Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

[arachnogeek]

11 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The commandments about the proper use of spiritual gifts in I Cor. 12 only applies to local church members.

I agree that it applies only to local church members....where we disagree is that I think all church attendees in the early church were members. 

If your interpretation of church membership is correct, then this would mean that some people in your church (i.e. non-members) would not have to follow Paul's commandments about the proper use of spiritual gifts. This argument doesn't hold water. 

[arachnogeek]

11 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

And even into the 2nd and 3rd centuries, membership was in play.  You can read about that in the Didache.   Not only that, but those who endured Roman persecution (like imprisonment, floggings and beatings) and lived to tell about it were highly honored in local churches of the day.

The Didache has many practices that you and I would both frown upon, such as withholding baptism from a convert for years, until they are 'ready'. I'm not concerned about how church was done in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, unless it looks identical to that of the 1st. 

I don't see how persecution has anything to do with church membership, so I'll let you elaborate. 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

That's a great point, but I think you may be establishing a false dilemma. There must be a way of obeying church leaders and submitting to their authority without formal 'church membership', as we know it. 

How would that work?   

Quote

 

This is another reason why I believe home churches would be superior. If local churches did not 'advertise' using property, billboards, websites, etc., there wouldn't be a need for church membership. 

Here's why: 

 

Churches that do not meet in homes are technically open to ANYONE who may be looking for a church. Inevitably, there will be non-believers and liberal christians who enter the church without a formal invitation.

 

Yes, and that is a good thing.  If anything, we WANT unbelievers and liberals coming to our churches.  They should feel free to do so.  I don't see how that is a bad thing.

 

Quote

On the other hand, a healthy home church would have its members evangelize during the week and new converts would be brought into the fold. It would be extremely unlikely for a pedestrian to ring the doorbell to someone's house on a Sunday morning and invite themselves in, whereas it's easy for anyone to visit 'first baptist church' down the road. This first-century church model weeds out many of the people whom the typical church would have otherwise barred from membership. 

Church members in the current model evangelize, too.  They bring lost co-workers, friends and family to church with them, AND we get some who just come to check us out who are not believers and want to know what we believe.

 

Quote

By no means does this model prevent liberal christians and wolves in sheep's clothing from entering the Church, but it sure is an improvement. 

The last thing we want is a system where it is by invitation only.  The day that the most vile sinner is not welcome or is in some way discouraged from finding us is the day we have stopped being the church.

Quote

In a functioning home church, the congregants would submit to their elders without having to be official 'members', because everyone would be a member.

That is self-defeating.   Membership is membership.  You cannot be an unofficial member.  You either are, or you are not.  And if you are not a member, if you don't actually commit to the congregation, you won't submit to the pastor's authority inside the four walls of the church.

Quote

In this scenario, non-members are simply those that do no attend the church. It's that simple, and it's the way God intended it to be. 

You cannot make that case from Scripture.  That is a conjecture on your part and nothing more.

[arachnogeek]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

If anything, we WANT unbelievers and liberals coming to our churches.  They should feel free to do so.  I don't see how that is a bad thing.

 

There are plenty of reasons why it would be a bad thing to invite goats into the sheepfold. Why would you want unbelievers and liberals creeping into your local church? A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

A pastor should not have to look at the membership list to know who he's responsible to God for their spiritual well being. Sadly, many churches have their doors open to all sorts of people, and the leaders see them as dollar signs rather than their responsibility. Get rid of church membership and you'll solve this problem in a heart beat. 

[Willie T]

The Vineyard Fellowship we attended for about 6 years had no membership roles, at all.  Nor do many Vineyard congregations.

[arachnogeek]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Church members in the current model evangelize, too.  They bring lost co-workers, friends and family to church with them, AND we get some who just come to check us out who are not believers and want to know what we believe.

Yes, that's true. I'm only arguing for the removal of those who come without invitation. 

[Guest shiloh357]

28 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

The Didache has many practices that you and I would both frown upon, such as withholding baptism from a convert for years, until they are 'ready'. I'm not concerned about how church was done in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, unless it looks identical to that of the 1st. 

I don't see how persecution has anything to do with church membership, so I'll let you elaborate. 

I am not holding up the Didache as perfect or as doctrinal material, but as historical.    In 1st three centuries of the Church's existence in the Roman Empire, the Romans required everyone to perform a small, 2 minute ceremony where you would come before an altar and throw a pinch of incense on the altar and declare "Caesar is Lord."  These altars were small and were stationed everywhere for convenience.  If you complied you received a special certificate that you kept on you similar to how we always have a drivers' license with us.

The ancient Romans were very multi-cultural and allowed for everyone to worship has they pleased.  But you still had to acknowledge the Caesar as "Lord" over the Empire.   You could worship any god you wanted but your deity was subordinate to the Caesar.   That's why when Paul referred to Jesus as "Lord" it was basically an act of treason.

Christians were being compelled to do this ceremony.  The Romans made it is easy.   If they would just do this little ceremony they could worship Jesus to their hearts' content and no one would bother them.   But the Christians could not do it.  They could not make Jesus subordinate to the emperor.  And many Christians who refused were flogged and imprisoned, tortured and some even killed for refusal.   

Those who stood firm and refused to submit, if they were able to survive were welcomed home to their congregations and were given a special status known as "Confessors."  They had confessed the Name of Jesus in the face of persecution and potential death.   

But there were others who DID submit to the Roman demands. They were labeled as "Vacilli"  It's where we get the word "vacillate."   The Vascilli were excommunicated from the congregation and were stripped of their membership for not confessing the name of Jesus.

So, even back then, there was a concept of membership because you could lose it.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

There are plenty of reasons why it would be a bad thing to invite goats into the sheepfold. Why would you want unbelievers and liberals creeping into your local church? A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

A pastor should not have to look at the membership list to know who he's responsible to God for their spiritual well being. Sadly, many churches have their doors open to all sorts of people, and the leaders see them as dollar signs rather than their responsibility. Get rid of church membership and you'll solve this problem in a heart beat. 

We want sinners to come to church and maybe find Jesus while they're there.  That last place a sinner should be barred from is a local church.   It's not like we are letting them join, or operate in a ministry position.  We want them to feel welcome among us.   You really don't understand that?

[arachnogeek]

8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The last thing we want is a system where it is by invitation only.  The day that the most vile sinner is not welcome or is in some way discouraged from finding us is the day we have stopped being the church.

Anyone outside of the Church is a vile sinner, and can be evangelized by a local church member any day of the week. There is no good reason to think that we need million-dollar church buildings to facilitate their salvation. Beautiful are the feet of those who bring the gospel. Waiting for sinners to darken the doors of our edifices is spiritual laziness and negligence. 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, arachnogeek said:

Yes, that's true. I'm only arguing for the removal of those who come without invitation. 

Which is not a Christian position to hold.