In Support of Open Membership

May 5, 2010

This post was first published at internetmonk.com. Feel free to comment here or join the already extensive discussion at internetmonk.com.

I find it difficult to belong. You would think it wouldn’t be that hard. I am a Christian who sees many positive things in many traditions. If feel quite comfortable in many types of church settings. I am however, in my core beliefs, an Evangelical.

The problem is that where I live, Evangelicals are in the minority. In my community of 27,000 there is one Evangelical church. I helped start it. It was a Pentecostal church, and although I am not Pentecostal I figured that having one Evangelical church in town was better than having no Evangelical church, and so I offered my help.

My wife and I served under two Pastors there. We led worship, served on the leadership team, served on the pastoral search committee, taught Sunday School, and organized outreaches and banquets. All the while I was dreading the time when the church would become large enough to receive its “organized” status. For when the church received this status, membership would have to be formalized. We didn’t qualify. Membership required agreement to the statement of faith, and we didn’t believe the Pentecostal teaching on tongues.

Eventually we felt God calling us away from this church community, and we had a very amicable parting of the ways. We ended up at a church in another community, which unfortunately due to competing visions within it’s elder’s board, ending up closing its doors three years later. As we looked at other churches, most had something in their statement of faith, that excluded us. They were either too Calvinist, or too dispensational, or too anti-Charismatic for us to fit.

After a long search we found a church in a third community. We quite love it, and I have some very good things to say about it. Again, we didn’t qualify for membership, this time because my wife’s mode of baptism differed slightly from theirs. Although we do not believe in rebaptism (especially for those who have already been baptized as believers), our desire to belong eventually became stronger that our distaste for rebaptism and my wife was rebaptized. We became members shortly afterwards.

Are there others like me who have difficulty belonging? Conversations with people at places like Internetmonk.com make me think that my experience is hardly unique. So here are some questions I would like us to consider:

1. Does requiring agreement with a statement of faith lead to increased fragmentation within the body of Christ?

2. Or are there essentials that need to be agreed upon no matter what in order for someone to be accepted as a member?

3. If Christ has accepted me as a member of his body, are there ways to make it easier for me to be accepted into a local church body?

4. Could we lessen the requirement of membership in many evangelical churches, so that prospective members do not have to give complete agreement to a statement of faith, but instead will agree to uphold it and not teach contrary to it?

5. Are there similar situations in other faith traditions? If so, are there resolution that have been seen to work?

6. Finally, what could you do in your church to help people in my situation become part of your congregation and membership?

I don’t have a problem with a church having a statement of faith. I feel it is a good tool to say “this is what we are about as a church.” Is it not possible to say that “We welcome those who have slightly differing viewpoints” as long as they agree to uphold and abide by the statement of faith”?

Your thoughts and comments are welcome.


Alternatives to Division – #2: Using a Statement of Faith to Promote Unity

Jun 17, 2008

Most Evangelical Protestant churches have a Statement of Faith or a Statement of Belief. It generally serves two purposes. One, it says here is how we are the same as other Christians, and two, here is how we are different. Here are some thoughts about how it can be used to prevent division.

1. Including a phrase to promote unity:

In 1982 the North American Baptist Conference (NABC) put together a statement that would act as a guide for the whole denomination. One of the concepts that they struggled with was “inerrancy”. Many thought that the word inerrancy no longer communicated clearly, and that inerrancy meant so many different things to people that it was not worth having it in the statement of faith. One region of the conference felt strongly otherwise, and stated that if inerrancy was not included then they could no longer be part of the NABC. In the end, the conference acquiesced to the regions request. It was felt that having unity with the region was more important that dividing over a term which most felt they could affirm, albeit with different understandings of what that word meant.

2. Being deliberately vague to promote unity.

The Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada made a recent change in their statement of faith to promote unity.  They removed the word “premillenial”.  Why?  I believe it was because enough Pastors and Leaders in the denomination could no longer in good faith affirm it. The denomination decided that it was more important to them to include these Pastors than it was to dogmatically insist that everyone have the same millennium view.

Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.