Hmm, no verses ? I just hope this is not a personal opinion.

Thanks for this, Tim (and Mark Dever!) - last spring, I switched my family from a rather lukewarm megachurch to a passionate gospel-centered church. It may not appear as cool or relevant to certain eyes, but in the 8 or so months we’ve been there have been a time of spiritual nourishing. This post is the encouragement I need to get more deeply connected (and become members, rather than just regular attenders).

Jennifer, here’s what the 9Marks ministry has to say about membership:http://www.9marks.org/what-are-the-9marks/membership

I think the reason that may be most applicable to your situation is probably submitting to the authority of the church. As long as we are regular attenders (as I currently am at my own church), we don’t have the same sort of accountability that official members do.

I know my current church doesn’t allow people to serve in children’s ministry, attend small groups, vote on church matters, etc until they are members (one of the reasons my family and I need to become members, and soon). Part of this is that if you’ve gone through a membership process, the church may be more certain that you’re not a wolf among the flock, church discipline is more applicable, etc.

I like your stuff, Tim, but this is article is so deeply rooted in the preeminent legitimacy of institutional Churchianity that it hardly translates to those of us who see the Church as a family.

For those interested, and those who need to (Dan Smith), Mark Dever has a lot of solid biblical teaching on why church membership is of prime importance.

Just because Tim didn’t cover everything in this short post, doesn’t mean church membership is irrelevant…

Those who deny the plurality of elders taught in Scripture will not see the need for official church membership. For an elder to do his job, he’s got to know who his flock is and if they show evidence of a true conversion.

How does an elder know the difference between a believer and an unbeliever in his flock, if he has never had the opportunity to interview them? How does the newcomer to a church learn what the church believes and how it applies this theology (philosophy of ministry)?

Michael, I affirm the plurality of elders in the church but I reject the notion of official church membership. The reason is quite simple. The Bible speaks often of elders and always in the plural. The Bible never speaks or even infers the need for “official” church membership and even staunch defenders of “official” church membership would admit that when pressed.

The problem I am seeing is that too many people have a false “either-or” view. Either you are an “official” member of a local church, meaning you go through the extra-Biblical requirements set forth by that church or you are a crazed lone wolf Christian who hates the church and rejects authority.

TIM CHALLIES FAIL. 1) If you join a church to be assured of your salvation by Americanity, you’re going to be sorely disappointed—you’d be better off going Swiss Family Robinson, 2) Membership in a local church ought to be organic, marked by Baptism, and not because you’re inclined to participate in causes you deem noble and worthy of your attention, and, 3) Baptism is the marker of membership and anything beyond faithful regular participation is going beyond the biblical requirements—not that polity and good order isn’t important, but part of the problem here with the American church is defending a sort of sacrosanct institutionalism that has been spiritually bankrupt for a long, long time. The institutionalism needs to go and a real and vibrant participation in a local covenant community needs to stay.

I totally agree with you on the importance of belonging to a local church. Unfortunately, especially for those of us living in rural areas, finding a church that comes even close to acceptable is very difficult. In this case, belonging to a church can be bad for your spiritual health.

Yes, there is nothing like a reasoned defense of institutionalism. Too bad it bears little weight in regards to the pastoral issue at hand.

The problem here is definitional. No sense is made out of saying every Christian *should be* a member of a church. The Bible doesn’t argue as if we should be talking in this way. Every Christian *is* a part of the Church whether they like it or not. The Bible exhorts us to faithful attendance and participation in obeying the Commandments, but does not anachronistically require us to go join a church as if that same sort of structure and institutionalism existed in the days of the Apostles.

The question is really one of faithfulness and not always a matter of the individual’s faithfulness but also that of the local bodies we now call churches. Given that most American churches practice Americanity rather than biblical Christianity, it really is pastorally unwise to strongly suggest that we depart from the biblical advice of participation and instead advocate an unnecessary and overly formal institutionalism we like to call membership. How about instead adapting our institutions to the biblical requirements?

By definition, a Christian is a member of the Body of Christ and as such is part of *any* body they attend locally already whether the institutionalized church recognizes it or not. And, membership then should be recognized by faithful and regular participation and not by pretending there is some set of requirements in place for a potential member to pretend is relevant to the matter.

Steve,

An excellent presentation of what I am saying. Thank you!

Regarding the issue of discipline, we have to remember that discipline is not just a matter of dealing with immoral or unrepentant believers but also formative in nature. That is, it chiefly occurs through the preaching and teaching of God’s Word. There is just as much formative discipline in the preaching of God’s Word as their is in counseling sessions.

Our problem today is that we do not have faith in God, his Word, or the means by which He has ordained for it to be effective: namely, through preaching and teaching. Instead, we have overly zealous elders prosecuting all manners of petty silliness in the name of discipline.

“…he ought to join a church to be certain that he has been saved.”

Well, the other points (2 through 5) make generally good sense (and of course we can all debate about what “join” means, but I think that all here know what it basically means). Anyone could argue with details, but the generalities are solid.

But the above quote (from point 1) has still has me puzzled. Why should my belonging (in whatever way) to an organization provide me with any assurance? I can’t think of a single passage in Scripture that would back up that assertion.

Michael,

No, none of what we are saying excludes legitimate discipline or standards nor does it mean that polity can’t be understood differently (for example, the Baptist notion that someone’s baptism is invalid prior to being converted is not in line with a historic classical Protestant understanding of the same nor is it explicitly addressed in Scripture).

But, what we have been saying is that the true mark of membership is in fact Baptism as the Bible quite clearly dictates. In Acts 10:44-48 when Peter encountered Gentiles filled with the Spirit he didn’t ask them to fill out membership cards and take vows (like you might in the URCNA for example). Nor was there any signing of a church covenant to assure elders you would submit to discipline in lieu of the old strictures of a European society that once actually enforced discipline involuntarily. There was only the apostolic call to have them baptized and as a result meant that they were to be included as members.

The real sticking point here is that the blood of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice is that which unites us all together and that is true no matter what church you attend. Having a choice to attend one or another local body is only a recent luxury due to our times and the society we live in. But, if we are truly Christian, we are already members of them all or we are not really one in Christ.

Zach,

Becoming a formal member of a church does not guarantee responsibility, commitment, or a legitimate exercise of likely much-needed discipline. All of that is voluntary in this society and can be had with OR without membership cards, church rolls, church covenants, membership and attendance pins, public avowal/disavowal in front of a congregation and the like. Or, all of those things can be equally deserted just as quickly.

Formal membership does little if anything to guarantee that people are responsible or that discipline is capably performed except to help make the exercise of such things an institutional norm in the eyes of those who accept the boundaries provided without much thought or resort to what the Bible actually says. Until we reform churches to the point where formal local membership resembles actual membership in the Body of Christ by fully recognizing the import of Baptism, churches and members both will continue to suffer from the stone dead cold environment of Americanity’s institutionalism.

Miriam,

Where did I indicate “non-membership”??? If anything, I am arguing for a stronger membership by virtue of our identity and not based off of some action or promise we’ve made or decision the local body has made to include us. Furthermore, I’m reflecting a version of church membership which is decidedly historical and Reformed. The English churches have been practicing this sort of membership for well over five hundred years and it was the default practice even prior to the Reformation though that is perhaps oversimplifying the matter for the moment and only done to make the initial point about where this view originated.

The point here is that Baptism signifies and obligates every believer in every way that other formal membership requirements seek to endorse and make possible. This is simply because Baptism is a symbol of what ought to be a reality—the saved individual who gladly participates regularly in the life of the local church by virtue of faith in Jesus Christ. It is a covenant sign by which we see the actual relationship and it is the biblical means by which we include people into membership both locally and universally.

The unfortunate canard of pointing to experience on your part is simply irrelevant. Either you believe what the Bible says regarding our identity in Christ as one (Romans 6/Gal. 3:27-28) or you don’t. There is no need for extended argumentation. The Bible lays these things out quite apart from our anachronistic attempts to imply that formal church membership in our day has anything to do with what the Apostles, the believers at that time, and our Lord actually envisioned from the pages of the Old and New Testaments.

Last, in terms of local fellowship, there is also no reason why one can’t hold this view in line with what the Bible says and comply graciously with others who feel differently in terms of membership. No one is here talking about waiting to be a part of a local church until all churches reform. We are only calling churches to be in line with what the Bible says.

Terry,

People say that (“leave me alone!”) even when they are members as any experienced elder will tell you. As I said, membership is no barrier to avoiding discipline in this society and never will because submission to discipline is entirely voluntary.

We do not rely on the Holy Spirit enough to work here and instead prefer to lean on artificial devices like church membership to steer errant members. Better that we pray, preach, be faithful, and let God work.

Geoff,

Except for the ad hominem and misdirection of your last paragraph, there is nothing about local churches here that I’ve denied. How can advocating local regular faithful participation in the life of a community of believers be anything apart from what the Bible teaches? That’s what I’m advocating.

But, in saying so, I’m simply arguing that local church membership is something different than it has been construed typically by churches in America. Being present to participate makes you part of a local body whether you have a membership card or pre-printed offering envelopes to pass in the plate or not. Discipline, both formative and corrective, is not necessarily mitigated by giving up the sort of institutionalism we have decried and no one has proven such from the pages of Scripture.

To your last paragraph I would say that while I agree in the plurality of elders, I do not believe the majority of current Reformed (“Reformed Baptist”/Presbyterian/or otherwise) elders practice it in line with biblical principles save perhaps a very few (the faithful among the lingering Dutch Reformed perhaps exist as an exception). I also don’t believe the Bible necessitates an elder-led church as is commonly argued but rarely proven. I would recommend the work of Richard Hooker and Herman Bavinck on the subject for those interested in further arguments in that regard. We have to realize that there is a sort of elder plurality that functions just as tyrannical as the Roman system and that all believers are prophets, priests, and kings before God through Christ and by His Holy Spirit. Just once, however, I’d love to have this discussion without folks making it personal.

How does an elder know the difference between a believer and an unbeliever in his flock, if he has never had the opportunity to interview them? How does the newcomer to a church learn what the church believes and how it applies this theology (philosophy of ministry)?

Coffee?

Informal and voluntary membership is not historical in England as I have searched for and found ancestors in Protestant churches in England and Ireland in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Apart from that, I invite you to actually interact with what I wrote, instead of what you did by skipping over it and jumping to where you judge (ad hominem) the majority of Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian churches.

Geoff,

If you read carefully, you will see that I granted your initial defense of distinct local bodies. What I did not agree with was your unfounded assertion that such necessarily represents itself in formal membership processes of American churches or in the institutionalism of American denominational bodies.

In regards to your assertion regarding England, I never asserted that being a member was a mere informality or voluntary. On the whole, if you moved to a new town in England you became part of the parish of that town or district and that parish recognized your original membership by way of your Baptism and not by transfer of letter, by statement, or by some other newly minted process. That was also true, incidentally, if you came from the continent.

As for the indictment of elder boards, I can only say it comes after much long and hard years of experience. You might compare similar words of Paul in Titus 1:12 ff. and realize I am speaking generally/covenantally. Judgments and statements to that effect are not inappropriate if they are true. If that offends, so be it. Just remember, you’re the one that started the inappropriate questions in the midst of a theological discussion.

I believe USA (#41) just demonstrated an extreme case of what we call the “slippery slope fallacy.” None of those questions, save perhaps the last, have any apparent logic.

For the last 4+ years we have been a faithful part of a local body. Due to their extensive covenant statement we are not official members (we won’t sign). But here we are—we tithe, we submit, we faithfully attend, and we serve restrictively where they let us (they break their rules to allow us to serve). And still, we are not counted among the “identifiable group.”

Yet, all this while, we have seen numerous people come, be interviewed, sign all the paperwork, and then eventually depart the church. What did interviewing them and their signing the documents really gain? Seems an ill way to define faithfulness.

We would go elsewhere where we could really belong and be considered as one among the body, but we live in a rural area and there aren’t many options.

Ah, it’s hard to be square pegs. Painful!

“Or have witnesses sign a statement. And if there is no such record, why not take the person’s word for it?”

But that was what Michael was saying. At a minimum, you at least have to have SOME process of talking to the person and having him verify that, even if it’s merely taking his word. Even just asking that question is a step beyond “everyone who walks in the door should be considered a member.” You can’t just assume that everyone who walks in the door and starts behaving in a certain way is a “member” in the proper sense, even if your concept of membership is very informal. If you both teach that everyone in the church is a member of the Body, and have no means of determining someone’s status in the church AT ALL, except by watching them walk in the door and start doing certain visible things, then being in the garage really DOES make you a car.

Michael,

Arthur Sido, if you hold a plurality of elders, how then does each elder know who to shepherd? In a day when everyone calls themselves a Christian, how does he know if they are a believer or not? How does the elder know if the non-member has issues with the Bible, which many churches have in a statement of faith?

If the church meets for an hour or two a week and the majority of attenders sit mutely in their pew wearing their Sunday best while someone else preaches, I would imagine it would be difficult indeed. How do you tell a genuine Christian from an unbeliever in that case? If however the church lived in actual community with one another, those who believe would become apparent.

If you believe that someone affirming a statement of faith means they are orthodox, you frankly are being somewhat naive. The typical statement of faith is more of a divider to keep other Christians out than it is a guardian against heresy.

This whole conversation exposes the bigger issue. This goes way beyond formal church membership and gets to a basic misunderstanding of the church. What is instructive is how little this conversation engages in the text when it comes to defending the formal church membership notion. Little wonder defenders are left with vague generalties and “what about this” questions. What does Scripture say about the church? What are the commands and examples we see? When you step back from our accepted church traditions and rituals retained from Rome, it becomes apparent that what we culturally understand as “church” bears little resemblance to the New Testament. Far too often the church has dismissed as “descriptive” the important examples we see in Scripture and accepted as normative our traditions in spite of their lack of Scriptural support.

If you are a Christian, you are my brother or sister in Christ and we should seek more, not less, opportunity to be in community and fellowship without adding manmade restrictions. The proper application of reformed theology should lead to less division in the church rather than more, i.e. when division is manifested in church membership in one local church to the exclusion of others. If God chose me, and He did, and He chose you, then who are we to divide ourselves from others because they are a “member” in that church and I am a “member” in this church? Reformed theology coupled with Roman ecclesiology leads to an awfully muddled mess.

As an elder of a local church it is always a joy to welcome in new members. Our process is simple and to the point. It is formal in that we ask for prospective members to fill out an application which includes their testimony of salvation, baptism, etc. We then schedule an in home interview where one of the elders visits the person/family. After the elders meet the member(s) are then welcomed into the congregation formally and covenant vows are read and affirmed by members and elders. Does the Bible outline this procedure? No it does not but we have this procedure in place to be faithful to our God given rolls as elders. The Bible does not give an order of service for worship but does give elements for worship. God has granted us the freedom to order that worship in a way that we believe pleases Him. We take all of the New Testament commands for the elder to membership relationship very seriously as well as the member to elder relationship.

What we have discovered over time is that we are better able to serve the needs of our members when we know them in this way. We as elders spend a good deal of time with our people and are able to tend the sheep, feed the lambs, and bind up those who are sick. We see this step of church membership as proactive in caring for and shepherding the flock of God among us. We genuinely care for those whom the Lord has made us overseers knowing that one day we will give an account to our Lord and Savior for their souls.

We also understand that there are some who are wolves who will seek to come in and destroy the church. So we are on guard for them as well. We take church membership seriously and are greatly concerned for the spiritual well being of those who do not join a local church. As a believer and not just as an elder I need the oversight our other elders provide me. They care for my soul and hold me accountable to my task. As a sinner in need of constant grace I need this and so do all of you. I hope that you read this as a plea and not as a rebuke.

Our churches would be stronger and more evangelistic and glorifying to the Lord if more of you would covenant with your local church to support its work and work to maintain its purity. We are talking about the Bride of Christ not the Kiwanis Club.