Church Membership: Church History and Biblical Authority: Roots and Abuses Part One

Church Membership: Church History and Biblical Authority (Roots and Abuses)

Introduction

For many local church denominations this is practically an issue of salvation importance.  For others its just a practical matter for determining who is allowed to vote.  Perhaps in other churches its a safe-guard for practicing church discipline in a current (legal-overload) culture.  My goals for addressing this matter are simple: first, a discussion of the historical background in this issue; second, an overview of the actual Biblical data that is used to support this discussion, and lastly, to provide suggested guidance to those looking to join a local body of believers (which might have to wait).

I would ask this question up front: Is there any text in scripture that either prescriptively or descriptively, with sound exegetical academic honesty teaches church membership?  Please note the question is not whether there is a local church, or epistles written to a local church, or people reading a letter written to a local church.  Please note also the question is not whether people attended a local church or synagogue.  Please note third and lastly, the question is not whether you attend faithfully each week at a local church (whatever the number of services your local church has).  Our historical and exegetical focus must be to discern why we have church membership.  Related to this issue: its purpose, function, meaning, advantages/disadvantages, legal issues, and of course biblical not cultural warrant.

For these tasks to be accomplished several basic terms need to be reviewed (or for many folks simply introduced to for the first time).  The first term is exegesis.  Exegesis put simply is providing a simple meaning for what the Biblical text actually says.  We do this by viewing a text with the lens of a literal, historical, and grammatical method.  There are many other terms we could use which are mentioned in multiple textbooks discussing this topic of exegesis (for both the Old and New Testaments).  Put simply let the text speak don't import your ideas, thoughts, and presuppositions into the text.  Sad though is that many well-known writers have reverted to straw men tactics, ad hominem, and red herring attempts to push their views.  

The second term is eisegesis.  Eisegesis put simply is not saying what the text says but saying what I think or want the text to say.  This is reading your own views, motives, and/or presuppositions into a text.  This is looking for evidence in texts to support your own ideas or preferences.  Put simply exegesis keeps the text as the authority and eisegesis makes the interpreter the source of authority.  This could be simply a lack of willingness to study a passage in depth or perhaps even being a product over our "I think it means...." church culture. 

The third word I want to mention is the term church.  For some this term has great value and for others they go to great lengths never to use it.  Simply take note of the signs on buildings and how they identify themselves to the world around them.  Do we understand this term universally or locally?  Can it be both?  Do we deny one because some abuse the term?  Do we understand it to be made up of believers, unbelievers or both? Can you be a member of one and not the other?  Is the process the same or different?  Are any ordinances or processes involved to be part of one and not the other (or even both)?  How does our understanding of church discipline apply in relation to our definition of these terms?  Chances are how you answer these types of questions is determining the value or weight church membership is to you.  It also may exhibit how you have applied or been taught concerning the relevant texts on this issue.  

A note of caution here is necessary.  I would suggest neither of these categories fall into a another concept of current cultural application.  This is also a huge issue today.  How do I make at text that is at least 2000 years old (or older for the OT) relevant and applicable to me in my life right now?  How does it effect my life now?  Are there applications that can or should extend into any culture?  Is this even possible?  Does this area only apply in the realm of personal application or is it legitimate to say some texts may actually have a corporate application (this means beyond just me)?

Church History 

How has church history handled this issue?  Has it been equally addressed by Protestants, Roman Catholics, or perhaps cults like (JWs, LDS)?  Where has church history brought us today? I would suggest historically there have been two basic options and the fruit we see today is the result of these two basic choices: internal and external.  Both views directly effect the church's view of ordinances such as baptism and the Lords Table, as well as its view on voting/elections and church discipline (or even participation in the public arena). 

First, the internal church view, defines church membership based on some form of credible evidence of an expressed faith by the individual.  Historically this has also produced terminology such as "a regenerate church membership."  For a historical perspective on this we will turn to the London Baptist Confession (Ch. 26, "Of the Church").  They refer to individuals as "members of these churches." (paragraph 6). This membership is based on the fact that they are "saints by calling" and "by their profession and walking" (para. 6).  So both times the LBC 1689 makes a point of a fruit-bearing faith ("visibly manifesting and evidencing").  This is simply an example of how historical church "membership" has been viewed from the standpoint of a prior-exercised faith in Jesus Christ.

Second, the external church view, defines church membership based on a geographical basis.  This view is closely associated with a corporate view of both election and baptism, both of which place the individual as part of the local church (if not also part of the universal church as well).  For a historical example of this concept we turn to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Ch. 25, "Of the Church").  I believe the differences here from the LBC are significant because it changes the concept and entry point of church "membership." Please note some significant variations, ( para. 2), "the visible church, which is also catholic or universal." But who is included in this visible/catholic church?  Add the next line, this membership is comprised of those "that have professed the true religion; and of their children."  Did you catch the distinction?  Later (para. 3) they use this same designation "this catholic visible church."  Again this concept is repeated (para. 4), "particular churches, which are members thereof."  Member of what?  Go back to the first line, "this catholic church."  This expanded definition is because you don't have to be regenerated because here being a member can include, "both to mixture and error" even to the extent in reference to error "as to become no Churches of Christ."  Why is this significant?  Chapter 28 expands on who can be a church member, "admission of the party baptized into the visible church."  So under this system it is possible (though highly unlikely) to have many in your local church membership who have never exercised personal faith in Christ.

Note the difference between the two historical documents.  The first based church membership solely on a profession of faith.  The second based church membership on an external activity.  This second view could also be through a regional or parental association, not necessarily through expressed faith of the individual.  They still are called "members"of the church. 

Historically we need to cover at least one more area.  This category of church membership is known as the Half-way covenant.  What is this?  Let me try to explain.  Let's say two parents come to faith in Christ and are members of a local church.  Now they want to have their children baptized in hopes they will one day exercise faith themselves.  These children grow up to be adults, get married, never profess personal faith in Christ, but now they want to have their own children baptized.  See the scenario change.  Now we have unsaved church members wanting to have their children baptized.  Introduce now the Half-way covenant.   So now you have a semi-church member who potentially can't vote or receive from the church ordinances (or to them sacraments).  Issues like this one are no small matter.  Read your history.  American pastors in our own church history have lost their pulpits on this one. 

To be fair many Baptist churches (but not all) practice different forms of this only without the label.  I've seen multiple churches vote people into membership (in good faith they are going to be baptized).  One step removed from this, children can exercise faith and be baptized but then not allowed to vote on church business till they are eighteen years old.  Not sure where this one comes from biblically.  So are these children members or not?  What then would be the motivation for any child (in these churches) to be a member if they are explicitly denied the privilege of voting.  Sorry the American voting system is not biblical proof for making them wait till 18 to vote.  Any ideas here? 

This is a basic history article laying the foundation for how churches have throughout church history practiced church membership.  So if you find a church you fit into in both doctrine and practice then join their membership.  There are many books written by proponents of both sides on this issue.  Both have their championed verses and motivations. 

Hope this helps some.  Comments encouraged as always.  As I find new historical data supporting each position I will update this article.

From here we will turn to our next article examining the actual Biblical data on this issue.