Is Official/Formal Church Membership In A Local Church According To Scripture? – Part 4 Series

IS OFFICIAL/FORMAL CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IN A LOCAL CHURCH ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE? – PART 4

We have been looking at some passages of scripture from Paul’s writings and in vain, do we look for even the slightest suggestion that a church has official membership that discriminates among the Christians who go there.

There is no “crew and passengers” as one Baptist pastor considered it. We conclude this study with a few more passages, then move to reasons to justify such a practice of official membership from the proponents of it.

[G]. A SHORT EPHESIAN PASSAGE

{{Ephesians 5:29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

Ephesians 5:30 BECAUSE WE ARE MEMBERS OF HIS BODY.}}

“. . . because you are official members of your church, having submitted to a membership procedure.” NO NO! Paul does not say that or suggest it in any way. Just members of His Body! ONLY that!

Right throughout Ephesians, Paul knows only these two memberships – of the Body, and members of each other. The word of God is so clear about that so it begs logic why men supposedly gifted in the word, would impose something not of God.

[H]. THE ONE MEMBERSHIP – NAMES IN THE BOOK OF LIFE

{{Philippians 4:1 “Therefore, my beloved brethren whom I long to see, my joy and crown, so stand firm in the Lord, my beloved.

Philippians 4:2 I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord.

Philippians 4:3 Indeed, true comrade, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, WHOSE NAMES ARE IN THE BOOK OF LIFE.”}}

Names are in the book of life – the only membership that counts. Not a hint of any other. Never a mention in any New Testament book that something needs to come up to the “members” for consideration after the service. Never a mention for a vote to be taken by members (to the exclusion of non-members). (Members stay behind for a quick meeting while others leave! Monstrous, and discrimination!) Even the concept of that to the New Testament church would have been reprehensible. It would have been considered as division. That is because there was NO official membership.

[I]. LORDING IT OVER THE SAINTS IN THE CHURCH

{{3 John 1:9 “I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.”}}

Here is a man who had the audacity to lord it over the Apostle John. Even in the first century you had this problem of those who discriminate in the body dividing it up. This could be through personal pride doing the devil’s work (in the case of Diotrephes), or in the acceptance of a practice that has existed for some time and never examined scripturally.

This is getting closer to the truth why some of this questionable stuff is done. People want to entrench themselves and it causes discrimination among the Christians. Too many churches have a Diotrephes who would like to dictate their way in meetings/fellowships and churches. If the Apostle John was not listened to, don’t be surprised if you are ignored.

[J]. THE LAST SCRIPTURAL PASSAGE TO BE CONSIDERED

{{1 Corinthians 1:10 “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1 Corinthians 1:11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.

1 Corinthians 1:12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”

1 Corinthians 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptised in the name of Paul?”}}

In this very important passage there is no membership mentioned. It is “brethren” as Paul is addressing the whole church, not an exclusive membership within that church who have submitted to a man-contrived practice. Baptism again is the reason held as the groundwork for relationships. Both baptisms are relevant and were always linked in time closely because there was none of this nonsense of baptismal classes or probationary time after salvation. “Members of Christ’s body” was all that bound members one to another. Artificial church membership is not scriptural. Has Christ been divided? Well in churches that uphold an official membership they are dividing Christ as they are dividing His members of the Body. It is so wrong.

It is sad that church practices are sometimes based on lack of spiritual understanding and on tradition. In the days of the Roman Catholic Church before the Reformation the child was made a member of the church by baptism (infant christening) and that mode of membership was man-made because it certainly was not of God; not found in the New Testament. Even so, at that time a person could go from one cathedral or Catholic parish church after another and not have any official requirement of a local church membership because that person was considered a “child of God”. I am not defending the Catholic system. However it was understood there that when a person became a member of Christ’s body through christening, (according to Catholic tradition), then that was all that was necessary, except for confirmation later on.