Why Church Membership Matters

[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.