new membership poll

[Steven Stone]

Getting past the obvious thought that the prospective new member is saved, sanctified etc. would you place restrictions on accepting members in the church.

[Hans Deventer]

Steve, I have been so bold as to add a 5th option and vote for that one.

[Steven Stone]

Thanks, That would be a good choice. I know there are many other options you could put on this. Thanks for your help.

[Mark Doble]

What does the manual say... That would be my guideline.

[Larry Osweiler]

Taking in a member who smokes or drinks? Hmmm. Wonder what we do with the one's who are members who already smoke or drink? And why limit it to smokers and drinkers? Why don't we not refuse gluttons, backstabbers, divorcees, adulterers, and people who swear? I've had several church members who smoked and drank and they made some of my best members. Then I had some who didn't smoke or drink who were downright rascals.
What amazes me is that in all five pastorates, I've asked current members about their membership class. Not one person before me went through a class. They were simply asked by the pastor if they wanted to be a member and the next week they became members. No wonder our churches are in the mess they are in. When I told people that I was having membership classes for prospective members, they all about fell over.

[Barbara Moulton]

What does the manual say... That would be my guideline.

I know. I am not sure how to answer this question. For example, myself personally, I would not have restrictions concerning drinking for membership in my church. But since our Discipline sets that as a standard I would not make someone who drank alcohol a member.

So am I supposed to answer based on what I would do if I was running my own church or what I would do within the structure of my denomination?

[Ed Sherman]

How dare any of us put ourselves in a position to decide whom should be welcomed into church and whom should ostracized? This is EXCATLY the kind of 'holier than thou' attitide that keeps so many people from realizing they are loved by Jesus NO MATTER WHAT THEY'VE DONE in the past, or which vices they are currently battling - all that's required is a KNOCK ON THE DOOR. How can anyone come to accept the love of the Lamb if they are not afforded the opportunity to learn it is there for the asking? I find the very nature of this poll unsettling, outrageous and exactly what I used to expect from organized religion before I was led to Ensley Church of the Nazarene by HIS GRACE - not the opinions, recommendations or perceived worthiness of the existing congregation! I am actually appalled - a feeling I don't come into contact with very often, and I can't say as I like it...then again I am smiling at my own 'righteous indignation' - who do I think I am for goodness sake? LOL. :eek:

[Barbara Moulton]

How dare any of us put ourselves in a position to decide whom should be welcomed into church and whom should ostracized? This is EXCATLY the kind of 'holier than thou' attitide that keeps so many people from realizing they are loved by Jesus NO MATTER WHAT THEY'VE DONE in the past, or which vices they are currently battling - all that's required is a KNOCK ON THE DOOR. How can anyone come to accept the love of the Lamb if they are not afforded the opportunity to learn it is there for the asking? I find the very nature of this poll unsettling, outrageous and exactly what I used to expect from organized religion before I was led to Ensley Church of the Nazarene by HIS GRACE - not the opinions, recommendations or perceived worthiness of the existing congregation! I am actually appalled - a feeling I don't come into contact with very often, and I can't say as I like it...then again I am smiling at my own 'righteous indignation' - who do I think I am for goodness sake? LOL. :eek:

I think the poll is a little tongue in cheek Ed, sort of a kicking off point for discussions concerning guidelines for church membership. I appreciate your heart and agree that the church exists to invite all people to come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and to encourage them to grow in Christ.

But the poll wasn't asking the question, who should be allowed to come into our church for worship and fellowship. It was addressing the issue of membership. And the Church of the Nazarene (as well as my denomination) does have membership "lifestyle" rules. Those who wish to become members are asked to promise not to drink, smoke or gamble. As I have already said, if I was the pastor of an independant church, I would not have these types of membership guidelines. Since I am a minister in a denomination, that still has these rules, I can't in all good conscience, simply ignore them.

Believe me, it has put my husband and myself in a difficult position. We have several good people who have attended and worshipped with us for years. We would love to make them members. But as long as these rules are in our Manual, we don't feel we would be showing integrity if we did.

But please know that guidelines for membership do not mean exclusion from attendance and participation in the life of the church.

[Ed Sherman]

Thank you Barb - I missed the point on the first go-round. I am with you - these 'restrictions' by denominations seem counterproductive to me, but I certainly must adhere to them for the sake of integrity and continuity. I am already a member here at ECNaz, it is interesting that I don't recall the caveats about alcohol and tobacco being mentioned prior to my entrance into this church family. I certainly don't plan to renounce my membership, but I would have thought long and hard about taking that step had I been forewarned.
Anyroad, thanks for straightening me out on this one! I neglected my own advice about showing up and shutting up!
ed

[Larry Osweiler]

There is a lot of things that bother me about membership "rules". What bothers me the most is that there is no consistency in their application. One church doesn't bother informing the prospective members on guidelines or beliefs of the church, while other churches make it clear that if you do this or that, you can't be a member. So Church #1 is full of smokers and drinkers, Church #2 is full of people who don't have a clue what the church believes, and Church #3 is so strict that if you smoke, drink, gamble, or dance, you are excluded from membership.
In the Free Methodist denomination, we don't exclude folks who smoke, drink, or gamble. We could care less if they dance. What we do ask is that they make a committment to seek God's direction in these areas of their lives. And we make clear that we do not believe these habits are healthy for a person spiritually or physically. We ask that they work towards eliminating them from their lives. I think we have a bigger problem with people belonging to secret societies than smoking and drinking.
I have always wondered why we don't have an expiration date on our church membership. Kind of like a drivers license. You sign up for four years. You pledge a membership covenant, and then you must renew it every four years. If you fail to agree to a membership covenant, your membership is not renewed. Sounds like a great idea to me.

[Barbara Moulton]

There is a lot of things that bother me about membership "rules". What bothers me the most is that there is no consistency in their application. One church doesn't bother informing the prospective members on guidelines or beliefs of the church, while other churches make it clear that if you do this or that, you can't be a member. So Church #1 is full of smokers and drinkers, Church #2 is full of people who don't have a clue what the church believes, and Church #3 is so strict that if you smoke, drink, gamble, or dance, you are excluded from membership.
In the Free Methodist denomination, we don't exclude folks who smoke, drink, or gamble. We could care less if they dance. What we do ask is that they make a committment to seek God's direction in these areas of their lives. And we make clear that we do not believe these habits are healthy for a person spiritually or physically. We ask that they work towards eliminating them from their lives. I think we have a bigger problem with people belonging to secret societies than smoking and drinking.
I have always wondered why we don't have an expiration date on our church membership. Kind of like a drivers license. You sign up for four years. You pledge a membership covenant, and then you must renew it every four years. If you fail to agree to a membership covenant, your membership is not renewed. Sounds like a great idea to me.


I agree with the Free Methodist Church stand. I wish our denomination would go the same route. I did ask our DS once (he had been a Free Methodist DS) but he said that the last time it was brought to the Wesleyan Conference it was incredibly divisive. It wasn't time.

But hey...don't pat yourself on the back too much. :) I know when we were considering application to the FMC ten years ago those rules were still in effect. So this change is still relatively recent for the Free Methodists.

I do regret the inconsistency that exists in my church. I know that there are big churches in our district with many, many members. Unless one area of Ontario is vastly different in the make-up of its population, I find it hard to believe that so many more people willing to make that committment enter their doors than ours.

I do object to your characterization of Church #3 :) It's not that Carl or I are strict people. Talk for a few moments to any of our people and I am sure they would agree. Our church is not legalistic. We are just trying to have integrity. How can we encourage people to stand before the church body and become members of the church, knowing that they have no intention of living up to the committments that presently exist? I don't want anybody to become a member on a wink, wink, nudge, nudge "....well, we'll make you a member even though you drink...." basis. It's encouraging them to start their church membership with deception. That hardly seems like something a church should do.

Fortunately, Wesleyans do have one option that the Nazarenes don't. We can make people "community members". In this way they become members of the local church, based on a their agreement with our statement of belief. They don't have the full rights of "covenant members" but at least we can include them to some extent.

[Larry Osweiler]

Barbara, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with any of the three churches used as examples. I was merely describing the inconsistencies we find throughout our denominations.
I have just seen churches in the same denomination, some only miles apart where the membership "standards" vary greatly. And many of the rapid growing churches I have seen have the most lax standards for membership.
It would be ideal if all churches would hold to the same guidelines, but they don't.
I am aware that the FM Church has changed dramatically in the last ten years.

[Barbara Moulton]

Barbara, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with any of the three churches used as examples. I was merely describing the inconsistencies we find throughout our denominations.
I have just seen churches in the same denomination, some only miles apart where the membership "standards" vary greatly. And many of the rapid growing churches I have seen have the most lax standards for membership.
It would be ideal if all churches would hold to the same guidelines, but they don't.
I am aware that the FM Church has changed dramatically in the last ten years.

I think I was reacting to the wording...the idea that a church is "strict" if it won't make members who do things the manual says they are not supposed to do :)

I don't like to think of us as being strict. Rather, trying to be consistent and live in integrity.

But I do find it hard. If the large churches are more lax in these things it would appear that God blesses them anyway, because people are coming in.

Maybe Carl and I are totally wrong trying to maintain the standards of the manual.

[Shawn Flynn]

Fortunately, Wesleyans do have one option that the Nazarenes don't. We can make people "community members". In this way they become members of the local church, based on a their agreement with our statement of belief. They don't have the full rights of "covenant members" but at least we can include them to some extent.
Actually, in the COTN, there is associate members who include non-full fledge adults and all children youger than 15. This is per the outgoing manual. I give a reference later.

[Stan Hall]

I don't understand the rule about smoking and drinking. The Bible never says not to drink. It says not to be "drunken" but not to never take a drink. Drinking wine was common among Biblical people.
And smoking is never mentioned in the Bible. Sure it's bad for you but so are many other things. Why single that out? The Bible says not to be a glutton. Should we ban obese people? I think not.
Let's help people with their spiritual walk, not exclude them.

[Barbara Moulton]

I don't understand the rule about smoking and drinking. The Bible never says not to drink. It says not to be "drunken" but not to never take a drink. Drinking wine was common among Biblical people.
And smoking is never mentioned in the Bible. Sure it's bad for you but so are many other things. Why single that out? The Bible says not to be a glutton. Should we ban obese people? I think not.
Let's help people with their spiritual walk, not exclude them.

It's historical Stan. The holiness churches went through a period when they tried to describe what holiness should look like in the modern world and felt it was helpful to have their members make committments that would reflect certain standards of living. Some have micromanaged more than others and some of the rules (movies, dancing, dress codes) have changed over the years but drinking/smoking/gambling have remained pretty constant. After all this time, its hard to contemplate change...although I do believe change will come in my lifetime.

These three behaviours have proven dangers. I've been a correctional court chaplain and I have seen day after day the harm that alcohol can cause. Smoking costs thousands of life each year (both for the smoker and those who inhale the second hand smoke) Gambling has destroyed the lives of men and women.

So you have three behaviours which we know can lead to difficulties, suffering and even death. And none of these three activities are necessary to human life. I reached the age of 46 quite happily without doing any of them.

So, I do think the church is right to encourage its members to avoid things that have the clear potential to ensnare the mind and body in addiction and have caused harm. However, restricting membership is something that I would like to see changed.

Having said all that, I don't see the problem with overeating in quite the same light. Drinking and smoking can lead to addictive behaviours and harm. So can eating food. But I can live my life very well without drinking and smoking. I can't live my life without eating food. My husband has been clean and sobre for 26 years. But I guarantee that if had to drink alcohol everyday to stay alive, he would not have beaten that addiction.

[Larry Osweiler]

Remember when we went through the whole movie issue at San Antonio in 1997? I remember the debate vividly. What I think ultimately ended the "ban" on going to movies was the fact that there were so many entertainment choices, why single out the movies? If we allow Christians to use sound judgment when it comes to entertainment via tv, the internet, fine arts, then why say you can't go to a movie? What was happening was that you could go see a theater production at your local fine arts center, but you couldn't see a production in a movie theater. The Nazarene Church I was a layman at before I pastored went to extremes in my opinion when they refused to be involved in a Billy Graham evangelistic emphasis because their movie was being shown at the local theater. I sat on the board at the time and we had several old timers that refused to vote to allow the church to participate solely because the movie was shown in a movie theater.
So when it comes to drinking, I agree the Bible does not say you shouldn't drink, but it does say not to get drunk. Drinking can kill, but so can food. I have lost several uncles because of alcoholism. But does that make alcohol bad? I think not. It's the abuse of alcohol that makes it a sin. And the holiness churches are still struggling where to draw the line. If I allow someone to use sound Christian judgment in determinining what they eat, shouldn't I trust them in what they drink?
I just think our "guidelines" in our holiness churches can be full of inconsitencies that are hard to defend. I'm not saying to drop all the guidelines and stand for nothing. But there just needs to be a consistent way of allowing membership in our churches.
I still like the 4 year membership idea. Just like a drivers license. You sign up as a member for four years and must renew your membership covenant in four years or you cease to be a member of the local church.

[Hans Deventer]

Remember when we went through the whole movie issue at San Antonio in 1997? I remember the debate vividly.

Yes, so do I. With the resolution from the Germany District, Dr. Ted Lee and GS Dr. William Prince speaking to the issue. I'm not likely to forget that all too soon.

I agree with what you're saying, Larry.

[Bruce Carriker]

I assume we're talking about "official" membership in the Church of the Nazarene. I think the Manual lays out those qualifications fairly unambiguously.

Anyone interested? No, sorry.

Spiritual condition. How is this different from personal faith? I have a hard time understanding the difference, but this is obviously the primary criteria.

Digruntled member from another church? Probably not. If they'll leave their present church now because they're disgruntled, they'll leave your church in the future because they're disgruntled...but likely not before doing all they can to disgruntle others before they go. I guess I see "disgruntled member" as an indicator of "spiritual condition." Of course, there are cases where a person may be completely justified in leaving their present church, but I think that is probably the exception rather than the rule.

Smokers and/or drinkers? No. Let me say that I do not consider either of these to be sinful...or at least, not necessarily so. However, the Church of the Nazarene has rules against both of these, and anyone wanting to join any organization...be it the Church of the Nazarene, the Rotary, the American Legion, or the Ladies Quilting Club...agrees to abide by the rules of the organization. So, while I don't see these as sin issues, I do see them as integrity issues. In joining, do you intend to honor the rules of the organization?

[Joel Merrill]

I haven't had time to read this whole thread so I hope I am not repeating what someone else has said.

I think we should welcome anyone into our church with open arms but I think we still need to maintain a standard for membership. I'll let those who are wiser than I am decide what that standard should be. The point I want to make is that I have seen churches lower their standard for the sake of numbers. Then after a period of time they had a bunch of unspiritual members who didn't agree with the doctrine of the church. Those people could then vote and become board members and it caused problems. There are businessmen in my town who have a very bad reputation but belong to a curtain church. That makes the church look bad to outsiders.

Something else to consider is that if you make an exception for one person, you have to do it for everyone. Then it isn't an exception any longer and you have lowered your standard.

Clubs, lodges and secular organizations can have rules for membership, I see know reason why a church shouldn't. That is one way to choose a church or find out about it by what they stand for. If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.

My 2 cents, Joel

[Barbara Moulton]

I think you have hit upon an interesting point Joel. It is the members of a church that will shape its policy and process. They will vote on who sits on the board (and be eligible to sit on the board). They will vote on the pastor and things like whether they should take out a mortgage :-)

Does the local church want to say, "Anyone who believes in Jesus, no matter how far along they are in the Christian faith or how far along they are in their discipleship or whether they accept our doctrine, can have a voice in all these things."

Is that something we need to think about in these discussions?

[Pete Vecchi]

I would accept them based on their spiritual testimony AND their willingness to adhere to the doctrines of the denomination. I have known some wonderfully spiritual Christian people who might not have made good Nazarenes.

[Jim Franklin]

Since our mission field memberships have included a status identified as Probationary Member and/or Associate Member and since the North American continent has been identified as a mission field perhaps we should use that format to encourage those who wish to attend and learn about how best to live for Jesus to give them every reason to continue with the fellowship of our churches. I remember over 50 years ago an article in the Hearld that said if there are not people coming out of your sanctuary on Sunday mornings lighting up then you are not reaching the lost. I also knew of a Nazarene local church board member that in conversation with me who admitted he did not know what I was speaking of when I used the term sanctification. To me that was deplorable. I do believe in membership classes so that those wishing to join have an idea of what we feel is the life style to which we should strive for but I have also known of a Nazarene church that when a teen from a house across the street from that sanctuary came in what he considered his dress clothes, slacks and a clean shirt, that he was told not to come back unless he had a suit to wear and that happened within the last ten years. I believe in "Whosoever will" may come through the doors but the local pastor with the membership committee has the responsibility to PRAYERFULLY come to a reasonable decision on whom to accept into full membership. Remember the man caught in KC who was trying to dodge the police by getting a hold of a General Assembly delegates badge and the police nabbed him because he was smoking and they knew that Nazarenes would not elect a GA delegate who smoked.

[Ron Davis]

I would accept them based on their spiritual testimony AND their willingness to adhere to the doctrines of the denomination. I have known some wonderfully spiritual Christian people who might not have made good Nazarenes.

So what makes a good Nazarene?

[Ann Smith]

The Anderson Church of God, a sister denomination, does not have membership roles. If you have been attending faithfully for a certain amount of time, you are eligible for full participation in the congregation. We went to an ACOG when we lived in Milwaukee a very long time ago. I liked their polity. It is the only Holiness denomination I know of that does this.
Ann

[Hans Deventer]

The Anderson Church of God, a sister denomination, does not have membership roles. If you have been attending faithfully for a certain amount of time, you are eligible for full participation in the congregation. We went to an ACOG when we lived in Milwaukee a very long time ago. I liked their polity. It is the only Holiness denomination I know of that does this.
Ann

Ann, what is the difference between meeting the qualifications of membership and beging "eligible for full participation in the congregation"?