Church Membership: Some Practical Considerations for Local Churches (Part Three)

Church Membership: Some Practical Considerations for Local Churches (Part Three)

Part One          Part Two

If you are new to this short three part series allow me to quickly review.  First, we discussed the historical nature and practice of church membership as observed and taught by the London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession of Faith.  Second, we discussed the Biblical texts employed to teach the practice of church membership.  In this article I would like to provide some practical suggestions in relation to this important topic.


Suggested Guidance

 I think the route to go if people want to be honest is the legal protection route toward church members. We don't need a roster of names added to a visible church institution (unless it is simply a safeguard for who is allowed to vote).  Even this line of reasoning is not completely consistent if you can join a church at 17 but not vote till 18.  

What we want is a list of names who agree to a common doctrinal position and manner of living.  In essence, they agree to the same church covenant.  They agree to be disciplined by the church for failure to believe and practice these things.  The sad reality is that Christians actually seek legal repercussions for being church disciplined.  A roster of names who are willing to be disciplined helps to provide this legal protection.  It is this same roster in most churches that allows one to vote in local church elections and participate in decision making (at least for those 18 years and older).  On the other hand, it is just as possible for a local church pastor to abuse this church discipline concept toward church members.  

In conclusion, I would argue the church membership position is eisegesis.  I would also suggest that there is no text teaching prescriptively or descriptively (with sound exegesis) any doctrine known as local church membership.  I would further argue that the Bible teaches an individual becomes part of the universal church through faith and repentance in Jesus Christ, of which the only visible manifestation is the local church.  The topic known as church membership falls into the category of application.  This application applies only in a local church and has no authority in or over the members of any other local church.  Hence, you either join one local church or another individual local church (both of which are autonomous).

As to reasons why an individual should join or leave a local church is another question.

Some questions for thought:

Do I have to be a church member to serve? teach? preach? teach Sunday school? provide Music?
Do I have to be a church member to grow? Read my Bible? Pray? Make Disciples?
Do I have to be a church member to submit to other believers? Pastor/Elders? 
Do I have to be a church member to be committed? Regularly attend?
Do I have to attend for a certain length of time before joining?  Attend special classes?

Let's take the reverse to these questions (just to make the point more clear):

There are many church members who don't and never will serve.
There are many church members who don't and never will teach or preach.
There are many church members who will not sing, either corporately or individually.
There are many church members who rarely read their Bible (systematically or sporadically).
There are many church members or who rarely pray or make disciples.
There are many church attenders (non-members) who attend more often or regular than the actual church roster members.

See the difference?  The opposite motive to using these as arguments just doesn't make sense.  This is not a biblical argument.  They may serve as motives someone wants to join a church but this is not the same as a prescriptive command to join a local church.   

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

If you disagree or have constructive push back with this line of reasoning, then provide me a Bible verse anywhere that teaches a different historical and exegetical position.  History provides us two camps: regenerate members (those who have made a profession) and non-regenerate members (those who have not personally made a profession). Its that simple.  Either way, who will you practice church discipline? Allow to the ordinances/sacraments? Voting and elections?  There are bigger issues that church membership does not exactly solve (perhaps they apply only for your own local church covenant and bi-laws). 

If there are any verses written in any text on this issue that could change these conclusions, then I would be glad to know.  There are many current books and journal articles addressing this issue.  I applaud the ones that take church discipline and voting seriously (I personally recommend the ones written by IX Marks ministry, Captiol Hill Baptist Church, Senior Pastor Mark Dever).  If you find a good church that is trying to be biblical both in doctrine and practice then join, especially if you want to vote.

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.

Christian Liberty in the London Baptist Confession and The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Key Difference in Ch. XXI.

Christian Liberty in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith: A Key Difference in Chapter XXI

How a Christian treats this issue is actually a bigger picture of a person's heart than you might think (this included motives including pragmatism).  Certain activities claimed to be done in love or in the name of Christian liberty might not be so.

Is it truly loving and charitable to impose one's personal believes on other Christians (and in the name of liberty)?

Is it truly correct to define someone as unteachable and unsubmissive who will not blindly follow current theological fads and methodologies (and this done to in the name of liberty)?


If you've ever read these two historical documents before then you have no doubt noticed the great deal (or overwhelming deal) of verbatim vocabulary, grammar, and theology.  However there are many places where these two documents embrace dramatically different positions in regards to both theology and practice. 

Just a small example would be the fact that in relation to one particular "ordinance" or "sacrament" these two documents embrace different positions on one ordinance: namely baptism.  Hence, one is primarily but not exclusively a "Presbyterian" document and the other is primarily a "Baptist" document.  That being said, this is not the point of difference I wish to draw attention to at this time.

Chapter 21 has another striking difference in relation to church and state and their relation to Christian liberty.  For the sake of argument, perhaps we can at least acknowledge the historical context and each confessions reaction to Roman Catholicim's self-professed authority and doctrinal abuses.  If you commonly read the LBC 1689, as I do then you will notice the following paragraph is missing in you version (it is also absent in meaning American versions of the WCF):

Paragraph IV. (Of Christian Liberty and liberty of conscience)

" And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate."

There are three key areas addressed in the paragraph not to be found in Baptist versions of the confession: church power, government (civil) power, and reactionism (abused liberties).  (Let's at least be fair to acknowledge some American Presbyterian versions have omitted this paragraph also).

Who trumps who?  Or what source of authority trumps what?  Does the state/government have absolute authority?  Does the church have absolute authority?  Or a third option, does the individual practice of personal liberty or conscience trump the above two options?  It should be obvious in common vernacular which side someone is endorsing by the vocabulary they choose to employ.

Consider the following:

1.  The vast array of interpretations concerning church discipline, pastoral or congregational authority, or denomination control.  Who defines error?  Doctrine?  Heresy?  How much power is given to the leadership?  Accountability?

2.  The vast array of interpretations of government or state intervention: education, finance, social issues, setting standards (or even no standards).  Who can punish?  Doctrinal jail time?  Lock you pew?

3.  The vast array of interpretations or liberties of practice which divide individuals and even families--even to the point of corporate division (standards, music, Bible translations, gun control, etc...).  chapter and verse?  Proof texts?  That's your opinion?  

4.  The vast array of publishing houses, competition, blogs, and personalized accounts.  Who will read by book?  What doctrines are added/thrown out to reach an audience?  What is believed verbally but never in print?

Praise the Lord that theology and Biblical interpretation don't have to occur in a near-sighted vacuum.  I think some evangelicals today actually believe these concepts did not already exist in the past.  Radical new ideas of worship, church, evangelism, or anything motivated by pragmatic numbers should cause us to stop and think.  Well you would think it would.

I'm not saying all the covenants in church history are perfect or need to be followed with blind obedience, but they do give as great doctrinal grounds to build upon. 


Comments encouraged.