church membership

[_Steve]

Perhaps, in order to keep the discussion on-topic, we should occasionally remember what the question is that we are seeking to answer here. This thread began with "believer" asking the following:

"I have never been a member of any church as I have not believed
that it is scriptual. Please give me some advice/scriptures so I
can know how the Lord views this. "

The question here, then, seems to be: "Is the policy of church membership scriptural?" This is the only question my posts at this thread have been concerned to answer.

To know if something is "scriptural" or not would seem to require some recourse to scripture. It may be very interesting to know what Capitol Hill Baptist Church believes and practices, or what Wayne Mack said in a book, but without examining scripture, we have not gotten any closer to determining whether a thing is scriptural or not.

Of course, there needs to be some clear definition of the concept we are discussing before its scripturalness can be examined. Therefore, I have summarized what I think most people mean by "church membership," and asked if anyone is aware of any other sense in which the word is used.

Defining "membership" the way I understand the term's current use (as applied to what is currently called a "local church"), I have deemed it to be "unscriptural." By that adjective I mean, at the very least, "Not advocated in scripture"—and, possibly, even "Contrary to scriptural principles."

What seems clear from the contents of many of the above postings is that some Christians are not very concerned about the original question. They have made no serious attempt to show that church membership is scriptural—only that it has pragmatic value.

It seems clear that many Christians are not really overly concerned as to whether their behavior conforms to scripture, so long as it can be justified by pragmatic arguments, and has the popular support of mainstream evangelicalism. This is the very attitude of the church that excommunicated Luther: "How dare you suggest that the way the church has been doing things for centuries must be judged at the bar of Holy Scripture?"

As near as I can tell, no one here who has taken a view like mine has attacked any church for having "membership," nor impugned the character of any person who is a church member. By contrast, some of those here who advocate church membership have indeed called into question the motives and Christian standing of those who are saying we should examine this matter more carefully from scripture before we endorse it.

As is so often the case in theological debates, those who love the truth and are really committed to scriptural authority seem to be secure enough in their beliefs as not to feel threatened by those who disagree with their views (and, consequently, feel no need to attack them). Those who have only tradition on their side often have no recourse but to attack the character of those who want simply to follow the Word of God.

In my estimate, evidence from scripture trumps pragmatism. But even from the pragmatic side of the argument, has anyone yet been able to demonstrate that the positive benefits claimed for the adoption of formal church membership are benefits that are unavailable in churches that have no such membership? If this can't be established, then not only does the argument for church memebership fail the scriptural test, but the pragmatic one as well.

[_Steve]

Homer,

You asked, several posts back, about my ability to work in evangelism with someone from the Salvation Army who did not believe in water baptism. The answer is that I probably could not cooperate with them in evangelism, so long as they are misrepresenting the terms of the gospel. However, this does not impact anything I have said about church membership. I have not been a member of a local church organization for many years, yet I have had no difficulty knowing with whom I could work harmoniously and with whom I could not.

I could not conduct evangelistic ministry with United Pentecostals, since they teach you must speak in tongues to be saved, nor with many Baptists, who say you only have to ask Jesus to come into your heart, and need not repent. Anyone whose gospel presentation is deficient would be someone that I would not choose as a partner in street evangelism. Fortunately, I am not required to team up with every other Christian in every ministry effort. God puts teams together as He sees fit.

This does not mean that I am incapable of loving and treating such a person as a brother. That some of these people may not really be "brothers" in Christ, I fully acknowledge, but I do not make it my business to decide such things as only God can know. A man badly indoctrinated by those who led him to Christ may be a brother without being a person whose presentation of the gospel I would approve of. I myself presented very flawed gospel messages in my younger years, but I have no doubt that I was a Christian.

My vision of fellowship is that everyone who loves the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity is accepted in Him, regardless how many defects remain to be worked out in their theology. If they are accepted by God in Christ, then I must not exclude them from what I consider to be my Christian family. In any large family, some siblings are closer to one another than they are with other siblings, yet all are recognized as part of one family. So it is in the Body of Christ.

There will always be those in Christ with whom I resonate more than with others. There will be those with whom I am led to spend more time, and with whom I will sense a leading to cooperate in various forms of ministry. But I will not feel that my commitment to such brethren demands more of me, in terms of "loyalty," compassion or tangible assistance, than does my commitment to another brother with whom I have little acquaintance or little common ground. I attend a meeting with certain other believers on a regular basis—in fact, I meet with a number of such groups in different localities—but my "belonging" is to Christ, not to any one group.

I am sure that, in this respect, you and I are no different from each other. The difference between us is in what we say when we talk about church membership. You say one thing, and I another, but we live in essentially the same manner as each other. This is exactly my point. Church membership adds nothing to your life that I (or you) might not equally have without it. It would seem to be inconsequential in determining how we live our Christian lives.

As for the scriptural rightness or wrongness of church membership, since the idea is not mentioned in scripture, we must assess each case upon scriptural principle. If a church uses the term "membership" but means by that term no concept that divides their members (even in their thinking) from the rest of the Body of Christ, then there can be little to object to in it.

On the other hand, if church membership is used to mean "loyalty to this particular group of believers, and not to the other similar groups of believers in this town" (which is what I have always understood it to mean), then I see this as something to be avoided as unscriptural.

You are right. You and I could work together without difficulty—even though we are not "members" of the same local church. This itself raises questions about why such membership should be considered essential.

I don't believe that you have said that such membership is essential, as some have. Your questions seem to be whether it is wrong to participate in such membership. I leave that to every man's conscience, since concepts of membership seem to differ from case to case.


JJB—

You express concern that I do not hold out for "orthodoxy" in those with whom I am willing to fellowship. It is because of this attitude that I am able to welcome you (a Calvinist, committed to extrabiblical paradigms of ecclesiology) into my circle. To demand orthodoxy (if that word means "correct doctrine") would require that I exclude you, which I have no desire to do.

Part of the reason I am glad to include you is that, only in such a case, will I have any opportunity to bring correction to you in areas where I believe you may require it from scripture. This is the value of keeping the lines of fellowship open between ourselves and other Christians who do not see things the way we do. You obviously consider me and others at this forum to be unorthodox, and yet you are willing to fellowship with me and with them (taking "communication" to be an aspect of fellowship). You apparently see some value in this. What then is the difference between your attitude and mine?

The problem with demanding "orthodoxy" in those with whom we are willing to fellowship is that some human being (or human institution) must be entrusted with the task of defining orthodoxy. I don't trust any man, including myself, to determine those boundaries. My fellowship is "in Christ." Those who confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, that He has come in the flesh and is the Son of God—and whose behavior appears to confirm the sincerity of their confession—would appear to be accepted by God as members of His household, however strange some of their personal beliefs may be. I would be terrified to be found excluding as "unclean" any that God has "cleansed." Love 'em all; let God sort them out.

[Guest]

Steve, et al,

Again I will refer to my original post on this thread. I do not believe the issues I raised have been addressed.

Is it unscriptural, in the sense of being wrong or forbidden, for a local congregation to own property such as a building(s)? Is there any case where it would be expedient for them to do so? If this is good and proper in furthering the mission of the church, some sort of membership is essential for reasons that should be obvious.

And what about parachurch organizations? We support the Eugene Mission but parachurch organizations are unscriptural in the sense of not being advocated. There are some who have opposed any parachuch organizations, believing all work should be carried out by individual congregations, as the only biblical model. Most of them probably could not function or exist without some sort of formal organization.

This brings up a separate but related question. Are those things not specifically authorized in scripture forbidden, or are things not forbidden acceptable as long as they do not violate some other precept?

We have no precept authorizing instrumental music in the church, but do we have freedom in Christ to utilize instruments since they are not forbidden?

I would also like to hear opinion(s) on what would constitute a body with authority to send, Romans 10:15.

I fail to see a problem with membership, per se, in a local congregation. In itself it is neither good nor bad; the problem would be in the use it is put to and attitude toward Christians who aren't members.

[Guest]

Steve,

Thanks for your last post, I can't disagree with anything you said. I do have some practical/scriptural concerns as mentioned in my last post, apparently in the process of being typed while you responded to me.

[Guest]

Steve

Thanks for your thoughts.

Can you show me where I've impugned someone's character? Because it is only Homer and I who seem to be continuing the conversation and who see why membership is beneficial, I am assuming you are addressing me in this accusation. I'd like to see it, because I do not recall impugning someone's character. I've reread the thread and cannot find it.

I have put forth scripture, my thoughts and others' thoughts on the benefits of membership in a local body. The local church is not pitted against another local church, which I think is how many are viewing the local church. The Gospel preached is the job we are to be about.

[_Steve]

JJB,

I am glad that you were not aware of attacking anyone's character, and that it was, apparently, inadvertent.

Most of the statements (and chronologically the earliest) to which I refer were made at the parallel thread to this one, entitled, "Is the local church essential?" though a few are found at this thread.

At the other thread, on February 5th, you recommended an article under the heading, "Forsaking the Church is Apostasy." Though you did not directly apply this to anyone in particular, you suggested that it presents an alternative viewpoint to those expressed by those questioning the scripturalness of the local church. This post was not offensive in itself, and had it not been followed by similar comments in later posts, I would have thought little of it, other than that you had not taken much care to understand our position. "Forsaking the church" does not remotely describe anything that anyone here has suggested. "Biblically defining the church" is more descriptive of what we are advocating. This can hardly be called "apostasy."

At the same thread, two days later, you accused Sean of telling "a bald faced lie." No one can be accused of telling a bald faced lie without being called a liar in the same statement—this is an attack on character, and a very unfair one, since Sean had not lied about anything.

In the same post, you referred to "people at this website" as those who "don't want to submit to authority." The desire not to submit to authority (when such submission is appropriate, as you seem to have implied) is undoubtedly a character defect—but not one of which anyone here could justly be accused, based upon any statements they have written. This is essentially calling people "insubordinate" or "rebellious"—a very severe accusation, as it seems to me.

Before you closed that post, you accused some of us of "looking down" on you because you "aren't smart enough" to agree with us. If this were true of anyone, it would certainly be a very great character defect on their part. However, none of the posts that have been written in response to you exhibit this attitude, nor justify your accusation.

Finally, in this thread on "church membership," on February 8th, you spoke of "selfish motivations" in a statement that could hardly be understood as anything but a reference to people who think differently than you do about church membership.

In the same post, you wrote: "I think it's unforunate Christians refuse to place membership anywhere. It's not that big of a deal unless you have an agenda of some sort." This statement clearly states that those who strongly differ from your viewpoint on this topic "have an agenda of some sort"—implying that they are not honestly seeking to find the truth by a disinterested search of scripture, but that they are slanting their case to support some ignoble agenda.

These may all simply be cases of careless speech, and not intentional personal attacks, but careless or not, the words mean things and, in each case, suggest dishonesty on the part of those whose viewpoint you either simply do not understand or else with which you cannot sympathize. Thus, while no one has given evidence of looking down on you for not being as smart as anyone else, you have in fact charged others with being less than honest in their motivation for making the statement they have made.

I realize that you are humble, and will probably apologize for these statements, and I am sure that no one holds them against you (no one but me has even raised an objection to them). I was simply observing that resorting to personal attacks on the character or motives of those whose arguments you admit you cannot answer is not a convincing way to prove the validity of your point. No offense taken.

[Guest]

Steve, I did not mean to impugn anyone's character. If anyone feels I have done so, I extend my apologies.

I had already addressed the apostacy comment, the next day I retracted it. Thanks for revisiting it.

You are right, I do not understand the rejection of the local church. By doing so, are you not also creating yet another division within Protestanism? In my readings, I have found many who have answered this rejection and some who have confirmed what I have already postulated and put forth. Here is a link to yet another paper:

http://www.ovrlnd.com/Teaching/WhyJoinAChurch.html

Even non-denominational churches have become, in essence, just another denomination. In some sense, I think they can be much healthier than specific denoms, as ppl do not share all doctrine so lively discussions can be had and unity can be achieved despite the differences. Currently, we are enjoying our non-denom and the variety, yet unifying effect it has for believers.

The reason I am pursuing this thread is several-fold:

1. To try to understand the rejection of a local church and its membership
2. How home meetings are any different than another schism/denom
3. How does this rejection promote unity and public proclamation of the Gospel
4. Are there, in fact, underlying issues (authority, abuses/hurts, etc)
5. Why not choose to address these underlying issues within the established body rather than running to start another denom.
6. What recourses are there within this separation from the local body for ppl that will be hurt through this new gathering?
7. Established churches, particularly specific denoms, have established venues to address wrongs provided the higher ups are concerned with the sheep and the Gospel
8. Local churches can use thier money more effectively for the Gospel.

Perhaps I have been too vehement because it appears to me, by rejecting a local body, to add fuel to the fire of the naysayers who point and say "Look at all the denominations! They can't even agree on basics." I do not want to see our testimony for the Gospel be damaged further.

It's a new concept for me (rejection of the local church), and so in my not untypical fashion, jumped to some wrong conclusions about folks, and for that I am sorry. Thanks for all your patience.

Soli Deo Gloria

[Guest]

JJB,

Can I ask you where are you getting this idea that anyone here is advocating the "rejection" of the local church?

I think a clear distinction can be made between refusing to exclusively commit oneself to any particular group and an outright rejection of the local church. I don't recall anyone in this thread (or any other) saying that we need to "reject" the local church. I think most, if not all, on this forum attend some form of local "church", many of them are affiliated with established denominations. It's the biblical definition of church membership and a believers commitment to the body of Christ (rather than an organization) that is being discussed here.

Perhaps this is where the confusion lies.

[Guest]

Christopher, by "rejection" I am thinking non-membership. When a local church asks a congregant to commit to membership and the congregant says, "no thanks", is that not rejection?

Church membership =/= exclusive loyalty to one group. It does not limit how or with whom you minister. It may impact the church body with whom one usually worships by how you may serve.

This will be my last post on this thread. We all seem to have our minds made up. As I said many, many posts earlier the dialogue is over.

Time to move one for me.

[Guest]

JJB,

One last thing for me too.

Christopher, by "rejection" I am thinking non-membership. When a local church asks a congregant to commit to membership and the congregant says, "no thanks", is that not rejection?

Steve has said that he attends a certain church but has not accepted membership. He makes his gifts available to this congregation in that he teaches there weekly and helps with worship. Do you really want to call that rejection?

Peace bro.