Is there a better way to 'do Church'?

[frienduff thaylorde]

5 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

Are you saying you yourself are without sin? If I am going to be honest with myself, I am a sinner and I as a sinner have a hard time grasping the concept of sinners removing other sinners from the Church just because someone else's sin is different. 

You can ask anyone here , HOW MANY have asked me that same question .    AND YET BY GRACE I KEEP ON WARNING .     As I will continue to , till the last breath ebbs from these lungs .

[frienduff thaylorde]

2 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

Here is how Jesus dealt with an adulterous woman.

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they *said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” (John 8:1-10)

I for one can not pick up a stone against anyone. Sorry, just can do it because I know my own heart. 

If Jesus would have met this woman again and she didn't take His advise to sin no more, How do you think Jesus would have reacted the second time? 

Your reasoning wont work .     GOD already knows whether I am nice to folks or mean .   my approach will not be changed .  

We exhort daily and if folks wont hear , we move on .    its the pattern .     SO telling gays WHO believe in JESUS go and cease the sin ,    IS WHAT I DO .

Your own words support my actions .    I don't rail on anyone .  BUT if I see error ,  from gays to whatever the sin is , IT GETS CORRECTED.

IF THEY CLAIM to BELIEVE IN JESUS ,  I hold the pattern paul taught about A believing brother or sister .  THEY GET CORRECTED and if they heed not

I PART company .   END OF DISCUSSION .  to the gays out in the world and not in the churches ,    GOD JUDGES ,  we preach JESUS and if they receive him

we do as HE DID , NOW GO and SIN NO MORE .    end of discussion .  ITS THE PATTERN .    THE ONLY ONE THAT WORKS < JESUS SET IT , the APOSTELS KEPT IT .

[frienduff thaylorde]

2 minutes ago, Badjao33 said:

This is fair, but as you said, it can be hard sometimes to detect.  I would think that there are many homosexuals who are also not proud of their actions that would fall into the same category as heterosexuals. Since all sexual sin is dealt with in the same manor at your church, then there is no problem.

But the difference is ,   if a married couple man and women come into the church we know not at the first .   BUT IF TWO MARRIED MEN come in ,   WE KNOW RIGHT AWAY .

THAT this is SIN .  and it must be corrected asap.    Folks ,   their are gays who have an agenda ,  they come into churches to infect the group .

THIS is why we must preach right , teach right ,  and see.   HOW they react .   IF they are in open sin that can be seen , and gay couples ARE IN OPEN SIN that can be seen .

ASAP correction and if no repentance ,   SEPERATE them out as we would any sin not repented of .  

[frienduff thaylorde]

4 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Maybe you should ask Paul that question...

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
(1Co 5:1-5)
 

And here I was being far less grave than that .  THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER .   OH how it shapens my soul to be reminded .   YEP we keep THAT PATTERN  .  THANKS for the wonderful reminder yowm.  I had nigh forgot that .      SPOT ON yowm .  WE BETTER HEED that pattern .  

[frienduff thaylorde]

Just now, Yowm said:

Forgot it? It must be that 'interfaith' spirit that is fogging your memory. LOL

That was seen as funny .    cause I know ya know otherwise .    I got two words for interfaith , no wait three.  DUNG PILE   and ENTERDEATH .  for all who enter her

have made a convenant of death .    

[arachnogeek]

I have no idea how this thread morphed into what is is now, as I never addressed homosexuality in my original post. However, I'm sure it is beneficial for some. 

Something I'd like to bring up is church membership. This has come up over and over again in this discussion and I think it's worth exploring. 

Is Church membership biblical? People keep saying that a gay person can attend church...so long as he isn't a member of that church. 

Why is this? What is the difference between a member and a non-member in any given congregation? 

I personally don't think church membership has any biblical precedent, but I'd love to hear what y'all have to say about that. 

[Guest shiloh357]

12 hours ago, arachnogeek said:

Is Church membership biblical?

I personally don't think church membership has any biblical precedent, but I'd love to hear what y'all have to say about that. 

Church membership goes back to New Testament times.

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. (Heb 13:17)   If one is not expected to be a member of a local church, then which church leaders are they required to obey? Whose authority do they come under, or are expected to recognize?

If there is no biblical  expectation of church membership then what about church discipline rules laid out in Scripture for local churches?   How does a local church  discipline those who are not honoring any particular leader and don't belong to that congregation?   How could Paul demand that an incestuous individual be removed from a local church in I Corinthians 5: 1-7, if membership to that congregation is not play?

In the book of Acts starting in chapter two, they were keeping record of how many were getting saved and they were tracking the growth of the Church in Jerusalem.

In Acts 6, we see that the formation of deacons, a role that takes place in local churches, and these people were elected out of the believers of local congregations in Jerusalem.   That assumes some kind of membership.

And then there is the issue of widows:

Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. (1Ti 5:9-16)

Notice that the local church in Ephesus had an enrollment for widows with respect to a program for taking care of the widows that were part of that congregation. 

The commandments about the proper use of spiritual gifts in I Cor. 12 only applies to local church members.  It is not a commandment to some "universal" church but are instructions for how these gifts are to be used in a local church setting.  

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.

https://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/151320-is-church-membership-biblical.html

 

 

[arachnogeek]

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

If one is not expected to be a member of a local church, then which church leaders are they required to obey? Whose authority do they come under, or are expected to recognize?

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. 

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. 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. 

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. 

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

 

[arachnogeek]

10 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

If there is no biblical  expectation of church membership then what about church discipline rules laid out in Scripture for local churches?   How does a local church  discipline those who are not honoring any particular leader and don't belong to that congregation?   How could Paul demand that an incestuous individual be removed from a local church in I Corinthians 5: 1-7, if membership to that congregation is not play?

Once again, in a home church, everyone is a member, which means that everyone is under the authority of the elders by virtue of their attendance. Instead of creating membership procedures and benefits (such as voting rights), why not just treat all congregants (all of which would be confessing and baptized converts) as members? 

[arachnogeek]

11 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

In Acts 6, we see that the formation of deacons, a role that takes place in local churches, and these people were elected out of the believers of local congregations in Jerusalem.   That assumes some kind of membership.

Why does this assume membership?