When one speaks of membership, he is speaking of an office of which there are certain responsibilities and privileges, one of which is a say in how the church is governed.
Some churches have ranks of members, by which I mean that some are accepted as members, but may not teach or be given any other responsibilities for a certain time by which it is assumed anything too scandalous or disqualifying will have surfaced.
I think you're making a pretty bold assumption that the average congregation is full of mature, biblically sound believers. I don't think I'd agree.
I wonder what the church at Corinth might have considered too scandalous ? Maybe a man having his father's wife ?
Oh, wait. They openly accepted a guy like that and had to be rebuked for it
I'm not really in favor of an entire congregation having a majority say-so on anything spiritual. The reason is that the majority of any congregation is lacking in discernment, maturity, biblical knowledge.
The majority of genuine believers wouldn't know the difference between a wolf and an antelope
That's why there are pastors and elders to train, guide, protect
Do you just willy-nilly baptize people? Do you have no orientation or period of instruction by which the qualifications of the baptismal candidates are assertained?
That might depend on 2 things:
1) are we guided by scripture or our flesh?
I don't see any sort of probationary vetting period for the 3,000 who were added to the church on Pentecost, or the Ethiopian eunuch, or anyone else in scripture, for that matter. I wonder how long John the Baptist observed those who came to the banks of the Jordan before he invited them into the water
2) does love believe all things, or is love suspicious of all things? and how legalistic do we want to be?
If we require everyone to "have it all together" before baptizing them, I can assure you that the water will become quite stale from lack of stirring.
