Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
Centers of the battle
We know why God loves cities. We also know why God hated Sodom.
FULL STORY
Sunday showdown: Both parties look to sway fence-sitters for this weekend's healthcare vote
Abortion debate: Pro-lifers differ on abortion provisions found in the healthcare bill
Ken Blackwell praises Sen. Tom Coburn's warning to Democrats changing their nay votes on healthcare. 
Have a super Tuesday … even though there aren’t any presidential primaries today!
Today’s quote:
“Faith, without trouble or fighting, is a suspicious faith; for true faith is a fighting, wrestling faith.”
All original content Copyright © 2010 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top84 Comments to “Whirled Views 3.18”
Several years ago, Paul Harvey, Sponsored by Archer Daniels, started promoting ethinol for fuel. My reaction was, “Don’t use food for fuel.” I’ve always thought it was a dumb thing to do. But only due to a gut feeling that it was a bad choice.
In this week’s Human Events, there’s an article by Walter E. Williams that is enlightening. The article can also be found on Drudge, under Walter Williams. Among the highlights:
“Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. …”
“It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. … Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossel fuel-oil and natural gas-to produce one gallon of ethanol.”
“And it takes 1,700 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol”
“….then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff of 54 cents a gallon on ethanol from Brazil?”
“The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as a narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs.”
In other words, a few benefit, but everybody pays. Kinda like welfare.
One of the mandates of the Energy Policy Act (which produces no energy at all) calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline.
Coming to a pump near you, real soon.
Report comment to moderator
There were some articles on BBC last week, or maybe the week before, about some of the problems with using food crops for fuel. I’ll see if I can find links for them.
I used to favor things like biodiesel but am rethinking that idea now. If the bio-fuel is made from recycled products, like used fryer oil, that’s a good use for a waste product. But growing food crops for the purpose of making them into fuel has terrible consequences for some of the world’s poorest people.
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
Add to that, the fact that the MPG for Ethanol is much worse than gasoline, and you really have a good picture of how bad this idea is…
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/alternativefuels/articles/120863/article.html
I wonder if the Global Warming evangelists will ever realize that this alternative is not actually “green”?
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a link for articles related to biofuels from the BBC news archives, http://tiny.cc/XdqnT
The articles I was thinking of are the some of the ones dated February and March 2008.
Report comment to moderator
I know it seems more like a skit from Saturday Night Live or a future/past? Will Farrel film, but this one cracked me up!!
The WSJ online had a great piece about a young man who is the only guy on the Aquamaids synchronized swimming team.(”Deep End of the Gender War Ocean” or some such on the op-Ed pages). Synchronized swimming is the last final hold-out bastion of “No Boys Allowed” sexism in our fair Republic. Gals get to play football and even (!) wrestle with young men, but a dude can’t do synchro swimming?? Is there no justice left in the USA??
I hope you will share my outrage at this sinister and senseless barrier!! What are the chicks afraid of and why are they afraid of it??? I sense a Title IX violation.
What if there was a Title IX violation and no one cared???
Report comment to moderator
They showed a man on tv yesterday who uses used Chinese food cooking oil (his tank smells like Chinese food) for his car. This sounds like an acceptable recycled use, and it saves him $3,000 a year.
We had several people here who were adamantly against using corn because they said it would cause the price of food to go up. They were right.
Report comment to moderator
Acts 2:41: So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
What does that mean? My understanding is they joined the body of believers. Some in my church keep hinting I should join the local body as it meant they were joining their local body. Just wondering.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
Regardless of how one interprets the passage, I would always argue for local membership. If you’ve found a church that preaches and the teaches the whole counsel of God, whose leadership is sound and biblically based, etc., why would you not join?
Being Presbyterian, I am biased toward the scriptural call for oversight from your local leadership, though I know some here will disagree and cite abuse. The elders are there, however, to help shepherd the flock in good times and bad.
Is there an underlying reason why you are reluctant to join?
Report comment to moderator
MiM has an interesting link. You don’t have to read the entire thing, just results. The bottom line is that it cost $30.00 more to go from SD to Vegas & back using ethanol. The performance and emissions are a wash.
NJL, I met a man in Durham who used cooking oil from restaurants (any of them, but he doesn’t use fast food, says they overuse the oil.) in his diesel truck. It’s good if you can do it.
Mumsee: Cameron has a good point. If you don’t belong to a local congregation, you should. However, Acts 2:41 has nothing to do with that. A church is a fellowship of believers. We, each of us who trust Christ for our salvation, belong to the same church. However, we choose to worship at different congregations. Your friends should use Hebrews 10:25 rather than Acts 2. You need to be with a fellowship of like minded believers. See you in a Baptist Church Sunday.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
Basically, I believe I already did join. I am active in the church, attend regularly, expect my sisters and brothers and elders to hold me accountable, attempt to hold them accountable. I try to use my gifts wherever they are needed. All they need is somebody to vote on issues that I don’t care one way or the other on and prefer to leave such voting to those interested. I really do not care what color the chairs are.
It seems like church membership is like a safety rail on a road. Our road to church for example is a dirt/gravel road of several miles with an abrupt drop off up to a thousand feet. Sometimes people say, “You need a guard rail here so people won’t fall off.” Most people don’t fall off because they are attentive, we fear if they attempted to add one, not only would the road workers be in danger, but other people would let up on their personal responsibility to be aware. It would also push the snow load onto the road as the plows would be prevented from pushing it off but that is a side issue.
My thought is, I have seen many members leave churches when they got their feelings hurt or whatever so how is that different? Isn’t the idea to be committed to the body of believers so God can put you to the best use? If some want to be members, fine, if not, fine. I don’t see this verse specifically saying you must join but I see my church includes it in the info on baptism as the next step for an obedient christian and my kids are looking at baptism so I thought I would ask here.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know Mumsee . . . “three thousand souls” . . . sounds like a dreaded megachurch to me . . .
Report comment to moderator
Chas,
Our church used to be a Baptist church, does that count? Now it is a member of IFC something or other. I think Hebrews 10:25 guides us pretty closely as to our habit with our local body.
Actually, hubby decided to go ahead and join a couple years ago, so he could help mold the church direction. He also fixes the men’ prayer breakfast and Easter breakfast and the ladies whatever they are doing this time breakfast (maybe I should be a member so I would feel more obligated to get a babysitter for my children who cannot be left alone so I can sit through yet another interminable women’s meeting…)
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
Church members shouldn’t leave over hurt feelings–they/we have taken vows that say otherwise when we joined. It grieves me to see that happen.
While you may feel accountable, if there isn’t a formal membership, it isn’t very enforceable.
I’m not sure I followed your analogy about the guard rail–how would membership lead to one becoming careless/less aware with personal responsibility?
Without being sure of your denomination, it’s hard to go much deeper.
I would also be cautious of baptizing your children in a church you don’t personally want to join.
I’m sorry I haven’t been more helpful.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry—I wrote before seeing your clarification on denomination.
Report comment to moderator
Adios,
I sent an inquiry to a megachurch not too long ago, through several venues, never did get an answer. Are you sure they exist?
Report comment to moderator
Ethanol / biofuels: I think the “green fuel fad” is a lot like the trend in the 70s when Detroit had to catch up to the foreign automakers (primarily the Japanese invasion) because the latter got better fuel mileage. So we got some of the worst examples of American engineering, such as the Ford Pinto and Chevy Vega, cars that got better fuel mileage, but were unsafe and handled terribly. In a few years, we will come to our senses and find better ways to run our cars, or at least develop the ones we have, like hydrogen or electric / hybrid.
Also, making diesel from used cooking oil is a great re-use of a waste product. There is a fellow that does that around here, and it is pleasant (but fattening) to get behind his car when he gets the oil from the donut shop. I read in the 70s of a chicken farmer in the UK that used manure to run his vehicles. Phew! I would not want to get stuck behind him in a traffic jam!
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
I have never formally joined a church but I have been faithful to whichever one I attended. Church membership is not mandatory in our church so baptizing them there does not mean they have to join. They couldn’t until they were sixteen anyway.
My guardrail analogy is that it is a false reassurance. What can they do to a member that they can’t do to an informal member? My thought is, if they see me in error, they bring it to my attention and help me resolve it, doesn’t matter if I am a member or not. They are all my brothers and sisters and should feel free to speak up. Either I accept it or drop out as so many have done in various churches throughout the world.
In any church I have been in, there has never been a problem with me serving so I don’t get the difference. Is there some actual gain to the church if I were to join? Would they see me in a different light?
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
I’m sure they exist because they get railed on quite often on this blog just for size.
But about membership, I have never understood the joining a church and becoming a member like you do a club idea. I became a Christian in 1974, I was baptized in 1980, I have never joined a church formally. Not sure why I should. In my first run through of the NT it seemed to me that I had become a member of the body of Christ at salvation with “all who can upon the name of the Lord Jesus, both theirs and ours.” I have attended only two churches in that time, both would have considered me a regular attendee not only on Sunday, but at Bible studies, prayer meetings, etc. Our present church does not even sign up members in the formal way.
Report comment to moderator
Adios,
Understandable. The scripture tells us that wherever two or more up to (I cannot remember the exact figure) are gathered in my name…so if they exceed that number.. I guess they went out from us because they were never of us.
Not really people! Just letting my fingers run wild on the keys! All who believe and confess will be saved, even if they are in a large church body. He is no respecter of persons or churches I suppose.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee – I think it’s an accountability issue. If you’re going to be in a position of leadership of any kind like leading Bible studies or teaching Sunday school, even to children, you should become an official member of your local body.
Understand that in doing so, you may also be signing up for membership in a denomination as well.
Being a military nomad, I have been in many churches and chapels. Although I have joined the denomination in which my husband was raised, I still consider myself a Christian first and a member of that denomination second.
In fact my family went on a 10 year hiatus from that local body because of a scandal involving the associate pastor that we felt was not handled in a Biblical manner. Our departure was 2 years in the making because we tried to be about the ministry of reconciliation in our local body as lay members, but it just wasn’t happening.
We left and went back to the chapel until budget cuts made the liturgical service we attended go away. Then my family tried other liturgigal churches in our area withoiut a good fit.
Meanwhile, I joined a Bible church without my family and became an official member, even though I did not agree with every single doctrine. I was leading Bible studies, so I felt the need to place myself under the headship of a pastor and accountability to the elders.
After 10 years, the senior pastor retired from the original church we left. My husband and I have begun attending that church again since Jan. The interim pastor is making noises about us attending adult catechism and becoming menbers. My husband still considers himself a member. I have been to catechism 3 times – once for myself and twice with my children. I think I have had enough indoctrination. The issue is still up in the air.
In the meantime, we attend, but are not official members. Neither one of us is particularly interested in jumping through hoops to become members, but I still consider myself to be a member of the body of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
About people leaving churches because they “get their feelings hurt:” I believe it’s a lot ddeeper than that. In the past I have been active in 3 churches. I was instrumental in forming prayer ministries, I led Bible study groups, I visited the sick, I did whatever needed to be done from cleaning the pews to preparing the fellowship coffee. The first and third memberships ended the same way: I became very ill and no one cared. No calls, no notes, no visits. I left the second church because they had become politically motivated, rather than Biblically motivated. Again, no one cared that this deeply involved member had left.
So now, I do not belong to a local church. I keep telling myself the “right church” is out there waiting for me [here in SoCal we have a large variety to choose from], but I shy away. Why set myself up for more pain? I believe God has work for me, but I don’t see a real need to join a group of people who will probably turn out to be just as self-centered as the past ones.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, we all admit there is no scriptural injunction to be on the rolls of any church. Only that we fellowship with fellow believers. Church membership was, in the past and occasionally used today, used as a form of church discipline. The only action a church can take against a member is to break fellowship. However, almost every organization has a membership roll of some sort. The Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship group I attended (before and after I became a Baptist) had no formal roll, but we knew each other. There was no denominational difference in our meetings. We had one Roman Catholic guy who met with us.
Though not scripturally required, I think it’s good to belong to a local church. (We Baptists are big on the LOCAL church.)
Report comment to moderator
Klasko,
How does becoming a “member” make one more accountable? I teach Bible studies to three different denominations–one of which is completely aware of my doctrinal differences with their denomination–but accountability is held in relationship not on paper.
Kayvee,
Let me try and say this as politely and respectfully as I can, work for Jesus, not so that people will care. It saves us from a world of disappointment. Sometimes we don’t realize what we pray when we say, “Make me more like Jesus.” In the hour of his worst suffering the Bibles said all deserted him. “Make me more like Jesus?” It also says he more the sorrows of many. And who among us is not self-centered? “Make me more like Jesus.!”
Report comment to moderator
Chas (et al) – Don’t you think that the NT discussions & descriptions of churches (especially Paul’s letters) give credence to the Biblical direction for churches to be somewhat formal organizations to which members are accountable?
Report comment to moderator
Kayvee,
I certainly understand that there are much deeper reasons for leaving a church and fully concur that there may come a time to do just that, merely commenting on how lightly some people can take “membership”.
Other interested parties,
All of us can come up with stories of how membership was misused in some case but I am not talking about that, just looking for what possible benefit there could be in joining that is more than actively being a part of the church. Does the church gain somehow? Does the individual gain? If there is no scriptural reason and no real benefit to church or individual, then I am left with what is always a “problem” whenever two or more are gathered. Teaching the children to take what they hear at church and compare it with Scripture, pray about it, seek the counsel of wise ones, and make their own decision. Not such a bad problem after all.
Our church has exercised church discipline in the past and I would not hesitate to agree that I could fall under that if the need arose. I would expect them to follow up.
Report comment to moderator
Adios – you say “work for Jesus, not so that people will care.” I always have worked for Jesus, and I will always do so. But in the past I have done so in the framework of a local church. I can no longer do that, because I am a frail human and need to believe that others care about me as a person. I’m not referring to having people appreciate whatever work I may do, but as a living, breathing person who needs fellowship as much as the next person. If there is no need for fellowship, why gather together?
Jesus has greatly rewarded me in more ways than I can list, but even if I never had any good in this life, I know the next life will be with Him. Meanwhile, though, I cannot help but notice that many church members [and pastors] are more interested in gathering up new members than they are in tending to the flock they already have. Why do they think that strangers in the street are more in need of their fellowship and care than those at home? As an example: one of my former churches runs a shelter for the homeless every winter. A wonderful thing to do, of course. But the pastor never has time to call on members who have lost their jobs. Shouldn’t that have been of concern to him before they join the ranks of the homeless?
Report comment to moderator
I suppose, Adios that it makes no difference since every local body and denomination has their own rules governing such things. But to me, it was a matter of conscience. To another, it may make no difference. I chose membership in order to make myself accountable to the leaders of the local body I attended. I was in a leadership position, and I felt that as such, I should be accountable and also set an example. I try to lead by example. If I were not in leadership, I don’t suppose it would be a big issue. This just happens to be the place I am in my spiritual walk. I believe leaders need accountability. I am trying to be faithful in what little is entrusted to me.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
I’ve heard arguments that the New Testament pattern presumed an official membership–people were added to the number, or they were excommunicated from the church, for instance. What does excommunication mean if you aren’t even a member? (Do they tell you, “You’re not allowed to come anymore?” Removing someone from membership is enforceable–and stark–but telling a person he can’t come anymore can’t really be enforced.) You are indeed formally coming under the church’s authority by joining. Most churches (the ones I know anyway) want your testimony and such when you join, but aren’t likely to receive it if you don’t. When a church member is in sin, it’s clearer that there is “sin in the camp” than with a person who only attends, but has made no official commitment. I don’t think it’s a life-or-death issue, but I do think it’s important.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
What does excommunication mean if you are a member? Isn’t it telling the member he can no longer participate? It is certainly not kicking him out of God’s family (for any lurkers who might be misunderstanding, that is for God to decide). How does that have more clout than for a regular attender/worker?
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
This may not translate well to Baptist/nondenom churches, but here’s an example of why membership matters and/or excommunication is different for a member. In many denominations, when a believer joins a new church, a letter of membership is requested from the prior church that also establishes you as a member in good standing. It can and should serve as a check and balance/alert system for both churches.
Remember, excommunication is a last resort after attempts at reconciliation (the scriptural goal) fail. The second church shouldn’t end up with a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Report comment to moderator
Conversation with a Liberal
About noon today I had a shouting match with a neighbor out on the street.
I often walk past her house when I walk through the neighborhood. If she’s in her yard, I stop and say hi, and if she’s not in her yard but I haven’t seen her for a while, I knock and she invites me in. She’s an atheist and a radical liberal; she’ll spout anti-Christian and anti-Bush rhetoric all day long, but the moment I say something with which she disagrees, she changes the subject.
Today she came walking down the street, and as she got in front of my house she looked toward it, probably wondering if I’d come out. So I went out, in shirt sleeves, to say hi. (It’s warm enough for shirt sleeves but with a vicious wind, so it’s not actually shirt-sleeve weather.) Well, I told her I’m right in the middle of tons of things (and told her what they were–I’d been online attempting to land a writing assignment) but wanted to say hi since I never seem to see her at home anymore.
She then told me she’s trying to figure out whether she’ll get a tax “rebate” of $300 or $600. I expressed surprise that she might be getting one at all, since my understanding is that one had to be working to get one. She’s in her seventies, on social security. Well, usually I’m careful not to cross political swords with her, and I wasn’t intending to do so now. She told me that she has a neighbor who’s on social security too, but she really needs the rebate money and thus she “deserves” it. I told her yes, she may need it, but the point of a “rebate” is returning money paid. So she then started yelling that I don’t care about the poor. I told her that I’m probably going to have to borrow from my home-equity line to pay taxes, and I don’t think it’s fair to make me borrow money so that the government can take my money and give it to someone else–that it really isn’t a matter of whether someone needs money, but that the government shouldn’t be giving out money to people. I told her that if I had the extra money and could give it myself, willingly, I’m in favor of that, but I’m not in favor of the government charging so much in taxes that I have to borrow, in order that they can take from me money that I cannot afford to give, and giving it to someone else.
She was sputtering by then, and yelling and gesturing, and she told me that she and I are both stubborn, but at least she’s open-minded and I’m not, and I should “study the issues” and that would make me change my mind. (She even “assigned” me to write an essay on the topic!) And all this time I was trying to just politely wrap up the conversation and go back inside and get warm!
Anyway, obviously I have studied the issues, probably more than she has, and am more “open minded” than she is. (She all but spits when she mentions George Bush’s name. If he did something, it’s wrong–period. I agreed with her today that some decision he made was wrong, but that wasn’t enough to be “open-minded.”) She started mocking me that I said I might have to borrow for taxes, and telling me I should get a different job if I can’t earn enough to support myself. I told her then that I have been supporting myself and have no debt except a mortgage, but I’ve had a low-income month and might have to borrow for taxes–but that I shouldn’t have to support other people too, that the purpose of taxes shouldn’t be forcing me to do charity I cannot afford. She started mocking again and again said go get a different job if I’m not making enough. So very carefully I told her, “I already told you that when I saw you out here, I was on the computer giving a company my resume for a writing assignment. I had a low month, and I am trying to get work.” At that, she shut up and stopped mocking.
It was the weirdest thing. She has sympathy with her neighbor who has high medical costs and “needs government help” but not for someone having to borrow to pay taxes because taxes are too high. In other words, medical care and other expenses can’t be higher than a person can afford, but taxes can be. If I don’t earn enough to pay taxes to help someone else, I need to earn more rather than that person earning some money herself or getting help from someone else. I can speak calmly about politics, and be polite when disagreeing with her position, but she cannot do the same for me. She’s so certain I’m wrong, and heartless in my wrongness, that I become the enemy. It simply cannot go anywhere. I kept touching her arm and otherwise trying to return to the level of friendly neighbors rather than one neighbor yelling at another for not caring about the poor, to no avail. I finally broke it off by hugging myself and telling her I had to go in to get warm; I think she was still angry, but I can hardly turn around and agree with her that the government should charge me enough for taxes that I have to borrow, as long as her neighbor never has to borrow for her own life expenses.
She really thought I was unqualified to discuss the issue, because there was no possible “other side.” The idea that I should only be responsible for my own expenses, and then voluntarily pass on any surplus simply didn’t compute with her.
What do you think? Should I write the assigned essay?
I’d focus on a list of what the Bible says about finances (work and support your own family, save for the future, care for widows and orphans, etc.) and point out that she can voluntarily give her neighbor $100, but I shouldn’t steal the $100 from her for myself or to give it to her neighbor–and that the government also shouldn’t take her money by force to give it to her neighbor. And that certainly it’s wrong to make her borrow the $100 to give it to her neighbor–her neighbor should work for the money herself, borrow it herself, or let someone give it to her voluntarily.
Report comment to moderator
Technically, excommunication means to exclude from communion. The Lord’s table, and also from fellowship.
Some denominations observe closed communion – they don’t commune with non-members, so to cut a person off from communtion effectively disfellowships that person.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
I could definitely see that, it has always been a point of sadness to me that church discipline does not work very well when the member just shows up at the church down the street. I can see how our denominational mindset fails us there, there is no checking with the other churches in the area unless it is the same denomination. This is one arguement that makes sense, now that you bring it up. But again, it is only limited in the working out and hopefully a most rare case.
I really am not trying to be difficult and I know we have discussed church membership in the past, just trying to look out for the little ones and not add to the confusion in their already way overconfused lives.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
Just a few last questions, then:
What does your husband think about whether you join?
Will your membership lend clarity and stability to the little ones?
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
My understanding with excommunication of members is that it’s saying, “You’re no longer one of us.” That assumes there’s an actual “list” that you are or are not part of. (It’s the difference between allowing neighbor kids to live with you and adopting them, perhaps–you love them either way, but adoption is more official. The kids belong to you.)
Here’s one difference, it seems to me: when people only attend, you welcome them and greet them, but they haven’t come in front of the church for official welcome and inclusion. In the last couple years, some “odd” people have passed through our church’s pews. Some of them were almost certainly involved with substantial levels of sin, based on things they said. They probably are not believers, and thus church discipline isn’t appropriate. But what if they ARE believers? We can get to know them as individuals–that is, I can get to know “Mary” and someone else can get to know her as well–but the church doesn’t know them as a church family. There’s never any official accounting of “you are one of us.” There is also no way of saying, “You cannot join this family while you are still clinging to this sin,” either. We’ve had people in our midst who are living together without marriage, for instance–even without membership, that could be a church discipline issue, but so far it has been treated as a “baby Christian” issue that elders have addressed one on one in showing what the Bible says. But clearly, if such a person were to say, “I’m ready to join,” that’s an appropriate time and place to draw the line in the sand and say, “No. You must repent of this sin first.” To me that is one reason to encourage membership, so that people want to be members. And unbelievers and believers living in sin, seeking to be more fully part of us, can see that there is something holding them back, some reason they cannot yet be part of us. If none of us are members, or few are, there’s no such dividing line.
Alternately, the elders could meet with someone who has come for some length of time and hasn’t joined, but church discipline is still that much harder, especially with a sin that was already present in his life when the person came among us. And if person A starts dabbling in drugs or sexual sin and you say, “Stop it,” and he says, “Well, that person has been doing it,” you CAN say, “That person has never submitted himself to our church’s authority. You have. That person isn’t really totally one of us. You are.” Only family members are accountable to family discipline. It’s simply easier when we know who the family members are.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
Husband does not see any point to it and actually thinks only one member of a household should have a say in “the color of the chairs” as a family with two adults and ten children has more say than all the elderly widows in the church as it is. He reluctantly joined because they kept wanting him to have input on “what kind of furnace to install if we ever get any money to do it” (which, in my opinion, is best left to the ones with expertise or research in that area but I am not a member so who cares?)
Stabiliy? Not at all. Clarity, that is why I came to you all. It is understood that even a member does not agree in all things with the particular church. I was just concerned as the little baptism book puts such an emphasis on it. After listening to you all, we will simply put it forth to our brother the pastor, that this is a concern to us and I suspect he will make clear to the kiddos that this is a strongly recommended option of obedience for them to consider after baptism having nothing to do with their salvation anymore than baptism does. They are used to that as I am the only one in our body that wears a head covering, so being a nonmember as long as it is not contrary to Scripture should be okay with them.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
I could see that as a concern in a big body where people might not know each other but in a small body in a small community, everybody knows everything before you even do it.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl? If you write an essay, what are you going to do with it? Certainly, you aren’t going to give it to someone are you?
If someone walked up and gave me an essay to write, I would wait for his first, then decide.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
What an opportunity! Write the essay!
Report comment to moderator
I agree! Write the essay!
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
I am coming late to this discussion, but thought I would put my 2 cents worth in. I grew up in variety of churches, but for a majority of my formative years I was in a Plymouth Brethren assembly. Their view on membership sounds very similar to yours. If you attend regularly then you were considered to be “in fellowship”. I was baptized in that church, but since there was no “membership”, I was not a member. My father was a teaching elder (no pastors), but he wasn’t a member either, we were “in fellowship”. The problem came later when I was in a different church. That church required you to be a member before you could serve in any capacity. When I met with the deacons about membership, they were really confused about my status because I had been baptized already, but I wasn’t transferring membership by letter from another church. I was really happy that the pastor was a retired missionary who understood that different churches work differently. He helped the deacons understand and that helped me later on when I moved to other churches because I could just transfer membership by letter.
If your church is IFCA, they are like Baptists and do put a high priority on church membership. My attitude has always been that it doesn’t hurt anything to join and if people need to know that I’m committed to the church then that’s okay. I’ve always been in churches also that didn’t let you do anything (sing in the choir, work in the nursery)unless you were a member.
The main thing for me would be making the baptism issue very clear to the children. They need to know that baptism doesn’t save you and church membership doesn’t save you. You can be baptized but not saved, saved but not yet baptized.
Report comment to moderator
Ajisuun,
Thanks for your comments. You make me think of my reasons for not wanting to join other than stubbornness. I suppose mostly it is the idea of “let your no be no and yes be yes”. In my mind I am fully a member and I take any critique from my fellow believers very seriously, both in the church and on here, by the way. I know God has His wisdom spread throughout His body.
Further, I suspect it is a way of saying to my fellows that I believe all believers are coheirs and I will have no part in separating from the other parts and dividing his body over inconsequentials. Such as “you were not baptized in our church so yours doesn’t count”.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding church membership –
In the early church, I think that everyone who had been baptized would have been considered a “member” of the church, and I doubt that there were written membership lists, especially during times of persecution. Most people lived their whole lives in the same place, so there would generally have been no issue of going from one church to another. When you have to risk your life to be part of a group, you don’t make the decision lightly, and having risked everything to join the fellowship, you aren’t going to be concerned about whether you are an “official member” or not.
I would guess that the idea of formal membership came once Christianity became the official religion. There was still only one church to be a member of, wherever you lived, though, so either you were a Christian, and a member of the church, or you were neither.
The book I was reading on the history of religion in America said that it was a new thing, to be able to not be a member of any church. And having a choice of a variety of churches of different denominations is definitely a fairly recent (last few hundred years) thing.
Some churches I have attended have stressed membership more than others. Some require membership to serve in any of its ministries, even to sing in the choir. Others only require membership for elders/deacons (as well as to vote, of course). Currently I’m not a member, largely because my husband is not (because he is an ordained Presbyterian pastor and says he would have to renounce jurisdiction in order to join a Baptist church, as well as being “rebaptized”) and I see no great reason to join by myself.
In general, it is important for people to be members so that they can vote. In some denominations, of course, this is more important than in others. In Baptist churches, the members of the local congregation have authority to make all decisions concerning their own church (whether by direct vote or by voting for their leaders). In hierarchical churches (ruled by bishops), I’m not sure just what decisions the congregation gets to make but I think there are a few. In Presbyterian churches, the people elect the elders who not only make the decisions for the local church but also represent them at the larger bodies such as presbytery and general assembly.
The arguments for voting (and being a member so that one can vote) in a church are pretty much the same as for voting in city, state, or national elections. One person’s vote does not seem to make a big difference, but if too many people choose not to vote, they may end up with leaders, programs, and policies they do not like. I don’t care much about the color of the chairs, but sometimes church votes are about bigger matters. I had friends at a Baptist church in Michigan where the pastor proposed changing the bylaws to say that men and women could serve equally in church leadership. Whether you agree with it or not, it’s a pretty significant change and one you would want to have a say in whether your church changed in that way.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD, write the essay! May I suggest that you be certain that people on Social Security are not getting the “rebate?” As I understand it, if one does not normally file a tax return, one should this year to get the rebate. I’m sure I read that somewhere in the past week. That’s how they know who to send it to. I have not received the letter telling me about the rebate, but I would consult that, too.
Frank in Phoenix: Congratulations on the Second Amendment!
Report comment to moderator
Since I am a pastor, I am not a church member (this is “normal” for presbyterianism; I am a member of the Presbytery, which has jurisdiction over me, not the church). It’s funny, though, that the issue of voting by individuals v. households actually came up a few years ago at General Synod (that’s the national meeting for the ARP). One presbytery sent a memorial (an official “motion” that they were seeking to get approved) to move to a household model, but it was defeated. The problem that generated the memorial? One church promised a church van to the youth, but the older folks wanted a new organ. When it came up for a vote, there were more youth (with their families) than older folks, so the van won out. The older folks wanted to change the rules. Synod did not approve the memorial.
One thing that has been concerning me of late with regard to church membership: how lightly folks take church membership vows. I’m not sure how seriously all the different denominations take the issue (I don’t mean that derogatorily; some of you stated you really didn’t have membership lists), but in our denomination, the members take vows before God and the church. It is a serious covenantal relationship that they are agreeing to. Yet, so many folks leave or abandon or forget their vows. It is not unlike marriage vows that are so easily forgotten by so many folks. It is a shame, and worse; folks will have to answer, one way or another, for broken vows.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor TJ,
What kind of vows and if a person is sprinkled and joining a dunking church, does he have to be rebaptized as Ajisuun mentioned?
Report comment to moderator
As far as voting by households, I see us throwing away the wisdom of the ages. For example, in our church, large families voted in sound systems and such while the older ones (the ones more likely to be financially supporting the church) were outvoted when they cited costs like upkeep and parts and such and commented on our need for a furnace less then seventy years old that would help to make us legal under fire code laws. Nice sound system but we are paying astronomical heating bills.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, TJ for suggesting that church membership is analogous to marriage vows. I was tempted to say this earlier, but wasn’t sure it was sound and was afraid it might be taken wrong. Seems like there could be a lot of similarities with a marriage (including how you deal with the disagreements and rough times).
Report comment to moderator
..and the big families have moved out of the area in search of jobs or better paying ones, leaving the old ones to pick up the tab.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
Thank you for stating what I thought was the way it became but was not clear on. You said it well.
As far as the value of voting, where we are now and the way I live (in people’s faces all the time about staying in line with Scripture) we are confident we know the way of the votes. Perhaps we learned from the sound system and that may be why husband decided to join. If we get to another issue like that, it might be worth joining but I wait to hear if it is common to have to get rebaptized as has been alluded to and mentioned on this very thread. I believe in one baptism and would have a harder time with that than even church membership! (I was sprinkled at fifteen in a Methodist church shortly after becoming a believer, I was not a member) but I firmly believe I was baptized, standing in front of the other believers and professing my belief and desire to identify with Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D #31: I got “the letter” today. It states that, if your Qualifying Income [including SS] is at least $3000, you qualify for a “Stimulus Payment” [not "rebate"]. Your neighbor only needs to submit a 2007 tax return, even if her income falls below the minimum level required to pay taxes. Before she complains about having to file, tell her it’s the only way the IRS knows where to send the money.
Personally, I agree with you. The government has no business taking money from you to give to her or anyone else. But what is, is. The bill’s been passed, the money’s coming, and that’s that. This time. But next time, maybe the rest of us can fight harder to stop Congress from doing this sort of thing with our money.
As she has zero tax liability, her payment will be $300 [presuming her SS, any earned income and/or 'certain veterans' payments is $3000 or more]
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee, since we are NOT a dunking church (
), I can’t speak to that! We do not re-baptize (that would be true of all presbyterians). The questions (7 of them) are pretty basic stuff: authority of Scripture, Jesus as Lord/Savior, agree that the doctrine of the church is founded on Scripture, agree to be a part of the church and follow the leadership, that sort of thing. I’m sure it would not differ much from other churches.
The similarities to marriage are in the fact that this is a solemn agreement (a covenant, if you will) made before God and men. Most folks used to take that kind of thing pretty seriously, but nowadays…
Report comment to moderator
El pastor,
Those sound like reasonable vows and I believe God takes vows seriously and so should we. But then, in light of Matt 5:33-37, I am curious as to why churches even ask for that rather than a simple yes or no. I have a hard time with marriage vows as well, not that I don’t believe in a life time commitment and all. I actually lost my nonmember Sunday school teacher status at one church due to a refusal to take what I thought were light vows: you will call each absent student to find out why he missed class each week, you will be there fifteen minutes early each week, you will… Well, I am told I cannot say I will do something as I cannot read the future though I am more than happy to say I will try. But that was not good enough for that new pastor and out I went on my ear. Anyway, it is not my intent to stick my heels in the ground just for stubborness’ sake, I do want to be true to what I know the Lord wants, not necessarily what a church has added.
Looking again at your list, I would also have a hard time with the doctrine of the church being in accordance with Scripture as I am not much of a Scrptural scholar in that way and do not grasp doctrinal statements very well. There seems to be too much question to most of the doctrinal statements one way or another in the view of different people whom I highly respect for me to think I could be so bold as to say this one is right and that one is not. I have to trust the leaders to be giving it their best shot but I would be hesitant to “vow” that I believe it is correct whatever it might be. Ah, wait, “founded on Scripture..” hmmm.
Report comment to moderator
I love the membership vows. My sister was with me on one Sunday when others joined, and she was impressed too. We both liked it that the current members were included too. It still sometimes gives me chills to hear new members take the vows, because indeed covenant is both very serious and very precious.
Mumsee, if you’re in a Baptist church, or a church with heavily Baptist leanings, you’d probably have to be rebaptized. I too would have a problem with that. I was baptized by immersion, as a believer, in a church that “might as well have been Baptist,” though it officially wasn’t. My parents (unfortunately) church hopped, so I joined numerous churches as a child and teen, all of them Baptist–and in at least some of them we had to fight that I wasn’t baptized in a Baptist church! Mom would effectively argue that I’d been baptized by immersion, as a believer, and in addition the church might as well have been Baptist (we even had end-times conferences with dispensational charts, for crying out loud). She made it pretty clear that I would not be rebaptized, and I never was. Mom herself had been baptized as a Methodist, by sprinkling, and hesitated on rebaptism but finally did it.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
I don’t know about in TJ’s denomination, but the “vows” I remember at the Presbyterian churches all were along the lines of “with God’s help, I will” do so-and-so. It is a solemn promise, and recognizes that apart from the grace of God I cannot do it. It is a promise to be faithful, not to never fail but to return to faithful service when I do fail.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
We’re not told (in the context of all of Scripture) never to vow, just not to do so lightly. Even on “less than” a vow, if I see possible problems keeping me from keeping a promise, I try to tell the person ahead of time. In Chicago in winter, for instance, if I agreed to go to a friend’s house for dinner, I’d say, “if the weather is safe to drive” or something of the sort. One time I forgot to make such a disclaimer, and I felt completely obligated to my promise, though ice was predicted and ice scared me to death. The friend asked me if I was still OK with the event, and I told her only that I’d promised to take her (she didn’t have a car), NOT that I was scared to do so. She then probed deeper, and at that point I admitted that my promise was the only reason I wasn’t cancelling, and she let me out of my promise.
If I end up sick in bed with the flu or something like that, then I figure that God cancelled my ability to keep my promise, and I don’t feel guilty about it. But if it’s humanly possible, a promise is a promise.
But marriage vows and the like seem to me almost commanded in Scripture–a covenant comes with a vow, by necessity. One could see church membership as a covenant or not–and it certainly cannot be seen as an unbreakable covenant. (I may move or even change churches for some other reason. But while I am in fellowship with this church body, I am in covenant with her.)
By the way, one problem I had with Promise Keepers was that they were encouraging men to form covenant vows with one another–unbreakable covenants. (I may remember this wrong.) To me that was very, very wrong. Our marriage vows are unbreakable; other human relationships simply cannot be on that level. It actually degrades the marriage vow to put another vow on equal footing. If you move out of the area, or decide that Johnny isn’t a good accountability partner after all, you’re breaking a vow–and the Bible couldn’t be clearer that it’s better not to vow at all than to make a vow you don’t keep. (Mumsee, I’m with you on the Sunday school class.)
Oh, and as for agreeing with the interpretation of Scripture, one is supposed to tell the elders if one finds he disagrees with a significant doctrinal point. Some matters are considered legitimate disagreement. Others, such as deciding that salvation isn’t by grace alone, would merit excommunication, as I understand it. In other words, doctrinal error is as problematic as a sinful lifestyle–which seems valid to me.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
We have been in a number of churches (no, we don’t church hop, we move from place to place frequently!) which have had various ceremonies like a membership addition, baby baptism or welcoming, etc and I liked the part where the church body was told they would be held accountable for their part and did they agree to take it on. Very exciting stuff to be part of the development of a new brother or sister.
Pauline,
Now that kind of vow would not be a problem at all, and it may well be what all of you are talking about. I need to ask hubbie if he had to do any of this vow stuff when he joined. I do know that he was sprinkled and not rebaptized, don’t even know if they knew he was sprinkled either.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
(About the SS class, apparently I was not alone in that then either as the entire elder board resigned en masse over it. The new pastor was fine with that as he did not agree with elder boards. I felt pretty bad about it until somebody pointed out the Scripture that there are going to be divisions in the church and it is a good thing as God is fine tuning His people.)
That being able to discuss the doctrinal points and coming to an agreement makes sense. You people might make a member out of me yet…but don’t get your hopes up.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
One thing we have in common–I’m the only woman to wear a headcovering in our congregation as well!
Report comment to moderator
Cameron,
But wait? Aren’t you the pastor’s wife? How does that work??
Report comment to moderator
Ah, Mumsee, I am not expressing myself clearly at this late hour (quite a long day today, if you will allow meager excuses). The vows are all of the yes/no variety, and the one on doctrine is qualified with the “as far as you understand them” statement. For officers (elders and deacons), it’s a bit more stringent (naturally so), with a “and an expression of your own faith” attached to that doctrinal statement. I’ll see if I can look up the membership vows for you.
Report comment to moderator
Here is the appropriate section in our Form of Government (they don’t call it the “FoG” for nothing!). A Session is simply the board of elders, btw.
“Applicants for communicant church membership shall be examined by the session in private with regard to a knowledge of their spiritual need, their faith in Jesus Christ, and their intention to be obedient to Him. The applicants shall give assent to the following or similar questions, by which they enter a solemn covenant with God and His Church:
(1) Do you acknowledge yourself to be a sinner in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His love and mercy?
(2) Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of sinners, and do you receive Him and trust in Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
(3) Do you believe the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be the written Word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and practice?
(4) Do you now promise, in humble reliance upon the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
(5) Do you accept the doctrines and principles of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, so far as you understand them, as agreeable to and founded on the Word of God?
(6) Do you promise, with the Lord’s help, to be faithful in the performance of your Christian duties, both in private life and in the work of the Church?
(7) Do you submit yourself in the spirit of love to the government and discipline of this Church, and seek the peace, purity and prosperity of this congregation so long as you are a member of it?
Upon affirmative action by the session, applicants shall then be received into communicant membership. The session shall not impose additional conditions for
membership.”
Report comment to moderator
Well why don’t you people just say so! instead of all this deep and mysterious business about vows? You (general you not in particular you) made it sound like entering a secret club of the knights templar or some such thing. Okay, I asked hubby earlier about what he thought of his decision to be “in on the vote” and he was not convinced it was the right decision. I will lay out this new information before him and see what he thinks. And when the pastor discusses membership with the kids, you don’t need me to tell you I will be right there if possible.
Thanks all for your input, I have much to contemplate and research.
Report comment to moderator
I reiterate what I said in 63 now that 62 has popped up. Those seem fairly straight forward and well within the truth of the Scripture. There at the end, does that mean a visitor is not allowed communion in your church? “communicant member”? Just wondering on that one.
Report comment to moderator
For the record, the wording of those vows looks virtually identical to those in the PCA. Point 5, of course, mentions our own denomination, and I think 6 and 7 may be a little different, but they’re all pretty much the same. I think 7 is more poetic in ours, but I might be wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, that doesn’t surprise me, since the ARP always more or less tried to copy certain aspects of the southern Presbyterian church! And what do you mean “more poetic”? That peace/purity/prosperity alliteration is pretty hard to beat!
Mumsee, baptized children of members are classified as “non-communicant members,” since they are part of the church but haven’t made a public profession of faith, and until they do so, they can’t receive the Lord’s Supper. But certainly we welcome fellow visiting Christians to the table. After all, it’s not our church’s table or a Presbyterian table, but the Lord’s table.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
Do they make any provision for children to make a public profession of faith prior to reaching the age for confirmation class? One thing that bothered us in the PCUSA was that when our older son chose to follow Christ and was baptized, at age nine (we had only had him dedicated as a baby, so that he could receive believer’s baptism later and not deal with the question of whether to be “rebaptized”), we had to use the same liturgy as for the baptism of a young child, with us making promises for him as his parents. My husband revised things slightly to give him a chance to make the profession and promises himself as well, but as far as the church records were concerned it was no different than if we had baptized him as an infant. My husband was told that he couldn’t be baptized in the same way a confirmand who had never been previously baptized would, because the confirmand was about to become a church member, and at nine our son could not yet be accepted as a member.
The PCUSA does allow baptized children to receive the Lord’s Supper, though, according to their parents’ discernment of whether they are ready. At one church we attended they gave a brief class to the kindergarteners on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper – though they still left it up to the parents to decide whether their children would receive it, which I think makes sense.
Report comment to moderator
That age thing has bothered me before as well. How can a church limit the ability of a person to receive communion based on age? If a person can answer a few questions on their own, it seems they can express their belief in the saving of Christ even though they don’t have all the concepts down.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks to all of you who so graciously shared in the church membership discussion. It’s been very helpful, encouraging and interesting!
Report comment to moderator
One clarification, I was not rebaptized. I had been “dunked” the first church so my baptism was accepted. If I had been sprinkled, however, I know that the church would have required me to be baptized by immersion.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
I’m convicted of the teaching in Corinthians and was so before he took the pastorate here in August. It’s not something he feels the need to teach on (even if he did, he has larger issues to tackle first!), and no one has asked a direct question about it.
As far as the Lord’s Supper, membership, and age, I agree–I’ve seen many children profess belief far younger than the “traditional” age (probably borrowed from the Roman Catholic church, anyway).
I don’t think we have a certain age for professing belief, thinking back on the last few classes I’m aware of–they were mixed in age. The parents, with the church leadership, are the best judge of that, imo. I know a young man now a senior at the Naval Academy who genuinely professed belief at four–extreme, I know, but real. I was eight when I could clearly express basic belief. I think it’s odd we sometimes hold children to a higher standard than newly believing adults…
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee and Pauline,
and haven’t sat under the preaching of the word for very long.
There are probably a number of reasons for the age/class factor. If the church has a large number of children, then it is probably prudent and expedient to have a class at the same time. Also, I’ve always thought that the confirmation class is a sort of “kick in the pants” to parents who would otherwise drag their feet in seeing their child make a profession of faith. After all, we live in an age when adults don’t bring their Bibles to church nor instruct their children at home. Plus, if truth holds to form in many well-intentioned churches, children are shipped off to some “children’s church” class during worship until they are well up in age (well hopefully not much past age 6 or
I would agree, however, that there is no “magic age” when these things take place. And, as with my lovely wife, I would agree that we shouldn’t be asking the kids to be Ph.D. theologians, but rather see that they possess faith in Christ. I scarcely doubt anyone would have pegged the Ethiopian eunuch (an adult!) as a mature believer, but he professed his trust in Christ and was baptized that very moment by Philip.
Report comment to moderator
Arggh. That last post was me (TJ). Forgot to sign Cameron out. Also, I don’t know how the smiley face got there. I typed “not much past age 6 or so”). Hmmm.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, Mumsee, et. al. With (Southern) Baptists, it’s as AJISUUN says. If you haven’t been immersed (dunked) as a believer, you must be baptised by immersion before joining a Baptist Church. However, as in Cheryl’s case, she can come to any Baptist church and declare that she was baptised by immersion after she trusted Christ. They will accept that “On Statement”.
Most Baptist churches have “new member’s classes” for new members. However, if you come transferring your membership from another church, you are not required, not particularly encouraged to attend them. They prefer that you merge directly into a Sunday School class.
We have a “Church Covenant” which each member agrees to follow. Like other denominations, some are more faithful than others.
I was surprised to learn that PCA pastors don’t belong to their church. The first thing a SBC pastor does is join the church, with his family.
My oldest granddaughter was barely seven when she trusted Jesus and was baptised. I thought that was a bit young, but it took. Churches vary on policy concerning the Lord’s Supper (Communion), but most Baptist churches open it to every believer. In the past, some have been so strict that they permit only members of that particular local church to join in the celebration. I have never belonged to one of those churches.
This has been interesting to read. Though I suspect the thread is dead by now.
Report comment to moderator
Not dead, Chas! And I’m not PCA!
On comment about Baptist Church Covenants (or Constitutions as they are sometimes called, I believe): when visiting my mom around Christmas, I saw that she had a photocopy of her church’s (my old/original church growing up, a Baptist one, though not SBC) documents. The church was founded around 1850, and it was obvious (because of different typeface and such) that this was an old document that had been amended/add to a number of times. Now, my mom is always confused about what Presbyterians believe and how they differ from Baptists. I read through the “Statement of Faith” at the beginning on the document with her, and explained that Presbyterians would agree completely with Baptists on every point until we got to the last two (one of the sacraments/ordinances, the other on church independency). But on matters of Scripture, the nature of God, salvation, etc., there was pretty much carbon copy agreement. Needless to say, the document was very Reformed/Calvinistic in nature (not surprising, since it is my understanding that most Baptist churches in the 1800s were Calvinistic or “Particular” Baptist).
Sadly, though, I would venture to say that most folks in that congregation are probably not Calvinists (including the pastor), and are out-of-accord with their own statement of faith. Chas, in your estimation, would this be true of many Baptist churches? I’m not picking, as I’m sure there are plenty of Presbyterians who take membership vows with “crossed fingers” or have at least little familiarity with the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
I don’t object to either classes or age requirements, but to the linking of a public profession of faith with adult membership. The Baptist church we currently attend holds baptism classes twice a year, one for adults and another for children. I forget how old children need to be to take the classes, perhaps third grade. Younger children may well be believers, but I don’t think it unreasonable to wait until that age, when they can express their understanding more clearly and are less likely to make the profession simply to please parents and teacher, for their public profession of faith.
My husband would actually prefer to hold “confirmation class” (which he would prefer to call something else, like discipleship class) at an older age than the typical ninth grade, as he doesn’t think young people are emotionally ready to think in terms of a deep personal relationship until about age 15/16. He also would require adult membership classes that are more intensive than is typical in many churches. (The first Presbyterian church we joined together had one session which was mostly Q&A, with the pastor answering whatever questions we had about the church. He didn’t ask us much of anything, and the elders didn’t even meet with us until right before the service when we were to be brought into the membership.) The adult membership classes my husband led were six hours total (one, two, or three sessions depending on people’s schedules), and covered personal faith; Presbyterian history and doctrine; and the local church’s history and ministries, and a “spiritual gifts” survey to help new members find where they could best serve.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, I don’t understand exactly what you mean by objecting to “the linking of a public profession of faith with adult membership.” This is simply something that all believers should do, regardless of age (imho). Perhaps I am just not understanding you. Our standards to not “require” someone to do this if he/she is simply transferring membership, but I have always suggested it as a good practice and for a good reason: too often you can get folks that say, “We’ll I didn’t know Presbyterians believed that!” or something similar. I don’t know why anyone would want to join a church w/o actually inquiring as to what the church/denomination believes, but that’s just me (and your husband as well, it seems).
I do disagree with waiting until 15/16. Although I will concede that this may be true of some, there are others who could profess faith in Christ at an earlier age. The young man Cameron mentioned earlier (professed at age 4 or 5) was attending church with his parents at John MacArthur’s church in CA at the time. The went to the elders and requested that he be baptized and were denied (they set a strict age limit of 12 years old). As much as I like MacArthur, that really bothers me and smacks so much of the tail wagging the dog. At the very least, you are denying a believer the benefits of the sacraments as means of grace (though I know MacArthur would not view them this way, but on the other hand, if that is so, why restrict them in such a way?). If we (as Presbyterians) believe there are spiritual benefits to receiving the Lord’s Supper, then it just does not seem wise to prevent someone who believes in Christ from coming to the table until such a late age.
I am NOT advocating paedocommunion, btw!
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
What I was referring to is that in the PCUSA there seemed to be no provision for a child to make a public profession of faith prior to being confirmed, which also includes becoming a member of the church. Of course a pastor can always invite anyone to get up during the service and talk about his faith, but prior to confirmation age a child’s baptism is still considered an act of faith by the parents, not the child.
I would prefer to see children make a public profession of faith at whatever age they are ready, which would include baptism for those who had not yet been baptized, and at that point they would be welcome to receive the Lord’s Supper. I would not set an age limit, but would not provide a class to prepare children for this step until about age 8/9. A younger child who is ready enough to request on his own to be included, could be. I see no reason to withhold the Lord’s Supper from a baptized child who has made a public profession of faith. I don’t know if that is considered “paedocommunion,” but if it is, so be it.
A class at age 15/16 would introduce them to the responsibilities of adult membership, including opportunities for leadership and service. It would also encourage them to take their faith to a deeper level. Of course if there were anyone who had not yet made a public profession of faith that would be an opportunity, though always with the understanding that it is a personal choice, not something every young person does as a matter of course simply from having “come of age.”
Report comment to moderator
I see, Pauline. MUCH clearer. We are in very close agreement, I believe.
Paedocommunion can be defined in slightly different ways, I believe, but most folks supporting that position would say that a baptized child could receive communion as young as they would be able to do so and w/o having made a public profession of faith. Of course, I am not advocating that position.
Report comment to moderator
The seven year old granddaughter I referred to previously was baptised with several others in a special service at the FBC Augusta. They had the baptism and observed the Lord’s Supper with all the recently baptised people participating. Becky was given the communion cup she used. I thought it was a nice service.
TJ, I’m not sure I understand your question in 75, above.
Report comment to moderator
Chas, that particular Baptist church has many fine people who would not call themselves Calvinist in any sort of way. Yet, their statement of faith is very Calvinistic/Reformed in what it says. I was wondering if this is more or less true of other Baptist churches.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding TJ’s question in 75, my experience is that many Baptist churches do not have a written statement of faith. Having a written statement of faith, which members are required to accept, is seen as elevating some truths of Scripture above others.
Those Baptist churches that do have a statement of faith generally include the authority of Scripture, the depravity of man, the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, His sacrificial death for our sins, the need to put personal faith in Him for salvation, and the eternal state of the righteous in heaven and the unsaved in hell. Baptist churches I have attended consider themselves Calvinist but in practice have Arminian leanings – but nothing along those lines would be included, one way or the other, in the statement of faith.
Report comment to moderator
TJ, Southern Baptists vary wrt the doctrine of election. I have never heard it taught or preached in a Baptist Church. However, I understand that some of the present leadership is Calvanistic in theology. That doesn’t affect any of the rest of us.
I studied about “Particular Baptists”, “Landmark Baptists” and others back in 1960. I haven’t dealt with it since and have forgotten most of what I learned.
Report comment to moderator
That’s a shame. Some of your greatest theologians and preachers were Calvinists. Guys like Boyce, Dagg, Spurgeon. It may be becoming a lost heritage.
Although I don’t think things will ever get this bad, it sort of reminds me of a debate I attended with Bishop Spong. When his opponent (a Reformed Baptist, btw) mentioned Bishop J.C. Ryle, Spong interrupted him and said, “Who’s that?” Completely inexcusable. That would be like a Presbyterian pastor asking, “Who’s B.B. Warfield?”
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!