Why Membership Matters (Part 2)
August 28th, 2007
This post is a continuation of yesterday’s discussion on church membership. Yesterday we looked at the example of the early church. Today we will consider a) the existence of church government, b) the exercise of church discipline, and c) the exhortation to mutual edification.
The Existence of Church Government
The consistent pattern throughout the New Testament is that a plurality of elders is to oversee each local body of believers. The specific duties given to these elders presuppose a clearly defined group of church members who are under their care.
Among other things, these godly men are responsible to shepherd God’s people (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2), to labor diligently among them (1 Thess. 5:12), to have charge over them (1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 5:17), and to keep watch over their souls (Heb. 13:17). Scripture teaches that the elders will give an account to God for the individuals allotted to their charge (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:3).
Those responsibilities require that there be a distinguishable, mutually understood membership in the local church. Elders can shepherd the people and give an account to God for their spiritual well-being only if they know who they are; they can provide oversight only if they know those for whom they are responsible; and they can fulfill their duty to shepherd the flock only if they know who is part of the flock and who is not.
The elders of a church are not responsible for the spiritual well-being of every individual who visits the church or who attends sporadically. Rather, they are primarily responsible to shepherd those who have submitted themselves to the care and the authority of the elders, and this is done through church membership.
Conversely, Scripture teaches that believers are to submit to their elders. Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders, and submit to them.” The question for each believer is, “Who are your leaders?” The one who has refused to join a local church and entrust himself to the care and the authority of the elders has no leaders.
For that person, obedience to Hebrews 13:17 is impossible. To put it simply, this verse implies that every believer knows to whom he must submit, which, in turn, assumes clearly defined church membership.
The Exercise of Church Discipline
In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus outlines the way the church is to seek the restoration of a believer who has fallen into sin—a four-step process commonly known as church discipline. First, when a brother sins, he is to be confronted privately by a single individual (v. 15). If he refuses to repent, that individual is to take one or two other believers along to confront him again (v. 16). If the sinning brother refuses to listen to the two or three, they are then to tell it to the church (v. 17). If there is still no repentance, the final step is to put the person out of the assembly (v. 17; cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-13).
The exercise of church discipline according to Matthew 18 and other passages (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 1 Tim. 5:20; Titus 3:10-11) presupposes that the elders of a church know who their members are. For example, the elders of Grace Community Church have neither the responsibility nor the authority to discipline a member of the church down the street. Sadly, the widespread lack of understanding of church membership has made it necessary for our elders to discipline not only formal members but also those who regularly fellowship at Grace Community Church. However, the Bible’s teaching on church discipline assumes church membership.
The Exhortation to Mutual Edification
The New Testament teaches that the church is the body of Christ, and that God has called every member to a life devoted to the growth of the body. In other words, Scripture exhorts all believers to edify the other members by practicing the “one-anothers” of the New Testament (e.g., Heb. 10:24-25) and exercising their spiritual gifts (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-7; 1 Pet. 4:10-11). Mutual edification can only take place in the context of the corporate body of Christ.
Exhortations to this kind of ministry presuppose that believers have committed themselves to other believers in a specific local assembly. Church membership is simply the formal way to make that commitment.
Conclusion
Living out a commitment to a local church involves many responsibilities: exemplifying a godly lifestyle in the community, exercising one’s spiritual gifts in diligent service, contributing financially to the work of the ministry, giving and receiving admonishment with meekness and in love, and faithfully participating in corporate worship. Much is expected, but much is at stake. For only when every believer is faithful to this kind of commitment is the church able to live up to her calling as Christ’s representative here on earth. To put it simply, membership matters.
“I am the good shepherd; and I know My Sheep, and am known by My own.”
Seems to me there’s alot of assumming going on here. If I were an Elder, I think would rather rely on the Good Shepherd than a list. Discipline is your strongest argument, but you even admit that you have to discipline non-members. Being involved in a local assembly matters, being accountable to elders matters, serving the local body of Christ matters. Formal membership may be useful or it just may be churchianity.
“Those responsibilities require that there be a distinguishable, mutually understood membership in the local church. Elders can shepherd the people and give an account to God for their spiritual well-being only if they know who they are; they can provide oversight only if they know those for whom they are responsible; and they can fulfill their duty to shepherd the flock only if they know who is part of the flock and who is not.”
I agree 100% with this statement. I’m wondering, though, in light of this paragraph, how you would defend having a large church where the pastor doesn’t know everyone. I know there are “under-undershepherds,” but then does the senior pastor just have to give an account for those he knows? No hostility or insinuations… just really curious.
MIKE
In the Epistle of Jude, he speaks of godless men slipping in amongst the flock, changing “the grace of our God onto a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.”(Jude 4)
Are these godless men members of the Church or are they non-members who happen to attend on a regular basis, looking the part? The Scriptures only say they are false teachers, not whether they are members of the Church.
Regardless, I believe this question clearly shows why membership is important. The strength of the Church is never about the number of members, it is about the level of accountability in order to create disciples. In order to hold people to this level of accountability, the Church must first be able to quantify who is a member in order to build up a level of accountability.
Not knowing who is a member leads to a greater possibility of false teachers slipping in amongst the flock, and devouring the work which has been done in those who truly believe…
Personally, I am not convinced by these posts. Everything said is good. Believers should submit to church leadership and should commit to the church.
I think though that we are coming at these texts with our history of American-style democratic, congregational membership. We assume there must be a written record and a tally of noses.
Over and over again, the articles say “this assumes formal membership”, or something like that. These verses and teachings could just as easily assume that everyone attending is a member. The elders are appointed and entrusted by God to oversee the flock, since when do the sheep pick their shepherds?
By requiring attenders to jump through another hoop, the hoop of formally requesting membership, we allow for a 2 tiered system of membership. The members, and the attenders. Members are shepherded and attenders are allowed to just exist. Wouldn’t it be better to just teach that everyone who attends is treated like a member, is shepherded, and is expected to contribute to the body and submit to leadership?
Another issue this discussion brings up is the whole multiple churches in one city. In Reformation days, not to mention NT days, there was usually 1 church in 1 city. The Ephesian church, while extremely large was still considered just 1 church. Today its okay for there to be 20 or 30 evangelical churches in a given city. And its also okay to ignore all the other churches except the one you are a member of. People may rub shoulders with and live next to evangelicals who attend other churches. Don’t we have a responsibility as part of Christ’s body to help those believers too?
I raise some of these questions here, and a friend who contributes to Reformation Theology, ponders this problem in this post: “Shopping for the Right Church“.
All of this is not to diminish the importance of joining an assembly. And ultimately the responsibility lies in the members to do that. But even in a family, there are varying ages of children and various stages of discernment and independence. We, the church, should allow for the weak, helping them and enfolding them into ourselves. And we should be on the look out for those struggling around us.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Note the link to the article I reference above may be down temporarily for maintenance or something.
Mike,
Your question really is the main issue that large churches face in trying to be obedient to Hebrews 13. Our leaders are accountable for how they shepherd the flock. It is no more possible for Pastor John to know all of the members of Grace personally, than it was for Peter to know all of the thousands of members of the Jerusalem church personally. But his response is a model for us: he appointed others from their number that could lead.
So, the 12 were responsible for shepherding the whole congregation, but they did so by appointing godly men to lead smaller groups.
And again, all of this necessarily entails membership. The deacons were not named to feed all of the widows in the city, and they were not chosen from all of the people in the city.
Thanks,
Jesse
For those interested, Donald Whitney also has a helpful article on church membership. You can read it here.
Bob,
I have heard before that the idea of an official membership being an American invention, and your phrase “for the counting of noses” seems to be in that vein. I really believe that it is biblical, more than it is American. First, it is not so much for the counting of noses as it is for elders to give an account of the souls that they have under their watch. Second, a study of Baptist history shows church membership definitely preexisted the Americas. Today, many churches world-wide, even in places like China, Russia, and repressive parts of Africa, have formal church membership, while being just about as removed from American and democratic principles as is earthly possible.
Jesse
Jesse,
Is it possible that this formal membership deal came about because Elders wanted to define their own responsibility and accountability? An Elder should have a pretty close relationship with the One who builds His church and knows who His sheep are, right? An Elder should have the discernment to know who is under his overview, right? … or have they exchanged discernment for a list? Will the Elder not be accountable for all the goats that are on his list as well as the sheep that are not? If the Lord builds His church by sending a sheep your way, are you not going to provide accountability or minister to him because he is not on your list?
“… all of this necessarily entails membership.” Sorry, that’s not making sense to me.
Thanks, Jesse, for your reply. And thanks, Nate, for the article.
JackW, I’m not sure the shepherds are responsible for the goats too. I’m not sure how they could be. I don’t think, in the account that shepherds have to give, that Jesus will ask them, “Why didn’t you save the goats?” because Jesus knows — and biblical shepherds know — that Jesus saves only His sheep and builds His church Himself.
And I don’t think that having membership means outcasting all those who aren’t members. It means welcoming those who aren’t members and encouraging them to become members. So the comment about refusing to provide accountability, etc. is fairly irrelevant.
For those of you who think membership is a bad idea,I have some questions.
1a. What do you do with someone visiting for the first time? Are they members of your church?
1b. What happens if they never show up again? Are they MIA, but still in the church directory?
1c. What happens if they’re unbelievers, just happening to come in and check things out? Would you sanction their being members of the visible church without being members of the invisible church?
2a. Or does all of this ‘membership is bad’ stuff just center around regular attenders, not those who come once or twice?
2b. If it’s regular attenders, at what point does an attender become regular?
2c. What do you do with them before they’re regular?
Jesse,
Maybe not exclusively American, but English. The Reformation era assumed all members of the state were members of the church too, so they aren’t much help.
Nose counting isn’t the issue really. It just seems strange for elders to wait for people to come to them for shepherding. We are to help the weak (1 Thess. 5) and what if they are so weak they don’t come to us?
Let me be clear, I’m not saying membership is bad. And in today’s world it may even be necessary to have a formal membership.
But in the NT there is no membership classes, no extra hoop people jump through. If they’re saved they are a part of the body. The spirit is the one who gifts them and places them as He will.
Perhaps our club-style (think Roberts rule of order), membership practices discourage many from participating more fully. Perhaps we are allowing people to just attend.
I’m arguing for a fluid sense of membership. A visitor should be allowed access to the Lord’s Supper (assuming they’re saved), even though they may not be a member. People who attend sporadically should be informed that they are to be part of the body, and that the church already considers them to be a member.
You basically tell people they are assumed to be members and we want accountability and participation in service — we are all a family and part of Christ’s body here. If there is a church meeting or business meeting, we simply say any who are here and attend fairly regularly, we want you to know we view you as members so please come, or if you are here, please participate.
In the average church there is really no difference between attenders and members anyway. Except members vote in the meetings. Many churches let attenders teach SS or help in the SS, other churches might limit that to members. But you would hope that the attenders would be visited or encouraged (i.e. shepherded) by the elders just as they would the members.
If you say we can’t practice church discipline on the attenders, then what are we doing letting those who would be disciplined out, if they were members, attend anyway? Is it okay if they sin, but not okay if members sin?
Obviously we leave the door open for the lost to visit us. But the church is for God’s people and they won’t feel at home amongst us much anyway. And if they start to attend regularly, great. We will be shepherding them and discover they aren’t saved and challenge them to become saved.
None of this requires a formal membership, per se. That may make things easier, but it adds red tape where the NT doesn’t have any.
I do plan on reading Whitney’s article, too. Thanks for pointing it out.
These are my thoughts on the issue, though. I’m still growing and learning and of course implementing this would not be easy in light of the years of tradition to the contrary. But hopefully it helps us think Biblically. I recently read a post where Col. 4:9 is looked at carefully. Onesimus had been lost when he left. He became a believer, and has not yet returned, yet Paul counts him as one of the church there in Colosse already. I’m sure he wasn’t on a formal membership roll.
If anyone would like to continue the discussion on my blog, feel free. I started up a new discussion there.
Thanks and God bless,
Bob Hayton
I just read Whitney’s article. It is very good, and Biblically based. Thanks for sharing that.
Now I totally agree with everything he says under “Biblical Reasons for Joining a Church”. I can understand that a big problem today is those who float around from church to church, or those who think (like George Barna) that church is optional.
By no means is it optional. But I can see eliminating those people by simply expanding the membership and challenging the floaters to land here. If they don’t like being treated as members, they’ll leave. Perhaps after being treated as a member for a while, they’ll start to grow and mature.
Some of Don’s arguments assume his conclusion. Others are unfair. Obviously someone about to be kicked out can’t bring in a host of people who don’t attend the church and have them vote. Maybe formal membership is best at preventing that scenario, but I don’t think it is a must.
Now with “join” in Acts 5:13, we still don’t have a formal membership process in view. Those who didn’t join weren’t attending and associating with them. Joining the group meant associating/attending. You can’t prove that a formal membership tier and an informal attending tier are revealed by this text.
In 1 Cor. 14:23 “whole church” by no means implies what Whitney says. Many Biblical scholars, on the basis of Biblical and early church evidence, believe that many churches in the Bible met in a bunch of single homes. 1 Cor. 14, Acts 20, Acts 15, and other places imply the idea of all the little house churches still being considered 1 church, and at times meeting together for business. The verse in question likely refers to this scenario, and the details of the meetings in ch. 14, and the observance of the Lord’s Supper in ch. 11 would bear this out, as the details are more in line with a house-church kind of meeting/gathering.
Finally his metaphors argument supports my point. The Spirit is building the stones together into a Temple, He is placing the gifts around in the church as He sees fit. The body is the body, even if the eye tells the hand it doesn’t need him. In light of the metaphors, when you see a bunch of attenders on the outside of membership, you think: what’s that?? The metaphor supports either veiw really. Either they really are a part of us, we’re just not recognizing them. Or they need to become a part of us.
One other thought on this. In the examples of baptism in the NT, often the preachers/evangelizers just plain baptized the people. They didn’t wait for them to formally present themselves to the church to request it. They just did it, because they were shepherding the people. Cornelious’ household, and the Philippian jailor’s are examples of this.
Why shouldn’t the elders just shepherd all the people. Again the sheep don’t select their elder.
One other downside to this view is the idea that being a part of one church isn’t all that important. I can pick up and move with no big deal. I’ll just formally join the next church. If we really are the church, such moves should be more carefully thought through.
I confess to skimming this discussion, so I may have missed someone making this point. I apologize if it’s a repeat.
After making the case for membership, why are we apparently so shy to ask those who refuse to join to defend their decision? Why would a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ want to withhold the most visible and obvious possible commitment from the church of which He is the Head? How can we love the Lord but keep ourselves aloof from His beloved church? Why would you NOT want to vote on important things?
Seems to me we let this discussion put us on the defensive about membership when it should be the other way around. Anyone else think the burden of proof is on the ones who refuse to commit to the fullest?
Jim
Bob,
I don’t want to get too far off of the subject here, but membership is no more English than it is American. Paedobaptist churches (of which I think you are referring to when you speak of “reformation era” churches) have a different view on membership than Baptists do. But when you look at Baptist history, you find that membership is prevalent world-wide, in countries immune from English influence, and I would argue that you see it even prior to the advent of the church state. These may have taken different forms (I’m not suggesting there was a two-hour class followed by their pictures on the wall), but the idea of a believer having to join the church is seen pretty much throughout church history.
I don’t like calling membership “an extra hoop to jump through.” It is more than a hoop, or a flippantly kept list of names. It is a group of people, under the leadership of elders, who are united in one local body for the sake of the Gospel.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, even though we disagree.
Jesse
Church membership is an issue that I haven’t really looked at until more recently, and I still do not have very much insight into it, so I always appreciate reading more about it.
I guess I will just voice my own questions about the subject so that I might continue to learn from those who have saught out an answer from Scripture.
I am convinced that it is a good method to observe the clear instruction on elder roles in the church given to us in the Bible. But it is still hard for me to see a bullet proof exposition of Scripture that would cause me to believe that every church that does not have membership is in direct violation of the Word of God. I think small churches might be fine without church membership, since the leadership would have no problem knowing their flock and be able to rightly shepherd them. At a church like Grace, however, I think it is a very efficient and wise way to do things because of the mass of people who attend.
I quote:
“Rather, they are primarily responsible to shepherd those who have submitted themselves to the care and the authority of the elders, and this is done through church membership.”
Do you think it is possible that scriptural mandates concerning shepherding and the church could be fulfilled by other methods? I would be interested on your thoughts on the matter.
Because He lives,
Nathan
1 Cor. 15:19
Thanks Jesse also for the gracious exchange.
I have a comment/question based off of what I read and have experienced. What should you do with a family who regularly attends but refuses to become members because of their “biblical convictions” (besides asking them to articulate those convictions)? In some ways, it’s as if they are “common law” members–if they were living together with someone as long as they have attended the church, they would be considered married by “common law” in some states (that ought to get some interesting comments, please read my illustration with grace).
My current thought is you treat them just as you would treat members, with the exception of voting (which I think is important to restrict to only formal members). It would be better and easier to shepherd them, both for themselves and the church, (because of the issues already raised in the article) if they would become formal members, but if you know they are regularly there, how can you not shepherd them the best that you can?
Another question–I can understand the need to discipline someone, a professing believer, who regularly attends but is not a formal member. Could this cause legal problems (if someone pursued it)? I’m not saying this should stop church discipline, but I’m just wondering.
It seems that some of the objections to formal church membership are stated from a post-modern viewpoint and display a discomfort with clear, defined, formal boundaries for the local church. From the references provided in the article, and the surrounding context of those passages, it seems that the biblical precedent is one of a clearly defined, known, and submittd church membership. Secondly, not only from the Reformation era (in it’s western context), but also extending back from early church history (in it’s non-western context), it is my understanding that formal church membership has always been the accepted practice for church leaders to shepherd their local assembly. Thus it is clear that membership matters for the church today.
Bob, earlier in your post you said, “By requiring attenders to jump through another hoop, the hoop of formally requesting membership, we allow for a 2 tiered system of membership. The members, and the attenders. Members are shepherded and attenders are allowed to just exist.” In resonse to that, I would say two things. First, I think it is unfair to say that “formally requesting membership” is just another “hoop”. I doubt that the leaders of my church or any church seeking to lead people biblically, have the desire or the time to design, implement, and maintain “hoops” for people to jump through. In Hebrews 13:17, the elders are to lead the church in an effort to “keep watch over your souls”. The request for church membership is done with that intent, not to cause inconvenience or needless structure.
Secondly, the onus of Hebrews 13:17 lies with the church members. The church members are responsible to submit to the leadership of the elders in a way that would bring joy to those in authority. It is not the elders responsibility when people attending the church just “exist”. It is the responsibility of those attending in the church to seek and submit to the leadership and oversight of the elders in the church. What better way for me to submit to the elders of my church than to become a formal member, rather that simply allowing myself to exist outside of their sphere of care?
Thanks for the good article on why membership matters. It is good to be reminded of my responsibility to the church and also of benefits I receive as a formal member, submitted to my elders.
Thanks for this series, as it very relevant to my current situation.
We have attended a Baptist church for a year, and we have not yet become members. I have been pretty faithful in attending the Men’s Bible Studies, so when I asked about facilitating a study for this fall, I was asked to attend the leadership meeting. After this, I was set to facilitate a study.
Then last week I was asked if I was a member of the church, and I told the leader that I was not. He informed me that I needed to be a member of the church before I could facilitate. After speaking to an deacon, he told me that someone needs to be a member for a year before teaching a SS class. So it appears as though no matter what your situation is, you have to wait a year before being able to serve where you feel gifted.
I feel like there is a “two tier” status for church membership. Thanks for considering this post.
Michael,
I am not wanting to be post-modern or anything. This stems from my understanding of the Bible and my desire for Biblical unity.
In fact, I am not trying to allow for membership to be no big deal. I’m trying to make it so every attender is a member or becoming one. I’m calling for more interaction/participation than the current system.
In our culture it may be foolish to suggest what I do. It may be necessary. But in the NT membership is just assumed.
My thoughts on the “hoop” stem from the fact that many churches wait until a believer submits themselves for membership class or comes down an aisle to be a member. While they wait, they well could be missing out on shepherding. They may be waiting only because they don’t know they’re supposed to, or they don’t understand more is required of them. Often we make such people very comfortable hoping they gradually become a part of us. Is that not promoting a two tiered system to some degree?
Also, while fellowship with 1 body is essential, often we neglect other believers around us and other churches down the street. Who cares about them, we have our own problems. I don’t see that in Scripture, I see a more radical unity called for. And a continual interaction among churches and believers.
One of the regular commenters on my blog said I may be coming across as a little nit-picky, but he had seen examples where membership was abused in churches. Where the pastor always said “membership has benefits!”, like it was an American Express club or something. Abuses exist.
I agree Heb. 13:17 puts an onus on members, but there are a host of other applicable passages, many of which call on the elders to lead and shepherd. Peter: feed my flock!
Anyways, hopefully I am a little more clear here. Regardless, let it be clear I think membership important. I just think everyone should be a member, without a formal list or anything.
Blessings from the Cross,
Bob Hayton
Although there is no scriptural command for church membership, there is nothing that prohibits it.
Membership allows us to identify ourselves with a local body if believers (local church).
It helps us to be accountable and it also teaches us how to be submissive.
Hebrew 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you”.
Jesse and all,
Having read through both posts and comments, it is obvious that membership is a broad subject with many nuances. We’ve all brought different angles in here. But I think I see a basic difference in the arguments, at a presuppositional level, that have very different ways of working themselves out. The consequences differ by no small degree. Here’s how I see the differences in our views:
In the view of these two articles, membership is an act to be performed by each individual believer. This act is somehow to be noticed by ruling elders (if they are even aware who is among them, and may be even less aware as for whom they will give an account), and these elders get to define who can be members.
In my view, membership is an already completed act, not by men, but by Christ Himself in joining us to Him in union. Membership is therefore passive for the believer, and is recognized by the elders simply on the basis of profession of faith and assembly with other believers - becasue God placed them in that assembly. No believer would go unnoticed and the unseemly amongst them would receive the higher honor.
Now for something that confuses me. “Sadly, the widespread lack of understanding of church membership has made it necessary for our elders to discipline not only formal members but also those who regularly fellowship at Grace Community Church. However, the Bible’s teaching on church discipline assumes church membership.” The second sentence assumes church membership, which is exactly my argument. Membership is assumed. All believers who attend are members. If this is the case, there’s never any need to label somebody a “regular attender.” If they’re not members of Christ’s body, how can they engage in “fellowship”? Because they’re engaged in [true] fellowship with other believers who they assemble with and worship with and minister to, this tells me that they truly are members already in obedience to Christ, just like the “formal” members.
Tim,
I always feel weird about saying, “If I were you, I’d do this this and this.” But I’m not sure how else to begin to offer a suggestion in the context of your question.
So, in my opinion, I think you first engage those people’s ‘biblical convictions.’ It’s probably the case that if they’re not becoming members based on those, they’re praying that the situation in the church changes. My point is that they’re probably very important issues to them, and so I would listen attentively and be ready to search the Scriptures on everything that they say. Then, assuming you think they’re wrong, I’d focus on instructing those people on these issues with clear, well thought-out evidence from the Bible.
If they still are not convinced, I think you should stress the importance of membership, and that if they aren’t comfortable becoming a member at your church they should seek to be a member in A church, wherever it might be. I say this not to promote disunity, but to promote truth-based unity (2 John) and to not defile each other’s consciences. For people to stay attending a church but not beoming members based on doctrinal issues must be hard for their conscience. They (in their minds, at least) know something is wrong, but know that they’re not the authority to change it, and so they wait and pray faithfully hoping that God will change hearts on the issue. If you’re sure that this isn’t going to change, and neither of you are able to be instructed otherwise from Scripture, I think you need to tell them that they need to serve and worship in a place where they can do it from a clear conscience and while feeling safe and shepherded.
Hope it helps,
MIKE
Steve,
My short answer is that it is the difference between the visable and invisible church; or the difference between the local and universal church. I think if you grant that there is a difference, then you see a distinction in Spirit and water baptism, salvation and church membership, and passive vs. active joining a church.
Thanks,
Jesse
Jesse,
I figured that that might be a difference, visible and invisible church. Recently I’ve come to view the doctrine of the invisible church as merely a theological construct, with NT emphasis on the local church. Thanks for all your input and explanation! I’ve learned much from all the comments.
Jesse,
I’d like to address the practice of church discipline of members from other local church congregations. What should a believer do if he or she is aware of a brother or sister’s persistent sin of another local church body? Presumably, if the believer (and a second person) confronts the brother or sister and that person refuses to repent, what should be the next step? Should the believer eventually contact the elder(s) of that congregation?
What is your opinion about church membership on a yearly, not “permanent” basis? Where each year, those committed to the church make an annual covenant? Anything unbiblical about it?
This idea is raised in Jan Lynn’s Rocking the Church Membership Boat: Having Members Who Count Rather Than Counting the Roll. It advocates how this method encourages everyone to count the cost and get involved. It eliminates the inactive and lazy whose names are on the roll, but they’re not involved. Feedback appreciated.