Featured Church Discipline/Rolls?

I agree with this approach! Recently while visiting with a Lutheran church they denied me communion & I was a bit taken aback ... anyway I now view closed communion as a means to say that "we are Christian & you are not"

 

I believe the Bible makes the case for elder rule. The ideal is sound. The problem is weak men unwilling to stand up for what's right and fix the system.

 

Amen. Elder rule is not only biblical, it is the only biblical method that exists for church governance. The pastor is an elder. He may be a separate among equals, but he is a presbuteros or elder. Elder rule does not mean elders are despots that cannot be opposed if necessary. The Bible provides instruction on how to bring charges against an elder. Elder rule also does not prohibit congregational involvement. Typically elder rule is most apparent in theological/spiritual matters.

 

From a personal prospective, I do not like it when an 'Elder' is younger than me.

 

Elder rule is a disaster. I grew up in a PCA church, and was a member through my young adult years before becoming a Baptist for 35 years now. First of all, elders are elected usually based on social status, not spiritual maturity. Elder rule also implies a hierarchy, which means the congregation has little say in issues with the building, calling a pastor, and other such issues.

First of all, there is no evidence in the NT that any of the local churches Paul visited had a hierarchy. Baptist churches are local autonomous New Testement churches. There is usually congregational rule, one elder or pastor, and deacons. If one wants elder rule, there are Presbyterian, Methodist, and Lutheran churches all over the place. If you like a hierarchy, the RCC might me the fit for you.

Elder rule has a strange way of transforming into elder worship. I agree with the poster above, that either congregational or elder can be abused, but on the whole, elder government is much more abused. I wonder how many of you all have actually served in a church with elder rule for decades.

How would you as a lay person like no say so in calling a pastor, making changes to your church building or other issues you take for granted? My guess is those in favor of elder rule never experienced it. Also, the average elder has no more knowledge of Scripture than the average church member. They usually have a higher salary.

Also, one cannot serve as an elder and deacon at the same time. The nature of the two offices is totally different.

 

This is a good idea, but to me it falls short of a church's responsibility to "guard the ordinances" that Paul commanded in I Corinthians 11:2.

There's no question that the individual should "examine himself." But the congregation should have a clear position on whom it will invite to the Lord's Table. It is a church ordinance, not an individual ordinance.

That said, your church's warning is appropriate, even for its own members.

 

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (KJV)

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (NASB)

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. (ESV)

You used the word "guard" which can have the meaning of restricting. That is not what the text says in any of the major translations. The word you are translating "guard" is the Greek word "paradoseis" and it means "the handing down of a tradition."

 

I doubt if that's the message the Lutheran church meant to send. But it was correct in not offering you communion. You were not in fellowship with its members, nor under its authority.

Had you attended a Roman Catholic church, you would have also been denied the Eucharist. And at one time, the RC church would have meant exactly that--that you were not a Christian.

You shouldn't get your feelings hurt because a local congregation restricts the Lord's Table. It's their right to do as they see scripture directing, even if you disagree.

 

A church keeps a list of its members for practical reasons, which should be evident.

It is a tool for communicating with them.

Last year, I dropped in on the church where the Lord saved me in 1947. That was 64 years ago. But I couldn't remember the date of my baptism. The church clerk found a ledger in its archives, and there it was. April 1947. On that same date, the record showed that my mother had joined the same church by letter. And leafing through, I found the names of my sister entered a couple of years later, and then the entry recording the baptism of my father not long after that.

Here's another good reason for maintaining records. We received a request for letter of transfer from someone who had been off our radar for years. Turns out they had found a church in another city, and decided to join. The problem: we had removed his name from our roll for non-attendance and non-support, plus the fact that we couldn't find him.

Our pastor sent a letter to the pastor of the other church, explaining the circumstances and giving some background on the man, noting that he had not attended in years. He suggested that the pastor address this with his new candidates for membership. Our pastor did not know the man, had never met him. His information came from records maintained by the church clerk.

The pastor of the receiving church certainly deserved to know of the disfellowshipping, I think. And so should the man who was removed.

If our names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, then our names on a list of church members shouldn't be a problem.

 

What does it matter when you were baptized? It's not that important. The important thing is that it happened. If the person says they were baptized that should be good enough.


Why did you call it disfellowship when the man moved? That is judgmental and sets a bad tone for the man and his new church family. You make it sound like some sin was involved and this great heathen needed to be held accountable. That was a needless power play by what appears to me an overzealous pastor.

These situations are a key part of my being against official membership rolls.

 

Important? Probably only to me. But the written record of it was useful.

I suppose I could have used another term besides disfellowship. We simply removed his name from our church roll. It was basically the church's accepance of the reality that he had withdrawn his fellowship from us by not attending and not supporting the church of which he was a member.

It is entirely possible that we failed to educate him of his obligations as a church member. We don't iknow. All we know is that he had forsaken the assembling together with us,and we couldn't find him to ask him about it; and so we assume that his absence is on purpose.

 

Then why not just tell the new church that he moved and you were not told where?

What would you educate him to do?

It may be that he spent all that time looking for a new church, new home, or new job? These things take time. Heck, even without moving to a new town I once spent over a year prayerfully seeking where God would have us fellowship.

 

Actually our action doesn't carry disciplinary overtones, either.

Basically, our church clerk will ask permission to remove so-and-so's name from the roll. He doesn't call it withdrawing fellowship.

Sometimes the request will come if the person has joined a church of another denomination. Sometimes he won't have to explain, since the members will know if he's been absent for a year or more.