Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
This thread raises very important questions, especially in our era. I frankly think that Protestant ecclesiology has some challenges that spring from the rampant denominationalism (including congregationalism) of the day. Things are allot different than, say, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. IN those communions, canon law holds that the issues are typically determined geographically (with exceptions for foreign rites, languages, etc.). A pastor has a geographic parish and he owes duties to those in the parish. Those in the parish are by their location members of the parish and owe their respective obligation to that particular parish. That is what the canon law is at least, although the practice often diverges. Anyway, it is straightforward. If you are in a parish that has problems, you should stick it out like in 1 Corinthians and not jump around hoping for better programs or even teaching.
Protestant schools of thought differ quite a bit. Anabaptist views (which includes many modern day baptists and others with congregational forms of government) vary quite a bit but often hold that church membership is purely voluntary and, in some schools of thought, even optional. Given the radically egalitarian view of the priesthood of the believer, this makes sense.
Some communions, like the PCA, hold that church membership is fundamentally covenantal. That is to say, one joins by way of covenant. His obligations are determined by his covenant (which he voluntarily undertakes) and the Bible. Of course, the PCA allows movement among branches of the visible church and this is a matter of discretion of the member. Movement to another branch of the visible church is not a matter that brings discipline.
Lutheran views are even more different.
In any event, there is no real Protestant consensus on this.
Wayne's original comment about the reasons to leave I think were in the context of someone leaving the visible church for no church at all (I am thinking of Calvin Book 4, for example). The reformers were typically in monopoly situations. The state allowed only one church. They did not face the countless competeing churches we find in America. There were radical anabaptist gatherings, but these were not considered true churches.
I did a short set of notes describing the PCA's views of church membership according the BCO for my own thinking awhile back. If anyone wants this, let me know.
Scott
Protestant schools of thought differ quite a bit. Anabaptist views (which includes many modern day baptists and others with congregational forms of government) vary quite a bit but often hold that church membership is purely voluntary and, in some schools of thought, even optional. Given the radically egalitarian view of the priesthood of the believer, this makes sense.
Some communions, like the PCA, hold that church membership is fundamentally covenantal. That is to say, one joins by way of covenant. His obligations are determined by his covenant (which he voluntarily undertakes) and the Bible. Of course, the PCA allows movement among branches of the visible church and this is a matter of discretion of the member. Movement to another branch of the visible church is not a matter that brings discipline.
Lutheran views are even more different.
In any event, there is no real Protestant consensus on this.
Wayne's original comment about the reasons to leave I think were in the context of someone leaving the visible church for no church at all (I am thinking of Calvin Book 4, for example). The reformers were typically in monopoly situations. The state allowed only one church. They did not face the countless competeing churches we find in America. There were radical anabaptist gatherings, but these were not considered true churches.
I did a short set of notes describing the PCA's views of church membership according the BCO for my own thinking awhile back. If anyone wants this, let me know.
Scott
