Dual Church Membership?

*wonders how you can be a memeber of 2 different churches when Christ only has one church* If they are both under Christ and truely a church, then why not? Just make sure to serve at both then. Don't just be a turkey....

Okay, well it sounds okay to me. Just make sure you can serve. Don't just take.

Ask the members of the church what they need. Meet with the pastor and explain the situation. Ask questions dont' rely on me YOu can be a greeter, you can pick people up and drive them to and from church, you can clean up after the service...ask around.

I am in a similar position to yourself, but in reverse!

After many years in charismatic and pentcostal congregations, I have fairly recntly started attending my local Anglican parish church on a Sunday morning - partly because I value the sacramental spirituality, and partly because I have found myself more welcomed and encouraged to play and active part in the life of the fellowship ('serve' as Louis puts it) than in the assembly of which I have been a 'member' for 3 years, yet always felt an 'outsider' - little more than a pew filler (despite having attended a 'Training to Serve' course and acted as an Usher for almost 2 years). However, my pentecostal church does not permit me to continue as a 'member' there and also hold 'membership' in another church. Yet is 'membership' really a matter of having your name on a piece of paper, or about being actively involved in the church? If the latter, then I am probably more a 'member' of the Anglican church than of the Pentecostal on who have me officially 'on their books'!

As far as I'm concerned, as Louis says, my most important 'membership' is of the Body of Christ, and which particular local manifestation of that body I identify with is largely irrelevant - but to identify and be involved and committed to a local gathering is vital for us to be truly functioning as a part of the Body - pulling our weight, and being supported by others.

As to how you can 'serve', I'd say the starting point is to get to know people, offer them friendship and encouragement, pray for them and the moinistry of the assembly, let them get to know you and recognise your abilities - and let it be known that you are willing to share whatever you have to meet their needs (even if, initially that's something as simple as lending a hand to set out chairs, or washing up the cups after coffee - without waiting to be asked, even!). Then let God direct you into whatever line of ministry is appropriate as the time is right.

Anthony

great post anthony!

I have a friend who is involved with four different churches. I know that he is heavily involved in at least two of them (I haven't talked to him about the other two). I think that it is important to see that there are Christians outside one's denomination who are doing the best they can, just like you.

greekgal,
How does your pastor and your regular congregation feel about pentecostals?
Be prepared for some to turn on you.
Also, a group being pentecostal doesn't necessarily make them charismatic, there can be major differences.

Ive been through a lot of this myself.
Pray for discernment,
listen for God to speak,
be led by the Holy Spirit.

T7

120-150 wpm? They could use you at a newspaper.

Im also from pentecostal beginnings, and have been led recently to a traditional-style church similar to the example above. Its hard work for me as I long for the worship-freedom and the leading of the Spirit in the services, but I know that God has reasons for me being there...so Im just "being there" at the moment...

I never cease to be surprised with my 'new' Anglican fellowship.

For example, this week at Housegroup (something we don't really have at the Elim church) it was proposed that we start going door to door in our neighbourhood offering to pray for folk (something I never got a chance to do in 3 years at the Elim church).

Re: Greekgal's original comments - if you find the regulations a bit restrictive, maybe you'd like to visit a 'mainstream' Pentecostal Chruch -Assemblies of God, for example - or a non-denominational church, as the Holiness churches can be a bit legalistic. There you'd hopefully find the kind of Spirit-led worship you enjoy, inspired Bible preaching, but with a more ...'liberal'... line on dress codes, the role of women etc.

Anthony

I'm no expert in Church history, but as I read the bible there is one worldwide church of God with Christ as its head that meets in geographical localities (e.g. church at Corinth, church at Galatia). The whole denominationmal thing was never God's plan. I ain't going to go any further down this road....

Furthermore, I think that the church was different to what we see today - it was the church that met together (i.e. there were no non-Christians meeting with Christians to worship). It was a closed meeting, only Christians met together to spur one another on in the faith. Today our churches are open to everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike (at least that's what it's like in the UK).

The problem is, in this situation, how do you exercise church discipline? Paul threw people out of the church. You cannot do that in a physical sense today, because we allow non-Christians to walk through our doors, so logically you cannot throw anyone out because of the way they are living their life etc., only for obvious disruption.

The concept of church membership means that you submit to the elders/leaders of the church fellowship to which you become a member. This way you distinguish between Christian and non-Christian attending a church fellowship. In this instance the comparable action to Paul throwing someone out of the church, is to exclude the person from membership of that church fellowship.

Now, in theory the church membership should be to the church leaders/elders of the locality (town or city) in which you live - but we ain't there yet, so we submit to the authority of the elders/leaders of the church fellowship to which we belong.

Under this model, you are free to attend any church meeting you are led to attend (I say it that way because I would hope that you would only go where God leads you to go either permanently or on a visit) but you come under the authority of the leaders of a specific church fellowship. In a better Christian world where we have unified church leadership in the town there is no issue, because wherever you go, you are submitted to the same church leadership.

I hope you understand what I've been trying to say......

Blessings....

I liked your post, Martin; you make some excellent points!

I'd just like to query your suggestion that the early Church was strictly for 'beleivers only'. To some extent, during the early persecutions of the Church, this was necessarily the case (as in most underground church situations today). However, the normative pattern that emerged in less troubled times was for the 'Liturgy of the Word' to be open to enquirers etc., but 'The Liturgy of the Lord's Table' to be open only to baptised beleivers - others being required to leave by the deacons at a particualr point. Thus in today's church, while it is not necessarily possible (or desirable) to exclude folk from attending services (where they can come under the preaching of the Word and be convicted of their sin etc.), it is highly possible, and not totally unknown, to exclude known unrepentant sinners from Communion - some Anabaptist and other groups carry this further with the idea of 'shunning' offending members, while the stricter Brethren sects will only admit accredited church menbers to communion (tho' others may sit at the back and 'spectate'!). Of course, with today's mobile society, and the mutliplicity of assemblies (some still fiercely independent) in any geographical area, the mechanics of ensuring this is enforced throughout the entire Body of Christ are unworkable (unless we all adopt the exclusivist practicies mentioned above!), but, as a means of local church discipline it does exist (even here in the UK!).

Anthony

Like I said, I'm no expert on church history.....but as I read Paul's writings, it seems to me that the church consisted of beliveres who met together. There is no indication that non-believers were present. I agree, that in itself this doesn't mean that there weren't any, but in his letters me addresses the church as if they are all believers.

Blessings...to you all...

Originally posted by greekgal
I was going to be a journalist, but I discovered medical transcription which I really like and I've been doing that since.

Click to expand...

so you wrote that in like 5 seconds then?