Featured Church Membership

Isn't membership used as a means to show that you agree with the church's doctrines and what is being taught there, and an agreement that you will do your best to abide and live by their statement of faith? If it is a biblical statement and true, why would one not join? Sounds like a bunch of nonsense for people who are stuck on being "unique individuals," so they start joining together in a crowd until they became so individualistic you can't tell them apart! :laugh:

 

A plug? Yes. Why? Because I have neither the time nor the desire to argue what they argue so well. I'm not affiliated with either 9Marks or Capitol Hill Baptist Church. I just happen to support their respective ministries whole-heartedly.

And...why would you presume God's ordination in a positive or negative way? That's quite a presumption.

The Archangel

 

And I, too appreciate the tone of your comments.

You asked for scripture showing baptism as the door to church membership. Here it is. I Corinthians 12:13

I know, you're saying, you mistranslated it. It's BY one Spirit, etc.

But actually I didn't. The Greek is en, and can easily be translated in.

Some translate this verse as meaning that the Holy Spirit does the baptizing into the body, The Church when one is saved. But nowhere in scripture do we find the Baptism of the Holy Spirit either in or after regeneration.

A better interpretation is this:Under (or in) the power of the Holy Spirit we were brought by the Lord to water baptism and were made members of his body, the local church.

The entire chapter 12 relates to the congregation at Corinth and how it functions as a body. He drives this point home in 12:27 when Paul writes

Paul also described the congregation at Ephesus as THE Church of God (Acts 20:28)

The analogy of the church as the body is also laid out in Chapter 12. It is a functioning entity, with each part knit together in a unique relationship to each other. That analogy by the way, cannot be true of the Universal Church, which has never met, never sent a missionary, never gave a dime and never baptized anybody. The Universal Church has no practical reason to exist, but if it does, it is a non-functioning entity.

In every reference that I can think of, when new converts are baptized, it is in water, and is the ceremonial gateway to the local church.

I've run long here, but I'm sure you understand that somethings can't be explained briefly.

 

That sounds correct to me. On top of that, once a member, I believe everything that is done by that member in the way of a ministry is done under the authority of the local church. For example, if I want to start another church across town as an outgrowth of our church, I believe I should have submitted the idea for approval of my local church. Once a member, I do not believe in being the Lone Ranger in any ministry.

 

Reviving an older thread, but the topic is timely.

What exactly is a "member"?

Is it the one who signs on the dotted line but doesn't live up to it?

Is it the one who lives it but doesn't sign?

I take the opposite view of the landmarkers, in that I do believe in the Church, which will then be composed of the churches with the understanding not all in the Church will be in formal membership with a local church.

In todays world there are so many "church bosses" that many folks have indeed walked away from formal membership in favor of really living out their faith.

We can argue all day if that is good or not, but as to the SS teacher: if he will agree to teach only in accordance with the church in questions teachings, and if it doesn't violate that local church's by-laws, fine and dandy.

 

You are correct in that local churches are made up of men and women with flawed characters. However, I believe the benefits of membership outweigh the negatives. It provides organization to carry out the work of the Lord, provides fellowship, a group to worship and praise the Lord as one body, and provides the necessary authority to carry out the sacraments (ordinances), and puts a check and balance from one person making a decision on carrying out the will of the Lord. Local churches pool resources to support outreach, mission work, and helping those in need.

I am in full agreement that churches need to do a better job of keeping their rolls clean. There are several examples of this in Paul's letters. There is no excuse for a local church having members on their rolls that have not darkened the door in decades, are living in habitual sin, or not supporting the work of the Lord with time, talent, and tithes. Another problem that seems to go unchecked is rampant gossip in churches, or church leadership turning a deaf ear to a situation of habitual sin that is well known. I think one of the most destructive things going on in the local church in America today is pockets of power or cliques in the body of Christ that uses power they do not possess. It causes division, hurts the cause of Christ, and makes a terrible witness to a lost world. Examples of this might be deacons running the Pastor or church, members in a higher position in the community or richer than the average member using that for some agenda they are trying to pursue, or someone thinking they own the church because of their length of membership. When this goes on, the congregation needs to put an immediate stop to it. I have never understood why the average church member is scared of such people. It is almost like a theological bully. Congregations have only themselves to blame if it has been going on for years. This is why there are provisions for church discipline in the Bible.

I like your term "church bosses." They can be booted out like anyone else. Tom Butler and I are very blessed by the Lord in this regard. We have problems like any other church, but the love in our congregation is amazing. There are no power pockets or gossip. It has been forty years since we had such an event, and our congreation would stop it at the first sign.

 

I cannot answer that question. I think there should be a church roll. Your post made some very good points though.

 

I can only speak for our church. We follow the model in Acts, that members were received daily. When someone says they want to join, they generally go to the front of the church and join either by transfer of a letter from a church of like faith and order, by statement, or by salvation. The congregation votes at that time, and they are a member. If they are coming by salvation, the pastor baptizes them at the next service or shortly thereafter. By the other two methods, they are members after the vote. We have no communicant's class or indoctrination period. I do not think there is a signature required, but believe a membership data card is filled out. Each local church sets their own method.

 

We are also a part of the SBC, but do not pay much attention to it. God bless you and your ministries.

 

I want to cite a couple of instances which reinforce my view that it is the local church which decides whom it will allow to join. It is not the individual who decides he will join and demand that he be allowed to set the terms of his membership, or association with the congregation.

First, in Acts 9, Saul of Tarsus goes up to Jerusalem. He seeks to join the congregation there, but they were afraid of him. They remembered that he had persecuted them, sought to kill them, all sorts of bad things. So they were skeptical of his desire to become a member. Barnabas vouched for Saul, so they received him.

Second, Paul, in I Corinthians 5, was writing to the congregation at Corinth about a man who was having an affair with his father's wife. He told them in no uncertain terms to kick him out of the fellowship. In 2 Corinthians, Paul urges the congregation to receive a repentant member back into their fellowship. It's not spelled out, but many believe Paul was referring to that man in I Corinthians.

The point is, the congregation--not the pastor, not the deacons, not the chairman of deacons--determines whom it will receive as members.

And except for the apostles, we have no examples in scripture that I know of which allow for the OP example. And I think the examples would be few and far betwen where a church will allow a non-member to teach regularly.

 

I believe all who occupy any teaching/ministry position in a church body should be members of that body!