Evidence for God from Science

Definition - What do I mean by 'formal church membership' - that process by which people are officially welcomed to become part of a local fellowship/church.

Background - I was raise in a church with no formal church membership. There was a list somewhere perhaps of faithful attenders but there was no process of 'joining the church'. It worked quite well.

Later on in life, I became a formal member of another church and the formality was nothing more than 'extending the hand of fellowship' where, in an after service formality, we stood at the front of the church and everyone came by, shook our hand and welcomed us into the local church.

Currently I faithfully attend and participate in ministry in a local church that has a formal membership process that includes membership classes and a signing unto a covenant as part of their welcoming and joining. I am not an official member of this local church due to this signing of a covenant which I don't believe is scriptural. It appears to me to be treated as some kind of ordinance although not officially recognized as an ordinance.

Scripture Support - I believe scripture indicates that the moment we put our faith and trust in Christ we are now members of His church. As an outcome of our conversion it is natural for us to desire fellowship with other believers in a local fellowship that we call a 'local church'. I believe the scriptural support for creating an 'official receiving into membership' is quite weak. To have a list of faithful attenders may be a requirement of the law and I don't have an issue with that. But signing unto covenants, membership classes, water baptism, etc. prior to this process is very questionable in my view.

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church in Lake Forest, California wrote an article in the Baptist Press recommending pastors and congregations adopt church membership covenants as a way of compelling their flock to become more involved in and committed to the ministry of their church. This would seem to me to contradict what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5:33-34.

Paul Proctor made this observation - "When a church becomes dependent upon carnal mechanisms for spiritual motivation rather than the power and conviction of the Holy Spirit, contracts become fashionable among frustrated pastors who find it necessary to coerce members into carrying out the church’s ministry." He goes on to ask - "We don’t sign contracts guaranteeing our commitment to Christ for our salvation. So, why is it now necessary to sign a contract guaranteeing our commitment to serve in His church?" I think he is making a good point here.

Additionally, what I have observed when I attend 'membership meetings' as anyone is allowed to attend although they have no vote, is that various people show up at these that are not faithful members and like to have their say in how the church should be run. They get to vote on certain areas regardless of their unfaithfulness as they are 'members'. And there are various other concerns I have on the whole extent of democratic involvement that scripture supports in a local church.

Anyway, I thought I would toss this in as a thread to get the input of others. I probably represent a minority view on this subject and am looking for better supporting arguments for formal local church membership and especially those who use church covenant signing.

The NT certainly has rules on expelling a member. If they can be expelled it would seem that they can also be enrolled.

Without knowing what this covenant says, it wouldn't be fair to say it is or isn't biblical. This could be one of those, 'each one should be convinced in his own mind' type of deals. And then, maybe not.
My question. If this is the policy of the church, and you disagree, then why are they allowing you to teach, and why are you in turn teaching? I'm not saying you don't have a good explanation for this. I just see a conflict here. Maybe you can clarify.

"We don’t sign contracts guaranteeing our commitment to Christ for our salvation. So, why is it now necessary to sign a contract guaranteeing our commitment to serve in His church?" I think he is making a good point here.

It's only a good point, if said church is saying that the reason for a contract/covenant/etc. has something to do with salvation. A covenant, commitment, ordinance, or whatever you want to call it, can be an effective tool of helping the believer to understand where the congregation stands on a number of issues, and help the church understand where the individual stands as well. Believe it or not, many people wanting to 'join' a church have come to find that they are not saved. Had the church not had such structure, they could have been allowed to be a 'member' without even knowing Christ. This happens more than you think.

So, I would ask yourself. Having read the agreement, what specifically do you find that is in conflict with the bible? Perhaps you have good reasons and can list them here. You have thoroughly read the agreement I assume? If not, perhaps this is a matter of submission. Like I said, you may have good reasons. But then that gets back to why you are teaching in a place that you do not agree with. I seem to recall you mentioned teaching. If you are a teacher then you are asking others to submit to your instruction. Yet, you are refusing to submit in turn.

Eph 5:21
1 Cor 5
1 Tim 5: 3-16 indicates that list are kept of members for certain reasons.

Question. Do you think that your assembly should allow non-believers to be classified as members of the congregation? Formal or otherwise. Not talking about attendance, but membership.

Church membership is a way of identifying yourself with a local body of believers. It can serve several purposes. Although it isn't directly spelled out in the NT, it is neither forbidden. If you play an active role in this congregation, I'd make sure I knew exactly what it is or isn't I'm being asked to sign, and why I am refusing.
It is easy to say, 'it isn't scriptural.' but then neither are hymnals and most other things in our modern order of worship. The question is, is it unscriptural. If you have read the agreement and have specifics where it is unscriptural then you have a much bigger issue at hand.

When we have a baby dedication in our congregation, the audience reads a pledge. This pledge says we (church members) will play a roll in supporting this child and family in their spiritual walk. Obviously this is lip service for many in the service. Working in children's ministry I can bet that this pledge has more meaning to me, than to some others. But it does signify that our congregation takes the position that the church is to be instrumental in supporting and teaching our families. It doesn't mean we are going to refuse someone membership who isn't directly doint these things.

Thanks jlay for the response.

The NT certainly has rules on expelling a member. If they can be expelled it would seem that they can also be enrolled.

I guess it depends on how you view what the early church did regarding defining who was and who was not a member. It could have been that anyone professing their belief in Christ and attending that local fellowship was considered a member locally as they were a member of 'The Church'. IMO, pastors are as responsible for shepherding adherents as well as formal members in a local setting. I don't see where the scriptures create two categories of believers.

My question. If this is the policy of the church, and you disagree, then why are they allowing you to teach, and why are you in turn teaching? I'm not saying you don't have a good explanation for this. I just see a conflict here. Maybe you can clarify.

I am not disagreeing with the Statement of Faith or the Covenant text and would not teach anything contrary to what this local fellowship believes. My choice not to become a formal member is not something that they allow to stand in the way of participating except in a deacon and elder role. This restriction is something they are setting and I accept that.

A covenant, commitment, ordinance, or whatever you want to call it, can be an effective tool of helping the believer to understand where the congregation stands on a number of issues, and help the church understand where the individual stands as well. Believe it or not, many people wanting to 'join' a church have come to find that they are not saved. Had the church not had such structure, they could have been allowed to be a 'member' without even knowing Christ. This happens more than you think.

I don't have a problem with discipling people in working together in the body of believers and training them in the things a covenant deals with. What I desire to obey is what Jesus said about taking oaths - 'But I say to you, make no oath at all' and I take that to include any promise I will make regarding how I will live as a believer. I have full intentions of living according to the covenant, yet I cannot promise anything as I am still a believer with faults and always will be.

Regarding those wanting to join that are not saved. Regardless of membership classes or whatever, we cannot 'screen out' who is truly saved regardless of what they profess. I know of people who are hoping their formal membership and baptism is their means of salvation and so they fake all the things they need to say and do to become members. Then they proceed to violate many of these commitments they made and often church discipline is not administered and they finally get removed from the membership list at some future cleanup time. When I look at the early church and what we read about it, I just don't see this screening out process but rather accepting people's profession of faith, considering them as members and disciplining them accordingly. If they willingly and openly sin there are steps to be taken to deal with them according to scriptures.

If you are a teacher then you are asking others to submit to your instruction.

I don't take that approach to teaching. I provide alternate views on subjects and the church's view but we don't have an authoritative approach to teaching.

Those 3 verses you presented, IMO, is just speculation to think 'lists' were required. And if they had a list, a list can be made without any formal process involving other dimensions.

Church membership is a way of identifying yourself with a local body of believers. It can serve several purposes.

I believe this can be done in discipleship training. I think the early churches were mainly local fellowships based on geography and Paul tried to get them to keep it that way rather than breaking into denominations - of Appollos, of Peter, etc. For me, I attend a local fellowship that is Anabaptist in beliefs yet I would rather be identified as first and foremost as a follower of Christ. If I was to try to find a fellowship of believers that agreed with exactly as I do, I would be fellowshipless. I believe the local church is where we grow together and accept our differences within a certain set of doctrines that we hold to together.

When we have a baby dedication in our congregation, the audience reads a pledge. This pledge says we (church members) will play a roll in supporting this child and family in their spiritual walk. Obviously this is lip service for many in the service.

For me, I would not make such a pledge as this would be the same as an oath. However, if it was spelled out as a good intention to participate in a certain way, I would join in. Accountability, to me, is more about admonishing, exhorting and some times rebuking one another in following the Lord. I prefer not to make promises that I am not sure I can keep.

One area I resist is things that smack of legalism. I believe if your heart is not in it, God's not for it. I think sometimes arms are twisted by imposing obligations on members to act in certain ways and to me, this is not trusting God to work in the hearts of people in His way and His time. I don't think we should attempt to force people to respond but rather to encourage and admonish one another and keep away from creating a bunch of rules and expectations and slip into religious activity.

Anyway, I'm sure I've opened up more questions and comments.

I don't think it is Biblical. There's no indication that formal membership in terms of a written covenant in the early church was practiced. Frankly, it wouldn't be a general issue until the renaissance when literacy levels were such that it would have any meaning for a significant part of the population.

I think it is allowable under the freedom we have in Christ. There's nothing wrong with an institutional church practicing it. But by the same token, I see more negatives to it than in favor of it, and so I'm at a point in my life and walk, where as a former leader in institutional churches, I see most of the reasons tied to supporting formal membership as tied to elements of the Institutional Church that I don't see as particularly desirable or healthy.

1. In terms of increasing support and participation, I think that focuses on something other than Christ being the Head of the church and all of us as members of that body by virtue of Christ adding us and the Holy Spirir maintaining us.

2. In terms of leadership, I think leadership should arise from within the body as a recognition of spiritual gifts and someone who is already exercising those gifts and leadership. A top-down hierarchy through a professional clergy works against this and sadly often provides leadership on a less than Biblical basis focusing upon things such as financial wealth, community influene, family ties, support of the professional clergy etc.

3. In terms of managing property, I don't believe the church should be owning facililties. The Institutional model of owned propery and buildings, professional staff, programming and become a model that requires leaders to serve the means of "minmistry" without the freedom to follow the direct leadings of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I don't think it's immoral or outside of our freedom to follow this model, but the fruits of this model, while efficient and comfortable for many, works against relationships, promotes sanctification based upon works as opposed to continuing in grace and seeing the interaction of Christ in His body through he Holy Spirit.

4. It doesn't have to work this way, but the idea of written covenants and legal and moral obligation works directly against the message of grace and many of the direct teachings of Christ, for instance to not take oaths and to let your yes be yes and your no be no. There's no difficulty finding other verses to support our current model in the OT. That because the OT was before Christ and with the finished work of Christ we're now in a period where the Spirit no longer dwells in places and dwells within us. Buildings, professional clergy, the sad truth is that these were introduced to the church histrorically, not from the claimed traditions of the Jewish Synagogue, but from the merger of an early church that merged with the Roman State and took on much of the trappings, buildings and professional clergy system of the Pagan Temple system of that time. Our reformation moved some of the shells around to address some of these elements but there's not that much difference really.

Again, I'm not saying that believers can't function in this context and can't choose memberships. Often Church membership is driven more by local laws regarding the need for trustees and vested leaders to address property ownership, tax exemption etc. It's a need driven by practical considerations, not Biblical principles. It's a choice, but I don't think it's a healthy choice for me, and I've chosen for the future that I'll not formally join a church although I do currently attend one out of respect for my wife and family who don't agree with me in every element of this. We attend an independent Bible Church which has a strong grace message and I'm glad for it. We provide some support for it, but quite honestly I don't see that as anything more than a quid pro quo situation for services they provide. If we use them, we should support them. I don't see that as any more of a tithe or support to God than anything else in my life. God has all of my life and directs me in this as He leads through His Spirit.

This is a change in my life and a radical one from what I believed and practiced even when i first came to this board and I'm still working it out.

Thanks Canuckster1127.

I think it is allowable under the freedom we have in Christ. There's nothing wrong with an institutional church practicing it.

Agreed. No rule established against it but how profitable is it ?

Your point # 1 - Amen !

Your point # 2 - Amen !

Your point # 3 - Amen again. I have some major concerns with our monies going to 'the work of the Lord' when so much of this giving is being invested in the comforts and entertainments of believers. Today, the excuse, at times, is to make the local fellowship attractive to unbelievers but IMO, this is not what was originally intended. We, the pew sitters, should be out bringing people to the Kingdom of God outside the local church walls and then we bring these believers with us into the local fellowship to learn and worship together as believers. If this is our focus, the church facilities can be quite simple and the monies directed more to places like missionaries in foreign lands who so need it.

Your point # 4 - Amen again. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. It is no longer about a building of brick and mud or a tent. We don't go to church, we are the church and we meet collectively from time to time. We don't need to go through any clergy but can come directly to the throne of grace. We are a priesthood of believers.

The first time I really started looking into this was when I considered our churches stand on water baptism. It is that they will not baptise unless that person follows through with immediate formal church membership in the local church. This is so contrary to the book of Acts, IMO. Personally, water baptism is something that can immediately follow a profession of faith as it was in Acts and it has no connection with joining a local church. The outcome of salvation is a desire for fellowship, period. But man has to get involve and create a bunch of pre-requisites and then tie it into a man made, formal church membership process. Seems like we always need to 'one up' on what God establishes.

Anyway, in my seraching I found this site that really got me thinking about formal church membership adn I think some very good points are worth considering in this article - http://www.batteredsheep.com/biblical_c ... rship.html

Sudsy wrote:The first time I really started looking into this was when I considered our churches stand on water baptism. It is that they will not baptise unless that person follows through with immediate formal church membership in the local church. This is so contrary to the book of Acts, IMO. Personally, water baptism is something that can immediately follow a profession of faith as it was in Acts and it has no connection with joining a local church. The outcome of salvation is a desire for fellowship, period. But man has to get involve and create a bunch of pre-requisites and then tie it into a man made, formal church membership process. Seems like we always need to 'one up' on what God establishes.

Another "thing" I disagree on with my own SDA Church. When we baptize, it's not to say the person has claimed Christ as Savior, but this person has claimed Christ as Savior AND also publically claims to the 27 or 28 fundamentals of SDA theology. I assume most denomnations do the same to some extent.
.
.

Bav, ours doesn't. It is only a public profession of their faith. I don't believe those baptised, for instance, in Acts 2:41 had a local church statement of beliefs that they had to sign off on before they could be baptised. And this continued throughout Acts. No where in the early churches do we read where a statement of faith or covenant signing or formal church membership was tied with water baptism.

I think water baptism has had a very interesting development within Christianity over the years. At one time they only baptised people naked, in cold running water after much fasting. Today, some like the Salvation Army treat it more as a cultural thing for that era only and show their public profession of faith on-going with a uniform rather than a one time, behind closed doors, 'public' profession. Others put saving properties in the act to make it mandatory for salvation. And then there are the various modes. Man just can't seem to keep things simple.

I think it is good to question our traditional practises and see just what ties into scripture and what is tradition created by man's ideas. Some traditions are good and solid while others are really suspect.

Suds,
Sounds like you've got everything in order with your local fellowship. They are not requiring you to sign anything, and you are not comfortable signing it. I pretty much with you on everything you say.

Others put saving properties in the act to make it mandatory for salvation. And then there are the various modes.

That is an issue of being unscriptural.

Sounds like you've got everything in order with your local fellowship. They are not requiring you to sign anything, and you are not comfortable signing it.

jlay, I do count myself blessed to be allowed to participate to the extent they allow. An elder or two has approached me to soften my stance and just follow practise for the sake of unity but the overall focus in our local fellowship is to evangelize and make disciples. It is interesting to find out that many of the most active in our church, for whatever their reasons, are not voting members. Another thing they allow is for faithful attenders to stand up in membership meetings and express their opinions. We all have our own mail slots and by and large are treated the same as voting members. And yet, on the other hand, we don't have a category called 'adherents' as some do.

Currently, I have been given the role to organize a group of volunteers from the fellowship to assist the Salvation Army in their Christmas kettle collections. My wife and I have helped the SA for some years now and really enjoy working with other believers. Our fellowship has not got involved much in community projects and we are encouraging believers to get out where Jesus would be and to shine their light. We'll soon see how many will donate a few hours of their time to stand at a kettle and collect monies to help the needy in our community. I'm thankful all 3 pastors are behind this effort and giving it their encouragement.

I was talking to the senior pastor a week ago and when I mentioned a certain fellowship he told me how they had preferred parking for members only. A new pastor came into the church and quickly put a stop to this and this relative of our pastor up and quit the church. He had been there for many years and he wasn't about to give up his parking place so he quit the church altogether. This secular club type of mentality at times creeps into some church institutions and I think this is something that scriptures really indicate is wrong.

I think church membership is understandable. Some churches have their set beliefs which they want to maintain. Churches have the right to set their own standards including that of membership.

However, any church that mixes the messages being "a member of their church" with being a "member of Christ's Church" is in my opinion cult-like. I left one church because they did exactly that. I felt very unwelcomed in a reformed church (which are generally quite grace-oriented), when I could not sign their membership. To "join" I had to sign that I agreed with all their beliefs and accepted doctrines, which I could not. I left that church shortly after because I felt I did not fit in.

I'm lucky to have found a church a year ago where I can just be. I still see people playing their church and power "games", but I don't care. I'm not there for that. The messages preached are generally down-to-earth and quite accurate as far as my own knowledge is concerned. I also learn some things, even on topics I'm well acquainted with, which I often get surprised by since many churches are quite shallow and love hollow Christian jargony messages.

It is interesting that the moment I gave up looking for a church to fit into, and just decided I was going to attend a church for my kids, that the church I ended up in just seems to be the right for for us. Oh, and no need to sign a membership. At least, none that I'm aware to anyway.

Just playing devil's advocate here. But, keep in mind that those people you turn your children over to, they never signed any agreement as to what they believe either.

I've wrestled with this, since I work in teaching children. In 10 years of ministry I have never, NEVER had a parent come to me and ask me my faith position.

I'm totally with everyone when we say that a church that equates membership to salvation is cult like. No debate there. But, I think perhaps we dismiss a much different matter in the process. I know everyone has their reasons. Unbiblical, etc. There are a lot of things that are not specifically ordained or addressed in the scripture, but that doesn't make them unbibilical.
So, it may be that we reject church membership for a reason mentioned like the one above, but in doing so, we are failing to see if there is any merit to any kind of formal membership.

I've said before, there's nothing inherently wrong with church membership or even institutional churches, unless or until, they hinder the function and purpose of the organic body of Christ. Beyond that, there's freedom. The primary benefit of formal membership in the US ties more to property rights and management. There has to be a formal membership and organization for there to be tax exempt status and then there has to be an entity with membership and/or trustees etc. in order to hold property, sell it, build etc.

Kurieuo, that is an issue for me also regarding an agreement with the local church statements of faith. There are two and one of these phrased 'spend eternity in Hell'. One fellow said to me, well it doesn't spell out what eternity means so you could still sign but I know what the intent is on this. The other statement is regarding water baptism - ' The believer is now incorporated into the body of Christ as expressed in the local church.' Don't see this in scripture. Some say they don't agree either 100% as stated but they will or have signed on anyway.

Yet regarding a teaching role, I would not instruct otherwise and have no demand on me to teach these specific views. If I was required I would share them as the beliefs of this fellowship, no problem. I think it is a good idea that anyone in an instructional role to agree that they will not teach in conflict with the local church statement of faith. Our new pastor, jokingly, said to me last Sunday that he was going to drop in next week on our class to see that I'm not teaching heresy. Joking aside, I think thats good. But I think I might slip something in and check his response.

But I think I might slip something in and check his response.

Tongues in the Millenium .......

Kurieuo wrote:However, any church that mixes the messages being "a member of their church" with being a "member of Christ's Church" is in my opinion cult-like. I left one church because they did exactly that. I felt very unwelcomed in a reformed church (which are generally quite grace-oriented), when I could not sign their membership. To "join" I had to sign that I agreed with all their beliefs and accepted doctrines, which I could not. I left that church shortly after because I felt I did not fit in.

I won't go as far to say that cultism doesn't exist in the SDA Church, I've seen some, but from what I have seen, it is in the minority and tends to have most of its presence in the Hispanic congregations. Legalism tends to be stronger there.
.
.