multi-church membership

[bobtheman]

Can anyone think of any reasons as to why multi church membership is so unwelcome ?

I understand that we are to commit ourselves to the church, and to submit ourselves to the elders, to become the flock if you will. However, I does anyone disagree with the idea that:

1. One church, one flock, etc
2. Someone can commit themselves to 'the church' without committing myself to the local construction of our idea of 'church'
3. One can submit to the leadership and discipleship without restricting themselves to one specific structure (church)
4. One can attend many church's and still commit themselves to the 'church', without committing themselves to the church LLC.
5. Our obligation and commitment is to Jesus and his church, not a single construct


I ask these types of questions because i've noticed something that just doesn't sit well with me. We are committed, rightfully so, at spreading the gospel - inviting guests to services - etc. However, when an existing member of church 'A' goes to visit and attend a service at church 'B' they are harshly looked at (at least from my experiences)buy their current congregation. They are immediately thought of as a straying sheep, and are treated as such. When asked where you were, I've noticed that many will give any excuse other than visiting another church. We become isolationists, I cant assist your church because of the stigma associated with the aforementioned.

It almost seems like turf wars. We compete for members, promoting our church and not the church, and making heretics of anyone who fractures

 

[RamistThomist]

However, when an existing member of church 'A' goes to visit and attend a service at church 'B' they are harshly looked at (at least from my experiences)but their current congregation. They are immediately thought of as a lost sheep, and are treated as such. When asked where you were, I've noticed that many will give any excuse other than visiting another church.

Well, the people who are over you in authority will want to know why you went there. That's natural. The lost sheep thing might be a bit much. That's certainly true of Doug Wilson's people and the CREC but most NAPARC members will understand.

 

[lynnie]

If you are in a church where either overtly or subtly they look at membership as a marriage covenant, and to go visit another church is akin to going on a date with another women, I would leave and never look back.

We were in Sovereign Grace Ministries back in the 1990s and one of the pastors tried to pull that on us ("I thought you were married for life") when we saw reality with Mahaney and left for the PCA. It is symptomatic of control and other problems. Treated harshly? Straying sheep? Get out.

I am not saying that inability to settle in one place most of the time is fine- that generally indicates problems also- and I would seek counsel if that is your situation. But an occasional visit to another local church? Go for it. It helps to prevent any mindset that your group is the superior group and gives you a sense of being part of the whole body of Christ.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is a good rule of thumb: are they acting like Wilsonite CREC churches? If yes, leave.

 

[Edward]

multi church membership

when an existing member of church 'A' goes to visit and attend a service at church 'B'

Two completely different things that shouldn't be conflated. (Visiting not equal to membership).

 

[jfschultz]

I don't know if this is current practice, but back when I was in college there was the concept of being an associate member. The student would maintain membership in their home church and become an associate member of a church where they were in college. This may be symbolic, but the student would submit to the spiritual authority of the church away from home.

 

[Logan]

I don't think it's a problem of not viewing it as one body. In traveling for work I visit many congregations of various denominations and have always been welcomed as a fellow brother.

I would think it has to do more with commitment and submission to authority. I can't really think why it would ever be a good idea to be a "member" of multiple churches, alternating various weeks, and here would be some downsides:

- If that person comes under discipline, which church's authority is he under?
- How can he really get to know or minister to any one set of brothers and sisters if he is constantly visiting the other?
- By identifying with the "larger body" I wonder if you really are identifying with none. This is analogous to say, donating money to the "United States" instead of to the family next door in need, because hey! We're all Americans.
- How is this helpful to those who are committed to financially supporting a local congregation, while you go whenever and donate whenever you wish? Are you a reliable and dependent member?
- How about those who are committed to the church in other ways, such as volunteering? Wouldn't it seem that you are just a picky "consumer"?
- Why would the regular members be happy to see you when you show up irregularly? (honestly, why?) Like the member of the local club that just shows up when there's free food and never helps.
- Why would these members want to converse with you when there are plenty of others they see more regularly and have more meaningful relationships with?
- Speaking of which, I hardly have enough time to be meaningfully involved in one congregation, let alone multiple ones.
- How does one submit if they are constantly moving out from under the authority of one or the other church?

But perhaps more importantly, Paul often writes to individual churches and instructs them as a local body. They certainly did have an awareness of the larger body (sending money to those fellow Christians in need) but isn't the local body where one primarily ministers? Fellowships? Bears one another's burdens? By committing to the "church" at large without committing to the "local construction of our idea of 'church'" then what exactly are they committing to? In actuality, nothing.

 

[bobtheman]

I don't think it's a problem of not viewing it as one body. In traveling for work I visit many congregations of various denominations and have always been welcomed as a fellow brother.

I would think it has to do more with commitment and submission to authority. I can't really think why it would ever be a good idea to be a "member" of multiple churches, alternating various weeks, and here would be some downsides:

- If that person comes under discipline, which church's authority is he under?
- How can he really get to know or minister to any one set of brothers and sisters if he is constantly visiting the other?
- By identifying with the "larger body" I wonder if you really are identifying with none. This is analogous to say, donating money to the "United States" instead of to the family next door in need, because hey! We're all Americans.
- How is this helpful to those who are committed to financially supporting a local congregation, while you go whenever and donate whenever you wish? Are you a reliable and dependent member?
- How about those who are committed to the church in other ways, such as volunteering? Wouldn't it seem that you are just a picky "consumer"?
- Why would the regular members be happy to see you when you show up irregularly? (honestly, why?) Like the member of the local club that just shows up when there's free food and never helps.
- Speaking of which, I hardly have enough time to be meaningfully involved in one congregation, let alone multiple ones.
- How does one submit if they are constantly moving out from under the authority of one or the other church?

But perhaps more importantly, Paul often writes to individual churches and instructs them as a local body. They certainly did have an awareness of the larger body (sending money to those fellow Christians in need) but isn't the local body where one primarily ministers? Fellowships? Bears one another's burdens? By committing to the "church" at large without committing to the "local construction of our idea of 'church'" then what exactly are they committing to? In actuality, nothing.

What would be your suggestion for someone who has commitments at multiple church's, most of which are either paid staff positions or are a part of service?

Or, the suggestion for someone who assist's multiple church's with various needs - meaning that they travel between multiple locations often.

And, someone who travels often. Having relationships and memberships at multiple locations. Not just one.



What are they committing to? They are committed to the church, not just a single church. They are committed to multiple church congregations, not a single congregation. They are committed to the council, shepherding, and care of many - of which are not all of the same local church.

 

[Logan]

Perhaps (as Edward implied) you should clarify what you are talking about specifically. Because so far I think you've posited at least five separate scenarios and are arguing for one based on another, and the last three would not bring about the reactions you were complaining about in your original post.

I argued specifically against a layman having membership in multiple churches in the same town, or a layman regularly visiting multiple churches in the same town. You've rebutted with something like a minister providing pulpit supply for multiple churches, or someone traveling, neither of which seem to fit your original post and complaints. Would you like to posit one example and we can stick to that?

Edit: I'm not trying to be combative at all, but it just seems like this discussion will go no where unless we nail down some specifics.

 

[Edward]

What would be your suggestion for someone who has commitments at multiple church's, most of which are either paid staff positions or are a part of service?

If he is not a circuit riding pastor serving several small, impoverished churches, we appear to be talking about a job, not a worship experience, at this point. What, exactly, are you talking about?

 

[Thinkingaloud]

I don't know if this is current practice, but back when I was in college there was the concept of being an associate member. The student would maintain membership in their home church and become an associate member of a church where they were in college. This may be symbolic, but the student would submit to the spiritual authority of the church away from home.

Some churches still have associate membership here

 

[yeutter]

I do not think this is what Bob-the-man had in mind when he started this post. Allow me to offer examples of when multi-Church membership might be appropriate. We have spent as much time in Asia as we have in Michigan in recent years. Should I establish a formal connection with the congregation we attend there? University students who are studying clear across the continent, should they join the congregation they attend while studying? A retired couple from near Chicago spend their summers at a cottage in northern Michigan. Should they also be members of the church there so that they can come to the Lord's Table?

 

[Edward]

University students who are studying clear across the continent, should they join the congregation they attend while studying?

As a couple of folks have posted up-thread, the PCA has specific provisions for associate membership in such circumstances:

PCA BCO 46-4
Associate members are those believers temporarily residing in a location other than their permanent homes. Such believers may become associate members of a particular church without ceasing to be communicant members of their home churches. An associate member shall have all the rights and privileges of that church, with the exception of voting in a congregational or corporation meeting, and holding an office in that church

Going back and looking at the original post, it may suggest a circumstance of multiple church memberships in the same commuting area. So I am not sure that your three examples are on point to the original post, although things have moved around a bit as we've worked down the thread.

Should they also be members of the church there so that they can come to the Lord's Table?

While that might be an issue for a few here who attend bodies that practice closed communion, I'm not sure that dual membership is the solution.

 

[jwithnell]

We are committed, rightfully so, at spreading the gospel - inviting guests to services - etc.

Perhaps the difficulty here is in the definition of a church?

In the great commission, Jesus tells his followers to make disciples the emphasis here is on teaching, not a quick, one-stop shot at the gospel. Moreover, from the Old Testament, to the synagogue, to the New Testament church, we see an emphasis on careful shepherding, teaching, and a focus that brings glory to God in a prescribed worship. Bring that forward 1600 years, and the reformers defined churches in terms of their discipline (how are you going to maintain loving discipline over someone who wanders around?), proper preaching of the word (there's that discipleship again), and the administration of the sacraments (to whom? how do you do this with people wandering from one place to another?).

Yes, there are times of life, and even life situations, where someone may need to occasionally go to a different church for awhile. But don't take these exceptions to try to establish a pattern for the whole. Even in those cases, people should make themselves known to another congregation, so if they do struggle with their faith, someone can come along side before it's too late. This is exactly the provision I've made in the many weeks that I have to be in Georgia to care for my parents. We are at an ARP church every time the doors are open and that pastor, and my pastor at home, knows what we're doing and why. There is great safety in this for my sake, and the sake of my children.

 

[DMcFadden]

A few ruminations by an old guy.

Membership in a SINGLE congregation is important for any number of reasons, accountability being chief among them. Visiting a church when traveling is just that. Associate membership when a person is away at college or in a foreign country actually supports the single congregation commitment. It proclaims and affirms the normative nature of being a "member" of a single congregation while acknowledging special circumstances. Partaking of a special ministry offered by another congregation that your church does not have is often acceptable (depending on the reasons). For instance, my congregation offers a monthly group for cognitively impaired adults. Members of other churches will often bring their family members to this group.

However, the consumerist model of freelancing between several congregations, a trend identified by Barna more than two decades ago, has more to do with our unaccountable culture of selfist notions and therapeutic definitions of Christianity than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I see the trend to freelance as a "religious" equivalent to the secular argument that "I can worship anywhere, I don't need a church."

The cultish overtones of the various authoritarian church groups adds a red herring to the discussion. Evoking the image of an abuse by one group is not an argument in favor of denying the importance of belonging to a single church. And, if your doctrine changes from the group where you hold membership, LEAVE for another church that more closely reflects your convictions.

In my case, my membership is at a church in Fort Wayne. They "loaned" me to another group on the south side of town to serve as an interim pastor for seven months. My tithe from pensions and consulting go to the church where my membership is lodged. Tithes from my income at the interim church go to that congregation in support of its ministry. In this way, it is clear that my primary loyalty rests with my home church but there is also a secondary responsibility to the people compensating me for ministry done among them.

I can see little good and much mischief accompanying the argument that "I'm part of the Body of Christ universal and will worship, ad hoc, here, there, and anywhere as I choose. in my opinion, in practice, this will gut accountability, weaken ties of loayalty, and further the most dysfunctional aspects of American Christianity.

 

[bobtheman]

A few ruminations by an old guy.

"I can worship anywhere, I don't need a church."

... I can see little good and much mischief accompanying the argument that "I'm part of the Body of Christ universal and will worship, ad hoc, here, there, and anywhere as I choose. in my opinion, in practice, this will gut accountability, weaken ties of loayalty, and further the most dysfunctional aspects of American Christianity.

Your equating the notion to a stance of someone not needing church, when in actuality its the exact opposite. More accurately, it's not always about the member as much as it is about the church itself. Multiple church's requesting the assistance of one person would be an instance where the individual is not in any shape of the imagination stating that he or she doesn't need church - it is more so saying that the church needs him on overtime. For someone to submit to such a need, and to hear the sentiment presented in your comment ... is troubling.

I'm not arguing that individual aren't required to submit to church leadership. And I agree, the consumerism country club mentality of society is sinful ... but I would hope that you can see a distinction between these two circumstances.

 

[Edward]

Multiple church's requesting the assistance of one person would be an instance where the individual is not in any shape of the imagination stating that he or she doesn't need church - it is more so saying that the church needs him on overtime.

You still aren't being clear what you are talking about. Sound mixer? Should be able to train a local church member in less than an hour, and leave them with a cheat sheet. Lighting, about the same. TV production, a bit longer, depending on how complex the equipment is and the role. Music - get a day job and generally stick to one church. Janitorial services - having trouble picturing a need to service churches on Sunday morning on a rotating basis.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Here is a practical example from my life.

I am a member of Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. I faithfully attend services from 9:30am to 12:00pm and from 6:30pm to 7:30pm each Lord's Day.

But I also VERY frequently attend Apologia Church at 4:00pm on Sunday, then leave an go back to PRBC.

My home church knows this and approves. Apologia Church knows this and approves.

I have no illusions about who my Pastor and my Elders are. They are the Elders at PRBC, not at Apologia.

I see no real downside to this kind of arrangement. I am under the care and discipline of PRBC, and any conflicts in schedules or expectations always go in PRBC's favor. Furthermore, I take the Lord's Supper only at my church. I do not take the Lord's Supper at Apologia Church.

 

[Edward]

Here is a practical example from my life.

I am a member of Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. I faithfully attend services from 9:30am to 12:00pm and from 6:30pm to 7:30pm each Lord's Day.

But I also VERY frequently attend Apologia Church at 4:00pm on Sunday, then leave an go back to PRBC.

My home church knows this and approves. Apologia Church knows this and approves.

I have no illusions about who my Pastor and my Elders are. They are the Elders at PRBC, not at Apologia.

I see no real downside to this kind of arrangement. I am under the care and discipline of PRBC, and any conflicts in schedules or expectations always go in PRBC's favor. Furthermore, I take the Lord's Supper only at my church. I do not take the Lord's Supper at Apologia Church.

But are you a MEMBER at Apologia? Because this thread stated it was about multiple memberships.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Richard,

You're overall construct in items 1-5 is incoherent. I think you are confused about some basic issues of the Church.

A person is not "serving Jesus" if he is not a member of a local Church.

1. The Apostle Paul planted local Churches with local elders to oversee and care for local people.
2. Peter, Paul, and the Author of Hebrews all charge elders with caring for and giving account to the members that they were given oversight for.
3. Members of Churches are commanded to submit to their elders and make their work a joy and not a burden.
4. It is the local Church that baptizes and admits members into the visible Kingdom of Christ.
5. It is the local Church that disciplines members and may even excommunicate those who are unrepentant in abiding sin.

These are all facts of Scripture - the Word of God. There is no "honoring Christ" or being a part of "His Church" without receiving the gifts that He Himself gave to the Church (Ephesians 4).

Thus, a man may not be a *member* of multiple Churches and be faithful to Christ. It is not, precisely, a marriage but it is like marriage in the sense of vows that the Lord takes seriously. When we break our vows to commit ourselves to Christ's government for His Church because we think we have access to the invisible Church then we sin gravely.

May a man serve the "broader Church" in some manner? Yes, but to get to that point you need to get the above into your bloodstream first before you ask about particulars.

I serve the broader Church in the following ways without also forsaking my vows:
1. I preach at other Churches on occasion.
2. I serve on committees of Presbytery and the General Assembly.
3. I mentor and encourage members of other Churches in their pursuit of ordination.
4. I pray with members of other Churches.

These are all possible but my first priority is to the Local Church because that's where my primary ministry is located. All others have to be secondary and cannot interfere with my primary calling and ordination.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Here is a practical example from my life.

I am a member of Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. I faithfully attend services from 9:30am to 12:00pm and from 6:30pm to 7:30pm each Lord's Day.

But I also VERY frequently attend Apologia Church at 4:00pm on Sunday, then leave an go back to PRBC.

My home church knows this and approves. Apologia Church knows this and approves.

I have no illusions about who my Pastor and my Elders are. They are the Elders at PRBC, not at Apologia.

I see no real downside to this kind of arrangement. I am under the care and discipline of PRBC, and any conflicts in schedules or expectations always go in PRBC's favor. Furthermore, I take the Lord's Supper only at my church. I do not take the Lord's Supper at Apologia Church.

But are you a MEMBER at Apologia? Because this thread stated it was about multiple memberships.

No, I am not a member of two churches. Also, despite the thread title, even from the OP it never seemed to be strictly about multiple memberships. It seems more like it was about "playing the field", ecclesiastically speaking.

 

[DMcFadden]

A few ruminations by an old guy.

"I can worship anywhere, I don't need a church."

... I can see little good and much mischief accompanying the argument that "I'm part of the Body of Christ universal and will worship, ad hoc, here, there, and anywhere as I choose. in my opinion, in practice, this will gut accountability, weaken ties of loayalty, and further the most dysfunctional aspects of American Christianity.

Your equating the notion to a stance of someone not needing church, when in actuality its the exact opposite. More accurately, it's not always about the member as much as it is about the church itself. Multiple church's requesting the assistance of one person would be an instance where the individual is not in any shape of the imagination stating that he or she doesn't need church - it is more so saying that the church needs him on overtime. For someone to submit to such a need, and to hear the sentiment presented in your comment ... is troubling.

I'm not arguing that individual aren't required to submit to church leadership. And I agree, the consumerism country club mentality of society is sinful ... but I would hope that you can see a distinction between these two circumstances.

Richard,

Your original post said:

I ask these types of questions because i've noticed something that just doesn't sit well with me. We are committed, rightfully so, at spreading the gospel - inviting guests to services - etc. However, when an existing member of church 'A' goes to visit and attend a service at church 'B' they are harshly looked at (at least from my experiences)buy their current congregation. They are immediately thought of as a straying sheep, and are treated as such. When asked where you were, I've noticed that many will give any excuse other than visiting another church. We become isolationists, I cant assist your church because of the stigma associated with the aforementioned.

It almost seems like turf wars. We compete for members, promoting our church and not the church, and making heretics of anyone who fractures

That certainly does NOT sound like someone looking to use his gifts to assist a struggling church. You seem to camp on the idea of being stigmatized for absenting yourself for some reason from the church where you are a member . If another church needs you so much, join it. But, don't think that you can float like a butterfly between several churches without a significant loss of accountability and a diminishment of your ability to fulfill the promises you presumably made to the first church when you joined it. My pastor gave me explicit permission to be "loaned" to a smaller church for a time as its interim pastor. I would NOT have gone without his permission, and once receiving it, have had no problems with people treating me as a straying sheep. Indeed, it would be the person who deliberately skips commitments to his own congregation to be someplace else without informing/receiving encouragement to do so, that is RIGHTLY viewed as a "straying sheep."

Rich's points were spot on, in my opinion.

 

[Jack K]

Richard,

My family and I just returned home from three months in London. My plan for that time was for us to visit and be involved in several churches. I figured this would give us a unique opportunity to expose ourselves to several good preachers we don't normally hear and to get a feel for the overall state of the church in that city and meet lots of believers. There were also a handful of churches we had prior connections to there, or where I was asked to teach a few classes or lead a seminar. So we planned to attend each of those a few times and try to be somewhat involved.

In retrospect, this strategy proved to be foolish—even for just a three-month period in a place where we clearly were mere visitors. Although we liked several of those churches very much, we found ourselves saying no too often. I started making friends with a fellow in one church, but when he invited me to attend a men's gathering I had to decline because I was committed elsewhere. At another church, I formed a bond with the leadership team by helping them with their school outreach but ended up worshipping with those folks only once. At yet another church where I taught at a church retreat and led a leadership seminar, and where we attended evening worship most weeks, I had to say no when they asked if we could be there while they prayed for us in the service the Sunday before we left town—because again I'd made another commitment. My wife had similar experiences with other types of involvement.

To be committed everywhere is to be committed nowhere. And to be committed nowhere is to not really be part of the church. The church is not the sum of activities offerred. It is a community of Christians. To come and go out of that community doesn't work, even where oversight and discipline are not a issue (and in one's hometown, these ARE an issue too).

If I had it to do over, I would commit very early to one church and offer myself to others only on the side. There was nothing wrong with visiting here and there when faced with a unique opportunity, nor with serving other churches on occasion. But we would have done better with just a single church home... even for just three months, even though our official membership was in a church across the ocean, and even though we appreciated being offerred multiple opportunities to serve.

Special conditions excepted, I can't imagine trying to split membership long-term over two or more churches and really being a member of either community. I fear it represents a too-small view of what it means to be a member of a local church.

 

[Edward]

Also, despite the thread title, even from the OP it never seemed to be strictly about multiple memberships.

Well, yes, my post Number 5 spoke to the confusion of the original post. And my efforts to pin down a moving target have come to naught.

You do seem to be taking care to maintain some clarity about what you are doing, which avoids most, but perhaps not all of the problems.

 

[MW]

We compete for members

2 Cor. 12:14, "Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children."

Encouraging professing Christians to be active and lively members of the congregation is not about competing for members but being personally responsible with individual souls who have been entrusted to the care of the ministry.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One other point I'd like to make is the command to "...confess your sins one to another...."

A fundamental point that the author of Hebrews keeps driving home to his readers is the need for the congregation (those who must not stop epi-synagoging or gathering together) to constantly be encouraging one another to "press in" together.

The Christian who thinks he needs no local congregation is, in my opinion, one who does not know his own reflection well because he does not know the Word well.

Why?

Because he'd recognize the abiding sin and deceitfulness of his heart and his need for the other members of the Church to be his fellow encouragers that he and others might press in to the Kingdom.

How is it, however, that anyone would ever trust another with the dark recesses of his sin that he needs prayer and encouragement over? How, without vows, can we ever trust someone to not run off when they discover the sins I confess to them or they to me?

The local congregation needs trust and trust comes from vows that do not run when troubles come. Those who easily forsake vows and move on leave deep wounds. They leave wounds because others trusted their lives to them. They exposed themselves.

The American Church is, in large measure, not a Church that confesses sin well because we do not commit ourselves well. Why would I entrust myself to anyone if I suspected that most members are only there as long as it conveniences them and I never get to know them well enough to be able to encourage them in their battle with sin because they never entrust their lives to me?

 

[bobtheman]

One other point I'd like to make is the command to "...confess your sins one to another...."

A fundamental point that the author of Hebrews keeps driving home to his readers is the need for the congregation (those who must not stop epi-synagoging or gathering together) to constantly be encouraging one another to "press in" together.

The Christian who thinks he needs no local congregation is, in my opinion, one who does not know his own reflection well because he does not know the Word well.

Why?

Because he'd recognize the abiding sin and deceitfulness of his heart and his need for the other members of the Church to be his fellow encouragers that he and others might press in to the Kingdom.

How is it, however, that anyone would ever trust another with the dark recesses of his sin that he needs prayer and encouragement over? How, without vows, can we ever trust someone to not run off when they discover the sins I confess to them or they to me?

The local congregation needs trust and trust comes from vows that do not run when troubles come. Those who easily forsake vows and move on leave deep wounds. They leave wounds because others trusted their lives to them. They exposed themselves.

The American Church is, in large measure, not a Church that confesses sin well because we do not commit ourselves well. Why would I entrust myself to anyone if I suspected that most members are only there as long as it conveniences them and I never get to know them well enough to be able to encourage them in their battle with sin because they never entrust their lives to me?

Man that's spot on

Would you agree that an individual can commit themselves to multiple locations, to multiple congregations, etc ? That there is an exception.

 

[Jack K]

And my main point, perhaps not quite clear enough from the story I told, is that the church works for the kingdom together. The vast majority of commands given by our Captain in the Scriptures are given to believers as a group. We obey as a group. We fight sin as a group. We march forward as a group, or else we hardly move at all. We are an army, so to speak, not individual lone warriors. And when an army never knows in what regiment a particular soldier will show up on a given day, the battle plan surely suffers.

You need to be counting on people and they need to be counting on you, as with their lives, like in an army. If that isn't happening—if a soldier is just showing up here or there as it suits him or where he feels is best on a given day—one has to wonder how committed that soldier is to the fight.

 

[Herald]

One other point I'd like to make is the command to "...confess your sins one to another...."

A fundamental point that the author of Hebrews keeps driving home to his readers is the need for the congregation (those who must not stop epi-synagoging or gathering together) to constantly be encouraging one another to "press in" together.

The Christian who thinks he needs no local congregation is, in my opinion, one who does not know his own reflection well because he does not know the Word well.

Why?

Because he'd recognize the abiding sin and deceitfulness of his heart and his need for the other members of the Church to be his fellow encouragers that he and others might press in to the Kingdom.

How is it, however, that anyone would ever trust another with the dark recesses of his sin that he needs prayer and encouragement over? How, without vows, can we ever trust someone to not run off when they discover the sins I confess to them or they to me?

The local congregation needs trust and trust comes from vows that do not run when troubles come. Those who easily forsake vows and move on leave deep wounds. They leave wounds because others trusted their lives to them. They exposed themselves.

The American Church is, in large measure, not a Church that confesses sin well because we do not commit ourselves well. Why would I entrust myself to anyone if I suspected that most members are only there as long as it conveniences them and I never get to know them well enough to be able to encourage them in their battle with sin because they never entrust their lives to me?

Man that's spot on

Would you agree that an individual can commit themselves to multiple locations, to multiple congregations, etc ? That there is an exception.

Richard,

No. A individual cannot "commit themselves to multiple locations, to multiple congregations, etc". I write this with the pain of current experience.

My wife and I relocated to Central Florida earlier this year. We are in the process of building a house about 35 minutes west of where we are renting. Our choices in finding a sound church to attend are complicated by that fact. There is a church we plan on joining, but it's difficult to get to given where we are living right now. That difficulty will be eased considerably once we move into our new home.

The real difficulty is due to the lack of commitment. Being committed to a local church means giving, serving, and loving. If those things are being done with any semblance of effort, there will no time to "commit" to another local church. In fact it makes the term "commit" an oxymoron. By engaging in multiple church commitments the individual will actually not be committed to any.

While there is no exception to commitment, there are providential reasons why a person may attend another local church for an extended period of time. Others have mentioned being away at college or university. Military transfers or deployments come to mind. In the area I now live there are the "snowbirds" who migrate south during the winter. These circumstances may necessitate a person attending a church they are not a member of, but their commitment is still to their home church. But correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think you have these type of scenarios in mind. You mentioned in your OP about a person visiting another church and then catching flack for telling people in their home church about. This leads me to ask whether there is some latent dissatisfaction with your current church and whether you're looking for justification to commit to another church without giving up membership in your home church. I'm not suggesting that's the case, but it does raise the question in my mind.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Man that's spot on

Would you agree that an individual can commit themselves to multiple locations, to multiple congregations, etc ? That there is an exception.

Richard,

On the one hand I'm "spot on" that we need one another for encouragement and encouragement takes trust and trust requires commitment. On the other hand you're asking me if there is an "exception" to commitment.

Is there an exception to the rule that you can't really trust a person with intimate details if you do not know them?