Covenant....

[PrayzHim]

Looking for some input on churches "encouraging" its membership and regular attendees to sign "Membership Covenants". Does this make a church too commercial, getting away from the reason for the church? What about encouraging small groups in the church to do the same? I would love to hear what others have to say about this subject.....

[CoreIssue]

Looking for some input on churches "encouraging" its membership and regular attendees to sign "Membership Covenants". Does this make a church too commercial, getting away from the reason for the church? What about encouraging small groups in the church to do the same? I would love to hear what others have to say about this subject.....
Paul condemns such things. We are not to be devisive by trying to lock people into doctrines forumalized by men or denominations.

The theological term is doctrinism. Where the doctrine is superior to Bible.

To be member you must agree and sign.

To teach or anything else you must be a member. Else a permanent guest.

You may not question the doctrine. You may not teach anything else.

Hope that paints a good enough picture on how I feel about this issue.;)

[PrayzHim]

Paul condemns such things. We are not to be devisive by trying to lock people into doctrines forumalized by men or denominations.

Where does Paul condemn this? I have a hard time with "contracting" to any church or organization. Covenants in my opinion are for marriage.

[CoreIssue]

1 Corinthians 1

No divisions, no following the teachings of just one man and so on.

[PrayzHim]

No divisions, no following the teachings of just one man and so on.

So all these churches and people following the teachings of Rick Warren are wrong too? (40 days, etc.)

[CoreIssue]

It is one thing to teach something. It is another to require acceptance.

Rick Warren's teachings are not something I will accept.

If they require acceptance, he is wrong and included.

[CTZonEdit]

The church is trying to stimulate membership and 'wake up' the current congregation by sending out covenants for people to sign if they wish.

Its not required but its very unsettling that the church has to do something of this nature in order to get people to get on board with their plan for the church.

[CoreIssue]

The church is trying to stimulate membership and 'wake up' the current congregation by sending out covenants for people to sign if they wish.

Its not required but its very unsettling that the church has to do something of this nature in order to get people to get on board with their plan for the church.
So many churches make it mandatory for membership.

So if not mandatory it does create pressure

[PrayzHim]

Here is an article I found regarding membership covenants..... The one our chrch is encouraging us to sign is almost word for word to the Rick Warren one addressed in this article.

CHURCH MEMBERSHIP COVENANTS

Paul Proctor
August 23, 2002
NewsWithViews.com

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church in Lake Forest, California recently came out with an article in the Baptist Press recommending pastors and congregations adopt church membership covenants as a way of compelling their flock to become more involved in and committed to the ministry of their church. Although, on the surface such covenants might seem practical, here’s what Jesus Christ had to say about making covenants with men.

"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: "- Matthew 5:33-34 (emphasis added).

In Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, he makes the following point:

"The worse men are, the less they are bound by oaths; the better they are, the less there is need for them."

When a church becomes dependent upon carnal mechanisms for spiritual motivation rather than the power and conviction of the Holy Spirit, contracts become fashionable among frustrated pastors who find it necessary to coerce members into carrying out the church’s ministry. Those who are led by the Spirit of God don’t need to sign on some dotted line guaranteeing their faithfulness. Those who aren’t led by the Spirit have no business in a Christian ministry to begin with. We don’t sign contracts guaranteeing our commitment to Christ for our salvation. So, why is it now necessary to sign a contract guaranteeing our commitment to serve in His church? Because faith isn’t required, that’s why. It’s only when you set out to fill your church with the faith-LESS that guarantees become necessary.

Saddleback, one of the "cue ball" churches in the purpose-driven/seeker-sensitive/church growth movement has been at the forefront of promoting unbiblical ideas like this over the past decade along with Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois. Under the banner of Christ these "men of faith" rely on marketing strategies, polls, opinions, experimentation, psychology, consensus, compromise, consultants and "worshiptainment" to draw and hold large numbers of "unchurched" people into their "worship centers" each week to "get connected" with their "felt needs" and finances. In spite of the fact that such things have little or nothing to do with repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, church growth gurus like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels have marketed all sorts of psychological contraptions to the Body of Christ through their member associations, leadership conferences and self-help books like "The Purpose Driven Church" and "Honest To God" as biblically acceptable ways of "doing church".

Let me begin by stating upfront that Jesus Christ never commissioned His followers to go out into the world and "church" lost people. Nowhere in scripture will you find the Lord or any of His Apostles attempting to lure and entice the lost into the first century church. That was NEVER our Lord’s intention. The church was created WITH and FOR the REDEEMEND ONLY -- not for the faithless, rebellious and unrepentant. It only became the primary place for the lost to hear the Gospel preached because church members throughout the 20th century couldn’t maintain enough faith and courage to talk about Jesus Christ outside the church sanctuary. So, for decades now, instead of Christians inviting the lost to Christ with an open Bible, a convicting Spirit and a working knowledge of scripture, we’ve been inviting them to church instead to hear our pastor do what we ourselves should have been doing all along. Imagine what would become of our military if recruiters bribed civilian passersby into putting on a uniform, taking a loaded gun and boarding the next plane to Iraq to fight Saddam Hussein and his minions over in Baghdad. Bribing the lost into spiritual service armed with little more than human wisdom, strength and talent to battle Satan and his demons on the streets of America is just as ridiculous and destructive. To say it defeats the purpose of the church would be a gross understatement. Ultimately, church attendance, membership, personal sacrifice and service should be the RESULT of one’s salvation, not a means to obtaining it. If it becomes the latter, it eventually corrupts, confuses and degrades the church as a whole and undermines its divine purpose.

Because of a growing scriptural ignorance among today’s believers, many dumbed-down Christians from the church growth movement (CGM) simply take the misguided word of pop culture pontificators like Warren and Hybels as gospel and embrace their Christian-flavored psychobabble without ever opening their bibles to investigate its legitimacy.

My focus today, however, is primarily on pastor Warren’s Church Membership Covenant concept. He includes this covenant in the following Baptist Press article for readers to consider as a useful instrument for today’s church.

Church Membership Covenant: Expect What the Bible Expects http://www.baptistpress.com/bpfeature.asp?ID=676

Consisting of four basic promises it includes twelve brief clarifications and accompanying scripture references. If agreed to, it could send an entire church down the road to spiritual defeat whether the parking lot is full or not.

Note: My brief comments follow each of the various commitments below in parenthesis to demonstrate the potential for confusion, deceit and disaster. In the interest of time and space, I did not include all of the scripture references he listed just the ones that are problematic by their misapplication.

"(1.) I WILL PROTECT THE UNITY OF MY CHURCH" (Unity occurs automatically when church members consistently obey scripture not when they make covenants with men, ignore heresy and accept sinful behavior.)

(a) "...By acting in love toward other members" (Is love defined here by the CGM as going along to get along i.e., compromise?)

(b) "...By refusing to gossip" (Does that include challenging, questioning or criticizing any unbiblical teaching or behavior by a pastor, teacher or staff member?)

(c) "...By following the leaders" (Regardless of their error or deceit?)

Warren’s scripture reference:

"Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be no advantage to you." - Heb. 13:17

Just as Romans 13 is so often misused today to persuade us that we should blindly obey those given governmental authority over us, even if it goes against God’s Word and Will (as tragically demonstrated by the rise and reign of Adolph Hitler over Germany during WW II), Hebrews 13 CAN BE and OFTEN IS misused in the same way regarding leadership and "followship" in the church. Having come from a Willow Creek member church myself whose pastor regularly deceived and abused his flock by dedicating much, if not most of his "ministry" time consolidating for himself a political powerbase from which every decision he made could be forced upon the church body without question or discussion, I understand all too well the danger of absolute power. You see -- Rick Warren’s church membership covenant makes no exception here for errant pastors, staff members or teachers who disobey or disavow scripture to carry out some other agenda. This is an open door for corruption, especially in a church that is scripturally illiterate and emotionally driven.

"(2.) I WILL SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MY CHURCH" (as defined by whom, the pastor, the church staff or the Word of God?)

(a) "...By praying for its growth" (The word its could imply inanimate objects like bank accounts, credit lines, buildings, property, programs and church rolls instead the spiritual growth of individual believers.)

(b) "...By inviting the unchurched to attend" (Inviting the lost to attend your church is NOT the great commission. Inviting them to Christ IS.)

(c) "...By warmly welcoming those who visit" (Regardless of their attitude, behavior or agenda?)

Warren’s scripture reference:

"So, warmly welcome each other INTO THE CHURCH, just as Christ has warmly welcomed you; then God will be glorified." - Rom. 15:7 (emphasis added)

Using a version of scripture Warren designates as "LB", (Living Bible?) Warren obligates signers to welcome anybody and everybody into the church regardless of their reason for being there. Notice that he never clarifies whether he’s referring to the Body of Christ, the church building or a worship service. First of all, the two "Living" translations I found online never used the words "into the church". So, I don’t know WHERE he came up with that. Maybe there is some other version called "LB" that I don’t know about. Even still -- if THIS conveniently edited "version" of scripture is what pastor Warren is using to justify anybody and everybody being welcomed "into the church", it is another example of how the Word of God can be twisted into saying what someone needs it to say at any given time. Using the King James Version, you can clearly see that Paul was instructing Christians to "...receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God" -- (whether circumcised or not) God is not glorified by the lost and unrepentant. So, Paul is obviously instructing us here to receive anyone redeemed by the blood of Christ not just anybody and everybody regardless of their spiritual condition or position. Even though welcoming the lost to worship with you might be entirely appropriate for purposes of them hearing the Gospel preached, there is no command here to receive the faithless and unrepentant as you would a brother or sister in Christ. This is how the Hegelian Dialectic is carried out in the Apostate church today; to water-down the gospel message, create fellowship between good and evil (redeemed and lost) and grieve the Holy Spirit. Thesis (saved) + antithesis (lost) = synthesis (Apostate Church) Remember all it takes is a little leaven. (1st Corinthians 5)

"The Master said to the servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes, and urge the people there to come so my house will be full." - Luke 14:23 (NCV).

This scripture reference Warren provides for his second of four commitments is grossly misused. "My house" as it is used here refers to the Kingdom of God, which can only involve the redeemed. Jesus was not commanding us here to fill our church’s "worship center" with the lost. He made it perfectly clear at the beginning of His parable in verse 15 that He was talking about "the Kingdom of God" (Heaven) not a church building on Sunday morning. Unfortunately, those whose "Christian faith" is grounded in group-think and emotion instead of the Word of God don’t recognize heresy when it’s staring them in the face. What’s more -- this particular error (instructing believers to essentially fill the church with anybody any way they can) is the driving philosophy behind the entire seeker-sensitive church growth movement, a philosophy that I believe reveals its spiritual illegitimacy.

"(3.) I WILL SERVE THE MINISTRY OF MY CHURCH" (Just what is your church’s ministry becoming a wealthy and entertaining mega-church or serving God by obeying His Word?)

(a) "...By discovering my gifts and talents" (The bible does not teach self-discovery or encourage the use of human talent to grow a church.)

(b) "...By being equipped to serve by my pastors" (Even if they are following the flesh and the devil?)

(c) "...By developing a servant's heart" (The phrase servant’s heart is an ambiguous CGM term which could imply one’s cooperation with and dedication to some other agenda whether biblical or not. Again, another open door for evil to enter and corrupt.)

"(4.) I WILL SUPPORT THE TESTIMONY OF MY CHURCH" (Even if it strays from the truth?)

(a) "...By attending faithfully" (Faithfully attending what?)

(b) "...By living a godly life" (Undefined -- ambiguous)

(c) "...By giving regularly" (Again, undefined ambiguous).

The bottom line is this: Once you’ve signed a church membership covenant and boarded the CGM train -- you’re committed to its destination, even if it changes direction somewhere along the way. This is why Jesus commands us in Matthew 5:33-34 to not make oaths with men because when it’s all said and done we might find ourselves following the wrong god.

"Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord " (Jeremiah 17:5)

http://www.newswithviews.com/PaulProctor/proctor3.htm

[CoreIssue]

Well said.

[PrayzHim]

Rick Warrens membership covenant (taken from the link in my previous post):

"I urge you to prayerfully prepare and adopt a membership covenant in your congregation if you don't have one. It can revolutionize your church. You may worry, "If we adopt a membership covenant, there will be some who leave our church over it." You're right. There will be some. But here is the fact of reality: People are going to leave your church no matter what you do. Don't be afraid of people leaving. People even walked away from Jesus. When your congregation adopts a membership covenant, at least you're choosing the kind of people who stay."

Isn't it wrong for the church to "choose" the kind of people who stay, isn't the church for everyone? Is that not hypocritical?

[CoreIssue]

Yes to all.

[TLIR]

The reality is no church is perfect. Every church has a core group of people. Hopefully the core is made up of sincere honest Christians, outside that core are other Christians perhaps not as dedicated and outside that group are seekers. When asked to sign a covenant the core group will probably have no problem with signing a document because they are already at least that committed to one another. Those who are less committed will balk at the contract. I don't think a contract like that is necessary but perhaps it would lead to wider and deeper core of people with the same commitment to the Lord and one another.

I entered into a blood covenant with the Lord when I was born agian. That agreement covenanted me to the church to love one another as he has loved me. This is the only contract or covenant that is necessary and required.

I do not think what Rick Warren is doing is necessary. Is it wrong? I think it would be a matter of motive.
What about the Promise Keepers? Are they wrong too? Then what about us? Are we the only one right?

[CoreIssue]

I do not think what Rick Warren is doing is necessary. Is it wrong? I think it would be a matter of motive.

It is wrong. He departs from the Gospel and preaching sin and salvation to a harmony at all costs message.

His motive and his message is wrong.

Comparing him with us as if it is a minor issue is kind of disturbing.

We are to tolerate the little things while defending sound doctrine. He departs from core sound doctrine. We do not.

[CTZonEdit]

They do not preach a sin/salvation message. Its the main problem with all the mega churches. Once they have that membership ball rolling they will do anything to keep it going. Because they know if they don't, God forbid, the house they built will fall.

No one is saved unless they repent and believe. You must show people that God does not accept sin, and will not. And in order to repent of something they have to accept it as truth first.

Telling people they are sinners in need of salvation is a dying message.

[PrayzHim]

an article I found in Christianity Today.... another way to look at Membership Covenants? Or is this just out there? :scratch:


Taking Church Membership Seriously
Why it's time to raise the bar.
An interview with Ken Sande

Membership is not all that important at our church, about a third of respondents to a recent Leadership Weekly poll said. While 38 percent said attenders were frequently urged to join, and 34 percent said the membership appeal was occasionally given, the remainder said their church placed little or no emphasis on membership. That trend, according to many experts, is a mistake, the costly result of a casual, come-as-you-are attitude.

The church should be less like a cruise ship and more like a battleship, says Ken Sande of Peacemaker Ministries. Rather than emphasizing their casual atmosphere and fun activities, Sande says it's time for churches to raise the bar, to focus on a serious mission, and ensure that every person aboard serves a vital function. To make the shift, Sande says we must recapture the importance and meaning of church membership. If nothing else, emphasizing membership can protect the church from the growing threat of lawsuits.

Can you give an example of how deemphasizing membership can be perilous for a church?
I counseled a church where an attender used his relationships within the church to persuade people to invest over $2 million with him. The money was never returned to the investors. The church leadership struggled to respond because the man was not a member. If they said something publicly and warned the congregation about his actions, they risked a lawsuit for slander and defamation of character.

The church leaders finally asked the man to leave, but said nothing to the congregation. As a result he continued to scam people in the church for another year. When the victimized members discovered that church leaders knew about the man's actions but failed to publicly warn the congregation, they in turn threatened to sue the church for failing to protect them.

Several courts have ruled that churches may not discipline people who have not specifically consented to discipline. In this case, church leaders could not publicly warn the congregation about the man's actions without threat of a lawsuit because he was not a member, and had not consented to discipline. By not emphasizing membership, the leaders were prevented from fulfilling one of their most important biblical tasks—protecting the flock.

Why are more churches no longer emphasizing the importance of membership?
First, we've given in to our culture's antagonism toward commitment and accountability. Like parents who are afraid to discipline their teenagers, church leaders are afraid they will be unpopular for emphasizing commitment and accountability.

Secondly, there is a concern that if we create a barrier at the front door to the church, not as many people will enter, and the pressure leaders feel to grow the church is enormous today. But what we don't realize is that by not emphasizing membership we may have a wide-open front door, but we also have a wide-open back door. Numerical growth is really not helped by deemphasizing membership.

Many see membership in the church as similar to membership in other community organizations. How do we help people see it differently?
It requires very good teaching, and we need to use the terminology found in the Bible rather than our culture. The Bible speaks of the church as a family, or the household of God. If we emphasize this family language it will help people see that church membership is not like joining a country club, it is about joining an organic family.

The concept of the Body is also very helpful. The church is called the Body of Christ in the New Testament, and you don't just casually amputate a thumb. In fact, if the thumb is hurting the whole body goes to its aid. This metaphor shows the commitment, the accountability, and the interdependence of the church. Church leaders need to draw these concepts from scripture and clearly teach them.

How can leaders ensure that they have protected the church legally through a membership process?
You must achieve what lawyers call "informed consent." If you can show your people know what your church's disciplinary practices are, and that they have consented to them, that is a virtually ironclad defense against lawsuits.

You can achieve informed consent in a few ways. First, maintaining an attendance for the membership class so you can prove who has received the teaching. Second, a higher level of proof is to have new members stand before the church and actually verbalize membership vows and commitments. A third level, which gives you the best protection, is a signed membership covenant.

What should be included in a membership covenant?
The covenant itself can be kept fairly simple. A statement as basic as, "I have received a copy of the church's policies of redemptive discipline, and I consent to be bound by them" is sufficient. The church needs to have their disciplinary policies outlined somewhere and accessible to members, but the covenant only needs to refer to this other document to secure informed consent.

Apart from securing legal protection, what else is vital to include in a membership process?
At my church we have a twelve-week membership course, and our first priority is making sure a person has a credible profession of faith and understands the gospel. We also cover the theology of the church, our polity, our vision, how we handle conflicts, and an understanding of church discipline. Finally, it is helpful to discuss expectations for members regarding giving, respecting leadership, and serving in the community.

The membership process will be different in every church, but it is important to treat it as a significant event. When we treat it casually it sends the message that membership is casual. We highlight membership by having a special service, a membership Sunday. It is a serious ceremony that communicates the importance of membership.

What about retrofitting? How do churches with loose membership expectations, or none at all, begin to change and achieve informed consent?
Retrofitting requires a process that may take one to three years of educating the church to think more biblically about membership. I recommend preaching from Deuteronomy where there is a restatement of the Law.

Our church did this. We said to the congregation, "Times have changed from years ago when you could have a loose relationship with the church. Our society and our laws have changed. It's time for us to renew and tighten up the covenant."

Our people were very responsive to that because we took the time to educate them. We held a congregational meeting where revised bylaws and policies were presented, along with new procedures for accountability and conflict resolution. We met in small groups to talk personally, and over several months there was a lot of dialogue. That culminated in a church meeting where the new policies and bylaws were accepted. At that time we handed out a new membership covenant to be signed.

The last thing we did, to make sure we had informed consent, was send out a letter to everyone who did not sign the covenant. It said, even though we have not received a written covenant from you, we will interpret your continued attendance at our church, beyond a specified date, as your affirmation and consent to these policies. We didn't have a single family leave the church.

An attorney and engineer, Ken Sande is founder of Peacemaker ministries, a mediation and counseling service for churches and couples.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2005/cln50418.html

[CoreIssue]

I have nothing against membership, discipline and such.

Maybe just me, but that said a lot about a lot of issues without having any meat to any of them.