Why Membership Matters (Part 2)
August 21st, 2008
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.
Thanks for this posting on church membership. Our small body have some people who are not members and this will helpful to me to relay to them the importance of being a member of a body of believers. Too many times, church membership is not stressed
Blessings,
David
Thank you for this post. I wish that every Christian could and would take the time to read it. More and more, the Holy Spirit impresses upon me that God’s people need to understand that Biblical church membership is part or our responsibility in our covenant relationship with Christ and His body.
I could give you a lengthy full page post on the importance of this covenant relationship, but I’ll just leave you for now with a verse from the book of Hebrews, which is the N.T. book of what the “better covenant” is all about.
Hebrews 10:25 - “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” This is not simply a suggestion.
Then the second part Ephesians 5:25 states the undeniable, overwhelming truth in volumes to us, and
that truth is: “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;”
We have made the church out to be some social club,
however, Christ did not die for social clubs, and with the many other Scriptures that speak in volumes concerning this, the bottom line is that “Christ… gave himself for it ( the Church);”
In our “Americanizing” or “Westernizing” of Christianity, something of the utmost, prime importance has been gotten away from to the extent that, for the most part, it is pretty much altogether left out of what it means to be a Christian.
If the Church is the apple of God’s eye; If the Church is so tenderly and affectionately called the “Bride of Christ”; If “Christ…LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT;” If the Church means that much to the Lord Jesus, if He loved the Church so much that He sacrificed Himself, shed His blood and died for the Church; if the Church is that precious and important to Him,… then, should it not be important to a body of believers who are supposed to be in covenant relationship with Him and with each other?
Pastor Michael Parnell
I enjoyed your two part series on “membership matters.” Thank you for taking the time to write it. There are some things that concern me about what people believe in placing membership.
Please understand that there is nothing wrong with identifying with a church, in fact I appreciate knowing that people want to be a part and are ready to go to work. But please there are two things that concern me with placing membership:
1)Understand that your placing your name on a church roll doesn’t save you or make you any more or less acceptable to the Father. God’s not looking for members; He’s asking for followers. God didn’t call us to be a social club, but a place for the spiritually sick. I don’t believe I’ve ever read that when the Lord returns He’ll stop by the church building, get the church roll and use it as the Lambs Book of Life. You know, if you’re on the roll, you’re good to go when it comes to heaven! Too many think if your a member of a church, that’s all that matters to God.
2) I was shocked recently when a new family inquired about joining the church where I preach. They asked, “When will you let us know how the vote goes?” I said, “Vote? What vote?” They replied, “You know, whether or not we get in. The last place we attended voted on whether or not we could become members of their church?” I immediately picked my jaw up off the floor. I could just hear the voice of the Soup Nazi from the old Seinfeld show screaming, “SORRY! No Church for You!” I believe no one, I repeat, no one, has the right to vote on membership. The church was never intended to be something that you have to get voted into. If you are worshipping with a church that does that, you may be in the wrong kind of church. Last I checked, it is the Lord that adds you to His church (Acts 2:47). That’s the church I want to be a part of. I’ve looked and looked and no where have I ever found a church has the right to vote on someone’s membership.
would someone please elaborate on what this means, “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.”
are the elders not entrusted to deal with members in accordance with sanctity, dignity and diligence according to the Bible?
Do you have advice for those who are already members of a fairly large church and want to be held more accountable by their pastors? Most of the pastors at my church hardly know my name. I know pastors are to be my overseers, but it seems like they just don’t have time to know every person in the congregation. Should I try to consistently talk with my pastors every Sunday, or have counseling for the sake of them knowing my inner life better? Or is it simply enough to be part of a small group in my church?
Those who won’t commit to membership says something about the heart.
i love to commit to the Church. I am committed to the universal Church.
Yet at this time I have not found a local church to committ to, since I had to leave my last church. I was with a non-denom EFCA church for 17 years, and we split. I was an elder who had to step down.
Living in the Body of Christ sure is messy. I thought it would be much more pleasant, but it is downright gut-wrenching at times.
But my soul burns to be committed to a good church. may the Lord lead me I pray. Amen. Actually I’m “attending” a solid biblical church, but it’s 45 minutes away, and I am not going to committ as yet. Though my wife and I do love to worship the Lord, and hear the truth of His Word preached by a true pastor/teacher.
It’s a joyous command to come and worship Christ our Lord!
I served as an elder at a liberal Protestant church. (At the time I joined I didn’t know that it was a liberal Protestant church. I thought that any church that was Baptist was NOT a liberal church. Boy, was I wrong!)
Anyways, the pastor-elder started not to believe in membership. He would do baptisms, but he wouldn’t conduct membership classes (which he used to do). We had lengthy e-discussions about membership. And since he refused to do them anymore, I had to conduct the membership classes.
What befuddled me is that he was a member of the church and in the membership covenant that he signed, there was a stipulation to uphold the church constitution. And the church constitution specifically had a section on membership and its importance.
What I’ve subsequently learned is that some/many Christians and pastors don’t believe that membership in a local church body is necessary, nor do they believe that the doctrine of membership is biblically based and supported.
I’m aghast at this, but apparently it’s a growing phenomenon. Particularly with Emerging churches or LibProt churches.
So I think this series is both timely and excellent by Pastor MacArthur.
Truth Unites … and Divides.
I am a theologically conservative pastor at a church where we do not have an official “membership roll”. I believe that everyone who enters the door of this church provides us a God-given privilege and responsibility to bring the word of God to bear upon their lives. We welcome all who come, and in our follow-up visit carefully explain that our goal is to preach the gospel and disciple the saints. As a church we practice church discipline and strongly encourage those who attend to utilize their gifts for the building up of the body. As elders, we prayerfully seek to minister to each and every person who has shown a desire to be a part of our fellowship (consistent attendance). I do not see where an absence of an official membership roll has prevented us from applying any of the truths brought out in these articles. What we have found is that those who do not want to be a part of a local church and partake of the responsibilities associated with being a part of the body of Christ, quickly leave and go somewhere else where they can attend church and remain uninvolved as a “non-member.”
From part 1:
“he is therefore qualified to become member of a local expression of that body.”
Where is this stated in Scripture?
The entire concept of membership beyond the membership in the body of Christ granted at salvation is absent from Scripture. It is a wholly man-made invention.
“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”
Where is this stated in Scripture as something the believer must do?
In fact, the believer’s outward identification with the body of Christ is believer’s baptism.
“Although Scripture does not contain an explicit command to formally join a local church…”
Not only that, but there is no distinction of “formal” vs “informal” just as there is no distinction between “member” and “regular attender”. A member in the body of Christ (that is, one who is saved) is a regular attender of the local gathering of believers.
“all suggest recognizable church membership with well-defined boundaries”
The examples given do no such thing. They do not suggest anything beyond what they clearly state. The local gathering of believers existed, there was a knowledge of widows to support, and when a believer moved their place of residence (a rare event in those times, btw) the local gathering might give them a letter to help confirm their faithfulness so the local gathering at the new location would feel confident in accepting them in right away as a fellow brother. None of this gives any support to a formal membership system. If anything, the mention of such details in various places throughout the New Testament while being entirely silent about a formal membership process is in itself a fairly significant thing to note and should give us pause.
from Part2:
“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.”
No, what they presuppose is that there are Christians attending a local gathering. Anything more is a tenuous presupposition more akin to the very type of careless exegesis we are so faithful to argue against when it impacts the doctrines we hold more dear.
“Those responsibilities require that there be a distinguishable, mutually understood membership in the local church.”
They do not. They only require that there be a local gathering of believers over which the elders ‘exercise oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not domineering over those in their charge, but being examples to the flock’. (1 Peter 5)
“Elders can shepherd the people and give an account to God for their spiritual well-being only if they know who they are”
This argument for membership is a very strident mistake. Only God knows a person’s heart and true salvation status. But He has told us we can tell a lot about a person’s heart by two things: the fruit they bear and what comes out of their mouth. Not by them signing some man-made pledge, not by burdening themselves with an unnecessary oath, and not by binding themselves with a man-made covenant.
The elders will know who they are responsible for by who gathers, and of those, who bears fruit in keeping with repentance. There is nothing else given _in Scripture_ (which is what we must keep in mind as the basis of what is acceptable for us to require) for the elders to have power or authority to enact over the sheep. They have no authority to require some sort of formal membership, _especially_ if it includes a man-made oath or covenant, no matter how nice it might sound or how many other churches might practice such things. We are accountable to God’s word, not what other people do. There really is no excuse for going outside the bounds of Scripture just because we ‘think’ or we ‘feel’ something is a good idea. That’s liberal theology. Take care, brothers.
donsands: “Those who won’t commit to membership says something about the heart.”
No, it shows some careful study of the Scriptures on their part and a willingness to discern instead of just throwing caution to the wind and going with the crowd when it comes to this topic.
If you had said, “Those who won’t commit to serving in their local church says something about the heart,” I would have agreed with you.
That is what demonstrates a heart problem: An unwillingness to serve the brethren. And service is not defined by a man-made covenant or promise, it is defined by one’s actions: Our words and our deeds. As we learn in Scripture, binding oneself to a man-made covenant can only lead to problems because it puts us in a position where we can fail to keep our word, but thankfully for those who unwittingly agree to such things, God is still gracious to forgive us when we fail. Yet it would have been better had they not done such a thing in the first place since it is unnecessary for the believer to add a man-made binding on top of his already God-given duty to serve the body of Christ.
Mike and Wake,
Do you reject Pastor MacArthur’s argument here:
“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.”
Wake,
I can see where you’re coming from.
I think a commitment to be a member,that is have a commitment statement of the local church, and join in with the rest, who are committed, is a healthy thing.
So, I guess i see commitment and membership as basically hand in hand.
I am committed to the Lord. I am committed to my wife, and family. And I will commit myself to a local church, because it’s a similair commitment. not as serious and binding, but still a commitment.
“If you had said, “Those who won’t commit to serving in their local church says something about the heart,” I would have agreed with you.”
That’s what I’m saying, bottom line. And membership is a good thing. It makes for a healthy church I believe, and can be very joyful, and even peaceful.
We do need to remember we are still in our flesh, and to sign a commitment may help us stay within the blessings of the Lord, which is when we join in with His church.
Truth Unites … and Divides
I do not reject Pastor MacArthur’s statement outright but am not convinced it proves a valid “biblical foundation” either. I see no instruction concerning the forming of an official church membership in the NT. As I said in my previous post, we as a church practice church discipline and exhort our people to use their gifts for the edification of the body. We have appointed elders to lead the flock and deacons to serve. The fact that we do not have a formal church membership does not hinder those biblical activities. Our desire is that we lead this church in a solidly biblical and God-honoring way and am not convinced (from my study of the Scripture or the points made in these articles) that a formal church membership roll must be developed and maintained to ensure that a church does what is clearly prescribed in Scripture.
“So, I guess i see commitment and membership as basically hand in hand.
I am committed to the Lord. I am committed to my wife, and family. And I will commit myself to a local church, because it’s a similair commitment. not as serious and binding, but still a commitment.”
Yet oddly enough, those first three arguably more significant commitments (the Lord, one’s spouse, and one’s children/family) do not require a physical document (in their true God-ward relationship sense, not talking about what secular governments might require) to prove their validity. And as far as we can see in Scripture, neither does one’s participation in the local assembly.
“We do need to remember we are still in our flesh, and to sign a commitment may help us stay within the blessings of the Lord, which is when we join in with His church. ”
Sounds nice, but I can’t find a statement in Scripture (in context of course) that supports such a claim that adding a man-made document to one’s affirmation actually makes it any better in God’s eyes or increases our likelihood of blessing, let alone any encouraging us to do such a thing.
But I seem to remember there are examples that quite the opposite happens to people who bind themselves unnecessarily, and how foolish believers at times did bind themselves with a self-made/man-made oath and because they, being human and in the flesh as you noted, cannot and did not perfectly keep such things. Thus all the added oath really does is to make greater the sin of their failure to keep what they have not just said they would do but indeed made a binding promise to do. And with the greater sin comes, if anything, a further distancing from “the blessings of the Lord”, not any help to “stay within them”.
Yes, God demonstrates his mercy to forgive them even though they disregarded his warnings against doing such things, but we are not supposed to be ignorant brethren acting foolishly or being so bound. I do see statements to the effect that we should not be binding ourselves with man-made oaths and covenants since we have been freed from all such things in Christ, because it is the power of Christ in us to do good, not mere human achievement that we can somehow proudly affirm and state our own will about like the heathen must in order to be believed by others or taken at his word. Which brings up the further point that we in the body of Christ should not need such things amongst ourselves, being in Christ.
With books like this, the issue of church membership may become moot.
Wake, you have a good conviction.
Surely membership is explicitly biblical, but neither is it unbiblical. I lean toward a healthy commitment statement for the people of the Lord to agree on, and then have the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace take hold, though is it essential? No.
I think it’s better though. I’ve been a non-member church, and a membership church. Both have their problems. But the commitment to one another for the Gospel, and a particular group of believers gives a little more accountability.
Go bless.
“is explicitly biblical” Meant to say: “Is not explicitly biblical”
I believe more people would commit themselves if they in the least bit saw leadership be the example of commitment and caring over the souls of people. Too many times the reason for membership is so that elders can shepherd souls. The fact is, too many people are never once called, never once spoken to by any leader, never once asked about their lives, and surely, those who are members see no shepherding over their lives. Ask around and see how many times pastors or elders called them to check on them, see what’s going on, what are their prayer needs, etc. Even before membership…how many people are called by a leader and asked to come in and talk. It’s usually some formal letter sent out to all visitors. In my Christian life there have been only two churches that truly cared for and shepherded my soul. Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, and the church I’m at now, Crosspoint Baptist Church in Baton Rouge. To have pastors after all this time actually call, email, and ask me how I’m doing (I’m a single mom with one daughter) and ask me if all is well has meant the world. Haven’t had this since Grace when I was first saved. I’ve been through a terrible trial and my faith in my church nearly destroyed because of the complete breakdown in shepherding my soul (and my young daughter). Where were all these verses then? And there was zero call from my pastor or an elder to my child who had had the cruelest things done to her. Men who should have known better. As a member it was devastating. So, back to the first thing I said…when leaders start investing in people it will show and other people will see it in action. But I could never tell someone to be a member so they can be shepherded…I haven’t seen that happen very often.
“But I could never tell someone to be a member so they can be shepherded…I haven’t seen that happen very often.”
Would you encourage someone to be a member of Grace Community in Sun Valley, and Crosspoint?
Susan: “I believe more people would commit themselves if they in the least bit saw leadership be the example of commitment and caring over the souls of people. … The fact is, too many people are never once called, never once spoken to by any leader, never once asked about their lives, and surely, those who are members see no shepherding over their lives.”
Susan, in general I agree with you. In fact, I heartily agree with you.
However, even if the pastors and elders don’t entirely fulfill the responsibilities of their office to shepherd, protect, and feed the flock as they equip the flock (saints) for ministry, that doesn’t mean that one doesn’t have to be a committed member of a local church body.
Pax.
Don Sands: “I’ve been a non-member church, and a membership church. Both have their problems. But the commitment to one another for the Gospel, and a particular group of believers gives a little more accountability.”
I’d like to point out here that the argument is NOT so much about having a membership vs. not having a membership, but what actually constitutes membership. Saying a church does not have a formal membership is actually not quite correct. It simply does not have a “man-made” membership. Since the church is an “assembly”, all those who “assemble” already are members according to Scripture. “Non-members” of churches are really members that are incorrectly labeled as such because those who set up man-made memberships don’t realize that God has His own formal membership. Any Christian whom He has assemble with other believers in a church is an act of formal membership by God. “But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.” 1 Cor 12:18. What could possibly be more formal than something God does providentially? Let’s recognize every assembled, Baptized Christian as aldready members of our churches, placed there by God just as He desired and we wouldn’t have to be so confused.
And some members will be manifest to not be members. They will go out from us, because they were not of us.
Many false disciples in the Church.
I guess that’s what I’m dealing with, when I look deep at my heart.
I have seen many come to church, become members, say they are Christians, and then only to bear no fruit. But it may be years before they do.
It’s difficult for me to understand.
Thanks for all the healthy dialog.
Don and Steve Scott - good points, all.
I guess I see this as someone who is (by God’s grace) a faithful attender, supporter, and servant in a local assembly, though i am not a “member” there (in the man-made sense) because they require taking a covenant, which I cannot in good conscience do. I’ve discussed it with the elders and the result of our discussions is that they recognize there is no command in scripture requiring (or even allowing them to require, really) a covenant to consider someone a true member of the body, but they think it’s a ‘good thing’ (imho liberal theology) so they aren’t going to change that practice but are fine with (br)others attending and being involved that haven’t signed the covenant but have (as I have) gone through the church doctrines class and been interviewed by the pastor and elders, given their testimony, etc. I think the entire situation just proves how ancillary (in the vestigial sense) having such a covenant is, but that’s just me and I keep my opinion to myself.
Hey Don, I would tell someone that this man made membership (sign a card, covenant etc) is not biblical, but there are reasons in the world we live that make things easier on everyone to have a list of their members. (However, still no excuse to then term it biblical). In the discussion, I would focus on the need to get to know people and commit oneself to them–card or no card. I would also praise my church (and Grace) for their care over me and their desire to follow Christ in this. If I could tell every pastor what it means that my precious pastors (and here they are 30ish!)care enough to call, email, and check on me and my daughter, they would never neglect it.
Another friend came to salvation and was married to an unbeliever. They owned several fine hotels. She desired to be baptised and the one good church she was in told her she had to agree to the church covenant of membership which forbade her to sell or be a party to any sale of alcohol. Alas, she couldn’t be baptised or join the church.
Susan
Susan,
Thanks for your response. “I agree card or no card.”
You can have loving genuine pastors & elders in a membership type church, who truly love the Lord and love His people. And you can have self-righteous types as well. And vis versa.
For all of us, the essential focus is Christ. We need to set our eyes, and hearts upon Him. He must have “the preeminence” in all things, and so we must “set our affections on things above, not on things of the earth”.
And we need to submit ourselves to God’s pastors & elders (Heb. 13:17), those who are genuine, called by God. We will know them by their fruit. The fruit is love. Love for Christ, for His Word, and for His Church. And even for our enemies