“Church membership is a formal relationship between a local church and a Christian characterized by the church’s affirmation and oversight of a Christian’s discipleship and the Christian’s submission to living out his or her discipleship in the care of the church.”
I haven’t always believed in a formal Church membership, over time I began to see the sheer weight of evidence of the New Testament scriptures that clearly shows that the early Church did indeed have a form of membership.
One verse I came across, Hebrews 13:17, I found to be very convincing, all by itself. There believers are told:
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
In thinking about the implications of the verse I realised that it could only be implemented if:
(1) Each believer knows the identity of the leaders he/she is to submit to
(2) The Elders/Leaders know exactly who they are accountable for
For this to happen VERY STRONGLY implies church membership – the people belong to a local church with elders in place and all know who are a part. It seems that this verse was also instrumental in changing Pastor Matt Chandler’s thinking on the issue. Here’s a short article by him on the subject:
IS CHURCH MEMBERSHIP BIBLICAL
By Matt Chandler – lead pastor of the Village Church in the Dallas, Texas area.
“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.” – Cyprian, Treatise on the Unity of the Church, 6.
I was 28 when I became the pastor of Highland Village First Baptist Church (now known as The Village Church). I had had a rough go early on in my church experience, and at that time I was not fully out of my “disenchanted with the local church” phase.
In all honesty, I wasn’t sure at the time that church membership was biblical. Despite that, the Spirit had made it all too clear that I was going to be pastoring this small church in the suburbs of Dallas. That was one of the many ironies of my life in those days.
Highland Village First Baptist Church was a “seeker-sensitive” church in the Willow Creek mold and had no formal membership process, although they were actively working on one and wanted the new pastor’s input. I had a strong understanding of the church universal but wasn’t well versed—and, as I said, somewhat skeptical—about the church local. We started growing quickly with young and oftentimes disenchanted 20-somethings who usually had no church background, or bad church backgrounds. They liked The Village because we were “different.” This always struck me as strange because we weren’t doing anything but preaching and singing.
In conversations with these men and women I began to hear things like “The church is corrupt; it’s just about money and a pastor’s ego,” or “I love Jesus, it’s the church I have a problem with.” My favorite one was, “When you organize the church it loses its power.” Although something occasionally resonated in me with these comments (I, along with most of my generation, have authority and commitment issues), I found them confusing since they were being made to me by people who were attending the church where I was the pastor.
TWO QUESTIONS FROM HEBREWS 13:17
With conflicts already brewing over other doctrines that I viewed as far more central, I wondered if we should let this church membership thing slide and come back to it later. I was preparing at the time to preach through the book of Hebrews and “happened” to be in chapter 13 when verse 17 leapt off the page: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
Two questions occurred to me. First, if there is no biblical requirement to belong a local church, then which leaders should an individual Christian obey and submit to? Second, and more personally, who will I as a pastor give an account for?
These two questions started my search for a biblical understanding of the local church, and they began around the ideas of authority and submission.
Regarding the first question, the Scriptures clearly command Christians to submit to and honor an elder body (Heb. 13:17, 1 Tim. 5:17). If there is no understanding of local church membership, then who are we to submit to and obey? Is it anyone with the title “elder” from any church? Should you as a Christian obey and submit to those loons at Westboro Baptist? In order to obey Scripture, must you picket soldiers’ funerals, as the pastor of Westboro seems to imply?
Regarding the second question, the Scriptures clearly command an elder body to care for specific people (1 Pet. 5:1-5; also, Acts 20:29-30). Will I as a pastor be held accountable for all the Christians in the Dallas Metroplex? There are many churches in Dallas that I have strong theological and philosophical differences with. Will I give account for what they teach in their small group, how they spend their money, and what they do concerning international missions?
WHAT ABOUT CHURCH DISCIPLINE?
After considering questions of authority and submission, the second issue that came up in my study of the local church was the biblical teaching on church discipline.
You see it in several places, but none so clearly as 1 Corinthians 5:1-12. In this text Paul confronts the church in Corinth for approving of a man walking in blatant, unrepentant sexual immorality. The Corinthians are celebrating this as God’s grace, but Paul warns them that this type of wickedness shouldn’t make them boast, but rather mourn. He calls them arrogant and tells them to remove this man for the destruction of his flesh and the hopeful salvation of his soul. In verses 11-12, he pulls no punches: “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?”
It has been my sad experience that very few churches still practice church discipline, but that’s another article for another day. My question out of this text is simple: How can you kick someone “out” if there isn’t an “in”? If there is no local commitment to a covenant community of faith, then how do you remove someone from that community of faith? Church discipline won’t work if local church membership doesn’t exist.
LOTS OF OTHER EVIDENCE FOR MEMBERSHIP
There are other evidences to support local church membership in the Scriptures.
We see in Acts 2:37-47 that there is a numerical record of those who have professed Christ and been filled with the Holy Spirit (v. 41) and an acknowledgement that the church was tracking the growth (v. 47).
In Acts 6:1-6, we see elections take place in order to address a specific problem and accusation.
In Romans 16:1-16, we see what appears to be an awareness of who is a church member.
In 1 Timothy 5:3-16, we see a clear teaching on how to handle widows in the church and in verses 9-13 we read this:
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not.
In this text we see criteria for who would or would not qualify for Ephesus’s widow care program. The local church in Ephesus is organized, and they are working out a plan.
We could go on and on here, asking questions about how we could be obedient to the commands of God in 1 Corinthians 12 or Romans 12 if we aren’t connected to a local covenant community of faith. But to unpack all the possible texts would require longer than I have for this article.
GOD’S PLAN IS THAT WE WOULD BELONG TO LOCAL CHURCHES
When you begin to look at these texts it becomes clear that God’s plan for his church is that we would belong to a local covenant community of faith. This is for our own protection and maturation, and for the good of others.
If you view church as some sort of ecclesiological buffet, then you severely limit the likelihood of your growing into maturity. Growth into godliness can hurt. For instance, as I interact with others in my own local body, my own slothfulness in zeal is exposed, as is my lack of patience, my prayerlessness, and my hesitancy to associate with the lowly (Rom. 12:11-16). Yet this interaction also gives me the opportunity to be lovingly confronted by brothers and sisters who are in the trenches with me, as well as a safe place to confess and repent. But when church is just a place you attend without ever joining, like an ecclesiological buffet, you just might consider whether you’re always leaving whenever your heart begins to be exposed by the Spirit, and the real work is beginning to happen.
What’s the bottom line? Local church membership is a question of biblical obedience, not personal preference.
Hey John! Question for you: In a dual-practice church, how do you honor Paedobaptists desire to call their children “members” (of the NC community and of the local church) even if they haven’t professed faith, while at the same time honoring Credobaptist parents who make faith a prerequisite membership in the NC/local church? If you honor both in the way you would in a non dual-practice church, it seems like you would have some pretty confused kids! Any thoughts?
Hey Kevin,
I know of one Credo-Baptist Church that seeks to make it clear what they believe, yet allows paedo-baptists membership. They figure, if God accepts them as members of the Body of Christ, then who are they not to do so. However, they require full adherance to the statement of faith for anyone to hold an office in the Church. I think that is a good remedy for what is a complex issue.
I am not sure if that addresses your specific question, but it at least provides a framework that is clear, in the midst of the confusion.
Thanks so much for getting back to me! But I’m going to ask you to bear with me and take it another step, because I need help…
Our problem is that not only is the membership divided on this issue, but so is the eldership. And what makes it even more complex is that the membership has an overwhelming credobaptist majority, but the eldership has a paedobaptist majority (3 out of 5).
The paedobaptists can’t help but assume that infants and children of believers are automatically church members. They say things like, “Well anyone will of course admit that these children are a part of our church, right? Would Jesus not allow the little children to come to Him?!” So they see infants and young children as “non-communicant” members until they are “affirmed” by confessing Christ. Then, after confessing, they become “communicant” members. Yet baptistic parents hold the same standard for their kids as for everyone else: “You must repent and believe in order to be a part of Christ’s NC and body!”
So we either have to tell all the baptists, “You’re kids are church members and New Covenant people, even if they don’t believe…but it’s ok if they haven’t been baptized to receive the sign of the covenant to which (in reality) they are entitled by naturall birth.” Or we have to tell the paedobaptist parents, “Even though it’s ok for your infant to receive the sign of the NC (baptism), we don’t agree with you that he or she is a part of the NC. Therefore, we won’t consider your child a church member until he or she is confirmed.” The former is probably what the paedobaptist elders would go for; the latter is what credobaptist elders would want.
As a credobaptist, I really have a problem saying that people can be considered a part of the NC without having repented and believed. And a compromise position would be unhealthy if it said something like, “The paedobaptist kids are church members and part of the NC, but not the credobaptist kids!” It seems like someone has to compromise their conviction about church/NC membership.
I’m asking you because I know you’re a credobaptist who highly respects paedobaptists (like RC Sproul!) Is there some kind of middle ground – not just regarding baptism – but about church membership for children? Am I misunderstanding something? Am I nitpicking? Any ideas? Thanks!
Hi Kevin,
Its an unusual situation when members believe one thing in the majority and the elders believe something different. I would have thought that elders would be united in understanding on this issue, but evidently, that is not the case in the situation you are describing.
As a credo baptist I find the paedo-baptist position difficult to grasp when I ask specific questions such as “what exactly do you believe baptism does for the infant?” “if an infant is not baptised, what exactly are they missing out on?” and press the matter to ask “biblically speaking, how can someone be a member of the new covenant without being regenerate?” “isn’t a member of the new covenant considered to be ‘in Christ’? and yet, you allow for the possibility that they are not, yes?”
I know paedo baptists have answers to these questions, but as yet, I have not found them to be convincing.
It seems like the Church you are describing needs to help its membership by being clear on the issue. Other than that, I am not sure what practical help can emerge.
Thanks John. I too have been totally unsatisifed with the answers they give – especially the exegetical arguments from verses like Col 2:11, Rom 4:11, and Acts 2:39. Their view also seems to have all kinds of difficult implications, like necessitating practices like “confirmation,” two different levels of membership “non-communicant” vs. “communicant” membership, and administering the Lord’s supper and baptism (both signs of the same covenenant) to different people. The more I talk about it with them, it seems the more reasons I have to stay as a credobaptist! Nonetheless, it’s not enough to break up our church-planting team among the largest unreached people group in the world.
Anyways, your answer has helped confirm for me what I already thought: this is a really hard issue. And it’s a good point that we just need to help people understand and be very clear about how we’re dealing with this.
Thanks for thinking about this with me, John.
God bless!
Thanks Kevin,
Perhaps to be fair, you might wish to ask a convinced paedo-baptist pastor/teacher these questions. I am sure that some of them will have worked out answers which, to their minds at least, satisfy them.
As I read the promise of the New coming covenant in the book of Jeremiah chapter 31, I do not see unregenerate members included. All the members of this new covenant know the Lord and have sins forgiven. How does this square with their concept of children being members of the covenant but not regenerate?
Lets take the scenario of two Christian familes, each of whom has a new born child. One family baptises their child Phillip; the other waits for the child Helen to make a confession of faith before baptising. While the one family waits for the profession of faith, what does the paedo-baptist say that little Helen is missing out on? Regeneration? Salvation? Well, no. Then WHAT EXACTLY? Perhaps a paedo-baptist would be willing to give you an answer.
Yes, its a difficult one, and while in no way an issue when it comes to embracing someoneone as a fellow brother in Christ, it can be problematic when one is seeking to be part of a local Church where these issues are not clearly laid out and agreed upon.
Lets also consider two well known figures in our day: Dr. Sproul (a paedo baptist) and Dr. MacArthur (a credo baptist). I mention their names only as examples and because we are sure of their views on the issue. They even debated the issue of baptism together in a public forum some years back. http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/baptism_debate/
Neither one, to my knowledge, have changed their view. While both have complete unity in the gospel, and could preach in each other’s pulpits and at Conferences together galore, it would be hard, if not impossible for Dr. Sproul to become a member of Dr. MacArthur’s church, and likewise for MacArthur to join Sproul’s. I also do not see how either one could hold an office of “elder” (in good conscience) in the other one’s church. Can you?
Differences over the form and mode of baptism (and who it is that we allow to be baptised) are not essential enough to prevent us having warm and real Christian unity in the Gospel, but these differences become important in a local Church when eldership is seeking to follow Biblical patterns to help/serve those under their care and there remains strong disagreement over what the Bible teaches in this area.