NightCrawler
10-30-2005, 12:10 PM
In order to be considered part of the local body, I have to be baptized and accepted (after a recommendation from the membership committee) by the body ....

Then I can
1) Be rebuked
2) Vote
3) Be on a list/Say I am part of this church (or that church)
4) Agree and comply to a specific 'covenant' that I don't agree with entirely.



Anyone see something wrong with this?

alorian
10-30-2005, 12:59 PM
YES!!! There's a ton wrong with that.

1) Baptized by the church. 1 corinthians 1:10-17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=1&version=50) This verse makes it clear enough. Baptism is to be in Jesus' name, not a church's, or a man's name.

2) Recommendation from the membership commitee? Hmmm, sounds like man chooses who should be in the church...

3) God should be the authority... Well, actually, the individual is the decider on whether he is rebuked... I have thoughts on this, but I don't have time to type it out.

4) Vote? Shouldn't everything be decided through God? Hmmm, makes sense on the human level, but...

5) The only thing you should abide by is the Word of God.

I wish I had more time right now.

as~i~lay~dying
10-30-2005, 04:15 PM
wow...yes totally...everyone who is saved is a part of the body...not if you do all these certain things...seems pretty legalistic to me....=(

NightCrawler
10-30-2005, 07:23 PM
Well, I mean by the first sentence... I must be saved and baptized before I can become a 'member'. Then people vote on my admission (I haven't heard anyone say Nay before...) And a membership gives me the perks I listed off.

Isildur9473
10-30-2005, 07:49 PM
Quit that church?

unshakeable15
10-30-2005, 08:23 PM
i see nothing wrong with needing to acknowledge Christ as your Lord before becoming a member. baptism i'd be willing to forgo as a requirement (so long as the members realize the importance of being baptized). being voted into admission is really odd. i've never heard of a church doing that before. is there a point to it? churches (and people in general) rarely do anything just for kicks. there must be a reason behind it.

terrasin
10-30-2005, 09:19 PM
Mike has the right on that. Granted, I don't see a need to be baptised in that perticular church if you have been before (usually they give a certificate), but why would they allow someone who has not dedicated their life and made it known among the people to have any control of how the church is run?

Also, the "covenant" you speak of is usually made up of basic information. "Do you believe Christ is is the only son of God?" or "Do you believe in the holy trinity?" If you say no to those, then chances are you are reading the wrong bible. :P

I'm officially a member of the Lutheran church and have been since I was about 12. I'm able to vote in the church or help make decisions that effect how the church is run.

CJ

skynes
10-31-2005, 12:45 AM
I don't know why but this all makes me really uncomfortable.

You'll have to give me more information, but from what you've said it sounds really iffy...

Needing a vote to be in a church? Be able to vote? Sticking to a covenant? Doesn't sound like a church, sounds like a private club.

Like I said though, I need more info.

lamb_servant72
10-31-2005, 01:46 AM
3) God should be the authority... Well, actually, the individual is the decider on whether he is rebuked... I have thoughts on this, but I don't have time to type it out.



They are probably pulling this from Matthew 18:15-17, where Jesus said:

15 And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

16 but if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.

17 And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.

bobbi
10-31-2005, 03:17 AM
I don't know why but this all makes me really uncomfortable.

You'll have to give me more information, but from what you've said it sounds really iffy...



Yeah...this doesn't sound right. Church shouldn't be about having your own special little group like that. Shouldn't one of the church's goals to reach the lost? And how the heck is that possible when they're busy picking a choosing who gets accepted? So if someone was looking for a church body to be apart of that wasn't born again, but wanted to hear more about God (here's an open door to lead someone to Christ over here...) and the church rejects them...does that just not sound right to any of you guys?

skynes
10-31-2005, 03:46 AM
and the church rejects them...does that just not sound right to any of you guys?

(I haven't heard anyone say Nay before...)

That answers that. But I do see your point. As I said, I need more information here.

Is church membership just church membership? Is ANYONE allowed to go but only members decide what way the church goes? Only members allowed to run meetings etc?

fromano
10-31-2005, 11:57 AM
y'know, that whole voting to become a member of thing sounds very much like calvinism/puritans. (i just studied this in Amer Hist) yeah, im catholic (all my life) and to be a eucharistic minister or stuff like that, you need to go through confirmation or rcia(for those not catholic, but wish to be). yeah, dont take my word on anything i say tho, cuz im only 16 and dont know all the specs, but yeah. if u got q's, pm me, i got connections w/ a bunch o' ppl that ill be able to answers.

FRO

asparagus
10-31-2005, 02:59 PM
In order to be considered part of the local body, I have to be baptized and accepted (after a recommendation from the membership committee) by the body ....

Then I can
1) Be rebuked
2) Vote
3) Be on a list/Say I am part of this church (or that church)
4) Agree and comply to a specific 'covenant' that I don't agree with entirely.

Anyone see something wrong with this?What church is this? It seems rather typical of most churches. They're just being practical of Biblical guidance.

And did you say anything about being "voted in"? Did I miss where people were getting this?

Let's not just all jump on the bandwagon here...

NightCrawler
10-31-2005, 05:16 PM
This is going to be a long post.

i see nothing wrong with needing to acknowledge Christ as your Lord before becoming a member. baptism i'd be willing to forgo as a requirement (so long as the members realize the importance of being baptized).
I don't see anything wrong with it either. And if you have been baptized elsewhere, you must have a certificate or some other document (perhaps a letter from the person that dunked you) to prove it. I don't think they accept sprinkling, though.

being voted into admission is really odd. i've never heard of a church doing that before. is there a point to it? churches (and people in general) rarely do anything just for kicks. there must be a reason behind it.
Well, the person may have had a major problem with someone that joined. Uncommon, but possible. (such as someone seen as a heretic, someone who may have fought with a member before, or someone that has been known to create factions... but wasn't known by the membership committee) I am not sure about it, though. I think it is also a way of the congregation saying "We know you are here now."


Also, the "covenant" you speak of is usually made up of basic information. "Do you believe Christ is is the only son of God?" or "Do you believe in the holy trinity?" If you say no to those, then chances are you are reading the wrong bible. :P

CJ
Yeah, that type stuph takes up the majority of the document. But is almost also a contract. Because (I am going to try to get as close to verbatim as I can remember) I can't partake in the "sale or use of intoxicating beverages"... And I must "support the ministries" (I believe it is implied money...) [...] "regularly".
Which means I can't work at a gas station, drink wine on New years (when I am of age) and I got to give money regularly... which I assume is for accountability... and stability of accounts.

That answers that. But I do see your point. As I said, I need more information here.

Is church membership just church membership? Is ANYONE allowed to go but only members decide what way the church goes? Only members allowed to run meetings etc?
For the candidate, he can join if he is a Christian (you must talk with a deacon or similar to explain that you at least have the head knowledge), if he has been baptized (a profession publically of being said Christian), and if he agrees with the covenant.

Members are allowed to vote on the election of deacon's, budget stuph, and other stuph. There are also private meetings. And, you must be a member to be on the worship team or be an officer of some sort (deacon, finance committee, pastor, etc.)

Also, you can regularly attend a church without being a member. For example, this church I am kinda torn about becoming a member or not is one that I have been attending for almost 9 full years.

What church is this? It seems rather typical of most churches. They're just being practical of Biblical guidance.

And did you say anything about being "voted in"? Did I miss where people were getting this?

Let's not just all jump on the bandwagon here...
First Baptist... of the city I live in. (why do they always have to be first or something else? No Second Baptist or Third Baptist...)

You are right about being voted in. You simply stand in front of the congregation, the deacon/announcement guy/pastor is up there and introduces you, and asks if anyone would like a motion to have you join. Some motions, maybe a second. Then he asks for an Aye, then a Nay... Never heard a Nay. But yeah, only members can vote on that too ;)

Bandwagon, of what?

skynes
11-01-2005, 01:04 AM
Yeah, that type stuph takes up the majority of the document. But is almost also a contract. Because (I am going to try to get as close to verbatim as I can remember) I can't partake in the "sale or use of intoxicating beverages"... And I must "support the ministries" (I believe it is implied money...) [...] "regularly".
Which means I can't work at a gas station, drink wine on New years (when I am of age) and I got to give money regularly... which I assume is for accountability... and stability of accounts.

Right now THAT I do not like. That sounds like staunch legalism at worst and manipulation at best.

I can understand them wanting you to support the church and not drink, but forcing that upon you to be a member of that church is wrong. Giving money to the church is a good thing to do, but it is not good when it is obligatory.

theelectric3
11-01-2005, 08:48 AM
Giving money to the church is a good thing to do, but it is not good when it is obligatory.

i agree. we are to be cheerful givers and give what we have purposed in our hearts.

NightCrawler
11-01-2005, 08:52 AM
Right now THAT I do not like. That sounds like staunch legalism at worst and manipulation at best.

I can understand them wanting you to support the church and not drink, but forcing that upon you to be a member of that church is wrong. Giving money to the church is a good thing to do, but it is not good when it is obligatory.
Which is why I am wondering if I should join. I mean, I will give regularly, and I won't drink (high probability that I won't ... when I am age).... But to require it ... doesn't sound right. Like you said.

md4j
11-01-2005, 10:52 AM
I don't see anything wrong with the church telling you what they believe and letting you know before hand. If you don't agree with everything and you can't live with it then don't join that church.

skynes
11-02-2005, 02:15 AM
It's not a matter of being unable to live with it. The problem is with having members signing a contract which tells them you MUST give money and you MUST not drink.

That's just plain wrong and I personally wouldn't join there.

md4j
11-02-2005, 08:33 AM
It's not a matter of being unable to live with it. The problem is with having members signing a contract which tells them you MUST give money and you MUST not drink.

That's just plain wrong and I personally wouldn't join there.Did he say he had to sign a contract? Certain churches have certain rules. I know some pentecostal churches that if they see you wearing make up away from church then you can't be involved in certain activities. If the people going to that church have a problem with that then they can find another church. Now do I agree with that? Absolutely not. But I don't see it being a problem for churches to have rules and then in turn there be consequences for breaking those rules.

NightCrawler
11-18-2005, 09:38 PM
For Your Information....
Update: I am not currently up for membership, I declined.

However, I did get baptized last sunday! Praise GOD!!!!

theelectric3
11-18-2005, 11:36 PM
how cool! congratulations. :D

Mr. Xcitement
11-18-2005, 11:45 PM
I attend a First Congregational, Protestant church, and that is pretty much the same way it is set up too. I am not a member, but thinking about becoming one. I completely understand that I would need to be voted in, and I'm glad it's that way. Everyone and anyone is allowed to attend the church, but when it comes to running the church, you need people who are commited to the church, and willing to give their time to the church, and thus you can't have just anyone joining the church to decide those things. I don't know anything about rules on drinking or anything like that, but I do believe some of the church members do drink, I mean, Jesus Himself drank wine, so why would that be wrong?

NightCrawler
11-26-2005, 08:48 PM
Yes, that is where having membership is good -- to an extent. I don't knowfor sure. It almost seems like people that regularly attend will feel more useful and helpful to the church if they can get in without the whole 'voting' process. It takes a few weeks, and there can be tension.

To me, it almost feels like a small fence you need to jump over so you can play in the backyard.


And the Jesus drinking wine (whether it was alcholic or not, in particular) debate seems overused. Good points on both sides, but if someone is unwilling to concede that Jesus was drinking potentially intoxicating beverages, then they make some weird arguments that get nowhere.

terrasin
11-26-2005, 09:19 PM
Personally, churches that argue about petty information like that aren't worth a spit of my time. If they want to spend their time wasting it on arguing whether wine that Jesus made was alcoholic or not instead of doing things they should be doing, let them. But I know I won't be part of that community and will not speak supportively about them if asked.

I'm in a situation right now where I am being asked in less words to represent my church in a new youth ministry entering our town. Now the first time I tried to talk to the persons running this lovely place, I was somewhat ignored as they spent most of their time talking with the youth. Mind you, this was at a football game for our local highschool and the majority of the youth were on the field playing a halftime show, so it wasn't that they were overwhelmed with people. But they are opening a new youth center in our town and have asked the support of the local churches to help pay for this. There are a few issues at this point, one being that the main person running is very anti-catholic. Not a good thing to be in a town where catholics hold the majority. Knowing this and the fact that they plan on stabbing everyone in the back eventually and turning their youth center into a proper church and "school or learning center", we've donated a large amount of money to them to get started. I say they are stabbing us in the back mainly because they will end up doing whatever they want despite what the churches, the people paying to support them and get them running, say to them. They will do what they want and to hell with the rest of us.

I'm unsure of where I stand in this situation at this point, but I plan on taking more counsil about it and learning more about the people in charge before I make a decision of whether or not I feel my presence would be a benefit.

CJ