Church Membership: What do the Scriptures have to say? (Part Two)

Church Membership: What do the Scriptures have to say? (Part Two)

Part One

Biblical Authority

How has the church viewed relevant texts on this issue?  For starter, what are the relevant texts and categories in this issue?  If you noticed the historical discussion in the previous article, then it should be obvious that an entirely different set of biblical proof texts are used to support either one.  That being said, if we are looking for different proof texts, then we most likely have a different understanding for church membership.  

So with little comment, I'll simply list some of the verses I've seen used in print to prove both these points.  I leave it up to you the reader to discern whether they actual say church membership or are they being used to create this concept.  Many of these verse are the proof texts directly appealed to by these two previously mentioned London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Just as reminder, each historical document will need to supply proof texts supporting their position.  So for example, the LBC 1689 will need to supply proof texts showing that an act of conversion (both faith and repentance) happen prior to the ordinance of water baptism and church membership.  On the other hand, the WCF 1647 will make room for an act of conversion for church membership but they also must provide proof texts that show their children can become church members based on the parent's faith or an ordinance of water baptism (prior to child's own exercising of saving faith).

I ask the discerning reader: Do the quoted verses from each historical document actually teach church membership?  Do they expand on the definition?  Do we perhaps have a different definition of this idea today?   Or is it possible that church membership is an application of various scriptural texts?

Concerning the inclusion of children into church membership, the WCF uses some of the following as proof texts:

Acts 2:38-29, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remisson of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

1 Corinthians 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

To be honest the vast majority of references found within the WCF are to identify a universal catholic church and the association of "particular churches" to this church.  Apart from this concept the WCF actually says very little on the topic of church membership. 

Concerning the relevant texts in the LBC 1689, please consider the following:

The LBC in paragraph four identifies members of churches as those called saints.  Texts listed are Ro 1:7 "called to be saints" and 1 Cor 1:2 "called to be saints" and "to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus."  The vast majority of references are to the concept of church discipline passages and the selection of bishops and deacons.  The following verse often quoted for church membership doesn't even appear: Hebrews 10:25, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is."  But to be fair and honest the WCF did not include this verse either in ch. 25 "Of the Church."

Apart from verses like these just listed above there's not much addressing this issue. 

There are also other attempts made to prove local church membership.  None of which are appealed to directly by either historical document to present a need for or to help justify the necessity of church membership.

Please understand, I do not mean to use the following as "straw man" arguments.  I also do not mean to demean the proponents of these positions.  I simply want people to realize what ground or reasoning is used (even by PhD level individuals) in an attempt to extract church membership from the text of scripture.

First, there is the one another argument as if you can't truly care and minister to those if your not a church member.
Second, there is the pastor controls the membership argument.  You can't join us unless you give us the authority to say when you can leave or not.  Related to this argument is the "pastor has an obligation" argument.  This one takes shepherd references and creates a church membership roster (that is, those who are to be shepherded). 
Third, there is the guarding the table argument. You can't observe the Lord's table (communion) if you're not a member of our church.  This has been a strong historical motivator for the Roman Catholic church to force people to join their church.  The argument is further raised when an individual needs their ordinance (sacrament) so you can go to heaven.  Get it: join our group or you can't go to heaven.  Protestants can be just as guilty of this making people feel guilty or questioning there salvation for not being in agreement on this issue.  I would suggest the WCF has not moved that far from this position.  But I'm sure the vast majority would not want to take it this far.
Fourth, is the widow roster argument.  This argument takes the "widow indeed" list from the pastoral epistles and uses it as a precedent (or actual proof) to create a church membership roster as well.

My intentions were to show from a position of biblical authority the doctrine and practice of church membership.  You can read the verses and evaluate for yourself.  Does the scripture either prescriptively or descriptively teach church membership?  Again, if it does not then why do we have church membership? 

On the other hand, if you are strongly convinced you need to join a local church.  Our family has joined and served in many churches over the years.  If you feel so led then go and do so.  I will follow up this article with suggests and practical issues related to church membership.

Hope this helps some.  Comments of course encouraged as always.

Again, if I have left something out or one of your key verses you go to on this issue pleas let me know.  

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.

London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

How do we address really "bad" churches?  This is a interesting dilemma avoided in evangelical circles today.  Some tout church discipline.  Others say the gospel is all that matters (well at least a Calvinistic version).  There is an ever growing impulse to look past false teaching from the pulpit and disobedience in the pew and what is called a church is actually not.

To many this may sound judgmental (whatever this term means usually only to the one defining it).  But this concept is not new but was actually addressed nearly 400 years ago in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith (one place Presbyterians and Baptist can agree).

LBC (Ch XXVI) reads,
"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

WCF (Ch. XXV) reads,

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

I doesn't take much imagination to see that they are identical.  They both held to such a firm belief that local churches can become so corrupt in the errors that they are not actually functioning churches.  The confessions do not explicitly elaborate on what defines as error but it is clear they both believed you can err enough to no longer be a church.

Here's the sad part of the story.  Today theology has become some marginalized that you can almost believe anything without being accused of false teaching.  Here is one place (among many) where I believe new evangelicalism and their offspring have gone wrong.  Consider the following:

Does orthodoxy still matter?  Who determines what is correct doctrine?  Have problems with orthodoxy church creeds, then write another one?  Make up a new one from scratch to be as broad and inclusive as (presently) deemed necessary.

Does orthopraxy still matter?  Who determines what right Christian living and practice is?  Nearly everyone is ready with a finger to accuse of legalism or antinomianism.  Is your practice too worldly?  That's an easy fix, just redefine what is worldly (so that it doesn't include what you want to do).

Does orthpathy still matter?  Who determines what right emotions, desires, and affections are true and correct?  What forms of media and music are given full permission to affect our minds (and the minds of our children)?  What of literature and entertainment means?

In summation, pointing out and avoiding false teaching is nothing new (think: novel).  Don't think the most recent evangelical authors producing books on church discipline are coming up with some new or more biblical than the past.  Simply not true.

I think if we actually read many of our church's documents from the past, we'll find great deals with which we can agree (and take hardy counsel).  Without feeling the need to rewrite it all over again.

So is your church a real church?  What errors are we tolerating in the pew?  From the pulpit?