Would you join this church

I would not join a church that had any of these requirments. Most of it apears to be extreme legalism.

 

In our church, the other elders.

 

Who appointed the first in your church?

 

About 6500 people from our city

Seriously, our church broke off from an IFB legalistic church. Some of the men and leaders who left that church appointed our first elder. They then brought it before the congregation telling them who the elders will be. Nothing is done in secret, we just don't vote on anything. Leaders lead.

 

Thanks for the info...

Makes sense now...

So noone in the congregation has any say over how things are done?
I don't think I could agree with that...

But that's what makes us Baptists!!! lol

 

I would join a church for thier doctrine. They don't make a church that will have 'requirements' for my personal life, just like the hospital doesn't check your financial status when you come to the ER (oops--I just go t our company's health ins. policy premium increases--bad analogy), or at least they shouldn't.

So, to answer the OP, I would join such a church, but they might kick me out (or try to--I had a freind who was kicked out of a church once. He said he felt led to stay in that congregation, so for several weeks, he walked past openly hostile ushers and staff to get into the service. There was no real way to stop him, though).

Now, if the OP actually meant, strongly recommended or preached against, then I would join it for their doctrine. Extra-biblical requirements don't bother me. I can brush them off w/o too much trouble...

 

Oh no, they do appoint people for specific things! For instance, the elders appointed a couple women in the church to pick out the colors of our new church building (depending on talents and gifts...carpet, paint, lighting, etc.). The elders have the final say in these matters, but there is most definately liberty. We just don't put these kind of things before a congregation to fight, er...I mean "vote" over

Same with the budget. The elders appoint a treasurer, and bathed in prayer, the elders use the input of our financial team for budget matters.

It makes for a MUCH smoother church order, and what I believe the original church in Acts employed. Remember, women didn't have the same rights 2000 years ago, either, as was evidenced by 1 and 2 Timothy. To believe a man and woman IN THAT time could vote on something together, and both carry the same weight, doesn't add up.

I believe the reason so many churches are congregationally ran today is due to democracy. We feel we should ALL have an even say, when in reality, as Christians, we belong to a theocracy.

I also believe most church governments are not set up the way Scripture intended, either. We see a plurality of elders...yet most churches only have one. We see the deacons as servants in Scripture...yet today the deacons act as the elders.

 

I don't post much because I can't spend a lot of time. So my posts seem like hit and run, sorry.
My point is that the things on the list are NOT doctrine - they are merely lines drawn in the sand that we either agree or disagree with. True, some preach these things as though they were doctrine but if one has a measure of discernment you can weed out the poor conclusions and still have decent Christian fellowship. If the actual doctrines are bad then NO I would not join. But when we are only talking about the way the church is run or where they draw their lines of standards, it is a very immature person who insists on their "rights" and rejects the church as "legalistic" or whatever the current label is when a church is trying to promote holy living.
Now if there are many good churches in the area, I would certainly not choose to go to a church with the "list". But I would swallow my pride if that was the only choice.

We recently moved and visited a church that had much of the "list" in its program. We were able to find an acceptible alternative and chose to go there.

 

Looking at this quote from TT, I would like to point out that not all churches that hold to such strict stances fall apart. Since Old Regular Baptist is mentioned, they are quite solid with their members and their way of "rules and regulations" is more of a way of life for them than just church regulations.

I'm not trying to speak for any of the Old Regulars or Primitive Baptists for that matter, but from my own experience. When a church falls apart, it's not necessarily based on certain regulations, it's because the church members weren't in accord with each other, whether they agreed with certain rules or not.

David

 

There are too many other churches out there that are closer to what I hold as true to put up with any of these.