Off the Agenda: Conversations for Building Church Leaders

While this article is helpful in many ways, what it is not is "an argument for the importance of formal church membership." Most of the insights here regarding church membership are equally affirmed by churches that have no formal process. I'm not necessarily arguing against such a practice, but I'd like to see a stronger case for the necessity of a formal church membership process.

If the New Testament is so clear about each believer identifying with a local congregation, please tell me where Peter had his membership--or Matthew or Mark or Luke or John?

I'm not sure very many NT believers are so easily identified with a particular assembly.

I agree with much of what Pastor Anyabwile says about the necessity of reciprocal commitment, accountable community, clarity, and, submission to oversight! I'm just not certain that "church membership" in its recent form is the best way to accomplish these things. I believe he is speaking about covenant community instead of congregational membership. I believe this is best lived out in a small group context. I realize most small groups today do not model this kind of covenantal community, however I still believe small groups are the best context for this kind of intentional commitment to submission to oversight, love/concern for one another and relational accountability. Most congregations today are very different from the small, local churches of 40 to 100 people that blossomed in colonial and rural America. Today's urban, fragmented, larger congregations call for a different way to practice covenantal community. In my opinion, church membership doesn't really accomplish this.

The emphasis on church membership is the one point unifying almost all spectrums of the evangelical movement. Evangelical leaders in different camps may agree on little else, but on this emphasis they do agree -- almost all of them, from the fundamentalists to the charismatics. It is such a huge issue with those church leaders who insist on a covenant of submission to themselves that it is in practice the true foundation of "their" churches. What is asked of a "new member" in order "to be received in to full communion" by a church's leaders reveals the true foundation of that church. However, "No other foundation can any man lay" than Christ Jesus. There is only one covenant -- the one in the body and blood of the Lord. Today's church membership requirements constitute a supplemental covenant and seem to be the Galatian error of our times. The effect of it all is to contest Jesus as head and foundation of the church, and substitute an emphasis on man-made "authority structures" for the operation of the Holy Spirit in meetings of believers. This is a deception that has been going on for almost 2000 years in one form or another, and today's "evangelical protestants" seem blind to it.

When you get engaged, you go through a process. You have to go buy a marriage license. You have to sign it. Some ordained person or judge has to preside over the wedding. Is that too formal? Why can't I just move in with the girl? We're married in God's eyes, right?
You probably don't have a problem with that whole process, so what's the big deal with formal membership? The Bible says that the body is supposed to act as one, mourning and rejoicing together. We're to keep each other accountable and practice discipline when necessary. Above all, we're to submit to our leaders (Heb 13:17) who have been placed over us by God. I don't know how a church of more than 50 people could practically do all of that without a membership covenant.

It seems to me that the criticisms of the article in the comments section don't hold much water.

1. Against a 'formal membership process."
The point of the article is that there must be a clear distinction between those inside and outside the church. The critic says he agrees with this... but that a "formal" membership process is not the answer. You can't have the benefits argued for here without it coming down to a list of names of who is and who isn't a church member. Make the process as formal or informal as you like, but you must, somehow, end up at the same result in order to follow the NT teaching on inclusion and exclusion from the local body.

2. Lack of example from early prominent believers.
First, this is an argument from silence. Mark had no purpose in his gospel to mention which church he personally attended church meetings. Missionary examples like Peter (and Paul) have their modern-day counterparts in missionaries today - which is to say they are an exception from most believers. Besides, they may have had a "base of operations" church where they held their membership, like Antioch for example. In fact, it seems pretty likely from the book of Acts. Did it always work this way? Maybe not. But its pretty disengenuous to argue that Peter might not have had membership in a local church - therefore I don't have to either. You're not an apostle. Like Mark Driscoll says - yes there are exceptions, and you're not it.

3. Small groups better than 'traditional church membership.'
This commenter is wrong about "most churches." Most churches are still small (median church is smaller than 80 in Sunday Attendance). In cases where churches grow large, of course aspects of a small group ministry are needed to carry out some of the aspects of a community, but that is no argument against membership. Why not use both as both have strengths. Membership in the large body as well as personal interaction and accountability with a smaller group.

4. Something against authority and submission.
Thabiti answered this already. I quote from the article: "You cannot practice meaningful membership or community where anti-authority, anti-leadership, anti-accountability attitudes predominate. I'm afraid that these attitudes explain much of the resistance to membership; people don't want to be accountable."

Great article, Thabiti. I'm sure you (and others) could answer these critiques better than I, but I hope that'll get us started, anyway.

Brent,

1. Do we see an example or have a command to "make lists"? The list of widows is only to make sure they aren't missed, but there is no example or command to make lists of who is in and who is out. The church knew one another through fellowship and those under discipline were put out of the fellowship.

2. It is really disingenuous to flip it around and say since we have a tradition that says you have to be a "member" than the early church must have also had membership. An argument from silence is not an invitation for you to fill in the blanks with your tradition.

3. In a church of 80-100 people, how well do they know one another? How much fellowship do they have outside of a couple hours a week of formal gathering to listen to someone else? The intimate fellowship of the NT is absent in most churches.

4. Having been in a number of churches, I have to point out that meaningful discipline is absent in spite of formal membership. The question becomes one of where is our authority, in the Word of God or in an extra-Biblical clergy?

The only way to see formal church membership in the NT is to read your own traditions onto the text. Otherwise it flat out is not mentioned or even strongly implied.

For those looking for a sermon on this issue, arguing FOR it, check out: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/SJCC-Topical/~5/OIW6INia4bQ/01_Church_Membership___selected_passages_.mp3

@Arthur,

"1. Do we see an example or have a command to "make lists"? The list of widows is only to make sure they aren't missed, but there is no example or command to make lists of who is in and who is out. The church knew one another through fellowship and those under discipline were put out of the fellowship." -- Couple of things here. First, seems like you are arguing for the "regulative principle"? If so, this is in itself a derived tradition(al) understanding of scripture as it relates to church practice; that is, you are also ..."read[ing] your own traditions into the text" (to quote you). There are many things we practice today that have neither example nor command in scripture, but are permissible. And, while not definitive by any means, your example here of discipline being carried out and someone being put out of fellowship is interesting in that it implies some sort of committment to that group that was putting the person out of fellowship, does it not? There had to be some voluntary "membership" to that community in order for that form of discpline to work. And it did in the Corinthian example (to which I presume you are referring).

"2. It is really disingenuous to flip it around and say since we have a tradition that says you have to be a "member" than the early church must have also had membership. An argument from silence is not an invitation for you to fill in the blanks with your tradition." -- Neither is the silence an argument for not doing something, and provided that "something" is not elsewhere expressly forbidden by either command or principle, we have lattitude.

"3. In a church of 80-100 people, how well do they know one another? How much fellowship do they have outside of a couple hours a week of formal gathering to listen to someone else? The intimate fellowship of the NT is absent in most churches." -- While this may be true, this is a statment about church size, not an argument against membership.

"4. Having been in a number of churches, I have to point out that meaningful discipline is absent in spite of formal membership. The question becomes one of where is our authority, in the Word of God or in an extra-Biblical clergy?" -- Again, Arthur, your experience is not a valid argument for or against membership. Other people have been in churches where discipline is effective with membership. Also, lack of "meaningful discipline" is a failure of the church leadership, not an argument against membership. Finally, the last statement here is a false dilemma. "Clergy" -- at least Elders & Deacons -- do have their authority squarely based in the Word of God. So there is nothing extra-biblical about (some forms of) church leadership, or "clergy." And again, this says nothing about membership practices.

"The only way to see formal church membership in the NT is to read your own traditions onto the text. Otherwise it flat out is not mentioned or even strongly implied." -- Not the *only* way, obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion :-)

"You cannot practice meaningful membership or community where anti-authority, anti-leadership, anti-accountability attitudes predominate. I'm afraid that these attitudes explain much of the resistance to membership; people don't want to be accountable."

The arguments against formal church membership here strike me as just plain silly. I think this quote gets more to the heart of the matter than any of the "sophisticated" responses given by those who balk at the idea.

Scott, you are persuasively arguing for fellowship but nothing in what you are describing do we see the sort of traditional, formal church membership that is the subject of the discussion at hand. Certainly we have fellowship. We may even have lists if attendees with contact information. But to have an extra-Biblical tradition that calls for people to be members in the sense that we think of is not the same thing. If we follow the NT model of church practice, that is not an argument from silence, it is a reflection of the church practices we see in Scripture. We see plenty of examples of how the early church gathered and none of them include formal membership. There is a difference between Christian liberty when it comes to gathering and enforcing extra-Biblical regulations where the Bible is silent. Thabiti is not saying that you can membership if you want, he is claiming that it is integral to the Christian life and by implication questioning the status of someone who is not a "member" of a church.

"The New Testament knows nothing of a creature reborn through faith in Christ, baptized in identification with Christ, communing with Christ at His table, and not a member of a visible, local, identifiable congregation of other born-again baptized believers."

That is expressly saying that it is unbiblical to be a Christian and not be a "member" of a local congregation. I am saying that his argument is making a command where none exists. If church membership was so vital to the life of the Christian, you would expect some mention of it in Scripture. Yet there is none. Not one.

My statement still stands. You cannot arrive at formal church membership unless you read your church traditions onto the text because there is neither example nor command to support the system of church membership found in most churches. If you want to have a system of membership for your local body, knock yourself out. But when blanket statements are made that imply that there is a Scriptural mandate and example for Christians to become "members" of a local church, that is "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men".

Doug,

"The arguments against formal church membership here strike me as just plain silly.'

It is hard to argue against a well reasoned argument like that.

Arthur,

Not sure what you mean by membership, but Mr. Anyabwile gives us his definition at the outset: "By "membership" I mean the way in which the individual is known to be intentionally committed to every other member of the congregation, and the congregation known to be committed to the individual." Notice he does not state in what specific way that "intentional commitment" takes place, simply that one exists, and that both parties know it.

Surely you're not arguing against the idea of congregations? And I hope you're not implying that congregants should not be intentionally committed to each other?

I think what Mr. Anyabwile is arguing against is the notion that one can be a "free spirit" and float from congregation to congregation on any particular Sunday, or meet with a handful of other believers in a coffee shop or even a home setting, and somehow think that is sufficient co-believer behavior. I think even you would agree that that sort of approach to Christian fellowship is rather non-committal -- that "...[y]ou cannot practice meaningful membership or community" with such a person?

Second, I agree this is something stronger than "fellowship" as you refer to it. We can "fellowship" with other believers in a variety of settings, but I'm pretty sure neither one of us would call that "membership." To which under-shepherd is a person like this submitted? Who exercises church discipline over a wandering "fellowshipper"?

Third, and perhaps most telling, you haven't interacted with the texts or principles that Mr. Anyabwile has put forth here. You've simply asserted that he's imposing his tradition into the texts (which he may be), but you haven't offered a counter exegesis to support your claim; just a wave-of-the-hand dismissal and curt brush-off. That simply will not suffice in this type of dialogue.

And finally, if you are married, I'm just curious if the sort of "fellowship" I think you are advocating for the church would be sufficient for your wife in your marriage?

Arthur,

After reading your response, my comment still stands. We are not like Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity because the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. We believe in the Trinity because the Bible clearly shows us the work and attributes of all three persons of the Godhead. In the same way, we believe in formal church membership because the Bible gives us a view of church life that shows us membership at work and, I would argue, is impossible without it. I utilized the quote on "anti-authority attitudes" because I think it gets to the crux of the matter. In my years of ministry I have gotten push-back on the issue of membership only a handful of times, and each time at the heart of the resistance was an anti-authoritarian, anti-accountability attitude. Your "extra-biblical clergy" comment in addition to the amount of energy you are willing to devote to arguing that belivers need not formally covenant with one another, leads me to believe that is at the heart of your opposition as well. I may be wrong, and apologize if I am, but I think it may be worth a introspective look on your part.

I have started, stopped, and started again making the case I make to my own church members for what I see as the glorious privilege we have of covenanting with one another in a formal membership, but to spend much time on this comment thread rather than devote to other endeavors seems to me to be just plain.....silly.

You talk of membership in the local church. What of the trend of so many traveling long distance to attend a church -- 1/2 hour or more. Hard to truly build a presence in the community outside the church (quite important, I think) when members don't live near that community -- probably don't even really care about that community. Focus is too inward -- all about the church community and to hell with those outside their doors.

I agree with everything in this article - with the possible exception of the assumptions implicit in it.

I agree with Curt - while this is a useful article, it does not advance the argument for formal church membership. In fact, I would submit that most of what is said here is applicable to the body of Christ across His Kingdom - and is NOT bound to a particular definition of a local church as a building/worship service/staff pastor. My point of difference with the author is in his understanding of what a church must look like - an understanding that I believe is rooted in a particular cultural understanding and not in any New Testament proscription.

God is bigger than that. Our understanding of what a community of faith believers and Christ followers should look like will continue to change. If your community wants formal membership then that is great - but do not assume that your preference is mandated for all others.

Hopefully no-one on this board is arrogant (fundamentalist?) enough to believe that they have the answer and that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

I will post this response though - when Brent says that "there must be a clear distinction between those inside and outside the church" and then that this requires "a list of names of who is and who isn't a church member...to follow the NT teaching on inclusion and exclusion from the local body", I see one of the main factors in keeping the unchurched from getting to know Christ. While ever people in church want it to be about knowing that WE are saved and THEY are not and being able to point to the distinction... we will continue to push the unchurched away from us, and by extension, away from God.

I was a deacon and formal member of Baptist church for a number of years before leaving as I could not give the pastor my full support (Over ecumenical issues). I have been worshipping at another church for about 6 or 7 years. I have prayed if i should follow the churches official informal ceremony to become a member but never feel 100% happy to do so. The eldership and pastor know pretty much where i stand in terms of faith and were happy for me to serve communion. Regularly attend prayer and sunday meetings, visit the elderly etc involved in open air work (not for the church) etc. We hold to a doctrinal statement that actual makes no mention of formal church membership other than universal church being visible in local churches where believers are committed to each other. The churches formal procedure, for membership and all the priviliges of membership , is not onerous but is dependant on the Elders decision. So my God given gifts and talents for use in the church are restricted by either a) the requirement to go through the churches membership procedure or b) my reluctance to go through this procedure. The elders actually see me in disobedience to God (scripture) and pointed sermons giving proof texts like Acts 2 v 41 dont inspire me to believe formal church membership was practised. (where were these 3000 from and would they have formed a local congregation?) I probably do have a slightly anti authority disposition because i find it safer to trust in God rather than men,although i am quite timid.Maybe i am also rebelling against the idea that i must " become a member in order to go on with God"
Struggle on

To Bob from July 27 --- Bob, I commented on this topic above on July 6. If you are joined to the Head, the Lord Jesus, you are a member of the Body of Christ. You are also joined to the other members (whether you or they like it or not). If some wish to reject you because you won't make a vow, or confess a confession, or make a covenant of submission, or do something else to recognize them as your overseers in the Lord -- because you simply don't have a conviction that what they are asking you to say or do is true before the Lord, it is their problem. They are asking you to lie against your own conscience, in order to exercise dominion over your faith, which even Paul, who had great authority in the Lord, was careful not to do. If you and I love the Lord Jesus, we will love the brethren, and do the "one anothers" that we see in scripture. That includes recognizing and esteeming authorities in the Lord where we see them. However, the whole idea of "joining" a local church, making a "membership covenant" and the like, things that cannot be found in scripture -- is just a modern version of people trying to circumcise the flesh of others. Because "authority in the Lord" is attested by the Holy Spirit (think Aaron's rod, think Stephen) and cannot be equated with "structural authority" in the local church (think Diotrephes), the idea of apostolic succession -- whether the catholic , orthodox, or protestant variation, fails. We are going to have to accept the fact that in 2009, not much has changed from 1009, at least on this subject. As the scriptures enjoin, "The head of every man is Messiah." He is our source, our Head. How can we be asked to deny Him? Is our identity not in Him alone and in the new covenant in His blood? Were we not buried with Him in baptism. And raised by the same Spirit that raised Him? And yet they say, "You also need to be identified with a local body." And we say, no, we need to forsake not the assembling of ourselves together. Yet even as a church our identity remains in Him, not in each other. It is not "our church." It is His Church. You never see "our church" in scripture. My, how evangelicals can go outside the bounds of the scriptures when they put their minds to it. Fob James

Thank you Fob James for your well-thought and logical reasoning. I, too, struggle with the idea that in order to serve my local church in a leadership position I must formally commit to the church. Do I not already place myself under the pastoral care for accountability? Am I not already known in my church through my service? I attend a weekly small group and pray with and for them as we grow in God's word together. This is how it should be.

A piece of paper does not make me accountable, my heart's desire to be obedient to God does. A piece of paper does not test my character to see whether or not I am fit for a leadership position but time will reveal my good deeds or my bad ones because nothing stays hidden. A piece of paper stating my commitment to a particular church is equivalent to making an oath that Jesus says I should not make; my yes should be a yes and my no a simple no. Anything else comes from the evil one.

I was a member of Christ's church the moment I confessed Him as Lord and made a public witness of it through baptism. I genuinely desire to serve my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ through whatever means I can as God commands so why must I also sign a piece of paper? Are my words and actions not enough?

The idea of equating formal church membership with a marriage is inappropriate. I am a member of the body, the church and IT is the bride Jesus will present to God, not me married to all other believers. To say I am just "hooking up" with my church because I didn't sign a piece of paper demeans me and Christ in me.

Is there biblical basis for membership, absolutely. Is there biblical basis for formal, local church membership, no. Put my name on a roster, I don't care, but don't tell me that my God given gifts and talents are only usable if I swear fealty to the local church. That's apostasy.

Formal signed church membership is NOT biblical. You WILL NOT find it anywhere on the pages of scripture. The early indentified with the local church in their cities because it was the only game in town. they could not get in their Prius and drive up to the local church in Philadelphia to fellowship. they stayed put and it was all there was. Formal signing of covenants with local churchs is a fairly modern thing. I've been on both sides of the isle and I will never ever sign another formal agreement again. It opens you up to too much control and I have seen abuse time and time again not just by the church I attended but many others as well. Its all about legal issues. Don't let the hierarchy tell you anything else. They use other excuses but its all about legalities.

Hi!

I argue for formal church membership.

Most important is having our name in Jesus' book of life. ; )

Formal church membership is a tool to help us with the work of ministry. You would not bother arguing (from scripture) about what kind of offering plates or what kind of heating / cooling system to have in your building. I think the same is true of formal membership.

Here in the Canada in January I am glad we have a heating system, and I am glad practical people have chosen one that works for practical reasons.

Back to membership.
As a tool for ministry IN MY COMMUNITY CONTEXT . . .
here are some benefits
1. Mailing lists - we send out letters to our friends and members
2. Pastoral visitation - it helps me (as pastor) know who to visit who used to be a part of our Sunday congregation but has declined in community involvement. This is most helpful as a new pastor.
3. Congregational government - my denomination practices congregational government. For business where the congregation is invited to vote it helps us manage the process.
4. Standards for involvement in ministry.
In a best case scenario we would use our distinction between members, believing friends (Christians who attend & support) and community friends (attenders & supporters who do not claim to have taken steps of Christian commitment) to help us set standards for different aspects of ministry.

For example - pastors, deacons, elders, board leaders should all be members (trusted by the community and fully invested in the local congregation)

Christian friends who may not be willing or in agreement with all aspects of our membership requirements may be great workers in some areas of ministry, but should not be setting the direction for the church as they are not willing to make a full commitment.

Community friends make no claim to Christian commitment, and are not appropriate to involve in all aspects of church leadership and teaching.

REMEMBER - I am talking about formal membership as a useful tool in my setting. If your church is not congregational in government some of this may not matter / apply to you.

Our requirements for membership are simple.

Believer
Baptized by immersion
Recommended by the deacons for membership.
Voted into membership by the membership.

Our church is presenting another tool for our annual meeting next week that we have a yearly renewal of membership so that our membership list is not a hold over from a previous year / decade.

All this to say that formal membership (like formal ordination or any other formality in church life) is a formality and may not represent God's view of his church.

In my denomination when a person is ordained as a pastor by a local congregation, they can only be "un ordained" by that local congregation. This is a terrible system, so our denomination added the formality of "accredited". The denomination keeps lists of accredited pastors, and can/does remove accreditation in cases of moral failure or other problems.

Modern church membership is a Pharisee-like construct that has little or no biblical basis given the legalistic way it is applied in Baptist churches. In my 40 years of observation this particular tradition has rivalled complex disagreements around faith healing, speaking in tongues, etc. in impacting the church's testimony by folks falling away due to a demoralizing experience with this legalistic nonsense. Every instance where I have observed a church split due to theological disagreements, it was due to CHURCH MEMBERS, not wild-eyed pagans or athiests in disguise. Also, I have seen multiple instances where folks in real need were denied assistance merely on the basis of their non-membership. In contrast, I have yet to attend a church where they ask for proof of membership before they accept a check or cash when the offering plate goes around. Very interesting that we'll take their money with no strings attached but not their burdens. Most importantly, I have yet to see a biblical instance where Christ put any requirement other than a profession of faith before rendering healing. That is still the case today and will be until His coming. So to sum it up, as a Christian, I have full, unrestricted access to the Kingdom of Heaven by my profession of faith in Jesus Christ but not to the contemporary Baptist congregation given the demands of church membership. Did I miss anything?