text:
Debates of Dec. 11th, 1996
House of Commons Hansard #118 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nuclear.
- Indian Affairs
- Unemployment
- Canada Post
- The Prime Minister
- The Pages
- Entrepreneurs
- Research And Development
- The Economy
- Human Rights
- Canada Elections Act
- Canadian Human Rights Commission
- Unemployment
- The Prime Minister
- Research And Development
- Health
- Louis Riel
- Canadian Economy
- Employment Insurance
- Employment
- Singer
- Taxation
- Information Centres
- Taxation
- Regional Airports
- National Gun Amnesty
- Taxation
- Statements By Members
- Point Of Order
- Environment
- Inuvialuit Final Agreement
- Nunavut Implementation Commission
- Government Response To Petitions
- Ways And Means
- Committees Of The House
- Drinking Water Materials Safety Act
- International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act
- Corrections And Conditional Release Act
- Patent Act
- Committees Of The House
- Petitions
- Questions On The Order Paper
- Motions For Papers
- Committees Of The House
- Finance
- Radioactive Waste Importation Act
2 p.m.
The Speaker
As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for Skeena.
Indian Affairs
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Karen Kraft Sloan York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House and congratulate Chief Bill McCue, the Chippewas of Georgina Island and the minister of Indian affairs for their hard work in introducing a bill that will enable 14 First Nations to opt out of the land management section of the Indian Act. Chief Bill McCue, along with this colleagues, initiated this historic agreement.
This progressive piece of legislation promotes economic development in native communities and enables these communities to manage their own lands and resources.
This is a significant step closer toward full self-government and all of us in the House should applaud this initiative.
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Sharon Hayes Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I know the Liberals do not like to be reminded of their promises, but the Prime Minister could not escape the frustration of Canadians about the broken promises on CBC's town hall last night. Jobs, jobs, jobs. It was evident then, as it is every day in the House, that the government has no real solutions to ensure a reduction in unemployment.
Reform's tax reduction strategy is the real solution. For low income Canadians our tax reductions would reduce their tax bill in most cases to zero and provide them a credit that would be put toward job training and education. For middle class families tax reductions will provide up to $2,000 more in their pockets each year by the year 2000. This will help the growing number of entrepreneurs that are starting their own businesses or improve consumer spending.
The reductions in capital gains tax and unemployment insurance premiums which the Liberals despise so much will give Canada's job creators more incentive to create jobs. Canadians now have a real choice.
Canada Post
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Frontenac, QC
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has given Profac responsibility for managing the renovation and replacement of its buildings in a territory that extends from Windsor in Ontario to Halifax.
Not long ago, after a call for tenders in which three companies were asked to bid, Profac awarded the contract for repairs to windows in the Thetford Mines post office to a firm in Ontario.
Profac offers its services as a contractor and then works on the principle of contracting out. Since we are talking about public moneys, it would be normal for the exact value of the contracts awarded to Profac to be made public. More transparency is certainly needed in the process of awarding contracts for the crown corporation.
We think it is too bad that calls for tender are not open to the public, because this system would encourage local businesses and promote growth and development in the regions. It is clear that Canada Post is creating some controversy about its current management methods.
The Prime Minister
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Jag Bhaduria Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is starting to show his true colours. During his annual town hall meeting last night Canadians watched him display arrogance, ignorance and his now infamous temper.
When questioned by Canadians about-
The Prime Minister
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
The Speaker
The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.
The Pages
Statements By Members
December 11th, 1996 / 2 p.m.
John O'Reilly Victoria—Haliburton, ON
Mr. Speaker, in each session of Parliament I offer a challenge to the pages who serve us in the House of Commons. The current group was given the challenge of producing a picture of their home area. The contest included a small six-pack of Crayola crayons which are produced in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton in the town of Lindsay, and a single piece of white paper. The contest was judged by Hélène Monette, a security guard in the lobby. This session's winner is Theresa Cooke of Hull, Quebec.
Congratulations to all pages who took part in the contest with such enthusiasm. Merry Christmas.
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Warren Allmand Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC
Mr. Speaker, on February 2 to 4, 1997 a micro credit summit will take place in Washington, D.C. to focus attention on the provision of credit to the world's poorest entrepreneurs, especially women, in order to provide them with employment and a better quality of life.
This summit is being supported by the OECD, the World Bank, NGOs, experts and individuals from all over the world. It has been shown that by lending small amounts of money, between $35 to $300 in developing countries, one can start up small businesses and cottage industries which allow individuals to support themselves and their families.
I ask our government and all members to support this initiative. By contributing to the capital of micro credit banks, they can work wonders with small amounts of money.
Research And Development
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Andrew Telegdi Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada's universities have proposed a five year $1.8 billion program to build and renew Canada's research infrastructure, and to help keep the country's top young researchers in Canada.
The federal government would pay for roughly half of the project while the rest would be provided by the universities and the provinces. The program would provide funding for top quality researchers and would help stop the brain drain to the United States and renew the network of centres of excellence program.
As technology becomes more and more sophisticated, and research more collaborative and interdisciplinary, the renovation and expansion of laboratory areas in such fields as information technology, environmental science, engineering and biotechnology become essential for Canada's ability to compete in the global marketplace.
Innovation at home means exports abroad and jobs for Canadians at home. The research infrastructure program is essential for Canada's economic growth.
The Economy
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Werner Schmidt Okanagan Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, the economy wide costs of regulation in Canada are an average $86 billion a year. For a Canadian family of four, like those in my riding of Okanagan Centre, it means annually a cost of $12,000.
Yes, we need regulations. But too many ineffective and inappropriate regulations are stifling Canadians entrepreneurship and thus the economy.
We could avoid this unnecessary burden if federal governments did a few simple things: carry out thorough cost benefit analyses, study the economic impact of regulations and write them in simple language.
Unless we do so, the effect of regulation will continue to create impediments to Canada's competitive position in the global marketplace. For Canadians it will mean an unacceptable and unwelcome level of government intrusion into our lives.
Human Rights
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
Jean Augustine Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada's record on human rights has improved dramatically since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN General Assembly in 1948. In many respects, the declaration of that seminal document has served as a watershed in Canada's own record in human rights.
Since then, Canada has taken a leading role in advancing the interests of women and in its treatment of minorities, aboriginal people, people with disabilities and those with different sexual orientation.
Canada has also taken a very different approach to new immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities of all kinds, an approach which has embraced diversity and encouraged an open, tolerant and multicultural society.
Human rights day reminds us that there is always more to be done and new struggles to be waged. We have come a long way. Human rights day allows us to reflect on where we have gone and simultaneously to plan for the future.
Canada Elections Act
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
Anna Terrana Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the last session of Parliament, Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, was introduced and passed.
Section 31 of the elections act requires that a party that could not field 50 candidates must have its status revoked, all assets liquidated and all debts paid.
Section 31 caused the Communist Party, the Social Credit Party and other parties to be deregistered. Most newspapers came to the defence of such parties: the Toronto Star calling the change a draconian treatment of fledgling political parties, while the Vancouver Sun called such an act unjust.
Other medias commented negatively in this respect, and I think it is a very serious matter when parties that have been recognized for more than 75 years are forced to relinquish their status of official political party. They also had to liquidate their assets.
Last year, I presented a bill that would restore the democratic rights of these parties.
Unfortunately the bill collapsed. In the meantime, the Communist Party sent a petition with almost 4,000 signatures, respectfully calling on the government to repeal section 31 (11-14) of the Canada Elections Act. This problem must be redressed.
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
Maud Debien Laval East, QC
Mr. Speaker, as of January 1, Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay will become Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, headed by a woman for the first time in its history.
Human rights are everyone's concern. However, not unless these rights are known and accessible can we stand up for those rights in full confidence. Mrs. Falardeau-Ramsay's main task will be to inform the public of its rights and how those rights are protected.
After explaining how the system works, the commission and its new chief commissioner will be responsible for gaining acceptance for the principle of equal rights and for taking corrective action when complaints are filed.
The Bloc Quebecois proudly congratulates Mrs. Falardeau-Ramsay on her well deserved appointment.
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
Darrel Stinson Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, it will not be a very merry Christmas for more than a million Canadians who remain unemployed despite Liberal promises of jobs, jobs, jobs.
There is a terrible human cost to unemployment which is nearly double that of our largest trading partner, the U.S.A., whose average is 5.4 per cent.
However, a new federal study also points to dollar costs of $29 billion to $77 billion in lost productivity, plus $14 billion in health, crime and other social costs for the year 1994 alone.
The sorry fact is that Canada's net job creation from 1993 to 1995 inclusive was nearly 25,000 less than the number of immigrants admitted during those same years. Consumer bankruptcies were at a record high of 65,432 last year, with three million people on welfare and 2.9 million who collected unemployment insurance. Years of Liberal and Tory mismanagement have created this bleak result.
Merry Christmas, Canada, from another caring, sharing Liberal government.
The Prime Minister
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
John Solomon Regina—Lumsden, SK
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister got the message last night when it was confirmed on the national news that Canadians across the country view that he has betrayed them. He promised to can, to kill, to axe the GST and now he denies saying it. He promised jobs, jobs, jobs but now he says that governments do not create jobs. Obviously jobs is a four letter word in the Liberal Party.
He promised to keep the Crow benefit but cancelled it. He promised stable funding to the CBC. How ironic, the day after his CBC town hall meeting the axe falls on 1,200 more CBC employees. He promised to protect health and education but instead he has slashed core funding of $7 billion from these programs to the provinces.
The Prime Minister is stealing Christmas from millions of unemployed Canadians who see a dismal future for themselves and their families. The Prime Minister has a lot to think about this holiday season.
I recommend that he get out of his office, go down to the shelter for the homeless and talk to his friend. I think his friend will advise him to keep his promises and stop the lies.


text:
|Labs & Groups
|Virtualized RealityTM
Construct views of real events from nearly any viewpoint
|Vision for Virtual Environments
Using techniques from computer vision and robotics, we are developing novel sensing and display technologies to support practical, useful virtual environments.
|The Robotics Institute is part of the School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
Contact Us | Update Instructions

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Respect for Marriage Act (DOMA Repeal) in House (112th Congress)
Go to: Home | How Public Whip Count Works | Login | Register
The LGBT community is often told that there is not the support needed to pass, or even introduce, certain pieces of legislation. Rarely are we told who needs to be persuaded to gain the needed support. When we are it is usually within days of the vote. And, because of technological constraints, this information is not up to date.
The Public Whip Count fundamentally changes the way advocacy on legislation works. It empowers the grassroots, and any citizen, to possess the knowledge necessary to organize and pressure our elected officials until enough votes are secured to introduce or pass legislation. It replaces secrecy with transparency and accountability and allows anyone who cares about LGBT equality to become an activist for full legal equality.
The most revolutionary aspect of our Public Whip Count tool is that it shares power with national organizations, the grassroots, elected officials and party leaders and allows real-time updates.
Click on any heading to sort the information.
Go to: Home | How Public Whip Count Works | Login | Register
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Copyright © 2009 - 2017 ActOnPrinciples.org - All Rights Reserved | Website: LEFT Marketing


text:
Number of Required Coins
: 16
Current Finest Possible Set Rating
: 69.243
View Set Composition
( Shop )
This set begins with the "Proof-only" 1858 and continues through the final year of the series when the "Crime of '73" took place and many coin denominations disappeared. In 1866 the reverse design changed as the motto IN GOD WE TRUST was added. Even a single coin from this series makes for a numismatic treasure; a complete set is truly something to behold. Some dates are available (at times) with cameo and deep cameo devices, making these historic coins even more irresistible.
Notes: This set has bonuses. Please see the Set Composition for a listing.


text:
Topic: checking to see is activated
So the short of it is I am implementing a simple email activation and have successfully been able to create an activation key in the column. The key is then replaced with null when the email is activated. I am having trouble with the logic to authenticate account activation. The model code is below...
def self.authenticate(email, submitted_password)
user = find_by_email(email)
return nil if user.nil?
return false if user.activated != null
return user if user.has_password?(submitted_password)
and the controller code is
def create
user = User.authenticate(params[:session][:email], params[:session][:password])
if user.nil?
flash.now[:error] = "Invalid email/password combination."
@title = "Sign in"
render 'new'
elsif user == 1
flash.now[:error] = "The account you are attempting to log into has not been activated, please check your email."
@title = "Sign in"
render 'new'
redirect_back_or dashboard_path


text:
Sourdough Bread Stuffing
- 1 -pound loaf sourdough bread
- 8 tablespoons butter
- 10 ounces cremini mushrooms, sliced 1/2-inch thick in both directions
- Salt and freshly ground pepper
- 2 to 4 stalks celery with leaves, halved lengthwise and sliced
- 1 medium onion, chopped
- About 10 sprigs fresh thyme, leaves stripped from the stems
- 10 to 12 fresh sage leaves, chopped
- 3 1/2 cups low-sodium chicken broth
- 3 tablespoons chopped Italian parsley leaves
DirectionsWatch how to make this recipe.
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F. Grease a 2-quart baking dish and set aside.
Cut or tear the bread into 1-inch cubes and spread it evenly on 2 baking sheets. Toast the bread in the oven until completely dry and beginning to crisp and brown, about 20 minutes. Transfer to a large mixing bowl.
Melt 2 tablespoons of the butter in a large skillet over medium-high heat. Add the mushrooms and a few pinches of salt and saute, stirring occasionally, until golden brown, about 6 to 8 minutes. Add celery, onion, 2 tablespoons butter, and thyme. Once the butter has melted, cook, stirring frequently, until the vegetables have softened, about 5 minutes. Add sage and remaining 4 tablespoons butter. Add chicken broth to skillet and stir to combine. Season with salt and pepper, to taste.
Transfer toasted bread cubes to a large bowl. Pour the chicken broth mixture over the bread cubes and toss to combine until the bread cubes absorb the liquid. Pour the mixture into the greased baking dish, and sprinkle with parsley. Bake in the center of the oven until heated through and the top is golden brown, about 40 minutes. Remove the stuffing from the oven and allow to cool about 15 minutes before serving.
Recipe courtesy of Dave Lieberman
CATEGORIES:View All
Cooking Tips
More Recipes and Ideas
Brown Bread Stuffing with Fruit
Recipe courtesy of Aida Mollenkamp
Cinnamon Raisin Bread Stuffing with Sausage
Recipe courtesy of Valerie Bertinelli
Country Bread Stuffing with Goat Cheese, Kale and Bacon
Recipe courtesy of Bobby Flay


text:
Mike, this is Mr Haslam
Good morning sir
Mike, make peace with Jim Brown or you're toast
Yes sir! Right away sir!
Brown said he'll meet Saturday with incoming owner Jimmy Haslam III, who recently purchased the Browns for $1 billion from Randy Lerner. Brown would like to have a hand in developing "a new winning attitude" with the Browns, and is looking forward to meeting with Haslam to discuss a possible future with the club.
"What an opportunity to be able to sit down with him," Brown said. "It's a beautiful thing."
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/84066 ... wn-forever


text:
The player who returned the most kickoffs for the Buccaneers in 2013, Arrelious Benn, is now a Philadelphia Eagle. The man behind him on that list, LeQuan Lewis, is a Chicago Bear. Roscoe Parrish, who was responsible for 30 of the team's 36 punt returns in 2012, as well as a handful of kickoff returns, is currently an unrestricted free agent.
In fact, of all 67 punt and kickoff returns the Buccaneers had during the 2012 regular season, only nine were accounted for by players who are on the team's 2013 roster at the moment.
Obviously, the team will be auditioning new return men this spring and summer. That's a pair of jobs (PR and KR) that have passed through quite a few hands since 2008, when Clifton Smith made the Pro Bowl as a rookie return man. The Bucs have had a different leader in both punt returns and kick returns in each of the last four seasons, and only Micheal Spurlock in 2010 was a real full-season option for both return gigs.
The Bucs are a long way from determining who their primary return man (or men) will be this fall. It's possible some new options will arrive via the draft, or further activity in free agency. The team may want to take another look at 2012 seventh-round pick Michael Smith, who got an early cameo as a kick returner last season before spending most Sundays in the inactive list due to greater game-day needs at other positions.
One potential option just joined the team last Thursday. Former Cowboys wide receiver Kevin Ogletree, who will likely get a solid crack at the #3 receiver job, has a kick return background. He got occasional return opportunities during his first three seasons in Dallas after running back kickoffs during his 2008 final year at Virginia. Most of his work has come on kickoff returns, but he also ran back two punts for the Cowboys in 2011, one for 25 yards and one for 10 yards.
Ogletree's return averages aren't overwhelming – he's averaged 19.5 yards on 20 kickoff returns as a pro – but the adjustment of the kickoff line to the 35 in 2011 has reduced return opportunities across the league and made it a little harder to judge a return man's big-play possibilities. The 6-0, 200-pound Ogletree is very solidly built, almost like a running back, and that plus good speed makes him an intriguing candidate for the return job.
Other apparent options on the current roster include Smith, wide receiver Tiquan Underwood and running back D.J. Ware. All three got a handful of kickoff return chances last year, and Ware held the job for the Giants for a good part of 2010. None have ever returned punts, however. Obviously, Parrish or fellow free agent wide receiver Sammie Stroughter would be in the mix if either re-signed with the team.
There are also a couple young players the Buccaneers added to their roster during the season last fall but haven't really tested out yet. David Douglas, the 2012 rookie receiver the team swiped off the Giants' practice squad in November, had a few return opportunities at the University of Arizona and is considered both sure-handed and quick. Chris Owusu, similarly signed off San Diego's practice squad in September, was a very good return man at Stanford and has speed to burn. He averaged 27.3 yards per kickoff return in college, scoring three touchdowns. Owusu is obviously an interesting candidate but his chances may hinge on finding other reasons to make the roster and be kept active on game days.
The punt return job is much more difficult to predict. Fielding punts is more difficult than fielding kickoffs, and the potential for turnovers is higher, so coaches generally want a very sure-handed player who has experience with the job. While the team cycled through a bunch of in-house options at kickoff return last year, they pointedly went outside the roster to sign Parrish when Stroughter got hurt and Jordan Shipley fumbled his chance.
Perhaps Ogletree will be able to prove he can handle that job, too. At the very least, he would appear to be a new candidate to return kickoffs in 2013.


text:
New Markdowns
Flounce Tank Harmony Maxi Dress
Style: 570077247
Out of Stock
Unrestricted comfort from a soft, flowing dress that takes you sunrise to sunset, setting the scene in stripes of fiery ruby red, deep orange, plume peach and honey. With a fly-away flounce at the top that diminishes the waist and adds volume at the bustline. Wear with our Embraceable Multi Way Bra.
- Adjustable straps.
- V-neckline dips lower in back.
- Elasticized empire waist.
- Approximately 56.5" from the shoulder.
- Rayon/Spandex. Machine wash. Imported.
Read more… Read less…


text:
February 9, 2013
Click Here!
Comparative Analysis of Linux, MAC and Microsoft
Dear Members,
I am sending herewith the link of online survey for my doctoral research. I request you to spare few minutes and complete the survey. I will be really grateful to you if you can complete the survey and forward this to your friends and colleagues.
The link of the survey is: http://tinyurl.com/agolt34
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Thanks in advance.
Basanna Patagundi
- Print This
- Log in or register to post comments
- Like (0 likes)


text:
Flights to Palma
From historic architecture, pristine beaches and boutique shopping, Palma has sunny weather all year round.
Wenn Sie einen British Airways Flug günstiger finden, erstatten wir Ihnen die Preisdifferenz.
Niedrigpreisfinder und niedrige Anzahlungen.
Wenn Sie mit British Airways fliegen, genießen Sie preisgekrönten Service und ein ausgezeichnetes Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis und müssen keine versteckten Zusatzgebühren fürchten.
From historic architecture, pristine beaches and boutique shopping, Palma has sunny weather all year round.
Fly to Palma Airport (PMI) from London Heathrow (LHR) or London Stansted (STN) with British Airways and enjoy historic architecture, pristine beaches and boutique shopping. Mallorca offers much more than just a holiday in the sun.
Fly into the south coast of Mallorca to the Bay of Palma, a holiday port that benefits from sunny weather all year round. Visitors can choose between relaxing on golden sand beaches, adventure travel and learning about the island's past, which stretches back to the Roman and Byzantine Empires. Mallorca's busy nightlife, fine dining and spectacular scenery offers plenty to entertain tourists day and night. Book a holiday to Mallorca with British Airways now to explore this fascinating island.
Fly to Palma de Mallorca Airport (PMI) with British Airways from London Heathrow (LHR) and London Stansted (STN) airports in around two hours and 20 minutes. British Airways runs up to four flights a day to Palma. To make your trip easier, you can check in either online or on your mobile to save even more time on your journey to Mallorca.
When you fly with British Airways, you can choose a departure date that suits you and you'll enjoy a safe and comfortable journey. Our cabin crew will be happy to help you with anything you need, so you can simply relax. Choose to fly with hand baggage only or pick a price that includes a 23kg checked baggage allowance and free seat selection 24 hours before you fly. You can also buy delicious food from British food favourite M&S, on board all flights from/to London Heathrow and London Gatwick. For your convenience we will only accept payment by credit/debit cards on board, and Executive Club Members can pay with Avios via the British Airways app.
Once you arrive at Palma Airport, you'll be just 10km from downtown Palma, which can be reached easily by bus, car or taxi. Two bus lines run from Palma Airport. Line 1 runs between the airport and Palma city centre and bus route 21 links the airport with S'Arenal. It is also possible to take a taxi from the terminal for around €15. Or you could hire a car at the airport, allowing you to explore the island at your own pace.
BA Star Rating
1204 Bewertungen
BA Star Rating
705 Bewertungen
BA Star Rating
706 Bewertungen
BA Star Rating
274 Bewertungen
BA Star Rating
1785 Bewertungen
BA Star Rating
450 Bewertungen


text:
Your local church plays a significant role in your spiritual life. In most cases, the local church is the primary source of Bible teaching, worship, discipleship, accountability, admonishment, encouragement, and fellowship.
Considering the vital role the local church plays in spiritual growth, it's a wonder that so many Christians don't feel the need to identify with a specific congregation through church membership. Rather than planting with one church body and developing deep spiritual roots, too many believers today seem content to drift among multiple congregations, landing wherever they feel their needs and interests are best served.
That consumer-driven approach contradicts the New Testament model for the church and bypasses the Lord's design for spiritual growth and leadership. It also cripples the believer's usefulness to the Lord and to the Body of Christ.
When John MacArthur was recently in studio, we asked him about the importance of church membership and the role it plays in the life of the believer. Here's what he said:
Starting this week, we're going to look closer at what it means to be a member of a local church, and how that identification with the Lord and His people impacts your spiritual life.
For now, we want to hear from you. Are you a member of your local church? If so, what fruit have you seen in your life from publically identifying and submitting to your church? And if you're not a member of your local church, what's holding you back?
GTY Staff
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
The problem with churches nowadays is that all they sell you is "easy believism". There is a church very close to me called Newspring in South Carolina and their leader Perry Noble reported almost 500 confessions of Christ statewide. Not to be a cynic but do these folks know what they are committing to? Accepting Jesus Christ is realizing that you no longer live life for yourself but for Jesus and your neighbor, a call of self denial in every sense. I wish there were true teachers like Paul, Peter, Dietriech Bonhoeffer, those who don't just teach but live it. This ministry at Grace to You is wonderful, just wish it was in South Carolina and not California. Keep up your great work and I love your ministry.
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
Because of church hurt in the past, I spent about 4 years without a church home. Being raised in the church, I knew this was wrong so I turned to internet services and then eventually visiting churches until I found one I could feel at home in.
I'm grateful to God's grace while I was away from church. But I really, truly understand how and why people fall from the local church. Outside of family hurt, church hurt is the worse.
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted
I agree with John's position on local church membership - if you can find one that affirms, teaches the reformational view of scripture that John so thoroughly has exposited - taught and foundationally built your church and mission "must haves" upon.
However, I live in a college E. GA town that in terms of following a reformed view of the Gospel, only has several PCA Presby churches to choose from. None of them exposit God's Word - nor have I heard a "Gospel" sermon. Even still, I settled on one and attend a small group led by one of the elders.
PCA believes and practices infant baptism. I follow John's teaching in that regard. And the small group elder knows I do not believe in and would never affirm what they do in that practice. You cannot be a PCA member without affirming your belief in infant baptism.
I have maybe 200 of John's sermons downloaded on my MP3 player and have read most of his books - some several times. And John and the teaching of his staff has led me on a love to delve deeply into reformed theology and to the degree I can stand it, the primary attactors. But John and Grace Church has set a high church standard that he has to know is few and far between represented in any community in America.
And I am not about to set myself under the authority of a local church or higher church administration authority when I do not fully agree with their teaching and practices. But the church I'm attending is as close as I will find to the core Refoprmed Christian beliefs John so excellently preaches - and warns us to follow.
I completely agree with John's statements on church membership. However, I don't believe in being apart of churches if they won't be truthful about salvation, repentance, the absolute authority of the Bible. Unfortunately, for many people, there simply aren't churches in their area committed to telling the truth.
If I could make a request. We have people who are opposed to church membership on (weak IMHO) theological grounds. It it isn't in the Bible they say, why make me sign a piece of paper or engage in unbiblical covenants with church leadership.
If you guys could devote an article to those people I would appreciate it. Give the Biblical basis for it. Maybe cover the history of church memebership too, things like communicant lists, membership rolls, membership qualifications in the early church through the present. And delineate what authority elders have and don't have biblically would help too.
The question being. what's holding you back? I would like to join the church we attend but, as with some other churches, a requisite for membership is water baptism. My husband was sprinkled in the Methodist church as a confirmed boy of about 12. But that is not the same as being water baptized, and so he would not be a candidate for membership. He has a problem with requiring baptism for membership in any case, because it is not a requirement for salvation. So he disagrees with the church we attend about baptism and so we have not joined.
It is very difficult to be a member of a church these days, especially when most are tares and have no interest in the truth of God's Holy word. We are normal christians not fanatics. My husband and I are willing to discuss the Lord's word and fellowship with faithful believers but people look at us as if we are outer space. When we try to discuss its truths, we are treated like we are heretics. So when your leaders are suspected of being unbelievers with no hunger for God's truth only loyal to their denomination and not God, it is very difficult. We have been taking vacations in search of a church that honors our Lord. We believe that the Lord is directing us to a place in Texas. We visited a church there and attended both sunday school and worship this last fall. For the first time in many years we were in a fellowship that we didn't feel lost. We sensed the love and fellowship of the body and sunday school teaching and the sermon was music to our ears. We know that there isn't a perfect church, but we need a fellowship that desires rightousness.
I agree with John whole heartly. I belong to A Christian and Missionary Alliance Church in Newton,Ia. It isn't perfect and neither are the leaders, and neither am I. All interactions with pastoral staff or members. whether good or bad, has matured me.
Being with God's people in a church environment keeps me humble and on my knees. I do not depend on " church sermons" to feed me. I really feel that is my responsibility. And that is what irritates me most about my church family. To many Christians are "Word of God" anorectic. They starve themselves all week and then show up at church starving, and expect Sunday school teachers and pastors to feed them enough to last the week.
I know Pastor MacAurther wood say maybe they aren't saved, I also wonder that too. The love of God and teaching of Biblical doctrine is almost non-existence. So that puts me on my knees.
Also one last comment. If you are looking for a perfect church, stop, their isn't one. Why because you go there. Also ministries on the other side of the fence "ALWAYS" look better, because you are not interacting with is saved by grace still sinning members like you do in your own church. Join a church it will make you a better Christian, even if it only keeps you on your knees in prayer and in the Word of God making sure what's being said is accurate.
Ac 17:10-12
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Amen to Jim's comments. The odds of finding that "perfect church" are slim to none. If it was so easy we would'nt have several of Paul's letters. Remember, pastors and elders are human, they need our prayers and support. Lois, has your husband read what the bible has to say about baptism? If he believes his baptism in the Methodist church was a Believers Baptism then your church should honor that. If not, then why would he not want to obey Christ who commanded us to be baptised?
My husband and I have joined several churches over many years. We were not being feed the word of God and in some we did not hear the Gospel preached or taught. I would take the lead to find a new church, and my husband would attend too, until the last church was totally apostate, with just a form of religion. We could not stay there. We have both retired and have the time to really study the Bible. We are thankful for Grace to You , CD's and books by Pastor MacArthur.We know that we need to find a local church, but will not settle for untruth. We are finally learning the TRUTH. After my husband recuperates from double hip replaceable, I am praying that he will take the lead to find us a place to serve. There are not any readily visible ones in our city of Youngstown, OH.
I am confident that Pastor John, speaking to God's chosen and beloved elect, need not remind us that we are to serve and submit to the authority of a local church only in which Jesus Christ is the head (Gal. 1:8); this is crystal clear to us. I have known the distress of soul that He sends when wrongly judging the body He purchased with His own blood. So, as "those accustomed to the word of righteousness, having your senses trained to discern good from evil ...being strong, ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves." We are slaves of Christ, " the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame." May we strive to be missionaries, not just mission fields.
One of the cries of the Reformation was sola scriptura. The Bible is our sole authority for matters pertaining to faith and practice. With that in mind, as I assume there will be no argument with that premise, I assert that nowhere in Scripture will one find positive grounds for the modern day practice of "church membership". If one is a born again child of God he is already birthed into the one and only Church. John MacArthur has stated on at least one occasion that Christians do not go to church...we ARE the Church. Romans 12:4-5 states "For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." There are not numerous bodies with various differing memberships as is the norm now in the visible church...there is one Church and we as believers are all members of the same Church.
Further, there are numerous other passages that affirm the central truth of Scripture that we, as believers, are all part of one Church...one body: 1 Corinthians 10:17 , 1 Corinthians 12:12 -13 , 1 Corinthians 12:20 , 1 Corinthians 12:25, Ephesians 4:4, Colossians 3:15, and Ephesians 5:28-30.
On these grounds I assert that modern day "church membership" with its various rules, covenants, and mandates is actually a man-made institution rather than being ordained by God. I also assert that modern "church membership" actually serves to cause division between "members" and "non-members"...don't think that is the case just look at the statements above regarding the practice by some church groups to require infant baptism confirmation before being accepted as a "member" This is really no different than churches requiring the signing of covenants, etc for "membership". Members can vote, budgets are planned, lists are maintained, etc. but "non-members" are just "guests" and are made to feel pressured week in and week out to "join". The fact remains...if they are believers they are already IN.
I challenge those who hold to modern "church membership" to look at the reason why Paul rebuked Peter as a hypocrite in Galatians 2:11-13. Peter was showing favoritism to a certain group due to the perceived position they held...they were "members" due to circumcision...their covenant sign. The passages following Paul's rebuke of Peter detail just how wrong sectarianism is and just how far its effects can be pushed.
For the record, I am committed to a local assembly. I pray for and i am friends with the pastor. I give to the work financially. I am involved in assembly events. And I support mission work both at home and over seas...
I will end with more Scripture rather than opinion: Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" To divide the body according to man-made membership rules is to foster elitism and aids in promoting pride.
I agree with John MacArthur on the importance of belonging to, and participating in a church. However, unfortunately its not that simple.
When I first began on my quest to find a church where I could worship and serve I found that many churches are more concerned about their image and the type of people who are allowed to become members. They had to be well educated, wealthy, and preferably be a family unit with children as opposed to those like myself who are single.
Again, and again, and again, I was ignored and not taken seriously. I felt rejected. I knew that God wanted me to be there, and I wanted to be there. But why didn't they?
It wasn't just me who has experienced this type of situation. I have talked to other people who have experienced the same thing that I have and most of them stopped going to church altogether.
Its hard to get over the rejection and pain I have experienced. Its going to take time but I know that God is always there with me even when many professing Christians are not.
Being isolated on a small island, I am faced with the challenges of finding a good place of worship. Over 90% Catholic by population and only a few Bible based churches to choose from. I began the think that I could just use the GTY and other forms of media instead of attending a church.
My idea was quickly brought to an end at the Truth matters Conference when John was asked the smae exact question that I was facing. His reply made sense and made me rethink the whole church thing. I felt let down at my church because the sermons did not have enough teeth. I call it "Gospel Light" or "Diet Gospel". Although the messege is biblical, it lacks the seriousness of sin. It must be discussed and brought into the light so it can be dealt with.
I watch and listen to plenty out in media today. The majority are preaching this soft and easy version of the Gospel. Millions are following these false doctrines. Many preach about self-esteem. Christ preached about self-denial!
Putting all this in perspective, it is extremely hard to find a good church. As John has said before, "have patience, if God does not want the preacher there, He will take him out."
Having participated in past discussions here I am surprised that a personal attack with no bearing on the subject at hand was allowed by the moderators to be leveled against me (15)...but it is what it is.
Michael Bradley Kennedy...if you can demonstrate from Scripture alone the valdity of the practice of willful sectarianism in the form of legalistic church covenants, which are placed seemingly above the New Covenant we as believers are bound under when we are in Christ, I will be happy to join in as it were. Rather than hurling ad hominems at others state your case Scripturally. Your outburst is a clear demonstration of the divisive nature such separating of the body causes. I perceive an air of elitism in your post which further drives home the point that such fractioning of the body is antithetical to the Grace by which we are called and are to walk.
Paul, who to the best of my knowledge never officially signed a membership agreement or covenant with a local group...nor did he encourage us to do such, wrote these words in Acts 20:32: "Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified." Paul had trust in the ability of the God who saved us to keep us by the power of His Word...not the word of a membership agreement with a local governing body of men. I feel a strong pull back to Rome with all the push lately for covenants, legalistic agreements, church discipline talk, etc. This is not the path that Paul gave us clearly when he wrote in Gal. 5:1: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."
To finish I will offer a quote by one who has written quite responsibly on the subject of whether church membership policies and or covenants are Biblical: "By their very nature, church covenants and membership policies are contrary to the grace of the New Covenant. Even when their rules agree with those of the New Covenant, they still directly contradict the principles Paul teaches in such passages as Romans 14. They inherently cause us to judge one another and to not trust that God is leading a believer on a walk that is between him or her and God"
I so appreciate Ben's insightful reply to my blog concerning baptism as a requirement for church membership. My husband does consider his sprinkling in the Methodist church as legitimate baptism. But he doesn't care whether or not our church agrees with him--his problem is that they require baptism for membership despite the fact it's not a requirement for salvation. He knows what the Bible says about baptism, but still thinks it's overstated by churches. I don't think what the Methodist church says on their official website about baptism is anything like what we read in scripture--there's so much double talk and mention of books they follow..one called 'By Water and the Spirit'...I wouldn't put my confidence in something so murky. It almost sounds Catholic.
Also, in our church, there are very few ministries you can participate in if you are not a member. Thanks, Ben
I don't think Michael had any ill intent when he replied to you above. If I did, I wouldn't have approved his comment. I've read enough of his comments that I'm comfortable saying that's not his style. Nor is it the style of most of our regular commenters. I suggest you take his words at face value.
Furthermore, based on all your broad, negative assertions about the nature and practice of church membership, I'm a little surprised no one has directly addressed your position yet. Yours is the most controversial and combustable comment by a wide margin, and I expected others to be offended by you, and not the other way around.
I hope you'll continue to read this series, Keith, as John MacArthur will address many of the issues and complaints your raised in your initial comment.
Hey Keith (12), for the most part I think you covered the arguments they need to respond to here well, you sound like some people in my church who refuse to join.
However I think you miss why Paul rebuked Peter. it wasn't about favoritism, rather it was Peter's fear of the Judaizers (a heretical movement that did not die with the Jerusalem council), the Gospel itself was at stake, and Paul knew this.
In fact that verse is an argument for stricter membership enforcement on their part, it is an example where they failed to remove apostates from membership and disfellowship with them. The Judaizers were not removed from fellowship, and remained a thorn in the side of the church for many years afterwards.
Changing subjects:
I hope the guys here give us strong Biblical defense of church membership. I suggest interacting with the critics arguments, who are represented here rather well IMHO. :-)
Since the Bible gives Elders the authority and responsibility to expel people from fellowship under certain conditions, it clearly assigns them the responsibility to regulate it around those same conditions, but leaves the specifics of that regulation up to them.
They are responsible for vetting that individuals have a credible confession of faith (simple obedience to Christ in Baptism is a bare minimum requirement), and to sign on to a doctrinal statement (at least give lip service to orthodoxy). These are basic, obvious, necessary things that Elders are required to do or be found derelict in their duties.
I don't know why this is hard for people to get. The church throughout history has understood it. The early church had some of the most stringent requirements for membership in the history of the church, this while the Apostles were still alive. They made people wait 2 years (and go through intensive bible study during that time) before allowing them to join. To them a credible profession of faith was a changed life and commitment to the church, and submission to the authority of the elders that could not be demonstrated by a mere signing of a statement of faith or a membership covenant. And refusal to do the lesser thing (sign a membership covenant) is certainly proof you are not willing to submit to the authority of your elders IMHO.
Again to Keith (12) I think you are missing the distinction between the visible church and the invisible church. Elders are given charge over both. The Biblically mandated regulatory mechanisms are there in part to protect the visible church and the purity of the Gospel from coruption by apostates. Study a bit of church history and you will see the battle for orthodoxy has raged unabated since the Judaizers.
And those churches that refused the fight, and did not police their membership rolls, especially where leadership was concerned, were lost very quickly.
Lois, My church is very similar, no one can participate in ministry unless they are a member. I had to fill out a four page application and am currently waiting for my interview. What I have discovered is that the church (and I) need to be on the same page concerning critical doctrine. I had a difficult time understanding that church membership is biblical, but Dr. MacArthur really helped me see it in scripture and understand it. Kurt (19) has a great post!
Thank you Jeremiah.
You're arguements are all very interesting. Though your Bible citation seems a little lacking. Must be the stuff in the whites between the lines?
I would like to address a few assertions made by Kurt in #19:
"you sound like some people in my church who refuse to join."
My contention is if they are attending faithfully and have been welcomed into your assembly they are part of the assembly...requiring them to take another legalistic step by "joining" is not a practice that can be substantiated by Scripture. I would simply challenge you at this point to demonstrate from Scripture alone...not "church history" that additional requirements other than a profession of Christ as Lord are a valid procedure for welcoming one into a congregation.
"However I think you miss why Paul rebuked Peter. it wasn't about favoritism, rather it was Peter's fear of the Judaizers (a heretical movement that did not die with the Jerusalem council), the Gospel itself was at stake, and Paul knew this."
I reject this notion. The Scriptures do not declare that Peter was afraid of the Judaizers...only that he shunned Gentiles and dined with those of the circumcision. Paul declared that he was acting as a hypocrite because he associated with the Gentiles and preached grace to them but shunned them when the circumcised boys came around. Favortism and sectarianism, again, is hypocritical.
"The early church had some of the most stringent requirements for membership in the history of the church, this while the Apostles were still alive. They made people wait 2 years (and go through intensive bible study during that time) before allowing them to join."
First, I would like a clear definition of the term "church" you are using. The term Church as properly derived from the Greek kuriakos (as found in 1 Corinthians 11:20 and Revelation 1:10) is different in its meaning than ekklēsia (which is used some 116 times in the NT) which properly translated means "the called out from". In order for us to converse our understanding of the meaning of words is vital...
Second, I would again appreciate your using Scripture alone to demonstrate how believers...new believers...were required to wait up to 2 years to join a congregation. In fact, I read these words from Acts 2 which directly contradict your assertion (for context read Acts 2:36-46): "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them...And the Lord added to the church (ekklesia...the called out ones) daily those who were being saved."
"Again to Keith (12) I think you are missing the distinction between the visible church and the invisible church."
I did not realize that Christ had two distinct bodies...
Let me end my comments here by stating that I lead my family to participate within a local assembly of Christ's called out ones. I accept that there are Biblical guidelines for order when we come together. I believe God's Word...I do not find in His Word extra man-made requirements to be placed upon His called out ones as modern day "church covenants" and "membership polices" demand in order to assemble.
I must respectfully disagree with you in your assertion that Michael was not derisive toward Keith in his comment. Though I would not completely agree with what Keith was saying, I do believe that he does bring up issues that are relevant to this topic and he is trying to do it by using scripture. I think it would be better all around if we could converse about this without sarcasm or being facetious.
I do wish to clarify a point I made previously. Galatians 2:12 does state that Peter withdrew from the Gentiles "because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group." The point I seek to make is that FEAR is not the hypocritical portion rather the divisive nature of sectarianism regardless of motive. Peter shunned the Gentiles because he respected one group more than the other.
Hope that clears my point.
Micheal (24), and Keith (16), I repent. As you both profess love for God and His word, may the Holy Spirit penetrate your hearts in my defense:
"For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
Those who accuratley handle the Scriptures have no need to be ashamed nor cover his hatred with guile.
Keith, #12, writes,
On these grounds I assert that modern day "church membership" with its various rules, covenants, and mandates is actually a man-made institution rather than being ordained by God. I also assert that modern "church membership" actually serves to cause division between "members" and "non-members"
Okay. And, so what?
It's one thing to say "Well, that's not in the Bible" but it is quite another to say "That's wrong because it's not in the Bible." Your basic position is similar to the exclusive psalmoldy folks who insist we are to only sing the psalmns when the church meets for worship. Or maybe even the Church of Christ advocates who maintain that because musical instruments are not expressly discussed in the NT, then they are forbidden for use by churches in worship.
Honestly, how exactly does Scripture "forbid" the practice of modern day "membership?" Good membership programs are helpful in that they explain basic doctrinal commitments and the overall direction this particular congregation is going. A thorough membership process gives the person an opportunity to show the leadership that he is on board with those convictions. It also helps the leadership, at least thoughtful leadership, identify any potential troublemakers who may be joining for all the wrong reasons or who are maybe attempting to escape church discipline elsewhere.
Continuing, you write,
Members can vote, budgets are planned, lists are maintained, etc. but "non-members" are just "guests" and are made to feel pressured week in and week out to "join". The fact remains...if they are believers they are already IN.
I don't want non-members to vote in my church, especially if they are fair weather Christians who kind of come and go as they please and are loosely affiliated with our group. It's as if you are treating church membership like a common law wife or "living together ". "We love each other, why do we need to go through the ritual of getting "married?" If you think about it, marriage is ordained by God and the marriage ceremonies are "man-made" institutions."
Obviously, such thinking is ridiculous and absurd.
I grew up surrounded by churchgoers, but not Bible-believers, and it is a major factor in why I did not get Saved until I was in my mid-30's, fifteen years ago. Today I am 49 years old.
When I first got Saved, through solitary Bible study and application, I tried to find a church home, but it is hard to be "the new guy" at church. It is like being the new kid at school. Over a year or two, I tried attending about 6 different churches in my area, but I felt like I could not fit in anywhere. So I kept up my daily Bible study while ignoring church for a decade. I experienced sluggish spiritual growth and fell to much backsliding, until two years ago when I felt convicted by the command in Hebrews to not forsake assembling with other Christians. I found a Southern Baptist church in my town, but we do not pay much attention to our denomination. The Bible is the sole authority.
My pastor got me baptized in 2011, something else I had been living in violation of Scripture over.
Church life has its ups and downs, pros and cons; more pros than cons, now that I have finally found a Bible-believing church. We talk about Scripture more than at any other church I have ever attended.
Church life is far from perfect, but so am I. I love the accountability. It keeps me from backsliding to a great degree.
Church life for me is very much like the old saying, "two steps forward, one step back," but at least I am making steady progress over the course of each year, if not every single day, not every week, not every month. I would be in much worse shape without weekly church attendance. I probably average 5 hours in the church building every Sunday. Once or twice a month I get together for kitchen Bible study at my house, for a few hours on Sunday afternoons, with two or three other guys that I know through my church.
I am surprised that even at my Bible-believing church, there are still plenty of disagreements over scripture. Usually it is the same muckrakers trying to be skeptical or non-obediant to the Word. Lots of people tolerate this, some folks shun me for pointing out error in what folks believe versus what the scripture says on that topic. I have a reputation for being too strict on the Word, so I am trying hard to be humble, meek, and loving whenever someone starts talking in error about what a Bible verse means. I find that sometimes I regret not standing up for the Word enough, later. I am still trying to find the balance. It is a maturing process.
Sometimes I am the dummy who has Scripture wrong. I am happy to be corrected, as long as it is scriptural correction.
One odd problem I see too much is folks come up with "a great idea" for somebody ELSE to do; then they get mad and irritated when that somebody ELSE does not obey the supposedly great idea. I think it is important for me to come up with what I should do myself, not what I think others should be doing in their Christian walk. This pertains to witnessing, not overt sin.
Hi fred,
A couple of things I would like to respond to:
1) Honestly, how exactly does Scripture "forbid" the practice of modern day "membership?"
Fred, the underlying problem which you seem to neglect is the mandate by which "membership" is being pushed by many assembly leaders. Jesus said Himself in Matthew 16:6 "Take heed; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees."
John Gill commenting on this passage says..."The doctrines the Pharisees taught were the commandments and inventions of men, the traditions of the elders, free will, and justification by the works of the law:"
While "membership" is not SPECIFICALLY prohibited (being that it is a completely foreign IDEA to Scripture) I assert that it is legalistic based on even your own words here: "I don't want non-members to vote in my church"
I would counter by saying first the "church" ...which I am assuming you mean the assembly of believers...is not yours my brother. Your attitude of elitism by asserting such an absurdity demonstrates clearly the divisive nature of sectarianism. This type of divisive rhetoric is precisely why Paul jumped so quickly to call out Peter in Galatians. The danger of compromising the Gospel of Grace for the legalism of the Judaizers must be halted at even a hint of exposure. Your attitude is further a demonstration of the same sectarianism that James exhorts us to steer clear of in James 2:1-13. By requiring one to become a member of an assembly through man-made covenants and policies (above someone stated they had to fill out a 4 page application...) with the restriction of certain priveleges to only those who have "signed on" there is by default a division within the assembly...and that is sin.
2) "Obviously, such thinking is ridiculous and absurd."
I reject your assertions and I ask you to do as I have others and that is to state your case from Scripture alone for so called church membership requirements... other than profession of Christ as Lord...for one to be gain acceptance in an assembly of fellow believers.
I finish by echoing what Paul said in Galatians 3:3..."Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?"
Being saved from Catholicism in 2005 (GTY being a big help with the Holy Spirit, and the overview of theology in back of my JM study bible) it was only natural to find a Protestant church where I could be batptized and take my daughter to. I became a church member as a matter of obedience to the ordinance of baptism and not to forsake the assembly of the believers.
My continued spiritual growth led me to leave the first church I was a member of. When asked why I left, I told a friend there that the Spirit led me. I did not feel comfortable about criticizing the Pastor for some of his sermons which seemed worldly
(he is now a realtor).
I heard on Christian radio John MacArthur was speaking at a church in my city and I went to it to hear him speak. He mentioned that this was a good church. I started visiting it and other churches and
although it was on the other side of town I realized how blessed I was to have it. The fruit has been spiritual growth for me and my daughter. The Lord has answered my pray for my daughter since she was born, and it has given me a lot of peace knowing she is a believer and has others at the church to encourage her. I have found encouragement also. Thank you Jesus!
Keith (#31) writes,
Fred, the underlying problem which you seem to neglect is the mandate by which "membership" is being pushed by many assembly leaders.
Okay. Again, so, what? Our church "pushes" formal membership every Sunday from the pulpit. I have yet to hear anyone at my church say John is legalistic for telling regular attenders to officially join our church.
Look, if membership procedures are NOT forbidden in Scripture, and there is nothing sinful about them as you seem to recognize in your response, how exactly is it "legalism?" You go on to say it causes "division" among Christians if some have privileges and other don't, but I fail to see how that is "sinful." I think you are overreacting way too much to the idea of formal membership by putting a spiritual spin on your disagreement with it that is just unfounded.
While "membership" is not SPECIFICALLY prohibited (being that it is a completely foreign IDEA to Scripture) I assert that it is legalistic based on even your own words here: "I don't want non-members to vote in my church"
Let's expand on this a bit in a practical fashion. My church affirms the doctrines of Grace, or what is known as Calvinism. Let's say some Christians who don't affirm those doctrines began attending our church, but they remain non-members. If we maintained a loosey-goosey view of membership as you advocate here and let them begin attending with no questions asked just recognizing their personal confession of faith, and those individuals began attending home Bible studies or fellowship groups, they could cause confusion and divisiveness when they actively opposed our view of Calvinism.
The same could be said about those who adhere to Covenant Theology and infant baptism, or charismatic issues, or even theonomy. In fact, theonomists would probably vote to have our church as a whole be more politically active than what our leadership would be comfortable in allowing. Where they would vote to take the direction of our church is not where our church as a family of believers wants to go.
A formal membership process safe guards the church from unwittingly adopting those potential problems for strife. It provides the one seeking membership an understanding as to what the church is about, their doctrinal convictions, their purpose statement as believers within their local community. Such things don't add to the Bible in unscriptural, legalistic ways. They help to clarify what that particular church is about.
I think you are conflating being saved and a member of the "Body of Christ with being a member of a local church. Committing to the "regulations" and "privileges" of formal membership at a local church isn't telling a person he isn't saved, it just holds both the person and the leadership accountable to one another. There is no division here among Christians and any "division" you perceive is entirely mistaken on your part.
After discovering GTY, and coming to understand the Doctrines of Grace, I felt more and more uncomfortable in my church. I brought up concerns and most people looked at me clueless.
Thankfully I came across The Masters Seminary Alumni Map (http://www.tms.edu/AlumniMap.aspx), and found a Master's Grad only a few miles from my current church! I went and couldn't believe the difference. My wife and I have been so blessed by this little church plant, I can't even begin to express how much the Lord has transformed us through the teaching ministry of our church.
So if you're convinced you can't find a good church near you, check out the TMS map!
Also it's amazing to hear about so many people coming to our church from seeker sensitvie backgrounds, because they were so fed up with the shallow teaching at those other churches.
- Tim
This discussion is interesting so I would like to throw in a question "IF" you do not have a good church in your area that teaches to Doctrines of Grace but you are a member of an Arminian based belief church BUT yet they love the Lord and preach the truth (other then the doctrines of Grace of course) should you just leave if they don't teach absolutely exactly like you think they should? Even Spurgeon agreed that Arminians were his brothers. Yes, I wish I would hear the glorious truths of the doctrines of Grace but even though some members seem to be lethargic to the gospel there are some of us who want to serve faithfully, so is it right to leave because of the whole? I may not find a better church in the area and then to have to come back to this church may be even worse if I leave. What do you think?
Jeremiah, I vote that we block anymore postings by Keith on this topic until we can arrange a debate between him and Dr. MacArthur. Keith, do you realize you are arguing (to death) against the teachings of Dr. MacArthur....on his website?!! I thought I read that you don't like personal attacks and elitism, yet your postings are not without both. Enough already.
I totally agree with John on his comments about church membership. I guess that would be if the authority of the church leadership were truly led by the Holy Spirit and it all actually worked like he has explained it. I am currently looking for a church home after leaving a church that I have been a member of for twelve years. Church organizations today are only concerned about growing in numbers into mega status. The leadership of church is not humble and Spirit led. In my area there are not any pastors/teachers that truly expound the word of God and equip the saints for the work of ministry or make you hungry to dig deeper in for yourself. Churches have and are turning to more worship based with praise and worship shows to draw the masses and shorter sermons. The preaching/teaching is less emphasized and expository preaching is replaced with short messages. Any preacher that has come into the area that really preached and taught have been run off into evangelism or back out of the State to another church. I pray that God would send a truly great preacher to the area like John that could stay more than a few years. No it is not the preacher it is about serving Christ but I'm sorry great preaching is what attracts me. I can commit and serve anywhere that there is Spirit led leadership and great preaching. I fear that it will never be a reality close enough for me any time soon. Down South here churches are in the control of long lines of dominate families or Executive Pastors that are more concerned about the pay check than a true move of God.
I agree with everything that Dr. MacArtur is saying about submitting to the authority of the church leaders, serving, being involved, etc. But I find no where in Scripture where I have to sign a piece of paper to become a member of the church. I think the only requirement of being a member is to be born-again. If I attend regularly at a Bible believing church, I would consider myself a member of that church. Thus, I would be under the leadership's authority, serve, tithe, etc. Membership to me is a man-made concept to protect the church from being sued by unhappy members.
Ben (36) and Michael (39),
There are some easy ways to get yourself expelled from our comments section, or at least find yourself in the penalty box for a while. Keith hasn't crossed any of those lines yet.
As long as everyone stays respectful, on topic, and open to critique, I think a debate like we've had in the above thread can be healthy and productive.
I agree with Jeremiah. I think Keith has made some excellent points. I am not saying he is correct by any means, but his views do reflect the opinions of many individuals regarding church membership. Because of that I wouldn't want to just shut him down because he is being disagreeable. Disagreement helps us sharpen our own perspectives as well as those we are disagreeing with.
Unerstood. Thank you Jeremiah.
Gideon, #35,
The last thing you want to do is become a grief for your pastor. If the people there love the Lord and you can serve faithfully alongside of them without you compromising your convictions, I would encourage you to see how much you can make it work.
Certainly if there is another church in your area with more like-minded convictions and you are compelled to join it, by all means, do so. But do so with respect and blessing to your previous church and the pastor. IOW, don't leave a dark cloud of disagreement between parties.
And thank you Fred.
Gideon, #35
I would certainly not act flippantly with changing churches. It's not that Arminians are evil or heretical, it's more so that when the leadership is against the Doctines of Grace, and from that postition, take Arminian theology to the extreme. The church will typically become very pragmatic.
For instance the church I attended had "events" to reach the lost nearly monthly. They always advertised free stuff to lure people in, and then, do the whole bait and switch tactic with a watered-down cheesy gospel message. They would even have raffles for free tv's. The staff and most of the core members of the church were pushed harder and harder, to the point of exhaustion, and people would just walk away from the church.
For me, it wasn't just a mere disagreement on a few finer points of the gospel. It was an entire worldview of what is the purpose of the church.
Fred #43
Thank you for your reply, I do think of that the whole time I have considered leaving. We love our church family and would hate to hurt them but I know even talking with my pastor he is in total disagreement with the Doctrines of Grace. I have heard him say from the pulpit that he got saved when he was 4 years old but made Christ his Lord when he was in his twenties. I have a serious problem with that and yet love him for how he stands up for the truth and won't cave in to liberal teaching. Yet some of his ministry/financial/business decisions have been really screwy and with this assembly he is the sole with no Elders only Deacons that only act as a sounding board. So, anyway I believe in church membership for sure and we have seen our family grow over the years spiritually developing a good spiritual foundation for my children because of it for we were always involved and at church regularly three and four times per week. But I KNOW it could have been so much better if our church would have had a higher understanding and disciplining of the Sovereignty of God. I think it is just a matter of truly trusting God's direction and perfect will in our lives, for everyone's path is different.
Timothy, #45
Our church is not really like that BUT I will say they have had certain programs to bring people in. But nothing like gimmickry. Even though our churches world view is not exactly like a church that holds to The Doctrines of Grace they are certainly not liberal or even lean that way. They are Fundamental and yet on the contemporary side of Fundamentalism but Fundamental all the same. We have had other really good young men leave our church because of this issue and maybe and probably left the wrong way with letters written about certain things that should not of been written and now there is a really bad taste in our pastors mouth over these issues. So for me to go to him and discuss with him my reformed doctrine leanings I am sure it wouldn't be good. For my families sake I am really trying to seek what God has for us WITHOUT using my flesh to make a hasty decision I will always regret. I believe in church membership wholeheartedly and am praying for Gods direction in this delicate matter.
or browse by Topic or


text:
Only whites can run for class president at Nettleton Middle School in Mississippi, reports Mixed and Happy, a site for racially mixed families. The offices of eighth-grade vice president and school reporter, seventh-grade secretary treasurer and sixth-grade reporter are reserved for blacks. The school elects two homecoming kings and queens, one white and one black.
After reading the school handbook, Brandy wrote to the school board asking which offices are open to her mixed-race children.
"They told me that they "Go by the mother's race b/c with minorities the father isn't generally in the home." They also told me that " a city court order is the reason why it is this way."
The school, which has a black principal, is 74 percent white and 26 percent black. I suspect the policy was written to ensure that blacks would win a share of class offices. And it will be dropped like a rock very quickly.
Once the policy went public, the superintendent put up a statement saying "the processes and procedures for student elections are under review."
Update: As predicted, Nettleton has abandoned its policy of reserving student offices for blacks or whites on a rotating basis.


text:
Article Header
We hope every one of our Olympians puts on a superstar performance in Beijing. Without the ability to foresee the outcome of the races at the Games, my early vote for our 2008 MVP is one of our key players who will not even be in China.
Many of you have had the opportunity to work with Gerald Babao. His title is Director of Operations, Membership and Development, but that doesn't come close to describing the breadth of what he does for USACK. His versatility is exceeded only by his infectious enthusiasm and genuine friendliness.
This year Gerald has experienced some of life's great highs and lows. Surely one of his highlights was representing USACK at the first ever ICF-sponsored conference on making our paddling sports accessible to athletes with physical disabilities. This was surpassed when Gerald nearly singlehandedly organized a two-athlete team to represent the US at the first ICF-sanctioned competition for athletes with disabilities at the European Sprint Championships in Milan in May. Gerald joined Jan Whitaker to accompany our team to Italy and perform his first ever coaching duties.
Unfortunately, this spring, Gerald was also diagnosed with Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma, a rare cancer of the head and neck. Gerald has undergone surgery and is spending most of his summer at the Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC undergoing radiation therapy. Gerald has a wonderful wife, Christy, and a beautiful two and a half-year old daughter, Isabella. This is not how they planned to spend their summer vacation.
Throughout this ordeal, Gerald has remained amazingly upbeat and confident. He has also remained committed to serving the athlete members, clubs and event organizers who have come to rely on him. He is maintaining a blog in which he shares his daily experiences with those of us who are keenly following his progress. You can check it out at http://web.me.com/glbabao.
While I'm in Beijing watching our great athletes perform and achieve, my thoughts will be with Gerald, our own Team MVP, who's competing in a different battle back in North Carolina. Go for the Gold, Gerald!


text:
Topic: Moving an app from machine to machine.
I currently have an app running on a Rails 1.1.6 / Ruby 1.8.5 Server and want to take this configuration and move it to a Rails 3.2.2 / Ruby 1.9.3 Server. Is there a standard practice for moving apps, and then evaluating log files for deployment issues from machine to machine. If so, I would appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction. Thank you in advance.