Dual Membership

I suppose a case can be made for creating a special class of membership for students who who attend your church while in college. But what's the big deal? When they arrive on campus in the fall, why can't they simply move their letter to your church the next Sunday, and back to their home church next Summer?

I'm having real difficulty understanding why anyone would want to dictate to a church the terms under which he or she will join. And I have the same difficulty understanding why any church would let them.

Is it any wonder that most of us can get only 30-40% of our members into our churches on any one Sunday. When we require nothing more than than their name on a card, that's what we get.

When we have visitors who are more faithful than our members, what does that tell you?

 

Maybe if you didn't have an official membership you wouldn't have half the problems and fill the church.

Just being facetious, of course.

Again, once more I ask, What is the purpose of membership. Nothing in the New Testament actually speaks of membership per se.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I must be a poor Baptist as well, because I think that church membership is just politics within the church. Voting, "business meetings", and such.... most times they only cause division. Members, associate members, etc----just sounds like putting the people in their own classes (1st class, 2nd class, etc).

Too much politics for my liking. I don't believe any of that is the way it was inteded.

 

I understand where you are coming from Spinach. We are all members of the body of Christ so why the big deal about your local church membership. Well it becomes important in political and legal ways. The church doors should be open to anyone who wants to come. Sinners should always be welcome in the congregation. But when you start putting people in positions of responsibility, when they start teaching Sunday School, keeping the nursery, driving a bus, or taking the youth department on a field trip, well then you have to have some accountability. Now we are not talking about someone who just shows up for services but a designated representative of your church. The church now has the responsibility to ensure this individual believes what the church believes. For those working with youth a criminal background check should be required. For those operating church vehicles their license should be on file. At this point there is nothing improper with the church imposing standards of dress and lifestyle. Without membership the church lacks the authority to do that.

Yet church membership means something very important here. Those of you that talk about changing your membership every few months must live in parts of the country where history and heritage don’t mean as much as they do here. Here in the mountains your home church where you grew up, where your parents might still attend, remains an important part of your life even though you might move 1000 miles away. You are still a part of that family. My brother lives several hours away from me, but he is still my brother and always will. Likewise church members that have moved away still know that they have a family waiting and a welcome place when they come home. Many of them, like Supergirl, keep that membership and even send money back.

 

The question really looses any rational when one understands what the scriptures say the Church, and is for, and to do.

Biblical answer to the OP: No, duel memebership is not possible unless you are a spiritual prosthetic limb of some type (meaning no life - in giving or receiving).
1 Cor 12 (we are the body- local church)

 

NCT, your reply makes a lot of sense, but I'm saddened by it. For goodness sake, criminal background checks should NOT be something we should have to think about. I understand why we do, but oh my! What a world we live in!

I'm especially poor for a Baptist, though, because I'm not really for nurseries, Sunday School, etc. Our family is able to worship together. Our services typically consist of singing for an hour, praying for I don't know how long, and then preaching for typically 30-45 minutes, though no time frame is required (one time our senior missionary preached the whole book of Romans all at once. That was quite a lengthy service). Testimonies are given as the Holy Spirit leads. For special music, we don't have a sign-up sheet. We sing if it is on our heart to sing. We don't have a bulletin or business meetings. We're quite unconventional, but we are a joyous bunch!

The Lord knows I miss a lot of English preaching/singing, but I don't miss the political way of many of America's churches.

 

Where are you living Spinach? You don't have it on your profile. Sounds like you are holding fast to what is good. I think a big missionary mistake is to try and export our culture of American "Church" with the gospel.

If you are going to have any kind of outreach or youth work today I think you have to do background checks. I have to have it done as a scout leader and as a camp counselor. I had to have a copy on file at my son's school so I could help with the sports teams.

Programs with lots of youth are hunting grounds for sexual predators and we have to be careful. The price of failure is to high to lapse in our diligence. There are wolves out there in sheep's clothing.

Allan - By your rational, if the local church is the body of Christ, then to be a member of one local church would be to be a member of all. I can be a member of my local church, and a member of the body of Christ (which I would define as the universal church) without being a member of your local church. In fact I can be a member in the body of Christ and still have major doctrinal differences with your individual local church.

 

We are in Eastern Europe.

I agree that you have to, but I still find it sad.

 

Allan, may I add to your post I Cor 14:40--"Let all things be done decently and in order." A church membership roll, business meetings, committees, etc., are simply tools to achieve that goal. It's obviously not the only way, but it has been effective for Baptists for a long time.

We can add some other examples from Scripture.

Acts 1:12-23. The Upper Room business meeting to elect Judas' replacement. The people present nominated two men, prayed for Holy Spirit guidance, cast lots, and appointed Matthias.

Acts 8. Stephen has been preaching in Samaria, people were being saved, and the Jerusalem congregation sent Peter and John down to check things out.

During Peter's visit to the house of Cornelius, the Holy Spirit fell on all those present. (Acts 10:44) Peter polled the committee with him, asking in essence, "Do you guys see any reason they shouldn't be baptized?" Peter did not act unilaterally, he sought approval from those with him.

If a congregation doesn't want to keep a membership list, have at it. Is there not, though, some place where there are mailing addresses, phone numbers, contact lists? Just curious how that works.

I noticed that in Romans 16, Paul sent personal greetings to a bunch of folks at the First Baptist Church of Rome. He also mentioned Phoebe, identified with the congregation at Cenchrea; Priscilla and Aquila, who had a church at their house.

The point is, individuals were identified by their association with a congregation. One congregation.

 

Thank you but I am an active member. I have no desire to join the church I attend here. And its not sentimental ties its the fact that my home church is just that my home. The church I attend here I attend so that I can attend a church there is no emotional ties to it nor except for the divorce care class and sunday school I am not involved with it at all.

 

Clarification,please. Do you consider yourself an active member of your home church, or the church you attend?

Either way, to what extent are you active? You mentioned worship once a month at your home church, and you give to it. Why do you not send all your tithe back home?

Anything else? How else do you serve the congregation? Do you serve the church where you attend in any way, besides just showing up?

I'm just asking in order to get a handle on your response, which sort of threw me for a loop.

 

Not even close. That is 'your' rational not mine.
The Local Church is not to be confused with the Church Universal as they are distinguished even in scripture (though the local church is a miniture model of the Church Universal). The local church is that body of beleivers in a particular location to do that which God has purposed them to do. However this group is not some phantom group spiriting to one place and then another but is a group who has committed themselves both to God and one another. They are not only 'a' fellowship but 'in' fellowship. One of the keys to understanding who and what the Church is, is to understand what fellowship means. It simply means partnership or the sharing of responsiblities for fufillment of a purpose.

We are a body locally which means God has created you to be apart of a 'particular' group. You are specifically uniquely and spiritually designed to function best in particular group. My foot will not work well on your body. It might function somewhat but it will never function at it is best because it was not designed for your body but mine. We are not called to amputee's nor prosthetic limbs but to be a body, whole every wit. Can God call us from one body to another? Yes, but that is God's calling not ours and even then it is to THAT church alone.

You just said that you are a 'member' of a church and then said ... not be a member. That makes no sense.

A person can come to church (not a member) and still be apart of the Universal Church (bride of Christ). But scripture states they are in sin who continue in such a state. However a person can not scripturally be apart of two different local churches at the same time. To shall they give their all? Have you ever tried having two families and doing for both all you can and would do for just one. It can't work and never will. To two would have to become one in order for you to survive or you would have to give up one in order to properly tend and care that family as is needed.

This has no relevence to the discussion at hand so I don't know what you are getting at here.

 

Well I respect your position Allan but I disagree. I believe we can be called to minister to more than one church at a time. I minister in my home church where I am a member. I also fill in and have served as interim pastor at other local churches when they were without a pastor. I can preach a revival all week and minister in one church and still go home and serve in my church the next week. I can minister through the food bank or at the hospital, work with kids through the school and still minister at church. I just don't believe God limits us to one local church or one ministry at a time.

What I said was a member of MY local church but not a member of YOUR local church. Sorry if that was confusing.

Where? Not to be picky but where does the Bible address church membership at all? Forsaking the assembly is not the same as being a member. Plenty of members do not attend. I would like to know what scripture your using here. I don't disagree with you, Christians should be church members, but I just don't know where the Bible is clear on this.

Sorry I don't see that, both churches are still part of the body of Christ

To the Body of Christ, to the universal church.

Sorry I must be thinking slow this morning. I am a part of the family I have created with my wife. I give them my all. Yet at thanksgiving I drove a few hours to my parents house. I enjoyed time there with my cousins and aunts and uncles. I am very much a member of that family as well. And when they have needs I give them my all as well. I left my parents and created a new family with my wife, but I am still a part of their family as well. And I still have responsibilities to that family. Are your parents living Allan? Would you help care for them if they needed it?

I must be missing something here. If your mother was in a car accident today and you went to the hospital to see her, and lets say when you tried to get in the ICU to see her (not wishing anything bad on your mother here). Lets say they asked you, "Are you family?" What would your answer be? Yet you don't live with her anymore do you?

 

What about the circuit riding preachers of old?

Again, we are quite different from the traditional American churches, but our national Pastors have several churches (anywhere from 5 to 10 each), all of which are quite well cared for.

 

Uh... These were not 'members' of each of these churches.

 

In the previous posts, Allan and North Carolina Tentmaker had a good give-and-take. Allan has the best of the argument, in my opinion.

However, bringing the Universal Church into the equation weakens both positions.

First, the so-called Universal Church is a useless, dysfunctional entity, which actually serves no purpose. How does one serve it? How can one give his all to it? It has not done one thing to carry out the Great Commission. It is the local church which is uniquely suited for Great Commission functions. The "Universal Church" cannot assemble, cannot fellowship.

Jesus established the local congregation during his earthly ministry, put it in charge of making disciples, baptizing, teaching. Paul told the Ephesian elders that Jesus shed his blood for their congregation (Acts 20:28). He told the Corinthian congregation that it was the body of Christ, and members in particular (I Cor 12:26-27). He told the church at the Corinth to guard the ordinances (I Cor 11), and instructed it how to properly observe the Lord's Supper ("when you come together" I Cor 11).

The obsession with the "Universal Church" has led to all sorts of mischief, and leads to such novel ideas as dual membership and parachurch ministries accountable only to themselves.

When Paul wrote to the congregation at Ephesus (3:21) "To him be glory in the church," he was not referring to some invisible entity that no one can find, much less see.

 

Were you a member of this Church body where you were interiming for?

IOW - you became an actaul member of this church you were an interm pastor of or where you 'considered' to be apart of it so long as you interimed there? more like a temporary status..

The point of the question is this.. are you still a member there and if not why not?

Sorry, non of these have to do with being a member of a church.
The fact you can preach (just as I do) at various churches for various reasons does not equate to membership at all.

Acts 2 and 1 Cor 12 for starters. Acts 2 states about 3000 people were added to the church. There was only one 'church' at that time that until then consisted of 120 people. Also in 1 Cor.. Paul is not speaking about the universal Church but the local one and he uses the analogy of being 'members' of a body. Contextually it can only be about the local church. The term 'membership' is simply another word to describe the same the thing - member.

As was also posted earlier (I think by Tom Butler) that Paul when speaking about various people identified them with specific local bodies of believers. Even Jesus in Revelation distinguishes between His churches into local bodies and address those beleivers of those specific bodies.

Actually it is. It is a command to continue on assembling and not stop.
But again, in order to properly understand this aspect one must understand what fellowship actually is and what discipleship fully entails.

When a person is saved there is a commitment made not only to God but also to those with whom you have determined to come 'into' fellowship with. IOW - those whom you have agreed to share in their responsibilities for fulfilling God purpose and plan there. The command isn't about just sitting in the assembly but being apart of that assembly/Church.

FTR - A person is not a member because they are on a roll but because they commited themselves to serve God along side you (IMO). I'm not saying everyone has to be a Sunday School Teacher, but everyone has spiritual giftings and abilities to be used and the real question is - are they on the road to finding them or are they, at the very least, helping others do the same.

I never stated we are not all apart of a greater family. However you can not look after and provide for your 'entire' family and still give proper attention due that which is actually your responcibility to care for. You can try but you will fail.

However, they are not a part of 'your' particular family just as each person within the scheme of your lineage has their own families as well to keep and tend to. You 'come together' at certain times but this relationship is limited. Things such as oversight and care are limited to that of your own home or those who come under your authority (yes even in physical family sense).

Does not the scriptures state they we are leave mother and father and cleave to our mate thus creating a 'new' family within the family. They are distinct and seperate while still being connected and unified as one. Yet it is the individual families that do and the family in general that is acknowledged representingly.

Yes, but you do not move in and become one of 'their' family. No. In order to properly care for both families they would have to become one and share in the resposibilities otherwise you would kill yourself and fail in your obligations to your actaul family.

Being family (in general) does not make one a specific member of a particular family... such as being a Smith does not make me a member of the White family even though we are a family in a general sense (related). That which makes up a particular family or single family is a father, mother, and siblings.
What makes a family in general? - being related by blood or by law (marriage or adoption).

 

I am an active member of my home church back home. The reason I dont send my entire tithe there is because I send a portion to my church I attend here and portions to several other ministries I support as a partner. I am active in the divorce care program and the kids are in the kid ministries program here but we dont commit to anything to heavy because we will always consider our church back home our home church and always be a part of that church so we will never be "members" of the church we attend here. Hope that clarifies my feelings on the subject

 

Well guys I think we have had a good discussion on this and although we remain with our own opinions I appreciate everyone’s attitude and input.

I have to disagree with you Tom on the Universal Church. I think the greater church as a whole has to take priority over the local congregation. My loyalty to Christ and his church should take priority over my loyalty to an individual group of believers. We can assemble and fellowship whenever we meet together in Jesus’ name. I can fellowship with believers who are members of many different local congregations. While Jesus uses individual churches to accomplish individual goals the greater goals like carrying out the Great Commission are not accomplished by individual local churches but by the church as a whole. Many parts all working together. Jesus established several local churches during his ministry. There were groups of believers in Jerusalem but there were also believers from other towns.

I will agree with you when people loose the accountability of the local church the universal church does not do them much good; which is another reason I like our associate member program. It allows temporary or part time members to join in our fellowship and accountability without requiring them to give up that accountability and fellowship they share somewhere else.

Hey I like it and it works for us. If you don’t like it, that’s OK. Nothing but love for you, and I mean that.

To answer you Allan, no I do not join churches that I interim for, never have. I recuse myself from any votes including when they vote for a permanent pastor. I will advise them and help them but the governing functions are ultimately their responsibility. My membership remains at my home church. Even when I am pulled away for months at a time and cannot attend, that is still where my membership and my tithe goes. I also usually meet with my pastor during the week and of course he knows where I am and what I am doing. I have been blessed with pastors over the years that not only approved of my ministries that took place outside of their churches but actually felt like they were through me a part of them; which of course they were.

And sorry but I have to disagree with you on Acts 2 and I Cor 12. The 3000 people added to the church in Acts 2 could never have all congregated at the same time and place. They met in homes. They represented the universal church at the time and probably 100 different individual congregations. At least that is what seems clear to me reading the scripture. Look at the different languages and cultures that they represented. Many of those 3000 left Jerusalem that day to establish local churches in their own cities. Likewise I Cor 12 is not talking about the church in Corinth alone, it is talking about the universal church. Paul says in verse 13

He says WE are ALL baptized into one body. Was Paul a member of this local congregation? Were all Christians at the time members of this local congregation in Corinth? Of course not, there were churches in Jerusalem and Antioch and Ephesus. There were probably more than one church in all these places and probably more than one in Corinth. We cannot ALL be members of one local church so the body Paul refers to cannot be a local church at all but must be that collection of ALL believers we refer to as the universal church. At least that’s MHO.

Well hey, that’s what I think. I do appreciate the give and take and positive attitude of this thread.

 

North Carolina Tentmaker, what you are calling the Universal Church is actually the kingdom. We believers, wherever we are, are all subjects of the King. Salvation adds one to the Kingdom, but water baptism adds one to the local church.

Paul, in I Cor 12:13, is referring to water baptism, not baptism by the Holy Spirit. The one body he refers to is the same body he mentions in v. 27 "YE (members of the church at Corinth) are the body of Christ, and members (there we go) in particular.

Paul also spends some time in the preceding verses 20-26) in describing how each member relates to the body. Not how it relates to the Universal church, but how it relates to the local congregation, each serving in a function consistent with his gifts.

The Greek word "ecclesia," which is translated church, is characterized by the fact that it assembles, something the universal church cannot do.


We can all explain the purpose of the local church. It has a number of reasons for its existence. I have yet to hear a good explanation for the purpose of the Universal Church.

Now, I know that Allan also holds to the existence of the Universal Church, but he has a view of the local church that is quite close to mine.