Does Your Church Have Formal Membership?

[The Lemon]

I still can't help but think that in some churches the idea of family is warped. Not only from the standpoint of the immediate family, but even extended family and church family. We are supposed to be a spiritual family, but it seems to me that in alot of cases, the system and structure are what we serve and not one another.

IMHO family is NOT a business, it is relational. I'm not supposed to make a gross profit off my family, I'm suppose to love, cherish, and invest myself into my family. It seems that there is way to much "going through the motions", and we become more casual friends and business partners then actual family members.

Anyway, I'm not trying to harp on this, I just think that sometimes the expectations of organized religion and the demands of building etc., can in some cases be unrealistic. when you add the life demands of how a person looks, were they can go, entertainment restrictions, etc., it seems more like a dictatorship then a relationship with Jesus through the Holy Ghost.

Funny thing is I have known some very Ultra Conservative folks who whole heartedly supported the formal structure and all the trappings, standards etc., and lived it to the tee. When they decided to not be in ministry anymore, guess what "things" they let go of?? It amazes me how alot of this formal or informal church structure makes perfect sense in the four walls and in a vacuum, but sometimes reality says different...

[AreYouReady?]

Good post lemon.

I also cannot help but wonder when we are not told not to be of this world, why we financially enslave ourselves to the world system?

Our little water co-op won't go into debt building a building. They waited until they saved all the money to build. A modest church to worship in is satisfactory. Why build some monstrous cathedral when we know we are not impressing God and only trying to impress men ?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Good post lemon.

I also cannot help but wonder when we are not told not to be of this world, why we financially enslave ourselves to the world system?

Our little water co-op won't go into debt building a building. They waited until they saved all the money to build. A modest church to worship in is satisfactory. ...

Even if you have a "modest church" there are still bills to be paid and maintenance costs.

I'm fine with formal membership. It doesn't say anything at all about whether a person is a Christian; it's just a formal agreement that someone is willing to invest their time, effort and money into supporting the local assembly. I don't really see how that's a worldly system. The secular mindset is that people shouldn't invest in a church at all. The biblical mindset is that whatever bills or burdens are incurred should be shared equally among the members.

...Why build some monstrous cathedral when we know we are not impressing God and only trying to impress men ?...

This statement is highly subjective. I know a lot of people who feel that the local church should receive more money and attention than their own homes since it's perceived as being the house of God. Whether you agree with their perspective or not, it's unfair to characterize it as trying to impress men when in fact they are essentially "giving their best to God."

[acerrak]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Even if you have a "modest church" there are still bills to be paid and maintenance costs.

I'm fine with formal membership. It doesn't say anything at all about whether a person is a Christian; it's just a formal agreement that someone is willing to invest their time, effort and money into supporting the local assembly. I don't really see how that's a worldly system. The secular mindset is that people shouldn't invest in a church at all. The biblical mindset is that whatever bills or burdens are incurred should be shared equally among the members.

its not just formal membership we are dealing with. we are also talking about excluding people in the church from having the same benifits as others do just because they do not want to write their name to the tithe pouch.

Basing there place or position of the church based on financial giving, while i understand that bills need to be paid , churches grow with out any mandates of tithes.

This statement is highly subjective. I know a lot of people who feel that the local church should receive more money and attention than their own homes since it's perceived as being the house of God. Whether you agree with their perspective or not, it's unfair to characterize it as trying to impress men when in fact they are essentially "giving their best to God."

its not highly subjective. they are flat out wrong with no biblical support on it.
Our body is the House of God, its the end of discussion. We are the temple.

when money was given to the church in the book of acts days, it went to feed the poor and the widows, Paul encouraged churches to give to help the needy back in jerusalem.

where we goto church its just a building. There is nothing sacred about it.

while i understand that some one wants a place to call "their own" some times we can pour to much into the building/ institution and completly miss the point of why we are doing this.

and back in bible days their own homes was where they had church... just wanted to point that out.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Even if you have a "modest church" there are still bills to be paid and maintenance costs.

I'm fine with formal membership. It doesn't say anything at all about whether a person is a Christian; it's just a formal agreement that someone is willing to invest their time, effort and money into supporting the local assembly. I don't really see how that's a worldly system. The secular mindset is that people shouldn't invest in a church at all. The biblical mindset is that whatever bills or burdens are incurred should be shared equally among the members.

It is a wordly system when you understand how our financial system in this world works. I have neither the time, nor inclination to go into educating something on a forum that took me months, even years to understand the complex workings of the world's banking system. To most people, you work, cash your check or have it deposited in the bank, then pay your bills. That is their only understanding of the financial system. That is their limit of knowledge.

Fact is, it is much much more than just that. It would astound the average person who never had the thought to study the economic system and understand why we have interest rates, high inflation, low inflation, bubbles etc

I understand that there are bills to be paid and maintenance costs. That would happen if people met in homes. It just would not be a double cost. God does not require us to build him a costly, high technological building to worship Him in.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

This statement is highly subjective. I know a lot of people who feel that the local church should receive more money and attention than their own homes since it's perceived as being the house of God. Whether you agree with their perspective or not, it's unfair to characterize it as trying to impress men when in fact they are essentially "giving their best to God."

I respectfully agree and disagree with some of your statements here.

I agree that my statement is highly subjective, as is everybody else's who thinks about matters of life and death.

And no, I do not agree with their perspective about a building being "the house of God" as I Cor 3:16 tell us we are the temple in which the Spirit of God dwells.

Aren't you impressed with you see a large contemporary building with hundreds of automobiles parked in the lot? I am. However, it does not necessarily mean that the Spirit of God visits there. And God certainly does not dwell in any building.

My subjective opinion is that I would rather spend my money on my neighbor who may not have enough to eat, pay his bills, put clothing on the children's backs. I would rather share Christ with them and worship in their house with them, or at the very least, pray for them that they might seek God if they hadn't already done so.

My subjective opinion is that putting my money into a building does not ease the wounds of my neighbor or their children. While a building does ingest money on maintenance and other bills, it does not see, eat, feel or give love back to the people who invest their time and money on it.

Christ told us to love our neighbor's as ourselves. How can we justify spending money on inanimate objects when our world is dying and going to hell because we as a people do not go into the world and preach the gospel? We build buildings and expect people to come to us instead of going to them to share Christ's gospel.

So I do not think I am being unfair anymore than those who do spend their time and money in a church building and would make accusatory statements to others such as a person just doesn't want to spend their money on the "house of God". And I am not accusing you or anybody else on these forums of making such statements. I am saying this because I have heard this for years from many others.

I have no problem with those who want to spend their money as God leads them. It just isn't where God leads my husband and I.

[HRea]

Originally Posted by acerrak

its not highly subjective. they are flat out wrong with no biblical support on it.
Our body is the House of God, its the end of discussion. We are the temple.

when money was given to the church in the book of acts days, it went to feed the poor and the widows, Paul encouraged churches to give to help the needy back in jerusalem.

where we goto church its just a building. There is nothing sacred about it.

while i understand that some one wants a place to call "their own" some times we can pour to much into the building/ institution and completly miss the point of why we are doing this.

and back in bible days their own homes was where they had church... just wanted to point that out.

I don't know where this got started, but it's wrong to say that the NT Church held services in individual homes only. A careful study shows that the early church met in the synagogues and the temple, and sometimes in larger houses. When persecution came, the believers spread out from Jerusalem, and used the synagogues of the towns they went to as bases, until the Jews rejected the gospel. The only reason why they stopped meeting in synagogues and the temple was because of the rejection of the gospel, not because of a divine directive against it. We see a good mixture of meeting places.

As to financial support of the ministry (most often through tithes), that is also biblical. Paul himself chose not to take any financial support (working part of the time during his missionary trips), but he didn't begrudge any who did. I believe that the ministry should not live as kings, but they should not be condemned for receiving support either.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Bro. Robbins

You don't consider "alms", giving to the poor, benevolence, etc as offerings? See, you have to understand here, I don't subscribe to the typical financial system most Apostolic churches do... that tithes to the pastor, and offerings to the church operations.

I believe tithes are to go to the local church, and the salaries of the ministers (if they are salaried), insurance, light bill, christian education expenses, etc should all come from the tithe. Then anything anyone gives above and beyond is an offering, whether it be in the missions offering, extra money in the plate, or handing it to the begger on the street needing food.... to me, all of that is offerings.

And yes, I do believe Pastors should be salaried, and have a set amount per month, so that all churches can operate on a budget, have a forecasted budget, etc and plan for growth, savings, etc. I do not believe that all the tithe should go to the pastor, and do not believe that the pastor should own the building, church vans, property, etc.

I also don't believe in external fundraisers, and that all ministries, ladies, men, youth, children, etc should all be funded from the tithe brought into the church.... I know that will set some off around here, lol.

[AreYouReady?]

Which is why financial support should not be called "the tithe". The Old Testament tithe is a whole different concept from New Testament cheerful giving.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Bro. Robbins

I've noticed since coming to the Apostolic movement, very few Apostolic churches have "membership". It's pretty much if you attend there, that's your church. Very different, since I'm so used to church's having formal membership.

So, does your church have formal membership, or not? Any reason why one way or the other?

I believe a formal membership really has much to do with protecting the tenets of the church leadership against anyone who may come in, at any given time, and try to usurp authority or go against what the leadership feels is right for their church. It can be legally binding in some instances.

You have to decide, for yourself, if you agree with the tenets of the church in order to formally sign or attend as a member. Pretty cut and dried, IMO.

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe a formal membership really has much to do with protecting the tenets of the church leadership against anyone who may come in, at any given time, and try to usurp authority or go against what the leadership feels is right for their church. It can be legally binding in some instances.

You have to decide, for yourself, if you agree with the tenets of the church in order to formally sign or attend as a member. Pretty cut and dried, IMO.