Membership dismissal
Forum category
I have been reviewing general church bylaw membership qualifications / regulations, and have found reasons for dismissal to be typical of; 1) by death, 2) by request, 3) by inactivity, and 4) by discipline. Regarding dismissal by discipline, I have found some churches deny the withdrawal of membership while under church discipline. Can anyone help me understand why this restriction, and how it might work? It would seem if someone wants to withdraw membership, right or wrong, there’s not a whole lot the church can do about it. Am i missing something?
- 321 views
The idea here is not that they can keep a person from claiming they are no longer a member but that if that person attempts to join another assembly that is within a denomination that disallows joining a new congregation while membership of an old one is under “disciplinary actions” they can effectively deny withdrawal of membership for that person, thus preventing them from joining a same denominational church (and not all denominations necessarily practice this structure).
Also, such a membership (at one point in the past this was commonly true, now it is not quite as much) when transferred, also transferred with it all offices to which that person was ordained, such as deacon or elder, though in transferring to the new church they may not at that time actively begin serving as a deacon or elder they may rightly be called a deacon or elder. If a person’s ordination as a deacon or elder is from a church under which they departed under the conditions you described, such a church would, even by many non-denominational churches, often be contacted to verify such ordination (though often certificates accompany such events) and at that point the disciplinary issue would come to light and may prevent the new church from accepting that person either for membership or only will allow accepting them for membership without recognizing any ordination from the previous church until such disciplinary issues are resolved.
But in the matter of leaving a church and joining another church, if that new church is willing to accept that person as a member and does not consider the issues of the previous church relevant to their new membership then you are quite right, there is nothing that church can do or should do with respect to the new church. Their only concern is their assembly. But they can maintain such a status for that person until the issue is resolved and rightly so. If a church believes a person is properly under discipline then until it is resolved it should remain so (this is not to say all causes for and procedures of church discipline in our Evangelical/fundamental assemblies are justified, I have read so many poorly constructed ideas and “hermeneutically” damaged arguments for causes and procedures regarding church discipline, from here at SI to other boards and with my own ears through the years that it is reasonable to believe that the issue is one being poorly fielded by E/f’s right now and gives valid rise to much skepticism when an assembly claims one of their members are “under discipline”).
Also, such a membership (at one point in the past this was commonly true, now it is not quite as much) when transferred, also transferred with it all offices to which that person was ordained, such as deacon or elder, though in transferring to the new church they may not at that time actively begin serving as a deacon or elder they may rightly be called a deacon or elder. If a person’s ordination as a deacon or elder is from a church under which they departed under the conditions you described, such a church would, even by many non-denominational churches, often be contacted to verify such ordination (though often certificates accompany such events) and at that point the disciplinary issue would come to light and may prevent the new church from accepting that person either for membership or only will allow accepting them for membership without recognizing any ordination from the previous church until such disciplinary issues are resolved.
But in the matter of leaving a church and joining another church, if that new church is willing to accept that person as a member and does not consider the issues of the previous church relevant to their new membership then you are quite right, there is nothing that church can do or should do with respect to the new church. Their only concern is their assembly. But they can maintain such a status for that person until the issue is resolved and rightly so. If a church believes a person is properly under discipline then until it is resolved it should remain so (this is not to say all causes for and procedures of church discipline in our Evangelical/fundamental assemblies are justified, I have read so many poorly constructed ideas and “hermeneutically” damaged arguments for causes and procedures regarding church discipline, from here at SI to other boards and with my own ears through the years that it is reasonable to believe that the issue is one being poorly fielded by E/f’s right now and gives valid rise to much skepticism when an assembly claims one of their members are “under discipline”).
Thank you Alex for your explanation, from that perspective, I understand it as a practical matter. It would seem for this policy to be effective, it would require the cooperation of churches, and honesty from the one who opts out of disciplinary counsel, an unlikely scenario? Is there some Biblical principal or example that would support this type of policy? Thanks again for your help.
Denominational resources are probably the most useful in researching the biblical arguments for this kind of policy. But such a policy is practiced by certain like-minded or cooperative churches that do not have a denominational hierarchy so it does not have to be viewed as justified only in the minds of denominational types. And even some denominations do not strictly enforce church discipline resulting in someone being unable to join another assembly in that same denomination.
The biblical principle for someone in a denomination not being allowed to join another same denominational assembly is a result of both their view of church government and church discipline. That is, if a denomination accepts the argument that church government properly viewed should or may include a hierarchy beyond the local assembly, then any assembly that is a member of such a denomination accepts with that membership the authority of that superior body of governors.
And in such a denomination, when a person is cited for discipline in a local assembly, it is either accepted or further approved by the higher governing body (there are some exceptions in varying denominations, I am giving you the general rule). Therefore, in the end, any assembly that is a member of that denomination accepts what the higher governing body accepts and in this case it is the censure or discipline of a member.
Therefore, in part, to answer your question, some of the answer will lie at your view of church government and whether or not you accept denominational rule/authority.
If one does not accept the concept of presbyteries or higher governments outside of a local assembly, then you are left with weighing the integrity of the assembly from which that person came and whether or not his or her discipline you consider, either as Pastor(s) and/or Elder(s), your business.
For those that do much of the argument comes from things such as what they view are the nature of discipline (protecting the flock), silencing false teachers, aiding a brother or sister in Christ to come to a point of enlightenment and repentance toward a publicly gross sin, and so on. Their belief is that if, in a like-minded assembly one has gone this far and has been discipline, then the cause for discipline remains, and if they (after investigating the matter) believe that assembly was justified in disciplining that person, then they believe they are required by Scripture to uphold this principle. The would view it as subverting the cause of Christ.
The following article represents a very good general case for the Evangelical/fundamental view of church discipline:
http://bible.org/article/church-discipline
I do not necessarily hold to all of these arguments, I am simply sourcing them. I believe that the issue of church discipline is mishandled in E/f churches in large part and excesses of many kinds exist, both in ignoring where it is truly needed and meeting it out unnecessarily and improperly in other cases.
My family and I, for many years, belonged to a church that only accepted members by profession of faith. That is, there was no acceptance of letters of transfer from anyone. We were a local assembly and one became a member through profession. They were explained the church government and the policy for worship and so on. It was their choice to accept or reject and their past had no bearing on their present with regard to our church’s acceptance of them.
We do not belong to such an assembly now but I personally prefer that view.
The biblical principle for someone in a denomination not being allowed to join another same denominational assembly is a result of both their view of church government and church discipline. That is, if a denomination accepts the argument that church government properly viewed should or may include a hierarchy beyond the local assembly, then any assembly that is a member of such a denomination accepts with that membership the authority of that superior body of governors.
And in such a denomination, when a person is cited for discipline in a local assembly, it is either accepted or further approved by the higher governing body (there are some exceptions in varying denominations, I am giving you the general rule). Therefore, in the end, any assembly that is a member of that denomination accepts what the higher governing body accepts and in this case it is the censure or discipline of a member.
Therefore, in part, to answer your question, some of the answer will lie at your view of church government and whether or not you accept denominational rule/authority.
If one does not accept the concept of presbyteries or higher governments outside of a local assembly, then you are left with weighing the integrity of the assembly from which that person came and whether or not his or her discipline you consider, either as Pastor(s) and/or Elder(s), your business.
For those that do much of the argument comes from things such as what they view are the nature of discipline (protecting the flock), silencing false teachers, aiding a brother or sister in Christ to come to a point of enlightenment and repentance toward a publicly gross sin, and so on. Their belief is that if, in a like-minded assembly one has gone this far and has been discipline, then the cause for discipline remains, and if they (after investigating the matter) believe that assembly was justified in disciplining that person, then they believe they are required by Scripture to uphold this principle. The would view it as subverting the cause of Christ.
The following article represents a very good general case for the Evangelical/fundamental view of church discipline:
http://bible.org/article/church-discipline
I do not necessarily hold to all of these arguments, I am simply sourcing them. I believe that the issue of church discipline is mishandled in E/f churches in large part and excesses of many kinds exist, both in ignoring where it is truly needed and meeting it out unnecessarily and improperly in other cases.
My family and I, for many years, belonged to a church that only accepted members by profession of faith. That is, there was no acceptance of letters of transfer from anyone. We were a local assembly and one became a member through profession. They were explained the church government and the policy for worship and so on. It was their choice to accept or reject and their past had no bearing on their present with regard to our church’s acceptance of them.
We do not belong to such an assembly now but I personally prefer that view.
I truly appreciate your time to answer so thoroughly, I am beggining to understand. I suppose it would be helpful that I identify IFB churches as my target of interest. I find it interesting that IFB’s claim total autonomy of the church, but in this particular area of discipline / membership it seems contradictory. To “hold” someone’s membership in limbo requires the cooperation of other churches, which sounds like an alliance of some sort. Given the subjectivity and delicacy of church discipline, it would have to be a close alliance as well, perhaps I’m way off base on that thought.
Another parallel thought is that members of IFB’s are accepted on condition of public profession of faith, (not all, but typically). Should a prospective member transfer to another IFB church, why wouldn’t the testimony of faith transfer from church to church? If the purpose of denying membership withdrawal while under discipline is to impede membership with another church, (till discipline is complete) then in a sense, the disciplinary action is transferred to another church in the form of cooperation. Thus, an uncooperative church member will have his disciplinary history “transferred” (in the form of a warning to others) but a testimony of faith does not. Hmmmm
Thank you again Alex for your input, it has been extremely helpful. If there are any more thoughts on the subject, I would welcome them.
Another parallel thought is that members of IFB’s are accepted on condition of public profession of faith, (not all, but typically). Should a prospective member transfer to another IFB church, why wouldn’t the testimony of faith transfer from church to church? If the purpose of denying membership withdrawal while under discipline is to impede membership with another church, (till discipline is complete) then in a sense, the disciplinary action is transferred to another church in the form of cooperation. Thus, an uncooperative church member will have his disciplinary history “transferred” (in the form of a warning to others) but a testimony of faith does not. Hmmmm
Thank you again Alex for your input, it has been extremely helpful. If there are any more thoughts on the subject, I would welcome them.
You are quite welcome for the information. As to the testimony or statement of faith, what that is generally is a statement by someone that they wish to become a member of a church but that they are not a member of any church at the time, so in lieu of that they present their confession of faith or statement of faith in Christ as Savior and that they have been baptized (if it is an IFB church for sure but many other churches also require baptism).
So in effect, one cannot transfer a testimony of faith or statement of faith that is normally offered when there is no membership elsewhere to be transferred. What usually is in view when a membership is transferred is their standing which is often called “a member is good standing”. And the transfer is done many ways. Some formally by letters, that is one Pastor writes the other church and the Pastor of the other church sends a letter stating so and so is a member in good standing and some informally such as a phone call. I suspect you know much of this part but for anyone else reading it may help too.
So one could, if they believe membership is their’s to void regardless of the context, actually void their membership and leave somewhere and join another assembly by means of “statement or testimony of faith” without bothering to try and join by means of transferring a membership.
As to IFB’s cooperating in this matter while having as a pronounced feature their autonomous identity, you do have a point. But then because it serves a negative we also have to see that this cooperation serves a positive too, that is enabling men and women to transfer to other IFB churches with things such as their baptism, ordination and so on being accepted.
However, we as Christians are not given the convenience of pragmatism. That is, simply because cooperation is valid in one case does not mean it is valid in another. We must go to the Scriptures. And in the case of church discipline, as I mentioned before, I do not view this context parallel to that of recognizing ordinations and baptisms though they are not extremely far removed. In other words because ordinations and baptisms are accepted I do not believe we automatically are forced to view a necessary cooperation that accepts disciplinary status.
But I will say that the arguments made by others on the matter, in some cases, are not to be ignored or dismissed casually. Some are reasonable and do not arrest the Scriptures with bizarre interpretations in order to force an exotic argument, rather they are structured within an orthodox hermeneutic.
So in effect, one cannot transfer a testimony of faith or statement of faith that is normally offered when there is no membership elsewhere to be transferred. What usually is in view when a membership is transferred is their standing which is often called “a member is good standing”. And the transfer is done many ways. Some formally by letters, that is one Pastor writes the other church and the Pastor of the other church sends a letter stating so and so is a member in good standing and some informally such as a phone call. I suspect you know much of this part but for anyone else reading it may help too.
So one could, if they believe membership is their’s to void regardless of the context, actually void their membership and leave somewhere and join another assembly by means of “statement or testimony of faith” without bothering to try and join by means of transferring a membership.
As to IFB’s cooperating in this matter while having as a pronounced feature their autonomous identity, you do have a point. But then because it serves a negative we also have to see that this cooperation serves a positive too, that is enabling men and women to transfer to other IFB churches with things such as their baptism, ordination and so on being accepted.
However, we as Christians are not given the convenience of pragmatism. That is, simply because cooperation is valid in one case does not mean it is valid in another. We must go to the Scriptures. And in the case of church discipline, as I mentioned before, I do not view this context parallel to that of recognizing ordinations and baptisms though they are not extremely far removed. In other words because ordinations and baptisms are accepted I do not believe we automatically are forced to view a necessary cooperation that accepts disciplinary status.
But I will say that the arguments made by others on the matter, in some cases, are not to be ignored or dismissed casually. Some are reasonable and do not arrest the Scriptures with bizarre interpretations in order to force an exotic argument, rather they are structured within an orthodox hermeneutic.
My background is non-denom independent fundamental, while currently working with IFB, so there are some minor variations in how things are done, this being one of them. To me, a policy of “you can’t leave till we say so, because we have a responsiblity before God to restore you to fellowship” sounds noble, but implausible. If a discipline situation has reached this level, any actions beyond prayer for restoration seem antagonistic pushing it beyond cooperation of the individual in question.
As a general question to the forum, are there any instances of denying membership withdrawal in the name of restoration, as successful?
As a general question to the forum, are there any instances of denying membership withdrawal in the name of restoration, as successful?
The issue here is not withholding withdrawal of membership. Certainly no church has the authority to FORCE a person to maintain their membership. The issue is not allowing a letter of transfer to a “sister church” (i.e. a church of like faith and practice.) If they want to join a different church while they are under disciplinary action from your church, then they will have to join by statement, and not by letter.
Pastor Steve Schwenke Liberty Baptist Church Amarillo, TX
Yes, the issue is that one cannot claim to have left in good standing; one is being prevented from an orderly transition. This makes sense, if one is attempting to follow Biblical polity, because the only reason someone should be at such a state of discipline is impenitent rejection of all efforts to reconcile them to faith. At the point where someone is excluded from communion with the local body, either that person is presumptively an unbeliever to be evangelized, or the church is so abusive as to throw its status as “true church” into question. Which is why such discipline should never become idiosyncratic, procedural, or a matter for mere congregation-swapping. A church which accepts a member who has been cut off from another church ought also to admit the truth of its judgment about that church. If we took these matters seriously, we could not be so haphazard as we have become in evangelical/fundamentalist circles (indeed, this is a primary reason why many, such as myself, have little or no confidence that God’s way forward is going to be in these churches after this generation).
Membership in a local church is not simply the decision of an individual, but the congregation must decide whether the prospective member truly meets the biblical requirement of regeneracy and immersion (in the case of a Baptist church). If a vote of the congregation is required to accept someone into membership, isn’t it reasonable to expect the approval of one’s request of removal to be ratified (or not) by the assembly?
In the case of church discipline, the church treats as unregenerate one who acts as an unregenerate. Its effectiveness in restoring erring brethren is not the issue. Paul says that those outside of the fellowship of the church will be judged by God (1 Cor 5:13).
In the case of church discipline, the church treats as unregenerate one who acts as an unregenerate. Its effectiveness in restoring erring brethren is not the issue. Paul says that those outside of the fellowship of the church will be judged by God (1 Cor 5:13).
Discussion