Seems extreme but very much a "Who is on the Lord's Side" moment that many Churches need to have! I would definitely use as a litmus test for any candidate for leadership within the Church. There are some ESSENTIAL THINGS that every Church member should be on board with (Inspiration of Scripture, Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, Etc.) and some NON-Essential things (Calvinism/Arminianism, Cessation/Continuation, various eschatological views, Etc.) where we can disagree and have charity to one another.
This is why I prefer the Calvary Chapel model of church membership. Our church won't compromise on the sexuality issue. Those who would do otherwise will soon find themselves at odds with the teaching of Scripture and either repent or move on.
I have to agree with you here.
The problem I see is if you become "Tolerant" of such things among the membership, it will eventually become the DOMINANT VIEW and you may just find yourself in the minority! Many Baptist Churches I know of will grant membership to anyone who walks the aisle, fills out a card, and Voila! they are a voting member!
At least their swinging their sword where the battle is.
i left my former church because they decided to embrace the alphabet crackers club.... and not just embrace it but they opened the church up for gay weddings and began advertising it as a great destination for gay tourists wanting to be married in an exotic place.....
What?!?!
years ago i use to post pictures on the fff of my former church.. everybody agreed it was a beautiful place.. .. it is on the south east side of the island and has an ornate sanctuary right on the beach... the walls are floor to ceiling windows that open to the outside air... i am not going to name it anymore or post any pictures of it either.... but long before the gay marriage thing became an issue traditional couples would come here from all over the world to schedule a wedding there....What?!?!
That’s pretty crazy, though I suppose not surprising these days. They say people who don’t support gay/transgender rights are the new 21st century racists.
i don;t remember the word racist coming up... but i did get slammed pretty viciously back then in other ways by quite a few people for the stand i took..... and i didn;t just leave the church behind, but left a few friends behind too.... .. ironically some of my friends who lean in the gay-sapphic direction agreed with me... ..being abnormally tempted to sin does give one a right to practice it.... much less a right to promote and celebrate it...... ..churches that submit to the lgbtq agenda have forgotten the reason they became a church to begin with....
Most churches have the basic equivalent with a formal church covenant. I’m not sure I would do this but have no problem if they choose to ask members to sign.
As a member of my church, I'm expected to be in basic agreement with the doctrinal statement--which does include an article saying the term "marriage" is reserved for one man and woman, "as a matter of belief, doctrine, and religious practice." Obviously I haven't tested this, but I would assume that had I voiced any serious objection to that article (or nearly any other), my application would not have gone forward.
I can appreciate the "Bending of members to the Pastor's will" bit. Therefore, a Church would have to ensure such did not just come from the pastor but through a common unified front of the entire Church leadership speaking in unanimity! We are treading new ground here and such things used to go without saying. It used to be that all one had to do to become a voting member of your average Baptist Church is walk an aisle, fill out a card, and say a few "buzz words" testifying that you were a "believer" (buzzwords your typical "Alphabet Affirming" Christians would also say). Voting members then get to be part of the decision making process and work their ways into positions of leadership where they influence the overall direction of a Church such as to become more "Gay-Affirming" in order to open your Church as a wedding venue for same-sex couples and so forth!
I probably did a poor job of trying to convey what I meant. In the last couple decades, being called a racist was about the worst slander a person could receive, and it’s an almost impossible accusation to fight against. Anyway, a couple months ago I heard a videoclip of a famous pastor (though the name now escapes me), warn his church members that if they take a biblical stance against LGBTQ rights, they will become the new version of what people have labeled others as racist in the past. He was basically warning his congregation to become prepared for the assault that’s coming in the next few years on those who stick to what the Bible says.
ok.... well i can see your concern..... because from what i have been told the scenario you describe has already been happening in baptist churches.... . for decades.... . and not with regards to lgbtq activitsts trying to change a church from within - but with those wishing to force the church to accept doctrines more in line with calvinist ideology... ...and those wanting to introduce more and more progressive styles of music into the church.... . .both climb into church leadership positions the same way you decribe - by speaking "buzz-words" that affirm common elements of the faith.. ... or introducing music with lyrics that no christian would find objectionable, but with a more progressive style of music behind it....
no.... i think i understood you ok.... .. they never called us racist back then but they did call us a lot of other names... .. i have no doubt if the same thing happened today they would call us racist too ...maybe even try to label us as dangerous... ... it could also very well be the left wing mob tries to take some kind of action in the near future against those of who refuse to bend the knee to any or all of their nonsense.... eventually persecution of christians will come, one way or another... ...and they will use any excuse they can to justify it... even if they have to make one up....
Essentially, this is called getting cancelled in modern lingo. The public becomes the judge, jury and executioner without the promise of a trial or factual evidence.