Institutional Church Membership (Part 2)

[johnb]

Hi,
Thought i would start another thread on this topic since the other was starting to get long and I have a good chunk of questions that still remain (as you can see below).
I’m still kinda struggling here in relation to this topic – I don’t post very much (due to my schedule) but when I do it’s because I really need some help.

I’m hoping for some additional insight about formal memberships (institutional memberships). I feel that I’ve done a good bit of wrestling with this subject, both for and against through various articles and teachings (including the ‘Some Assembly Required’ teachings). At this point my position on formal memberships is that although not everything is objectionable about it and there may be some implied passages that favor it, it still ultimately remains unnecessary and seems to set itself up against some clearer teachings in Scripture.
The pastor of a church that my family and I have been attending for 2 ½ years now has recently asked about our thoughts on becoming ‘partners’ (their word for ‘members’) of their church. We recently went through their ‘partnership’ class and the pastor and I had a chance to talk about our differences last night (very respectfully) and here are some issues that were raised that I am struggling with and hoping for some additional thoughts (pros or cons)….

1. Pastor argued: There is a difference between the ‘office of pastor/elder’ and the ‘gift of leadership’ and although a persons gift of leadership should not be imposed upon someone unnecessarily there is still a biblical position of the ‘office of pastor/elder’ that is to shepherd the flock that is entrusted to them which implies formal membership because the pastor must know who he is to be shepherding. If the pastor doesn’t know who he is shepherding by way of formal membership then it makes the office of pastor irrelevant. Although the formal membership list may be a bit inaccurate at times it is still the best way to know who to generally be shepherding.

2. Pastor argued: Peter was the “first among equals” in the group of the 12 Apostles and Paul was “first among equals” to Barnabas, Timothy, Titus etc…This shows that there was someone who was in a position of authority over others who were also in a position in authority. If those who had leadership or authoritative positions (James, John, Barnabas, Timothy etc…) were under someone else who had authority over them (Paul or Peter), that points to how much more all believers need to be under someone’s authority. By not becoming a formal member you are not positioning yourself under an appointed authority as the Apostles and pastor/elders did in the N.T. which goes against Scripture.

3. Pastor argued: In the N.T. over 90% of the time the word ‘church’ is in reference to the ‘local church’ which implies there must first be a dedication to a group of local believers by way (or implication) of formal membership. This means the burden of proof would be on me to show that Scripture is more times than not referring to the ‘universal body’ instead of the ‘local body’.

4. I argued: 1Cor 1:11-13 says that saying “I am of…[person or group]” is carnal thinking and I feel that is what is being asked of me, as if to say “I am of …[this particular local church]”.
Pastors reply: I don’t think that is legitimate because the Corinthians had a lot of divisive issues and that is what Paul is addressing. We don’t necessarily have divisive issues between us unless you’re saying that you’re not willing to come under the authority of the local church and then at that point you would be the one being divisive.

5. I argued: Matt 20:25-26 says that we should not “lord” over or “exercise authority” over one another yet your saying becoming a formal member of a local church means coming under the authority of the leaders of the local church as well.
Pastors reply: That was only said to the disciples and not necessarily a command to all Christians universally. It couldn’t have been meant for all believers because later we are told to submit to those who are over us (Heb 13:17). This shows a progression of development. For example in Acts 6:1-7 the men they elected to serve tables where simply men of “good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom”. In later years when Paul was addressing the qualifications for elders in 1Tim 3:1-7 he gave a more detailed list of character traits that wasn’t required back in Acts 6. Therefore the “exercising of authority” was only meant for the immediate disciples that Jesus was talking to, after further developments Paul started to establish a more ‘governable’ structure of church pastorship / eldership which is shown by the commands to submit to those who are shepherding you.

So those are the 5 main things I struggled to reply on. Of course since I didn’t share his views he told me that I may have an issue with submitting to authority or I may be bringing bad baggage from past experiences and imposing it onto their church, both of which may be preventing me from accepting formal memberships. I told him although that may be the case with some people I really don’t think either of those are the case with my wife or I but that I would still take those comments into consideration and prayer.
I came away from our discussion thinking of another issue that we didn’t really touch on. That is, it almost seems at the end of the day there are 2 paradigms of viewing the New Testament (probably more) and those 2 different paradigms give different conclusions about formal memberships. One paradigm sets a persons focus first on one small group of believers and then secondly on the universal body of believers – The other paradigm would be opposite, that our focus should be first on the universal body of believers and then secondly on any small group of believers you happen to be placed around. As I think about it maybe there doesn’t have to be an ‘either-or’ paradigm at all. Can we say there is a focus on both the small group of believers in my life (a locality of believers) and a focus on the universal believers at the same time – or does one take precedence over the other?

I know I put a lot down and maybe I'm over-thinking things but any additional thoughts or comments are appreciated.

[steve]

1. Pastor argued: There is a difference between the ‘office of pastor/elder’ and the ‘gift of leadership’ and although a persons gift of leadership should not be imposed upon someone unnecessarily there is still a biblical position of the ‘office of pastor/elder’ that is to shepherd the flock that is entrusted to them which implies formal membership because the pastor must know who he is to be shepherding. If the pastor doesn’t know who he is shepherding by way of formal membership then it makes the office of pastor irrelevant. Although the formal membership list may be a bit inaccurate at times it is still the best way to know who to generally be shepherding.

Bless your pastor's heart! He is doing his best to make a case for the system that he has been taught to uphold. There is going to be a problem here in communication. I know, because I can remember being in his position long ago. Like him, I was fully convinced that the religious system, in which I was so heavily invested, was as true to the scriptures as any could be. In some respects, I was probably right. Our system was as scriptural as any other system of religion. What had never occurred to me, up to that point, is that no system of religion can really be justified from the New Testament. I can completely relate to his answers, and I can see the matter through his eyes. Institutional religion, with its offices, its official lists of participants, its protocols, etc., is the only imaginable alternative to the insecurity of real spiritual life and unscripted relationships.

I need to clarify right away that I am not saying that real spiritual life and relationships can never thrive in an organized assembly. In fact, I consider organization (as opposed to chaos) to be essential to any group that plans to work toward certain specified ends like a well-oiled machine. Paul definitely imposed organization (he called it "order") on the chaotic Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 14, and it is obvious that organization can be the servant of spiritual activity. The problem arises when the spiritual activity becomes the servant of the organization (I am here not using the term "the organization" as a synonym of "the institution," but merely as meaning "the state of being organized").

In the collective spiritual life of people who are following Jesus, the Holy Spirit definitely creates special bonds of affection and partnerships between individuals and families, which go deeper and demand commitment and investment beyond that which any one could possibly maintain toward every member of the worldwide body of Christ. It is also true that Spirit-led believers recognize, in certain individuals, gifts of spiritual leadership, which incline them to heed and follow the things that those individuals advocate and model in their own lives.

However, there is no need to give badges and labels to such individuals, conferring upon them some "office" which they continually occupy. "Those who lead you" are those "who have spoken the word of God to you" (Hebrews 13:7). Today, one man may speak the word of God to you. Tomorrow, another man or woman may do so. It is the Word of God (Jesus) that the disciple submits to (Luke 8:21; 11:28). Men and women are true spiritual leaders only when they are speaking (and modeling) the Word of God, and they cease to be when they do not speak the Word of God—and especially when they speak contrary to the Word of God. The authority is in God and His word, not in some man or woman who wears a badge. The same man who spoke such a faithful word into your life today may be utterly off-target tomorrow. It is Christ who is the Head of every man (1 Cor.11:3), and it is the Holy Spirit who leads the sons of God (Rom.8:14).

The Church became corrupted when it decided that there need to be officers whose authority resides in their office. Once there is an authoritative office, then whoever fills it is regarded as being in authority, regardless what he says or how much spiritual authority he may or may not actually possess. The office is viewed as an entity in itself, which outlives the man who holds it, and must again be filled when it is vacant. This mentality is the same as that of Israel, when they asked for a hereditary dynasty to replace the judges (1 Sam.8:1ff). The thing displeased Samuel and God, because God said, "They have not rejected you [Samuel], but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them!" What an indictment of the people of God!

But what exactly was it that they were rejecting, and what were they seeking? Up until that time, "There was no king in Israel, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6; 21:25). Every preacher who quotes this verse seems to think that the writer is describing a bad thing! But it is the system that God had ordained for Israel! What was the only alternative? To have a king (which was not the will of God for Israel) and for everybody to do what is "right" in the king's eyes. This may be well and good as long as the king's eyes are always seeing things God's way. But as soon as you have a hereditary dynasty in place (institutional leadership), you take the risk of a wise king being succeeded by a fool (See Eccl.2:18-21). Thus, Israel eventually had kings and queens that led them into and enforced the worship of Baal. At least when "every man did what was right in his own eyes," there was the possibility that a significant remnant would be doing things God's way, since they had God's Law to inform them of "what is right."

So what had God set up to govern Israel before the kings came along and spoiled it? The Book of Judges tells us that, though Joshua had succeeded Moses as the leader of Israel's armies, there was no successor to Joshua appointed. In fact, once the land had been conquered and secured, there was no central government created and no standing armies at all. People simply were expected to do what was right in their own eyes, as they followed the Law that God gave them through Moses—and to journey to the tabernacle three times a year for festivals. Well then, who was governing the people? The Word of God was governing the people—at least those who sought to follow it.

Those who did not follow it were a problem, of course. But God has different ways of solving problems with His kids than man has. When religious men see people going astray, they want to institutionalize the life of the people of God and set lords over them to make sure they do not stray from the right path. God's solution was different. It was divine discipline of the disobedient. He sent enemies to conquer and oppress them, until the disobedient people, under the mighty hand of God, would repent and plead for mercy. Then He would send a deliverer, which the Bible calls a "judge." This judge did not arise from any hereditary line. He or she did not occupy any existing political office, nor leave his or her authority to a successor upon death. The judge was a charismatic man or woman whom the Spirit of God raised up and gifted to deliver His people from the oppression. This was an ad hoc assignment given to an individual who would often arise seemingly out of nowhere. Once the spiritual revival had occurred, and the enemies had been neutralized, the judge would spend the rest of his or her natural life "judging" the people, which, apparently meant arbitrating between people's personal disputes and telling them what the Law of God would have them do. Only once was it suggested that the judge establish a hereditary dynasty for his family, and the suggestion was flatly rejected (Judges 8:22-23).

Ever since the institutionalization of the Church, there have been two parallel movements, somewhat overlapping each other. One stream, the institutional churches, like Israel under her kings, has pursued a course of institutionalized authority, so that there have been many generations of corrupt leaders in the Church, as there were in Israel. Such corrupt leadership causes people to "groan" (Prov.29:2), and requires the godly remnant to "hide themselves" (Prov.28:28). The second stream is comprised of the spiritual movement of the people of God, whom God disciplines and guides, and for whose sake He has often raised up charismatic "deliverers"—sometimes within, but often from outside or in defiance of the institutional church (e.g., Jesus, Peter Waldo, Jan Hus, John Wycliff, Martin Luther. John Wesley, etc.).

So, if there are no recognized "officers" in the Church, how will people know whom they should follow? There can be recognized leaders without there being "officers." Paul, Barnabas, Timothy and Titus all were known to confer their special recognition upon individuals as leaders. To have some of the apostles present to identify those in whom they recognize the gifts and qualifications of leadership is no doubt very helpful. Today, we don't all have the advantage of apostolic witness about the leaders among us. However, even if leaders were to be formally recognized (say, by the consensus of the congregation), this would not justify the creation of a political office in "the organization." The Old Testament remnant always tended to trust the true prophets, and Christians also have the obligation to identify those among them who speak the Word of God to them. Jesus said, "My sheep know my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" and "They will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him" (John 10:27, 5).

Like many other pastors, your pastor believes that "If the pastor doesn’t know who he is shepherding by way of formal membership then it makes the office of pastor irrelevant." This is no doubt true, in the absence of actual relationships. Where relationship is absent, church members can only be known only by their names on a list. Of course, where there is no relationship, that circumstance is what "makes the office of pastor irrelevant." How can a man be thought to be a shepherd of sheep with whom he has no relationship? On the other hand, if the relationships are there, the shepherd knows who the sheep are. People whose involvement can only be ascertained by their names on a list are not involved. Either that, or the pastors are not in touch with what God is doing and whom He is using in the congregation. A members list is a misleading document, since most churches have twice as many "members" on the list as they have in attendance. It is frightening to think that that is " the best way to know who to generally be shepherding." I would expect that God could have thought of something better. Oh, that's right! He did!

Answers coming presently to the following:

2. Pastor argued: Peter was the “first among equals” in the group of the 12 Apostles and Paul was “first among equals” to Barnabas, Timothy, Titus etc…This shows that there was someone who was in a position of authority over others who were also in a position in authority. If those who had leadership or authoritative positions (James, John, Barnabas, Timothy etc…) were under someone else who had authority over them (Paul or Peter), that points to how much more all believers need to be under someone’s authority. By not becoming a formal member you are not positioning yourself under an appointed authority as the Apostles and pastor/elders did in the N.T. which goes against Scripture.

Even if these premises were true, it would not establish the conclusion that formal membership is needed—or scripturally justified. I can submit to a leader without being on a list that he keeps in his file cabinet. In fact, I can be led spiritually by an author, a media preacher, or a local Christian leader without his even knowing I am following him.

I have heard this "first among equals" phrase many times. When I was a church elder, our pastor was regarded as "the first among equals." The phrase always seemed like an oxymoron to me. What does "first" mean? If it does not mean the first in a chronological sense, it must mean first in authority, in which case it is not on an equal plane with the second, third, etc. Other leaders may be equal among themselves, but as soon as one is given prominence as the "first," the rest are no longer equal to him.

Now, I have no objection to one man being a spokesperson for a group (as Peter was, initially, among the apostles), nor with one man leading others in a team project (as Paul was with his outreach team). The "group" or the "team" in view in these examples was not a congregation, but a group of leaders. If a group of Christians separates themselves to a certain goal—like opening a crisis pregnancy center, or a campus outreach, or a foreign missions organization—and they appoint a leader or board of directors, this is not the same thing as a congregation of Christians from every calling and every walk of life. It is more like starting an organization focused on one aspect of the church's activities, and appointing someone to take responsibility for that project.

I realize that most pastors today see the church as an organization of this general type, but I think they are mistaken. The church is not a religious organization, but a family, and it should be led as would any family where the father is not physically present, and the offspring are seeking to follow his instructions and to fulfill his wishes in his absence. "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matt.23:8-9). In such families, younger or less-experienced siblings often defer to the wisdom of the elder siblings, but there is not some family charter that requires this.

3. Pastor argued: In the N.T. over 90% of the time the word ‘church’ is in reference to the ‘local church’ which implies there must first be a dedication to a group of local believers by way (or implication) of formal membership. This means the burden of proof would be on me to show that Scripture is more times than not referring to the ‘universal body’ instead of the ‘local body’.

I think the burden of proof rests on any man who wishes to assert that the New Testament makes any reference to a "local church" in the sense that we have them today. A local body, yes. Every Christian in town belongs to the local body. That is simply the universal body, sampled in one geographical area. No Christian in town can fail to be part of that local church (hence, no need for a list of membership), since the Holy Spirit has placed every believer in that one body.

But that is not what pastors are talking about when they speak today of a "local church." To them, it refers to one assembly (like theirs), which does not share its members (nor much else) with the other assemblies in the same town. These "local" churches are seldom really local at all, since the majority of them answer to trans-local religious associations, rather than to the other local leaders of other local assemblies.

Let anyone try to find a biblical precedent for this kind of thing. The closest you find is when the one church in Corinth began to divide into sub-groups out of loyalty to non-local leaders—Paul, Cephas and Apollos. Paul could not fathom how Christians could become so wrong-headed. He said it was as if they thought Christ Himself is divided (1 Corinthians 1). Paul said that this mentality was absolute proof of the carnality and the immaturity of the Corinthian Church (1 Cor.3:1ff). Does anyone think Paul would judge our situation differently?

You see, we are all members of the local churches where we live. You don't join; you are spiritually grafted in by God the moment you are reborn. It is not formal; but organic. Therefore, unless one is legitimately excommunicated by some valid authority, he or she remains a member of every genuine assembly of believers in their town (or any other town, for that matter). It's automatic! You can't be a Christian without belonging to the Church.

Ask your pastor if he would object to your "joining" his church and doing the same simultaneously at every other church in town. Wouldn't that be superior to being a "member" of only one small, separated segment of the local body? Does the pastor believe his congregation to be the entire local church in his town? If not, why does he talk as if it is necessary to join his church, or another, to the exclusion of the other assemblies in town? Does he think there is something in scripture to support such a paradigm?

4. I argued: 1Cor 1:11-13 says that saying “I am of…[person or group]” is carnal thinking and I feel that is what is being asked of me, as if to say “I am of …[this particular local church]”.

Pastors reply: I don’t think that is legitimate because the Corinthians had a lot of divisive issues and that is what Paul is addressing. We don’t necessarily have divisive issues between us unless you’re saying that you’re not willing to come under the authority of the local church and then at that point you would be the one being divisive.

The one being divisive is the one who says, "It is not okay to be a member of the whole body of Christ in this town. You have to choose between ours and the other local assemblies."

5. I argued: Matt 20:25-26 says that we should not “lord” over or “exercise authority” over one another yet your saying becoming a formal member of a local church means coming under the authority of the leaders of the local church as well.

Pastors reply: That was only said to the disciples and not necessarily a command to all Christians universally. It couldn’t have been meant for all believers because later we are told to submit to those who are over us (Heb 13:17). This shows a progression of development. For example in Acts 6:1-7 the men they elected to serve tables where simply men of “good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom”. In later years when Paul was addressing the qualifications for elders in 1Tim 3:1-7 he gave a more detailed list of character traits that wasn’t required back in Acts 6. Therefore the “exercising of authority” was only meant for the immediate disciples that Jesus was talking to, after further developments Paul started to establish a more ‘governable’ structure of church pastorship / eldership which is shown by the commands to submit to those who are shepherding you.

The distinction between the qualifications of the seven in acts 6 and the qualifications for leaders in 1 Timothy 3 is artificial, and I suspect the pastor was speaking on the fly, without much thought, when making this point. We all do that sometimes. It certainly has no weight.

The central problem in this argument is that it embodies a mistake which is commonly made by institutional people. It is the idea that when "Party A" is commanded to submit to "Party B," then this must mean that "Party B" is to assert authority over "Party A." It never seems to occur to us that I can submit to another man simply because I believe it pleases God for me to do so—even if he claims no authority over me. It can be a dynamic of a spiritual relationship, and not something defined by a flow-chart.

Part of the confusion is due to the popular translations of Hebrews 13:17 (and verses 7 and 24 as well). There are people referred to in these verses as "those who lead you" (the correct translation). Unfortunately, the phrase "those who lead" is, in the older translations, rendered "them that have the rule over you" (KJV), or "those who rule over you" (NKJV). The modern versions (NASB, ESV, RSV, NIV, NLB) usually get it right—though the NIV makes its own error in translating "submit to them" as "submit to their authority" (there is no word "authority" in the text).

The idea of people "ruling over" other people certainly give the impression of top-down authority. However, it is a mistranslation.

In conclusion...

Although I say all these things, I do not think there is any benefit in arguing them with a traditional pastor. He cannot help but be influenced by his position in the organization. The question becomes whether he will allow you and your family to continue attending the church with your convictions unchanged. I fear not. Your ideas are revolutionary, and are a threat to the establishment—which, for all its flaws, may be arguably no worse than other such establishments, and, at the very least, provides a living for its staff.

My own approach would be to ask if the pastor would allow me to regard my family as "members" of every assembly of Christians equally—and if not, why not? Is there a biblical basis for him excluding us, when we are not guilty of any offense to the name of Jesus? Would not his excluding me be an instance of his causing an unnecessary division in the body of Christ, since I am not divisive or interested in separating myself from other believers?

I would ask him what "membership" means. Does it mean that I "belong to" one group of Christians more than I belong to the rest of the Body of Christ? If so, how is that different from saying "I am of...this church" as opposed to "I am of...that church." If Paul did not condemn this practice, what was he condemning?

[thrombomodulin]

I once spoke to a pastor who acknowledged that local church membership is not present in the scriptures (i.e. SG is technically correct). However, the church must be wary of a certain legal situation - namely, excommunication. The concern is that a lawsuit could be filed against a church for libel, if the church were to exercise discipline against a non-member, whereas with a member there the church would not be the victim of such aggression. Thus, membership is practiced not because God necessarily requires it, but rather because the government of the USA imposes it upon the institution. I don't have any specific question about this, but I would welcome any comments or insights someone might have about this position on membership.

That said, my family and I have just concluded our process of seeking a church to attend on a regular basis in order that we may fellowship, learn, and build relationships with other believers. While SG correctly states that all believers are members of Christ's body, for practical reasons I can [see] no reason to have my family participate in more than one local church. Namely, I would rather know a few fellow believers well, than attend in a variety of places thus coming to know more people upon at a more shallow level. We are considering seeking membership in the church we have chosen to attend on a weekly basis, although a difference in doctrinal opinion may in and of itself prevent it (i.e. they are dispensational, I am not). My question is what, if any, practical reasons are there to choose to attend without becoming members, rather than attend as members? In my particular case, as far as I am aware, non-members only lack voting privileges and are withheld from certain institutional positions.

[johnb]

Steve,
Thank you for your thoughtful considerations.
There are a few things, to me, that I think you really hit the nail on the head with. That is;

There is going to be a problem here in communication.

Ever since the institutionalization of the Church, there have been two parallel movements, somewhat overlapping each other.

I think the burden of proof rests on any man who wishes to assert that the New Testament makes any reference to a "local church" in the sense that we have them today. A local body, yes. Every Christian in town belongs to the local body. That is simply the universal body, sampled in one geographical area. No Christian in town can fail to be part of that local church (hence, no need for a list of membership), since the Holy Spirit has placed every believer in that one body.

With this particular topic there certainly seems to be a communication problem as well as 2 parallel movements overlapping each other. In my experience, these two ‘problems’ combined make it difficult, and many times confusing, for both movements to get anywhere with each other. It seems to be more of a complex issue than what meets the eye, however I do think there is hope that the Spirit will prevail.

As I have continued to think about formal memberships there have been a couple of things that have come to mind. One of those things is that by signing on as a formal member somewhere, in some cases it may give a false impression of our servanthood within the Body of Christ. That is, I may feel more of an ‘obligation servanthood’ to exercise my gift, receive someone else’s gift, help someone move furniture, pray for someone etc…rather than through a simple ‘willingness servanthood’ of joy for pleasing the King. It may set up an obligation mindset rather than a joyful heart. Of course this probably isn’t most cases, but it certainly leaves the door open for it and at least to a small degree, encourages it.
Secondly, something I often say to my wife is that I get weary of focusing on ‘finding a local church’ and instead would rather have our focus on ‘being the Church’. I realize that if someone is a part of a local church (institutional) there is a high probability that they could ‘be the Church’ at the same time, but there is also the possibility that they are not. I’m not sure the same could be said about the non-institutionalized body.

[johnb]

Hi thrombomodulin,

My question is what, if any, practical reasons are there to choose to attend without becoming members, rather than attend as members? In my particular case, as far as I am aware, non-members only lack voting privileges and are withheld from certain institutional positions.

I think that many have experienced your question, including myself. As I think about it, I can basically help or voluenteer in any way (pray for one another, offer my gifts of service, receive someone else gift of service, give a cooked meal to a family that is struggling for time due to a new born child, ect...) in my particular congregation, except for being a leader in any sense (small group leader, men's ministry leader, etc...), however that is not a restriction of the Holy Spirit but a restriction placed by man. I believe that the Spirit can 'work around it' or may even 'work with it' at times.

[thrombomodulin]

Thanks for replying Johnb,

I'm having trouble with this: (1) Steve Gregg is correct in his position on institutional church membership - it is without any biblical precedent. (2) It is proper for Christians to meet together, and a local institutional church is an appropriate location to carry this out. (3) the norm in institutional local church is to have membership roles.

I am at the point in time where I must make a choice to either become a member of this institution or refrain from doing so. So my question is: Is it really worth it to go against the flow and reject church membership out of principle? Is there any reason not to just go along with the way things are after having stated my belief that it is neither mandated nor forbidden by the bible? I'm not seeing any harmful consequences of attaining membership, or practical value in refraining from it.

[darinhouston]

I'm not seeing any harmful consequences of attaining membership, or practical value in refraining from it.

I'm facing a similar challenge -- my family are moving churches, and though I have no problem personally engaging the fellowship without "joining," it is expected and might be seen as divisive if I don't. I have no problem in principle in "being on the rolls" so to speak, but this church is a paedobaptist. If I'm a member, I am concerned they will want to baptize my kids. While I disagree with the practice, I don't have a real problem doing so in the abstract. But, they also state that they won't "re-baptize" at the time of personal surrender/belief. So, I'm concerned about confusing my kids as to what baptism is, etc. There are other doctrinal differences, but none which would affect my family -- I intend to meet with the pastoral staff to discuss -- perhaps, they'll be understanding and ignore their denominational practice of baptizing the kids, and we can just wait and handle baptism at the "proper" time.

[steve]

perhaps, they'll be understanding and ignore their denominational practice of baptizing the kids, and we can just wait and handle baptism at the "proper" time.

Good luck on that one, Brother!

[johnb]

For what it’s worth, this is my 2 cents…

So my question is: Is it really worth it to go against the flow and reject church membership out of principle?

I guess it depends on how much weight your putting in the ‘flow’ of the movement vs. how much weight you put in your principals. For me, my principals would far outweigh any ‘movement or flow of the day’ because I do my best to form my principals from Scripture. Scripture and the flow of the day dont always agree.

Is there any reason not to just go along with the way things are after having stated my belief that it is neither mandated nor forbidden by the bible? I'm not seeing any harmful consequences of attaining membership, or practical value in refraining from it.

Although I dont agree with everything the reformers did, I am very glad they didnt 'just go with the way things are' in thier day. We would still be under the Roman Catholic regime if that were the case.

Even if I didn’t see any reason from Scripture for, or against, formal memberships then I would still raise a brow toward the person trying to persuade or even pressure me to become a formal member. If I don’t believe it’s necessarily Scriptural, and therefore not something God has commanded, then why am I being spoken to as if it is a command of God? To me it is similar to singing 4 songs on Sunday morning before someone preaches or teaches. That is, there is nothing in Scripture that says it has to be that particular format on that particular day, yet tons of churches operate in that exact format and that’s fine, however, I would have an issue if someone were to approach me and say the ‘4 songs on Sunday format’ is a command from God and we would like it if you didn’t do it any time during the rest of the week with other Christians who are not a part ‘of us’.

On the other hand if I am approached by a pastor of a church who asks me to become a formal member with the attitude ‘you can take it or leave it and it really wouldn’t make a difference to us”, I would wonder why he has formal memberships at all since it would just seem like putting extra or unnecessary baggage on someone. Might as well tell me ‘It’s mandatory to bring 5 bibles to church on Sunday, but if you don’t that’s ok’ – well then what’s the point in telling me it was mandatory in the first place.

I probably wouldn’t object to formal memberships if they were simply to organize people for a particular project or something but that’s not what is usually meant. There are usually stipulations and obligations (created by man) to that one particular group which excludes you (at least to a small degree) from other brothers and sisters outside that group.

To me, institutional memberships are not a ‘you can take it or leave it’ kind of an issue as much as a ‘pursuit of truth’ issue. I think both sides are trying to follow His Word the best they know how, but I do think that the more clear passages in Scripture trump the implied passages. I know you feel like you're in a tough position but I hope the Spirit of God, above all, leads you.

[thrombomodulin]

Johnb,

I would count myself among those who think and act in a principled rather than utilitarian manner. I have perceived no pressure from the church to become a member, and certainly no one claims that such is "command from God".

There is a category difference between the Reformers and the quantity of songs selected on Sunday. The former found the Catholic church in violation of the principles of scripture, and for the latter there are no guiding principles from the scripture. Maybe I'm missing something, but the fact that a church has membership, as far as I can see, violates no principles provided the membership agreement does not exclude one from other believers.

In defense of membership as an optional way of structuring a church I would like to raise the point of facility ownership. A church owning a building does provide certain benefits (e.g. staying warm for those of us up North). For a group of believers meeting together there must be some ownership of the facilities, and someone must decided bout how it is used (e.g. who speaks on Sunday morning). The property owner or owners (e.g. church board, etc,.) have the right to determine how the property is used. A church which establishes a government with voting membership to attain this end is one way of establishing ownership and control of the tangible property which is the church grounds and facility. Assuming it is a desirable end to have church property, there must be some recognizable ownership - the owner(s) being those who decided what uses are approved or disapproved. A church uses a voting membership to this accomplish end is a valid way to do so. Maybe there is a better way to organize the gather of a larger quantity of believers, or maybe we should only meet in very small groups (e.g. in peoples homes).

Is the above a valid defense of membership, or not?

P.S. I also heard membership justified on the grounds that it permits the leadership to obtain a loan from a bank to construct a facility. IMO, this is no justification at all.