Church Membership Policy

Different churches have different policies on church membership. I joined the one where I am now after just 3 weeks of going there. I did have to go through 3 weeks of a membership class though, which I thought was totally unnecessary since I've been saved for nearly 44 years and have served in every capacity except that of pastor. I can't understand wasting 2 years with a church that hasn't allowed you to join and become a working part of the church. I wasted 6 months on a church like that and finally gave up and went elsewhere. Since then I've always joined churches that don't expect me to wait for months or years.

On the day of Pentacost, they added to the church daily as people turned to Christ, and I don't think they had to wait months or years, or go through a training class to prove themselves. Their profession of faith was sufficent. The only qualification should be a verbal trestimony before the church membership of how they came to know the Lord to make sure they know what they're talking about.

 

I can understand a slight difference in today and the day of Pentecost. If a stranger came to our church without a letter of recommendation from someone I respected or at least knew of then I would want to meet with them several times before bringing them before the church for membership.

At pentecost they did not have to consider the fact that there are wolves in sheep's clothing.

At Faith if someone wants to be involved with the youth ministries they not only have a doctrinal check but a police check as well. Now, I realise that is not membership related but unfortunately there are bad people out there and before someone starts having a voice and influence on church policy we want to make sure they are of the same faith and practice.

However, two years seems excessive. Refusal to discuss the matter, or avoidance I guess, makes me think they are afraid of one thing or another. Sometimes being overly cautious can be just as bad as not showing any discretion.

All I can recommend Alex, if you believe this is the church where the Lord would have you, then focus on personal ministries. You can evangelise and have studies with others independently. The church may have a problem with Bible studies but if they have a problem with you evangelising then there may be deeper problems.

Just keep praying and see what the Lord wants you to do.

 

It sounds like you're having tough time Alex. If you're ever in Northern Ireland and need a church feel free to stop by.

As I see it you have two options. Stay in the church and pray and work to see change from within.

Or, start a new fellowship in your area. Now, please take this option with a huge grain of salt. So much bad could come of this if it is not God's will. But my reasons for mentioning this are due to the lack of evangelism. If a church is not witnessing and encouraging its people to evangelise then something is wrong.

Most churches I am familiar with have a section in the covenent that states, "We moreover purpose that when we remove from this place we will as soon as possible unite with some other Church of like faith and order where we can carry out the principles of God’s Word. In the event there is no such Church, we shall seek with the Lord’s help to establish one."

Maybe, and this is a big maybe, your situation may lend itself to the scenario of starting a fellowship.

My recommendation, stay in and pray for the Lord to change hearts. Evangelistic fervour is contagious and it would be wonderful for others in the church to catch your vision.

The other option I only put as it keeps coming into my head.

 

Alex, I actually know a pastor in Melbourne.
He was a missionary from WV back in the mid 80s.
Our church supported him and his wife as missionaries.
They are IFB, and the church they came out of is also KJVO.

I even remember a sermon he preached at our church when I was 16.
I looked him up this past summer to see what he is doing now.
He started a church in Melbourne, I think it is Suburban Baptist.
He told me it is running around 250 in attendance and is growing.

His name is Tim Loftis. His wife's name is Tammy.
I would recommend this church to you out of my experience with him years ago, and a couple emails I received this past year.
He is no longer supported by churches here, he is now the full time pastor there.

I don't know how far this church is to you, but he told me if I was ever in Melbourne to stop by.

He is a true man of God.
If you are interested, I have his email addy, and if you PM me, I will let him know you are interested.

Life is too short to stay in a church where you are not wanted...

 

Alex, they said to wait and see if you fit in, among other things, and it sounds like you don't! The areas where you seem to have differences are fairly major, and so I wouldn't get my feelings hurt. There is just some more fundamental difference (in theology perhaps?) there that you haven't quite been able to put your finger on yet.

Have you ever probed to find out WHY they don't agree with you on issues like proselytism and providence, etc.? What ARE their views on these things?

I think when people first start coming to the church I attend they might well be a little confused at first, too, but I can't imagine that confusion lasting for two years of regular attendance.

 

Yes, I thought it was something like that. My church is sometimes termed "hyper-Calvinistic" and I don't think the term is a valid one. But we would definitely be rather coolish to the handing out of tracts, too. I think we would be pretty warm toward anyone who walked in the door, though, so that had me a bit confused. The personalities of the people involved often has a lot to do with it. The thing is you would have found out pretty quick that we were opposed to missionism, it would not have taken two years for someone to discuss the subject with you and the whys of it. These folks seem to have been expecting you to figure out their theology for yourself.

I think the church you have been going to is probably teaching absolute predestination of all things, is that right?

 

The thing is, if I am not a member of the church I'm attending, I don't feel obligated to support them financially. Some Baptist churches won't let you participate in anything unless you're a member. That means if it takes months of "training" for you to become a member, that's months wasted where I could be serving the Lord in another church that doesn't make me wait so long to become a part of of their group.

 

I want to clarify that, rightly or wrongly, I use the term fellowship and church interchangeably. Not as one set up against the other.

Squire made the distinction and I guess in some places there is more associated with each word.

Glad things are working out for you Alex. It does sound like the church you used to attend had some serious issues.

 

Seeker-driven? That cut me deeply.

I would agree that there are senses in which the word fellowship does not equal the word church.

Maybe I have not been specific enough with my definitions here.

Anyway, just wanted to distance myself from any seeker-driven titles. :thumbs:

 

I am so far right Falwell has to turn right to see me. I have used fellowship in referecne to the church. There isnt any error in that.

 

When someone new walks through the doors of a church for service they should be recognized and greeted. Any new person saved or unsaved should be thought of as a potential new member and if they are unsaved it should be emphasized and mandated as a church rule to bring them to Christ. I am not against obtaining as much information as a church can about someone but police checks or even hiring an investigator seems to me to be a little to paranoid. I doubt very much that very many people who come to church are their for any other reason except to turn their life over to God. Any one who attends Church for any gregarious reasons will be found out in due time. And should be asked to leave. I have oftened wondered why alot of churches take a hands off position toward new members especially those who are unsaved. I would think a good common sense approach for a church would be a mandatory mentorship or a supervised training period to assure the new convert gets a good start in their new life. This will give them a good idea if their intentions are genuine. Fellowshipping is very important for the membership. And it would open up positions for those members that are eager to do something in the church but don't know what. As for potential new members that have already been saved and baptized and have attended church elsewhere a simple call to that church to speak to their pastor is all that is necessary. Even if they are carrying an impressive resume, a call should still be made. And I see nothing wrong with requiring saved new members to attend class(es) at least to learn what to expect of the church, what is expected of them, they should learn things like what the church doctrine is, what the testament of faith is, and how to become a member. I recommend anyone attending a new church to find these things out before they attend it. I have attended churches that are ingrown and seem to be secretive about their affairs. They limit membership and I don't trust them when they don't go out to witness to others or support any missions of any kind. I can certainly sympathise with the person who can't find a church that is run the way it should be. I have often felt God has been giving me the opportunity to establish a new church (for which I have not taken advantage) where people can go and just worship God and be a true scripturally based church where no mans dogma like Calvanism or Arminianism can exist. Perhaps God is opening your eyes to this.:thumbs: