Why Church Membership Matters

Thanks, Tyler, for an excellent treatment of this important subject.

Is “mutuality” a word? It should be.

For most of my life joining a church and becoming a member was what you did after you were saved and baptized. It was almost automatic and relatively easy to get your name on the membership role. There might be a brief session where you shared your salvation story and were introduced to the church’s doctrinal statement and subscribed to it. Congratulations! (I think I’m still on the membership list of the church of my youth over 50 years ago.)

It wasn’t until the last ten years that I encountered the Biblical model this article presents. That of members getting involved in each others lives. I tell people that it took me 4 decades to learn that “community” was a verb.

I’m now living in the buckle of the Bible Belt and I encounter people on a regular basis who are members and regular attenders of good churches who might know each other only by face yet they go to church 3 times on Sunday and usually Wednesday. As someone said the church doesn’t look and act like a body, it resembles a jar full of marbles.

[Ron Bean]

Congratulations! (I think I’m still on the membership list of the church of my youth over 50 years ago.)

Am I the only one who makes sure I am removed from the roles of previous churches? I am worried about the legal liability. While churches are normally entities that attempt to shield their members from lawsuits (such as a child getting run over in the parking lot), there are occasions where members have gotten sued. I think if a church functions as a corporation but cuts corners, it could open up members to problems. So I always make sure I am removed.

[GregH]

I think if a church functions as a corporation but cuts corners, it could open up members to problems. So I always make sure I am removed.

Seems like a sound policy to me. My current church keeps an actual roll, and has policies for removal in a timely fashion. However, since not all churches do this, it makes sense to have yourself removed when you leave a church.

[GregH]

Ron Bean wrote:

Congratulations! (I think I’m still on the membership list of the church of my youth over 50 years ago.)

Am I the only one who makes sure I am removed from the roles of previous churches? I am worried about the legal liability. While churches are normally entities that attempt to shield their members from lawsuits (such as a child getting run over in the parking lot), there are occasions where members have gotten sued. I think if a church functions as a corporation but cuts corners, it could open up members to problems. So I always make sure I am removed.

I would be concerned, perhaps, if I had been a trustee, but otherwise, not that worried. The legal term for what you’re describing is “penetrating the veil”, I believe, and it generally takes a lot before even the most aggressive plaintiff’s lawyers do that. Even if they did, they would have an interesting time trying to assign blame to you for things that happened after you left.

Probably still a non-zero chance that it could at least cost you some legal fees if (a) a former church really messed up and (b) someone forgot the principle of causality, but not something I’d lose sleep over.

[Bert Perry]

GregH wrote:

Ron Bean wrote:

Congratulations! (I think I’m still on the membership list of the church of my youth over 50 years ago.)

Am I the only one who makes sure I am removed from the roles of previous churches? I am worried about the legal liability. While churches are normally entities that attempt to shield their members from lawsuits (such as a child getting run over in the parking lot), there are occasions where members have gotten sued. I think if a church functions as a corporation but cuts corners, it could open up members to problems. So I always make sure I am removed.

I would be concerned, perhaps, if I had been a trustee, but otherwise, not that worried. The legal term for what you’re describing is “penetrating the veil”, I believe, and it generally takes a lot before even the most aggressive plaintiff’s lawyers do that. Even if they did, they would have an interesting time trying to assign blame to you for things that happened after you left.

Probably still a non-zero chance that it could at least cost you some legal fees if (a) a former church really messed up and (b) someone forgot the principle of causality, but not something I’d lose sleep over.

Well yes, it is a low risk, and yes, I am referring to piercing the corporate veil. In business, it is common in any lawsuit to trying pierce the veil and go after the shareholders personally. In a church liability issue, I would expect that lawyers would try to do the same thing, especially if the church was broke and maybe was not paying for enough insurance and there were well off members in the church.
So yes, a low risk but with the potential downside, a letter to ensure you are off the rolls is in my opinion a common sense thing to do to protect yourself. Even if there is almost no risk of a judgment, it could keep you from having to pay an attorney.

This is perhaps a touch off topic, but per Greg’s comment about specifically disenrolling to prevent legal issues, it also strikes me that doing so would be a good way, in the sad case it were necessary, of saying “you are not qualified church leadership in my opinion.” I’ve yet to do so, and am probably on the rolls of a church in Waseca to this day because I did not back in 2010, but when I leave a church, that is in a nutshell what I am saying about the leadership.

At least I like to believe that I’m not leaving a church for frivolous reasons, and no, I’m not doing so at this point. But if it is important to declare that allegiance, at times we might suggest it’s important to withdraw it.

At our church, we ask everyone applying for membership for the name and address of their former church. We send a letter to the former church informing them of our intention to receive so and so into membership, and ask for a letter of recommendation or transfer. Likewise, whenever anyone leaves our church, we ask their new church for a letter communicating that they have been received into membership (if they do not offer one). We respond with a letter commending them to the new congregation and then we remove them from our membership roll. These communications are read to the congregation, and transfers are approved by congregational vote. I thought this was standard procedure in Baptist churches. (I believe it is supposed to be.) Returning to sound practices of churchmanship would go a long ways to restoring spiritual health to churches.

I love this article! And I bet everyone who agrees with it loved it, too.

I’d love to see an article like this written in such a way as to be better suited to give to someone who does not believe in church membership, in a more exhortative manner. I feel like this has more of a preaching to the choir tone, if you know what I mean.

When I came to Christ, my pastor came up to me, shook my hand, and said “welcome to the family.” Maybe worth contemplating.

I get where you are coming from, Tyler, and I love the illustration from WWII. However, I would say that you argue from deduction, not something clearly revealed in Scripture (which is basically the foundation you laid at the beginning). Even as the thread of comments drifted off into, membership really doesn’t mean anything if you can be gone from a congregation and still be a member there after 50 years.

I guess I would argue that commitment and involvement are the indicators of true membership, not a roll or list. Everything in Acts 2 that you referred to would and could happen by practical participation, and even could not happen just by the existence of a formal list.

When you reference locations, they are cities, which, if they argue for anything, it is for a single assembly in a given community, rather than a multitude of local assemblies which are what accustomed to now.

People that know me are aware that I am very much for faithful involvement and commitment to the local church. That is not my issue. My issue is trying to be faithful to what the Scriptures expressly say (and don’t say).

I don’t disagree with your outcome. I just cannot prove that a formal list was kept or required. From what I can find in Scripture, it was the ongoing practical commitment and involvement of believers that made the local church functional, as opposed to a formal list. It was action rather than a formality that made the church function as the church.

My thoughts.

Again, I understand what you are saying. It is just that “church membership” still cannot fully answer any of these questions. A person can be a “church member” (which is not specified or defined in Scripture) and still not function as a member. It still requires ongoing participation by the believer, so the list solves nothing.

Further, if there is no formal list, it does not need to be vetted or affirmed. Obedient participation is self-affirming and self-vetting.

Baptism does not require a membership list, but an open affirmation of belief in the Savior.

I would say, for your last question, that the membership list is superfluous since it cannot actually perform any function without ongoing participation and involvement of those who could do so without the list.

I would still need to say that the Bible does not clearly indicate a requirement for a formal church membership, so though one may desire to bring this requirement into an assembly, it is a practice that should not be considered biblically necessary.

[TylerR]

Kevin:

I see you making a distinction without a difference. It’s clear you don’t like “lists!”

It really isn’t an issue of what I like, It is the issue of requiring something that the Bible itself doesn’t require. If the Bible was clear, I would have no issue (whether I liked it or not).

[TylerR]

If someone is “added” to the church because they have repented and believed the Gospel (Acts 2:41), what does this mean?

• What is this “addition?”
• What does it entail?

As you know, Acts 2:41 does not have an object. It is stating a general observation, not an administrative act. The text does not say that they were added to the membership of a local church, nor does it describe any such activity that we go through today to accomplish such (meet with deacons, present to the church with testimonies, vote as a congregation). None of that is hinted at.

It is also an approximate number: “about 3,000,” which I would say actually argues against a specific list. It is not trying to give a specific tally, but to show the great response that occurred that day.

“Adding to” does not have to differentiate between the universal church and the local church. One participates with a local assembly not to “join” a church but to live out the fact that, because of salvation, he or she is already part of the church. If one at salvation is placed into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13), then participating with a local church is the outworking and obligation of what one already is - a member of the body of Christ.

[TylerR] How do you answer these questions without implicitly acknowledging a distinction between a professing believer and a non-believer who merely attends, is interested, but has not committed? If you admit this distinction exists (whether or not you maintain a formal “list”), then what is the functional difference between our positions? It seems I’m just writing the names down, while you wish to keep them in your head!

Acts 2:42 defines how the group (including the new “about 3,000”) made the functional connection: “And they continued steadfastly in…”

The church is not made up of non-believers, and they are not in scope in Acts 2:42 whatsoever. It is adding something to the equation that is not present in the text. Believers do these things, not unbelievers. In the context of Acts 2, assembling with believers would be a stark act of identification. If unbelievers showed up, how would they know they were unbelievers? By examining a list? No. By interacting with them. Also, as you know, it is not unheard of that people “get saved” after having been a member of a local church - even years after.

I am saying that instituting an artificial list has no real bearing on the function of a local assembly. Being on a list (or not being on a list) does not make the difference. What makes a difference is the active, ongoing participation of a believer in the local assembly.

The list is not biblically required, nor does it really make any true difference. In fact, it may detract from the truth. Thus we get “inactive members,” or people that cannot vote even though they are faithful, and people who can vote who are not. I’ve seen it all my life. The formal membership does not make one committed. Active involvement does. I’d rather have 1 believer who is actively and faithfully involved than 10 who are on a list that show up occasionally. The former gets it. The latter misses one’s responsibility altogether.

I hope this helps to clarify my approach somewhat.

I was in a church for 11 years that emphasized “fellowship” instead of “membership”. They rejected the idea of an actual list of members. The greatest advantage was that the self-appointed leadership did what they pleased and if people didn’t like it they could leave. Church discipline was handled by the leadership as well and they would often exercise their “wisdom” by telling people to quit coming unless they were going to get with the program.

Somehow 1 John’s comment about participation comes to mind. He does not refer to lists, but rather to the simple fact that people are there, or not. Membership was simpler in the days when simply showing up for church could make you Purina lion chow, no? It’s kinda like those long gone teen years when a guy would “get the hint” when a girl started to ignore him.

Seriously, that’s what I was getting at with the “family” statement. Sometimes it’s necessary these days to formalize and bureaucratize these things, but that doesn’t create the notion of belonging that being part of a family does. The trick to making membership—whether formalized or not—work lies there.

Would like to hear more from Ron about his experience with informalized membership. I’m guessing that a bunch of people felt it was rather abusive to not have the official controls in place if I’m reading him correctly.

The church of which I spoke was planted in the early 1950’s by a man who led the place until he died in 2006. The church continues with his personally appointed successor. All salaries in the church and school were set by the pastor as were all expenditures. The pastor did personally appoint elders (I was one) who served to simply approve his decisions. Dissent in any form was not permitted. The board consisted of his brother-in-law and son, and employees who relied on the pastor for their jobs. Church members, oops attenders, never saw financial reports but were happy just to go to services. They were passively content with the status quo and the leader was content with what he saw as a successful and Biblical model of church.

In the non-membership church model, how does one go about knowing which believers have submitted to local pastoral authority and church discipline? On a related note, there is the idea of submitting to the local body of believers in general.

If no formal arrangement is made regarding mutually agreed submission to local pastoral authority, there is basically no shepherd/flock arrangement, or it becomes a thunderdome where ANY shepherd in a certain geographic area can exercise authority of ANY believer.

This type of informal arrangement is simply not advocated for in NT writing.

[Bruce Rettig]

Kevin,

I don’t agree with your interpretation of what the Scriptures imply regarding membership. That said, from my vantage point it looks like a significant reason why you object to a membership roll is that the roll often carries names that are not actually participating in the life of the church. They fail to demonstrate an “active, ongoing participation of a believer in the local assembly” and don’t accomplish what is intended.

The failure is not intrinsic to the church membership roll. The shortcomings described exist because too many churches fail to practice church discipline and hold one another accountable to the covenant that was made when the desire to be received as part of that local church was publicly expressed.

Actually, Bruce, that is not correct. I do not object to a membership roll because of its failings. I disagree with it as a requirement because it is not found in Scripture. It is not an issue of interpretation, that I see, as I do not see it commanded or mandated at all in the Bible. If someone has a roll, it is their choice to do so. To indicate that it is required in some defined format is simply extra-biblical. My view is not built on implications. Rather, the view of mandating such a roll must be.

I simply pointed out via illustration that the use of a roll does not in any way make faithfulness automatic. As I stated before, it may even detract from it, as people rest on their membership rather than live out their responsibility to the body of Christ as believers. The church is not a club that is joined; it is a blessed connection that is to be actively lived out because of the relationship that already exists in the body of Christ. (1 John 3:16; 4:11)

[Ron Bean]

I was in a church for 11 years that emphasized “fellowship” instead of “membership”. They rejected the idea of an actual list of members. The greatest advantage was that the self-appointed leadership did what they pleased and if people didn’t like it they could leave. Church discipline was handled by the leadership as well and they would often exercise their “wisdom” by telling people to quit coming unless they were going to get with the program.

Then the issue is not the list, then, is it? This can happen in a church with membership (and does).

It’s just that it’s easy-peasey without a list. In fact, it’s guaranteed!

[TylerR]

Kevin, I basically see your view as idealistic and abstract; something that works better on paper than in real life.

So, desiring to require what the Bible requires is idealistic and abstract? I would say the same for the claims you provide for membership. I know that we are not too far off, but the Bible does not require this, so how can it be idealistic and abstract? Is accuracy a factor, and does it have more weight than pragmatism or tradition?

[TylerR]

But, I think we actually agree with each other on the nuts and bolts. You wrote:

The list is not biblically required, nor does it really make any true difference. In fact, it may detract from the truth. Thus we get “inactive members,” or people that cannot vote even though they are faithful, and people who can vote who are not. I’ve seen it all my life. The formal membership does not make one committed. Active involvement does. I’d rather have 1 believer who is actively and faithfully involved than 10 who are on a list that show up occasionally. The former gets it. The latter misses one’s responsibility altogether.

Your argument seems to be against a cheap understanding of “church membership.” Many pastors share your frustration. So do I. After I preached this sermon on church membership, several people (non-members) in the church became angry - but I knew they would. They were the folks who are the consumers, not the producers. They were angry because they knew I was implicitly calling them to service and commitment, instead of warming a chair.

No, my argument comes from the lack of support from Scripture. I only cite what you quote as the functional outworking of a membership list (many, if not most). It is not even a frustration. It is an observation.

I am fine calling people to service and commitment. Why throw in a requirement that the Bible does not? Why create a barrier if they are already faithfully serving? If the issue is not serving or not being committed, the issue is not the lack of a name on a list. And the same can be said for people who may already have the name on the list. The list itself secures nothing either way.

[TylerR]

Can we agree on this:

• Local church membership should be restricted to regenerate believers, and it’s a means of formalizing a relationship that should naturally develop between a new Christian and a local congregation.

I would say that the local church is regenerate believers by definition. Unbelievers are not and cannot be part of the body of Christ. The problem is that unsaved people can be placed on a list. The membership roll creates this issue, as I would see it.

I do not see the “formalizing a relationship” idea in Scripture, and that’s my entire point. Formalizing is superficial. Function is not. If people are committed by their attendance and service and giving, but are not on a membership roll, is that unbiblical? I say that it is not, and you yourself agreed that a membership roll is not required. If people are on a membership roll, and are not faithful in attendance, service, and giving, etc. how is that helpful? And that does happen a great deal.

I think every believer should be committed to a local body because he/she is already part of the body of Christ. Anything more formal may be helpful to you, but not required or emphasized in Scripture.

How do we say what the Biblical model was? We can guess that they had membership lists, but most people at the time were illiterate, paper was precious, and….do we have any surviving lists? OK, sure, not a gimme that we’d have that, even if they’d existed, but still…. All I know for sure is that Paul and John write of some people who are no longer “in the club”, and that somehow church business was transacted. Maybe I’m missing something here.

Could have been official lists held by elders, or it could have simply been the “common knowledge” of what goes on inside a small community when people can’t drive 20 miles to go to church, no? I know that, 30 years after I entered young adulthood, I’m still stunned at what older people from my hometown remember about the people I grew up with. Perhaps instead of the “Mad Max” kind of society, simple issues of transportation would limit the # of elders who would lead one group of believers?

I’ve got no objection to formalized membership, but I think we need to be a bit careful about assuming our current structures in a society that didn’t look much like ours at all. And if we can infer that the ancient church did things very differently, maybe we can learn from that, no?

[Bruce Rettig]

Without membership that is actually measurable, there is no way to practice church discipline…greatly hindering the health of the church.

How does having or not having a formal roll disable a church from practicing church discipline? I’m at a complete loss here.

Matthew 18, for example, requires an offended individual to go to the individual that offended him. If unresponsive, the offended person brings two more. If still unresponsive, he is to be brought before the church. How can the lack of a list keep any of this from happening?

[Bert Perry]

How do we say what the Biblical model was? We can guess that they had membership lists, but most people at the time were illiterate, paper was precious, and….do we have any surviving lists? OK, sure, not a gimme that we’d have that, even if they’d existed, but still…. All I know for sure is that Paul and John write of some people who are no longer “in the club”, and that somehow church business was transacted. Maybe I’m missing something here.

Could have been official lists held by elders, or it could have simply been the “common knowledge” of what goes on inside a small community when people can’t drive 20 miles to go to church, no? I know that, 30 years after I entered young adulthood, I’m still stunned at what older people from my hometown remember about the people I grew up with. Perhaps instead of the “Mad Max” kind of society, simple issues of transportation would limit the # of elders who would lead one group of believers?

I’ve got no objection to formalized membership, but I think we need to be a bit careful about assuming our current structures in a society that didn’t look much like ours at all. And if we can infer that the ancient church did things very differently, maybe we can learn from that, no?

I don’t think anyone has discussed “the Biblical model” yet, at least in those words. Tyler’s article did not. I think we’re looking at principles or commands, or at least something illustrating what they did or didn’t do with whatever clarity is in (or not in) Scripture.

[JBL]

In the non-membership church model, how does one go about knowing which believers have submitted to local pastoral authority and church discipline? On a related note, there is the idea of submitting to the local body of believers in general.

If no formal arrangement is made regarding mutually agreed submission to local pastoral authority, there is basically no shepherd/flock arrangement, or it becomes a thunderdome where ANY shepherd in a certain geographic area can exercise authority of ANY believer.

This type of informal arrangement is simply not advocated for in NT writing.

I would be interested in knowing what formal arrangement is advocated for in NT writing. I am arguing from the NT (Acts / Epistles). A formal church membership (and further, the process of receiving one into membership) is not declared or defined in Scripture. If you want such, I cannot find an objection to it, any more than I can find an objection to buildings or pews or hymnals or Bible study software or internet chats (like this), but we cannot require such. There just isn’t enough said to make it dogmatic.

To restate your first question / paragraph, “In the membership church model, how does one go about knowing which believers have submitted to local pastoral authority and church discipline? On a related note, there is the idea of submitting to the local body of believers in general.”

In either “model” (not sure I like that word), the only way you can know is by someone doing it, not by someone having their name on a list. Membership is not an act of submission. It might be said (by those that are proponents of such) that it is a promise to submit. It certainly cannot require submission. If people not in a membership roll situation are following the leaders, does that violate the Bible somehow?

Submitting to fellow believers does not require a list, and the Bible does not suggest such. Submitting to leaders does not require a list, and the Bible does not suggest such. Both are required because we are believers, not because we are members. They are commands which are not conditioned on church membership, or the Bible would have clearly said so.

The Bible defines the shepherd / flock arrangement in several places, but it does so by giving commands to both, not by arranging some paper contract. “Feed, tend, shepherd, oversee, pray for, guard, equip, rightly divide, preach, teach, reprove, exhort, admonish” etc. for the shepherd. “Recognize, trust, obey, honor, yield, remember, follow, submit to, esteem highly, share with, imitate” etc. The Word rightly taught properly defines the relationship, and a roll or even a covenant cannot make that happen apart from the Word properly taught.

[Ron Bean]

It’s just that it’s easy-peasey without a list. In fact, it’s guaranteed!

Sorry. Not following here. To me, a list complicates, rather than makes something easy. However, if this relates to poor leadership in the church that you referenced before, that would be the issue, not the list.

What I was saying that the absence of a formal membership assures that the leaders can do whatever they wish. If the people don’t like it, they can just leave. No membership works fine if the leadership is/are godly, sinless, and perfect.

I’m glad to hear that membership is the solution to bad leadership. I never knew that before.

Unless, of course, the deacons are bad, or the members are bad. Then I guess that could be a problem.

But if the leadership is godly, and they are held accountable by believers and other leaders, maybe it could work without a membership.

Membership appears to be an attempt to counter expected poor leadership, rather than a means to follow good leadership. The bottom line is not formal membership, but godly leadership. Without the latter, what’s the point?

No one, and I say again, NO ONE has ever said that membership is the cure to bad leadership.

As I’ve said before, any polity will work if people are godly.

BTW, from your comments I assume that the leadership in your church makes all decisions.

This is what I’ve seen in churches without an organized membership.

-Little or no financial accountability to the givers.

-Leadership is self-appointed.

-The pastor usually picks his successor.

-Congregation participates in worship but little or nothing else.

-The regular congregation doesn’t care about being involved in anything except worship.

-There is often an attitude of “if you don’t like it, you don’t have to be here”.

[Ron Bean]

No one, and I say again, NO ONE has ever said that membership is the cure to bad leadership.

As I’ve said before, any polity will work if people are godly.

BTW, from your comments I assume that the leadership in your church makes all decisions.

Your point affirms what I say. Good leadership leading through Biblical teaching (2 Tim 4:1-4) and Biblical example (Heb 13:7) is the key, not some formal membership which is in no way clearly defined or required in Scripture. The presence of a membership list, or joining a church in a formal way, which is the emphasis of the original article, cannot make or prevent good leadership.

People (leaders and followers) are not always godly (cue the Corinthian church), and certainly they are never completely godly or completely perfect or mature. That is the reality. In fact, that’s the norm. But it does not remove the responsibility of leaders to lead, and for followers to follow. Hebrews 13:17 is a brief but very detailed and accurate formula for how this relationship is to work:

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. (Heb. 13:17 NKJ)

The two imperatives are directed to those that follow:

1. Obey (present tense imperative - be obeying) - Not as in “children obey your parents” but “have confidence in” or “trust” those that (wait for it) “rule over you” or “those leading you.” Every translation (NKJ, ESV, NAU, NET, NIV, to name a few) translates this imperative as “obey,” because it is that strong of an idea. It’s passive, so it is the requirement to obey, follow, be being persuaded by, etc.
2. Be submissive (present tense imperative - be submitting). This is the second imperative directed to the followers. Submitting is yielding to the leadership, direction, decision, idea of the one leading, and from what I can tell, includes the idea of disagreement. I follow the leader even though I disagree, or I would desire to do “it” differently. We are commanded to be submitting to our spiritual leaders (and that is the context - see Heb 13:7). Submitting is something the follower does, not what a leader makes happen. It is a willful act of yielding to the direction of the one(s) in charge. “Not my will, but Yours be done” comes to mind as illustrative of this idea. Submitting seems to counter the idea of a vote because submitting assumes that I do not agree, but I yield anyway. I am to yield to the leadership of my leaders.

According to Liddell and Scott, “those that rule over you” is used even of those commanding an army. You obey who is in charge. You submit to those in charge. Having someone in charge is not something bad as “we Baptists” paint. It is a Biblical idea found in the family, in government, in the church, and even in the Godhead. The presence of authority structure is God’s design and submitting to the authority structure is a godly act, reflecting even the relationship in the Godhead.

The responsibilities of the leader, though not commanded, are defined:

1. To be leading (present tense participle) those in the flock - “who are ruling over you” or “who are leading you” suggests that active, ongoing leadership is happening. They do have a plan and they are giving direction. Leadership is active, not reactive or passive. Leadership is continuous. Leadership is also an activity, not simply a position if seen correctly. Leadership is not as much as a title as an ongoing responsibility done for the sake of the flock.
2. To be watching out for (present tense participle) the lives of the flock - “who are keeping watch over your lives” is again an ongoing activity. It is “flock focused,” not selfish. The responsibility is to care for the flock, not to fleece them for personal benefit. It is a sacrificial responsibility done on behalf of those watched, not something that is done for oneself.

Two more truths are evident regarding leaders:

1. They will ultimately give an account (to God). This is a key understanding that is needed to be grasped by anyone contemplating leadership. They are (again) not in the position of leadership for themselves, and they are not the ones that define the tasks or the processes. What leaders do, how they do it, and why they do it will be evaluated. They will give an answer for their stewardship.
2. They lead whether people follow well or not. Much like parenting, leadership responsibility does not cease because people do not obey or submit. Obeying and submitting to leaders allows the leaders to “do so with joy and not with grief,” but the responsibility remains either way. Obeying and following make the leadership process easier, and also makes it more beneficial and functional for those being led.

In our church, the leaders do make many decisions. We do not have committees (where did churches get all of the complicated, progress-stopping red tape in their constitutions? Not from the Bible…), and we vote on very little. This happens, in part, because leaders lead biblically, selflessly, and transparently. We are not perfect, but we have sought to build trust and to continue earning that trust every day. We approve, as a congregation, the annual budget, and give out monthly reports as well as present the annual report, and the leaders work within that budget. For major decisions, we give input, and get input, and vote as needed (for example, choosing to pay off our mortgage last month, instead of replacing a number of windows as originally planned in the budget for the year). People can (and do) ask questions, and they are encouraged to do so. We serve as part of the flock, whether working on our facilities, cleaning, ministering, etc, not in some stand-off role. We sacrificially give of our time (we are paid a small salary and work full-time to be able to pastor) and work very diligently to rightly divide the Word. And, foremost, we communicate the Word. They understand that our leading is what we are supposed to do, and we do so, to the best of our ability, reflecting the commands and principles that the Word teaches.

The membership roll is not something necessary. Godly leaders are. Godly followers are. However, a local church fleshes that out is fine with those two factors. If they desire a membership roll, I do not think it is wrong. It is simply going beyond Scripture to say that “this is what is required” when nothing of the sort is defined. The Bible actually places responsibility on both the leaders and the followers to do what God has called them to do within a local assembly.

[Ron Bean]

This is what I’ve seen in churches without an organized membership.

-Little or no financial accountability to the givers.

-Leadership is self-appointed.

-The pastor usually picks his successor.

-Congregation participates in worship but little or nothing else.

-The regular congregation doesn’t care about being involved in anything except worship.

-There is often an attitude of “if you don’t like it, you don’t have to be here”.

I have seen the same with churches with memberships, only they are controlled by deacon boards. It has nothing to do with church membership, but everything to do with godly, biblical leadership and followership.

I have never experienced “self-appointed” leaders. Every church I have pastored or have attended growing up elected their pastor(s) via congregational vote. Some churches are “broken” from the beginning, including many churches who write a constitution that primarily serves to keep the pastor in line (he can’t really lead) and make sure that the deacons are always in control. A church can be broken in many ways.

Our “pastor led” church family is regularly encouraged to participate in service (we teach the Bible, and that’s what the Bible teaches). And, amazingly, almost everyone servers in multiple places and capacities. Again, the issue is ignoring what the Bible says about leadership and service rather than having anything to do with the presence or absence of a formal church membership.

Church succession should be a responsibility of the pastor(s). He should be a key influence, unless his entire ministry focus is not worth continuing. Ministry continuity is a plus, not a minus. Instead, churches go 1-3 years without a pastor, and the deacons serve (really, continue to serve) as the de facto pastors. If only all churches would raise up leaders (I’m for multiple leaders) in their churches so that when a pastor leaves or dies, the church remains stable and strong and on course.

I would say that many churches have bad leadership, and many have bad “followership.” People move from church to church at their whim, and often to and from churches with memberships. The issue is not the roll, but ignorant or disobedient followers.

[TylerR]

My article was written to explain to Christians in a Baptist church why membership is important. It isn’t an defensive argument for church membership.

From your article: “Church membership is like that; it’s an assumed fact of life in the New Testament that the writers take for granted.” Nothing in your article clearly proves that it is an “assumed fact,” and I was simply interacting with that issue. Your article assumes that there were saints in every city and that the group of believers functioned in a committed fashion, but there is no definitive argument for a formal church membership roll.

I was objecting to that statement. If we begin “assuming facts” that are not clearly indicated in Scripture, we are practicing eisegesis, by its very definition. If your statement is true (I do not believe it is) then would it not apply to all churches, not just Baptist ones?

If God considered church membership so important, why do we have to assume it, and then seek to define it (and its processes) outside of Scripture?

[TylerR]

I wish we could chat in person, because I think we’re talking past each other, for the most part. I continue to see your model as idealistic and abstract; divorced from real life.

If arguing against something that is not explicit in Scripture is idealistic, abstract, and divorced from real life, what is arguing about something that is “assumed?” I find your labels most ironic. And if my questioning formal church membership, which is not explicit, is idealistic and abstract and divorced from real life, how do you approach expecting one to “set your mind on things above, not on things of the earth,” “love not the world or the things that are in the world,” “husbands love your wives,” “wives submit to your husbands,” etc. These are idealistic and even somewhat abstract. Are such divorced from real life? No. They are still to be preached and taught.

I do not think we are talking past each other at all. I am seeking to build on what the Word says. You say that doing so is idealistic and abstract, divorced from real life. You are trying to build an entire premise and process on something only “assumed” in Scripture. I don’t think doing so is wrong. I just think it cannot be assumed. It is a tool, not a revelatory requirement (and you have agreed to that). I think we work from entirely different foundations.

[TylerR]

Millard Erickson has a wonderful section in his systematic where he surveys the various approaches to church government. He concludes the NT doesn’t teach a particular model, but was moving towards something that looks like congregational polity by the end.

You may be comfortable with such a foundation, building on an extra-biblical hypothesis of “something that looks like congregational polity by the end,” but I am not. The clarity of Scripture has to be the measure, from my perspective, if we are going to require it as you suggest in your article. Congregational polity, I believe, is why so much of this has to be created out of nothing, and what causes so many of the issues.

[TylerR]

I agree with that. I think there is room for generous disagreement over some areas of polity. If a pastor (1) calls people to repentance, (2) only allows Christians with a substantive profession of faith, coupled with a Christian walk, to serve and (3) urges all professing believers in a congregation to serve the Lord with their talents and abilities, then I’m with you.

I do not disagree with the above statement. It seems to counter what you wrote.

[TylerR]

I just think you’re getting the details wrong!

By “assuming,” there are no details. You have to make them up. That has been my point all along. ;)

By the way, I pastor a Baptist church. We have a formal membership (created when the church presumably copied the standard Baptist by-laws, which are faulty on so many counts), but we do not emphasize membership much, because we have come to the conclusion that it is not a Biblical issue. We emphasize participation and service, which seems to work and work well. No one in our congregation knows or cares who’s name is on the list. We know and care for and serve one another. We are an assembly of sinners who serve our Savior and one another, and whose faulty leaders seek to lead in a godly fashion, and whose flock follows those faulty leaders.

Thanks. Biblical accuracy is definitely something worth fighting for.

I have appreciated the discussion and your responses. I especially like the illustration of the bombers in WWII. Excellent.

Who makes the decisions regarding finances and calling a pastor?

My church just found out that one of the deacons had not actually become a member. I teased him about contemplating voting against his membership…..

(he’s now a member)

[Ron Bean]

Who makes the decisions regarding finances and calling a pastor?

The deacons and the elders (there is a plurality) discuss the situations with the congregation and the elders ultimately decide since it is an elder rule (perhaps led would be more accurate) church. I haven’t been there when they called a pastor but I believe they had a vote.