Comments on: Tradition Three

By: Tradition Five | themattscott

Tradition Five | themattscott — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:53:59 +0000

[...] we are to, as Andrew said, simply make “Following Christ” our central goal, how would that look when we took on [...]

By: Andrew Martin

Andrew Martin — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:19:06 +0000

Matt,

“a desire to take part in the reconciliation of all things started by the resurrection”.

Yes, I quite like that. On the other hand, I wonder if it isn’t exactly what Jesus was getting at when he said “Follow Me”.

How great it would be if the church (or the assembly) were known first and foremost as a bunch of people who followed Jesus…

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:11:53 +0000

@Andrew- Fair enough.

I’ve been mulling over this all day, and I haven’t quite found any way to reconcile my desire for an open assembly with a reason for the assembly to assemble. There must be a central purpose in order for the assembly to have any desire of attending, and that purpose should, undoubtedly, be about God.

That being said, I would then say the church’s form of the Third Tradition would have to be more along the lines of “The only requirement for ‘church’ membership is a desire to take part in the reconciliation of all things started by the resurrection.” A bit more wordy, but I think it makes for a more perfect answer.

This still opens up room for those who are not willing to “profess with their mouths” yet are still desirous of helping in this giant restorative work.

I would again state that church catholic membership is certainly dependent upon “professing with your mouth.”

How does that sound?

By: J. Peaslee

J. Peaslee — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:59:45 +0000

It would never work. Because people will never agree what the basic requirements are. Some people quote Paul to the Romans, and others find verses stipulating baptism is necessary, while still others point out the thief on the cross, and a small minority advocates for preaching the Gospel through nature. What is the right? What is the wrong? Which part s of the Bible matter, and how come very few people pay attention to the parts that got cut out? Does the word “homosexual” in the Bible mean the same thing we think of now, or does it simply apply to male prostitutes?

You see my point.

And yes, if there was a church that did not judge, I would join. Provided I had a car.

By: Andrew Martin

Andrew Martin — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:37:03 +0000

So, my tradition would deliberately talk of “the assembly” as the local thing, to distinguish it from the catholic and apostolic “church” (or the church militant, or however you want to carve it up). But membership of the latter is, surely, for its bride alone: and the kind of thing we’ve already mentioned (responding positively when he says “follow me”) seems to be the kind of thing he has in mind.

But if the criterion for membership of the assembly is to be different than the criterion for membership of the church, then on what grounds is the assembly, er, assembled? If it wants to engage in mission, then anyone who wants to join had better want that too. If it wants to engage in worship, likewise. If smug self-satisfaction is the thing, then only those with no visible problems need apply.

AA exists for one purpose, and so has a single membership requirement. The assembly may or may not, it seems to me.

By: Prescott

Prescott — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:43:44 +0000

The three rules are and have never changed, as follows;
1 Be for the right and against the wrong.
2 Cure yourself and tend to others.
3 Never mix up number two, EVER!

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 03:37:29 +0000

I will admit, before I wrote this post I thought about what the one binding qualification should be. I was tempted (At first) to post something along the lines of “faith in Christ” or the like, however after some thought, I decided against it.

When discussing those which we may enjoy fellowship with, the Jesus (by calling us to live like him) mandates we do so with any and all that are willing.

At this point we must distinguish between the idea of Church membership and church (little c) catholic membership. When discussing the first, I would state that we should be willing to accept any and all that are willing or desirous of positively effecting the world, no matter what they may bring with them. And since the second has no physical membership, I would say that your definition (Or perhaps better stated: The Roman’s Road definition) is correct.

I should have clarified and said I was only talking about those which we accept into our fellowships.

By: Andrew Martin

Andrew Martin — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:03:12 +0000

Coming from a tradition which was never very hot on doctrinal statements, nor on written-down rules of membership, that resonates for me. (Of course unwritten rules can be more onerous than written ones, but generally it worked out with considerable liberty, I think).

The basic requirement? Well, I think a lot of people liked what Paul said to the Romans:

If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

A lot flows from that, but it seems on a par with “a desire to stop drinking”. The one formal question asked of me prior to baptism was precisely whether I concurred with that statement. If baptism is on that basis, I don’t have a problem with it being a prerequisite for church membership.

Now, I know that you could counter this by saying that it’s proof-texting, and taking Paul’s words out of context. Well, it might be (thought not too out of context, I think). But if you want a concise basis of membership, you have to look somewhere.