I once visited a church that had numerous good things going for it, but when I saw a pamphlet on joining that church, I was surprised to see the leadership required membership candidates to affirm the pre-millennial return of Christ.
This led me to start thinking about what should be required for church membership and ultimately brought me to believe that if someone is a true evangelical Christian who is not living in sin, that person should, as a member of the invisible church, be permitted to join a local church, despite other lesser doctrinal differences.
My rationale for this is that elders should only bar someone from church membership if they would excommunicate that person were he or she currently a member. It seems logically consistent. Think, for example, if a pre-millenialist joined the church mentioned above and then switched over to the postmil position: Should the elders tell that person to leave on threat of excommunication? If not, then evidently the elders aren't consistent in having eschatology as a standard for church membership.
Here's another scenario: Imagine if you were stranded on an island containing only one local church. You are a member of the invisible/universal church and want to join this local church. "No," the elders say, "you have a difference over the mode of baptism." Yikes! Then are you accountable to the elders? Should you be a "permanent visitor"? Partake of the Lord's supper? What an awkward situation.
Now you may say, "but we're not on an island, and there are many churches with elders who have a multitude of doctrinal views." Yes, this is true. And I believe it's wise to seek like-minded church for the sake of conscience and unity (and for elders to recommend this to potential members). However, is it right to not allow membership because of differences of opinions in situations where there are other churches? I don't think so, as this sounds like the ethics change based on situation. And of course because I don't see why someone should be refused church membership unless the elders would excommunicate that person were he or she a member.
Naturally, if someone joins a church where he has a difference of opinion with the church leadership, he would likely have to submit to their view if they thought he would otherwise be in sin. (Unless he could change their minds.) For this reason, a potential member should ask: can I in good conscience submit to these church leaders? If not, he or she should probably seek another church.
This seems similar to marriage: Paul commands widows who ought to be married to marry only other believers and doesn't lay out more criteria than this. So for someone to say that it is a sin, e.g., for a 4-point Calvinist to marry a 5-point Calvinist would be adding a requirement to scripture, I believe. That being said, would the woman, as a potential wife, be able to submit to her potential husband's view? If not, that would be a personal standard for her and she ought to seek someone else. (It is of course noted that the bible strongly urges Christians to seek godly spouses and also highly commends church leaders who are diligently seeking to be faithful.)
I have not studied much in coming to this conclusion, so I could definitely be incorrect. If so, please show me why my logic is flawed. Until then, it makes sense to me that if a Christian is willing to submit to church leaders in areas of disagreement (Presbyterian vs Baptist, etc), the elders should gladly allow that person into their local church.
No comments:
Post a Comment