Institutional Church Membership

[Priestly1]

Greetings,

The Israel of God was instituted through the Covenants by God himself...a spiritual community....an organic living Body. Thus the Church is His Institutional Organization with a Commonwealth Charter (New Covenant), Community Rule (His Commandments and Commision), Community Organization (Apostles/Episcopate..Elders/Presbytery ... Ministers/Daiconate....Workers/Laity and Apprentices/Disciples) and Sacred Tradition (Scripture and unbroken chain of testimonies). Whether under Abrahamic, Mosaic or the Present Messianic Covenant...The Israel of God is an Institution, Community and Society.

So anti-establismentarianism is foreign to Holy Scripture....it is a Hippy Culture ideology introduced into American Churchianity by the late great "Jesus Movement"...as it was a born again form of the counter-culture movements beliefs. Don't trust anyone over 30, and fight the man! I was once in that mindset..what i call cowboy churchianity.

Now membership into any sheepfold, whether ancient, modern or otherwise is Biblical. Church Rule is for Corporate Discipline, Church Organization is for Corporate Order, Church Offices are for Corporate protection, oversight, education and outreach. Call it what you will....it is all explicitly or implicitly found in the Canon of Scripture and an unbroken chain of Church witness.

If yoy do not like one sheepfold, I guess find another that fits you better......but go it alone "Me n Jesus" cowboy churchianity fails the test. Christ's Body is not a single fold, but many folds which compromise the Great Sheepfold with Christ as it's Chief Shepherd...The Chief Bishop of our Souls. We cannot go around seeking Christ's perfection in imperfect sheepfolds. That is an excuse for Buffet Style churchianity...no discipleship, no authority, no discipline, no accountability. If you hate Organization then the Body of Christ is not for you, if you want to be your own authority....then the Church is not your place.

Wild Horses must be tamed in order to serve as War Horses for the King. They must be gathered into a coral (Organized form), broken (Submissive), retrained (Discipled), worked (Practice the Faith) and then used in the capacity seen fit by the King (Bishop/Pesbyter/Deacon/Layperson/Disciple) until it is time for the general call for Battle (The Great commission). Wild Horses do hang out in herds.....but not for any other purpose than self preservation and carnal necessity.......Coraled, Broken, Retrained, Worked and Stationed Horses keep their Herding, but is different and for a higher purpose. It seems to me those who banter about various "formal" or "institutional" sheepfolds reveal their Wild Horse, Lone Ranger spirituality....and not a Community oriented spirituality as demanded by the Covenant and the Covenant Maker.

I would like to see what the arguments for the superiority of the Post Modernist "Counter-Cultural and Anti-Establishmentarian christian" mindset and subsequent social networks and gatherings to the Anciently Held and Apostolically practiced form of Judeo-Christian Community. I have yet to see a Biblically exegited case for it....just accusations, rhetoric and a dismissal of all ancient evidences, witnesses and suspicion against "Institutional' Scriptural, Ecclesiological and Exegetical Higher Education and training. I was a Rebel without a Clue.......and then I studied Scripture on it's own terms, in it's historical settings and with it's linguistic rules and standards...as well and Church documents that are as old as Jude, james and the Apocolypse unit Nicaea. That's when I left my Wild horse Faith and Lone Ranger Practices.

From Whom did you receive your Counter Culteral/Antiestablishmentarian Mindset and Glasses? It wasn't From the Prophets, the Apostles or from God. It came from the 1960s AD.............................not 30s AD. Check it's historic roots and those who stem from that root and who has espoused it and spread it.



Rev. +Ken

[Danny]

Um... The early church wasn't counter-cultural and anti-establishment? You're kidding right?

[blackheart]

The Biblical argument is basically an argument from the authoritative content of the Bible. In other words, if the church is made up of baptized individuals, the someone or something (an institution) has to keep record of that. The church has to meet somewhere and that has to get organized. So there IS an institutional element.

Could not the "authoritative content of the Bible" be used to justify most any argument?

As I requested from a Pastor in the town I reside in,

Would you rather have a "list of names/membership role" (some of which never show their faces, and which might consider their membership an advantage with God,) or a group of believers who come together faithfully due to their commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ?

[mattrose]

Would you rather have a "list of names/membership role" (some of which never show their faces, and which might consider their membership an advantage with God,) or a group of believers who come together faithfully due to their commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Certainly the latter. I doubt any good pastor would deny that.

But you have to be careful about creating a false dilemma. It's not necessarily and EITHER/OR situation.

You asked for a biblical argument for institutionalized church membership rolls. There is no such thing to be found. It would be a mistake, however, to take from that fact the idea that institutional membership must, therefore, be ANTI-biblical and wrong. Institutional membership is something that Christians came up with to AID their purpose in making disciples. It was a way of creating a dividing line between the saved and unsaved so that the saved could keep each other accountable and so that there'd be a more authoritative means to necessary discipline.

I'm sure you and I (And just about everyone) agree that this invention has come with some negative side effects. As you pointed out, most often these membership lists aren't kept current AND/OR churches don't discipline sinning members. The result of this is that membership becomes not only meaningless in terms of its purpose, but actually harmful in that it gives sinning people the wrong impression about their security.

Membership is certainly broken in most churches. And it may be better to throw it out than to try to fix it. But I caution you about concluding that it has absolutely no value solely b/c it's not spelled out in Scripture.

[Homer]

There is a lot of truth in what Ken has to say about the anti-institutionalism of the 60s movement; it was anti any and every institution it seems.

I am always puzzled by the anti-institional talk regarding the church. Words have meanings. What is meant by the term? Considering the definition of "institution":

From Merriam-Webster
1. an act of instituting : establishment
2. archaic: something that serves to instruct
3. a significant practice, relationship, organization in a society or culture

As for number 1, it seems Jesus established His church, 2, the church certainly instructs, and 3, the church has significant practices, relationships to Christ and each other, and is organized in that God has gifted people for certain roles and there are elders and deacons at least. So how is it not an institution in any fair understanding of that word? It reminds me of the popular idea that Christianity is not a religion.

Paul appears to me to have practiced some organizing:

1 Timothy 5:9

9. Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number (katalego, Strongs #2639), and not unless she has been the wife of one man,

katalegō kat-al-eg'-o
Parts of Speech TDNT Verb None Definition
1. to lay down, to lie down
2. to narrate at length, recount, set forth
3. to set down in a list or register, to enrol
a. of soldiers
b. of those widows who held a prominent place in the church and exercised a certain superintendence over the rest of the women, and had charge of the widows and orphans supported at the public expense

It would not be too far-fetched to surmise that they wrote down a few other things as well.

It would be helpful if the anti-institutional folks would be precise in what they mean by the term.

[steve]

Yes, I was undeniably a product of the 60's—which did incline me to question authorities more than I might have felt free to do if I had lived in a previous generation, or in a less-free society. The freedom (and Christian duty) of questioning authorities, though, simply means testing the claims of that which professes to have authority, rejecting the false claimants and cleaving to the authority that passes the test.

This state of mind gave people of my generation the sense of freedom to examine (if they wished) whatever claims were made by organized religion and to adhere to a New Testament model, if one could be discovered. That became my personal (and, as it has turned out) lifetime pursuit. Others will no doubt reach different conclusions from mine, but I will stand before God owning the convictions of a good conscience, rather than hoping the leaders of a contemporary organization, which I might have followed, got it right.

I have defined my usage of the term "institutional" (when modifying the word "church") on other occasions. I do not use the term as a synonym for "organized." Any gathering of people requires some organization, in order not to be chaotic.

My definition of an institutional church would be:

1. A church that defines its legitimacy in terms of its organizational distinctives (e.g., hierarchy, unique membership, distinctive doctrines and practices) which differ from those of, and set it apart from, other organized bodies;

2. A church that has established permanent institutional "offices" which outlive the office-holders, and which are perpetuated through an automatic succession of leaders.

I think of the two ways in which Israel was governed after its establishment in the Land. Moses died, leaving Joshua as his successor to lead Israel in the conquest of Canaan. After this was accomplished, Joshua died, leaving no successor.

For over 300 years, Israel had no succession of leaders (it was suggested in Gideon's day, but he rejected it as a sacrilegious institutionalism that would push God out of His proper role as Israel's Head). How were they governed during this time? We are told, "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Preachers in institutional churches say this was a bad thing, but the only "remedy" for the situation was the appointment of a king—which God said was a bad thing! No one can demonstrate that Israel's public morality or worship suffered more in the era of the judges than it did in the era of the kings. It is true that, in the former, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes," but is that worse than everyone doing what is right in the eyes of a corrupt king, like Ahab? "When a wicked man rules, the people groan" (Prov.29:2).

In the former state of affairs, under the judges, at least the righteous had the freedom to obey and worship God righteously. Those who did not wish to do so would not have been made better worshippers had they been forced by an external authority to toe the line.

In the New Covenant, it is safe for people to be guided by internal controls, because every true participant has the law written on his/her heart. Such a person will benefit (because he wants to) from teaching, exhortation, rebuke and encouragement in righteousness from the others in the Body. However, no one will be made more holy by the imposition of external authority.

The difference between the time of the judges and that of the monarchy was primarily that, in the former, an office-holder ("judge") arose spontaneously by the call of God, held office by virtue of his divine calling and his merits, and then died, leaving no successor. The next time a charismatic leader was required, God found another, and gave him a similar career as that of the previous one—who might have lived generations earlier.

By contrast, the monarchy established a hereditary ("institutional") position of leadership in Israel, with automatic succession upon the death of the office-holder. This meant that, whether there was a good king (there rarely ever was!) or a bad king, his death would not leave Israel in the position to start fresh with a clean slate, but he would be instantly succeeded, whether there was a good man for the job or not. Solomon was wise enough to anticipate this problem:

Then I hated all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity. Therefore I turned my heart and despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun. For there is a man whose labor is with wisdom, knowledge, and skill; yet he must leave his heritage to a man who has not labored for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. (Eccles.2:18-21)

I believe this is the story of the "institutional" churches as well. Is there any branch of the church whose founder's pure vision was not corrupted by those who came after him? Yet, God has established a church where every man answers to his Lord. "The head of every man is Christ." Its "member"-ship (we are members of Christ's body, of His flesh and of His bone) is defined by spiritual experience and fidelity to the King. Yes, everyone is free to do what is right in his own eyes—but all true members desire the will of God, not of themselves, and if what is right in one person's own eyes ultimately amounts to rebellion against the King, that person thereby defines himself out of the circle of "member"-ship.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

I think we have a semantic problem. I think you do not oppose the idea of the church being an institution in the true sense of the word, but rather you oppose institutionalism.

Institutionalism (from Merriam-Webster)
1. emphasis on organization (as in religion) at the expense of other factors

Correct?

God bless, Homer

[steve]

Yes. That is entirely correct.

[Homer]

Steve,

Hooray! Now I got it.

God bless, Homer

[blackheart]

So am I safe to assume there is no biblical basis for a membership requirement within a local church? That it is not directly commanded or even described within the Book?
I understand the argument from logic, but I must confess, logic has led me down dark paths in the past.
I suppose the safe thing to say would be that "local church membership lists" are a logical expression of good men seeking to control(?) the body of Christ - (That is a bit strong but it is late!!!)