Leaderboard

In my opinion, the requirements to join and to remain a SDA member are few in number--certainly less than the 28. But, we are living in a time where in our society at large people are attempting to draw boundaries that exclude as many people as possible and this has carried over in the Church and to its business and we see the same happeing today. I once pastored a congregation in which we decided that we would disfellowship a person only if the vote was 100% in favor of doing so. I would first ask for a vote against doing so and if their was even one (1) vote against doing so, I would immediately table the action and the process would stop.

I have felt that we should offer some thing like this for a long, long time. I'm glad to hear others proposing it as well. Thank you Gregory. Oh, another aspect of this is to invite pastors of other denominations and their family to come and worship with us in a way where they don't have to be the pastor and pastor's family, but just worshipers of God a chance for rest and spiritual growth.

Due to the possible interest in my proposal for Associate Membership, I have placed a copy of that proposal in this section and labeled Associate Membership.

Membership Proposal: Local SDA Church R:170506 Proposal: The local congregation of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination shall establish two (2) categories of membership, as is listed below: 1. Membership in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination: a. Membership: shall be both in the Local Congregation and in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. ‘b. Requirements for membership: The requirements for membership will be the general requirements for membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as outlined in either the standard Baptismal Statement of Belief or the Alternate Baptismal Statement of belief and as these statements may be amended by the appropriate denominational body from time to time. c. Teaching tool: the so-called 28 Fundamental Beliefs and any following amended editions may be used as a tool to teach common areas of SDA belief and practice, but they will not be used as a standard for baptism. d. Record of membership: Membership will be recorded in both congregational records and in the records of the Local Conference. e. Ministry leadership: The basic level of eligibility for leadership and other ministry positions will be considered to have been met by membership in the SDA Denomination. However, some positions of leadership and positions that result in ordination and/or require ordination may have other requirements that must be met and/or are generally required by the SDA denomination. 2. Associate Membership in the Local SDA Congregation: a. Membership: shall be an Associate Membership that is only in the Local congregation and is NOT in either the Local Conference or in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. Such membership shall not be eligible for transfer. b. Requirements for membership: The basic standard for Associate Membership in the L:ocal SDA congregation will be that the Associate Member will have a commitment to follow the leading of Christ as led by the Holy Spirit and in addition will understand the mission and values of the Local congregation and will want to participate in that congregation in a manner that will live peaceably with its congregational members. The Associate Member category will include people who: 1. Are not in full accord with the general understanding of SDA doctrines. 2. Are not fully compliant with the general understanding of SDA life style practices. 3. Wish to associate with other Christians but who have reservations about formally joining a denomination. 4. May have other reasons for joining as an Associate member without denominational membership. c. Teaching tool: Associate members will be required to have a basic knowledge of the beliefs and life style practices of the SDA Denomination. But, they will not be required to either believe them or to practice them. d. Record of membership: The local conference will not be given an itemized listing of these names as the local conference is not set up to in a manner that requires it to have a listing of people who may attend, but are not SDA members. e. Ministry leadership: Associate Members may be restricted in the leadership positions that they can hold: 1. Leadership that requires ordination will be restricted to denominational members and will not be available to Associate members. 2. Associate members will not be ordained in leadership positions that allow for ordination but do not require it. 3. Associate Members may hold leadership positons that would not generally be considered to be of spiritual leadership. E.G. Fund raising for a building project. 4. Associate Members may participate in programing and in other roles that may be considered to have some level of spiritual leadership as long as the above is not violated and the Associate Member is carefully considered and will not use such a positon to agitate against the common beliefs and practices of the SDA denomination. 5. The Local Congregation may place such additional restrictions on the use of Associate Members as it believes is needed.

Good question. I think that on the one hand the membership is good for knowing that you are a part of the group and for the conference "report card" for the pastor On the other hand I have often felt that we need to recognize our friends who may not be where we can use them as an example of what our church is, but still welcome their friendship and fellowship. I also could not help but think about how in the 1980s (I'd like to know how it is now), in Israel, our church with the largest membership was the Haifa church. An interesting thing about that church was that most of the members were in their 80s and 90s. They became Seventh-day Adventists at a time when our missionaries were sent to Europe and shared Adventism with their Christian neighbors and were not use to working with non-Christians, and when they ran into the Jewish ghettos they offered them a Jewish version of Adventism. Later the church stopped doing that and said that those who were already Seventh-day Adventist Jews could still stay in good standing but from then on whoever wanted to join the church needed to be a Christian. Which lead to the church that had the highest attendance, the Tel Aviv Church. There they had a handful of members, but about an equal number of Jews who would attend week after week, year after year. They loved Seventh-day Adventism but would refuse to become members because they did not want to become Christians. So they would actively attend every week, were a contributing part of the church but who's names were never on the membership logs.

relationships form or do not form, but not according to the record of formally joined members.

i do love how the Lord stretches me to see Him as bigger and bigger, greater and greater, and merciful and loving yet concerned with every particle of my being in thought, and action, and in just being. He wants to bless me and my nature does not naturally seek Him or love Him, but he reaches me and touches and changes my desires in the most gentle and pure ways.

What is the purpose of formal church membership for the individual? I can see benefits for a local church or denomination who wants to know numbers, but for an individual who may have attended a particular church regularly for 15 years but never transferred membership, what does it matter to that person?

See: http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/05/04/wrong-and-right This is not an article that casts judgment on people who leave the SDA denomination. Rather, it challenges, if you want something to consider.

Those are reasons that worked in the past, kind of like joining a club. It seems that in the current era, church members aren't as sociable as they used to be. Invitations to Sabbath dinner aren't made because the church has a weekly potluck, and some pastors actually frown on members making invitations and skipping the potluck. On Sabbath you convocate with people you've gradually come to know, but you are actually closer with coworkers who are "of the world" than with people at church. Commitment is a good thing, and probably the best reason to be a member. For some multigenerational SDAs who want their names removed from the books, commitment is not so much a problem as feeling distanced from the other members, feeling unneeded, ignored, deciding that membership is only a painful reminder of an ideal that has not been reached -- and most who should don't notice the lack or don't know how to fix it.

I have battle with this issue in the past. Joining a Church is similar to a joining a corporation, only members can have voting power, although most everyone can have voice. Decision to be made to reach out to the community or around the world is not only nice, but it is the gospel commission. One does not have to be a member of the Church to be a member here.

Those are good reasons for a church, DebbyM and Wanderer, but it doesn't explain how formal membership in a church enhances one's ability to participate, except for rules made by the church for members-only participation, and our church isn't very exclusive in that way. The SDA Church places high value on membership but so far I haven't seen any clarity on what membership does for the member -- except for a discount for your lodging at camp meeting time and a discount for your children's education in an SDA school. I have seen "loose" membership churches (i.e. regular attendees are called members, no formal acceptance required) -- nondenominational or independent -- gather funds and do phenomenal things for others in their own community and for missions across the world. Membership isn't necessary for such activities. Such participants may pledge to help with this or that project, but it is not the same as being a card-carrying member. You can associate closely and worship with others, week and week, and not need membership credentials to do it.

The bottom line is that we are living in a time where many in our society are asking such questions, especially among those of a younger age than most of us.

I look at it this way - we obey through the power of grace because we are saved; we do not become saved and receive grace because we obey. We were saved by grace so we can have the power to do good works (i.e., "obey").

So it sounds like the bottom line is that membership is not all that important, but to those to whom it is, we need an associate membership category so that everyone can be a member. Would the associate category also be for those who currently are unable to live up to church standards in various ways (smokers, for example) or who might have been disfellowshipped under normal circumstances but would instead be demoted to associate status? To the church it might make a difference, but how does membership (or associate membership) help the individual? Is a non-member able to hold a position but unable to vote in church business meetings? It sounds like membership is a reward, and taking it away is used as punishment, or a "you can't be a member because you might embarrass the church" action. In the other side the coin, removing one's membership is often used by individuals to punish the church, a statement by the individual to the church saying, "You didn't measure up, therefore I wash my hands of you." I deal with these kinds of things since I am a church clerk, and sometimes I think membership limits the church in reaching out to those who have been removed or have removed themselves, because once having gone through the process of being separated, it creates an emotional wall, an uncomfortable point in time that makes it hard to come back and feel welcome. (Probably too many topics in one post. You should have seen it before I edited it.)

In an earlier thread, LynDel asked the purpose of church membership. In one of my responses, I mentioned that sometime in that past five (5) years I had proposed to a local congregation an Associate Membership level. This proposal had addressed a number of concerns that denominational leaders might have had. The local congregation received my proposal and considered it to be of value and useful in their ministry. However, that congregation decided that it would not enact an associate membership level. Due to interest in this in the post below I will post my proposal for an Associate level of membership. It should be noted that I have removed and changed all wording that identified the congregation. Also, the copy below is slightly changed in format from what I gave to that congregation.

Lynndel: The local congregation can place any person into a leadership position that they wish to do so. I once pastored a congregation that placed people into positions of leadership who were NOT SDAs. However, it should be noted that in all of those cases the leadership positon did not require ordination. That congregation had done so for years before I became their pastor and they continued on for years after I left as their pastor. Also, I believe that this thread is fine here. So, I see no need to move it.

I'm thinking maybe I should have posted this under Church Policies...

Someone told me that formal membership is needed only to serve, or hold office as nominated by the nominating committee. If the nominating committee does not see fit to give a person an office or a way to serve, year after year, what good is membership?

Honestly, it's just none of my business what you do. Sorry to have engaged.

The denomination and sometimes even the denomination may not have a good method of knowing who its friends are due to the fact that the only official records that exist may be those who have formally joined. I am aware, that some congregations recognize that there is a need for such and are making some sort of effort to have records that are helpful. Sometime within the past five years I made a proposal to a congregation that had number of people who actively (regularly) attended and participated in the services if the congregation to establish an Associate Membership list. As would probably be expected by people who understand the thinking of denominational leadership, such would not likely be considered positively by leadership. In any case, that congregation felt my proposal have been positive and of value. But, it did not fell that was the direction that it should go at that time. But it was felt to be helpful in that my proposal identified the issues and addressed each of them.

Do we trust God enough to let our reactions rest.... from every side and direction?

For the nth time Samie. We DO NOT do it "without" Him. He is the one who SENDS the evidence. He is the one who came to show us the Father's love. He is the one who created us with intelligence, and the ability to choose. You Samie, want Him to DO everything FOR us - including choosing FOR us and believing FOR us. But that's NOT how it works. There IS something for us to DO. We must respond - choose - believe - surrender. When a man proposes marriage, he CANNOT say "Yes" FOR his intended bride. She must say, "Yes".

My understanding is that "salvation by works" MEANS "salvation because of works". God will "save" me IF I do enough good works. Obedience (of the Law), or obedience towards God - is simply one category of "good works". It fits under the "works" category. The problem with this thinking, is that we cannot do ANY "good works". Everything we try to do - in our own strength - is always contaminated with selfishness. I think Isaiah said it well. "All OUR righteousnesses are like filthy menstrual rags" (Isa. 64:6) He couldn't think of anything more unclean. I wish he had said leprous rags, but oh well. WHEN we come to realize that we are absolutely helpless to do any "works" good enough to EARN salvation, we come to a crisis point. We can "give up" and turn away from God, saying "This is impossible". OR - we can "give up" and plead for God to live IN US. When we "give up" (really give up) AND plead for God to do His good works - through us, that is when we see a wonderful change in our behaviors. (That's the grace.) But we can't claim the credit for them. God get's the credit. All we did was surrender. After THAT - the challenge is to stay out of HIS way. We keep wanting to jump in - to "fight our way" into Canaan. I will tell you. Giving up is scary. It's like "falling backwards" hoping your partner will catch you. But until you try it - with God, you cannot experience real victories in your life. I personally had to reach a point of total frustration, and actually feeling angry at God (telling me to be so "good" when He knew I couldn't be). But reaching that breaking point, was the only way I would finally "let go". The more victories you experience - by "letting go" - "turning it over" - "surrender" - "giving up", the easier it gets.

Great story! @GayatfootofCross @debbym @Naomi