What's a "non-resident" member?

From the perspective of a "member" not a minister, I would think that a visit to the house out of the blue would be just about the last thing I would want. It would be horribly uncomfortable, and I do not want to be "put on the spot" in my own home.

I would recommend that a letter be sent to the inactive members.

If this is a new policy, then include the policy within the letter. The letter can take a warm pastoral tone, and it doesn't have as much downside as the personal visitation.

It could even be a three-pronged approach.

1) A general letter goes out to all members, both active and inactive, outlining the policy change. The letter would also note that the church will begin contacting members who fall under the policy on a certain date. This would provide an opportunity to encourage people to attend without specifically threatening.

2) A specific letter goes out to all inactive members who fall under the policy. It would specify the terms of the policy again with specific prompts for action (attendance, contacting the church to inform of transfer to another church, resignation, etc.). It would also include deadlines for response with the consequences for non-response being automatic removal from membership. You can phrase this as "resignation by inaction" if your policy permits. It sounds less harsh, if that matters.

3) After the responses (or non-responses) are processed, the letters informing individuals of removal from membership can be sent.

This process may be lengthy and formal, but it provides a nice paper trail if anyone questions you. Also, it is much less intrusive than the other methods.

 

Stefan, I like your plan.

 

What if those you want to kick out of your church get wind of the proposed policy change? They might show up and vote it down!

 

Or you can simply place a clause that voting rights restoration will be effective when the minutes are approved at the following business meeting.

 

I don't know how you feel about the IX Marks guys, but they have dealt with this issue before. Here's one (of many) articles on it.

To read about why they take membership so seriously read The Church, and the Surprising Offense of God's Love. Not a quick read, in fact it is somewhat challenging, but I cannot recommend it enough. Worth every penny and every second you will spend on it.

 

In my first church I had a long time member move out to the pan handle of Texas to live with her sister. This was a permanant move. She returned back to Alabama to visit her daughter after about a year. She told me of attending a church (she loved the church, the pastor, etc.) at her new home and asked my opinion as to whether she should join that church or not. She loved her church in Alabama and was supposedly torn. I shared with her that she was no longer living in Alabama. She no longer supported our church through her attendance, finances, and work. I loved her, we all loved her but, she needed to move her membership. All I got was an "umph" as she turned away angry with me. She came back to visit her daughter over the years but never came back to church because she was mad at me. But, her name stayed on the roll as an "inactive member."

 

agree !!:thumbs:

 

This may seem like a silly question, but where does Scripture outline the terms of church membership as you practice it? Are all of your rules surrounding membership based firmly on Scripture or on man-made traditions that are meant to exclude any persons who are not in 100% agreement with denominational doctrine? Be honest with yourself & follow the answers to these questions to their logical conclusions.

 

There is plenty of scripture.

Matthew 18 tells us how to deal with an offending church member.
I Cor 5 tells us how to deal with a man living in sin, and later Paul tells us how to restore him to fellowship.

Acts tells us that baptism is the door to local church membership.
This is reinforced by I Cor 12;13, which tells us we are baptized into the body. The body is described in v 27 as the Corinthian congregation.

Acts 9: 26-28 tells us that a congregation has the right to determine its members. Saul wanted to join the church at Jerusalem, but they weren't convinced of his conversion. Then Barnabas vouched for him and the congregation received him.

In I Cor 11, Paul tells us the right way and wrong way to observe the Lord's Supper.

Beyond these and other scriptures, there is plenty of latitude for local churches to deal with membership questions.

 

You must take 1 Cor 12:27 out of context in order to make the body of Christ a local assembly. It says nothing about the body being a local assembly. He is assuring the Corinthian believers that they are as much a part of the Body & church of Christ as the believing Jews. You are practicing eisegesis by placing your own views into the Word. Verse 13 clearly states that ALL believers, both Jew & Gentile, are baptized by the Spirit into ONE Body. Verse 28 is clearly describing a much larger entity with the apostles as its foundation.

If baptism is a part of local church membership, then it logically follows that we must be baptized every time we join a different church. There is nothing in Acts 9 about church membership. You are adding to the Word in order to get that interpretation from the text. If it is not CLEARLY & PLAINLY written within Scripture, then it is unScriptural. Also, Ephesians 5:23 & Colossians 1 clearly state that His Body is the church. He is the head of the church, not the churches. Take your doctrine from the Word, don't add to it in order to prop up your traditions.

 

I Corinthians 12:27 is perfectly within context, since Paul is writing the entire letter to a local congregation.

The Greek word translated "by" in v 13 is en. It can also be translated "in." Thus we can read it, led by the Spirit, we are baptized into the body of Christ (which Paul says in v 27 is the Corinthian congregation).

Sometimes the word body, or church, is spoken of in generic or institutional terms. In Ephesians 5:23, that is what Paul is doing. There is no universal husband and wife--there are only real live individual husbands and wives. And Christ is the head of real, live, individual churches.

Do you have a church? Christ is the head of it.

And although there are some Baptist churches which do require each new member to be baptized, regardless of previous baptism, it is not widely practiced and the scriptures do not demand it.

We do not have any evidence that Paul was re-baptized when he sought membership at the FBC Jerusalem, or when he joined up with the FBC at Antioch.

 

How did we get so far off the OP? Sorry, I also contributed the the distraction.

 

I'm not sure we can exactly duplicate today the conditions of the New Testament.

For instance, did they have church rolls back then? Don't know.

But there is obviously a practical reason for keeping up with who is in your fellowship.
Today, a church communicates with its members in various ways, but back then there was no mail service, e-mail, telephones, websites, etc. Today's churches have adapted to the technology available.

Did they have transfer of membership letters back then? Don't know. But when Saul wanted to join the folks at FBC Jerusalem, they wouldn't accept his word, and Barnabas had to vouch for him. That's what transfer letters do today--vouch for membership in one's previous church.

After all the apostles died, they local churches call a business meeting to pick a new pastor? Don't know. But we do know the local congregation at Jerusalem had a business meeting to replace Judas as an apostle.

When Paul told the church at Corinth to get rid of an offending member, did they call a business meeting and vote him out? Don't know. But there was some method that the congregation used to carry out Paul's instructions.

All of Paul's writings in the NT were written to local congregations, not to some nebulous universal church. Believers are part of the kingdom, but I want nothing to do with some fantasy that cannot assemble, cannot send missionaries, cannot give to support ministries, and is filled with folks who believe and practice error.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I believe in the local assembly for the work of the ministry, but I also believe it is a sin to take Scripture out of context in order to prove our own traditions. The church is both local & universal. Scripture clearly refers to the church as the spiritual body of Christ; of which He is the head. The Word never refers to Him as the Head of the church(es), only of the church.

 

I am glad to see you affirm that the local assembly is for the work of the ministry.

That leaves the universal church to do exactly what?

By the way, I do not take scripture out of context to prove my traditions. The scriptures drive my views. I don't adopt a position then look for proof-texts.

Brother, I am perfectly willing to have a dialog with you on the question. You get your scriptures and I'll get mine.

In the meantime, do not poison the water by labeling my view as a sin.

 

The universal church doesn't "do" anything. It/we ARE the church & body of Christ. As I said before, Christ is the head of the body; not the "bodies". Christ has ONE Body & ONE bride. To deny the universal church/body is to deny the priesthood of the believer. Both denials have the same consequences. The church becomes a religious institution with priestly pastors who act as human mediators that think they have a special relationship with God that the "unanointed" do not have.

1 Corinthians says that we are all(believers) baptized by ONE Spirit into ONE body. God reinforces the fact that there is only one body by repeating it several times. How do you get water baptism into several bodies from that? Verses 12 & 13 set the context as one body. Verse 27 says "ye are THE body", not A body. ALL believers are the body & members in particular. Notice the Word NEVER refers to local churches as members of the body? I prefer to take my doctrine from the Word as it is written, not in light of denominational beliefs.

I view your position to be the same as denying Christ's deity because of His humanity. The one does not negate the other, & they must be understood in context with each other. I didn't say that your view is sin, I said that it is sin to take Scripture out of context in order to prove your view.