# Question on Chuch Membership



## OPC'n (Aug 16, 2009)

Is it true that churches across the board do not require membership for a person to stay in that church for a long period of time? I guess I've always assumed that at some point my church (OPC) would required membership of a person if that person was going to make it their church. In my church, you have to be a member of a Bible believing church in order to take communion. So I guess that's why I just assumed ppl had to be a member of a church they were going to be apart of for awhile. At my sister's church here in Canada (PCA) you don't have to be a member of her church or any other church and you can still take communion. I find that odd.


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 16, 2009)

In my experience (which granted is limited), its actually more odd to require church membership for communion than to not require it. (I'm not making a judgment on which is the best practice, but just saying what I've experienced). Generally, churches I've attended or visited only require that you profess the gospel. The majority of those churches were not reformed though.

My parents attended a church for a long time that they did not join. Their reason for not joining was that that church held to some beliefs with which they did not agree. (It was the best church within a reasonable distance). When they another church was planted close (ish) to them, they began attending and eventually joined that church. I think its generally a pretty special and unusual circumstance for a person to justifiably attend a church for a long period of time without joining. Having said that, I don't know that a church would _require_ you to join although they would probably encourage it. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that can be forced.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 16, 2009)

Good questions.

Reformed theology has a "high" view of the church (compared with broad evangelicalism, generally). That view comes from the covenant community, understanding the Body of Christ, church authority, etc.

Practically, our church has members (who are subject to certain responsibilities and privileges, e.g. vows to support, submit to governance and discipline, right to vote on certain church matters, etc.).

A second category is "regular attenders" who are likely not to have these attributes, benefits, vowed responsibilities and privileges. There are a very few who have continued as regular attenders a long time because they still have some doctrinal disagreement (or misunderstanding). 

In theory, refusing to take membership vows might eventually become subject to admonishment, which is really a form of church discipline. In the PCA, "admonishment" is classified as "formal" and "informal." In practice this comes through preaching, teaching and personal interaction with church officers and others.

Interesting, why people do not commit to membership was the subject of a Sunday School this morning- the teaching was that sin and ignorance (the latter also can be a form of sin) cause that. It was convicting. I'm not sure how long one could sit under that kind of teaching and still refuse to commit to membership. Keep in mind in the PCA, at least, it is not required that one understands, let alone agrees with, every part of its doctrine- only that one will study it peaceably.

A common instruction concerning the Lord's Supper "fencing" the table is a verbal fencing- a warning for nonbelievers not to partake based on Scriptural admonition and a statement that one ought be a "member in good standing of a church where this Gospel is preached." Technically, some denominations have little or no process for membership or make no practical differentiation between joining as members and regularly attending. Many broadly evangelical churches are this way, reflecting a lower view (or understanding) of the visible church, Christ's Body.

My understanding is the Lord's Supper is open to believers who are in fellowship, at least with a church that holds the Gospel. As long as a good faith attempt is made to "fence" in that way, I think it is biblical- we don't want to make church membership or the Lord's Supper too restrictive yet it must stand for something very definite- and important.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 16, 2009)

A line out of a hymn regarding the church (How Sweet and Awful is the Place) "...when thousands make a dreadful choice and would rather starve than come ..." has gone through my mind over and over where churches and membership are concerned. Not that I elevate a hymn to the place of scripture, but Christ has given us so much in his church and that precious gift gets trampled in modern evangelicalism.

The table is offered to us because we are part of the covenant community; to have not joined that community would be like crashing a wedding dinner. The OPC requires "a" Bible-believing church, not necessarily the one you are attending that morning. That gives room for folks traveling, away at school, not yet convinced of the doctrine of a church, and so forth.

The latter I have some difficulty with, although I can fully understand why a person, particularly of sensitive conscience, would be uncomfortable joining when he has a serious difference of opinion.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 16, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> Is it true that churches across the board do not require membership for a person to stay in that church for a long period of time? I guess I've always assumed that at some point my church (OPC) would required membership of a person if that person was going to make it their church. In my church, you have to be a member of a Bible believing church in order to take communion. So I guess that's why I just assumed ppl had to be a member of a church they were going to be apart of for awhile. At my sister's church here in Canada (PCA) you don't have to be a member of her church or any other church and you can still take communion. I find that odd.



You sister's PCA church (if you describe the practice accurately) is not following the PCA BCO, and not properly fencing the table.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 17, 2009)

I would imagine many might see a loophole in the traditional verbal fencing that says one must be a member of a Bible-believing church---say I've attended Sarah's church for some time (months, maybe even years) without joining, but I am still considered to be a member at an earlier church (my name is still on the roll there, they have loose definitions of membership, etc.). I might feel perfectly within the bounds set up by traditional fencing that merely requires one to be a member somewhere, not necessarily the current church. 

Tangentially related question: are associate memberships an option in many denominations other than the ARP?


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 17, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> I would imagine many might see a loophole in the traditional verbal fencing that says one must be a member of a Bible-believing church---say I've attended Sarah's church for some time (months, maybe even years) without joining, but I am still considered to be a member at an earlier church (my name is still on the roll there, they have loose definitions of membership, etc.). I might feel perfectly within the bounds set up by traditional fencing that merely requires one to be a member somewhere, not necessarily the current church.
> 
> Tangentially related question: are associate memberships an option in many denominations other than the ARP?



That wouldn't be a loop hole for my pastor. He states that you have to be in good standing with your church in order to take communion. If you haven't gone to your church for some time then he would tell you that you were not in good standing with your church.


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 17, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> I would imagine many might see a loophole in the traditional verbal fencing that says one must be a member of a Bible-believing church---say I've attended Sarah's church for some time (months, maybe even years) without joining, but I am still considered to be a member at an earlier church (my name is still on the roll there, they have loose definitions of membership, etc.). I might feel perfectly within the bounds set up by traditional fencing that merely requires one to be a member somewhere, not necessarily the current church.
> 
> Tangentially related question: are associate memberships an option in many denominations other than the ARP?



I believe some of my friends who are members of the PCA got associate memberships while in college. So they were a "regular" member at their home church and then an associate member at the church they were attending while at school. I think they might do this for members of the military too?


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 17, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> I believe some of my friends who are members of the PCA got associate memberships while in college. So they were a "regular" member at their home church and then an associate member at the church they were attending while at school. I think they might do this for members of the military too?


 This would be quite a different story as they are not avoiding their own church or forsaken their own church out of rebellion.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 17, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > I would imagine many might see a loophole in the traditional verbal fencing that says one must be a member of a Bible-believing church---say I've attended Sarah's church for some time (months, maybe even years) without joining, but I am still considered to be a member at an earlier church (my name is still on the roll there, they have loose definitions of membership, etc.). I might feel perfectly within the bounds set up by traditional fencing that merely requires one to be a member somewhere, not necessarily the current church.
> ...



My understanding is someone who is not committed to regular participation in a local church is walking "disorderly," and ought abstain from the Lord's Supper until repentance. This would be true whether a member or not.

I'm not sure how best to convey this clearly but something like, "a member in good standing of a church where this Gospel is preached" is a good faith attempt at it.

What's difficult is I'm thinking of a couple people, though admonished (informally) to join by preaching, teaching and personal interaction with the elders and deacons and other members, will not join as members because they fear a doctrine disagreement (e.g. infant baptism). These people do attend, participate and tithe, etc. but have not taken membership vows.

Could someone like this not take the Lord's Supper if they visited another denominational church? They take communion at their home church (even though they have not taken vows to join) and probably feel free to do so when visiting other like churches.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Aug 17, 2009)

My point is that the person sitting in the pew is generally the one deciding if they're in good standing. Having watched my husband try to work with two different sessions to pare the rolls, I can assure you that people who haven't darkened the door of the church in months or years consider themselves to be in good standing (partly because many times no one has told them otherwise). If we assume that every visitor (long- or short-term) comes from churches that view membership as seriously as we do, we're mistaken. 

I'm not saying I have a solution; I'm merely saying what I've seen happen.


----------



## ewenlin (Aug 17, 2009)

I visited a bible pres church just yesterday and was surprised that the Lord's Supper was open "to all who understand its significance."


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 17, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> My point is that the person sitting in the pew is generally the one deciding if they're in good standing. Having watched my husband try to work with two different sessions to pare the rolls, I can assure you that people who haven't darkened the door of the church in months or years consider themselves to be in good standing (partly because many times no one has told them otherwise). If we assume that every visitor (long- or short-term) comes from churches that view membership as seriously as we do, we're mistaken.
> 
> I'm not saying I have a solution; I'm merely saying what I've seen happen.



That's right, it usually boils down to one's own assessment of worthiness, and that's a reflection of their understanding about the view of the sacraments, their view of the church. In reformed theology that's a high one for both.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 17, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> My point is that the person sitting in the pew is generally the one deciding if they're in good standing. Having watched my husband try to work with two different sessions to pare the rolls, I can assure you that people who haven't darkened the door of the church in months or years consider themselves to be in good standing (partly because many times no one has told them otherwise). If we assume that every visitor (long- or short-term) comes from churches that view membership as seriously as we do, we're mistaken.
> 
> I'm not saying I have a solution; I'm merely saying what I've seen happen.



Of course a pastor cannot know a person's heart, however, if my pastor knew that a person was avoiding going to their own church he would not allow them at the Lord's table. This would be found out after a short period of time....I know because it's already happened to a couple who came to our church. My pastor feels very responsible for the spiritual welfare of those coming to our church. He is very patient with them but guides them in the correct direction of church order. If they refuse Biblical guidance he takes the next necessary steps. Like I said he is very patient and kind in all his dealings with ppl.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 17, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> Tangentially related question: are associate memberships an option in many denominations other than the ARP?



For the uninitiated, here is the definition/description of an associate member from the ARP Form of Gov't:



> An associate church member is one who expects to reside
> in the area of the church for a limited time or expects to make
> extended periodic visits to such area and does not want to
> transfer his or her church membership from their home church,
> ...



This would tend to apply in special situations, such as college students, military personnel, families with more than one residence, etc. It is meant to encourage church membership (i.e., encourage the person temporarily outside the bounds of their regular church to unite with another church on this temporary basis).


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 17, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > Tangentially related question: are associate memberships an option in many denominations other than the ARP?
> ...



In the ARP, does associate membership have all the incidents of "regular" membership-

right to vote on certain church matters, subject to church discipline, may participate on church commissions and committees, etc.?


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 17, 2009)

For the most part, I think students are better off joining a local congregation. My husband and I don't see eye to eye on this one, and his view has prevailed.


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 17, 2009)

jwithnell said:


> For the most part, I think students are better off joining a local congregation. My husband and I don't see eye to eye on this one, and his view has prevailed.



What if the student plans to move back to his or her hometown after graduation and spends summer and winter breaks in their hometown?


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 17, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> In the ARP, does associate membership have all the incidents of "regular" membership-
> 
> right to vote on certain church matters, subject to church discipline, may participate on church commissions and committees, etc.?



Excellent question, and I thought about posting a comment about that earlier, but was in a hurry. The short is answer is "no." Here is what the Form of Gov't says:



> 4. Associate members.
> a. Applicants for an associate church membership may be received by a certificate of good standing from the congregation to which they belong.
> b. Associate members’ names shall be entered into the records of the session; be appropriately presented to the congregation; shall have the rights, privileges and duties of regular communicant church members when residing in the area of the church except they shall not have the right
> to vote in congregational meetings nor the right to hold office in the congregation or church.


----------



## dudley (Aug 17, 2009)

*I do think that confessed membership in a Bible believing church should be required i*

I left the roman catholic church in January 2006 and started attending an Episcopal church with friends. I decided after a few Sundays to join the congregation. I just told the Pastor I wanted to become a member of the Episcopal church. She knew my leaving Rome at that point was that I had become anti papist under the current pope Benedict. They had a weekly service and communion like the rc church and I just started to receive communion there also. 

I started to do a study on Protestantism also that year and explored all the major Protestant denominations. The Methodist church I worshipped with while exploring admitted all to the Lords Supper.

I then became very interested in John Calvin and also was reading Wylie's History of Protestantism. I started attending services at 3 different Presbyterian congregations OPC,PCA and PCusa

In the OPC and PCA congregations I explored when contemplating becoming a Presbyterian you have to be a member of a Bible believing church in order to take communion. The PCusa congregation like the Methodists admitted me as a visitor to the Lords Supper.

I joined a Westminster class with an OPC congregation and was admitted on a few occasions to the Lords Supper because I was in a Westminster class and made a private confession to the Pastor that I was prepared to renounce the roman catholic faith and her teachings and make a Public confession of faith as a Presbyterian. However after two monthly services where I received communion at the OPC church it was felt by the elders that I should refrain from communion until I made my public affirmation of faith in a bible believing church. The roman catholic church we all know here on the PB is an apostate religion and her teaching on the Lords Supper is an abomination of the truth.

I respected that and I made a public affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian a short time later and I am now a communing Presbyterian. I also take communion at other Bible believing churches when visiting such as the Baptist congregation I worship with occasionally.

I do think that confessed membership in a Bible believing church should be required in the circle of Reformed Protestantism. 

In grace,
Dudley


----------

