Eschatological Journeys

Is Church Membership Biblical?

Tim — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:12:00 -0500

Maybe I am a product of my times, and I don't like committment, etc., but I am still struggling over the biblical nature of local church membership. I do not think that local church membership is unbiblical, for I am a member of my local church. But I am suspicious of the biblical arguments used to support membership. I think that membership is important for the local church, it is a way to protect against the church going of course in the future, but aside from this I am not sure of its importance. This issue has resurfaced for me becuase I have been listening to Mark Dever's sermon/lectures on 9 Marks. But it has also come up because of what is going on a Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis regarding their proposal for membership. I am not going to speak to this, but rather to a recent Bethlehem Star article, where Pastor Piper argued for the importance of local church membership. You can view the Star here. But for the sake of my readers, I will post it here.

More Clarifications on the Baptism and Membership Issue:

How Important Is Church Membership?

To help you keep thinking and praying about your vote on December 18 at the Annual All-Church Strategy Meeting concerning the Elder proposal on Baptism and Church Membership, here are a few more clarifying thoughts. Recall that the proposal is that some rare exceptions be made to allow some truly regenerate persons to be members of the church who are not baptized by immersion. (See the entire proposal at www.BBCMPLS.org).

One of the key convictions behind the elder proposal is that excluding from membership a truly regenerate person who gives credible evidence of his saving faith is a more serious mistake than viewing the time and mode of baptism as essential to the qualifications for membership. But that assumes church membership is really important, so that excluding a person from it is very serious. So one of the arguments against the elder proposal is that membership in a local church like Bethlehem does not matter very much because a non-member can worship and take the Lord’s Supper and go to Sunday School and be a part of a small group and be visited by a pastor in the hospital, etc.

So if membership is not that important, then excluding someone from membership will not seem a serious problem. That would mean that the elders are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. This is one of the most crucial issues you will need to settle in your own mind: How serious is it to say to a regenerate person: “You may not be a member of this church”?

The force of the elders’ concern and the weight of their arguments will not be felt by those who do not see the crucial importance of local church membership in the New Testament. So consider some of the biblical support. I will point to four strands of evidence. Each of these reveals something in the New Testament which would be minimized or denied if there were no definable local church membership.

1) Governing powers of the church (voting). Consider the implication of Matthew 18:15-17 where “the church” (ekklesia) appears to be the final court of appeal in matters of church authority as it relates to membership.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

If there is no church membership, how can you define the group that will take up this sensitive and weighty matter of exhorting the unrepentant person, and finally rendering a judgment about his standing in the community? It is hard to believe that just anyone who showed up claiming to be a Christian could be a part of that gathering. Surely “the church” must be a definable group to handle such a weighty matter.

2) Being excluded from the church (excommunication). There is another implication from Matthew 18:15-17, namely, that the unrepentant person is accountable to a group of people. This is an amazing event: formally excluding a person from “the church” so that he becomes to you “as a Gentile and a tax collector”—that is an unbeliever. The same kind of exclusion is found in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. How is this possible if the person is not considered a member of something from which he can be excluded? So both the person’s liability to excommunication and the involvement of “the church” in the process imply that the one being charged is a member and the group settling the matter are members.

3) A commitment to be held accountable by a Council of Elders to believe a basic affirmation and to live a basic covenant. The point here is that without membership, who is it that the New Testament says must submit to leaders? Some kind of expressed willingness or covenant or agreement or commitment must precede submission. Consider the way the New Testament talks about the relationship of the church to her leaders.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you (proistamenous humon) in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work

1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well (Hoi kalos proestotes

presbuteroi) be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

How is this leadership and this submission to function where there is no membership defining who has made the commitment to be led and who has been chosen as leaders? If we downplay the importance of membership, it is difficult to see how we could take these commands seriously and practically.

4) The privilege of being cared for with the primacy and special benefit of a local covenant family of believers. When the pastors and elders extend their care beyond the membership, it does not mean that there is no primacy to members. Consider Acts 20:28 where Paul tells the elders how to care for their flock.

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

This verse does not say elders cannot visit unbelievers or those who are not yet members. But it does make clear that their first responsibility is to a particular flock. Does it not make sense that this flock would have definition and limits? Who are we as elders and pastors responsible for? For whom will we give an account to God?

This last point especially, but all four points together, have raised the crucial importance of membership in our minds. We believe it is a biblical implication that there be such a thing as a definable membership in a local church. It is not a matter of indifference, therefore, when a person chooses to attend a church’s functions but not to make the commitment to become a covenant member. It is a serious shortcoming. One of the effects of the proposal of the elders is to raise the crucial importance of membership and therefore to heighten the seriousness of turning away from membership truly regenerate people who give good evidence of saving faith.

Thanks for praying and thinking with us toward the mind of Christ,

Pastor John

Now, I must say that I am sympathetic to what is argued here, but I do not see this as an open and shut case. One glaring oversight, as I see it, is that this whole argument presupposes that the early church practiced some form of local church membership as we practice it. Am I missing something, or is this not true? That is, using the Acts 20:28 example above in #4, some form of membership is presupposed to argue for membership today. The point is made that there were definitions and limits, but but was there an offical joining of the local church? Or is it simply that once believers confessed Jesus as King and Savior by taking on baptism in his name, that they became members of the local church, and thus were under the jurisdiction of the pastoral team? Does this make sense or am I seeing too much here?

There was a time when I was on staff part-time at a church, I submitted to the elders, gave money, attended corporate gatherings, and yet I was not a member of the local church where I was serving. Was this unbiblical? What more would membership have added? Also, what, then should be the requirements for membership at a local church? Is it sufficient to be baptized as a believer, confessing Jesus as King? Again, more questions...But I don't think I will take this one on until I finish the other thread. Any thoughts, though, would be very, very helpful!

Canadians: What are they smokin'?

Tim — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:10:00 -0500

This should be logged under the category of 'You cannot make it up fast enough'.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=1268892f-d3f0-4842-9790-b15043000413,2a67866b-6131-45a7-8879-f8ed8f33013f,13b3dede-2ba9-4e77-bed0-2c390b747f4f&p=News_NBC%20News&f=http://www.msn.com/

Beware When All Men Speak Well...

Tim — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:42:00 -0500

Jesus says, " Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets" (Luke 6:26, NIV).

Now, a humorous reminder of this truth from Lark News:

Church celebrates fifty years of peace through irrelevance

CINCINNATI — Rolling Hills Christian Church has spent fifty years diligently cultivating a good neighbor image, and this week they celebrated their spiritual irrelevance and moral acquiescence with a Sunday morning festival.
    "We get along perfectly with everybody in the community," said pastor James Doheny before climbing into the dunk tank. "Peace is our value of choice."
    During the celebration the mayor lauded the church for being "a friend of the entire city."
    "There's not one negative thing that could be said about this church, and the citizens of Cincinnati appreciate that," he said.
    Doheny thanked the congregation through tears, and promised to lead the church toward "fifty more years of benign accommodation."

Engaging God

Tim — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:24:00 -0500

David Peterson, a biblical theologian, who authored Possessed by God, which is a superb biblical theology of 'sanctification' also wrote, Engaging with God. This book is a biblical theology of worship. This book like 'Possessed' is a good book, and worthy of time and effort to understand it. I don't agree with every point, but it is still a great book. What is great is that The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary hosted David Peterson, and he gave four lectures on worship. You can download them for free here.

Calling Again

Tim — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:53:00 -0500

Words and concepts matter. Because of this we are a bit ‘rigid’ in my family regarding how we talk about things. If we sin against each other we say, ‘Will you forgive me for…” If do harm by accident, we offer our regrets. We still enforce the difference between ‘May I’ (asking permission) and ‘Can I’ (asking about ability). We are even so ‘rigid’ that we talk about going to corporate worship, to worship as a church. We do not talk about going to church, instead, we speak of going to the church building. Why? Because the people are the Church not the building. We want to be reminded and to communicate to our boys that the Church is the people, not the structure. Why? Because if they grow up thinking that the building is the church and that church is something that one attends or goes to, then they will misread Paul and all his discussion of the Church. For example, Jesus did not give himself up for the building at 777 Carmichael Road (Eph 5:25), rather he gave himself up for those who gather at 777 Carmichael and all over the whole world, for all those who call upon the name of God.

It is because of this desire not to confuse biblical terms, so that Bible reading, which is difficult in and of itself is not made more difficult by our modern use of terms, even within the church. It is because of this that I still have a great deal of difficulty adopting the word ‘call’ or ‘calling’ for what a Christian ‘discovers’ about himself and his gifts, etc. This is what happens in this entry by Groothuis. The reason I do not like this is because ‘called’ regarding a task in Scripture is not discovered it is what the word says, it is God calling with a voice to do something. If this calling is disobeyed as with Jonah, then it is a punishable offense.

With calling our vocation, etc. ‘calling’ we are creating a problem we don’t want in the church. That is, people trying to discover their ‘calling’ where should I work, what should I do, etc., because if they don’t they will be disobeying God. But is this really accurate? I have no ‘calling’ to be at Faith Community or anywhere else. I have been given to the Church as a teacher, so I must give that gift, but where and how have not been determined. I would not be disobeying God if I did teaching full-time or part-time, in the context of the local church or in the Academy.

Is it just me or does the whole ‘calling’ thing confuse things, and make life more difficult than it needs to be, while also trying to make life significant? In my view it is this simple, give your gifts (which the church affirms are yours) and do whatever your hand finds to do.

HT: Burton

Wild at Heart Again

Tim — Sun, 07 Aug 2005 07:40:00 -0500

Just found some comments here, that I think are worth pondering regarding this everpresent book.

I Am Beginning to Like Driscoll More and More

Tim — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:27:00 -0500

Mark Driscoll is the pastor of Mars Hill Church and founder of Acts 29, a church-planting network. Mars Hill is a church around 3000 in the Seattle area. Driscoll's book regarding Reformission (the subtitle is 'reaching out without selling out'), which is about reaching and changing the present culture with the powerful gospel of God regarding Jesus the king.

As I have read his book, I find myself agreeing with many points. Below is just one regarding churches and felt needs and consumerism.

Mark Driscoll, Radical Reformission, p. 171

“The assumption that everyone is a customer to be marketed to is a great pitfall for those who proclaim the gospel, because we tend to cast God as a product, and as mainstream a product as possible. After all, scriptural teaching about the curse, death as the wages of sin, the flooding of the earth, the killing of Egyptian babies, the slaughter of perverts in Sodom and Gomorrah, and the fiery torments of hell is a tough sell even for the best of marketing firms.

Yet today everything from sex to Jesus is pimped, since some preachers have traded in prophecy for pandering. Meanwhile, people have become so seasoned from the years of direct mail, online pop-ups ads, commercials, and the endless parade of advertising on everything from billboards to ball caps that they tend to view the church as just another business and the preacher as yet another huckster.

Businesses of all sorts shamelessly pander to felt needs, and customers love the benefits they reap from fierce competition. People often take the same approach to God when they ‘shop’ for a new church that emphasizes their felt needs and offers more amenities for them to consume. They expect God and his church to play their game by assessing their self needs, marketing to them with a good pitch from a winsome salesman, and providing spiritual goods and services that beat the competition down the street, whether it’s a self-help guru or another religion or church. Churches that buy into this worship of humanity are prone to fashion their churches after malls, complete with departments or ministries for each family member in an effort to keep the shoppers happy.”