Inclusive or Exclusive?

Exactly.

Years ago, our church Constitution and By-laws, which contained a doctrinal statement, and how we operated, provided for a committee to visit anyone who sought membership in our church, give them a copy of the document, ask them to read it and tell us if they which to covenant with us under those provisions. If they said yes, they were admitted to membership; if they said no, that was it.

The point was, this is the basis for our fellowship, this is the basis of our preaching and teaching and this is the basis for our church organization. To welcome someone who disagrees, or even opposes, is a sham. And to allow a candidate for membership is willing to join a church with which he has little in common is an abdication of the pastor's responsibility to guard the flock.

 

Whether you're a fan of Saddleback Church or not, at least it has an understanding of the importance of membership. In fact, to become a member at Saddleback you will have to agree on several things, and even sign your name to a commitment.

From Rick Warren's own writing:

Four requirements for membership

1.A personal commitment to Christ as Lord and Savior
2. Baptism by immersion as a public symbol of one's faith
3. Completion of a membership class
4. A signed commitment to abide by Saddleback's membership covenant.

Among the covenant's requirements:
Protect the unity of the church
Refuse to gossip
Follow the leaders
Attend services faithfully
Live a godly life
Give regularly (defined as tithing ten per cent).
Discover and use your gifts
Be taught and be equipped to serve by the pastors

There are more, but the point is, these are not optional. You are required to agree to the covenant and sign your name to it.

I was intrigued by the requirement to follow the leaders, and the fact that tithing is taught and expected.

One might say, "well, they're pretty legalistic." Maybe so, but at Saddleback, membership is taken seriously, you its members are expected to take it seriously, as well.

So much for inclusivism.

 

Notwithstanding my last post, I doubt if any congregation can demand and receive 100 per cent agreement among its members. Were that the case, I could not be a member of my
own church.

Churches may differ on what they set as tests of fellowship, but there ought to be tests.

 

A different viewpoint.

Why would anyone wish to be a member of a congregation that doesn't hold the same views as themselves? The joy of learning and growing would be non existant if we were always in disagreement with the teaching.

This is the reason I attend Cold Spring, they are in agreement with my beliefs and I with theirs. If I didn't care what the congregation I worshipped and learned with believed, why not just go to the Methodist church, or the Catholic church, or better still the snake handling church right across the street from me.. I mean I'm being 'exclusive' not worshipping with them..

 

Whenever I would complain to a fellow department head about a situation or an employee, he would respond: "You know what your problem is? You're thinking logically."

You are thinking logically. The problem is, many people choose churches for other reasons, such as a great music program, youth program, wonderful nursery, or they just like the preacher's personality. The extent of their theological knowledge are the scripture verses their preacher wraps around his motivational speeches.

That's why some churches have rock worship music. Because they know young people will come because of it. That sort of thing.

You're thinking like a mature believer. Too many are in the second grade, and drinking milk. How's that for mixing metaphors?