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.
The protestant Reformation was a movement harassed by division, severe argumentation and an imperfect break from the teachings of Rome. Many of Rome’s practices were continued such as infant christening, and the parish/cathedral priest (now called pastor or minister or rector, etc. in Protestant circles), vestments. When a person in a Reformed church, eg Lutheran, was christened and then confirmed (some had salvation by faith) that person was accepted in the wider fellowship and whatever Lutheran church he belonged to, made no difference. There was not the requirement he now has to sign up to become a member of each separate church. In fact the official membership did not apply.
We have Baptists who require official membership, (in my State they do) and the way some go on about it, you’d think it was a pivotal importance in the church. They practise membership portability from a previous church. In fact they have even added to what the Reformed churches did. I even question if the rite of official membership is a hangover of the christening/confirmation rites, in that it is a means of locking people into a system.
There are a number of Baptist churches who do not have official membership requirements and these are the ones who can see clearly. May the Lord enlighten us. This is not picking on Baptists but it is where I have seen glaring problems with the system.
[K]. FINAL THOUGHTS ON THIS MEMBERSHIP MATTER
(a). MEMBERS. Paul never uses “members of a local church” in his writings. It is always members of the Body; the Body of Christ. Christians were made members of the Body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit when that person was born again. Apart from being members one of another, Paul knows of no other membership.
(b). UNDESIRABLES. One reason for some churches having membership is their belief that it keeps undesirables out of the church and especially from making decisions. This is so flawed. To begin with, are you saying that that your Membership Meetings are pure? I have seen some of the most disgraceful behaviour at Members Meetings.
Secondly, it is a fear that you are not in control and that “undesirables” might overtake you. This is the old “What if” argument. It is based on a fear of what might happen but almost certainly never does.
Thirdly, it is elitism. The underlying impression is that members are endowed with special ability to be able to do what other Christians can not do. This comes back to the “crew and passengers” position.
Some churches have an interview session with new people to see if they make the grade, then present findings at a Member’s Meeting. It is like admittance to the local Golf Club inner circle. It is based on this fear that an undesirable might creep in and destroy the church. Where is the spiritual discernment that a church is supposed to have? That is how any trouble is negated.
(c). CHANGES. Some say changes in the way of doing things are necessary to maintain a properly running church and Members Rolls and special membership will do that. In fact, that is wrong. Each New Testament church had a governing body of spiritual men called elders who were the overseers for the church. They have that responsibility before God.
Of course changes are necessary. We don’t necessarily meet in upper rooms or recline at a table at meetings.
(d). PROBLEMS ENOUGH. Churches have enough problems without creating potentially another one through official membership. It is not necessary or scripturally supported. In China, fellowships operate of genuine Christians, in underground churches, and the fear of persecution is great and there is no nonsense of membership. They know the truth of the one Body, the Body of Christ, the Church. Our western nations may face persecution very soon if the Rapture is delayed and when it becomes severe, then membership concoctions will be no longer relevant. Those with the courage to stand for Jesus are the members of His Body.
[L]. EXTERNAL SITES FOR FORMAL CHURCH MEMBERSHIP
I found a site called “Bible Overview - Christian living Why do churches have “Members”? That happens to be an independent Baptist site, and it sets out reasons why Christians need to have a recognised membership in churches. I want to look at the points given and speak to them.
[1]. The opening statement in this article begins this way:- [[“Church membership can be a contentious subject. Every church handles the matter of members differently, though churches within the same denomination are likely to treat membership similarly. This author comes from an independent Baptist background and within that small subset of Christian churches the views on membership range from no membership at all, to every one who attends regularly is a member, to very strict membership rules regarding members.”]]
[2]. Argument 1 – [[“Membership is based on the practice of the New Testament church. The Bible does not give any specifc command instructing churches to have a list of members yet the earliest churches clearly had a way to recognize who was a part and who not. In Acts 5:12-13, while the church was still in its infancy, there was a distinction drawn between those who received the benefit of the apostles ministry and those who joined themselves to the church.”]]
This is so wrong and the argument is invalid. Recognising who is a believer in a church and who might not be, has no relationship to official membership whatsoever. Acts 5 comes after Acts 2 where we are told all the believers have all things in common. As I said, an invalid argument.
[3]. Argument 2 – [[2 Corinthians 2:6 “make it apparent that the church had a way to expel members by a majority vote and had a way to reinstate expelled members who later repented. From the very beginning the church had a way of defining who was part and who was not. That process, however it may operate, is called membership.”]]
Who said anything about voting in 2 Corinthians 2:6? There was no voting as the mind of the Lord was known through the elders who had the oversight. People did not vote! They submitted to the decision of the elders, even if some did not agree. Even if you allow a loose membership, it has nothing to do with church procedures today. This is a furphy.
[4]. Argument 3 – [[The local church is described as a body (1 Corinthians 12) and the Bible presents a clear expectation of those in the body to be actively involved. Membership is a commitment, a serious promise between the individual and the church body. A member is not just one who attends a church, nor even one who has attended a church for a long time. A member is one who has formally stated his agreement with the doctrines of the church, has officially submitted himself to the leadership of the church and has committed himself to caring for the church as a whole and to caring for its members as individuals.”]]
There is control here! This false argument is reasoned from the mentality of modern church membership practice and you can not do that. The logic is false. This author takes up the old chestnut that UNLESS ONE HAS A FORMAL MEMBERSHIP, HE IS NOT COMMITTED! Every church in the New Testament disproves that. When a church is honouring the Lord and teaching the doctrines of the bible as it ought to, then this “stated his agreement with the doctrines of the church, has officially submitted himself to the leadership of the church” is not valid. It is an admission the church has failed its mission.
[5]. Argument 4 – [[“Those churches which practice a congregational form of government have members because it defines who has a voice in the direction and decision making of the church. This may sound restrictive to some, but it has a Biblical basis (the church in Corinth had a defined body of members who were able to remove from their membership a sinning brother). This is also reasonable.”]]
That might be the way some churches practise membership but a closer study shows that all the decision making in New Testament churches was in the hands of the godly elders, not according to some “democratic vote”. They are the ones God appointed to have the spiritual oversight. I question again the faulty understanding of the 2 Corinthians verse.
[6]. Argument 5 – [[“Membership serves the good and necessary purposes of protecting the doctrinal and ministry integrity of a church by restricting the decision making to those who are in agreement regarding core tenets of doctrine and ministry. Membership is not a means of promoting ecclesiastical elitism. Rather, membership is a Biblical means of promoting the health, harmony and growth of the church.”]]
THIS IS SO FALSE. “The doctrinal and ministry integrity of a church” is not protected by people who are in a higher class of formal membership to the exclusion of others. Restricting decision making to that membership group disregards the fact that it is the elders who should make decisions for the church over which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers. Also these “formal members” would include a lot of people with faulty biblical understanding and wisdom to make decisions, yet this flawed system allows them to do so. That is why God appointed elders.
============================================================
[M]. ONE LASE SITE TO FINISH WITH
There is an Internet blog by Kevin DeYoung called, “6 Reasons Why Membership Matters” I will deal with them.
[1]. [[“In joining a church you make visible your commitment to Christ and his people. Membership is one way to raise the flag of faith.”]].
Again we have this nexus berween commitment to Christ and church membership. I have said over and over it is false. When a church group runs biblically all is in place. Formal membership comes about because of internal problems like authotity, eldership and leadership. Churches are not democracies, as we understand that word in the secular voting system. They are the Lord’s churches governed by elders.
[2]. [[“Making a commitment makes a powerful statement in a low-commitment culture. Many bowling leagues require more of their members than our churches. Where this is true, the church is a sad reflection of its culture. Ours is a consumer culture where everything is tailored to meet our needs and satisfy our preferences. When those needs aren’t met, we can always move on to the next product, or job, or spouse.”]]
AGAIN – the linking of commitment and membership. It is false!! Don’t do that, people! Don’t. That is trying to run a church according to the world’s practice of government. That is not the way New Testament churches ran and neither should we. AND churches don’t belong to bowling leagues!
[3]. [[“We can be overly independent. In the West, it’s one of the best and worst thing about us. We are free spirits and critical thinkers. We get an idea and run with it. But whose running with us? And are any of us running in the same direction? Membership states in a formal way, “I am part of something bigger than myself. I am not just one of three hundred individuals. I am part of a body.”]]
I am going to be precise here. Formal membership has nothing whatever to do with independence, one way or the other. It has absolutely nothing to do with being part of the body in the understanding of that writer. Not agreeing with church official membership has nothing to do with fighting to be independent.
[4]. [[“Church membership keeps us accountable. When we join a church we are offering ourselves to one another to be encouraged, rebuked, corrected, and served.”]]
This is SO wide of the mark. Membership does not keep you accountable. The bible deals with mutual accountability in many passages and it is in no way whatever linked to formal membership. This is just so wrong. Study Galatians 6. I have messages on this in “The Book of Galatians” a series on SermonCentral.
[5]. [[“Joining the church will help your pastor and elders be more faithful shepherds. Hebrews 13:7 says “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” That’s your part as “laypeople”. Here’s our part as leaders: “They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.” As a pastor I take very seriously my responsibility before God to watch care for souls.”]]
I won’t waste my time with this. It is nonsense. One becoming a formal member does not help a pastor to be more faithful. Return to the New Testament system of church government and you are on the road there.
[6]. [[“Joining the church gives you an opportunity to make promises.”]]
Sorry, this is wrong. Who said we must make promises by becoming members? Does that mean those not members are unfaithful in promises? I know of nowhere in the New Testament where promises had to be made to a church.
That brings us to the end of this study. I respect your right to disagree, but if you do, have your answer as a biblically one, not just using modern practices in organisations.
