Church Membership

[Tom Bryant]

Are you saying there should be a court like approach to church discipline? Unfortunately, putting emphasis on church discipline can lead to that or even lead to a cult like group.

That's a rather silly interpretation of what i said. I am saying that we ought to be based on what the Bible says rather than changing what the bible says because some do it wrong.

I am not talking about putting an emphasis on church discipline. The purpose of church discipline is not a spanking or disallowing people from membership. The purpose is restoration to fellowship with the Lord and His people.

Maybe there are churches who practice discipline because of non-sinful or inconsequential actions. But for every church that practices unbiblical church disipline, there are lots that don't practice it at all.

You obviously disagree. I'm out.

 

[Revmitchell]

What you are in fact doing by using that kind of analogy is to suggest by unspoken implication that people who don't want to formalise are:
1. sinning in some way.
2. disobeying God's revealed standards.
3. selfishly using the local church for personal gratification

No I'm not. That is what you added

 

[Pastor Larry]

1. Who defines what does or does not constitutes a reason for church discipline

The Bible through the church body. The reason for church discipline is unrepentant sin that brings a blight on the gospel and the church in the community. This is a basic tenet of Baptist polity. It reminds me that we Baptists don't do a good job of teaching what it means to be a Baptist.

2. There are many good churches down the road who would gladly accept those members who do not measure up to your church's standards.

That is usually a bad idea. It is why many churches end up with trouble makers. Someone leaves a church or is disciplined out of a church for sin and divisiveness, and and another church takes them in without repentance. Had they checked with the other church, they could have avoided problems.

3. Active church discipline tends to lead to acting like Pharisees.

So? We are supposed to disobey the Scriptures because some people disobey the Scriptures? I struggle to understand that. If some people act like Pharisees, they need to repent and live in the gospel.

4. Perceived uneven standards in enforcing church discipline.

This is really irrelevant. If someone is living in unrepentant sin, they are sinning. It doesn't matter what someone else is doing. It's the old stupid five year old's argument that "They did it too." It is a very immature response to real problems of sin.

Interestingly, Christ in his earthly ministry talked about the church twice. On one of those occasions he commanded church discipline and laid out the procedure for it. So to say we shouldn't practice church discipline is to say we should disregard exactly half of Christ's earthly teaching about the church. Perhaps you are different than I am, but I am not about to do that.

To fail to practice church discipline is to be a disobedient church. It is to disregard the command of the church's Head. Quite frankly, I think it is arrogant to pretend that we know how to run the church better than Christ does. Surely he knew that some would practice it unfairly or inconsistently, and that some would act like Pharisees. But he told us to do it anyway.

In short, Dr. Fuss, you are calling people to disobey Christ. That's a serious matter.

 

[saturneptune]

Church discipline can be debated until the end of time and will not change two basic facts. The model for church discipline is given in Matthew. Secondly, it is up to the local church to implement the details of church discipline, regardless of what you, me, or anyone else thinks about it.

 

[drfuss]

Larry writes:
"In short, Dr. Fuss, you are calling people to disobey Christ. That's a serious matter."

I am not calling people to disobey Christ, but you have a right to your opinion.

Perhaps we are talking about two different things. Below is the context (examples) of what I am talking about which you did not include in your post. None of these things involve public sins that would embarrass the church or adversely affect its testimony. Some could suspect that members practicing these type of things are trouble makers, and consequently sometimes they are suspected of doing other things that could be involved in discipline. An emphasis on church discipline could lead to disciplining members for differences of opinion, different personalities, different preferences, etc. I was addressing these dangers in church discipline, not sins that would reflect badly on the church.

1. Who defines what does or does not constitutes a reason for church discipline?
Lack of giving? Lack of attendance? Questioning Pastor's decisions? Making unsolicited suggestions? Not singing in the song service? Not participating in church programs? Etc.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am not calling people to disobey Christ, but you have a right to your opinion.

You are saying " There are many reasons against trying to enforce church discipline." So that sounds to me like Jesus saying do church discipline and you are saying there are good reasons not to do church discipline.

None of these things involve public sins that would embarrass the church or adversely affect its testimony.

Actually, they could very much.

Lack of attendance -- You have someone who claims to be a member, but never shows up. That is embarrassing to the church. It sends the message that the gospel doesn't change lives. When someone fails to attend church, they are openly disobedient to a clear command of Scripture involving attendance and ministry to others. The idea that once someone joins they are on the roll until they die is not biblical. When someone stops coming, they are removed from the roll under church discipline.

Questioning the pastor's decisions -- The pastor decides to preach doctrine, and someone questions, and then spreads it through the community. That is a serious matter.

I don't know anyone who disciplines over unsolicited suggestions or not singing. Quite frankly, that sounds absurd. You are reaching for the farthest most silly thing under the guise of reasons not to do what Christ said to do.

An emphasis on church discipline could lead to disciplining members for differences of opinion, different personalities, different preferences, etc. I was addressing these dangers in church discipline, not sins that would reflect badly on the church.

First, again that's pretty silly. If that's the best you can do as reasons not to practice church discipline, then that's pretty weak. But as a Baptist, the church body decides on church discipline. If the body is unconvinced, then they don't vote affirmative. It's pretty simple, and it prevents abuse.

So if your point is that a church should be careful in practicing church discipline, then you should say that. You should not say there are good reasons against it, because that is contrary to Scripture. The fact that a church wrongly practices discipline is not a good reason against church discipline.

 

[saturneptune]

Larry writes:
1. Who defines what does or does not constitutes a reason for church discipline?
Lack of giving? Lack of attendance? Questioning Pastor's decisions? Making unsolicited suggestions? Not singing in the song service? Not participating in church programs? Etc.

the local church

 

[Tom Butler]

The church which saturneptune and I serve has the minutes of its business meetings all the way back to 1901. I have read every word and those minutes are a picture of cultural change.

Our church was quite active and consistent in church discipline, and quite often I'd read of a member's being disfellowshipped, but not long afterward, the minutes would reflect their restoration.

And standards changed. Around 1930, our church disfellowshipped a member for gambling. His sin? He had invested in the stock market.

More than one member was disfellowshipped for dancing back then. But none since 1940.

So, for better or worse, the standards are fluid. And for better or worse, churches are affected more by cultural changes than the culture is changed by the churches.

 

[Bob Alkire]

More than one member was disfellowshipped for dancing back then. But none since 1940.

So, for better or worse, the standards are fluid. And for better or worse, churches are affected more by cultural changes than the culture is changed by the churches.

I agree!!!

I had a professor in school who said he was quoting R.G. Lee, H. A. Ironside and J. Vernon McGee at different times I will paraphrase saying the church was allowing the secular world take over much of the church doctrine and actions rather than the church teaching the secular world and sharing the Gospel.

He also said in time the Baptist will be drinking, dancing and divorcing like we Presbyterians. He felt the Saints were trying to be as much like the Hollywood crowed as they could.

 

[saturneptune]

I agree!!!

I had a professor in school who said he was quoting R.G. Lee, H. A. Ironside and J. Vernon McGee at different times I will paraphrase saying the church was allowing the secular world take over much of the church doctrine and actions rather than the church teaching the secular world and sharing the Gospel.

He also said in time the Baptist will be drinking, dancing and divorcing like we Presbyterians. He felt the Saints were trying to be as much like the Hollywood crowed as they could.

Each local church decides what standards should be met to maintain fellowship. It is my opinion each standards should stand the Biblical test, regardless of denomination or church. Drinking has been debated ad nauseum on this board with regards to Scripture. That is one of those areas that each church will have to fall on one side or the other. Drunkedness is a different matter altogether, although I believe that not drinking at all is the way to go because of the witness to the world, not a legalistic case from the Bible. I have a hard time seeing in the Bible where dancing is prohibited, although it might lead to other obvious sin, or it might not. I have been blessed in this area, as I am so clumsy, the few times in my life I attempted dancing, I quickly became the center of laughter.

Divorce is also a touchy subject, but God's attitude is quite clear, clearer than the other two issues. The Lord hates divorce, as recorded in Malichi. There are very few exceptions to this, and even some of those are debated.

From your post, were you once a Presbyterian? I grew up in a PCA church. In certain areas, they are stricter than Baptists.

 

[Bob Alkire]

From your post, were you once a Presbyterian? I grew up in a PCA church. In certain areas, they are stricter than Baptists.

Down here in Florida or the part I'm from the Presbyterians were not very strict. Learned how to make beer from a Presbyterians pastor, had dances at the church one weekend a month even had a divorced pastor or two. Went to a Presbyterians seminary, had a mix of liberalism and Calvinism. It was going liberal as Donald Barnhouse went on something near the end of his stay on earth.

 

[saturneptune]

Down here in Florida or the part I'm from the Presbyterians were not very strict. Learned how to make beer from a Presbyterians pastor, had dances at the church one weekend a month even had a divorced pastor or two. Went to a Presbyterians seminary, had a mix of liberalism and Calvinism. It was going liberal as Donald Barnhouse went on something near the end of his stay on earth.

That is interesting. I suppose there are all stripes of Presbys like Baptists. I can give you an example in one area they are more strict. Again, this varies from local church to local church, but when I was growing up in the PCA (Gulfport, MS), there was little or no tolerance for gambling, going out to eat on Sundays, or divorce. It seems that Baptists, while not liking the situations (except going out to eat on Sundays) are more tolerant of such. Of course, as you pointed out, Presbys had no standard against moderate drinking.

 

[Bob Alkire]

That is interesting. I suppose there are all stripes of Presbys like Baptists. I can give you an example in one area they are more strict. Again, this varies from local church to local church, but when I was growing up in the PCA (Gulfport, MS), there was little or no tolerance for gambling, going out to eat on Sundays, or divorce. It seems that Baptists, while not liking the situations (except going out to eat on Sundays) are more tolerant of such. Of course, as you pointed out, Presbys had no standard against moderate drinking.

My friend the Cumberland Presbyterians had higher standards than we did and dad like them but wouldn't go because they were not in the 5 point camp. At this time I don't think Baptist women down here even died their hair. In seminary the professors would make fun of the Baptist and how they lived.

In our Presbyterians church if one didn't come to church in a quarter they were taken off the roll, we came one or two times a quarter. Daddy didn't care for most preachers.

 

[Onlybygrace]

REV mITCHELL SAID:

No I'm not. That is what you added

Well Rev Mitchell...
If that be true then please explain what you ARE suggesting by making the analogy and comparing people who refuse formal membership to a couple living in sin and willfully breaking God's revealed law through sexual immorality.

The point of using an an analogy is to make a comparison. Please educate me on the points of comparison as they seem to elude me if they are not the obvious ones I have stated.

 

[Revmitchell]

REV mITCHELL SAID:

No I'm not. That is what you added

Well Rev Mitchell...
If that be true then please explain what you ARE suggesting by making the analogy and comparing people who refuse formal membership to a couple living in sin and willfully breaking God's revealed law through sexual immorality.

The point of using an an analogy is to make a comparison. Please educate me on the points of comparison as they seem to elude me if they are not the obvious ones I have stated.

Comparisons can be made to express every single detail or just the main characteristics. Those who are looking to be offended because they do not like the view of another will of course always try to place the comparison in the worst possible light and try to take it way beyond the original intent.

The comparison was made by me to point out the attempt to receive the full benefits of the situation without making any real commitment. This should have been obvious.

 

[Onlybygrace]

Well fortunately rev mitch im not looking to offended just enlightened. I hope u were not offended. We need to b clear about exactly what point of comparison we are making. What is deemed obvious to the one making the comparison isnt always obvious to others. So now i understand that u r not challenging the morality of those who decline formal membership, u r simply labelling them uncommitted, self-seeking users(in the nicest possible way of course) which is obviously way better. Am i understanding u correctly? As u said they want all the benefits but dont want to commit.

 

[thomas15]

I have mentioned my personal situation here before. We moved into this area in 2004 and have been to quite a few churches. About 2 1/2 years ago we decided on one church which doesn't have Baptist in the name but is very close, Evangelical Free. I'm not a member but the only privledge that I don't have is a vote and I cannot be a deacon or elder. Everything else is wide open to me.

The issue of membership is an issue with me. On the one hand, I have all the perks except a vote and I don't aspire to office at this time. Also, my financial commitment is what I make it to be. The pastor was the assistant pastor from our old Baptist church and so I know he will be there for me if I need him.

Still, I have this desire to be a church member. One of the reasons I'm not is simply due to the fact that no one has asked me about it. I have asked the pastor why, but I cannot say for sure what the actual reason is. While it may be nice to not have pressure to join, it also is uncomfortable not ever being asked about it. The trustees complain about a lack of funds and manpower but there isn't a whole lot of outreach either. I'm of the opinion that the church could grow in leaps and bounds if a concerted effort was made to reach out. Literally, half of the regular attenders are not members. We have our names with our membership status published in the church directory. It is almost shocking to see that people who are always there and active in ministries are not members.

I can say this, the longer this goes on, the less doctrine is of first importance to me, not that I would ever settle for liberalism, strict leagalism or anything like that. But I think it is a human desire to be a team member. One cannot help but get the feeling that deep down, the sandbox is exclusive and not open to just anyone. I hope I'm wrong about this.

 

[Batt4Christ]

Ephesians 3:21....

 

[freeatlast]

I sincerely apologize if this issue has been brought up before. I would like to hear some thoughts on church membership. I have been a Pastor for many years so I have heard all of the standard Seminary/Bible School thoughts.
I am sure many of you face the same issue, today many want to be a part of a church but formal membership seems to drive them away. I realize this shows a lack of committment but I can also see that feeling a part of the local church is more important than a formal declaration. What is the actual scriptural basis for a membership requirement, again I would ask that you show more than the Passage in Acts 2: "added to the number". I realize that church discipline and monitoring the Lord's Supper is almost impossible without membership but are we making tradition into rules?

There is simply no direct command to have a formal membership. Today it is really a cultural and practical issue more then anything that is required by the Lord. However it does have some benefits. One is that if the church is a congregational church the voting can be limited to members only and even members in good standing. That is a safeguard. I suppose in a church were there is only 20 or 30 people they could get by without any membership requirement, but as the church grows it probably is not a good idea to be without membership requirements.

 

[Tom Butler]

I Corinthians 12:27

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Wonder why Paul called the saints at Corinth "members." He called FBC Corinth "the body of Christ," so that makes those saints church members.

A few verses earlier he had noted that the people to whom he was writing had been baptized into the body. That's immersed. In water. Into the church. At Corinth.

Ah, you say, that's Spirit Baptism.

Nope, water baptism. Into church membership.