Why Membership Matters (Part 1)
August 27th, 2007
The following is adapted from the Grace Church Elders’ Distinctives on Church Membership.
In a day when commitment is a rare commodity, it should come as no surprise that church membership is such a low priority to so many believers. Sadly, it is not uncommon for Christians to move from church to church, never submitting themselves to the care of elders and never committing themselves to a group of fellow believers.
To neglect—or to refuse—to join a church as a formal member, however, reflects a misunderstanding of the believer’s responsibility to the body of Christ. And it also cuts one off from the many blessings and opportunities that flow from this commitment. It is essential for every Christian to understand what church membership is and why it matters.
The Definition of Church Membership
When an individual is saved, he becomes a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Because he is united to Christ and the other members of the body in this way, he is therefore qualified to become member of a local expression of that body.
To become a member of a church is to formally commit oneself to an identifiable, local body of believers who have joined together for specific, divinely ordained purposes. These purposes include receiving instruction from God’s Word (1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:2), serving and edifying one another through the proper use of spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-31; 1 Pet. 4:10-11), participating in the ordinances (Luke 22:19; Acts 2:38-42), and proclaiming the gospel to those who are lost (Matt. 28:18- 20). In addition, when one becomes a member of a church, he submits himself to the care and the authority of the biblically qualified elders that God has placed in that assembly.
The Basis for Church Membership
Although Scripture does not contain an explicit command to formally join a local church, the biblical foundation for church membership permeates the New Testament. This biblical basis can be seen most clearly in (1) the example of the early church, (2) the existence of church government, (3) the exercise of church discipline, and (4) the exhortation to mutual edification.
The Example of the Early Church
In the early church, coming to Christ was coming to the church. The idea of experiencing salvation without belonging to a local church is foreign to the New Testament. When individuals repented and believed in Christ, they were baptized and added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47; 5:14; 16:5). More than simply living out a private commitment to Christ, this meant joining together formally with other believers in a local assembly and devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42).
The epistles of the New Testament were written to churches. In the case of the few written to individuals—such as Philemon, Timothy and Titus—these individuals were leaders in churches. The New Testament epistles themselves demonstrate that the Lord assumed that believers would be committed to a local assembly.
There is also evidence in the New Testament that just as there was a list of widows eligible for financial support (1 Tim. 5:9), there may also have been a list of members that grew as people were saved (cf. Acts 2:41, 47; 5:14; 16:5). In fact, when a believer moved to another city, his church often wrote a letter of commendation to his new church (Acts 18:27; Rom. 16:1; Col. 4:10; cf. 2 Cor. 3:1-2).
In the book of Acts, much of the terminolgy fits only with the concept of formal church membership. Phrases such as “the whole congregation” (6:5), “the church in Jerusalem” (8:1), “the disciples” in Jerusalem (9:26), “in every church” (14:23), “the whole church” (15:17), and “the elders of the church” in Ephesus (20:17), all suggest recognizable church membership with well-defined boundaries (also see 1 Cor. 5:4; 14:23; and Heb. 10:25).
(To be concluded tomorrow)
I believe that so-called “church membership” is a much misunderstood thing in today’s evangelical circles. We often hear that “there’s no such category in the bible of non-member.” Well, then why do we create such a category and apply it to people when the bible doesn’t even do it? But there’s also no example of BECOMING a “formal” member of a church. Every instance of “membership” in the NT holds believers as already members. Since ekklesia is assembly, I believe the proper method of membership is by assembling. I think we pre-excommunicate people when we place the false label “non-member” on them. We treat them not as brothers, but as spiritual suspects who need to get in line; our line.
The typical argument like the one in this article is to presuppose an extra-biblical, man-made membership as biblical, then when people don’t understand that man-made idea, they are accused of disobedience. The argument presupposes that Christian responsibility starts, not at being saved, but at becoming a formal member of a church.
As one who has experienced several times churches who viewed me as a second class Christian simply because I hadn’t jumped through all their membership hoops yet – when all I wanted was to be baptized and enjoy full fellowship in Christ – I can say that this doctrine should be thought through very carefully. If we treated every professing believer who assembled with us as an already member of the body, there wouldn’t be so many who shrink away. If we told them that they already ARE members and not grant them all the priviledges, but tell them that CHRIST has already granted them the priviledges, many more people would be greatly encouraged.
And many more people would be greatly deceived.
If we treated every professing believer who assembled with us as a member, we’d grow megachurches, sure. And we’d have a bunch of weak, marginal attenders, who, to be honest, we wouldn’t really know are saved. Sure, many of them would be, but certainly not all of them. If people ’shrink away’ from a church simply because they don’t like the idea of membership or formal commitment, I think I’d question their ‘formal commitment’ to Christ Himself. Then, if we can take it that far, we might be baptizing unbelievers, and allowing unbelievers to participate in the Lord’s supper. And even if they truly are believers but just untaught, how could we let them participate in the Lord’s supper without the tools to “examine themselves” and to “judge the body rightly” (1Co 11)? No, the way around people’s lack of commitment is not lowering the standards; it’s standing on Biblical authority and instructing people.
I think it’s positions like your own, Steve, that make this distinction of membership necessary in our day. There are so many people who think that ‘private devotion’ is all you need, so many who think that membership is optional. Because when they come to Christ, nobody teaches them that this is a necessary thing, that this is just what naturally happened in the early church, as the article states. It’s not extremely explicit because it was the norm; but clearly everyone understood this was to happen. When people start neglecting that example today, then it becomes necessary for the church to go, “Hey! Look at their example! We need to do that!”
I agree with Mike but sympathethize with Steve; (it’s easy for those who have all their lives been blessed with good leadership in healthy churches not to appeciate the frustrations of those who are jaded by manipulative and/or legalistic leaders) let’s keep in mind that the reason something (that ironically should be so simple to get) as this topic is such a “hot potato” is surely because the enemy causes confusion and distortions that emanate from within the church itself! Church membership is definitely a must! (BIBLICAL church membership like described in this article NOT man-made or business-styled, program oriented, volunteer-enslavement membership) Look at it through this lens: Christianity is life-shattering and who we were dies to the extent we cannot even associate (in terms of lifestyle,beliefs,joy…) with those of our past and our old life, we (if we understand The Faith properly) will want to RUN to association with OUR church not just THE church but those IN PARTICULAR we fellowship with, love, protect and minister to. Basically those whom we LIVE for and who LIVE for us. It is a sad day to see many who attend church pick up and leave to another church for better “worship” or better preachers and so on, these same would not dare do that with their EARTHLY families, their EARTHLY friends, or their EARTHLY employers. The early Christians who lived in caves as a persecuted family got it. Sadly this lack of commitment is also the lack of love Jesus said would be seen by unbelievers to make them acknowledge our Christianity and draw them to The Family.
Sorry, let me restate the last sentence more plainly. “…this lack of commitment is a lack of love, the love Jesus COMMANDED the love all would see as our being Christians and a means of drawing them to The Family of GOD.
Mike,
I can understand your frustration and I find it sad that you were treated as a “second class Christian.” The reality is that we should never base our beliefs and practices on poor experiences with people who are less than Scriptural in their application (I know several friends who reject the Doctrines of Grace because of the prevelance of Hyper-Calvanism where I grew up).
As others have said, even though membership is not an explicit prescriptive mandate, it is necessary for our time. As MacArthur says we are “in a day when commitment is a rare commodity.” People go from church to church for various reasons. I knew a guy once who went to three churches every Sunday morning. He went to one for the singing/liturgy, another for the preaching, and another because they served real wine in communion. And, of course, he was accountable to none of them. Most of us get in our cars and drive past dozens of churches before we get to our own. We have more choices than anytime in history as to what type of church to attend: type of singing, type of sermon, etc. The NT church had no such choice. People didn’t have the option to travel far and wide for the sake of preference. They were of necessity committed to one body of believers.
If our churches today are to carry out the mandates of biblical eldership, oversight, instruction, exhortation, etc. there needs to be some level of commitment established. The best way to do that is through membership. Not as a means to determine who is a more spiritual/mature Christian, but simply to establish mutal commitment to one another.
Mike, you seem to be equating non-membership with being a “weak marginal attender” who you would not even be sure if they are saved. I’m sorry if I misunderstand, but that sounds very legalistic, to judge based on an outward appearance or based on humanistic legal standing. Do you really think that members are more likely to be strong regular attenders, or that they are more likely to be believers? If so, it seems like we are placing the results on our efforts, not on Christ’s work in the hearts of men.
I have no problem with having “membership” (and, yes, I am a member). Some churches do it well (scripturally), some don’t. I see no biblical model for having a bunch of classes and requirements to meet before being a member. Yet, that is what often happens (must take “membership 101″, must sign “church covenant”, must agree not to ______fill in the blank with whatever outward behavior the local culture condems, must wash hands 10 times before eating…just kidding on that one
Also keep in mind – some of the most damaging awful things I have ever seen Christians do were by card carrying members – and some of the most gracious Christ like things I have ever seen done were by people who could care less about their names being on a membership role, but were “strong regular attenders” who ministered faithfully.
In the end, what Christ demands is fellowship and devotion to the local body – if that devotion is there and proved, why does it matter if they are a “member”? Isn’t it the devotion that matters? Do we really think they will become more devoted to the body if they become a member?
I agree with ETM. I am committed to attending and ministering in a local church to which I am not a “member.” When I’m asked about it, I reply with the question, “How am I not a member?” The one thing that I cannot do is vote. OK, I’d rather not vote and be free from churchianity. Then again, if it makes you feel good to be a “member,” I have no problem with that at all.
BTW, I don’t see formal membership to be a means to keep the tares out.
JackW,
If you were at Grace Church, the answer to your question, “how am I not a member” is this: you are refusing to follow the leadership of the elders. Members place themselves under the leadership of the elders. At a large church, like Grace, formal membership is extremely important for the reasons listed in the article. We can’t do church discipline on someone who occasionally attends our church. We can’t tell at what point you moved from being someone who likes our church, to being someone that I will be judged for how I shepherd. The easiest (and most biblical way) to do this is to simply ask you to commit yourself to our church, statement of faith, leadership of the elders, and discipline. If you refuse to do that, my question would be, “why not follow the leadership of the elders” (Heb 13:7, 17)? It would help us out a lot.
Thanks,
Jesse
First, Gabriel, it was Steve who was treated ’second-class,’ not me. Thanks anyway though.
)
To ETM and JackW: Really, I’m trying to say what Jesse is saying. I’m not saying all non-members are weak or marginal, ETM. I’m saying that that could easily happen if you blur the lines. The seeker movement proves it. We’ve got megachurches filled with people who are wishy-washy, emotionally driven, and many are deceived and unsaved.
And like Jesse said, you have no way of knowing where people stand. Church discipline is difficult because they really haven’t decided to submit to the authority of the church. You approach them and they say, “Hey, I never said I’d submit to your leadership!” The point that Jesse makes about shepherds being judged for their fruits is a really good one, too.
So he says the easiest and most biblical way to tie up these loose ends is to simply ask… etc. What’s the problem with that? I’m nto saying every non-member is a second-class Christian. What I AM saying is that if you do REFUSE to submit to the leadership (which accords to the biblical pattern), you are indeed being immature and unruly (1Th 5:14). And I think that calls into question your full commitment to Jesus and His Truth.
Jesse and Mike, I do submit to Elders and I am under their leadership (those who stand before).
I just don’t see formal membership as a main thing or a plain thing, but I am willing to “allow myself to be persuaded.”
It would be much easier though if there was a church near here which:
1. Was ruled by a plurality of Elders
2. Had biblical Elders
3. Understood biblical authority
4. Was concerned about discipline
… and I could make a much larger list.
Sorry for mixing up your name, Mike!
Cheers,
Gabriel
dear Jack, don’t know where you are but if you’re missing those elements look up a Brethren Assembly
Jesse Johnson: “We can’t do church discipline on someone who occasionally attends our church.”
Really? Why not? I think this illustrates my position well from the flip side of the coin. The bible never allows a church to abstain from discipline of a believer, but a man-made membership does. Our churches are full of undisciplined “professing” believers, as the article makes clear. This is obvious. But creating a “formal membership” necessarily and simultaneously creates a “formal non-membership,” which as the article states is the very problem a formal membership is created to address. A “formal” membership creates (even if unintentionally, and I’m not imputing motives, just pointing out a logical necessity) the very problem it tries to solve. If every believer who assembles were treated like the member that they already are, they would be receiving the necessary discipline to grow in the Christian life.
“Members place themselves under the leadership of the elders.” My understanding is that GOD places them there, not men. (1 Cor 12:18) And for we who believe in divine providence, with every one of our good works being ordained from before the foundation of the world, a believer walking through a church door is an act of God, is it not? What can be more “formal” than that?
Becoming a member of a church is just as foreign to the bible as not being a member. There is no category for non-member, but there IS one for non-assembler. (Heb 10:25) And if members are members by assembling, then they are non-members by not assembling. Does this make sense?
I need help with a question from anyone who can answer it with biblical discernment? What about a church requiring for membership a proffessed believer who was baptized biblically (through submersion in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit) to be “rebaptized” because their previous membership or believers’ baptism occured at a church from another denomination? Example: Pentecostal wanting to join 1st baptist church but can’t until they have been “rebaptized”?
Roman Authority: I need to see your membership roll.
Church Elders: May we ask why?
Roman Authority: In the very near future we will have need of fresh meat for the lions and fuel for the street lamps.
Church Elders: Maybe we should reconsider this membership roll thing …
Jeremy,
I would have strong reservations if you were asked to be rebaptized in order to join a church. If it really is a first baptist church that is asking you to be rebaptized (which I find hard to beleive), I’d love to hear more about it. If you were truly saved when you were baptized, you should not be rebaptized to become a member.
Thanks,
Jesse
JackW,
Just about the most common call Grace gets is from people around the country who don’t have a good church, wondering what to do. I have sympathy for your struggle. This is why Grace, and John, are so committed to training pastors. Nevertheless, I would urge you to find the best church you can, and join it whole-heartedly. Even if it is flawed, you really should use your best discernment in finding the best of the available choices—or move somewhere where there is a good church.
If you are not committed to a local body, even if it is as flawed as Corinth, you really are missing out on the blessings which come from being united to a church and their leaders.
Jesse
Steve,
Discipline will probably be addressed tomorrow. If the question about why you can’t discipline a non-member is not addressed tomorrow, ask it again.
Thanks,
Jesse
Thanks for the article. I think this is a huge problem. A lot of people think that they can be committed to something without committing to anything! Just live with a woman; you don’t have to marry her to be committed. The problem is that when things get rough you just walk out and no one has any leverage on you to make you stay. Same thing in the church. I would posit that the bigger problem is that we have allowed people to be members who do not take their commitment any further than signing the roll. They do not participate in ministry and they regularly absent themselves from the assembling of the church. I would like to see churches really stand up and say: “If you want to come and sit then you are welcome but if you are going to be a member you need to commit to being involved in what we are doing for the Kingdom!” It is how we motivate each other to love and good works. I know some have the already tagged me a pharisee!
In response to people whining about not have a good church: I think there is a lot of problem in our country with people planting churches just because they cannot find one of their particular flavor. That may not always be good. But, on the other hand it does mean that there are a lot of pastors and ministries out there looking to plant a church. If you are in a place where there is really not a good church then perhaps you should contact someone who you think is doing church biblically and see if they could help you start a good church. Or perhaps one should find a good church and move there and get a job. This came up in another thread a while back but why will people move somewhere for a job and then find a church as though the job is what is important. Why not put your family in a good church and then find a job.
Jon, so faithfulness and commitment are measured by whether or not you are a formal member of a church?
… and if you don’t like something about the church, show your commitment by finding another church or starting your own?
… and if you don’t like something about the church, but stay and work to see it become more biblical you’re not being faithful because your name’s not on a list?
Jesse, I’m from the Memphis, TN area and most if not all Southern Baptist churches in my area require potential members to be “rebaptized” even if they were biblically baptized in another denomination. I have had issues with this practice for several years and the only reason I’ve been able to come up with as to why this is required is the number of “Church of Christs” in the south wanting to join Southern Baptist Churches. As you may well know, The Church of Christ has an unbiblical view of baptism in that they count it as a sacrament and requirement for salvation. So I guess instead of reviewing each baptism on a case by case basis, they’ve decided to disallow anyone to join unless they’ve been baptised “again”? I just hope this practice doesn’t hinder our advancement of the gospel within the SBC.
I write a lot about this subject in my blog also, it is a hot subject for me. To me the Bible is clear we are not to look to man for answer’s or leadership but only to Christ.
A list of verses to prove this
In my blog I write: That is why they drove the planes into the towers, because they believed they could “do something to earn” heaven, but they were wrong and most all religions are wrong. Jesus even had the harshest words for the scribes and Pharisees. The mere fact there are different denominations negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40.
I go on to say: We are to look to Jesus for leadership, not man. The Bible says to evaluate everything to see if it is of God by its fruit, good tree = good fruit; a bad tree can never bear good fruit. We don’t even have to address the Catholic Church and the mass pedophiles, and the crusades to determine the fruit, it is obvious.
God’s word declares that this is God’s plan of salvation; 1. Hear the WORD of God. 2. Believe that Jesus is the Messiah. 3. Repent of your ways that are contrary to God’s will. 4. Be Baptized INTO Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5. Remain faithful to the Covenant you have made with God.
Church or building is not part of this plan at all.
You wrote in the article: “In the book of Acts, much of the terminology fits only with the concept of formal church membership. Phrases such as “the whole congregation” (6:5)”
In KJV and Darby and Young’s Literal it says “pleased the whole multitude” or “pleasing before all the multitude” which is very different. It all comes down to presupposition, if your presupposition is that we must attend a church then you will find things to agree to that. The writers of the KJV had a presupposition that we attend church but that was detrimental to the translating. The Bible never even has the word “church’ in it at all, ever. Ekklesia translates to assembly, not even “the assembly” either. Greek word “kyridakon” which means religious meeting place is not even in the Bible.
Lets take the Sabbath also in Genesis 2:2-3 “And God had finished on the seventh day his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it, because that on it he rested from all his work which God had created in making it.”
He rested, not because he was tired but that the work was complete. Now we have a completion in Jesus and we are in His rest.
Hebrews 4:1 “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.”
Hebrews 4:9-11 “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”
Jesus is the Sabbath, the completion not a Saturday or Sunday. We are complete in Christ, nothing more is required for salvation it ends in Christ. Not a man made building and established hierarchy.
As Christians though, we are never forget The Great Commission.
For Him +†+,
Dan
oops that does not link to my blog
but this is mine
dmarvin811.blogspot.com
Has anyone considered that it is the responsibility of the elders to know where the sheep of the flock are at in their spiritual walk? Membership doesn’t accomplish this. If size of the church becomes the excuse, then perhaps that body should be split up to shepherd it properly. Formal membership gets people as committed as they were to begin with and no more, but proper shepherding will guide the people into a commitment that needs no paper signing. It seems odd that the blame is so easily shifted to the one who has a conscience problem with formal membership rather onto the pastors who are lacking in their shepherding and don’t even know the state of the sheep they are responsible before God for and they try to write it off with membership as a tool to supposedly take care of this. The argument of commitment being a rare commodity these days is also very weak. There have always been issues of this sort through the ages. Or is there suddenly something new under the sun that we need to invent a new man made sunscreen for?
Another issue that has yet to be brought into the fray is the fact that the vast majority of churches in this country are State churches. I hesitate to even bring this one up because people often go into a fit of irrational accusations of saying that you are rebellious if you don’t obey the State, etc… But the State does not require a church to join it (incorporate) and a simple reading of the State documents regarding churches (religious organizations) that incorporate themselves into the body of the State, thus making them subservient to it, by becoming a not for profit corporation should be enough for anyone to know to keep away from becoming a formal member of such an organization. Much blood of many martyrs has been spilled over this very issue. I have a friend who is a pastor from Scotland and he was astonished to learn that the churches in America could possibly be in such a state. In a totally flabbergasted manner he could only say, “Why on earth would they ever do that!?” Christians in Scotland may be more aware perhaps of the price paid by many of our brothers for resisting State control over the church and would understandably be shocked that one would actually join the State voluntarily. Interestingly in the United States, the State at first refused to allow a church to incorporate because there were godly civil leaders at that time with understanding that the civil government has no business ruling over church matters.
All that to say that it is clear though that one could still be totally committed to a body of believers and minister among them wholeheartedly without signing on the dotted line. And requiring one to go against one’s conscience on an issue that is not clear, by any means, in the Bible is unconscionable. To call it sin because one has a disagreement with the elders on an issue that is not a clear biblical teaching and for the elders to lord their authority over a believer in this matter refusing them their liberty in Christ would be reprehensible to me.