Membership of the SDA Church....

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I see no one has been willing to take on Matthew 16:16-19.

If memory serves me correctly, this text is the fundamental basis upon which the Catholic Church declares Papal Authority to change the Sabbath, execute eternal judgment by excommunication, binding all to salvation only through the Church, etc.

Is this the direction we should be heading?

Yes, that is the Catholic understanding. What is the Sola Scriptura understanding?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Does this text not grant the church membership authority?

No. It simply states that whatever Jesus stated her on earth would be true. It states we can believe in God's word.

That makes no sense to me. I don't see how anyone can get that out of Matthew 16:16-19.

[phkrause]

"Does this text not grant the church membership authority?"

"No. It simply states that whatever Jesus stated her on earth would be true. It states we can believe in God's word."

Shane which statement makes no sense to you?

[Gerr]

Look, folks, we are making some mnts here out of mole hills. All I have ever said, along with others, is that belonging to an earthly church is not necessarily the same as belonging to the heavenly church. There seems to an issue again about rules of membership. The earthly can have all it wants, I don't care, but those may not be and most likely are not, the same for the heavenly one. Thats all I am talking about.!! Why does everyone have the tidy-whites in a wad!!!

Relax,

I got the impression from your comments in the first two pages that somehow you were against some doctrinal criteria for church membership, that we should all let them in as long as they professed belief in Christ. My apologies if I misunderstood your statements. I would certainly agree that having one's name in the registry of a church organization may have little bearing on whether one has a saving relationship with Christ or not.

[Gerr]

Quote:

No membership means also no leadership, no organization, and NO EXISTENCE!

Repeating error Gerry ... doesn't make it truth. There are many nondenominational churches that do not have membership. Yet, they have a good organization and leadership. In fact ... they are much larger 'organizations than the majority of most SDA churches.

But as I have stated ... if you must insist on members ... just lower the standard so that anyone who wants to put their name on the membership list can do so. Then ... there you have your members. And the leaders and organization can still exist in your eyes.

Would you name ONE organization that has NO membership?

[Gerr]

Um, I'm pretty sure that the early church was quite splintered also. And there were no non-profit organizations or club memberships.

Luke described the apostolic church as being of "one accord." But you are right that even before the last of the apostles died, perverse schismatics were already arising that Paul warned about in Acts 20. And it continues to plague the church to this day.

[Dr. Shane]

"Does this text not grant the church membership authority?"

"No. It simply states that whatever Jesus stated her on earth would be true. It states we can believe in God's word."

Shane which statement makes no sense to you?

Read the passage. Jesus is preparing His disciples for His departure.. Jesus is assuring His disciples that He will establish a church here on Earth. He gives the church authority.

The passage does not talk about "truth".

The passage does not talk about "God's Word".

The passage does not talk about what "Jesus stated".

The passage deals with Jesus being the Christ and with the establishment of the church.

[John317]

Compare those people to the people alive today and ask yourself if they are similar in their grasp of basic Bible truths. Can we assume that most people tooday have a good understanding already of the fundamental truths of the gospel? I am sure you would agree that we certainly cannot assume such a thing. Anyone would be foolish to do so. In fact, on the contrary: today we have to assume they probably know next to nothing and probably have a lot of mistaken ideas that may cause them a great deal of confusion about the step they are taking.

... (small elision for space but you can go to the original)

Also, there's the fact that we live at a different time and in circumstances far different. That is to say, in the last 2000 years since Satan has been at work to bring in false doctrines, there is greater confusion over truth, and the doctrines of the church are much more sophisticated than they were in 31 AD. This last point means that people need to study more and far deeper than before because there is much more to learn.

In sum, then, the situation of the church and the people themselves are not the same as they were at that time. As the books of Daniel and Revelation show, the church today faces different challenges than the church faced in the first few months of its existence. The purpose of the church today is also different than it was in those first few years. All these things need to be taken into consideration.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

So (my paraphrase, correct me if I'm wrong) 'what worked in Bible times doesn't work now due to different circumstances'. That's a HUGE and extremely controversial claim to make. What if we apply it to other things 'in Bible times they didn't understand science the way we do now, so obviously we need to adapt their account of origins for current circumstances' and so on... (and please, let's not tangent on that example). The idea that the teachings of the Bible are reinterpretable based on context is considered a slippery slope by almost all here - are you sure you want to embark on it?

The basic questions are these:

Does having church membership violate the clear, fundamental teachings or principles of the NT and the gospel?

Does having church membership as SDAs practice it contradict the teaching of the NT on the structure, government, or purpose of the church?

These two questions, in my view, are of greater relevance than merely answering the question whether the church of Paul's day had a "church membership" in the same way that we have today. That would be like asking whether the pastors of Paul day had a licence or credential in the same way that our modern pastors have.

Unless the practice can be shown to contradict the Bible in some way, it is not important whether the early church gave a credential to the pastors. God gave the church latitude in doing what she believes is necessary under the circumstances to further the gospel provided that she doesn't go against the clear instructions give to her from God through His prophets and apostles. So the question here is, does church membership as SDAs practice it go against the those clear instructions in that way?

If the clear answer is yes to those two questions, then obviously church membership ought to be jettisoned as quickly as possible. But, on the other hand, if church membership is actually in harmony with the gospel and helpful in forwarding the mission and work of the Seventh-day Adventist Church,(as well as being clearly in harmony with the Testimonies), then I think it's foolish to argue against it.

Are you in fundamental agreement with this?

If you feel that you must answer "no" to any of the above questions, could you please explain how or why you feel compelled to answer in that way?

[Bravus]

Sadly, it ends up being more subjective than that. An example is probably the best way to illustrate:

This whole discussion started from the premise that people who are not recent creationists ought not to be members of the SDA church. The implication varied as to whether they should be booted out or just leave of their own accord, but the message was very clear that they shouldn't be members.

There are many such people in the church (there is a wide range of views on origins within the church). So if the membership policy was as some folk here deem is should be (which, incidentally, it arguably is not according to the Church Manual but which Ted WIlson seems to be pushing hard toward) the denomination would have many fewer members, particularly in the developed world.

Now here's where the subjective part comes in. To me, that would be a tragedy, and would impede the gospel. Saved, committed Christian believers who are sincerely seeking God's face and have the Holy Spirit acting in their lives would be pushed out of the church. Some might find homes in other Christian churches, others might be hurt enough to lose their faith entirely, or to become solo worshippers rather join any congregation.

To others, though, they're just infidels and no loss: they ought to just buckle under and believe what the church tells them to believe. (Never mind that that contradicts the whole anti-authoritarian and anti-tradition roots of the Advent movement.)

So if you're asking me, then yes, I think church membership - at least as some seek to apply it - is an impediment to the gospel. The origins issue is only one of a number of issues, that within living memory has included beards on men, for example, that is used to exclude people from the club. And when the club claims to represent Jesus, the implication that people have been rejected by Jesus on cultural matters is a very likely misconception to be fostered...

[John317]

I did answer that I did not see that Fundmental Beliefs as being about finding ways to exclude people. That seems to be a concept you've struggled to understand my perspective on, so let me clarify.

Yes, I saw that post and understood it perfectly. I agree with you that the Fundamental Beliefs don't try to find ways to exclude people. I agree with you and I didn't think you saw those Beliefs as a way to exclude people, either.

However, if you analyze the Beliefs closely, you will see that they do "exclude" people from membership who don't fit certain criteria or standards, which I think are reasonable and in line with Scripture and the Spirit of prophecy.

I showed that those Fundamental Beliefs do "exclude" people if we understand and put into practice what they are saying.

The church has a right and a duty to know who is being accepted into membership in the church. Christ gave that power and authority to the church. See Matt. 18: 15-20; 16: 19; Acts 15; 1 Cor. 5; Eph. 2, 3, 4, 5; Phil. 3; 1 & 2 Timothy; Titus; Rev. 1 to 3; 12, 14.

But as I mention below, the exclusion is NOT the kind that prevents anyone from participation in prayer, worship, and study. I think most Adventist congregations regularly invite non-members to take active parts in the church. I don't know about how it's like in other parts of the world, but that is the practice here in SE California.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

You asked whether 'excluding' referred to fellowship or membership. I later clarified that I don't believe membership is a Biblical concept. Implicitly, that means the distinction you draw is not one that is useful.

Yes, I think I understand your viewpoint on this, but it's also important to understand the distinction the church makes and why it makes it. This distinction, from the viewpoint of the church, means that anyone is free to worship, fellowship, study and pray at any SDA church he may choose to attend. I don't see how membership per se excludes people from coming to church and worshipping, etc.

How is the concept of "church membership" (as SDAs practice it) something that is opposed to the Bible's teachings? Do you oppose it simply because there's no evidence the NT has "memberships"? Or do you oppose it because you see something in it that is clearly contradicted by the Bible?

Also, what reason do you have to believe church membership has a negative influence on the spreading of the gospel? Is it because of your study of the Bible or because of your experiences with people either in the church or who want to be in it and are discouraged by church membership?

NOTE: I wrote this yesterday but just found it hidden and waiting on my computer this morning, which explains why it is appearing kind of late and out of place. So if you don't want to respond to it, I will completely understand. lol But actually there are still a few of the questions that I am interested in having answered-- such as the very last question.

[Woody]

The problem with membership is that it is legalistic.

And it is not consistently legalistic in a uniform way.

Each board decides in it's own way ... and it's own inconsistent way ... which sins are to be enforced as reasons for disfellowship.

ANY of us could qualify for disfellowship within the rules of the Church Manual. And depending upon the individual church board ... you could be required to answer for your sins. With disfellowship the punishment.

[olger]

If I had a quarter for every time Redwood tosses the word legalism...

Boy Oh boy.

[Woody]

Yes. Our prophet told us that during the end times ... that it would be very prevalent. And her words have come true.

[Woody]

Quote:

"All legalism, all the sorrow and woe by which you may encompass yourself, will not give you one moment of relief. You cannot rightly estimate sin. You must accept God's estimate, and it is heavy indeed. If you bore the guilt of your sin, it would crush you; but the sinless One has taken your place, and, though, undeserving, he has borne your guilt. By accepting the provision God has made, you may stand free before God in the merit and virtue of your Substitute." Ellen White in ST 4-9-1894

[Neil D]

The problem with membership is that it is legalistic.

And it is not consistently legalistic in a uniform way.

[Woody]

Yes. That would be correct Neil.

[Woody]

It's the keeping of the membership (as if it was needed) that is what becomes the problem. This is why I've stated that if everyone who wants to be a member ... can be a member .... then I would have no problem with "membership".

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Quote:Gerry

No membership means also no leadership, no organization, and NO EXISTENCE!

Quote:Woddy

Repeating error Gerry ... doesn't make it truth. There are many nondenominational churches that do not have membership. Yet, they have a good organization and leadership. In fact ... they are much larger 'organizations than the majority of most SDA churches.

But as I have stated ... if you must insist on members ... just lower the standard so that anyone who wants to put their name on the membership list can do so. Then ... there you have your members. And the leaders and organization can still exist in your eyes.

Quote: Gerry

Would you name ONE organization that has NO membership?

Quote: Gerry

Still waiting.

[Gerr]

It's the keeping of the membership (as if it was needed) that is what becomes the problem. This is why I've stated that if everyone who wants to be a member ... can be a member .... then I would have no problem with "membership".

And just what is the problem? There are many churches who are loathe to "clean up the books". They have names there whose persons have not been through the church doors in 5,10, or maybe even 15 years, and you're telling me there's a problem?

Why don't you produce the evidence for the "problem?"

[Woody]

The problem is the disfellowshipping (judging) of people for a perceived sin in their life. One particular Church Board decides that this perceived 'sin' is one they don't want to tolerate. And they recommend disfellowship. It's all based on the idea that we are saved by the lack of sin in our lives. And the church has to decide which members have sin. Most any sin can qualify if so desired. For it might reflect badly on the other members (the church) who think they are without sin.

[olger]

Have you been disfellowshipped in the past, Redwood?

[Woody]

Have you been disfellowshipped in the past, Redwood?

Olger ... I am not the subject of this thread. But I've never been disfellowshipped. I've been a member for 40 years since I was 13. I am now 53.

And no ... I've never had a friend ... nor a relative who has been disfellowshipped.

Yes, I know how your mind works ... so I thought I would nip it in the bud.

Woody ... Redwood to you. :)

[Woody]

I do belive this:

Quote:

"All legalism, all the sorrow and woe by which you may encompass yourself, will not give you one moment of relief. You cannot rightly estimate sin. You must accept God's estimate, and it is heavy indeed. If you bore the guilt of your sin, it would crush you; but the sinless One has taken your place, and, though, undeserving, he has borne your guilt. By accepting the provision God has made, you may stand free before God in the merit and virtue of your Substitute." Ellen White in ST 4-9-1894

Do you?

[Twilight]

If I had a quarter for every time Redwood tosses the word legalism...

Boy Oh boy.

Indeed.

[Neil D]

And just what is the problem? There are many churches who are loathe to "clean up the books". They have names there whose persons have not been through the church doors in 5,10, or maybe even 15 years, and you're telling me there's a problem?

Why don't you produce the evidence for the "problem?"

Um...Gerry, ...um...there is evidence in your above post of problems....Ummm, let me be a bit more specific....

"persons have not been thru the church door in 5, 10, 15 years"

That's the problem....

I question intent...what is the intent of membership? Perhaps thats another thread..

but for me, intent of membership is to be as a member of the body...all members are indispensable when it comes to the body...to lose a member of your body is something grievious...It hurts the body. Members knowingly and unknowningly minister to each other.

This illustration is true for the church as well...

Membership is not JUST belonging to a club....Membership entails more than being....it is active, and ministers and creates fellowship and builds up people...It's purpose is to help the individual become more than just an individual in the building up of character....

And perhaps I am misunderstanding the wording of your post...