What is the purpose of church membership?

[LynnDel]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

To view an "associate membership" as any kind of "demotion" would be wrong, in my opinion.

I'm sure that would not be the intent, but in actuality, if a person, say for infidelity, was moved from being a member in regular standing to associate status, how else would it be viewed?

[Gregory Matthews]

On rare occasions, I have had   people come to me and ask to be baptized but none of them wanted to join, or even attend, a SDA church.   In all of those cases I have discussed with them what they wanted and why.  In every case I have declined to baptize them.  My reason for such, as I explained to them was based upon the Biblical injunction for Christians to associate together in worship on a regular basis.  I then encouraged them to search out a congregation (and denomination) that they wanted to worship with on a regular basis, ask that pastor to baptize them and to  join that congregation (denomination).

However, such just might not work in the society in which we live today.  The last time I witnessed a person being baptized by a SDA pastor, that person did not want to join the SDA denomination.  However, that person attended every week and participated, regularly, in the activities of that SDA congregation.

In addition, there are actual situations where it is not possible for a person who wants to realistically attend and/or participate in the congregation.  Such may include:

*  People who are serving time in prison.

*  U. S. military who are serving overseas and realistically cannot attend a SDA church in that area.  NOTE:  I have baptized such.  But, I was able to arrange for the person to join a congregation in that country.  In one case it was South Korea.

*  Hospital chaplains who are not able to associate with a local congregation.

All of the above are real situations that SDA clergy may face today.   People who are knowledgeable of SDA policy might point out that the SDA denomination has two (2) different policies that are supposed to cover such cases.  Each policy would allow baptism and provide for formal membership in the denomination and in a formal congregation.

Well folks, regardless of such policy, in the times in which we now live, such does not always work.

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

To have an "associate membership" would seem to be a wrong way to fix what seems
to be a problem. You should be fully engaged in the church or not be a member.
Too many people who are already members of the church seem to have a de facto
"associate membership". They attend church, but have no real part of the
church's mission. But why legitimatize it?

[debbym]

remember the story of Achan.  when Israel went to battle, it was very important for all those within the boundary of  being counted a part of Israel to be faithful to the Lords commands.  if someone was not a serving member of the military action and they were unfaithful, it would not have caused the loss of all those lives.

Also when King Saul was in disregarded of the word of God, and saved the king for public hanging and the animals for sacrifice when he went  into battle it cost him the kingship, although not immediately.  Yes that was just a symptom of the condition of His heart, and it was the ongoing problem of putting himself above the word of the Lord that was the problem.  But none the less it was made known and was the reference point in time for His change of status, it was the death knell.

so when a group of members are united to the Lord deeply, and  sin is recognized and put away by the group there are blessings on the group, as a group.  Just as when in an individuals life, they faithfully put away sin as it is made known to them by the Holy Spirit they experience an increasing measure and blessing of God's will in their life.

I see this as why we have members, recognized as persons who are committed to the will of God in their lives.  Their are corporate blessings God designs to give.  And when a group of dedicated and serving individuals who love the Lord and love on another, needs are met individuals grow and are spiritually nurtured instead of being torn by wolves.

This is God's ideal for us in groups.  Unfortunately  we do fail as individuals and we fail as groups, and we forfeit many blessings, which are actually empowerment's, to fulfill even more of the the beautiful will of God fully in our lives.

In short we compete.  The 12 disciples competed and lost so much.  When the competing stopped as they prepared for Pentecost, and an incredible blessing was poured out.  when a group is united in surrender to the Holy Spirit God shows his signal blessings.  When we show the kindness and patience forbearance nurturing, and mercy... towards every failing one, and towards every failure of our own, then we have stepped out of the way for God to work in the group and in ourselves.  We tend to think we need to strong arm the failing one(s) and even ourselves.  we grow together.

So when we reject one another and judge one another, and do not show the incredible warmth and love of God towards each failing we lose incredible blessings and are crippling the church.  We should not be axing anyone without much labor, just as we should not be losing our membership every other day and then rejoining with each victory.  Jesus demonstrated His great love and patience and forbearance towards the 12, especially to the one who hung himself.  and this was a great blessing to the other's to see how God  loves and deals with the failing.

[Dr. Shane]

I believe part of church membership is submitting one's self to church authority.  This takes humility.  The apostles teach us that we are to submit ourselves to the authorities and part of that includes the church authority.  I know that if very distasteful especially because church authority is composed of sinful humans that don't always get things right.  Nonetheless, just as a slave is to submit to his or her master (even though it is an unjust system that allows slavery to exist) so it is that we, as brothers and sisters in Christ, are to submit ourselves to church authority. 

[pierrepaul]

Fascinating discussion. I was not aware that official membership was not required for office holding (I haven't read the Church Manual on this point in ages). Our congregation would not even appoint a SdA member to organise potluck dinners until her membership had been formerly transferred from her former congregation. A number of years ago we did appoint a pathfinder leader from another congregation as there were no qualified members in our own congregation.

For those who have no desire to involve themselves in church politics or those who belong to a congregation where the church politics are divisive and un-Christian, membership in a particular congregation or even in the SdA church as a whole, is rather irrelevant.

If we are to believe the New Testament, baptism is associated with the receiving of the Holy Spirit, but is not biblically associated with church membership in a political sense.

As mentioned by others, membership is necessary for the organisation and governance of the not-for-profit corporation under which the church is legally organised. The Roman Catholics in my province avoid this issue by making the Archbishop the sole member of the corporation under which the Archdiocese is organised - and canon law (not enforceable in the secular courts) governs the appointments of bishops and archbishops.

It seems logical (to me) for baptism to be a condition of political membership as baptism was the symbol in the New Testament of joining the church, but I could see exceptions where one ought to baptise without adding the person to a membership role.

In my old congregation, we mooted the idea of permitting non-baptised "members" to participate in certain capacities. It was mostly focused on children of members, to allow them to participate without putting pressure on the young people to get baptised for political purposes. For example, at our last Pathfinder day, two young SdA-from-birth unbaptised Pathfinders preached. But in my old congregation things were a little more formal. We once wanted a young SdA-from-birth unbaptised man to assist with the Sabbath school. The prevalent opinion in the nominating committee (not shared by myself) was that the young man should be nominated, pending baptism, and that the pastor should propose baptism to the young man. The pastor (correctly IMHO) was not comfortable proposing baptism to an individual just so that he could serve on the church organisational chart. We ended up nominating someone else for the position.

I liked this pastor. He never looked to "pad his stats" by prematurely baptising children; and he resisted letting visiting evangelists round up the SdA kids for baptism to pad the "crusade" baptism stats. Conference administrators didn't like him as much.

[debbym]

On 5/8/2017 at 10:12 AM, Shane said:

I believe part of church membership is submitting one's self to church authority.  This takes humility.  The apostles teach us that we are to submit ourselves to the authorities and part of that includes the church authority.  I know that if very distasteful especially because church authority is composed of sinful humans that don't always get things right.  Nonetheless, just as a slave is to submit to his or her master (even though it is an unjust system that allows slavery to exist) so it is that we, as brothers and sisters in Christ, are to submit ourselves to church authority. 

I view the obedience of slaves as lining up with carrying the roman soldiers load another mile, and giving your enemy food if he is hungry and drink if he is thirsty.  It says in Hebrews 12, as far as possible live at peace with all men.  The church is not the place where we are to be under someones foot.

Jesus gave this discourse because the disciples were competing for the highest place.  this deep competition is of the animal nature. Watch chickens establish their pecking order.  In the dog pack the alpha is established.

Jesus said, "My burden is easy my yoke is light."  we do not have to strive with men, we are not out seeking the compliance of others.

English Standard Version Matt. 20:25, 26
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.  It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,

Berean study Bible Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them aside and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be this way among you.Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave—…

Matthew 23:11
The greatest among you shall be your servant.

Mark 9:35
Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the last of all and the servant of all."

Mark 10:43
But it shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant,

Luke 22:26
But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves.

[CoAspen]

If I were passing by...and I saw the comments...I would be inclined to think that church membership is for belonging to a club with few bene's, but for some/alot, satisfying. However, it seems to me to be less and less important. You can attend and join in, give money, speak up, etc, but not hold an office in the .org. Works for me!!!

[phkrause]

15 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

This has never worked very well. and there is no call in scripture that Christians are to be doormats and 'submit" to everyone in the church who considers themselves an 'authority."

I don't believe that's what Shane is saying!

[phkrause]

12 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

- Shane said: Nonetheless, just as a slave is to submit to his or her master (even though it is an unjust system that allows slavery to exist) so it is that we, as brothers and sisters in Christ, are to submit ourselves to church authority. 

You got me!! lol I guess I didn't really say that the way I wanted it to come out!! So at this point, reading my comment over a few times, I'm not sure how to say what I meant. I guess I'll let Shane reply to your comment.

[JoeMo]

I was baptized as an SDA in 1977. In a certain sense, I will always be an SDA.  That being said, if I were ever disfellowshipped for some reason, I would still attend an SDA church.  The membership is irrelevant to me.  That being said, I have no problem attending other churches.  I attend Charismatic churches when I feel like in need a Holy Spirit refill.  I attend Catholic Churches when I'm with my predominantly Catholic families.  I know certain priests as friends rather than clergy. I attend by daughter's non-denominational (basically Baptist) church where her husband is the pastor.  Outside of the fact that we meet on Saturday morning and the vegetarian breakfast we serve, one would never know they were in an SDA Church if they were to visit.  We meet at the Comedy Club in Denver ( "a funny place to go to church"), there is no mention of EGW, and no offering pleas (yet we are well funded by people who attend).  Visitors don't even know who the pastor is because our attitude is that we are all pastors. It's probably also that we don't have an assigned pastor; but we do quite well just taking turns leading out in the message - one book of the Bible at a time.  It's great not to be forced into a box when worshiping Yahweh!

[pierrepaul]

23 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I was baptized as an SDA in 1977. In a certain sense, I will always be an SDA.  That being said, if I were ever disfellowshipped for some reason, I would still attend an SDA church.  The membership is irrelevant to me.

This is how I feel. The congregation we attend was a "company" for many years. We recently organised as a "church". Things are more formal now; office holders from Sabbath school teacher to assistant greeter are held by tithe-paying, baptised members of the local congregation. Now most of the sermons are delivered by professional clergymen. I personally preferred the days when we were a "company" and we didn't worry about all these formalities.

I was baptised as a teenager in the mid-80s. At the time I did sign on to the "27" as they were back in the 80s. Today I could not sign on to the 2015 version of the 28; I'm not sure I could even sign on to the 80s version of the 27. My personal habits are not in accordance with SdA dogma. I see no reason to resign my membership or resign my "offices", nor do I feel any need to discuss any of my doctrinal differences with church members. The internet has been a blessing for me as I've been able to discuss some of these issues in a semi-anonymous manner.

[JoeMo]

8 minutes ago, pierrepaul said:

I was baptised as a teenager in the mid-80s. At the time I did sign on to the "27" as they were back in the 80s. Today I could not sign on to the 2015 version of the 28; I'm not sure I could even sign on to the 80s version of the 27.

I honestly don't know many veteran SDA's that could honestly say they embrace the 28.  I don't have a problem with it - I certainly couldn't.  I don't have a problem with it - either in myself or in others.  I view it kinda like not all Catholics believe in the infallibility of the papacy or the church's stand on birth control.

Our church is still a company (if even that).  No offices; just a cooperative spirit of volunteerism to make sure everything runs smoothly.

[JoeMo]

A few years ago, I was attending Catholic Church with my mom.  I was sitting along the aisle.  The deaconess in charge asked me if I would bring the bread and wine up for the Offertory Prayer.  I informed her that I was not a Catholic.  She responded "So? are you a Christian?" I responded "Yes".  She said "Then you are welcome to bring the gifts to the altar to be offered to your God".  I was touched; and I did.

[Kevin H]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:46 PM, The Wanderer said:

At the risk of sounding a little too sour, I thought I would post from the other side of the fence this time. I like your question in the OP and it is a good one. As we see by the various answers there are quite a few view points on the purpose of church. I would go a step further, and say that a lot of people don't really know exactly why they go. To sound it out in detail, with "Bible reasoning" seems like a flower that has gone extinct.

I think that the stated purpose of church, in the Bible is quite different, in 95% of the cases where we compare what is written, with what is actually known and practiced by most.

To me, I often experience church as a community, and this is something everyone needs. God calls us/leads us to various communities of people in different churches, , sometimes with a lot of diversity; and we can have great  satisfaction in life knowing that we are following the lead of The Tender Shepherd.

In the book of Revelation, concerning "last day" events and situations, Jesus is portrayed as "walking amongst the seven lampstands," which are further drawn as "the church" in other textual samples.

I have had to come around to accept that not everyone wants to, or can, experience church the same way as me, but the purpose of church is something I think almost all are united in. Its purpose is God and community. Some would deny this by saying: "well we have the truth" and "we dont need any of their "falsehoods", we have the truth," or something like that. As soon as we do this, we lie, and deny the stated purpose of church by God Himself. And please note, some of the churches described by God in the Bible are very small groups meeting in private homes.

If I trust Gods purpose in every church i go to, no matter the denomination, or the diversity, it makes everything a lot less stressful.  I can walk into any church anywhere, and get something out of it. Its easy to sit around and complain about the negative experiences of the past, but when it comes to explaining what God is saying to me out of all these experiences; it is much harder. Because I am not listening for that.

One of the things that I love about Seventh-day Adventism is that we are a moderate church, where we can worship with high church people and low church people in ways that the people in the 2 churches would not be as comfortable. We can worship with those from more liberal (as long as it's not too liberal) and from more conservative (as long as it's not too conservative) in a way how people in those 2 churches would not be as comfortable. Also, in worshiping with Jews and Muslims. And also even somewhat Buddhists.

Mrs. White went from the shut door to a very inclusive ministry and had very busy weekends because she'd be with Seventh-day Adventists (or Seventh-day Baptists) on Sabbath then in Churches of other denominations on Sunday mornings where she was not preaching on the mark of the beast or the state of the dead, but how much Jesus loves them and maybe the health message.

One of the things that freaks me out about many so called Ex-Adventists is how they leave Adventism to a very narrow closed minded, extremely conservative church with a very ridged God who is only fussing over our legal status. They KNOW they are saved because they said the magic words about Jesus and are able to give a history lesson about what Jesus did. But in their assurance of salvation they end up excluding so many others.  And often you see that they came from an Adventist background where they were concerned about being the chosen few and bashed people over the head with Ellen White quotes. Now they have had a tremendous change in their lives because they know they are the chosen few and bash people over the head with quotes from Paul and Hebrews. Wow, what a huge difference....

[JoeMo]

9 hours ago, Kevin H said:

We can worship with those from more liberal (as long as it's not too liberal) and from more conservative (as long as it's not too conservative)

And who determines what is "too liberal" or "too conservative"?  That is a very subjective thing - something that a "club" - based on a human construct of what they think the Bible says - should not determine for everyone.  

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

And who determines what is "too liberal" or "too conservative"?  That is a very subjective thing - something that a "club" - based on a human construct of what they think the Bible says - should not determine for everyone.  

Actually JoeMo  it is very easy to determine who is "too liberal" and "too conservative" It's the others that are more subjective and difficult. the 'too liberal" are those who do not want us to talk about God and the Bible with any sort of credibility, and thus they would not welcome us. Likewise the 'too conservative" are those who are so enmeshed in their traditions that they don't want to hear anything new, they just interbred the thoughts and beliefs they already have and thus would not welcome us.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

Actually JoeMo  it is very easy to determine who is "too liberal" and "too conservative" It's the others that are more subjective and difficult. the 'too liberal" are those who do not want us to talk about God and the Bible with any sort of credibility, and thus they would not welcome us. Likewise the 'too conservative" are those who are so enmeshed in their traditions that they don't want to hear anything new, they just interbred the thoughts and beliefs they already have and thus would not welcome us.

That's fine, but it's still subjective. A congregation that I may consider too conservative many others could consider to be too liberal; and vice versa (although a much smaller chance of the latter occurring).  Also, some are "too liberal" on some things and "too conservative" on others.  In practice, those who are "too liberal" are those more liberal than me; and those who are "too conservative" are those more conservative than me.

I'm actually okay with the doctrine or philosophy of most believers - liberal or conservative. To me, the questios "How is your relationship with Jesus?" or "What has God done for you today?" are more important questions than "How do you feel about going to a restaurant on Sabbath?"; or "Do you REALLY believe those 4 Hail Mary's you just recited is adequate penance for the sins you just confessed to that priest?"

[JoeMo]

Good Question, Wanderer - no offense taken.

11 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

ave you thought how "subjective" your "more important questions" may sound to many?

Yes I have.  The proof of my personal subjectiveness is that my "theology" (if you want to call it that) has drifted over the years.  My personal convictions now are way different than they were 10 years ago.  I was a militantly "Taliban" Adventist until about 15 years ago - very conservative by all standards.  I now consider myself a "recovering legalist".  I am appalled at how exclusive, self-righteous, and judgmental I was then - I have repented greatly of those days.

[GayatfootofCross]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I agree. The Adventist Church is "moderate" enough to attract people from both ends of the spectrum, and that is precisely one of things that I also appreciate about it. It gets kind of tricky to deal with a small church where they are all or mostly oriented towards just one way.

YES IN SPADES ..oooh toot tootsie  welcome to my world

[debbym]

I was pretty limited in how i viewed the world and the church, the righteous and the unrighteous in my twenties.  My closeness to my church family was so precious to me, and was a commodity i could not find out there.  Then I lived through a baptism of distress and years of suffering to the point where I questioned my position as a child of God.  This was the crucible where i learned I was a member of the human race that was loved by God whether it was in the glory of the comforts of life or in the pits of human despair.  It was amazing to me that there was never a time when I was not above being tested and tempted to distrust God's love.

I still have limitations, and church as a body of people has limitations.  How we relate and live with those limitations as church members, present or former... seems to be much about where we find ourselves in relation to our involvement with Church membership.

I run into good strong members, staunch financial supporters of Church, needed and valued for their contributions, but personally cold as ice.  They see everything as it truly is, just ask them.  Then i meet warm friendly church members whose lives are series of unravelings, who are  holding onto the promises, though emotionally ravaged by wave after wave of uncertainties.  That these two groups tolerate each other... is impressive.  Then there is another group that have all the intricacies of faith and religion intellectually smoothed out ready to train anyone's mind, they are the technical religious geeks, and they are over there sometimes on the right sometimes on the left.  Among many other groups, young families, educators, medicals folks, poverty stricken, addicts, aged, there are those who are trying to feed the world, evangelize the world, change the world. I recognize some holding everyone's hand they are somewhere over on the left....

God alone could be in charge of His church.  At different stages of our lives church meets different needs.  It is one body of people through all the ages, they are the faithful.  And sometimes we are distant from church even when we are attending.  I believe sometimes we are very much the church when we are not present at church services week after week. My church family lives in me.  The church in history lives in me.  The bible characters of faith, failing at times, strong in faith at times, live in me.  There have been horrible times for the church, and few public glorious victorious rejoicing times, that portend a better day.  However the church appeared, it has always been divinely appointed and sustained, and preserved.

I am thankful for the light that has shined on my life through members of "the church".  I want to be that light for someone else.

[Dr. Shane]

On 5/10/2017 at 3:05 AM, The Wanderer said:

This kind of reasoning is quite Papal in its nature, (and I am not saying thats a bad thing in this case). but when i go to church, its because I surrender to Jesus, and I want to go where He goes, and He 'walketh amongst the seven golden lamp stands," . and "the seven golden lamp stands" are "the seven churches..."  and  I will  never give in to the "call" of some to submit myself to any person in the church. It is wrong to do so. Your use of the word "submit" is very wrong here, and when I go to church, when I do go, it only because I have received the call direct from God and because I am wanting to unite with Him, in His purpose for my life on whatever given day I am called to be in a church.

The Catholic church is a mixture of truth with error.  So it is a mistake to reject some belief or practice just because it is also found within Catholicism.  

The basic problem with humanity is selfishness.  All sin is somehow connected to our selfishness.  The way most of us break the First Commandment is be worshiping ourselves.

Submitting to an organized religious organization does not mean we become a door mat.  Although Jesus did talk about turning the other cheek, walking two miles instead of one and the Apostle Paul told us it is better to suffer a wrong than to take a brother to court.  Some people may consider doing such things being a door mat but when we get worried about being a door mat, who are we worried about?  Self.  When we place self on the pedestal it becomes our idol and those that offend us must be confronted and put in their place.  That is all a part of the religion of self.

Joining a religious body is similar to getting married.  If we will only marry the perfect match, we will probably never get married.  So we marry someone that is a lot like us.  Someone who is close enough for us to make a life with.  Then, once we get married, we honor them, commit to them, stay loyal, love them and forsake all others.  In just that way, we will never find a church that believes exactly like we do - and of course, the chances we are right about everything we believe isn't all that high since we are sinners ourselves and subject to being deceived.  We find a church that is close enough to what we believe that we can call it home, attend it, support it financially and serve it.  Then we join it and submit to it.  This is part of God's design for us while living in this sinful world.  The world is not perfect and nor is the church - nor our spouse.  But we are our greatest enemy.  The guy I really have to watch out for is looking at me every morning in the bathroom mirror.  When I make all the decisions in my life, self has become my idol.  Marriage and church membership are both means that God uses to help us get rid of self.

The question of why join a church goes hand and hand with why get married.  It is just a piece of paper.  Is it really important?

[LynnDel]

The purpose of "church" was originally for the assembling of ourselves together with fellow believers. Ideally, when you go to your church, you would feel like you are coming home, gathering with people who know you and care for you. I would guess that there is a percentage in every congregation who does not have that feeling of belonging. Some of them stick by because they were born to it or it is in their culture. Some eventually leave, sometimes because they have tried to offer to be part of the working body, but their talents are not desired. I think of one who was a musician at one church, who eventually left because his style of music was a bit too contemporary for the saints. I think of others who for one reason or another are made to feel invisible. A handshake and a "Happy Sabbath" at the door do not suffice.

One of the best "churches" I ever attended was in my own house. We called it a Bible Study, but it was a meal, singing, and Bible Study. A number of times over the years I heard my friends say, "This is my church." They went to church on Sabbath, but they felt loved at my house (unlike church at the time).

 

[Dr. Shane]

1 hour ago, LynnDel said:

I think of one who was a musician at one church, who eventually left because his style of music was a bit too contemporary for the saints. 

 

These types of folks need to be encouraged to plant their own church.  Our pastors (working for the conferences) need to do that type of encouraging.