Veritas Aequitas

I have just completed my 28th year as an individual person.

A year ago, I worked for HP and was getting ready to go to Chicago to start the rollout of HPSA for HSBC.

11 months ago I was getting ready to go to London to participate in more HSBC stuff.

10 months ago I was enjoying a week vacation away from technology in Bamber Bridge, UK.

9 months ago my parents were just getting ready to head back to NY after visiting me in NC for a couple weeks.

But while all those were fun, they pale in comparison to what happened 8 months ago. On 1 February 2009 I was “matched” with a Kentucky girl named “Christina” on eHarmony.

I sure didn’t know 8 months ago how very, VERY different this year would be from any previously.

A few days after being matched with Christina, I started making plans to go to Hong Kong for work to complete the HSBC rollout. Then, part way through February, I found out my position was being targeted for a “workforce reduction” due to slow services sales.

7 months ago I was in Hong Kong, finalizing my work with HSBC, and searching for a new job – and, oh yeah! – talking to this sweet southern girl in Kentucky.

I was also being intermittently spoken-to by a recruiter in Singapore about some HPSA contract work for an “investment bank”.

Part way into March I moved from merely emailing Christina to talking to her on the phone.

6 months ago I was more aggressively job-hunting because my tenure with HP was closing-out quickly. I was also planning a week trip to Florida with my dad for the EAA’s Sun-n-Fun convention and airshow.

5 months ago I was debating whether or not to accept the position with Barclay’s Capital. Oh – and planning to meet Christina in person for our first “date”.

On 9 May I met Christina at a small Italian restaurant in Corbin KY called Dino’s. We enjoyed some pasta, talked, and then went to Cumberland Falls. Talked more, watched the flood waters course through the gorge, noticed a wedding party getting pictures, and then headed into town for a coffee – where we again talked more.

After a few hours, we parted, and I headed-on to Detroit to visit some old friends I’d never met.

2 weeks later, we were making plans for a trip to Asheville for our second in-person date. I had already decided I liked Christina a LOT, but was nervous about expressing that – so I held off till just before our time together was done. Turns out I coulda said something sooner, cause [thankfully!] she felt the same way

Next up was scheduling a trip to meet her parents. I spent a bunch of time in KY before I left for Singapore. Wish I’d spent more!

3.5 months ago I arrived in Singapore for a few weeks to start working for Barclays. I was also eagerly awaiting my month-long trip back to the US to see my sweetheart.

Part way into July I boarded my flight for Tokyo, as the first leg in a 36-hour Thursday which was going to terminate with me driving to Corbin to see Christina. The next day we flew to Boston for my friend Dan’s wedding.

The following weekend I made official a commitment I’d already made in my head weeks previously, and asked Christina to marry me!

Now I’m counting-down the days (9.5!) till my fiancée arrives in Singapore for two weeks!

It’s truly amazing how much can happen in a year. Or a month. Or a day.

I’m continually amazed, awed, and thankful at how God orchestrates everything in our lives together for good.

I can only imagine what God has in store for the next year! If it goes anything like I hope, my next birthday won’t be alone – it will be with my wife!

I’ve written recently about both baptism and church membership.

In those two posts, I argue both that the modern concept of “membership” is wrong, and that withholding baptism from a professing believer implies a more perfect knowledge of the state of someone’s soul than a mere human can claim to have.

If membership is a Biblical concept in some fashion, is there a legitimate rationale for “stages” or “types” of membership, or disallowing membership until the applicant has reached a given age?

What I mean is that if there is a way of defining “belonging” to a church without the manmade additions as seen in modern church membership, is there a reason to have a series of member statuses. For example, junior member, full member, transient/associate member.

Is there any Biblical or otherwise reasonable warrant for limiting the responsibilities or roles of a member because of their age? For example, does it make sense to dismiss “junior” members when issues that need to be handled by the church arise but are of a “mature” nature (perhaps sexual sin, or public incidents involving drugs, etc)?

If there is reasonable warrant for such levels, how does the church determine at what age a person should go from “junior” to “full”? Should it be up to the parents of the member? Is it entirely based on age? Is it a determination that needs to be made from the member’s standpoint, by speaking to the elders about a change in status?

Of course, if there is a staged membership concept, it could be abused by people not wanting to become “full” members, and keeping themselves as “junior” for as long as they could.

My question about associate/transient membership is more related to a person who spends a lot of time traveling or splits his work between a few places for more than just a week or two at a time. Such a transient status could allow a level of local responsibility with a given church, for example in St Louis, while maintaining a similar status with another church in, say, Detroit.

If we use Paul’s commendations of various people from one church to another, then it seems there is warrant for an associate concept of church belonging. Of course, as with the “junior” and “full” concepts, this could be abused by someone who wanted to avoid responsibility at all by claiming they were committed to the other church(es) they belong to, and really do nothing with any of them.

What are your thoughts?

Is there an appropriate age at which someone can be considered for baptism? Is there an “age of majority” that needs to be considered before allowing someone who professes faith to be immersed in the baptistery?

I am a firm adherent to believer’s baptism. When a sinner is saved by grace, it is both their responsibility, and their privilege to be baptized and join the church.

But at what age can a profession of faith be “trustworthy”? Is there something magical about turning 16, 18, 20, 21, etc that makes a statement about an internal change of heart more true or more believable? I was not converted until about when I graduated high school. I knew for a long time that I was playing by the rules so I didn’t get in trouble. So by the time I was a Christian, no church I knew of would have had an issue with baptizing me.

But what about people I know who were converted around age 6? Or 10? Or 13? What is about turning 16 or 18 that makes some churches think that now they can believe that a person is really saved? What must be going-on in a converted child’s mind when a church won’t let them be baptized for 8 years because they’re only 10? Does that not lead to a great deal of self-doubt and wondering if what they’ve learned and accepted and believed is really true?

If a person has been truly saved, they can never become “unsaved” – but they can struggle with issues of assurance for years because someone they trust (a pastor, parent, Sunday school teacher, etc) has told them they have to wait.

All of the examples we have in the Bible of people declaring their faith in Jesus have them immediately being baptized as soon as a suitable source of water can be found. Yes – the apostles had special insights that our pastors can’t have today. However, even in the Jerusalem church were there found people who agreed to lie to the Holy Spirit about how much money they received for the plot of land they sold.

Were Ananias and Saphira false converts? I don’t know. But they didn’t show well in the only instance we have recorded of them in the Bible.

My personal conviction is that upon a credible profession of faith, any person should be baptized as soon as possible. As humans, we will make mistakes. We will occasionally recommend the wrong person to the church. Or misapprehend a profession as being what we want to hear, rather than what is really going-on. A verbal profession, followed by some [short] time of observation by both the person’s family, the church, their friends, and maybe coworkers ought to be enough to determine the likelihood of their statement being true.

But when that short observational time is done – and they’re still following what they claim to believe, withholding baptism from them becomes no longer a verification that they are what they say they are, but a way for the church to impose extra rules on top of the examples shown to us in the Bible’s account.

As reported on The Fishermen, http://thefishermen.us/?p=332. 41 questions to ask a church.

A. Theological Questions

1. What is the church’s statement of faith and how did the church devise it?

2. What has been the most vexed theological question the church has faced? Has there ever been a church split over theology or practice? Why?

3. On the wider scene, what theological trends and strands of false teaching would the elders at Ballymoney be particularly concerned about at the moment?

4. What are the key functions/roles of an elder at Ballymoney?

5. What is the elder’s relationship to the pastor? (For example, is the pastor an elder? Do the elders perceive themselves as, in some way, subordinate?)

6. What would the church’s position be on the role of women?

7. What is the church’s position on the function of charismatic gifts?

8. Is there a different kind of membership for someone differing on secondary issues? Would it ever be considered?

9. What kind of church government structure is practiced? How does it work out in practice?

B. Ministry-Philosophy Questions

10. What is the process of being baptised and becoming a church member? How is baptism and membership encouraged?

11. What are the expectations laid upon church members?

12. How does the church practice church discipline? (What sort of discipline has been practiced in the past?)

13. Do the elders have any plans for expansion of the building or church planting?

14. What, if anything, would the elders want to see change or develop in the future? (each elder might want to answer individually!)

15. Do the church members generally (and happily) follow the lead of the eldership?

16. Can the elders give evidence of an openness to growing in their role? (by eg. reading resources on eldership, attending conferences, having a weekend away with pastor, etc)

17. In what ways (if at all) do you think my young age might affect my reception both in the church and among the eldership?

18. What would be the minimum and maximum expectations be of the frequency of the pastor’s preaching? (ie. is one Sunday evening off in preaching a month the minimum acceptable; on the other hand, would preaching every service without fail be deemed unhelpful)

19. What items in the current services are non-negotiable? What other items are deemed acceptable and have been featured in the past? Is the pastor responsible for putting together all orders of service?

20. Is the current practice of communion (format, timing, gap between service and communion) set in stone?

21. What sorts of things do the Ballymoney elders feel the pastor should not be doing with his time?

22. What are the congregational/eldership expectations (these two may be different) regarding pastoral visitation?

23. How often are business meetings conducted? Does the pastor moderate this? Are they productive and generally positive? What is typically discussed?

24. Does the church have a yearly budget and if so, how is it put together?

25. What is the church’s attitude and approach to missionaries?

26. Who is responsible for the website and library and how easy would it be for the pastor to make a significant input into each of these areas? (Note: I believe these resources would have some relation to my teaching function as a pastor)

27. Has the church ever had Fellowship Groups? If so, what is the leadership’s feeling about their significance?

28. What are the leadership’s views concerning counselling?

29. How would you sum up the spiritual health of the congregation in qualitative terms (against measurements like prayer, heart for evangelism, love for one another)?

30. What kind of impact have ‘the troubles’ and its aftermath had on the Ballymoney congregation?

31. Pardoning the expression, are there any ‘sacred cows’ in the church?

32. Would the congregation consider adding an additional paid staff member at any point?

C. Personal Questions

33. Would the elders have any objection to the pastor working from a church office? (my preferred place for sermon prep)

34. What is the view of the elders regarding the pastor resourcing himself? (conferences; the odd retreat to read & plan, etc)

35. Are there any expenses for things?

36. What is the rationale regarding days off and holidays?

37. Is there any scope for ‘preaching away’ from Ballymoney? (Note: I would be very cautious about doing much of this, especially early on, however)

38. Do you think it would be relatively easy for a young family to settle into the church/town? What challenges might Nicki and the children face?

39. What role would the pastor’s wife be expected to have in the church?

40. What are the schools like in Ballymoney?

41. How easy might it be to buy an affordable house in the Ballymoney area?

The original edition of this list: http://unashamedworkman.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/41-questions-to-ask-a-potential-church/.

This is the first in a small series of posts on church membership.

I am not convinced that church “membership”, as implemented by most churches I have attended or visited through my life, is a Biblically-valid stance to take.

Certainly we are not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together. And in order to be a vital part of the bride of Christ, we need to be engaged with a local manifestation of that body.

But does that mean that a church can or should offer, let alone require, membership?

From observing many churches, membership is a formal process whereby a given professing Christian applies to become a part of a local church. They [generally] must agree to the church’s constitution and confession of faith. They [typically] must meet with the elder(s) in an interview who will probe their background, why they want to join this church, and then be submitted to the congregation to consider.

Once the consideration period is over, the new member generally reads their testimony in front of the congregation, and then is voted-upon for reception into membership by the current members.

Various churches have differing standards over aspects of this process: how old must the applicant be, what type of background they have, how new are they to the church, etc.

My question is why is there such a formal process of joining a church? Yes, I understand that if you are not a “part” of a church, church discipline doesn’t make much sense. I do not see any direct evidence that the early church practiced a “membership” process – though some of that may just be based on the relative lack of mobility amongst first-century people. Or it could be related to the likelihood that a given city or area might only have one church because they stood out so much from the surrounding society. And certainly, claiming to be a Christian in the first century AD was not something to be taken lightly.

We also see Paul commending certain people from one city to brethren in a different city to be accepted by their gathering if/when they come. We see in 1 Corinthians Paul calling-on the church to put away from their midst the sinning brother. We also see in 2 Corinthians Paul now urging the church to take him back if he’s truly repented.

If I am a member of a church, and I decide for whatever reasons to move to a different area, or find my convictions no longer lining-up well with the church I had been attending, I believe it is my responsibility as a Christian to find a body of believers with whom I can more readily identify and cooperate with. My duty as a Christian is first to my King and His work, and secondly to the local body I work with.

I’m not suggesting that if you don’t get along with somebody in the congregation that that’s grounds for just moving-on. Nor do I think it is a good idea to try to be engaged with more than one or two churches at a time. But I cannot see how the formal practice of membership is a healthy add-on to the Christian life.

It seems that the church as a whole has taken lessons from other organizations whereby you must join to be a part – such as the Elks or Freemasons. Joining the church happens when a person is converted and baptized. Once I was converted, I became a member of the universal body of Christ. My attachment to a local representation of that body took a while because the church I was in had draconian policies which had to be fulfilled before someone could be baptized and become a member. Such policies turned-off many of the people I grew-up with form wanting to join that specific church.

I’ve attended other churches that had completely no concept of membership or belonging… and I can see the issues with that, too. I do believe it’s important to belong to a church. But the concept of membership needs to be re-examined.

When I was a kid, I recall it being somewhat exciting and fun to drop a couple coins in the offering plate at church.

Now it’s not so interesting. Most churches I’ve been to seem to have an undue focus on money; certainly there should be some focus, as the Apostle Paul directed the Corinthians to give according to their determination and set that aside to help the saints in Jerusalem who were in need. Certainly running a church costs money – pastors need to be recompensed for their work, utilities need to be paid, maintenance done on the building(s), etc.

And of course we should be funding the expansion of the Kingdom of God across the world through missionaries, translation work, helping those in need, etc.

But why is it that giving is such a focus in so many churches? Is it because the people in the church don’t feel a need to help others, and need to be constantly reminded? Is it because there’s a focus on 10% as a Biblical minimum, and then more should be given on top of that?

What happened to the phrasing of Paul to the Corinthians? “I am not speaking this as a command, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity of your love also.” “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Cor 8:8 & 9:7)

Go back and read the rest of those two chapters. Paul is commending the saints of Macedonia in their generosity as a spur to the Corinthians to keep to their commitment to the Jerusalem church.

2 Cor 9:10-11 (“Now He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness; you will be enriched in everything for all liberality, which through us is producing thanksgiving to God.”) is often used as a spur for people to give to the church – almost as a get-rich-quick scheme by the church’s leaders, ‘give to us, and God will give you more’. But that quote is taken out of the context of the larger flow of Paul’s direction and commendation on giving.

Of course, not every church is like this. And even fewer pastors.

But I want to know why the views of so many church-goers that I have met is that the gospel is a thin cover for asking for more money.

Is it true that people don’t like giving from their funds/time/things/skills? Based on reports that periodically are published in newspapers, Americans are the most generous people on the planet – as a per capita view of donations. Do people make donations just to get the tax break? Certainly some people do that – why else would you ask for a receipt from Goodwill when dropping-off clothes?

What should be the REAL incentive to the Christian’s giving? Should it be that we want to put things down on our spiritual balance sheet that God will notice, and maybe bump-up our spot in heaven from near the noisy ice machine? Should it be because we expect to see a physical return on that investment – such as if we put in $20 this Sunday, we’ll find $50 on the sidewalk? Should we be looking to have the best church building in the county? The best music group? State-of-the-art computer equipment to simulcast sermons across the world?

Or should we be giving of our means because that’s what God did when He saved us by sending His Son? Should we be taking from our time, money, and effort to try to reach the lost? I won’t give to support anything that isn’t directly related to reaching more sinners.

If they are being used for activities that aren’t in line with reaching the lost, then I can spend that time/money/energy better elsewhere.

But if they’re going directly to reaching sinners, I’ll participate every chance I get.