Church Membership

Whenever I have left a church (for whatever reason) they knew that I was. Sometimes, I transferred to another church by letter and sometimes not. It depended on why I left the previous church, and it wasn't always under good circumstances. One church I left because of the constant conflict and name-calling going on there.

Another church I left (after 20 years of faithful service) when the pastor's wife left him and divorced him. For 3 years I prayed with the pastor for his wife to return, but after that 3 years she divorced him. Then the bitterness and anger started, and he started verbally taking it out on me. I took it for a long time until I couldn't take any more and left. He had a master's degree in psychology and could make me feel guilty when I wasn't. He was a master manipulator, and I never knew that until his wife left and divorced him. Then his true character came out. I loved him like a brother, and we were very close. That is what made it hurt so much.

 

Please allow me to add my humble opinion.
If we approach the question of church membership from a purely scriptural point of view we would have to agree that there is no scripture in the New Testament that clearly endorses "sign on the dotted line" church membership.
Yes the Bible does tell say that we should conduct our public services in an orderly manner but that hardly constitutes a mandate to formalise church membership.

But a tradional approach is quite another matter. I have to be honest and say that in my own mind this issue together with several others like "sunday school" and "voting" are filed conveniently under "TRADITIONAL BUT NOT NECESSARILY BIBLICAL".

Tinytim says some things that I think are interesting and would like to take him up on and along with him others who support his views. He said:

I think we are commanded to do things "in order"...
Church membership became necessary to do this.
It is supposed to ensure Discipleship (part of the Great commission that many churches ignore)...
It is also suppose to ensure that we are united together with a common goal..
It promotes growth by financial giving, and each member should be expected to be in a ministry of some sort.

I'm not sure how church membership facilitates orderliness, can you please elaborate? If we are talking about using it as leverage to get things to do things that we believe they should be doing then I think that that may be problematic! We are told to pastor the flock not police it.
I'm not sure it is oour responsibility to try to strongarm, whether subtly or orvertly, christians into meeting their spiritual responsiblities. We can teach them. We can encourage them and we can even rebuke them but what more can we do, because that is a heart problem.
I think we also need to acknowlege that not every one is where they ought to be or perhaps even where we would want them to be. We need to allow time and space for God to work in their lives and bring them to the point of conviction and change.
We also have to allow Him to be God and make sure that we are not unwittingly trying o take His place inpeoples lives. He will bring seperation and will sort all things out in the end.

I'm also not quite sure what membership has to do with discipleship? I have never seen formal membership have a significant effect on disipleship in any church...am I wrong? Does anyone have a different story and is that story generally true or is it an exception to the rule. The same goes for unity giving and ministry. I mean whether we are formal membrs or not shouldn't we be doing those things anyway. Why would I suddenly want to if I wasn't doing it before, simply I've signed a document: unless of course that document makes me feel pressurized to do those things. And if I do feel pressurized is that pressure from conviction or external organisation pressure?

 

I do not think becoming a "formal" church member requires any signature, but usually a vote of the local congregation. You may not be able to find a defined blueprint for the steps of church membership in the NT, but there are obviously local congregations mentioned with specific members of specific churches mentioned, sometimes not in a very good light. Scripture tells us to assemble ourselves together.

Aside from Scripture, there is no doubt in my mind that belonging to and being involved in a local church promotes discipleship, unity, giving, and spiritual growth. It makes a person feel a permanent part of something. If everyone who was a Christian bounced from church to church each Sunday, I doubt any local church would be very effective for the Lord.

 

Good post, and I agree wholeheartedly. Church membership is extrabiblical, and while not necessarily a bad thing, should not be forced or used in a way not consistent with Scripture. I'm a member of my church so I can serve in capacities a non member cannot. We do allow "regular attenders" to serve, but not in some areas like the children's ministry. Right or wrong? It's not up to me to decide, but I abide by the elders' leadership which I do believe is completely scriptural. Congregational rule is another topic altogether that I do not find strong biblical support for...

 

This would bring into question whether they should even be part of the membership. It is very immature and brings into question their reasonable ability to take care of God's Business.

It is like shacking up because you do not want to get married. There is no real reason not to make a formal declaration and it is part of actually being part of a local assembly.

There is none as we organize it today.

Not at all. It could be effected either way.

This tradition has always been a rule and is not in a current transition of becoming a rule. It is already there and has been just by the virtue that it is itself a tradition. But there is no problem with it tradition or otherwise.

 

How were people added to the church in Acts? To claim immaturity is to not only claim to know their hearts, but to put tradition over Scripture. The moment they put their faith in Christ, they were added to the church.

Non sequitur. Scripture for "formally declaring" one's membership to a local church?

Exactly...so how could you reasonably claim the above knowing this?

You have shown the problem with tradition in your very post!

 

No it doesn't. Silliness Be sure you do not sit in a chair or pew. That would be to put tradition over scripture.

It does follow as the comparison (which should be obvious) is working to receive the benefits without the commitment.

Scripture for putting doors on the front of the church building?

Because there is no adult and mature reason to want to be part of a body of believers but not make a formal declaration.

You have shown you lack of understanding

 

Complete red herring to cover the fact you have judged their hearts and intentions.

Scripture for joining a church to "receive benefits"?

...and another red herring...

Yes there is since Scripture is silent. Using your logic there is equally no adult and mature reason to make a "formal declaration".

I understand a "formal church membership" is not a scriptural mandate...you seem to blur this understanding by judging the hearts of those who choose not to believe as you do.

 

You mean like you just did mine

You might want to study what that is.

That does not create a mature reason. No one is being harmed in any way by making a formal declaration. It doesn't change their life in a negative fashion in any way.

That is not my logic at all

One has nothing to do with the other.

 

I didn't...your words did.

One doesn't need to study a definition, just know what it means.

...who's being harmed by NOT making a "formal delcaration"?

...then it is you who doesn't "understand".

...yet in post #25 you say they do. Make up your mind.

 

You really need to go back and read my post carefully

 

We become a "member" of the Church the instant we are born of the Spirit. That is the universal Church, which consists of all the believers worldwide.

What is called the "local church" is nothing more than members of the universal Church who happen to live fairly close to each other, making group worship, fellowship and ministry possible.

Its up to the local church to decide how to "do" church.

Some local churches have membership rolls, requirments for membership, keeping records of giving, etc etc.

Others consider everyone who comes regularly to be "members" based only on that.

One method is no better than the other, imo.

 

I have to say I agree with you to a point.

 

I'm glad you recognize that the local church is the only one which "does church," since the "universal church" by definition can't.

Now, maybe you can tell me the purpose of the existence of the so-called universal church. I have found none. It doesn't assemble, it doesn't witness, it doesn't send missionaries, it doesn't have worship services, it doesn't have Bible study, it doesn't observe the Lord's Supper, it doesn't disciple believers, it doesn't help the poor or do any other social ministries.

And it is riddled with theological error.

Please help me determine its purpose other than just to exist.

 

Rev Mitchell said:

This would bring into question whether they should even be part of the membership. It is very immature and brings into question their reasonable ability to take care of God's Business.

It is like shacking up because you do not want to get married. There is no real reason not to make a formal declaration and it is part of actually being part of a local assembly.

Rev I think this is an unfair statement and an incongruent comparison if you don't mind me saying so. There is no moral or biblical similarity between a couple fornicating and living in sin which is blatantly against God's revealed standards and constitutes sexual immorality and a person who does not want take formal membership for whatever reason.
What you are in fact doing by using that kind of analogy is to suggest by unspoken implication that people who don't want to formalise are:
1. sinning in some way.
2. disobeying God's revealed standards.
3. selfishly using the local church for personal gratification

All of these are not true. Furthermore you say that there is no reason not to formalise, but by the same token there is no real reason to do it either other than church tradition and modern church culture.
The first marriage was not formalised "publically" as we do today. God was the only witness and yet it was ratified by their sincerity and His blessing and endorsement. I think that there may be a valuable principle in that and so an appel to marriage as an argument in favor of formalisation is problematic as well.

There is none as we organize it today.

Not at all. It could be effected either way.

This tradition has always been a rule and is not in a current transition of becoming a rule. It is already there and has been just by the virtue that it is itself a tradition. But there is no problem with it tradition or otherwise.

Your last statement on tradition I find very confusing except to say that I think you are saying it membership is a rule because it is a tradition and because it already exists as a tradition it is acceptable. Am I misunderstanding???

Nevertheless...Don't you think that the church is less about man-made rules and traditions(whether they do exist or always have existed or whatever the case may be) and more about our hearts and attitudes and intent which God by the way says is the part HE is really interested in.

There are so many formalised members who play no active role, make no regular financial contribution or even neglect attend regulary. What is the point really? To have a reson to jump out and shout: " AHA! you John Doe signed on the dotted line on April 4 1960 and committed yourself to doind blah blah blah and now you are not!"

It is those same inactive formalised members who then often try to bully their way through business meetings questioning and criticising everyone and everything positive.

Pushing and policing church membership is a waste of time because you cannot use external means to force people to do what you think is right...because if they are not committed it is a heart matter not a paper matter!

 

Onlybygrace writes:

"There are so many formalised members who play no active role, make no regular financial contribution or even neglect attend regulary. What is the point really? To have a reson to jump out and shout: " AHA! you John Doe signed on the dotted line on April 4 1960 and committed yourself to doind blah blah blah and now you are not!"

It is those same inactive formalised members who then often try to bully their way through business meetings questioning and criticising everyone and everything positive.

Pushing and policing church membership is a waste of time because you cannot use external means to force people to do what you think is right...because if they are not committed it is a heart matter not a paper matter! "

Very good points, Onlybygrce.

There are many reasons against trying to enforce church discipline:

1. Who defines what does or does not constitutes a reason for church discipline?
Lack of giving? Lack of attendance? Questioning Pastor's decisions? Making unsolicited suggestions? Not singing in the song service? Not participating in church programs? Etc.

2. There are many good churches down the road who would gladly accept those members who do not measure up to your church's standards.

3. Active church discipline tends to lead to acting like Pharisees.

4. Perceived uneven standards in enforcing church discipline.

 

Tom Butler...

Actually, the universal church is active and powerful 24 hours a day.

To be a 24 hours a day witness...Gods Spirit filled people flooding this earth with truth and the love of God.

You havent looked.

Nonsense. It assembles at least once a week, sometimes more.

It witness's a million times more comprehensively than any local body can.,

It doesnt have to. The universal church is an active presence all over this globe, 24 hours a day. It is "on mission" 24 hours a day.

It worships every day.

It feeds on the scriptures 24 hours a day.

Sure it does.

Of course it does.

It does those things on a much grander scale than any local church can.

Right now YOU are the one in theological error.

I have just done that.


God bless.

 

On a small issue, was Paul wrong when he from a distance pronounced judgment against the man living with his step-mother?

But on the larger issue, the Bible teaches that there ought to be church discipline. Do we, because some may abuse, refuse to live by Scripture? Why should what another church down the road does keep us from living according to Scripture?

Your argument is much like saying that because there have been miscarriages of justice in our legal system, we ought to refuse to have courts.

 

Quote:
There are many reasons against trying to enforce church discipline:

1. Who defines what does or does not constitutes a reason for church discipline?
Lack of giving? Lack of attendance? Questioning Pastor's decisions? Making unsolicited suggestions? Not singing in the song service? Not participating in church programs? Etc.

2. There are many good churches down the road who would gladly accept those members who do not measure up to your church's standards.

3. Active church discipline tends to lead to acting like Pharisees.

4. Perceived uneven standards in enforcing church discipline.


On a small issue, was Paul wrong when he from a distance pronounced judgment against the man living with his step-mother?
No, Paul was not wrong; but that was clearly an open sinful practice. This thread is about responsibilities of membership, not open sinful practices. As stated above, what constitutes a need for church discipline?

But on the larger issue, the Bible teaches that there ought to be church discipline. On matters other than open sin, where in the N.T.? Do we, because some may abuse, refuse to live by Scripture? Why should what another church down the road does keep us from living according to Scripture?

Your argument is much like saying that because there have been miscarriages of justice in our legal system, we ought to refuse to have courts. Are you saying there should be a court like approach to church discipline? Unfortunately, putting emphasis on church discipline can lead to that or even lead to a cult like group.