism. I was christened as an infant and confirmed as a teenager (mostly out of family tradition–at the time I was already questioning the deity of Christ). I then drifted pretty far from the church. When I was 18 I made a commitment to be a follower of Jesus, and a number of years later found myself in a Baptist church I loved and to which I wanted to belong as a member.
    Even though I had been a Christian for 6 years and had been christened as an infant, I chose to be rebaptised because I felt called to do so both out of obedience to God and as a public sign of becoming a member of this church. They would not have required it of me, though the pastor encouraged me to be rebaptised.
    I am SO GLAD I did it. For me, my confirmation was not made in good faith, and my immersion baptism was my true confirmation that Jesus was Lord of my life. So I’d encourage you to pray and ask God if this is what he wants you to do, and if you feel he has moved you in that direction, then get you to the river! 😉

    Like

  5. After I received Christ (in my garden one afternoon!) I wasn’t baptized for more than 5 years, because I couldn’t affirm 100% of the statement of faith for the church we were attending. How wrong is that?

    Like

  7. Actually, in practice, in the churches I know that have introduced this associate membership idea, the two-tier is only for formal, legal reasons and has no effect on everyday (or every Sunday 🙂 church life. In fact, in most of those churches non-members participated on every level except the elder board, and the issue came up simply to know if and how such infant-baptized folks could be part of the elder board. There are no other restrictions for associate members.

    Like

  9. Right. Because unless one gets fully covered with water, one can’t be incorporated into the body of Christ. Only those parts that get wet are saved. Remember the story of Achilles…. 😕

    Like

  10. Pingback: In Support of Open Membership « Eclectic Christian

  11. Viva la Artsy crowd!

    The establishment always needs someone to make them tell others why they believe what they do.

    Like

  12. It’s in one of the earliest lists of canonical books available (150 years before the council of Nice), so I don’t think it has to do with the “Catholic church” approving it. Yes, there were some controversies over it (and other books), but it was attested as being received by the church very, very early on.

    Like

  13. I forgot how confusing this site could be before nested replies! This has turned into a “count your blessings” moment! lol

    Like

  14. Isaac (in case this thing doesn’t nest the comment again): Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. I can’t get on Facebook on this particular network, but I’ll go look when I get home.

    Like

  15. I agree with ya, Kaci. And with Chaplain Mike, for what it’s worth. Like you said, Kaci, the typical way folks discuss eschatology is in terms of the details an minutia of how the end times will happen. I’ve got hardcore dispensationalist friends and teachers who absolutely drive me nuts with this crud.

    On the other hand, CM made a a really good point. Our hope in the ultimate restoration of the world through Christ is so very, very important. I’ve been reading a lot about an ancient theory of the atonement that talks about the Incarnation as the Father sending Christ on a divine rescue mission for all of creation, not just “the elect” of humanity. That’s a really neat concept for me and reminds me of the old paintings of the “Harrowing of Hell and whatnot”

    BTW, Kaci, I checked out your blog and sent you a FB friend request for whatever it’s worth. Neat stuff on your blog.

    Like

  17. Tim: Found it! Yeah, I tend to get lost and give up after so many comments. Relatively new–thanks for the welcome.

    Like

  18. Steve,

    It probably wasn’t that easy, considering that the early church was under persecution at various times. Based on what I remember that the process was fairly long and potentially risky for both the established members and the catechumens.

    Some of the current practices in the Catholic Church, such as catechumens leaving before Communion are a revival of the ancient ways.

    Like

  21. Just to clarify: The idea that:

    that the whole Bible forces one to look toward the future as the only time when God’s blessing will be restored to his creation. From the Bible’s very first words, “In the beginning,” we are prompted to think about the opposite of that phrase, “In the end of days.” Because the Bible is the story of God’s work from creation to new creation, eschatology is the heart and core of the Biblical message.

    is not the part I was addressing. I have issues with people developing a fetish with figuring out exactly how it’s all going to pan out and making predictions that, 99.9% of the time, are going to be false. That’s a far cry from looking forward to the glorious hope before us.

    I thought I had made that clear. If not, there it is. For, “he has put eternity in our hearts,” and, “come quickly, Lord Jesus,” and, “Forgetting what is ahead, I press on toward the goal that I might receive the prize” (paraphrase).

    Like

  22. Addendum: Actually, Eric, including a category on the gifts isn’t necessarily a bad idea; but I think one’s interpretation of that is largely dependent on (and this is a gross generalization) your view of the Spirit.

    More below.

    Like

  23. Addendum: Actually, Eric, including a category on the gifts isn’t necessarily a bad idea; but I think one’s interpretation of that is largely dependent on (and this is a gross generalization) your view of the Spirit.

    Like

  24. It’s wrong to obsess over the end times; and it’s wrong to hold the prophecies in contempt. Both are unhealthy and unwise. It’s also quite wrong to be overly hasty in questioning someone’s salvation.

    Like

  25. (This reply should have been nested under Chaplain Mike’s remark about creation/new creation.)

    Like

  28. Eric, I think you’re probably right, but…

    In reality, contemporary theologians would put eschatology right at the top, not in terms of the old way of thinking about it (the details of the end times, how Scripture and morning newspaper relate, etc.), but in the sense that the whole Bible forces one to look toward the future as the only time when God’s blessing will be restored to his creation. From the Bible’s very first words, “In the beginning,” we are prompted to think about the opposite of that phrase, “In the end of days.” Because the Bible is the story of God’s work from creation to new creation, eschatology is the heart and core of the Biblical message.

    However, like I said, I agree with you because the average person’s understanding of what eschatology entails is not what I just described.

    Like

  29. When you say God put Revelation (singular) in the Scripture, don’t you mean the Catholic Church? As I recall it was one of the most controversial entries and just barely made it into the canon.

    Like

  30. Sure – but it’s short. Not like the 45 item, 20 page, SBC statement. It’s like 9 or 10 items – short, sweet, not hard to understand or decipher.

    Of course, if you wouldn’t sign, ARE YOU REALLY A CHRISTIAN?

    sorry, got away from me there. That’s not a question you would get at the EFree. But you might at some other churches I know….

    Like

  31. I.e., let’s take a few of the “ologies”:

    1. Theology – the doctrine of God (theos)
    2. Christology – the doctrine of the nature of the Messiah (christos), and more specifically of Jesus Christ as the God the Son / the Son of God
    3. Soteriology Рthe doctrine of salvation (s̫t̻ria)
    4. Hamartiology – the doctrine of sin[fulness] (hamartia)
    5. Pneumatology – the doctrine of the [Holy] Spirit (pneuma)
    6. Eschatology – the doctrine of last (eschatos) things
    7. Charismatology – the doctrine of spiritual gifts (charismata) – okay, maybe I created this one 🙂
    8. Ecclesiology Рthe doctrine of the church (ekkl̻sia)

    I would wager that most people who would be given this list and told to rank these things in order of importance would likely place eschatology near or “on the lowest end of the theological totem pole.”

    Like

  32. Ironically, I’m more trusting of Christians who put it at the bottom of their theological priorities…

    Like

  35. How about way down the list? If not eschatology, then which of the important or worthy -ologies should be at the bottom of the totem pole?

    Like

  37. Oh, by the way, I am in strong favor of formal membership. That God made us members and placed us in the body the way He wanted is the most FORMAL membership I can think of. What could be more formal than an act of God?

    And for how the early church dealt with membership? My guess is simple. They made a list of people who were there.

    Like

  38. Mike,

    I am glad to see you post this on membership. I’ve studied this topic for about 15 years and have come to the conclusion that man-made formal memberships are unbiblical. “Becoming a member of a church” simply isn’t in the bible. That’s because every passage on membership in the NT assumes that we ALREADY ARE members of the church simply because we are Christians. God made us members (1 Corinthians 12:13), and placed us in the body where He pleased (1 Corinthians 12:18), and we are members of where we assemble. Dividing the church into “formal members” and “regular attenders” is just that: dividing the church. And that certainly is preached against by the NT.

    It is ironic that a big reason for “formal” memberships that is often given is that there are too many pew sitters around and something is needed to create commitment. But as you and others in the comments have already testified, many of these membership systems exclude many people, and churches won’t allow them to use their gifts. In other words, many of these formal membership systems actually create the problems they are designed to solve!

    On a personal note, after my conversion, it took four churches a total of two years to baptize me! Two churches forbid my baptism and Lord’s supper because I wasn’t a formal member, and their membership requirements were simply not attainable by me. Anyway, great post and great response.

    Like

  39. Kaci:
    Since I cannot directly reply to you (curse strange blog formats!)- I completely get what you’re saying. I only debate here when a debate happens. Which, between you and me, happens like everyday. *You didn’t hear anything Chaplain Mike. Keep on walking 🙂 *

    But really, we’re all hear to converse and learn. Don’t know how long you’ve been here, but welcome to Internet Monk!

    Like

  41. I am very suspicious of people who call themselves Christians and put eschatology on the lowest end of the theological totem pole.

    Like

  43. Tim: No worries. My time on this site is predominantly as a student. I’m really not here to debate, but to ask questions.

    Like

  45. Easy. I didn’t say it was worthless to study it. I said it’s absurd to require everyone have the same thoughts on it. My logic had nothing to do with the pragmatism of the book’s inclusion.

    Like

  50. I like the idea, and I wish in Catholic churches some concept like you’re advocating here were publicized, because I think it would help a lot of young kids who are baptized but not confirmed start to understand what Christian commitment really is.

    It’s ideally a part of Confirmation, but oftentimes young Catholics only get confirmed because their parents want them to, so it sort of doesn’t work.

    Like

  52. So why wouldn’t you just teach in a denomination that isn’t so narrow? Just askin’.

    Like

  55. Note: Not trying to bring up a End-Times debate here.

    Because Revelation (not Revelations, silly!) isn’t solely about the End Times. It is about the past, the present, and the future. It reveals to us Christ in all His Heavenly Glory. It shows again the Heavenly Liturgy, and we how we can mirror it. It provides us with words of condemnation and comfort (Law and Gospel) from our Lord. And, yes, it assures us of Christ’s return, the resurrection of the Body, and the life everlasting.

    But, a talk about Revelation is not meant for this discussion. I’m sure we can have one somewhere else, if you’d wish Mr. Matthew. I’d look forward to it 🙂

    Like

  56. I had a Pastor say to me once, that there is a lot in scripture that is very easy to interpret, but some scriptures that are difficult to interpret. On the scripture that is easier to interpret we have stronger opinions than on those scriptures that are more difficult to interpret. Revelations would fall into that second category.

    Like

  57. See, us Lutherans get around the whole “how can infants believe thing” by saying that no one can believe by their own strength, and God works faith in us (i.e., He gives it to us). So, we baptize babies, because God can work faith in anyone.

    That, and a whole slue of other theological reasons….

    Okay, I swear I wasn’t trying to provoke controversy. Just sayin is all 😉

    Like

  60. How the end times plays out is so low on the totem pole, as far as I’m concerned, that as long as you believe he’s coming back and the resurrection of the dead occurs (no, I don’t necessarily mean ‘rapture’ the Left Behind sense by that), I honestly don’t even think it should blip the radar.

    I mean…attacked by aliens might be odd… 😉

    But that’s a little back-lash from an old end-times kick in middle school.

    Given how bad I am at tithing (not for lack of training, either), I don’t have authority to say either way.

    Like

  62. I get the logic, but I think you could also argue that not all 18 year olds are there, either; and the age of adulthood/maturity has varied over the centuries. Just a side-comment, nothing more.

    Like

  63. Also, the current church I attend demands as a condition of membership that you give 10% of your income to the church (gross or net of tax I am not certain). First, I am not against support the church, but the hard line 10% tithe I am not convinced is commanded by God of Gentiles in the Old or of anyone in the New. Support yes, tithe no.

    Tithing is good if you’re a Jew living under or in conjunction with a Temple-ministering and non-land-owning Levitical priesthood in the land of Israel.

    For the goyim or for Jews who don’t meet the above additional criteria, it’s a bit meshugah, IMO. 🙂

    Like

  64. Matthew, I have to confess to agreeing as well. Especially in light of the lack of commitment made popular by our American society (Thanks, Hollywood).

    I see two nontrivial but non-insurmountable issues at play. You touched on one in that many “church-goers” (be they believers or not) exhibit a consumer mentality. The other issue is that institutionalized churches are sometimes caving in to this market approach; they want members for the sake of counting heads and using it as a plumb line to see if you are fit to serve (as mentioned by the OP and in myriad other comments). I cannot fathom why one could consent, much less commit, to such a membership.

    I whole-heartedly agree that submitting to some type of church authority is biblically based. However, I feel quite strongly that is only appropriate and healthy when the head of the church is the Risen Lord and Savior. I readily admit naiveté when it comes to church governance, mostly because I have not seen it exercised well in my community. Provided it is done right, with sound, scriptural authority, membership to a local body of believers could be one of the most healthy things one does. That is the kind of “church” I yearn for, one that recognizes the benefits of living messy lives together in an attempt to glorify Christ.

    Like

  65. cpilgrim,

    From what you’ve described these baptists don’t sound like your typical IBF’s. Seems like they have some very unique beliefs.

    I would be cautious joining any Christian tradition that claims an exclusive grasp on essential truths. . . but I really can’t speak for this particular tradition since I haven’t heard anything about them prior to this conversation.

    Like

  66. Incidentally, (and don’t shoot the messenger here), most Baptist’s will rebaptize those who have been infant baptized, because they don’t consider the infant baptism a valid baptism.

    Like

  68. Re: what the Creed means by “one baptism for the remission of sins,” this essay has some insights. I.e., it relates to how a person atones for post-baptismal sins (i.e., Christians were not expected to sin after baptism, an act/sacrament which was considered to achieve/effect the remission of one’s sins as well as achieving/effecting regeneration, the “new birth” (in conjunction with the Spirit’s working, of course) – hence many were putting off baptism until later in their lives).

    Click to access baptism_wright.pdf

    What, then, is the reference of ‘one baptism for the remission of sins’? The context of this
    statement is the early church’s bewildering hang-up over the problem of post-baptismal sin.
    The clause may be paraphrased as follows: in so far as baptism is given for the remissions of
    sins, a person may receive it only once. There may be, indeed there are, other means for the
    remission of sins after baptism, but baptism itself cannot be repeated for this purpose. Texts in
    support of this interpretation are to be found in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures and
    in Chrysostom’s Baptismal Catecheses.10 Cyril’s explanation is particularly interesting. If it
    were possible to receive baptism a second or third time, ‘it might be said, “Though I fail once,
    I shall go right next time”.’ If you fail once, ‘there is no setting things right, for there is “one
    Lord, one faith, one baptism”(!). None but heretics are rebaptized, since their former baptism
    was not baptism.’ Chrysostom’s explanation agrees with Cyril’s: ‘Since the old contract of
    debt is destroyed, let us be alert to prevent any second contract. For there is no second cross,
    nor a second remission by the bath of regeneration. There is remission, but not a second
    remission by baptism.’

    So the baptismal clause in this fundamental creed turns out to have a very restricted reference.
    Its ‘one baptism’ is not the ‘one baptism’ of Ephesians 4. It affirms not the common, single baptism that unites all the baptized, but the unrepeatability of the baptismal remission of sins.

    Like

  69. I am literally in the middle of the road on this one; you know, the place where it is easiest to get run over!!

    My personal eschatological beliefs (full preterism) pretty much place me outside the bounds of the statement of faith of all churches. I can’t even fully adhere to the Apostle’s Creed (unless I place it historically at literally the time of the apostles). In pretty much everything else, I would toe the orthodox (small “o”) line, but that one area pretty much keeps me from membership in any conservative–and most liberal–churches.

    Also, the current church I attend demands as a condition of membership that you give 10% of your income to the church (gross or net of tax I am not certain). First, I am not against support the church, but the hard line 10% tithe I am not convinced is commanded by God of Gentiles in the Old or of anyone in the New. Support yes, tithe no.

    So no membership for me. In the Vineyard, that means you don’t participate in most ministries, mission trips, etc. You are truly a second class citizen.

    Yet a church needs to define its borders. In that I agree. So I continue to attend, knowing I will always be second class.

    So exist the tire tracks on my back.

    Like

  70. I understand catholic to be catholic little “c” meaning universal – which anyone who believes in Jesus Christ is a member of just by virtue of the fact that they believe in Jesus Christ. At least that is how it was explained ot me back when I went to Catholic School. As for “one baptism for the remission of sins” didn’t I just say I wouldn’t ever consider joining a church that would require me to be rebaptized? I think BELIEVERS are supposed to get baptized one time and one time only.

    But, then I do have a Catholic friend who swears that I’m just a Catholic in denial.

    Like

  71. Though I will say with my own son, I told him I don’t think anyone under the age of 18 should get baptized. Getting baptized is like getting married. You’re making a committment to live for Jesus for the rest of your life. I don’t think a 5 or 6 year old or even a 12 year old is mature enough to make that kind of a committment – which is why we don’t allow children that young to get married.

    Like

  72. I am referring to the “North American Baptist” denomination which was started by German immigrants. They are Baptistic in their theology, not Mennonite, but count the European Mennonites as their spiritual ancestors.

    Like

  73. The only “statement of faith” I adhere to is the Nicene Creed.

    The original Creed as drafted at Nicea?

    The modified Creed as amended at Constantinople?

    With or without the Filioque?

    If you are referring to the full Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (regardless of whether or not you include the Filioque), if you are neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, how do you understand “One baptism for the remission of sins” and “one holy, catholic and apostolic church”? Do you mean by these phrases/clauses what the authors of the Creed meant by them? I.e., do you adhere to the Creed as the authors meant adherence to and confession of the Creed to mean in each and all of its statements?

    Just askin’….

    Like

  74. Did you just answer your own question MAJ Tony? Does every Roman Catholic priest agree with every article of doctrine of the Catholic church?

    My church believes that “Baptism is immersion”. Do I find that overly narrow? Yes. Will I teach contrary to that. No.

    Like

  75. So Brandon,

    A little bit of internet sleuthing, and I find out you are in P.A. (Prince Albert for the uninformed). A good friend of mine was at the Alliance church there for years. I lived in Regina for four years. Had an uncle in Le Pas, and still have good friends Pastoring in Churchill.

    Like

  78. Five. Though I might have turned six. My story is pretty much, about age five, I prayed to receive Christ. My parents were out of town, and I didn’t tell anyone for a week (I’m just a kind of private person). I was baptized by immersion with another girl. Around age 12, I started having a lot of questions, and truly believe, looking back, it was spiritual warfare. At 18, I told God, basically, “I don’t doubt you, and I love you, but I really need Satan to shut up, so let’s do this.” My youth pastor rebaptized me a couple weeks later. It was more a personal affirmation of my own faith than anything else.

    Like

  80. How old were you when you were baptized the first time? I was baptized the first and only time at the age of 12. It was by immersion but I think sprinkling, bucket of water, whatever are equally valid methods.

    Like

  82. Well, I’d be a hypocrite if I said I thought rebaptism always inappropriate. I was rebaptized at 18, but for completely different and personal reasons. It isn’t for everyone, and I’d certainly be uncomfortable imposing such a thing on someone.

    Like

  83. The only “statement of faith” I adhere to is the Nicene Creed. I think there is a reason why the Church Fathers left stuff like speaking in tongues and pre-trib vs. post-trib out of the Creed. I would never-ever-ever even think about joining a church that required I be rebaptized. I was baptized at the age of 12. I don’t think I fully realized the implications of baptism at that time, but it was a believer’s baptism, and I believe it would be nothing short of blasphemy to do it again – especially for some group’s ego.

    But, I do believe you should be a member of a body. I’ve been struggling with membership in my meeting (I’m a Quaker) recently for a lot of reasons, but I am trying to stick it out as I take church membership very seriously. Besides, I love those people – warts and all.

    Like

  84. I take it you’re referring to Baptists in Germany and not Amish/Mennonite/Old Order Brethren.

    Like

  85. Oh, okay. Sorry, I assumed only because that’s really the only thing that made sense to me (agreement or disagreement aside). Huh. That is weird.

    Like

  86. Or if we can’t bring ourselves to celebrate our differences, we can still at least accept them in a spirit of catholicity.

    Like

  87. My wife wasn’t baptized as an infant, she was baptized as a believer at age 12, but the mode was sprinkling. I was eligible to become a member but my wife was not, we could not conceive of one becoming a member without the other. So the only way for her to become a member was to be rebaptized.

    Like

  88. I figure if you don’t hold to the teachings of the faith which you’re going to teach, how can you be a teacher of said faith? Here is one thought on the subject: Catholics are supposed to hold all that the Church holds as doctrine, but when a Catholic is confirmed, they merely recite the current version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

    Like

  89. Oh! I remembered my question , Mike: Were yall being told you had to be rebaptized, or was the church not going to recognize your wife’s infant baptism? I haven’t really heard of transferring membership by baptism unless you simply were never baptized.

    Like

  90. Hi Dac,

    I know a number of Evangelicals who couldn’t sign it. On the positive side of things, the national website and wikipedia both state something along the lines of: “unity on every fine point of doctrine is not required in order to become a member of the denomination”.

    Like

  91. I think that anyone who is in a Southern Baptist Church, understands that the norm is for there to be more members than there are adherents. In other words, there are usually twice as many members as there are actually people attending the church.

    I have been in the Canadian Baptists of Western Canada for two plus years. First, at a small church in northern manitoba, and now at a medium sized church in a medium sized city in Saskatchewan. Here, the opposite is true, we have more adherents than members. The interesting thing about this specific church is that, although the leadership and elders are certainly Baptist and Evangelical; we have many members/adherents who would call themselves Catholic or Pentecostal or Anglican or Mennonite, etc. etc. etc.

    1. Though we believe that believer’s baptism by immersion is the mode of baptism taught in scripture, we also accept as members those who have been baptized in other modes, or even as infants, by churches in other Christian denominations.
    2. We also are fairly widespread on everything but the gospel. There are those who are very much premillenial dispensationalists, and those of us who are amillenialists. (In fact, I am the Associate Pastor and am an amillenialist, and the head pastor is premillenialist and we get along just fine). There are those of us who are theistic evolutionists and those who are young earth creationists. There are those who hold that you can lose salvation, and those who tend towards calvinism. One of our elders makes his own wine and beer, one of our elders is a teetotaler, and they know about eachother. It makes for some interesting after church discussions, but we all love eachother.

    Our bond is Christ, in spite of our differences, we believe that in Christ we are one. So we are able to get past those things that are less important.

    Like

  93. lol thanks, Joanie! I’ve been using that name online since I made a character by that name in Star Wars Galaxies six or seven years ago. In fact, there are some people I know in real life who met me online that call me Obed even in real life! But I figured, since we’re doing the whole open honest thing over here, I’d step out from hiding behind a gaming moniker 🙂

    Like

  94. A thought struck me this morning, and it’s this…

    What church would Jesus become a member of? Yours? Mine? Someone else’s? If Jesus was going to one of our churches today, would he be told/asked to join or else stop teaching/preaching/serving/ministering? I could see Jesus agreeing with the Apostles’ Creed, but how about full-water immersion baptism or re-baptism or sprinkling? How about predetermination vs. free will? How about pre-trib vs. post-trib vs. whatever other theology is out there? How about no drinking, no smoking, no chewing, no cussing, no dancing, no jewelry, no instruments? How about innerrancy or evolution or whatever else many of us believers disagree over? Would Jesus CARE about any of that stuff that churches hold up as important?

    This leads me to believe Jesus’ heart would be broken seeing what religion has done to warp His sacrifice.

    Like

  96. Michael, I’m glad to see you’re still writing for the team at IM. Great questions you raise here. Here’s my 2 cents:

    1. No, I think it unites like-minded people without having to re-define everything all the time. It prevents a lot of division through the changing of minds or the forgetting of doctrine or a myriad of other unstable events in a man’s life. Yes they can be used divisively, but PEOPLE DIVIDE THE CHURCH, and they will do it WITH or WITHOUT help from a confession. Non-confessional churches are absolutely no more united for their lack of them. Requiring agreement has the potential to ostracize some, but maybe confessional churches could have a concise statement of faith that looks like just every other evangelical church (as indeed most do) as the requirement for membership, and a fuller confession as a requirement for teaching.

    2. The cliche generic evangelical statement of faith found on most church websites (which resemble sloppy modern adaptations of the apostle’s creed at times 😛 ) could be the essentials. We all know the saying…. “In essentials unity….” I think there is room to disagree within a tradition: Not every presbyterian ever has been fully able to sign on the dotted line for the Westminster Confession, but since they SOLA and TULIP they decided it was close enough for them.

    3. Yes, but should ease of acceptance be the priority here? Certainly we are doing a disservice when we make people jump through so many hoops that too many loose interest, but the opposite extreme, membership involving no more than adding your name to a list, is equally ineffective imo. Covenant membership is a good balance i think. As long as I can still drink 😛

    4. Yes! I love it.

    5. Good question. I’m sure there are many other religions that don’t care what you believe. But they don’t work, so what is that worth? Some religions want to prescribe every exact detail of what you believe. Kinda cultish. I think the worldwide church has unity around the apostles creed, and other religions don’t really seem to have anything that compares.

    6. Exactly what you said. Concise doctrinal summary that is more generous!

    Thanks for your thoughts Michael. This is stuff I think we just might put to some good practical use as we are currently deliberating on our transition into covenant membership.

    Like

  97. Perhaps the real reason some people are put off by varying definitions of church membership is the legalistic way they are formulated and administered rather than having a problem with defining membership per se.

    “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.” [1 Ti 1:8] “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved . . . who correctly handles the word of truth.” [2 Ti. 2:15]

    As the last commenter, David Cornwell, said, the tighter the weave in the net, the more sectarian it can become. I suspect that most people who’ve had problems with membership statements/requirements have run into legalism combined with denominational pride (“I follow Paul, I follow Apollos”) in which leaders lord it over them until they get tired of it and leave.

    Like

  98. I didn’t even bother to read all the comments yet, so someone may have already said this. Until about five months ago I was a baptist. That was when I left my pastorate to plant an Anglican church. We are in the process of going thru the affiliation process with the AMiA. I am also going thru the clergy credentialing process with them.

    I have never found a better balance between openness and reaching out while at the same time making sure everyone is on the same page about key issues as I have found there.

    I’m home. It feels great.

    Like

  99. Interesting conversation. As a Baptist pastor, I have had to deal with membership issues for years. I see legitimate points on both sides. Beyond a handful of essentials, or, what I consider non-negotiables (e.g. Deity of Christ, Virgin Birth, Salvation by Grace through Faith in Christ, alone… etc.), I think we can allow some latitude of positions. As an adult believer, I can deal with those who hold views differing from my own, (obviously, unless those views are “radically” different) and even then, we can agree to disagree without being hostile toward one another. When it comes to those who teach my grandchildren, however, that’s a different story. It matters a great deal to me that those who lead children to an understanding of faith, Scripture, salvation, etc., hold to doctrinal views in line with my own. Not because I consider “my views” to be infallible, but, because I do believe, after many years of prayer, and struggling through issues which forged my faith, that there are certain matters of faith that cannot be minimized or treated as “optional” and therefore, “take it or leave it issues.” I guess what I’m saying is that I want to know that those who lead in forming the faith of our children (though I’ll be the first to say that parents should be their primary teachers) will not create a conflict within the minds of those children which will lead to confusion and perhaps a misunderstanding of vital doctrinal matters with eternal consequences.
    Oh, how I long for the days of my early Christian experience when I knew it all and had the right (and ONLY) answer to everything!

    Like

  100. “the only standards for membership are that one profess faith in Christ, be baptized, and be living in such a manner that doesn’t cast serious doubts on the first two.”

    I like that. I was once attended (not a member of!) an independent Bible church that required a lengthy doctrine course and a difficult oral doctrine exam in order to become a full voting member. Oh, and voting membership was only open to men. While I applaud the idea of increasing the level of doctrinal understanding among Christians, this sort of approach for membership goes too far—not to mention that even beyond getting a passing grade in doctrine, one had to keep OT dietary laws, promise never to work on Sunday, etc. All just for membership!

    Like

  101. I always appreciated the Evangelical Free Churchs SOF, which is very short, and allows a diversity of belief in the non essentials

    Like

  102. The more defined one’s statement of faith, the more sectarian it becomes. Thus the splits, divisions, and proliferation of denominations and local churches. The opposite is a statement of faith that defines our general agreement, such as the Apostle’s Creed, yet allows a catholic spirit and a certain ambiguity of definition. We should be celebrating this diversity, not dividing over it. Then, perhaps, the Church could be the Church once again.

    Thus some call me a liberal. Ha!

    Like

  106. The filioque controversy, on the one hand, is not inconsequential, as saying the Son caused the Holy Spirit would, in fact, be heresy*; on the other hand, it’s not really something typical Christians in the pews are, or should be, heavily concerned with. Put it this way, Christianity isn’t a gnostic faith, but there is some “gnosis” involved. There’s a reason the first person of the trinity is the “Father” from which all things spring forth.

    *St. Maximus the Confessor stated that the Western Church didn’t believe that the Son caused the Spirit, but that the HS proceded from the Father THRU the Son, which is consistent with Eastern thought. According to him and others, the whole issue was more a question of wording and really at worst a misunderstanding between East & West. All are not in agreement on either side.

    Like

  108. oh now let’s not get undies in bundles–see link:

    For The Record
    Los Angeles Times Thursday, January 24, 2008 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 2 inches; 85 words Type of Material: Correction
    Hindu-Episcopal service: An article in Sunday’s California section about a joint religious service involving Hindus and Episcopalians said that all those attending the service at St. John’s Cathedral in Los Angeles were invited to Holy Communion. Although attendees walked toward the Communion table, only Christians were encouraged to partake of Communion. Out of respect for Hindu beliefs, the Hindus were invited to take a flower. Also, the article described Hindus consuming bread during Communion, but some of those worshipers were Christians wearing traditional Indian dress.

    Like

  109. An active faith evolves. Does signing a statement of faith lock you into that level of belief? We have a bad habit of putting the things of God into boxes. I feel like it is a divisive force among the body of Christ.

    Like

  110. Thank you for your kind words.

    The denominational churches in my area are sound scripturally and doctrinally. We fellowship at a wonderful church building with over 300 years of history. It has continued to disciple, serve, and send for all of those years. We are proud to be part of this cloud of witnesses. The positive is that our diocese has become a magnet for theologians, priests, and missionaries who won’t yield. This has provided our children with great teachers, mentors, and examples of faith.

    Like

  111. By “sinning” do you mean someone who is open and notoriously manifesting some grave sin (adultery, etc.) because after all, we’re all sinners, forgiven or not.

    Like

  112. Now, now, Matthew, I’ve agreed with you at least ONCE 🙂 In most senses I agree with you on THIS as well. We obviously have a different view on Church polity, but within the confines of our different organizational structures, we more or less have the same conceptual understanding of what a church SHOULD do.

    Like

  113. This is n interesting subject. On the one hand, it is vital that members of the church, and particularly those who teach, are dedicated to the principles of Christianity and the particular church. On the other hand, if one does not simply believe everything they hear in church, but explores the issues for themselves and digs through the Scripture, they will rarely find a church who they are in 100% agreement with. Does this mean that we are not qualified because we take our timeto develop our beliefs rather tha following te status quo of what our particular denomination teaches? No. In fact, I would say that those who question the status quo and seek the whole truth are more qualified because they have a better understanding of why they believe what they believe.

    In my case, I consider myself to be a Liturgical, Evanelical, Baptist (with a few other things sprinkled in there). I have been active in ministry in about 5 different denominations and will follow the Spirit where He sends me. I have once left a church due to wat I felt would be a compromise of my faith to stay, but I believe that the church needs to find the differences between minor and major issues and work together for the Glory of God. We are all seeking to bring folks to God and our internal bickering will just drive them away.

    Like

  114. Love those quotes.

    No, the ecclesiology in Catholicism is quite a bit different. Catholicism has no concept of membership beyond if you were baptized in the Catholic church and you live within the parish boundaries you are a member of that parish unless you officially revoke your Catholicism by writing off to the Bishop of your See (and I believe you must make sure it has been received).

    My hunch as to why this is different for Catholics is that there is little congregational democracy in Catholicism. Just the election of the parish council who is usually advisory only. Whereas the many Protestants hold elections for vestry members and members to send to the denomination or Synod convention. Probably just a matter of the denoms developing during different times in history.

    Like

  115. WAY easier said than done, Patrick. Here in the South we DO have churches on every corner, and it is still a struggle to find one that you can fellowship with or join – and that will accept you.

    Like

  117. Mike,
    I think your post is right on the money. I am fully in support of the approach of the reformed denominations I have been a part of (the OPC and the PCA) that the only standards for membership are that one profess faith in Christ, be baptized, and be living in such a manner that doesn’t cast serious doubts on the first two.

    They use further standards when ordaining elders and deacons, but anyone who is a Christian is welcome to join, worship and commune just on the basis of professed faith in the same Lord.

    I remember having the same problem you describe when I was in college. The only church on campus was Wesleyan, and I was happy enough to worship with them and receive their preaching, but for membership they required adherence to a fairly extensive life and belief statement, some portions of which I just couldn’t accept in good conscience.

    Like

  118. My problem was that the church that churches that did fit in our area had closed, and any others were too far away to be practical to attend. Your solution is much easier in a country where there seems to be a church on every corner.

    Like

  119. I think one solution is that if Inerrancy is in your statement of faith and someone doesn’t hold to it, then they agree not to teach on it.

    Like

  120. I knew there was a quotation by a famous person that I wanted to put here in regard to becoming a member of things and it was by Groucho Marx who said, “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”

    While looking, I also found this from Groucho: ” What do you get when you cross an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic? Someone who stays up all night wondering if there is a Dog.”

    OK, back to SERIOUS stuff. I am Catholic and don’t know if we are called “members.” Do you know, Martha? When I started attending Mass again after a long stint away, I told a woman in charge of education there that I hadn’t “signed up” as an official parishioner or whatever it was that maybe I was supposed to do. She says filling in some info would be a good idea just so I could be mailed pertinent things. So I did.

    Like

  121. Just wanted to say “hello,” Isaac, now that you are using your real name. I liked Obed’s posts and know I will like Isaac Rehberg’s too! 🙂

    Like

  122. Good crikey.

    Kozak, I can see from the Hindu side why they’d partake; Hinduism is less a monolithic belief than a vast conglomeration with no problem about syncreticism (and if you don’t believe me, let me link to this image of Krishna and Christ):

    But what I cannot see is how any denomination calling itself Christian and pretending to the apostolic succession can just say “Hey, the marriage feast of the Lamb is an all-you-can eat buffet!”

    Like

  123. The Vineyard Church I attended went along for years without membership requirements. Still, somehow despite this the church had many people who were “committed” to the church and served in a myriad of ways. However, one Sunday quite by surprise they handed out a form to the congregation in which you were to sign up for an 8-week class, 16 hours total, in order to be affirmed as a member. It was also explained that membership indicated commitment, and commitment became the keyword in all the sermons for a while. Despite the past sixteen years of a thriving and growing church with no membership policy, suddenly we were told lack of membership indicated lack of commitment. Also, at the end of the 8-week course, we would agree (covenant) to uphold 8 obligations that came with membership, including tithing, serving in a church ministry, etc.

    This all struck me a seriously off-putting. I understand the organizational usefulness of membership, but I don’t understand the need to apply the heavy varnish of obligations, commitment, and accountability to justify it. By doing so you only create a church-centric, church-is-where-the-ministry-is attitude. If you choose not the join, you’re just an attender, lacking commitment, a rogue Christian without accountability, flitting from church to church. And yet that gross caricature had never been a problem before.

    A year in, and I’d guess that the church has the same level of giving and serving as before, and the small minority that “flit” because of lack of commitment (supposedly) still come and go. The real incentive for doing this had to do with insurance against hypothetical legal action, but they couldn’t simply admit this. Meanwhile, the mother who’s “ministry” is to love her children sacrificially and has no time for serving in the food pantry or the bookstore, or whose special needs child frequently keeps her from church on a Sunday morning, can’t be a member. She lacks commitment!

    Like

  124. I have not joined a church because I am relatively young and I have been shuffled around going from job to job. I read a study somewhere that most of the generation Y crowd will have more jobs in their 20s than current baby boomers have had in their entire lives. This is, unfortunately, the way to succeed in many career paths. Knowing that I will probably only be at a given church for 1-2 years prevents me from becoming a member because I know that I will have to sever ties with that church sooner than I like. It has not stopped me form participating or helping out whenever possible.

    I would imagine when I finally get to settle down I would consider becoming a member but until then I think I would do the church and myself a disservice.

    Like

  125. megan, as a person who’s attended the same church for 18 years without becoming a member (for many of the reasons you state), I wouldn’t be disheartened by #3 at all. You can show committment to a church without becoming a member. You don’t need to sign anything or agree to anything to become active, minister to others, serve joyfully, and love God and your neighbor. Do not let membership cause you angst.

    By the way, in those 18 years I’ve seen full-fledged members come and go at my church and I’ve seen board members less committed to the church than I am. THAT’S disheartening.

    What’s also disheartening is the feeling that membership is a numbers game, and that part of the reason churches want people to become members is for budget allocations. I understand that, but then any church that is actively seeking to add members for those reasons should also actively scrub their membership roster of anyone who no longer attends the church. I doubt that’s done very often. (I haven’t seen it at my church; in fact, I told one of my pastors who was trying to convince me to join the church that I’d consider if he was willing to show me the membership roster so I could see who was on it, but no longer attending. I haven’t been approached to join since then.)

    Like

  126. I think membership is important. The idea that there will be much unity around a ‘lowest common denominator’ doctrinally just doesn’t hold up in practice.

    I searched long and hard, and studied a great deal to arrive doctrinally at the confession of the faith I now hold, and signed on the dotted line with a clear conscience. I am convinced that it is a true and clear explication of the Christian faith. There is no way I am handing my children over to Sunday School and Bible class teachers that aren’t convinced that the doctrine the church holds is true. I am not sitting under teachers or elders that disagree with the teachings of the church in any substantive way. I have been out in the Post Evangelical wilderness and do not wish to return to it…ever.

    The great theological traditions in the church are internally coherent systems of teaching, and really don’t lend themselves to being pieced out like car parts from a junkyard and reassembled in a patch work fashion. At the end of the day there are really less than a dozen main traditions, everything else is a variation on a theme.

    Do the study, find out what various denominations believe, figure out what you believe, and find a church that teaches it.

    Like

  127. From experience I have learned that a church body can function (and function well) without an official membership roll or a set of doctrinal preconditions to which one must agree. And I believe there are some benefits in not having these things. For one, commitment to the church can be measured on the basis of action. Those who are committed are those who, by their actions, prove themselves to be committed, rather than those who are willing to sign on the dotted line or swear a vow to keep their thinking habits within doctrinal parameters (or, at least, to keep their mouths shut if they don’t). Of course, such a church would have to adopt a policy of freedom of speech regarding doctrinal issues and a certain level of tolerance for doctrinal diversity. Sure, that can be dangerous and a bit messy, but if the committed core of the church is proactive about maintaining unity and stands united against divisive elements and intentions, then it can work. The church would also need to pursue a policy of nonpossessiveness when it comes to its people. This is a policy I would recommend even for churches with a membership roll and strict doctrinal guidelines. Just think how much emotional and spiritual woundedness could be avoided if every church lovingly and prayerfully sent people out to explore new frontiers of faith and service — rather than treating anyone who feels led to leave a particular church as an apostate, traitor, backslider, or poor deluded soul. And just imagine how much Christian culture would change if churches were willing to exchange or even share believers without jealousy or feelings of betrayal.
    Say what you will, but these policies can and do work if applied with wisdom and discernment. All it takes is a little rearranging in one’s thinking — and for religious control freaks in high places to loosen their grip.

    Like

  128. I have to say this is a new one to me. Never heard of dual level membership and I would certainly have some issues with it from a biblical perspective in light of the unity of the body as expressed in the NT writings (neither jew nor greek, slave nor free, but all are one in Christ). It also seems the second level expressed above is a bit moralistic in flavor, but wouldn’t one do the right thing in those cases if one’s heart was in the right place with respect to the “lower” level requirements like truly believing in the deity and power of the risen Christ and the effect of Him on my life? Do the higher level rules include rules about the use of money or the treatment of the poor? Just curious. I would worry about the potential for creating different classes of Christians.

    Like

  129. Oh also I should mention that they have no missions program, have a TULIP article of faith, and don’t really talk a lot about soul-winning or anything like that.

    Like

  130. ahumanoid,

    It is hard to say…but I am curious as to your perspective because as a new believer I don’t understand all the complexities of different Baptist groups. The Baptist church we would like to join is a part of a small, regional federation called New Hope. There are only a few churches, they have no website or anything like that. Some of the churches in the federation only have about seven or eight congregants, so what they do is meet up and blend all the congregants together (to make about 30), but that means that they move from church to church each weekend so sometimes the “church” will be 30 or 40 miles away. The places they meet are small, look like shacks from the outside, I mean I don’t think you would think it was a church. No decoration in the church or even a sign on the door and the hymnbooks are yellow with age. They do river baptisms, foot washings, and yes….none of the preachers have ever been to seminary. I don’t think they would turn down someone who had, but it would not be something they would use as a condition for becoming a preacher. None of the preachers are paid. My grandfather-in-law became a preacher this way and was the one to marry my husband and I, and he is the most godly person I have ever encountered, can recite his Bible backwards and forwards, so of course I am partial to his preaching. He is in his seventies and he preaches at two small churches like this. Oddly enough, people come from all over (I mean, even from magazines and such) to this church every once in a while because they’re one of the only ones around that does Sacred Harp (shape) singing. But no, there’s no Sunday School. They really look down on that whole whisking-the-kids-away-into-the-nursery thing. I don’t agree, but I also don’t hold that much of an opinion on the subject, being childless myself. Plus I recall being a kid and having to sit through Mass (my parents went through a Catholic phase) and watching the kids who got to bring toys to church….it definitely inspired some jealously in me! So I am inclined to say that this seems like an ok thing, especially when the congregation is so small.

    But anyway, how does one go about defining a “Fundamentalist” church? I have been to churches that I would call Fundamentalist, based on my limited, secular knowledge: preaching Zionism, against Obama, very culture-war focused, not really talking about Jesus that much. However, I am sure that the term “Fundamental” has a different definition inside and outside of Christian Culture. This one is a lot more “country” than the churches I have visited and that I would identify as “Fundamental” but I haven’t seen the polemics like I have in other places. They don’t really talk about politics at all. All the preaching is very emotional: a lot of people being asked to speak about how Jesus has command of their life. I actually found it very unnerving the first time I went there, the amount of emoting, how willing people are to share. There are multiple preachers and everyone preaches extemporaneously– NO pre-writing of the sermon is acceptable, although I am sure some people have some idea before they get up there. I will say I have never heard anyone preach anything I thought was un-sound theologically, but then again I have only visited a few times. I haven’t really heard people talk about end-times or anything like that, don’t know if that is a part of a fundamental-type perspective.

    One thing I think that makes them fundamental is that they seem to only use the KJV. I have never heard anyone say anything about KJV-only (it is probably just assumed) or about it being inspired but I bet if I asked some might say that it was. I personally prefer the KJV myself so this is no problem in practice (perhaps it becomes a theological question– are they making a translation into an idol?), although I don’t think it is inspired by any means. I was a student of literature before I became a Christian, so I prefer the KJV for various reasons, and I keep abreast of translation errors and have a nice annotated Bible so it doesn’t bother me much to read it. I prefer it to many of the Bible translations out there, although I realize all translations have their flaws, but my Zondervan study version is pretty well commented out (and its comments come from an older NIV version anyway). Anyway I say all this about KJV stuff because it goes to show that sometimes you can have a difference of opinion about a church ideal (like KJV-only) that in practice is really no difficulty.

    So, what would you say? Fundie or no? I personally have no idea….!

    Like

  131. The current elders pray and agree on who they would like to ask to be an elder. They also would be the ones to ask a sinning elder to step aside. From there the process is pretty simple – we send them a letter listing the duties and qualifications of an elder and ask them if they desire the office. If they do, we put them to work.

    Like

  132. Hello EAVice,

    I will pray for you sister. I agree wholeheartedly with you that there are core doctrines and dogma that are non-negotiable. Compromising those eventually leads to being ‘outside’ of the Body of Christ. I can’t imagine sharing communion with other faiths. (We are non-sacramental anyway) but while I understand the desire of Interfaith movements to be tolerant and loving to other human beings. (I do.) The church is Christ’s bride, not ours. And He will not share his glory or authority with any other religious system.
    If you and your husband feel strongly that the Lord has called you to stay. Then that’s what you must do. I think that must be very hard for you both. Are there other believers such as yourselves within your church that you can gather with for mutual support?

    Like

  133. Sorry for my slow response. I should have clarified we only ask those who teach to agree to our statement of faith. As you pointed out that would probably mean Michael couldn’t agree to it, but we always have the flexibility after meeting with someone to see if their area of disagreement is one we are willing to disqualify over. The main thing we would be looking for is would they make this “the issue” that they are going to teach on a regular basis, or that is going to be brought up in every study.

    Inerrancy is pretty important to me, that may be a difficult one.

    Like

  135. What a load of rubbish “They divide rather than unite. Look no further than the filioque controversy. Anything that sets “us” vs. “them” in the Body of Christ is both unnecessary and evil.” is.

    Like

  137. Membership really confuses me, especially in the context of “church”. Why does one need to register and agree to a bunch of things to be a member? If one is a believer and counted as a brother (or sister) in Christ, he is already a member of the Body of Christ. What need for these other memberships?

    I kinda see it both ways. On the one hand, I can see the benefits of keeping up with who’s where, keeping people and rosters updated (my background denomination is notorious for having dead people on the roll). On the other, I have to respectfully ask people hesitant to actually be an official member to consider and pray through why they’re so hesitant.

    My experience is that there is a rather large group of disillusioned people who fall in one of two categories: unorthodox or renegade (my gentle, loving term of endearment for my brethren with a slight rebellious streak) and a group who has been, some form or fashion, intentionally or not, wounded–either in a one-time deal, or via spiritual abuse. A vast number are the artsy crowd, to be honest (I can say that; I write fiction).

    And then there’s another group that’s just kinda in that weird in-between place, the transition phase, if you will.

    But again, those are just observations.

    Like

  138. I made a comment below, but it probably goes back to the whole idea of continuity in teaching – although I don’t, admittedly, see why a non-member couldn’t be interviewed beforehand if they’re interested in the position.

    Like

  139. 1. Does requiring agreement with a statement of faith lead to increased fragmentation within the body of Christ?

    Statement of faith meaning some moment of salvation, or adherence to a doctrinal semantic?

    I do think it’s beneficial to know exactly what the church believes.

    2. Or are there essentials that need to be agreed upon no matter what in order for someone to be accepted as a member?

    I think the essentials are much fewer, and therefore more important, then we give credit to. I think that if you’re going to teach, there’s probably some required continuity. I mean, if a guy comes in believing Jesus wasn’t God, we probably should think twice before putting him in a position to teach.

    That said: I think it’s pretty absurd to try to find a place where you agree with everyone on everything. The truth is, it’s not likely to happen. So you decide where the deal-breakers are.

    3. If Christ has accepted me as a member of his body, are there ways to make it easier for me to be accepted into a local church body?

    Not sure what you mean. I’m from a tradition where it was pretty easy to join. The current one I’m at has a class you go through, and while I admittedly do not agree on verything, I hit no deal-breakers. Then, I’m also an oddball whose a bit anti-polarization.

    4. Could we lessen the requirement of membership in many evangelical churches, so that prospective members do not have to give complete agreement to a statement of faith, but instead will agree to uphold it and not teach contrary to it?

    Maybe it’s my age (I’m a twenty-something), or more abnormal, “I wasn’t around that” upbringing, but I guess this goes back to my above statement. Total compliance just isn’t likely to happen.

    5. Are there similar situations in other faith traditions? If so, are there resolution that have been seen to work?

    I’m sure there are. *shrug*

    6. Finally, what could you do in your church to help people in my situation become part of your congregation and membership?

    I don’t know that I”m in a position to do so.

    I don’t have a problem with a church having a statement of faith. I feel it is a good tool to say “this is what we are about as a church.” Is it not possible to say that “We welcome those who have slightly differing viewpoints” as long as they agree to uphold and abide by the statement of faith”?

    See above.

    Like

  140. What really gets my goat is that churches will use this as a crutch. “Oh, we cannot discipline Joe Schmoe because they are not a member of our church”. I have to question how such a “church” expects to function in the larger Body of Christ with those kind of perspectives.

    Easy answer: When in my house, you operate by my rules. If you can’t do that, you probably don’t want to be in my house.

    But I was raised that way.

    Like

  142. I’ve posted this elsewhere, but I currently lead an adult Sunday school class at a church in which I’m not a member. I feel teaching is a calling and gift for me. What upsets me about the thought that a non-member can’t teach is that someone’s gift, calling and ministry might be affected by man-made denominations and rules. I’m really glad that my church has not “forced” me to become a member in order to teach. Now part of that could be that we’ve been there for 18 years and I’ve taught the class for about 5 years and everyone knows my teaching is sound Biblically and theologically, but I hate to think about the position I’d be put in if someone approached me and said, “Become a member or stop using your gift of teaching.”

    Like

  143. Nice, thought-provoking post, Mike!

    My wife and I have attended the same church for about 18 years now but have not yet become members. There are some things that the church considers “spiritual guidelines” that we don’t necessarily agree with. And, to put it bluntly, I also don’t feel like joining ANY denomination. Let’s put it this way…does a church really want me to join if afterward I don’t really consider myself a member of that denomination? And should I join a church if I’m not going to call myself a person of that denomination?

    Another argument against joining a church is this: does anyone think that by joining a church you will become more committed to the church? I think my wife and I are more committed to our church than many of its full-fledged members. We’ve seen many, many members get fed up and leave the church, while we “non-members” continue on. Criminny, we’re more involved at our church than some of the board members!

    As a curious aside, I’ve led an adult Sunday school class at our church for almost 5 years now. I’m still waiting for the day that someone approaches me and says, “Become a member or stop leading the class.” LOL. But everyone in the class and the pastors know that I teach pretty good theology and strong Biblical teachings, so I think I’m safe.

    Like

  144. As some others have said, I think affirmation of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds should be enough for membership. While a congregation may have a vision, mission, or denominational point of view that goes beyond the Creeds, membership and fellowship shouldn’t require such conformity.

    In Anglicanism, most things are open to any baptized Christian. While Confirmation isn’t required, it does carry additional responsibilities, as someone who is Confirmed is making certain commitments. But Confirmation isn’t required for membership in a Parish or for participation in the full life of the Parish, typically including certain lay leadership things (teaching Sunday school, participating in the music, etc).

    Confirmation is required for folks who are seeking to be in ordained ministry, of course. But again, that’s the whole responsibility thing.

    Like

  145. Don’t get me wrong Caleb,

    I very much believe in holding members accountable, and leadership accountable. If I find it too hard to join though, where is the accountability?

    Like

  146. The university I’m getting my Masters of Christian Ministry from is Baptist and independent (literally, not in the “Independent, Fundamental Baptists” way) from the SBC. I think it may be affiliated with some Texas Baptist organization that’s pretty small and hands-off. One of the side-effects of my university’s independence is that it doesn’t have to tow the SBC party-line. That’s given us professors who encourage free discussion and free learning rather than indoctrination, because they truly believe in the Baptist ideal of the “priesthood of all believers” and the logical corollary that the Holy Spirit will guide the students as they seek to genuinely learn. According to the professors, that’s REALLY old-school Baptist philosophy.

    Like

  147. “Which makes me think, there is very little conversation about a-traditional, “independent” Baptist churches on imonk. Is there anyone here that goes to an ole-time church?”

    If you’re referring to anything akin to Independent, Fundamental Baptists, stay away!! You were warned.

    Like

  149. Does anyone actually police 1B? I mean, if someone wants to join and states they never attended a church before, does anyone attempt to verify this? Or if they state they were in good standing, does anyone check that?

    The temple I attend has a requirement that you are supposed to be Jewish (either a convert or ethnic) or in the convert program. However, they don’t (to my knowledge) do a genealogy of prospective members. It’s an honor system (well that and Temple dues aren’t cheap. Just getting Jews to sign up is hard enough…)

    Like

  151. Hi Josh,
    I also have a very pro membership position for the same reasons as you and some others here. Our denomination also has dual-membership, perhaps even Tri-Level of membership. Lay leadership and the ‘highest’ level of membership involves similar lifestyle agreements as yours. And agreement to eleven doctrinal statements.
    I find it ironic that Jesus himself wouldn’t qualify for the highest level of membership in our church, but perhaps that’s another conversation!

    Like

  153. Hi Shaun,

    Thanks for the comment. Nice looking website by the way! Here is dual concern with what you have written. You write that “if you serve in any ministry we have a ministry app[lication] that includes agreement with our simple statement of faith”.

    I took a look at your ministry statment of faith. I liked the fact that although your church is “pre-trib” it is not included in the statement of faith. I also like the additional statment on Calvinism and Arminianism and that these issues were excluded as well.

    But I think you need to realize that Michael Spencer, and mainy faithful Christians like him would be ineligible to serve in any ministry in your church because they could not agree with the statment of faith. In Michael Spencer’s case the issue in inerrancy. (And I don’t want this to get into a debate about inerrancy). Could he, and others like him, agree with the statement of faith. No. Could he agree to uphold the statement of faith and not teach contrary to it. That would be another question entirely. I would be interested in hearing what your response would be to Megan up above.

    Like

  154. Nice post Mike, and very important.

    “4. Could we lessen the requirement of membership in many evangelical churches, so that prospective members do not have to give complete agreement to a statement of faith, but instead will agree to uphold it and not teach contrary to it?”

    This is more or less how my church handles the issue. We will allow people to join who do not agree entirely with our doctrinal statement if the issue in question is not a core doctrine of the faith. For instance, our church is Dispy Pre-mil, however, we have a teacher who is Amill. He is a member, and teaches in our church all the time. However, it is agreed that he won’t teach on eschatology. As far as I know, everyone is quite content with the arrangement.

    Like

  155. I certainly do have this issue personally. I am a recent convert stuck in church limbo-land. I am married to a student so any church we would join we would only be with for a year, tops, which is a crutch we use to justify not attending church. On top of that, we have an ideal church we’d like to join once my husband gets out of school, where his grandfather preaches, but it is a Primitive-Baptist-style church and it doesn’t offer any of the fellowship opportunities that I am interested in– no sunday school, no devotional groups, no VBS for our (not-yet-conceived) kids, no missionary work, no social work. They don’t even meet every Sunday. And yet, my heart is all about this church: the extemporaneous sermons, self-ordained/UNPAID (really, who does that anymore? ) preachers, footwashings, river baptisms– the church has a sensational heart, and their statement of faith is everything I believe in. But I also want a church for the other 3 Sundays out of the month where I can engage in some more action-focused worship. My husband, on the other hand, hates a regular church atmosphere (I can sympathize with him on this point because I really do prefer his church in almost every way). On top of this my husband is not baptized, seeing it as not necessary for salvation and only as a way of signalling your submission to a particular church. I am already baptized, was baptized as a Methodist when I was a baby, but I don’t really believe in infant baptism and feel that my transition from baptized-child to unrepentant- atheist to stumbling-Christian might necessitate that I be baptized again (is that wrong? I feel it more personally than I do theologically– my salvation doesn’t require it, but I see it as a “confessing Jesus” sort of thing– just another way to signal my newfound faith publically). We’ve gone to churches and none have the environment that we find at the church we someday hope to join; still, I feel that I need a church environment and am not satisfied to wait until we move again. Which makes me think, there is very little conversation about a-traditional, “independent” Baptist churches on imonk. Is there anyone here that goes to an ole-time church? The church I am talking about is actually an off-shoot of the Primitive movement (the main difference being that they use music).

    Like

  156. I agree that there are benefits to having membership of a church. I nodded my head reading Matthew Johnston’s comment. However, becoming a member of our church is pretty simple: you must be a believer, you must commit to growing as a disciple, and you must commit to strive for unity in the church. Here is the wording from our by-laws:

    Section 1: Qualifications for Membership
    A. Members shall have trusted the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation, as described in the New Testament, shall have confirmed their desire to grow as a disciple, and shall have testified to their willingness to strive for unity in the body.
    B. If transferring membership from another church, he or she must be a member in good standing in the other church and meet the requirements of Section 1A.

    We do have a “Our Faith and Message” statement, but we don’t need to sign on the dotted line to be a member. I think we strike the right balance between requiring one to be a liar or clone by signing a detailed doctrine statement and the anything-goes church that EAVice describes.

    Like

  157. Good post Mike. Kudos again to each of you bearing the Michael torch.
    In a black or white choice (after 30 years in Church leadership & Pastoring)Forget the membership.
    Dual citizen ship is OK but divisions divide & suspicions of loyalties abide. Been in both; prefer open to closed.
    We are now ‘members’ and teaching in a 200 attendance evangelical assembly. I am a member of Christ, by His Blood, Grace and Faith which He has given.
    The second matters eternally and foremost. The first is for the convenience of being used as He has gifted us. As for the “can I sign and disagree with some of it”, I believe 99 % do just that.

    Like

  158. I think the entire concept of “church membership” will undergo a significant transformation in the coming 10-20 years. It’s my guess that in the future people will have strong connections to multiple church organizations, finding that each offers a different, but necessary, form of “church”. The modern traditional concept of membership to one specific church body will lose its place as cultural norm. Someone may find themselves at one place on Sunday morning, midweek elsewhere, serving at one or more others, and participating in a sports outreach, choir, etc. at still another. This will be a good thing.

    Is this a lack of commitment? I don’t think so. I think it’s the obvious application of church to how we actually live our lives. We move between a variety of communities (e.g. work, school, neighborhood, family, etc.). As we seek to integrate our following of Christ into all facets of life, it will only be natural to find outlets for this in a variety of places. Attempting to confine our primary relationships with fellow believers to a single organization just doesn’t seem to be the best option.

    Like

  159. Any church that makes someone get rebaptized to become a member, does not have a proper of baptism and God’s central role in it.

    So, for them, the onus will be on ….you.

    Prepare to climb the ladder, and to never quite ‘arrive’.

    Like

  160. “You can be part of a community of believers and not a church member, and to be honest I think that’s more important than anything else.”
    ^this^

    My church views membership more as a covenant between members and leadership than as doctrinal agreement. Membership is more about mutual accountability and support than agreement on a list of points. Of the eight points or so I signed when I joined, I think two concerned doctrine. The rest mentioned my commitment to be involved in and support the church. Attached to the same sheet of paper are the leadership’s commitments to me and other members. Oh, and it is possible to get kicked off the roster for not keeping the commitment

    I didn’t join this church for its doctrinal statement (or its lack of detail), but for community. I won’t say I agree with everything I hear every Sunday, or with everything I hear from other members, but we all agree on a small core of biblical truth regarding salvation and the nature of God. Everything else is secondary.

    Finding a place I feel I belong is difficult because so many points of doctrine are secondary to me. I’m told at one church I must believe this about the creation, and at another I’m told I must believe that about the evils of alcohol, while I consider both points non-issues (for example).

    In reference to the blog, If by open membership, you mean doctrinally more open, i would generally agree, so long as basic Christian truths are upheld.

    I’m having a lot of difficulty putting my concerns with an “open” community into words… What I imagine when I see “open community” is a community that does not hold itself or its members accountable, and that idea very much bothers me. Maybe someone can flesh that out a bit for me so it makes more sense on paper?

    Like

  161. Sometimes I wonder whether formal membership is necessary at all. I like the model Shaun describes.

    In most baptist churches around here (Australia) you don’t have to sign up to a long list of beliefs, but you need believers baptism (else you can talk to the pastor about it – often someone confirmed as a believer in a previous church is not required to be rebaptized).

    The reason we have formal membership is because decisions are made at members meetings. This often means the leaders made recommendations that the members ratify unanimously. Unfortunately the meetings are long and boring, which serves to exclude the younger generation, keeping the decision making in the domain of the oldest generation, which defeats the purpose of congregational government.

    Like

  162. Couldn’t have said it better. If my profession of faith and total acceptance of the Apostle’s Creed isn’t enough, I really don’t have anything to add to the situation.

    Like

  163. Our church (Xenos Christian Fellowship) has no membership, either. I would never again be involved with a church that had the whole membership thing going on. This is much better.

    Like

  165. The Apostle’s Creed is enough of a standard. I’m not interested in being a member of any church that goes beyond this. I have, however, had good fellowship with those who go beyond this.

    Like

  166. I prefer to use the word “closed” communion because it sounds meaner.

    Just joking 🙂

    Like

  167. As a convert to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, I had to experience this disequilibrium as I stepped into a new Church setting. A membership to St. Mark Lutheran Church requires a period of catechesis in which you learn about the faith that the Lutheran denomination proclaims, and afterwards you subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions. I was a little wary at first, thinking that I was already a Christian and required no further education, and my mother felt the same way as well.

    However, I found the time spent reading and studying about the Lutheran doctrine exhilarating and theologically stimulating. I had no problem continuing in the study, and have continued on even after my confirmation. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod greatly values a unity of doctrine at the baptismal font, in the pulpit, and at the altar, and scripture emphasizes this point as well. Any and all of my questions were answered through that time with pastor, and I am still learning much in the present, so I agree unwaveringly that a confessional unity must occur within the church body, and any apprehensions can be calmed and comforted with a little more education.

    Like

  168. I am a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, my pastor would require someone that was not Lutheran to under go a 8-10 week course lasting 1 hour+ each week. He would thoroughly catechized the new members in the beliefs of the Lutheran Church. He would do this to anyone coming from the ELCA also. You couldn’t take Holy Communion until after the completion of the new members class. We practice close ( closed ) Communion.

    Like

  169. “Statements of Faith” sound great in principle, but they are almost universally bad in practice. Off the top of my head, a few problems with them:

    – They divide rather than unite. Look no further than the filioque controversy. Anything that sets “us” vs. “them” in the Body of Christ is both unnecessary and evil.

    – They can and do change with time. The “faith once delivered to the saints” doesn’t change. Any statement that does have to be “updated” is not a statement of faith. It’s a statement about something else entirely. Witness the multiple revisions of the Baptist Faith and Message.

    – They often have nothing to do with the gospel.

    – They often contain, rather than eternal truths, matters of opinion about particular topics at a point in time. Again, see the BFM.

    – They’re often overly complicated. The Christian Faith is simple:

    “For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

    or

    “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

    or

    “We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed.” – C.S. Lewis

    If your statement needs 10 pages or 50 points to convey, you haven’t produced a statement of the Christian faith, because the Christian faith isn’t that complicated.

    My personal opinion: an honest affirmation of the Apostle’s Creed should be sufficient to allow anyone to join any Christian fellowship, and I’m not ever sure that’s necessary.

    I’m not holding my breath. 🙂

    Like

  170. I am a member of a denomination which is known for its openness with its acceptance of members. Recently we have even opened our communion rails to members of other faiths/ the unbaptised (ie: Muslims and Hindus). This followed years of questioning basic creedal doctrines by church leaders to the point that many of our leadership have no problem agreeing heartily with the statement that “Jesus is a way to the divine.” This statement was made by our denominational leader.

    I know the price of not having standards and disciplining the laity and leadership. The creed is a non-negotiable for me. I have learned what I’m willing to sweat and what I’m not.

    FYI: I am part of a stubborn diocese which is refusing to drink the cool-aid. I question this method sometimes. Shouldn’t we just leave? But my husband and I feel strongly that God has placed us here, and so we will stand. Still, I can’t sing “The Church’s One Foundation” without bursting into tears. There is a price to pay for those without a level of discipline and dogma in their church body. Our denomination is hemorrhaging membership, the old folks are dying, and since is no longer evangelizing (I mean why when everybody is ok. Jesus Is’nt anything special.) new members are few and far between.

    I understand the need for people to be able to grow into the grace we have been given and that means that there will be changes in their beliefs over the “smallish” stuff. I am all for giving room for that. Mine is a cautionary tale to keep the core doctrines the “giantish” stuff.

    Like

  171. Which is the precise reason you are referring to JAy.

    P.S. I attend a Baptist Church and am now a member. I would not call myself a Baptist either. Much prefer the term Christian.

    Like

  172. There is no one answer here, I do believe that being a member is important, but that way too many churches go overboard with it. We are currently attending an ACNA plant and we love it, we are not confirmed and to be honest it would be nice but it’s not critical. I like that freedom…

    I also wish more church’s would do a proper statement of faith and a doctrine of belief, I’ve had some pretty odd encounters with churches who don’t seem to know what they believe. A learned response from us is if they say they only use the 1611 KJV then we steer clear 🙂

    You can be part of a community of believers and not a church member, and to be honest I think that’s more important than anything else.

    -Paul-

    Like

  173. No offense, but this is the precise reason I am not a Baptist. I was raised Catholic and baptised as an infant. I did make an “adult” proclamation of faith in my Confirmation. After considerable prayer and consideration, my wife and I left the Baptist church we were attending in search of someplace where we both could, in good conscience, be members.

    I have no problem with a church making decisions on how it wishes to practice its belief. Churches just must realize that the more restrictive they are in membership requirements, the bigger the potential to miss out on the fellowship of solid, contributing members who do not meet the requirements.

    Like

  174. I am the Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel in Cheyenne Wyoming. We have no membership, and it works great for us. We do have a few options for those that like membership:

    1 – we have a phone list we update quarterly, we just pass it around and people update there info. If you don’t update, you don’t get included.

    2 – we have a picture board and photo directory. Once a quarter we give people the opportunity to get a picture taken, we then post those on a giant board outside our sanctuary with names printed under each one. We do the directory every other year. The main value in this is remembering names that go with faces. Only about 2/3rds of our regulars do this.

    3 – if you serve in any ministry we have a ministry app that includes agreement with our simple statement of faith.

    The implications are simple – you don’t need a letter of transfer to attend our fellowship (although we will provide you with one if you leave and request one). Anyone who confesses Christ as Lord is welcome to partake in communion (which we do every Sunday, with the instruction that it is only for those who have confessed Christ as Lord). We make an effort to find out why people attend our church as we meet new folks. If we found they had problems in their previous church we ask them to reconcile with the pastor or offending party at least as far as it is possible for them. I even follow up with a phone call to the other church making sure they followed through. It has been very appreciated by the pastors I have spoken to.

    It seems to work for all levels of church size (we had the same policy when we first started with a couple families, and we now have about 800 in attendance on Sundays).

    Like

  175. Alternatively, you can use the argument recently heard at our church: “I don’t want to become a member because I really like the visitor parking spaces.”

    I just don’t know what to say.

    Like

  176. “And if such a body of believers has developed an identity based on a sincerely held conviction about the teaching of Scripture, then it is legitimate to safeguard that identity.”

    I like the two thirds eldership idea. Really don’t like a two tier membership concept. I know of some denominations that safeguard that identity by having the denomination hold the title on the church building. Doesn’t work in Baptist circles, but in others it might.

    Like

  177. Mike,

    a few years ago I served on a comittee which considered these issues for the Austrian Baptist Union. What prompted this inquiry was a large influx of believers from a Lutheran church that had been shut down by the denomination into one of the Baptist congregations. In many cases they had been believers for years, and also felt that a re-baptism would be dishonoring their believing parents who had them baptized as infants. The Baptists, on the other hand, don’t recognize infant baptism as biblically valid, so this created a quandary.

    One item which was raised by yours truly is this question: If we believe that we are saved by grace through faith, and that baptism was not necessary to salvation; if we fellowship with believers from other traditions who see baptism differently (i.e. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists) within the “Evangelical Alliance”, if we say, in fact, that these are Christians, members of the Body of Christ — how can we then say to such folks, whom we believe Christ has accepted, “We will not accept you unless you are baptized the way we do it!”

    On the other hand, the local congregation is not merely the local manifestation of the Body of Christ, but it is also a human organization in need of structures and guidelines etc. And if such a body of believers has developed an identity based on a sincerely held conviction about the teaching of Scripture, then it is legitimate to safeguard that identity.

    So the consensus was reached that we recommend to churches in the situation described above that they establish an associate membership for such believers; that people not baptized as believers nevertheless agree to support, in general, the Baptist position on this issue; and that the eldership of a congregation should have at least two thirds members baptized as believers.

    Like

  178. The church I have attended for a little over a year requires you to sign a statement of faith before becoming a member. This statement has some fairly exclusive language about inerrancy in their statement, language which I don’t necessarily agree with. However, in my time there, I’ve not encountered a sermon or a conversation or anything really where my differing beliefs proved a major stumbling block. And, member or not, I certainly don’t intend to create discord over the matter. I don’t announce before each sermon that I need to decide how I read this passage before I can decide if I’ll take the sermon seriously–mostly because I don’t need to decide that in order to take the sermon seriously, because also because that wouldn’t be constructive to the body.

    I’d like the freedom to be upfront about what I believe, but I consider it inappropriate to be an agitator about it.

    So my options are:

    1. Just sign the statement without comment. This option has the drawback of not being entirely truthful about what I believe, but has the benefit of not making a giant issue over it, in keeping with my general attitude of not making a giant issue over it.

    2. Sign the statement but indicate in some fashion that I would probably not fit as an inerrantist, at least by their definition. Has the benefit of being 100% truthful, but has the drawback of possibly causing me to be deemed unfit for membership.

    3. Avoid the issue entirely by not becoming a member.

    So far I’ve chosen #3, but it’s disheartening. However, neither #1 nor #2 are particularly appealing.

    Like

  180. There are many benefits to church membership –

    My church takes a high view of church membership. In a day when commitment is a rare commodity, it should come as no surprise that church membership is such a low priority to so many believers. Sadly, it is not uncommon for Christians to move from church to church, never submitting themselves to the care of elders and never committing themselves to a group of fellow believers. To neglect or to refuse to join a church as a formal member, however, reflects a misunderstanding of the believer’s responsibility to the body of Christ. And it also cuts one off from the many blessings and opportunities that flow from this commitment. It is essential for every Christian to understand what church membership is and why it matters.

    This biblical basis can be seen most clearly in-
    – The example of the early church
    – The existence of church government
    – The exercise of church discipline
    – The exhortation to mutual edification

    The elders of a church are not responsible for the spiritual well-being of every individual who visits the church or who attends sporadically. Rather, they are primarily responsible to shepherd those who have submitted themselves to the care and the authority of the elders, and this is done through church membership.

     

    Like

  181. Interesting concept Josh. I am not a huge fan of dual level memberships, especially if there are doctrinal distinctions between them. Having a code of conduct for Pastors/Elders isn’t a bad idea. I should note that going to a German Baptist church would probably disqualify all of our current elders from leadership in your model, as Germans tend to have quite a different view of Alcohol compared to North Americans. As for me and alcohol, I believe in moderation, and have a glass of wine maybe once or twice a year. I should also note that if Detroit makes it to the Stanley Cup finals, I will probably win my company’s hockey pool. (Which is the extent of my gambling participation.) I don’t buy lottery tickets, not for religious reasons, but because I think that they are a regressive tax on the poor.

    Like

  182. There’s inevitably some roadblocks in every statement of faith. I’m not sure most members really know their own statement’s details or what they imply. I think the standard is really where you have to wince the least in the presence of any doctrinal proclamation.

    Like

  183. Mike,,

    Thank you for sharing from your heart. My wife and I are hiking in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park this week. I’m able to get an internet signal at this one location today and read your blog.

    In any case we previously read a couple books by Dr. Larimore, M.D., detailing his life in Bryson City, North Carolia, where we stopped for lunch today. Our first stop in that little town was the Presbyterian Church that Larimore wrote about attending while practicing medicine in the town.

    The pastor, Reverend Hanna, was a delight. We launched into a discussion of the grace driven ministry of the church where we learned that many who attend are from other Christian traditions where they just didn’t EXACTLY fit or feel at home.

    That observation by the pastor agrees with you and underscores how “statements of faith” are far too often used as a means to classify or rank the “spirituality” of the flock. Time and again we’ve all witnessed how some specific, but often obscure, doctrine is used as a means of testing the suitability of Christians for membership or fellowship.. The entire “test of fellowship” then degenerates into a contest of who is the best “keeper of the flame” among us or who is greater in spiritual stature..

    How un-Christ like that process becomes. And how ego-centric the behaviors of believers..

    My wife and I agree with Pastor Hanna in saying the test is confession that Jesus Christ is Lord.

    Whenever we move to topics such as modes of baptism, hours of creation, frequency of Holy Communion, whether open or closed, evidences of the filling of God’s Spirit, and styles of personal preference in worship, dress, drink, and food, we’ve missed the mark.

    Let Christ be Lord of all and may His Holy Spirit be trusted to do the work of conviction, calling, and corecction in the lives of all His children.

    Let’s remember we’re not God and we don;t have the ability nor authority to judge HIs own.

    Happy trails to you..

    Like

  184. First off, I’ve very pro-church membership. I believe that the Bible speaks strongly in favor of belonging to a faith community and membership shows commitment to that community. Having said that, in practice all regular attendees of my church are treated as members, and we have members technically on the books who nobody has seen for years.

    As for how our membership system works, we actually have two different types of membership. The lower level of membership requires signing off on a statement of belief comprised of some of the very basics of evangelical Christianity. It amounts to 11 bullet points, one to two sentences long covering things like the deity of Christ and the inspiration of the Bible. The higher level of membership requires signing that same statement of belief along with a statement of conduct that says you will stay away from things that have the potential to enslave the body or mind, such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling, & pornography. The only significant difference between these two levels of membership is that to serve in any of the highest lay leadership roles in the church you must sign the higher level of membership.

    I think it works as well as can be expected for inclusion.

    Like

  185. I think that the line between “Open Hand” and “Closed Hand” issues gets to blurred.

    Like

  186. My particular demonination does not require you to sign or agree to anything for membership (other than the obvious — faith in Christ). They may require you to sign things if you want to teach, or be in some kind of leadership role. Other than that, membership is pretty easy… in fact once you are on the roles, it hard to get yourself off! :).

    Like

  187. “4. Could we lessen the requirement of membership in many evangelical churches, so that prospective members do not have to give complete agreement to a statement of faith, but instead will agree to uphold it and not teach contrary to it?”

    I do think this sort of idea has some merit and I took this route myself a couple of times in different churches I’ve joined in various cities. For example, I’m not a premillenialist, but premillenialism was part of a particular church’s statement of faith. I joined anyhow, but anytime Daniel or Revelation was brought up (at least anything having to do with millenialist views), I opted out of the conversation so as not to appear to be undermining the church’s statement of faith.

    I don’t know if it’s the right thing for every situation.

    Like

  188. Hi Charles,

    I agree with you up to a point. My problem was/is that my gifts lie in the teaching/leadership area, and many churches will not let you exercise those gifts until you sign on the dotted line.

    Like

  189. To me, membership vs just attendance is like cohabitation vs marriage—a mutual commitment is implied by marriage and by membership. That’s my opinion, anyhow.

    Like

  190. Membership really confuses me, especially in the context of “church”. Why does one need to register and agree to a bunch of things to be a member? If one is a believer and counted as a brother (or sister) in Christ, he is already a member of the Body of Christ. What need for these other memberships?

    What really gets my goat is that churches will use this as a crutch. “Oh, we cannot discipline Joe Schmoe because they are not a member of our church”. I have to question how such a “church” expects to function in the larger Body of Christ with those kind of perspectives.

    At this point in time, I see no benefit in becoming a member. in fact, I feel a great sense of freedom! No longer do I care when they say “all members must come to this annual meeting”. When “members only” are invited to a function, I label it a clique and shrug it off.

    Like

Leave a comment