Church membership is special. The Bible speaks of the "church which he hath purchased with his own blood." Secondly, the cooperation and fellowship in the churches of the ABA is special as well. We respect the sovereignty of individual churches, yet we should always be mindful as to how our actions as a church affect others who we are in cooperation with as well as individual Christians.
Let's get to the point. "Church A" excludes John Doe, and then John Doe goes down the road and is received by "Church B" on statement. Historically, Baptists would have recognized this as a "slight" and "insult" to "Church A." Why?
Because "Church B" has effectively negated the church discipline of "Church A" by receiving the offending member. Historically, this has also been a major test of fellowship between churches. What would then prevent the offending member to go down the road and blow up another church, steal from someone else, insult and lie about someone else, and each time just say, "Well, I can't get a letter. I'll just join on statement."
From my limited understanding, joining on statement is reserved for special situation such as:
1)church closed the doors (can't get a letter)
2)church lost records (can't get a letter)
3)baptized by a Baptist chaplain in the military or
in prison (can't get a letter)
4)some other reason which I have not thought of :)
(can't get a letter)
*These reasons are different than "owes some people or churches an
apology" (wouldn't be granted a letter until there is at
least an attempt to make things right)
I pastor Ora MBC. If I were excluded for any reason, and another ABA church
received me on statement, (without any investigation) that church just
strategically dismissed the effectiveness and scriptural strength of Ora's discipline. They have also elevated the offender's wishes/rights above that of church authority.
I have used no names in this post and if there are any comments, I'd
appreciate it if no names or actual situations are used. There is no question that affiliating/cooperating churches should respect the discipline of other churches and at least investigate before someone is accepted on statement. The pastor should be the leader and at least question as to why the person wants to join on statement and then investigate accordingly. This process aligns with scripture and with common sense.
I realize that there are likely more important issues to dwell on, such as the salvation of souls and encouraging our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith.
If anyone disagrees with the above statements, fine. But save your time and mine
by trying to convince me otherwise. Our Baptist forefathers believed this way concerning "joining on statement," and I agree with them.
Another reason for receiving someone on statement is if a person comes who was baptized by a church of sound doctrines and practices but in the meantime has joined a Baptist church that is very unsound.
ReplyDeleteThe following is from Pendleton's Church Manuel, long used by Baptists for general reference.
ReplyDelete"Before closing this chapter, it may be proper to say that while a church in the exercise of its independence may receive members excluded from another church, it can not be done, in ordinary circumstances, without a violation of church courtesy, and a departure from the spirit of the gospel. It is assumed that, as a general thing, members are deservedly excluded from church fellowship. When this is the case, it is manifestly improper for them to be received by sister churches. It would have been a flagrant violation of propriety for any other church to have received to its membership the incestuous man expelled by the church at Corinth. Those justly excluded, if they would enjoy church privileges once again, must penitently confess the offenses
for which they were excluded, and obtain restoration to membership in the church from whose fellowship they were cut off. This is the general rule."
Ch. 5, "The Government of a Church"
That was just another instance whereby churches receive members by statement. Has nothing to do with receiving an excluded member. I agree with your post 100%.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I was just adding a bit of specifics to my post with the Pendleton quote.
ReplyDeleteGood post. I agree wholeheartedly. What if a man is saved, and then baptized by a sound church (church A). Later that church(church A) embraces heresy. The man realizes the error of the church's ways and desires to unite with another church (church B). How should church B receive him?
ReplyDeleteToo often, people have a terribly skewed view of what a church letter is. It is, and has always been, a letter of recommendation.
It times past, with very limited means of communication, a letter of recommendation was necessary for the receiving church to have an idea as to the credibility of the prospective member. Even though we have more advanced means of communication, and an actual "letter" may not be completely necessary. It is still necessary that the receiving church receive some sort of confirmation that the prospect is everything he claims to be. This can only be done by the former church recommending the prospect as a "member in good standing".
We do not recognize one as a "member in good standing" who has been not been in attendance. We as a church cannot validate the lifestyle and morals of a person whom we have not seen in years. Therefore we acknowledge their profession of faith, baptism and church membership, but we do not recommend them as a "member in good standing". To do so would not be honest.
Bro. Mike,
ReplyDeleteHmmm...IMO, church B would receive the member of church A on statement as he was baptized BEFORE church A departed from the faith.
Three things.
ReplyDelete1.
"they would enjoy church privileges once again, must penitently confess the offenses
for which they were excluded, and obtain restoration to membership in the church from whose fellowship they were cut off."
Every case I've ever seen, the person doesn't confess the offenses for which they were excluded. They just say they were sorry, or they sinned. Never is it mentioned. If Pendleton is our guide, then we can't accept members from these churches who don't require such a detailed confession.
2.
Brother Mike stated "It is still necessary that the receiving church receive some sort of confirmation that the prospect is everything he claims to be."
What do you mean by "necessary"? Also, what is the church supposed to be "confirming"? They can't confirm the man's salvation. They can't confirm his baptism if he was baptized elsewhere. All they can confirm is whether or not he is free of open and public lifestyle of sin to their knowledge. That being as it is, a person could bring a letter from his boyscout troop showing the same thing. The important matter for accepting a member is that the church receiving him hears a valid profession of faith, a valid statement of baptism (i.e. proper means, mode, method, church, etc.), and to the best of their ability to find out that he is not involved in public open lifestyle of sin (or any of the other reasons for discipline.)
3.
Theoretically, letters aren't Biblical. Sure recommendations are, but the letter is not a Biblical requirement. If the man gives proper testimony of salvation, baptism, and tells you he was in good fellowship with his previous church, there should be nothing wrong with taking the man at his word. If you can't trust his word about that, then neither can you trust his word about salvation or baptism.
All that said, I think what you have said (Brother Neal) certainly is the best practice for our time.