John MacArthur: Church Membership in the New Testament

Interesting but I am just not sure that the Lord was not just adding people to His church. Does it necessarily mean a local bodies “List”. Obviously an individual needs to become a faithful attendee of a local church immediately after being saved but I am still not convinced that a list is taught in scripture. It seems to me that it is more of a practical approach to church operation but it is not taught explicitly in the Word.

John Mac agrees with you: “It’s possible their names were even physically added to a list by a secretary or someone keeping track, but that’s not what is most important”

Without some form of lists, how do you know who is actually a member in your local church. What about discipline. If you don’t have a list, how are you sure who are really members that can be disciplined, should the need arise (especially after several years have past)? When you look at the one another passages and how we are to be involved in one another’s lives, simple faithful attendance doesn’t seem to have the commitment level necessary. A well kept membership roll seems to be a minimum taught implicitly in Scripture, when you consider all the responsibilities given to church and its members.

[wkessel1]

Without some form of lists, how do you know who is actually a member in your local church. What about discipline. If you don’t have a list, how are you sure who are really members that can be disciplined, should the need arise (especially after several years have past)? When you look at the one another passages and how we are to be involved in one another’s lives, simple faithful attendance doesn’t seem to have the commitment level necessary. A well kept membership roll seems to be a minimum taught implicitly in Scripture, when you consider all the responsibilities given to church and its members.

Yeah I only said that it is not taught explicitly in scripture in my opinion. I agree that there is an argument there from a practical perspective especially regarding church discipline. I guess I don’t understand how a person’s name being on a list helps you to be more committed to someone. If a person attends every service (as my family did before becoming members) than it seems a person has a good opportunity to serve others. The obvious exception being those churches which forbid non-members from service.

Josh,
look at it this way. How does a person’s name being on a marriage license help them to be more committed to someone? Isn’t it possible that two unmarried people living together could be just as committed to each other as a married couple?

There is a whole lot more to being a member of the body than simple church attendance. Membership includes submission to the authority, oversight and accountability of the body, not simply exposure to opportunities for service.

Paul

Well I guess my answer to that would be that a marriage is a covenant before God and fornication is a sin. As I said, my wife and I are members in our church, as are our children. I understand that there are practical reasons for it. I just don’t think that it is taught in the passages that John MacArthur referenced. I absolutely believe that God works through local churches and that the members (whether that means faithful attendees or people with their name on a roll) are to hold each other accountable and submit themselves to the authority of the church.

What is the difference? Is it not sin to refuse to submit yourself to God-given authority? Do you not enter into a covenant with the other members of your local body?

The local church is more than just a social club for Christians, and participation in it is not optional. Where do you suppose that discipleship takes place if not the church?

You are clearly mis-stating my position. I specifically said that we are responsible to submit to the authority of the church. Furthermore I never said that participation was optional. I also specifically said that God works through the local church. I am not sure if I have offended you by something I said but your understanding of what I said is totally inaccurate. If I have offended you I apologize and ask for your forgiveness. This does not seem to be fruitful at this point so I am going to sign off here.

Josh,
I am only responding to your own statements regarding your position. It is you who described church members as “faithful attendees or people with their name on a roll.” I am merely suggesting that church membership is more substantive than that. Don’t you agree?

Yes I agree. I said that they “are to hold each other accountable and submit themselves to the authority of the church.” Several other things could also be included.

[josh p]

they “are to hold each other accountable and submit themselves to the authority of the church.”

Back in 2011 I posted an article on my blog on this subject. It is entitled “Formal Church Membership: A Good and Necessary Inference” and can be read here:

http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2011/03/formal-church-membership-good-and.html

In the article I gather together evidence from five sets of passages:

Texts Which Speak of Church Relationships

Texts Which Speak of Church Gatherings

Texts Which Speak of Church Growth

Texts Which Speak of Church Leadership

Texts Which Speak of Church Discipline

The examination of these passages leads me to conclude:

While it must be kept in mind that there is no passage of Scripture that expressly says the we must practice a particular type of formal church membership, I think we may draw as a good and necessary inference the idea of some kind of formal membership process. However, I think we should avoid being legalistic in the way we practice such membership, given that the Bible offers no details as to how the early churches went about it and gives no clear commands about how it should be practiced. At the very least, though, I think we can say based on the evidence brought forth here that we should require people to be baptized believers in Christ in order to be members of a church. This means that we will also want them to possess a clear understanding of the true Gospel and an orthodox faith in Christ. And it is the elders who will be responsible for seeking to ensure this. The elders are, after all, called to protect the flock by maintaining pure doctrine, and this would not be accomplished by allowing false professors or heretics into the membership (see, e.g., Acts 20:28-32; Tit. 1:7-11). We should just be careful not to make secondary matters the test for membership rather than essential doctrines.

I might also point out some practical reasons for church membership based on the above Scriptural evidence:

1) It helps to maintain the purity of the church’s doctrine by helping to make certain that those who are admitted into membership are orthodox believers.

2) It helps to practice church discipline as the Scriptures teach that we should. It seems to me this would be especially true in a large church.

3) In a church that practices congregational involvement in decision making, it helps to vet those who will be voting.

4) It serves to provide a more thoroughly vetted pool from which to select church leaders.

5) It helps to emphasize a Scriptural view of commitment to Christ and His Church. Far too many people today want to say they are committed to Christ but shun commitment to any particular local church. This is not a Scriptural understanding and is detrimental to the believer’s growth in Christ as well as to the health of the church.

I welcome feedback, here or at the blog (although here might be better) if any of you wish to take the time to read the article.

Keith

I am wondering now if I should have made this a new thread. It seemed to fit the topic here, but I would be glad to start a new thread for it if that would be better.