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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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”.

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

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.

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.