I have been receiving private posts asking me to continue on this forum. Here is my latest *play*.

Setting: Church Foyer Characters: Bro. Concern and Bro. Elder #1

Bro. Elder #1, "Good morning, Bro. Concern. Lovely morning, isn't it?"

Bro. Concern, "Yes, it is a lovely morning. The rain last night was a welcomed sight."

Bro. Elder #1, "Bro. Concern, you have been attending here at the What's Happening Now Church for about two months, haven't you?"

Bro. Concern, "Correct! My family is finally getting settled after our move. My wife and I feel this town is a good place to raise the children."

Bro. Elder #1, "We noticed you haven't as yet placed membership, and wonder...why not? Don't you want to be an official member of this Church?"

Bro. Concern, "Well, you see Bro. Elder #1, I am an official member of the body of Christ. When I put my Lord on in baptism, thus experiencing the New Birth according to God's plan, Christ made me an official part of His body. I don't read in scripture where a person should join anything else.

Bro. Elder #1, "Of course, we are all members of the body of Christ but that doesn't make you a member of this Church. We have work to do here and we must have people who want to worship with us to place membership. You must put yourself under the authority of the Eldership and that is done by officially placing membership, don't you see."

Bro. Concern, "Excuse me?"

Bro. Elder #1, "Put yourself under the authority of the Eldership! How can the Eldership watch for your soul if you don't place membership? If you are not on the official membership list the Eldership cannot encourage you to attend all the services and to continue to give as you have been prospered. If everyone refused to place membership this Church could not be run as it is now."

Bro. Concern, "Bro. Elder #1, I intend to follow the godly examples set by the elders as I see their interaction with others from without and within the community of Christ. I also observe their aptness to teach the word of God. I don't see that officially placing membership changing what I observe."

Bro. Elder #1, "Well, if you refuse to officially place membership with us here at the What's Happening Now Church we will not be able to put you to work. We will not be able to use you in the work here."

Bro. Concern, "But you see, Bro. Elder #1, God has already put me to work. I'm not sure what you mean by the Eldership 'putting me to work.* Please explain!"

Bro. Elder #1, "I mean you will not be allowed to teach a class, pass the communion trays, count the attendees, or dim the lights. The Eldership must be sure that anyone who has a part in this Church must be under their authority. Remember, when you or your family are ill we cannot promise any support from here unless you place membership."

Bro. Concern, "Thank you, Bro. Elder #1, for the information. However, I believe I will consider my membership in the body of Christ to be sufficient, because that is what God teaches in His word."

Time to worship has arrived.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2000

Answers

Duane...

No. Call Cocoa and ask for them.

-- Anonymous, February 06, 2000

I think Brother Malcom and Brother Mark's comments both underscore something for me on this issue.

That is.....that each individual congregation needs to decide for itself the "membership" issue as they strive to win people to Christ and incorporate them into active, contributing members of the church.

There is no "thus saith the Lord" on this issue. Thus....in matters of silence....liberty....but in all things....love.

What works for one church, may not work for another....and so on.

Put everything together on this thread....and you get some pretty good ideas.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2000

Response to The What's Happening Now Church....placing fellowship.

Let me be one of the first to welcome you back to the forum Nelta. Let me also remind you that you have much unfinished business here. You have a spiritual need to repent of your false accusations against Brother Danny in this forum and to answer those many questions that were asked of you and to respond to those post that answered your false teaching concerning the authority of elders in the church.

I agree with you that there is no scriptural requirement to "place membership" in the Local church. For we are all already members of the body of Christ. But there is a clear requirement, which youo rebel against doing, to "submit" to the authority of the elders in the church. Hebrews 13:17. Now you have left that subject unattended. I am pasting my respons to your false teaching about that matter. I refer you to your post wherein you claimed that there is no greek word for authority in the scriptures and you claimed that we are not to submit to the authority of the elders which you claimed they do not have. You cannot just sneak back into this forum and ignore these important matters as you now appear to be attempting to do. It is true that you can ignore them but we can also continue to remind you of your need to repent and correct your egregious errors. I now quote my response to you which you completely refused to attempt to answer.

"It is my intention in this post to examine in some detail several passages of scripture that contain words that would help us to reflect accurately concerning some of the things that Nelta would have us to believe about the existence of authority in the scriptures and the authority of elders in the church. I do not now nor will I ever apologize for the Length of this post. If you have ever tried to untangle a group of ropes or twisted wire or electrical cords that have been tied into seemingly impossible knots you know that it takes far less time and effort for a person to entangle and tie the knots than to untangle them.

I will also not apologize if I am accused of being unloving in my efforts to correct her egregious errors that she has sarcastically and arrogantly expressed in this forum. This is being written with love in my heart for the Lord Jesus Christ, His eternal word, and the precious souls that he seeks to save through the gospel, including our sarcastic friend, Nelta.

Now the New Testament is much easier to understand than the almost innumerable volumes that have been written about it. In fact, it seems that the very nature of man is to constantly rationalize the corners and sharp edges off the rugged bare word of God. His intent is to mold and shape it so that it fits into what he perceives to be the perfectly smooth and round hole of his reason, and sense of what is fair, just, right, and workable. Many have thus, as Peter has warned, wrested the scriptures to their own destruction.

Nelta has developed a consistent pattern in this forum of challenging all authority. In much the same fashion that Satan ask our mother, Eve, hath God said? Nelta once asked in this forum, Just how inspired are the scriptures? Then on one occasion she defied the authority of the man over the woman in 1 Corinthians 11:3 by a completely false assertion that the Greek term kaphale does not mean head in the sense of chief but rather means source as origin. The fact that absolutely NO reputable Greek Lexicon so defines the word did not cause her to even question her view. You see, she does not like the fact that the scriptures say that the head of the woman is the man and she considers this view to be completely incompatible with her modern day feminist sense of what is fair and reasonable. She has also demonstrated an extreme prejudice against men through her recent false accusations against Brother Danny and her statements that men usually do not take the writing of women seriously". One with such prejudice against men is not likely to appreciate the fact that God has determined that men would serve as overseers in the church and has excluded women from serving in this post of oversight. She cannot find any way to twist the scriptures in order to allow for women to become elders.

Therefore she has now attempted the next best thing, which is to deny and twist the plain teaching of scripture so as to take away all authority from them so that the women can have an equal voice in leading and directing the church!

This rebellion is much the same as the gainsaying of Korah which Jude accused false teachers in his day of following. For these reasons I now ask you to give attention to this examination of the passages which she has sought to pervert and twist to her own destruction in her clear rebellion against the elders whom the Holy Spirit has made overseers in the church. (Acts 20:28). This rebellion against God will not go unpunished nor will the LIES and false accusations against her Brothers in this forum and her extreme prejudice against men. We have dealt with her false accusations against Brother Danny and her extreme prejudice against men. Therefore we must now deal with her continuing efforts to deceive the weak and ignorant by perverting the word of God with the intent of challenging the authority of those whom the Holy Spirit has made overseers in the Church of Christ.

I will now compare three arguments or statements made by Sister Nelta with expositions of a few of the passages that she claims supports the things she would like for us to believe. First of all, Nelta wants us to believe that her reference to Matthew 20 is proof that no one in the kingdom has any authority over others. Her words were Jesus said in Matt. There would not be people exercising authority over others in His kingdom "as the gentiles do". Second, she also wants us to believe that there are no Greek words in the New Testament for authority. Her words again were, There is no Greek word in the N.T. for *authority.*. Third, based on these two erroneous premises, she draws the outlandish conclusion that we MUST reconcile the words of the inspired writer of Hebrews 13:17 (Whom I believe to be Paul) with HER understanding of the limits that Jesus placed in Matthew 20: 20-28 and Matthew 23:1-12. (Notice that I have taken the time to locate for her the exact passages that she could not remember and would not take the time in her argument to find and thus was unable to give the specific reference. I can only imagine that she was more concerned with brevity than accuracy.) I quote her words again, Heb. 13:17, "Obey them who have the rule over you and be submissive. This must be reconsiled by the limits Jesus placed in Matt. 20 and 23.

With these statements of Sister Nelta in mind let us examine the scriptures that she claims to support her view that 1.) There is no Greek word for authority in the New Testament; 2.) That there would be NO ONE in the kingdom of God to exercise authority over others. 3.) That Hebrews 13:17 must be reconciled with the limits Jesus placed in Matthew 20:20-28.

(Please notice just here that Nelta does not tell us exactly what Jesus placed these so-called limits upon? She knew that we would understand, but she did not want to say, that -according to her view- he placed these limits on AUTHORITY. But she claims that there is no Greek word for AUTHORITY in the New Testament. Which would mean that there is no AUTHORITY to be found in the New Testament. How then could Jesus be found, in the New Testament, placing limits on something that is not even mentioned the New Testament?) We will see, however, that the following passage, which is the one that Nelta referred us to, uses one of several GREEK words for Authority. We shall also see that this non-existent word is used in a context that places absolutely no limits whatsoever on the exercising of Authority in the Kingdom. Rather Jesus presents us with a contrast of the differences between the Kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God as seen in the basic reason for which and the manner in which they exercise authority. We shall see that Christ is not here condemning the use of authority. Rather he is forbidding the worldly, selfish, abuse of authority. For little can be accomplished without the exercise of some form of authority among men. All who know anything about leadership know that authority must be exercised. Whether it is the authority that comes from the force of strong character, evidenced in what the military often calls "command presence", which naturally compels others to follow. Or those who lack such character and must resort to the exercise of authority either by brute force or lies and deception to make others reluctantly follow them. Regardless of how it is exercised it is impossible to have any cooperative endeavor without it. Our Lord made it clear that authority would be exercised in the same way and for the same reasons that He exercised it. Read the passage below for yourself.

Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping [him], and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father. And when the ten heard [it], they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20: 20- 28).

Notice that Jesus did not say that there would not be any chief among us without authority. He simply showed that those who would be chief would not have others serving them but rather would become Chief or ascends to such a position of authority in the process of and in order to be of service to others. He gave himself as the example saying,  Even as (meaning in the same way) the son of man came not to be minister unto but to minister, and give his life a ransom for many If he meant that there would be no one with authority over others in His Kingdom then He would not be a good example because we are told that Jesus spoke as one having authority and not as the scribes. Jesus also made it clear, all authority hath been given to me in heaven and on earth Matthew 28:19, 20. In fact he gave the apostles authority and set them on thrones judging the tribes of Israel. He had authority and he exercised it but the difference is that he exercised it through persuasion and for the purpose of serving our great need of eternal salvation. He did not come as a worldly King would come and gather servants to carry him about, cook his food, wash his feet and tend to his every need and mindlessly, and reluctantly obey him. He was a king, using his authority as the Son of God to redeem us from our sins and his love compels us to obey Him and his words persuades us to submit to him. He is referred to as the Chief Shepherd and the lesser shepherds under him are to exercise authority in the same manner and for the same purpose under the guidance of the chief shepherd in service of those souls He died to save. The authority of the lesser shepherds resides not within themselves but rather in the Chief Shepherd. He directs His subjects through the Apostles doctrine in the New Testament and the Elders are to teach us the apostles doctrine and lead us to follow that teaching in our worship and work.

Notice also that Jesus, in these passages, uses a Greek word for authority which our sister Nelta would have us to believe does not even exist. But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. The Greek word that Jesus uses here is the term katexousiazo which is defined as to exercise authority, wield power. It is derived from The Greek term exousiazo which means, To have power or authority, use power. 1.) To be master of any one, exercise authority over one; to be master of the body; to have full and entire authority over the body; to hold the body subject to one's will; to be brought under the power of anyone.

This word exousiazo is derived from the Greek word exousia meaning: power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases; 1.) Leave or permission; 2) physical and mental power; the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises; 3) the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege); 4) the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed); 4) universally; authority over mankind; specifically; the power of judicial decisions; of authority to manage domestic affairs; metonymically; a thing subject to authority or rule; jurisdiction; one who possesses authority; a ruler, a human magistrate; the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates; a sign of the husband's authority over his wife; the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself; the sign of regal authority, a crown.

Therefore we can readily see that Neltas contention that there is no Greek word for Authority in the New Testament is proven to be a complete fabrication. If she had only read the passage that she quoted she would have seen the word authority there. And if she was competent enough in the Greek language she could have looked up the Greek word. If she had read several translations she could have learned that it is translated in all reputable translations with the English word authority if she had studied before she wrote she would not have mistakenly told us that there is NO GREEK WORD FOR AUTHORITY in the New Testament! But then she would have to abandon the idea that there is no one in the Kingdom of God that exercises authority over others.

If she had taken the time to follow the use of this Greek term exousia she would have found that the apostles not only possessed but they also exercised authority. Read the following passage from 2 Corinthians 10:5-12.

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he [is] Christ's, even so [are] we Christ's.

For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. For [his] letters, say they, [are] weighty and powerful; but [his] bodily presence [is] weak, and [his] speech contemptible. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such [will we be] also in deed when we are present. For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. But we will not boast of things without [our] measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you. ( 2 Corinthians 10:5-13).

Here Paul said that he should boast somewhat more about our authority which he says,  the Lord hath given to us for EDIFICATION, and not for YOUR DESTRUCTION. You see the authority was there for a different purpose than its purpose among the worldly kingdoms and Paul exercised it in such a way that he was in danger of not boasting enough about it. Which shows that Christ meant for CERTAIN ONES in the Church to have authority for the edification and service of others and that it is to be exercised through persuasion until discipline, as a last resort, is necessary for the edification and protection of the body. Be all of this as it may, no one can doubt that Paul and the other apostles had authority in the church. The word that he uses here for authority is exousia which is the same word that Jesus used in Matthew 20:20-28.

So Neltas contention that Jesus taught that no one in the kingdom would have authority over others is clearly false. Paul had authority and he claimed that the Lord had given it to him. Now why would the Lord give authority to anyone in the kingdom if he intended to teach in Matthew 20:20-28 that no one would have authority over others in the kingdom as Nelta wants us to believe.

With this information from 2 Corinthians still fresh in our minds it would be wise for us to look at a record that we have in the book of Acts. It is an account that gives us a picture of the Apostles and the ELDERS of the church in Jerusalem actually exercising their authority in the church. We can see that their authority was recognized and that they exercised it in accordance with the principles of Christ in Matthew 20:20-28. That is, they exercised it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the purpose serving the church and in a manner that used their recognized authority through the wisdom of persuasion. We see them appealing to the scriptures and the miraculous works of the Holy Spirit that confirmed the words of Paul and Barnabus so that the facts in this matter could be accurately established in the presence of the whole church. They then made a decision; it was expressed by James, written in a letter and sent to the church in Antioch and was the duty of the church to obey.

There is much to cover in this passage but I site it to show that it is impossible for anyone to read this and draw the conclusion that the elders do not have any authority. Certainly no reasonable person could read this passage and conclude that no one could exercise authority over others in the kingdom. I commend it to your reading without further comment.

And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, [and said], except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and [of] the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: [Which] when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed [them]. And after they had tarried [there] a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. Acts 15:1-34

Now let us consider another passage wherein we see authority being used in the New Testament. Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have [free] course, and be glorified, even as [it is] with you: And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all [men] have not faith. But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep [you] from evil. And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all.

Here we have the Apostle Paul alluding to his AUTHORITY which he received from the Lord in his expression of confidence that these brethren would do as he had commanded them. Notice his words, And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. One without authority does not command anyone nor does he have even the slightest reason to believe that anyone would obey his command should he issue one. In this verse Paul is doing both! I can just hear those who teach no one in the kingdom would exercise authority over others saying Paul does not have any authority to give commands. He may call us all in and we can have a congregational dialog and then vote on the matter but he has no such right. However, if they did such a thing and the vote was cast requiring a brother to be withdrawn from then each individual would have to submit to the authority being exercised by the entire congregation. This would be the entire church doing in concert the very thing that Nelta wants us to believe no one would do in the kingdom. This would be the entire church exercising authority over others in the kingdom! The truth must be obvious by now that it is impossible to escape authority. It is naturally inherent in any cooperative action whether it comes in the form of strong, wise individuals in positions of authority or the entire body combined as an individual in the same position, authority will be exercised! Our Lord simply changed the purpose and the manner in which it would be exercised in the kingdom but he surely did not prohibit or eliminate its existence! God is not the author of confusion. (1Cor.14: 33). The church is a BODY and it has a head that controls its actions throughout.  And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the Church. (Col. 1:18) He exercises His divine authority through the Holy Spirit who exercises it through the Apostles who continue to this day to exercise it through the word of God which is the very word that has taught us to submit to the elders (Heb. 13:17) who exercise the very authority of Christ when they lead us to continue steadfastly in the apostles doctrine which is in fact the very doctrine of Christ our Lord! Therefore, those who rebel against men who are qualified according to 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 and Titus 1:5-11 to be overseers in the church are actually in rebellion against our Lord Jesus Christ! That, brethren, is the truth and a warning! God will not fail to punish severely those who rebel against His anointed! Just witness what happen to those who rebelled against Moses and Aaron. Look at what happened to Ananias and Saphira who in the act of lying to the apostles were found, in fact, to have been lying instead to the Holy Spirit. They both fell DEAD at the apostles feet. (Acts 5: 1-4). Beware of this rebellious spirit! Beware!

Now I must stop here though there is much more to discuss about this subject. I only want to remind you that Nelta was right about one thing. She said, Enough is enough. I agree. We have seen enough of this rebellion against the God given authority of the overseers of the church. We have seen enough of accusations without evidence to sustain them. We have seen enough of this extreme feminist prejudice against men just because of their gender. We have seen enough of this shallow sophistry that affirms that the word of God teaches something without any evidence from the word of God that such is true. We have seen enough of this refusal to engage in meaningful dialog with those who would sincerely desire to question our comments. For are we not told to,  be ready ALWAYS to give an answer to ANY man that asketh thee a REASON for the hope that is in us?

Let us study diligently, discuss matters sincerely, and let the Word of God be our ONLY rule of faith and practice. Let us endeavor to approach these subjects with a desire to be lead by the Holy Spirit through the teaching of the word of God. These matters are high and holy in that we are talking about GODS WILL. This is not the same as discussing politics or matters of opinion. We are discussing matters of faith. Let us ever contend for the ONE faith that we have from the ONE God that is intended to make us ONE people in Christ our LORD. Yes, Nelta, Enough false doctrine, enough false accusations, and enough feminist SEXISM that condemns a persons views and attitudes solely on the basis of the fact that he is a man! Enough!

I pray that we can learn the truth and express it in this forum so that others are not confused by those who do are not even sure that the scriptures are inspired."

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Response to The What's Happening Now Church....placing fellowship.

Lee,

I'm standing with Nelta on this one. I think you totally miss her point. I don't find her writings to be aggressive against authority; I think instead she's finding that in many churches, and I agree, people are much more enthralled with a position or better a title they've received from men than the actual function they've been given by God.

Jesus Christ doesn't ask us to blindly accept elders of any group. The word presbutero simply means "older man or woman" (Strong's Enhanced Greek Lexicon). And Paul didn't expect blind acceptance of these people either.

"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." - I Timothy 5:17

Paul is placing a caveat to honor given these folks; they have to "rule well." If you study Nelta's satirical play, she questions their ability to "rule well" because they continually reject the authority of scripture given by Bro. Concern.

I think Nelta (and you can correct me if I'm putting words on your mouth here, Nelta) takes quite literally I Timothy 2:5...

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Nelta's asserting that no one needs to stand between her and what she hears from her Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It's not hard to find in church today those people who believe that others need them to get to God and His will for their life.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Response to The What's Happening Now Church....placing fellowship.

Nelta, you have been "Saffolded". I hope thats not like being "slimed". :P

Lee, I'm just stopping in briefly and havent all of your read your post yet. I "scanned" it, and it looks like you are probably "right on" concerning the previous issue about Nelta's rejection of Biblical authority.

BUT...

This current topic raised is one in which I have been wondering about for a long time...

There is no "Scriptural authority" for "placing congregational membership"...

Then why do it?

To be able to "vote" at congregational meetings?

We are working on our "church directory" and I am debating whether or not to separate "members" from "non-members"...

What saith the Forum?

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

I believe in membership, but not in the way we naturally think. If we are in Christ through faith, repentance, confession, and baptism- then we are a part of Christ's church as a whole. Now the local membership should not entail voting, and doing various activities. If voting and activities are a criteria then we must lower ourselves to the level of a country club or the "Moose lodge" (which are composed of a bunch of sad drunks)!

In the church in which I serve, the leadership (Elders) have cut out congregational voting. No member has the right to vote for issues- but instead we will bring them along with us on big issues. For the most part it works well (especially with new Christians), but the problem we have had is with old timers in the church, who grew up voting on whether a church should pay the phone bill or arguing over toilet paper. There is a danger is see in this too, some Elders can get too "powerful" in their minds and they become a dictator. But this can happen in any case. But I prefer no congregational voting not only because it is more biblical- but you also take out boards and then delegate "authority" to those responsible to have it.

I understand Nelta's piont, but I agree with Lee that there is a background to her reasoning. She has consistantly avioded the tough issues, and applied a hit and run tactic that is not effect to those who know better. As a whole I have stayed away from Nelta's threads, because I know how heated they do become (sorry Nelta).

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

The following is copied from a previous thread on this subject:

This thread comes from a question raised by my bride on the "Rebuke an elder" thread. We have a long history in the restoration congregations of having folks place membership in the particular congregation. Anyone know the history of this? I know it goes back before the Campbells and the restoration movement ... but does anyone know when it started? Along the same lines, anyone know the reason for this practice, both historicaly and present day? I understand some of the present day useage ... voting, by-laws, local membership = service to local congregation, etc. What might happen if a congregation decided not to have a local membership roster? Good thing or a bad thing? I understand each congregation can "do it's own thing" with regards to this subject, but what might your opinion be? -- Darrell Combs (darrell@csfpa.com), October 14, 1999 Answers What might happen? How about....we would be going back to the early First Century Christianity as taught by the inspired apostles. -- Nelta Brock (nib@hal-pc.org), October 14, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Hey ... ya think? WOW -- might bring the restormation MOVEMENT along! Sometimes I wonder if our movement has stopped it's moving. I ask the question 'cause we will be putting together a local congregation here in Indiana, PA over the next year or so. Darrell Combs -- Darrell Combs (darrell@csfpa.com), October 14, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Darrell, how do you put together a local congregation?? Just wondering! -- Nelta Brock (nib@hal-pc.orG), October 14, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Darrell, Been here, done that. There is no Biblical precident for "membership." The Lord adds to the Church when a person becomes a Christian. Membership is only needed when there is voting and elections (both of which you will have a hard time finding in the Scriptures). If a Church is Scripturally put in order (as opposed to traditionally) you have an evangelist and eldership, working as a team, making the decisions of the Body. Membership is not needed because the authority is in the hands of th leadership instead of the congregation. A person either submits to the authority of evangelist and elders or he doesn't. That is what makes him/her a part of that particular congregation. The only requirement for "membership" then is only whether a person has submitted to the Lord or not. I know several people who, in good conscience, cannot "place membership" with a congregation because they do not find anything like it in the Scriptures. Are we to force an extra-Biblical tradition on someone because "that's the way we've always done it?" There was a fella at my last ministry that said "Yes" and he caused great turmoil in the Church because he had the by-laws on his side. We came up with new by-laws that appealed to the Scriptures rather than tradition. -- Scott Sheridan (jscott@954access.net), October 16, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Scott, did I read you right? Did you say the Evangelist and the Eldership has the authority to run the *church*? I don't think I understand you here. -- Nelta Brock (nib@hal-pc.org), October 16, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Brother Scott. I appreciated the forcefulness with which you cut across the nonsense and got to the heart of Gods plan for the local congregations. The Pastors (Elders) of a local congregation have a great responisibility to Bishop (Oversee) the flock. It is not a just a Office, as some seem to think, but a work that God has set in motion. Ran into the bylaw thing myself and more were concerned about it then the bylaws for the church IN THE WORD, so-to-speak. It has been a concern of mine for some time. The problem has been that those who God has called to be Evangelists in the Kingdom have not been fulfilling their responsibilities. The Church cannot go beyond what it is taught. The "Words of Faith and of Good Doctrine" I Tim. 4:1-5 are imparitive if we are to return to the Pattern given by the Lord. Our mandate from Heaven is to Preach the Word, Set things in order and ordain Elders. "Setting things in order" is very challenging, Is it time yet for the TRUMPET SOUND? -- Jack Prentice (jcevang@aol.com), October 16, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Seems to me that some of you are running afoul of an idea that you need to give more thought to in this discussion -- that idea being this: there is a vast difference between being UN-biblical and being ANTI-biblical. To be the first is not necessarily to be the second. Do you have a Sunday School program? If you do, did you set it up the Biblical way? Well, of course, you couldn't have -- there IS no biblical way to set up and administer Sunday School. Sunday School programs are UN-biblical. But they are not ANTI-biblical, since they address the issue of educating people in the Word and the Way. The first century church may or may not have had "membership". The specific topic is not addressed in Scripture. Or is it? What will you do with these phrases from the pen of the apostle Paul: "To the church of God which is at Corinth"; "to the churches of Galatia"; "to the saints who are in Ephesus"; "To all the saints in Christ Jesus in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons"; "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse"; "To the church of the Thessalonians"; "Now when this epistle has been read among you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans"; and so on. You will object, "But he doesn't say anything about being MEMBERS of the church." And you're right -- he doesn't. But Paul DOES recognize the fact that, even though there is only one Church, there are still many churches. And each stands independent of the others in a very real way, while at the same time being bound by the Spirit of God into one universal Body. So what does this have to do with "membership"? Everything. If there is no "membership" established in local expressions of the Body of Christ, then there is chaos. Hey, I don't like the way you're choosing how to support missions, or which missionaries you support, in the congregation you attend. So I'm going to come over there with some of my friends, and get you guys to do it right. Or, my elders say this about the way the Lord's Supper should rightly be observed, and we think your elders are wrong, so we're gonna come and fix you up. Or, I can just be free to jump from one group of believers to another, with no committment to any of them, because I'm committed to the Body of Christ wherever it is. We actually had to deal with this. A couple wanted to be teachers in the youth program. But they didn't want to be members of the church, 'cause they wanted to be free to go wherever they felt like going whenever they wanted to. They were not willing to commit to us, yet expected us to commit leadership to them. The Bible says very little, really, about the organization of leadership and the day-to-day structure of the local church. It gives authority in each congregation to elders, and gives guidelines for what kind of men they should be. But it says not one word about how to select the men, or how to install them into the office. The best it gives is that Timothy and Titus were to appoint them in their respective cities. From that, we can possibly, but not necessarily, infer that the apostles did the same in the churches they were personally involved in. But then we have a problem, don't we? Who decides what men will be elders? We don't have any more apostles, and the only other example we have is that the local "preacher" took care of it. So are all you preachers willing to start saying to your church, "Hey, the Bible says that I'm supposed to be the one appointing elders around here." (On a related-but-having-nothing-to-do-with-this-discussion point: Have you ever noticed that the early church, in fact, had Deacons before it had Elders? As a prescribed office, at least. The first deacons were chosen by the congregation and ratified by the apostles and the Holy Spirit, before the New Testament concept of "Elder" had been introduced. There was, of course, bleed-over from the Jewish concept of the "elders", but the NT office had not yet been established, as far as we know from reading Acts.) Again, it comes back to UN-biblical and ANTI-biblical. Further, the early church didn't have the matter of by-laws to contend with, because they didn't have the idea of "corporation" to deal with. They didn't have budgets to decide, and tax laws to work through, and state recognition to obtain, and building codes to meet, etc. I have no problem with "church membership". The alternative is shared leadership, and shared responsibility to leadership, among all congregations everywhere (i.e., my congregation answers to your elders). And THAT, my friends, is also un-biblical. Unless the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 contradicts everything I've said here. That would throw my argument into a cocked hat. Whaddya think? -- Sam Loveall (samloveall@prodigy.net), October 17, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Thanks Sam for your response. I am presently frustrated with some good workers our church has presently but they refuse to place membership because it isn't in the Bible. You pointed to the heart of the issue with great clarity. I had seen it in terms of a "give back to Caesars what is his" frame of mind. The government does impose certain things upon us if we are to receive the benefits of 501-C3 status. They must know we have by- laws and membership. I don't think this is the issue to theologically die on. There are many more important issues to deal with but yet many consider it a major hang-up. You gave me great food for thought. Thanks. -- Michael W. Demastus (demastus@netzero.net), October 19, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- I risk a shout into the dark.... We here at the Shelby church of Christ have no membership and I doubt that we are in any danger of being taken over. As we understand the Scriptures the local church is to be led, taught, encouraged, warned, rebuked, guided and equipped by the Elders and the Evangelist. The word seems clear enough that the Elders appoints the Evangelist and the the Evangelist is to train up men and appoint them as Elders. Here we believe that the Elders and the Evangelist are to co-lead the church with equal authority and be mutually accountable to one another, and since we have godly leaders it's working! We took this step main because it is biblical but also because we have had "membership wars" here in the past over exactly how one must "properly place their membership". This is non-sense and it had driven off a good number of folks over the years. The New Testament speaks about FELLOWSHIP in the local assembly - not membership. And if anyone is concerned about how this effects our voting here, it doesn't. We don't vote on IF we should follow the Bible and since our leaders lead by knowing the needs of the flock, we do not need to vote on where we are going or how to get there. Try it, it works! Tom Tybeck, Evangelist. PS. If your Sunday School is teaching the Apostle's doctrine then it is biblical and you do have supporting Scripture. -- Thomas Tybeck (xpositor@bright.net), December 01, 1999.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Question: Must I have my name on a "local membership roster" to place myself under the BIBLICAL authority of the local eldership? Or do I do so just by regularly attending a particular congregation?

I accept the fact that the elders of a congregation do have authority. I also accept the fact that, sometimes, those elders have taken that authority and blown it WAY out of line. But when the elders of a congregation do their Kingdom service biblically, no problem here.

That being said, why can I not accept that authority, and have the congregation accept me as a member of THE CHURCH rather than their congregation, without "local membership?"

If I am entrusted by God with the gift of teaching, why should I not teach, even if my name is not on the roster? If I have attended for a sufficient length of time, and am known by the leadership as a teacher, what difference does it make if I'm on the local membership roster or not? In the past I have seen where people who had no business what-so-ever teaching were allowed to do so, just so long as they were "members" of that congregation. I also admit that, in the past, in various leadership positions in congregations where I have served, I have held to that as well. I REPENT! :)

Will I give more willingly as a "member" than as a non-member? Can I serve the Kingdom better as a "member?" Maybe what we need is more teaching on the matter so that people will see just what it means to be a member of THE CHURCH worldwide ... the resposibilities, as well as the benefits.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Darrell,

A few threads back, you brought up the issue of "congregational covenants." In a way, "membership" to me smacks of the same idea. I believe that both have a root in wanting stable, homogeneous believers, but we do so at the risk of making the congregation a gated community, for lack of a better way to put it.

Jesus didn't try to attract people to Him; in fact, He often sought to climb up places like a mountain - places only a disciple, or the desperate, would go. And the desperate ususally became disciples later. But Jesus welcomed all to Him if they would but do one thing: follow Him.

I don't see how "membership" encourages discipleship. Most membershipped congregations I've seen hesitate accepting those who don't fit the personality of the rest of the membership, and by that fact alone it would be something Jesus would oppose. Would Jeremiah have been accepted, with all of his dour words? Or Hosea, with his prostitute wife?

And in Matthew 28, Jesus says quite plainly to "Go and make disciples of all nations..." Notice that He doesn't command to "Go and make members..." The reason for this is that Jesus Himself will judge the thoughts and intents of the heart and who among us is qualified to say whether a person should be a member or not?

Further, a disciple may be required to lay down his life by standing in rebuke of the congregation - how unpopular! Certainly he would be chastised and asked to stop or be threatened with *gasp* membership cancellation. All of this is nonsense. A disciple follows and does what he is told to do, member or not. The rest of us either listen or we don't, but that person simply ought to do what the Lord requires, member or not. And you're right; a non-membered teacher should teach, with or without permission from men. But if by our memberships we disallow the ministry of a brother or sister, then woe to us. Which brings back the question...

Outside of safe and homogeneous fellowship, why memberships?

I say we follow our Lord and make disciples, not members. And I believe I hear you hinting at this same idea, though I may have misunderstood.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Brett -- we certainly would be in unity on this issue.

re: the covenant issue -- just something I was fooling around with. I read a great book where the author supports the idea, and shows where congregations who use the covenants tend to keep their members around ... but there you go ... membership?!?!?!?!?

Too many times, once people have their name on the roll (and I don't mean the heavenly roll), they tend to feel "they've arrived." Not everyone, mind you, but I have seen it happen time and again. Becoming and remaining a true disciple of Jesus is a life-long process.

Allow me to use an example from our martial arts class. Most all martial arts use the "blackbelt" for the highest level of achievement. Even so, there are differing levels even within the blackbelts, as they continue to grow in their art. My family particiaptes in Tang Soo Do, a Korean discipline. Rather than wear a black belt, we use a very dark blue belt. This is for a couple of reasons, but one is so that we understand we haven't "made it" and that we continue to learn and grow within Tang Soo.

That is the way it should be for Christians. We continue in our discipleship, as we continue to disciple others. It is a life-long continuing process, and SOMETIMES ... not always, but SOMETIMES the "membership' thing can get in the way of that.

What will it take to overcome this: solid biblical teaching! And once the "members" see themselves as disciples of Christ, the membership thing won't mean near as much.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

OK.... I just read everything .... here is what stuck out:

The government does impose certain things upon us if we are to receive the benefits of 501-C3 status. They must know we have by- laws and membership. I don't think this is the issue to theologically die on.

The govt requires by-laws, but does the govt does not require "membership"?

Danny, are you out there? Could you post the "simplified" by-laws you all had at Cocoa?

I think the reason we have "membership" regulations is because we feel we can keep our doctrine pure that way, ie., only "immersed" believers may become members....

Further thoughts?

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Brother Rogers:

You said: I'm standing with Nelta on this one. I think you totally miss her point. I don't find her writings to be aggressive against authority; I think instead she's finding that in many churches, and I agree, people are much more enthralled with a position or better a title they've received from men than the actual function they've been given by God.

I think that I made it clear in the very beginning of my article that I agree that there is no scriptural authorization or requirement to place membership in the local congregation. That would mean that I agree with Nelta about that issue. I will now quote my words to that effect so that all are clear about that fact. Here is what I said:

I agree with you that there is no scriptural requirement to "place membership" in the Local church. For we are all already members of the body of Christ.

Therefore you can see that I did not totally miss her point concerning placing Membership I actually agreed with it. But you have missed her consistent position of rebellion against the very idea that there is even a Greek word for authority in the New Testament. I will quote her words again.

The N.T. interprets itself. Jesus said in Matt. there would not be people exercising authority over others in His kingdom "as the gentiles do". There is no Greek word in the N.T. for *authority.*

Therefore she is contending that the elders have no authority in the Church. I have answered her and if you agree with that position I challenge you to answer the arguments that I have made to the contrary. If I am wrong I will correct the error. I do not however believe that you think the elders have NO Authority in the church. I also want you to know that I understand and agree with your point that no elder has the right to abuse his authority by going outside of the boundaries of the doctrine of Christ our Lord who is the chief shepherd.

You also said, Jesus Christ doesn't ask us to blindly accept elders of any group. The word presbutero simply means "older man or woman" (Strong's Enhanced Greek Lexicon). And Paul didn't expect blind acceptance of these people either.

No one, least of all me, has said that we are to blindly accept elders of any group. I do not know whom you are responding to with those words. You cannot quote one single place where I said anything to the effect that we are to blindly accept elders of any group. Are you trying to make it appear that I have said such a thing? We are not to receive an accusation against an elder without the word of two or more witnesses.  Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at the mouth of two or three witnesses. Them that sin REPROVE in the sight of all, that the rest also may be in fear. 1Timothy 5:19,20. Therefore we are to exercise care in how we go about correcting one who is an elder in a local congregation. We must have evidence to sustain any accusations against them. I do not know which verse leads you to the conclusion that Paul weighed in on blindly accepting THESE PEOPLE unless it is the above passage that establishes guidelines concerning how to proceed when we must rebuke them. So, you see, I have not argued that we must blindly accept elders of any group.

I would like to know however, what passages of scripture teach you that we are to reject them without any evidence whatsoever that they are justly accused of sin? I have shown in my post that they do in fact have authority in the church and that we are to respect that authority unless we have evidence established by the mouths of two or three witnesses that they have sinned. Even then we are told to reprove them, which implies that they are to be given the opportunity to repent. If they do not repent then they are to be disciplined as are all members of the church must be disciplined. In this case they are not to be treated as enemies but admonished as brothers.

Then you tell us presbutero simply means older man or older woman as if the word cannot ever refer to the office of an overseer or an elder. This you attempt to sustain by giving us a partial quote from Strongs Enhanced Greek Lexicon. I now quote your words:

The word presbuteros (not presbutero) simply means "older man or woman" (Strong's Enhanced Greek Lexicon).

Now the error that you have made here is one that is common to those not familiar with Greek language. For just because you give us the primary definition the adjective presbuteros which certainly means older man or older woman, as you have read from Strongs Enhanced Lexicon, does not mean that it is always has only this meaning. Words do have other meanings and you cannot come to the truth by choosing only the meaning of the word that suits you. You may have a valid argument if the meaning that you tell us about is the ONLY meaning that this word has but we shall see that such is not the truth at all. But you neglect to point out that, though the adjective Presbuterios is uniformly translated elder, the term presbuterion can be properly translated as eldership. This term is used twice in reference to the Jewish Sanhedrin, which we all know, were not simply old men and old women. So it obviously is properly used in the New Testament to refer to older men in an official capacity. It is found in a third place where Paul, by inspiration uses the exact same word to refer to the elders in the Church who laid hands on Timothy. (In 1Timothy 4:14).

Now if you will read your Strongs Lexicon more closely it will bear these facts out. I will leave that to you but I will now refer you to  A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament by Joseph Henry Thayer Page 535 and 536. After giving the primary meaning of the word he goes on to tell us its various secondary meanings, which you have failed to tell us about. From this great scholar of both classical and koine Greek we learn that this word presbuteros does not SIMPLY mean older man or older woman. You are completely mistaken about that matter. If you were really competent in reading and understanding the Greek language you would not have made such an egregious error. Now please understand that if you are going to make an argument from the Greek language that will effect the souls of men for eternity you owe it to us all to 1.) study the language so that you are able to distinguish its various shades of meaning accurately 2.) Be diligent to examine all that any resource has to say about the meaning and use of words before teaching as if you are certain of all the facts. 3.) do not fail to be honest enough to admit that there is more information concerning these words that you have not reviewed before making a sweeping all inclusive statement concerning those words. From Thayers we learn that the word presbuteros does not simply mean older man or woman as you affirm. A complete review of Strongs will bear this fact out as well if you will but read further than the definition that fits your preconceived and settled opinion.

Now hear Mr. Thayer:

"1. Of age; a. where two persons are spoken of, the elder: b. univ. advanced in life. An elder, a senior. 2. a term of rank or office; as such borne by a.) among the Jews, members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc. were selected from among the elderly men): (Matthew 16:21; 26:47,57,59). B. Those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice: Luke 7:3. b. Among Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches): Acts 9:30; 14:23; 15:2,4,6,22; 16:4; 21:18; 1Tim. 5:17,19;Titus 1:5; 2John1; 3John1; 1Peter5: 1,5; with tes ecclasias added, Acts20: 17,James 5:17. That they did not differ at all from the (episcopein) bishops or overseers (as is acknowledged by Jerome on Titus 1:5) is evident from the fact that the two words are used indiscriminately, Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7, and that the duty of Presbyters is described by the terms episcopein1Peter 5:1 and episcope. Accordingly only two ecclesiastical officers, hoi episcopoi (the overseers) and hoi diakonoi (the deacons), are distinguished in Phil. 1:1; 1Tim3: 1.8. The title episcopos (overseer) denotes the function, presbuteros (elder) the dignity. The former was borrowed from Greek institutions and the latter from the Jewish.

Now I refer you to the words of one of the most scholarly men known among us in the restoration movement in reference to this subject. Brother J. W. McGarvey was more scholarly than any who have written in this forum. His knowledge of the New Testament Greek had few parallels in his time and has none in this forum. Here are his words about this term presbuterios and its proper use in reference to the eldership. I will not quote all of his words because they are already in the thread entitled eldership and the business meeting read it there if you wish.

Is there an office in the church called the Eldership? The common English version of the New Testament does not contain the term eldership, but the term presbuterion in the original should be so translated. This uniformity requires; for the adjective presbuteros is uniformly translated elder, and the only rendering of presbuterion which harmonizes with this is eldership. This term should occur three times in the English Testament, twice having reference to the Jewish Sanhedrin, and once to the eldership in the church. Lu. 22:66; Acts 22:5, 1 Ti. 4:14.

I do pray that we will understand that no reasonable person is affirming that the elders are dictators. They serve at the pleasure of Christ our Lord and by appointment of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). They have authority from Christ according to the doctrine of Christ found in the New Testament. Those who abuse this post of oversight as established by the mouth of two or three witnesses should be reproved.

The position that Nelta wants us to accept is that no one has any authority in the church at all, especially the elders. Now this is manifestly false which I have proven conclusively in my post, which no one, especially Nelta, has even attempted to answer. I hope I have made it clear that wile we do not have to tolerate elders who sin we must submit to those who rule well for they watch on behalf of our souls as those who must give an account. Hebrews 13:17.

I pray that we will submit to the elders that they may obey Our Lord and be faithful to their charge and that they may do so with joy and not with grief.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Duane:

I see that you still have your sense of humor! Ha! You said:

Nelta, you have been "Saffolded". I hope thats not like being "slimed". :P

I must confess that I do not know what the term Saffolded means. It is a term that has be coined specifically for use in responding or referring to my post in this forum. At least this is all I can gather from the two examples of its use in this forum. I believe that we would have to ask Brother Sam Loveall about its meaning because it appears that he is the one that coined the word and put it into circulation. I suppose that I do not have a right to have any input concerning its meaning and use but I do sincerely hope that it is not similar to the idea of being slimed. It is humorous and I suppose that everyone, including myself, can have some fun with it. Ha! You have always been very kind and respectful to me in this forum and I want to tell you that I sincerely appreciate your candor in the discussions in which you participate.

You also asked me:

This current topic raised is one in which I have been wondering about for a long time... There is no "Scriptural authority" for "placing congregational membership"... Then why do it?

I must tell you that I cannot think of any reason that we should require any Christian to place membership in order to treat them as our Brothers and Sisters in Christ. In fact, I do not believe it is a good practice if it leaves the elders with the erroneous idea that they have no responsibility for these souls who worship with them just because they have not formally placed membership". If the Lord sent them to that congregation by his divine providence they must work and worship there until they move to another place. They are therefore to be put to work. Now, if anyone is refusing to work with the congregation and submit to the elders of that congregation and they are using the I have never placed membership with this congregation as their excuse for neglecting their duties and responsibilities as Christians then the sin resides in their rebellion against the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and the elders who watch for their souls. Their sin is not that they have never placed their membership. The day they became Christians God placed their membership by adding them to the Church.(Acts 2:47). They are therefore members wherever they go and they have responsibilities to fulfill and must submit to the leadership in any place that they go regardless of how long they stay.

Now, it is the elders business to know the spiritual condition of all who are within the body of Christ working and worshiping at their local congregations. We seem to have no problem expecting Christians to worship with us even if they are visiting for a short time. But why do we hesitate to EXPECT them to join with us in the Lords WORK when they visit for a short time. All Christians are a part of the Body of Christ and they must function in that body regardless of where they are located and for how long they are in that location. You know that I do not believe that we can practice anything for which we do not have any authority in the scriptures. I believe that we have no authority for this modern practice of placing membership. But I do strongly believe that we are to be subject to the elders in whatever congregation that we attend and that we therefore have a responsibility to let them know that we are Christians. We also have a responsibility to immediately become involved in the work and submit to the leadership of that congregation. We cannot wander around like stray sheep without a shepherd. We cannot be maverick Christians just doing our own thing. We must work and worship with other Christians.

I intended for this to be brief. If it shows up red and underlinded please forgive. I hit some button accidentally on this computer and do not know how to undo what I have done! Ha!

I pray that God will bountifully bless you, Duane and you wife Teressa. I hear that her class on Phillipians is going GREAT! May God Bless her.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

Brother Darrell:

You asked the following question:

Question: Must I have my name on a "local membership roster" to place myself under the BIBLICAL authority of the local eldership? Or do I do so just by regularly attending a particular congregation?

I believe that the same thing that makes us a Christian automatically makes us a member of the body or Church of Christ. (Acts2:47). We cannot join the Church any more than a newborn can Join his family. Where ever he goes he is a member of that family and must submit to all authority that exists in that family. When we are born again we become members of Gods family. Where ever I go I am automatically, while in that place, under the BIBLICAL authority of the eldership in that place. I am therefore automatically placed by God into submission to those whom the Holy Spirit has made overseers in that place. (Acts 20:28). I do not have a choice in the matter, If I want to be faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ. If I were to come to the congregation where you work for the Lord and worship him, I have a same responsibility there as I had at the congregation where I first obeyed the gospel. When I came out of the baptistery they did not say to me,  well Brother Saffold, now you are in the body of Christ which is the Church of Christ and you have a choice to place your membership as you please. Do you want to place membership with us? Nor did they say, You are a Christian but you are not a member of this congregation. They knew that the day I became a Christian the Lord Added me to His Church. That makes me a member wherever I go and I must submit to the leadership and work and worship the Lord in every place. If I am the only Christian in a certain city my responsibility does not change. I must work and worship the Lord even if I must do it alone until I am able to bring others around me to Christ. I would not ask them to place membership" with me. It would be a foregone conclusion. It has already been arranged. If a Christian comes to your congregation he IS A MEMEBR of that congregation and his responsibilities immediately begin and so do the responsibilities of the elders toward that Christian. For this reason it is necessary that they communicate with each other to facilitate all things necessary to further the cause of Christ and to edify the church. If preachers spent more time preaching about how we cannot join the church but are members of it the moment that we obeyed the gospel we would not be having this discussion about placing membership.

It is practiced where I worship but I do not agree with it. It is a hold over from the sectarian concept of joining the church.

I pray for your work Darrell. May God Bless your family.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

"I must confess that I do not know what the term Saffolded means. It is a term that has be coined specifically for use in responding or referring to my post in this forum. At least this is all I can gather from the two examples of its use in this forum. I believe that we would have to ask Brother Sam Loveall about its meaning because it appears that he is the one that coined the word and put it into circulation."

Hey, Lee. Sam Loveall here. Maybe I did coin the term "to be Saffolded". Here's what I meant.

Most folks in the forum answer questions or make points in a much less "wordy", or simpler, way than you tend to. I find it very difficult to answer your posts. Not because they are or are not good arguments and answers (like most of the folks here, your arguments are sometimes weak, sometimes strong -- no difference there), but because they're just so stinkin' LONG!

Now, I know that I tend to get wordy sometimes. And when I do, I think to myself, "Boy, I'm sounding like Lee here!"

I do not mean the term "to be Saffolded" to necessarily be denigrating. I just wish you could make your points more quickly, without the 14 pages it takes to read them. That's all. I hope I didn't offend. If I did, I apologize, and will try to be more sensitive in future.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2000

I think membership and covenants both go to the heart of one issue, and it's not elders' authority. It's "who can we count on?".

Placing membership (where one simply declares "I wish to place membership") is one weak method for a church's leaders to measure who can be counted in some minimal way. It can probably be considered a substitute for elders taking time to meet new "attendees". If elders did their jobs fully, "placing membership" would be unnecessarily redundant.

What should happen (my opinion; since in Biblical times there wasn't a lot of "job transfers" and other relocations, we probably aren't going to find much in scripture) is elders/leaders meet with Christians and explain what is expected and what to expect as a part of their community (church). All parties make clear their expectations and agreements (verbal or written) are forged. Many churches are doing a modification of this, where standard "covenants" are drawn up, and classes held to explain them and sign them at the end.

There is a lot to bash with the idea of "joining" a congregation, but certainly many (all?) of you will agree that a church can be more fruitful if there is a process (formal or informal) to incorporate into your faith community those who are already Christians who move into your area.

BTW, in my last two churches (current and previous), we "put people to work" before they "placed membership" or even fully accepted the gospel invitation. I am working on a project now with a unbaptized regular attender of our church. Last church, it was almost a running joke that if someone volunteered to work with me (I coordinated benevolence), within two or three weeks of starting, they would make a commitment to God and submit to being baptized (my only contribution in each case was as an example in our work -- I usually just took their offers of help and used them). There were at least half a dozen cases of that happening.

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2000

Nelta's original subject matter which she introduced with her play has plagued my mind for many years. I too do not fully understand why we place memberships with local congregations. Since our citizenship is in heaven, since we are all part of the body of Christ Jesus, since there is just one church, why isn't our initial joining/uniting with Jesus and the one church sufficient?

In the local congregation where I attend and serve, there is a policy that no one can teach a class unless they have first been members of the local congregation for at least 6 months. This policy is completely ignored in the cases of ministers being hired, but enforced towards all others (even if they are retired ministers who are not being hired but have recently moved here).

Enough said.

In Christ, Malcam

-- Anonymous, February 07, 2000

Sam:

There is no need for you to apologize for coining the term "Saffolded". I have actually had fun with it. I did not mean to imply that I was offended by it. I only expressed the hope that it would not become anything as negative as "being slimed" as Brother Deuane jokingly asked. I have received other definitions of it in my e-mail that were quite humorous and some were very truthful.

I do understand that you, along with others, do not like the length of my post. I cannot, however find one that was anywhere near "14 pages" in length. I am not a talented writer for I am still completely unable to untangle some of the egregious errors that are easily stated in a few words that I have read in this forum on occassion, in short witty phrases. I sincerely wish that such errors could be sufficiently corrected in a few words. For that may help us in defending the truth to a generation that is easily persuaded to turn aside from the truth by some quaint little witty saying that fits easily into the space of a few sentences.

However, those who seek the truth have learned that it requires a diligent search and lots of study of numerous passages in the word of God. I do very much sense my lack of ability to sufficently defend the "faith once delivered" from these attacks that come in the form I have just described, in short "one liners". Nevertheless, I feel compelled to fight on with the ability that God has granted to me and do the very best that I can with the ability I have been given. Someone with Greater talents may be able to get the same results in short sentences and I do pray that such would be the case. But I have not seen that happen yet in this forum.

I thank you for your kindness in clearing up for everyone that you did not intend to be denigrating in the use of my name in the coining of what appears now to be a useful term, "Saffolded". I do not object in the least therefore no apologies are necessary, Brother.

You do not have to be sensitive at all in dealing with me, Brother Sam. I have often learned much more truth from those who rebuked me with wise words and references from the word of God than from those who were more concerned about my "feelings". So If you see that I need correction, please care enough about me to not spare my feelings. Show me the truth for I yearn to follow after it.

I am thankful to God for you, Brother Sam, and I pray that he will bountifully bless you and that you will continue to give us the benefit of your diligent study of the precious word of God.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 08, 2000

This is my first time to be in this forum -- first time, in fact, to visit the website that hosts these forums (fora?), so I hope I'm following the expected "netiquet" in what I say.

I shouldn't be here -- too much else I SHOULD be doing -- so I'll TRY to make this brief. (I too tend to be a little wordy when the topic under discussion is one of my "pet peeves."

Just a word of introduction since it does bear somewhat on what I have to say. I'm a second generation missionary. I was born in China and grew up in South Africa and Hong Kong. My only extended periods in the U.S. were 3 years when my parents were between fields (after leaving S. Africa and before going to H.K.) and then when I was in college (Ozark Bible College, now Ozark Christian College, in Joplin, MO). I have now been serving as a missionary as a missionary in Hong Kong "in my own right" for nearly 25 years. In that time I worked with a Chinese congregation for 6+ years, and a predominantly Filipino congregation for 17+ years.

Most of my life has been spent with small churches in "mission" situations where we didn't have the "normal" U.S. pattern of church leadership. (Most of the churches were started from scratch and for the first few years had only the missionaries as leaders.) Growing up without the usual U.S. patterns meant I had no pre-conceived views about how the church "must" be organised, which drove me to the Scriptures to figure out what the Bible had to say. Being "in on" two churches setting up their own organisational structures gave us (me and the churches) the opportunity to try out some new ways of doing things, based mainly on the Scriptures and not on the "ruts" left by others.

I too have long been bothered by the fact that while the Bible says nothing about "placing membership", most American churches seem to insist on it. While I was in Bible college I attended a church (then a mid-sized church, but now one of the "super churches" of the Brotherhood) which made me (and my wife, whom I married in that church) very welcome, but would not "use" us in some areas of service (like teaching, and I like to teach) until we "placed membership." But I felt uncomfortable about "placing membership" since I couldn't find it in the Bible. After my wife and I married, I shared my concerns with the man who was then minister of the church. He helped us find a compromise that I wasn't absolutely comfortable with, but it at least got us out of the deadlock. We went forward to "dedicate our marriage to the Lord", which is something we wanted to do anyway, and when the minister introduced us to the congregation and told of that decision, he also said that we wanted to be a part of that congregation (though I personally felt we already had been for nearly a year) and to serve there.

Neither of the two churches I've worked with here in Hong Kong has the practice of "placing membership". From what I've heard, neither do most other H.K. churches, but I haven't actually taken a poll to be sure. In the present congregation we equate membership with two things. (1) Is the person a Christian (which we define very simply as an immersed believer in Jesus Christ)? And (2) is he/she demonstrating commitment to this congregation through his/her attendance and participation? If people come who are not immersed believers, we consider them as people we need to reach for Christ. If they already are immersed believers, and come once or twice, we consider them to be potential members and feel we have a responsibility to try to get them to be more involved (unless we know that they are already active in some other congregation here, in which case we consider them to be members there and just visitors in our congregation). So we feel a responsibility for shepherding them that starts with their first contact with us. If they start coming with any degree of regularity, we believe that we should try to get them involved in some part of the work of the church. We are not as good at actually getting them to work as we would like to be. Some people "fall through the cracks". But our aim is to get as many as possible put to work somehow somewhere.

We do have church elections, voting yearly on elders and deacons/deaconesses. (I wonder if you have a strand yet for considering whether deaconesses are Biblical -- I'll have to look.) For purposes of eligibility to vote, we require that they be "regular members". Regular was originally defined as coming once a month, but for the last two elections we put it at around 40%, and we will probably increase it to 50% for the next election. (The reason we put it so low to begin with is that most of our members work as live-in domestic servants, and not all of their employers give them every Sunday off. We didn't want to exclude too many of those who only have alternate Sundays off work)

I wonder if more churches couldn't adopt some policy something like this. I realise that this procedure and this distinction between voting and non-voting members or various grades of "membership" isn't in the Bible either, but it seems to me a reasonable way of dealing with some of the practical problems without imposing a non-Biblical requirement on people before we will assume responsibility for shepherding and/or put people to work in the congregation.

I don't know U.S. laws, so don't know if there are any legal problems with defining membership this way, but it doesn't seem to me that there should be any more problem with this than with requiring a verbal pledge like churches do now with "placing membership."

Benjamin Rees, Hong Kong

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000