Thursday, January 29, 2009

A Call for a New Reformation in the church: Membership, schmembership

Time for a dogmatic overstatement! The very institution of local church membership has become essentially meaningless. My reason for saying this is multifold but it starts out of the gate with my contention that formal church membership in a local church has no Scriptural support. I am not convinced at all by references to 1 Corinthians 12: 12-31 where it seems to me that Paul is making an analogy between the different members of our (physical) body and comparing it to the different members of the Body of Christ. I don’t see how we can make the leap from the use of the word “member” and apply it to a tradition of membership rolls in local organizations.

The key for me is verse 13: For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12: 13. Then Paul goes on to speak of members of that body. We certainly are all members, but not because we have our names on the rolls of a local church but because we are baptized into that one Body, the Body of Christ. Nor are references to lists of widows getting a distribution at all convincing and to suggest that the one confirms the other (lists of widows in need and formal membership lists) is ridiculous. Really, what we see is just the opposite. Christians A, B and C in membership at First Baptist and Christians X,Y and Z in membership at First Presbyterian are not members of the same local bodies but they are all members of “The Church”. In fact they share something with one another that many people in “membership” in their respective bodies do not share, that is being members of the Body of Christ. I am far more concerned with my standing in the Body of Christ than I am with my, or anyone else’s for that matter, standing in a local church organization.

But even beyond that (as if we can or should get beyond the lack of Biblical support), the practical working out of the system of membership has failed to achieve any useful purpose. I make that claim for two main reasons:

First, in any given church a substantial portion of the membership is unregenerate. That is a bold claim. I stand by it wholeheartedly. I base that in part on my experience, which granted is limited to less than a decade as a Christian, and in part on the methods by which we enable church membership. In paedobaptist churches, infants are brought into the covenant community by virtue of having parents who are believers. Little wonder that many of those darling infants being sprinkled turn out to be unbelievers and go to judgment lost in their sins. It is not because the church failed to catechize them or take them to Sunday evening services. It is because they are not elect and there was never any way that they were going to come to faith. In spite of that reality, thousands of churches keep sprinkling babies in a misguided attempt to maintain a sentimental church tradition. Credobaptist churches are often little better, baptizing young children and adults alike after they “make a decision” and pray a prayer. In a well-meaning but misguided quest to carry out the Great Commission, they are inviting people into a local church body as members and giving them a false assurance of salvation. Given the two headed monster of infant baptism and “decisional evangelism”, it is little wonder that the membership rolls of local churches are full of people who never go to a particular church (I would be willing to bet that our names are listed as members in at least two Baptist churches we haven’t attended for some time) or worse people who have never exhibited Biblical faith and repentance but think that they have based on baptism as an infant or praying a “sinners prayer”.

Second, the most common and probably most Scriptural objection is that without membership how can we have Biblical church discipline? That objection makes two major assumptions. First it assumes that if you are not formal members in a local church, then you cannot be disciplined. Second it assumes that in churches with formal membership lists, discipline of any sort actually happens. I think that both of these assumptions are highly suspect and faulty. I would argue that any Christian can be disciplined by whatever assembly they are part of. If they are a Christian they will accept loving discipline from the church. I am far more apt to listen to rebuke from men who I respect as mature brothers in Christ because they are my brothers than I am from someone who is in a position of contrived ecclesiastical authority but shows no sign of humble servant leadership. For discipline to be Biblical it is not required that a man with a seminary degree and a formal ordination be leading it. If Joe or Josh, men who are pastors but not “my pastor” rebuke me, or men like Rick or John who are not “pastors” at all rebuke me I would listen to their words. I may still not heed their words, but I at least will consider them!

On the flip side, in those churches that do have formal church membership rarely enforce church discipline. In some it is just not practical. How can someone in a church with 500 members effectively discipline members? Even in smaller churches, there is often little or no church discipline. There are a number of reasons for this but I think ultimately it comes down to this: if you are going to welcome into membership unregenerate people either by baptizing them as infants or leading them to make an emotional “decision”, then you are going to have little basis upon which to discipline them. Are you going to discipline a pagan for acting like a pagan?

Really, what does being a member of a local church do for you? There is no Scriptural mandate for it. You get to vote on the budget. You get to teach Sunday school (even though many “members” are unregenerate and not apt to teach, and some “non-members” or “regular attenders” are regenerate and are apt to teach. But I digress. ). You can submit to church discipline, which you should do regardless of your membership status. But local church membership seems to me to be contrived and worthless. There is nothing that supporters of church membership cite that cannot be accomplished without church membership.

The idea of formalized church membership with lists goes hand in hand with infant baptism as holdovers from Roman Catholicism. I may do more on this linkage later as time permits, but there is a great deal of background information that points to infant baptism and membership lists as being mechanisms invented by Rome as a means of control. In the good old days, if you were not a member of the Roman Catholic church you were outside of the body of Christ. In other words, membership in good standing in the visible local body was a prerequisite for being a member of the universal church, the Body of Christ (hmmm, now where have I heard that argument before). That is a strongly worded and vaguely supported statement, so I will have to beg your forbearance until I can dig my church history books out to gather support for it.

17 comments:

Unknown said...

I look forward to your future posts. At first read, you make many sweeping statements with little support except your 10 years or so of personal observation.

But, as I said, I look forward to your posts, especially your handling of the biblical texts.

Arthur Sido said...

Hi Les,

haven't heard from you in a while, hope all is well.

this is one of those issues where I think we need to examine the direction we are coming at it from. i think normally we assume that church membership is normative because that is what we traditionally see and then we look at Scripture to find support. but my main point is that there is no clear mandate in scripture to require or even to recommend church membership. so in part my argument is one from silence.

Alan Knox said...

Arthur,

Be careful how closely you look into church practices... it might lead you to decide that many of the things we do aren't found in Scripture. People won't like that.

-Alan

Arthur Sido said...

Alan, I have already found that out. Asking why we do what we do or why we don't do what we do gets you in trouble. That is why we are currently not in a church, I asked too many questions at our last one.

EROPPER said...

Same... here Arthur....i believe 1 Corinthians 12:12-26 speaks to this issue very clearly.....unfortunately Scripture get steam-rolled by the institutional church in their quest for numbers and $$$$$

Anonymous said...

We covenant together with a group of people to hold us accountable and 'watch for our souls.' We submit to one another, come out from the world and unite with professing Christians in one place to carry out the great commission.

Submission to leadership and a local assembly that you are a part of (what about the keys of heaven?) can only take place on the local level.

How would Josh or I know if you are demonstrating an angry spirit (other than reading your blog, ha ha) or perhaps not loving your wife as Christ does the church, or not keeping the Sabbath holy, or coveting, or reviling, except we see you "forsaking the assembly of yoruselves together" etc.?

You may not listen to the rebuke of elders, but you wouldn't be taking communion either if you refused to repent. I almost sense you using the marijuana argument, "Everyone smokes anyway, why not get rid of the law?" But really, you are saying, "There isn't even a law"
Whether churches are full of the unregenerate (of which I agree) or whether churches practice Matt. 18 properly are not proofs that it is wrong.

The Biblical support (I believe) comes from all the NT teachings on the nature of the church and knowing our hearts and need for accountability and for iron to sharpen iron, to obey those who have the rule over you and watch for your souls as those who must give account.

But you are saying that they should just rule over me anyway and discipline me anyway even though I have in no way given them that right or expressed that desire.

If what you suggest takes place, the first time a pastor goes to a person and says, hey, can I talk to you about____________... the family will be offended, say, "What gives you the right..." and be gone. And the bumbling pastor will sit there thinking, "Oh, I thought they were a part of our church and desired pastoral oversight, they have been here for 2 years and take communion every Sunday"

Love ya man.

Phillip Fletcher said...

Arthur,

Very good post. I think part of the underlying problem is the misunderstanding of the nature of the Church. Looking back at the Reformation, matters of the church were not the focus obviously. So the Protestants brought over many of the patterns found in the Roman Catholics.

The world views the church as an entity or organization similar to the YMCA or Urban League. If you listen to the language of professing believers, church is a place or location. Yet when we see the Scriptures Church is defined in Jesus Christ.

So membership, the current concept is a natural fallout. Membership is defined as belonging to a specific local instead of belonging to Jesus Christ.

You addressed some common objections that I have heard (widows and discipline) But then I would ask: 1. Where is your widows list? 2. When was the last discipline hearing held?

Look forward to more!
Phillip

Gary Delaney said...

In addition, I would like to ask how one can become a member of something they already are.

The Bible says that if you have received Jesus Christ as your Savior, you are the church. Because the church is not a place one goes to. The church is the body of Christ.

Blessings,
Gary

Steve Scott said...

"The idea of formalized church membership with lists goes hand in hand with infant baptism as holdovers from Roman Catholicism"

Greetings, I found you in the comments section of Knox's blog. May I twist your statement about 90 degrees? God places the members as He desires, so yes, there is a formal membership. God does the placing. What could be more formal than that? And there were membership lists, too. They simply made a list of all Christians who assembled. :)

Unknown said...

Arthur,

Welcome to the other side of the rabbit hole.

(That is, of course, the *outside.*) ;)

Arthur Sido said...

Joe,

You can pretty much assume I have an angry spirit most of the time.

Here is where I see a weakness in what you are arguing. You can appeal to pragmatism, you can appeal to lots of stuff but you really can’t appeal to Scripture. I get what you are saying, but there is nothing different between someone in an informal assembly getting mad at the elders and leaving and someone with their name on a membership list getting mad and leaving. There are plenty of churches; you can just go to another one. How many churches really check into the person’s prior church standing before admitting them into membership? So there is not much of a stick in membership if you will. I would say that all of the attributes and functions of the church we see in the New Testament can be just as effectively and faithfully carried out in formal or informal assemblies. Having said that, we went to Graham Community Church for both services yesterday and will likely continue to do so but I don’t see us seeking membership. That may mean that we will not be permitted to “serve” in teaching or preaching, but I intend to open our house to our brothers and sisters in Christ, and serving the body wherever I can.

I guess what it comes down to is this: if you want to put my name on a piece of paper or an excel spreadsheet so you have my phone number and address, that is fine but it doesn’t change one iota my standing in the Church to be on a list or not.

Unknown said...

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking, Arthur.

Joe asked, "How would Josh or I know if you are demonstrating an angry spirit... except we see you 'forsaking the assembly of yourselves together" etc.?'"

And as I think over that question, I can't help feeling like it doesn't really make sense.

Here's what I mean: first off, there's a purpose to the "assembling" this letter-writer-to-the-Hebrews is talking about. That purpose is to encourage one another. (I don't bolster anyone's courage by sitting in a pew, singing a song in unison and filling out a card.)

Second, if the only contact Joe and Josh have with Arthur is at club meetings on Sunday mornings... where's the relationship (name on a list or no) out of which rebuke ought to flow?

In other words, if you've never invited Arthur over to your home to have dinner (or just "hang out"), then I would suggest you haven't yet expressed the sort of love that should be the foundation for any correction you might have to dole out later on.

And if you spend quite a bit of time with each other outside the "meeting house," then I think you'd have plenty of exposure to Arthur's sin.

If there's no actual relationship, then a name on a list is pointless (they'll just up and move elsewhere when they want to). If there's a strong relationship, then a name on a list is unnecessary (because they want to preserve the friendship, not their "standing" in the club).

So either way, this (unbiblical) practice serves no purpose whatsoever.

...well, I can think of one reason to keep a list of members exclusive to your particular "expression": when banks are considering the risk involved in a church building loan request, a membership roll shows whether "the church is good for it."

Arthur Sido said...

Travis,

Actually Joe and I have spent a fair amount of time together, including sharing a double bed in a skeezy motel in Kentucky. Long story, but we were on our way to Together for the Gospel, not to go “fishing” in Wyoming. Just so we are clear. Anyhoo….

Unknown said...

(I thought that might be the case, but then why ask 'how would we know'? Like I said, if there's a relationship there, the question doesn't really make sense.)

Anonymous said...

Granted, too much is made of "name on a list." And perhaps even of "attending Sunday services in specified location" to the exclusion of a real relationship. Questioning the motives of the church for financial corruption is true of some but just because husbands cheat on wives does not mean marriage is bad.

Arthur,
with all that you have said about baptism, and how unbiblical it is, would you welcome to the communion table someone who is sprinkled as an infant? Ok, what if they believe they accepted Jesus into their heart when they were 4 after watching a Mark of the Beast movie?

What if they think they are saved because they believed and then their baptism finished the job by washing away their sins?

Bottom line, a line is drawn somewhere!

Here is my Scripture 1 Corinthians 5
It demands that the local church make a distinction of who to have communion with. vs 11 It calls for the local church to make a distinction who a brother is. (vs 9-10) And then gives some specific sins that you are to "Purge the evil person from among you." for. vs 11

So whether you want a formalized list or not, or a public profession of faith or not (judged to be credible based on what? AND BY WHOM? )The Bible requires you to make distinctions for who is a brother and who is not. Who you can have communion with and who you CAN NOT.

Travis,
There can be and NEEDS to be a relationship, but that takes a lot of time to develop. More so with some than others. Although a testimony of conversion and baptism is not something that takes months to figure out.

What if within the first few weeks, you find out that someone attending your church (or assembly, or gathering, or ekklesia, or fellowship) and is getting involved - you find out that he is really into porn and this is marriage 4 and he has moved into the area because he has too many DUI's to drive to work so he moved next door so he could walk. But he REALLY loves Jesus, and always has.


Call it "formalized church membership" and submarine it because it is "Catholic," but a line must be drawn somewhere. Don't we deny the Scriptures if we say there is no authority structure (Heb 13, Acts 20:17,26-29)and no recognition (whether a list or not is just a method) of who is a part of the local body of whom the church IS to make judgments on. 1 Cor. 5:12?

Unknown said...

Joe,

You make some good points, and if we assume the current "local church" system is legit, then your solutions would seem to make more sense than the alternative(s).

So I'll grant you your points, but on one condition: show me how it's any less a denial of the Scriptures to have more than one "authority structure" in a single geographic region.

See, the implicit and explicit authority structure in the NT epistles exists in a context where "local church" is equivalent to "all of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the same geographic region." Or to put it another way: the Scriptures recognize only one church per city.

That means there's only one (at most) biblically-mandated authority structure per city, and taking your views on church authority, this not only means there can be only one united group of elders per city, but also (by implication) only one membership list per city which carries Scriptural authority. All the others exert an "authority" Christ never granted them, and are thus heretical imposters.

(And no, I'm not Roman Catholic. I'm Catholic, but in the sense of the Apostles' Creed.)

Arthur Sido said...

Joe,

All valid points. I guess the whole point of this post and the entire series is to raise questions about what we do and why we do it or don’t do it. Why do we have a single pastor model where we pay one guy to do “ministry”? Why do we stand to sing but sit when the Word of God is opened and declared (which drives me nuts)? Why do we prevent women from serving as elders (properly) and yet dismiss headcovering as cultural (improperly)? These questions are unsettling, especially to me!

Certainly there are distinctions between those who are brothers and those who are not. Certainly we should call one another to account. Certainly there are qualifications for being an elder, and not all men who are Christians meet those qualifications. I would question my own qualifications to be an elder on multiple issues. Certainly we have authority in the church but that authority has nothing to do with ordination or seminary degrees. My thing is that the distinctions based on formal membership are artificial constructs.

The Lord’s Supper question is an interesting one. I used to be pretty hardcore about this, but would I break bread with a Presbyterian brother who was baptized as an infant? I would say yes and that transcends denomination or membership. We are all part of the body who are redeemed by Christ…

Ephesians 4: 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There is one body and being a member in church A or church B is irrelevant to that relationship. I would and have in the past said that those baptized as infants have not been Biblically baptized at all and need to submit to being properly and Biblically baptized, but they are still brothers in Christ and as such I would welcome them to break bread. When I pastored a Baptist church though, I would have had second thoughts about that because in those days membership and denomination overshadowed fellowship in the Body.

I am still seeking the middle ground, a Biblical mode of fellowship that is not strictly formalized and institutionalized Christianity nor is it radically egalitarian, without any sort of doctrinal truth claims or Biblical authority. It is kind of hard to find.