Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My wife and I are in an interesting position at the moment.
We have been going to a Baptist church for about 10 months now, and are fairly settled. We are reasonably involved - they wheeled our family out numerous times over Christmas to perform musical numbers.
Anyway, I went to an 'open church meeting' a couple of weeks ago, to see what happened and how it worked. I'd already heard about the "authority" of a Baptist church being the "church meeting" but I still wasn't quite sure what that was. It turned out that it was like a business meeting or debating society, where people propose motions and discuss them, and then vote on them, as in 'yes, no, or abstain'.
Now, coming from a Pentecostal background, which is regrettably flawed with the hierarchical leadership model I am used to 'authority' of the 'church meeting' meaning something completely different; i.e. where the individuals weigh and test and agree on what the Holy spirit is saying and doing in and through the congregation during a church service.
But there's more, at a brief chat last Sunday morning, we were informed there was a pre-requisite to membership, of being baptized - it is after all a Baptist church. Now, technically my wife and I meet this criteria, however we don't currently feel that that should be a requirement to be able to vote in a meeting.
Basically, I feel that as long as someone is living and breathing, they can know God for themselves and vote in a business meeting.
The other extreme of the existing method is that one of the members should propose that the church has a move of God, both of renewal within the church and in the local community, and then they should vote on that, and see what response they get - not to cause arguments between the Calvinists and armenianists, but just to see if there's any unity on something of value.
What are your thoughts and advice on our situation?
My wife and I are in an interesting position at the moment.
We have been going to a Baptist church for about 10 months now, and are fairly settled. We are reasonably involved - they wheeled our family out numerous times over Christmas to perform musical numbers.
Anyway, I went to an 'open church meeting' a couple of weeks ago, to see what happened and how it worked. I'd already heard about the "authority" of a Baptist church being the "church meeting" but I still wasn't quite sure what that was. It turned out that it was like a business meeting or debating society, where people propose motions and discuss them, and then vote on them, as in 'yes, no, or abstain'.
Now, coming from a Pentecostal background, which is regrettably flawed with the hierarchical leadership model I am used to 'authority' of the 'church meeting' meaning something completely different; i.e. where the individuals weigh and test and agree on what the Holy spirit is saying and doing in and through the congregation during a church service.
But there's more, at a brief chat last Sunday morning, we were informed there was a pre-requisite to membership, of being baptized - it is after all a Baptist church. Now, technically my wife and I meet this criteria, however we don't currently feel that that should be a requirement to be able to vote in a meeting.
Basically, I feel that as long as someone is living and breathing, they can know God for themselves and vote in a business meeting.
The other extreme of the existing method is that one of the members should propose that the church has a move of God, both of renewal within the church and in the local community, and then they should vote on that, and see what response they get - not to cause arguments between the Calvinists and armenianists, but just to see if there's any unity on something of value.
What are your thoughts and advice on our situation?
Your own personal relationship with God does not equate to the right to vote in their church. You must follow their rules for membership first.
There are slews of church denominations, and they each have their own rules. I wouldn't expect a church to waive them for a particular prospective member.
I'm Presbyterian (Presbyterian Church (USA)), and we have a Book of Order--a phone book-sized thing that contains all of the rules about church governance. Being baptized and going through a membership class, and joining in accordance with the church's rules, are all prerequisites to being able to vote at a congregational meeting, and the meeting itself is conducted in accordance with the Book of Order.
If Baptist rules aren't your thing, then look elsewhere. I would expect, though, that there are a lot of denominations that have rules that are somewhat similar to Baptist ones.
Your own personal relationship with God does not equate to the right to vote in their church. You must follow their rules for membership first.
Weird. I actually agree with you on something. Baptists require, you know, baptism to be a member. As in being one of the baptized. It's in their name, after all.
To be a member of something, whether it is a church, a football team, a bridge club, a condo owners association, or just about anything else, there is assumed to be a basic agreement with the tenets and goals of that organization. Like most Christians, Baptists believe that you're not fully of the faith until you have been baptized. It's just the price of admission to enjoy having a voice in how the church does its business. You don't get to say, "I want to join this organization, but I demand they rewrite the rule book to accommodate me."
I'm an Episcopalian, which is about as far a cry from the Baptists as possible but we, too, require baptism to be able to vote, hold church office, or receive the Eucharist--the central rite of any Episcopal church. We have people in regular attendance who haven't chosen baptism. We certainly wouldn't shun them, but it's simply a church requirement, one that's rooted in the Nicene Creed.
Maybe ask yourselves: Can you be involved to the level you want to be without becoming a member? In what way will becoming a member enhance your experience there? Are those things worth compromising your beliefs in order to conform to their rules?
There are slews of church denominations, and they each have their own rules. I wouldn't expect a church to waive them for a particular prospective member.
I'm Presbyterian (Presbyterian Church (USA)), and we have a Book of Order--a phone book-sized thing that contains all of the rules about church governance. Being baptized and going through a membership class, and joining in accordance with the church's rules, are all prerequisites to being able to vote at a congregational meeting, and the meeting itself is conducted in accordance with the Book of Order.
If Baptist rules aren't your thing, then look elsewhere. I would expect, though, that there are a lot of denominations that have rules that are somewhat similar to Baptist ones.
The thing is there a number of active people in the church who are not members, because they don't see it as being the right thing to do - having rules. And in the balance, the church is very accepting of people serving who are not members.
The problem I have with it, is that under this semblance of organisation, needing to have rules that demark who is in and who isn't in the club, is it has taken all authority away from God. Hence why I am quite serious about voting (by the members) on the proposal of whether a move of God in renewal is appropriate for the church at this time. They have done a profile of the demographic, and the average age in the church is 60, where in the local community it is just under 40. There isn't anything else they can do to change that.
I just think and believe God wants his church back, and rules and membership is an obstruction to Him moving in renewal.
The thing is there a number of active people in the church who are not members, because they don't see it as being the right thing to do - having rules. And in the balance, the church is very accepting of people serving who are not members.
The problem I have with it, is that under this semblance of organisation, needing to have rules that demark who is in and who isn't in the club, is it has taken all authority away from God. Hence why I am quite serious about voting (by the members) on the proposal of whether a move of God in renewal is appropriate for the church at this time. They have done a profile of the demographic, and the average age in the church is 60, where in the local community it is just under 40. There isn't anything else they can do to change that.
I just think and believe God wants his church back, and rules and membership is an obstruction to Him moving in renewal.
Well, that's fine, but a bit naive at the same time. It assumes that the requirement of baptism is some later formulation of the church when, instead, it is as old as Christianity itself.
A church is a human institution, and as such it needs a basic set of rules by which to govern itself. Instead of being unfair, it is instead the foundation of fairness. Otherwise, you have an institution that operates on a daily basis by the whims of the leadership.
Even at the very beginning of the church, you were required to be baptized in order to be part of the community of faith. Christ Himself submitted to baptism at the hands of John in the River Jordan before his ministry got fully underway. The Apostle Paul required it. Without going too far down the rabbit hole of differing approaches, the earliest church documents, such as that spelled out in the Didache, offer that both full immersion or simply pouring on the head, depending on the presence of running water, are sufficient. So this requirement isn't the result of latter-day church bureaucrats encrusting worship with pointless rules, throwing up obstacles to full communion. Instead it's an act of volition to join the faith, one that was endorsed by the very man whom Christianity is centered around.
If you disagree with that, join a church that doesn't require baptism for full membership. But the Baptists, among many others, can cite scripture and church history as their reasoning. Can't have it both ways.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 01-22-2019 at 07:58 AM..
Well, that's fine, but a bit naive at the same time. It assumes that the requirement of baptism is some later formulation of the church when, instead, it is as old as Christianity itself.
A church is a human institution, and as such it needs a basic set of rules by which to govern itself. Instead of being unfair, it is instead the foundation of fairness. Otherwise, you have an institution that operates on a daily basis by the whims of the leadership.
Even at the very beginning of the church, you were required to be baptized in order to be part of the community of faith. Christ Himself submitted to baptism at the hands of John in the River Jordan before his ministry got fully underway. The Apostle Paul required it. Without going too far down the rabbit hole of differing approaches, the earliest church documents, such as that spelled out in the Didache, offer that both full immersion or simply pouring on the head, depending on the presence of running water, are sufficient. So this requirement isn't the result of latter-day church bureaucrats encrusting worship with pointless rules, throwing up obstacles to full communion. Instead it's an act of volition to join the faith, one that was endorsed by the very man whom Christianity is centered around.
If you disagree with that, join a church that doesn't require baptism for full membership. But the Baptists, among many others, can cite scripture and church history as their reasoning. Can't have it both ways.
Jesus didn't do baptism to imply you have to do that to be in the club. Mikva is a cultural cleansing, symbolic ritual. And you think I'm naïve.
I'm sick and tired of playing the church club - the church belongs to Jesus / God, and if anything is dead in jt, observing man's religion and rules, He will cut it off and throw it on the burn pile. Despite all the dead opinions expressed here, I have just a small hope for those in our church.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
