Greg,

I appreciated the last post on membership, particularly the responsibility/obligation aspect of exercising the keys.  And the point about deciding to baptize and deciding to be baptized requiring some explicit decision making about professions, etc.  Helpful, brother.  Looking forward to Jonathan's book.  Speaking of which... do you have to be a U.S. resident to get a manuscript or something???

As I read Tim's response to you, I wondered if we're not actually closer than we think.  So, if I understand Tim correctly, he's identifying baptism as the defining rite for entrance into the visible community.  We would agree with that, wouldn't we?  I mean, I don't think any of us practice baptizing folks without taking them into the membership of the church.  As I think about it, we try to temporally connect baptism with adoption into the membership of the church, as we presume was the practice of the early church.  So, I'm wondering out loud if the difference boils down to how clearly we communicate to people the association we believe must exist between baptism and self-conscious membership/mutual belonging.  The particular procedures we may use around that baptism-membership unon may vary (someone may lead with a six session new members' class; someone else may have a voice vote following the baptism service; etc.).  But that the union of baptism and membership exists in the NT is shared by all. 

So perhaps this all boils down to a somewhat pragmatic question: Which set of conversations/practices/procedures etc. increase the likelihood of healthy body life in a local congregation?

For my part, I would contend that the clearer we make mutual belonging and commitment, the better the membership practice.  There are some other things I'd want to make clear that strengthen the belonging and commitment (theological commitments, for example), but the heart of it is explicit intention and attention to 'one anothering' under the care of the elders for the advance of the gospel.

Thoughts??