Membership of the SDA Church....

[Twilight]

Should someone be a member of the SDA church if they do not agree with the 28 fundamental doctrines of the church?

Should they claim full membership?

And should the church grant them membership?

Please explain your reasoning for your answer.

Mark :-)

[Bravus]

My best guess is that of the 7 million or so SDAs maybe half, in one way or another, have issues with one or more of the 28 (nee 27). If all of them left the church would be gutted.

I know that kind of logic doesn't necessarily stand up against a rigid rectitude that would prefer tiny and 'pure'. But there are other arguments.

As I said in the other thread, the founders were very much against the establishment of creeds and tests of orthodoxy. Others will bring the quotes (and, of course, still others will bring the counterquotes) but the general tenor of their writing is clear that the search for truth might mean challenges to established doctrine.

I guess for me Jesus' own words are the final word. I can't reconcile 'go out into the highways and the byways and *compel* them to come in to the wedding feast' with a 28-item test at the door intended to keep them out...

[Twilight]

So then do we just throw the doors open to anyone, no matter what they believe?

[Bravus]

Yep. "Worship with 'em all, let God sort 'em out."

[Bravus]

Our obsession with deciding who's in and who's out of the treehouse club is something we should have outgrown.

[Twilight]

So how does that work then Bravus?

Would you allow anyone up front to preach the message?

[Twilight]

Are you arguing for no standards for membership CoAspen?

Anyone can visit the church, of course, but we are specifically talking about membership here.

:-)

[Twilight]

Are you allowed to quote in "Townhall"?

[Bravus]

In my ideal version of the church there wouldn't be sermons, there'd be discussions like Sabbath School lesson discussions. Each believer would be responsible for knowing, studying and understanding the Word, and trusted to do so, and if anyone tried to teach error it would be promptly refuted by the others in the group. Hierarchical arrangements with one ordained 'leader' broadcasting from the front are part of the problem, not the solution.

I guess that's getting a bit far afield, though. You can bring up counter-examples and issues all you like, my view will remain the same: Jesus showed us and told us that it's about dragging 'em in, not keeping 'em out, and if we follow Him that's what we're about.

[Twilight]

Two questions:

1. How do you define error, if there are no tests for membership, if there are no accepted common grounds as a basis for discussion?

2. If up front delivery was to be abolished as ineffective, that would remove the Sermon on the Mount as a valid delivery of Gods message then?

That was one speaking to many.

How do you reconcile that?

[Woody]

Our obsession with deciding who's in and who's out of the treehouse club is something we should have outgrown.

Excellent Bravus. Bravo Bravo.

[Woody]

I think we should be grown up enough to hear error and be able to identify it. I've heard a number of fundamental legalistic sermons in my day. And I just labeled it as such and moved on.

Heck. I read it here on this forum every day. Yet, I still come.

[abelisle]

Isn't the very idea of testing everyone for membership and creating a very exclusive membership a form of pride in those who are doing the testing?

And if people lied about their beliefs, who would know?

Lastly, what is the motive for seeking a purge of the membership? Is it a desire for purity in the church something akin to the Holy Flesh movement in 1901?

Hmm . . . I smell the taint of perfectionism

Alex (I might as well leave now but where does one go?)

[John317]

Isn't there a difference between calling everyone to come worship and making people members?

The church should definitely open the door wide and call anyone and everyone to worship, study and pray, but the church has a responsibility and a duty to have standards for membership. We only have one standard for worshipping with us, and that is the person must have the desire to do it. But our standards of full membership in the church, the body of Christ, must be different than that. The question here is how different and what the standard should be.

[Woody]

Isn't the very idea of testing everyone for membership and creating a very exclusive membership a form of pride in those who are doing the testing?

And if people lied about their beliefs, who would know?

Lastly, what is the motive for seeking a purge of the membership? Is it a desire for purity in the church something akin to the Holy Flesh movement in 1901?

Hmm . . . I smell the taint of perfectionism

Alex (I might as well leave now but where does one go?)

Excellent Alex. Well spoken. You know ... we really don't need membership. And the early pioneers were opposed to it. It just creates two classes of Christians. The haves and the have nots.

I think we should stick with the Bible on this issue.

[John317]

I think we need to decide this on the basis of the evidence found in the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. As Seventh-day Adventists, we claim to be people of the book who base our doctrines and faith on what God has revealed to us through His prophets.

[John317]

You know ... we really don't need membership. And the early pioneers were opposed to it.

Are you sure this is something God wants? Is this what He revealed to us through the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy? What does the NT teach about church government?

You mention what the early pioneers wanted or were opposed to. But first of all, the fact is that we can't base what we ought to do on what the early pioneers were opposed to. And second of all, it isn't true that the early pioneers were opposed to membership. What many of them were opposed to was having an official denomination, but that isn't the same as having members or having credentialed or licenced ministers. But they were wrong to oppose membership, and we would be wrong to copy their wrong opposition to membership. We know this because of what God revealed to us through His prophet.

[John317]

I'm not in the error defining business, that be God's role. My role is to point towards Christ. That is essentially the role of all Christians. The church is merely a place to congregate, share, support and commune with God together at a special time.

I think one of the problems here is a lack of understanding what the Bible teaches about the church. It is definitely not just a place to congregate, etc.

It seems to me that what many of us are doing is throwing the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy counsels on this topic to the wind, almost as if they don't have any authority. Is this subject to be decided by human opinion and human desires? Or by the testimony of the Spirit of Christ?

[Woody]

Quote:

It seems to me that what many of us are doing is throwing the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy counsels on this topic to the wind, almost as if they don't have any authority. Is this subject to be decided by human opinion and human desires? Or by the testimony of the Spirit of Christ?

That's quite a judgment you're making on other forum members. I happen to think that it is you who are doing this and not the ones you are accusing.

Do you happen to own the ownership of the exclusive ability to interpret scripture and our prophet?

Of course we could start throwing quotes pro and con for each side. But I doubt that the proof would change your mind.

[Bravus]

Let's see the Biblical evidence for the idea that the church must be an exclusive club with rules for membership. There's always lots of aghast rhetoric on this topic of the 'You'll let in just anyone?!!' kind, but a marked lack of strong Scriptural support.

[Woody]

Let's see the Biblical evidence for the idea that the church must be an exclusive club with rules for membership. There's always lots of aghast rhetoric on this topic of the 'You'll let in just anyone?!!' kind, but a marked lack of strong Scriptural support.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Is a "church" really something commanded by God? (I'm just thinking here about how the Israelites wanted a king, and God let them have one, but it was not His wish for them....it was the Israelites *desire* for one...)

Is a church merely a sociological construct that man created out of his need for interaction with like-minded people? hmm...don't know...

[John317]

I think what we need are a few good discussions on the theology of the church, looking thoroughly at what both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy have to tell us.

[Bravus]

Perhaps, but doctrine should always be able to be supported Sola Scriptura.

[John317]

Bravus,

How do you envision the church? If you had your way, what would the SDA church be like?

Also, if you could, please tell us briefly what you understand the Bible teaches about the church.