American Baptists - I need your input/exprieinces please

[TinyChickenLady]

Quote:
You're right. It has been very civil, surprisingly

I understad we aren't exactly giving the OP the answers she is seeking but hopefully she can use our feelings when deciding what should be done in her situation.
IMO, you don't have to be a member to have the right to pray, worship, meditate, etc.
We all have opinions on different aspects of religion and I think they all could be beneficial in her quest for answers.

Although we may not be very helpful right now, Calico, but thank you for starting this thread and giving us the opportunity to discuss the topic and TRY to help you.

 

[TinyChickenLady]

Quote:
Very good point. That should be pointed out at the next council meeting.

 

[calicokat]

Quote:
But here is the rub - they don't plan to stop. And technically, it's not the co-habitating, it's the baby-making activities of the co-habitators, IYKWIM? Thus the compromise of Baptism: yes, Membership: no.

Gosh, and I totally agree, gossip has to be the most evil and undermining of all activities! And that's true everywhere

 

[calicokat]

Quote:
You're right. It has been very civil, surprisingly

Now don't go and jinx us

 

[ChickiKat]

Quote:
You're right. It has been very civil, surprisingly

Now don't go and jinx us

good point....

 

[calicokat]

I'm not ignoring everyone, it's time for me to go home (Yeah, I also love my job for the great hours, 8:30 to 2:30 three days a week.)

I thank you ALL for your input thus far. It's nice to have a very large group of peeps that you can call on for all kinds of wisdom, not just chicken stuff

I'll check back in this evening after dinner & chores though in case I need to clarify or add more info.

 

[TinyChickenLady]

Quote:
Now don't go and jinx us

good point....

Hahaha oopsie

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

I was raised Southern Baptist, with a strong influence of Methodist (both grandfathers were preachers, one of each

) Over the years I have been a member of Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches. I am very comfortable in my ELCA church. Every denomination has different practices on how membership is achieved. In Baptist churches, once a person comes forward to join or be baptised, his/her acceptance as a member is literally voted on by the congregation. Now I have not been a member of an American Baptist church, but I *think* that is the typical way a person joins there, too. In a class to join the Presbyterian Church where I used to go (20-odd years ago), there was a discussion on who approves membership in different denominations. In Methodist churches, the decision is up to the pastor. In Presbyterian churches, it is up to the church council. In Baptist churches, it is the congregation, not the preacher, and not the deacons, although they certainly have enough sway in many cases to encourage the congregation to vote their opinions. I recall as a girl when we had a black family come to join my all-white church that our pastor took several minutes to esentially lecture us to vote as Christ would want us to, not to vote with racial predjudice but showing Christ's love and acceptance for all. This was very different than the usual, "all who approve, raise your hands." They were voted into membership, but I remember feeling sad that he had felt that he needed to make a strong statement to ensure it.

Anyways, you need to look to your congregation's governing documents and make sure that they are being followed. I'm rather surprised that they hired a pastor of another denomination without requiring that he become a member of yours.

 

[Orchid]

I am not a Baptist, I belong to a Missouri Synod Lutheran church. I am not sure how they do membership with people who are cohabitating, but I know they won't marry you unless you live separately.

I know, I scratch my head too.

For what it's worth, to me saying you will baptize someone in the faith but not put them on the membership rolls of the church is like saying they're good enough for Jesus but not good enough to belong to the church. Just my thoughts and I know not the ones you were really looking for, but there they are.

 

[Spookwriter]

If anyone knows how to catch Q-9, I would like his imput
on what I'm going to say here.

The original point in this thread deals with marriage as a civil
union recognized by the church.

A search tells me that a marriage license in the United States
stems from the civil-war era in the Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857).
So far I have not found the EXACT wording. But it is paraphrased
as:

"Marriage licenses for all citizens is fairly new. It began in the 1800's,
when citizens which wanted an interracial marriage had to petition
to the government for permission. You see, back then blacks were
not considered citizens with human rights. The Supreme Court ruled
in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that blacks were NOT human beings.
It decreed a slave was his master's property and African Americans
were not citizens; striking down the Missouri Compromise as
unconstitutional."

This seems to represent as to how the goverment came into the
marriage business, with a actual license. This has nothing to do with
a church.

The actual act of being married, getting married goes way back. Pretty
much dry reading but :

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as
primarily a private matter,[citation needed] with no uniform religious or
other ceremony being required. However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing
around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, "t becomes both men
and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop,
that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."

In the 12th century women were obligated to take the name of their husbands
and starting in the second half of the 16th century parental consent along with
the church's consent was required for marriage.

With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by
mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent
physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to
each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest
or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum."
If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was
unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would
constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages
was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement
in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical
courts. During the Middle Ages marriages were arranged, sometimes as early as birth,
and these early pledges to marry were often used to ensure treaties between different
royal families, nobles, and heirs of fiefdoms. The church resisted these imposed unions,
and increased the number of causes for nullification of these arrangements. As Christianity
spread during the Roman period and the Middle Ages, the idea of free choice in selecting
marriage partners increased and spread with it.

I know this doesn't exactly answer the question, at least it presents information to consider.

If we go on, I don't believe the actual marriage certificate is mentioned as such in the bible.
No verse comes to mind. But their is a mention of a divorce certificate. (I think)