Is Church Membership Really Required?

I had a conversation with a Christian friend who is a non-member. His view:

• He doesn’t like voting and doesn’t see much value of church business meetings.
• Is not in complete agreement with the church’s covenant (the abstain clause).
• He attends faithfully
• He gives (not privy to how much but I know he (and wife) give regularly)
• He attends adult class
• They come to some fellowship events
• Because he is not musically gifted, serving in the choir is not an option anyway
• He is not political and doesn’t have a desire to serve on any boards or committees

He’s been a member of churches in the past. His new normal is a happy non-member

In my view he’s a semi-member or quasi-member

I used to think the Bible did not explicitly teach membership but I finally came to the conclusion that church discipline pretty well demands it.

It is not required.

Josh hit the nail on the head. If for n other reason, there has to be a way to decide who is and who is not officially part of the group and able to participate in whatever church decisions your church makes congregationally. At the very least this includes discipline and calling elders and deacons.

• From the Pastor’s perspective, it’s required


• From the viewpoint of the quasi-member it doesn’t matter.
  
  
  
  • He’s got a place to worship
  
  
  • He’s got teaching
  
  
  • He’s got fellowship
  
  
  • About voting. In his large church, his voice is not heard anyway. He has no input into the budget process (which really reflects the priorities of the leadership). He doesn’t know how much the pastor makes and if they church wants it that way, why should he care
  
  
  • In my conversation with the Q/M, he expressed concern to me that the pastor would not conduct his funeral. I assured him that the Pastor would
  
  
  
  

The article seems to imply that a saved person is not a part of the Body of Christ until they become a member of a local church. Is that true? Or am I just misreading what the article is saying?

The struggle I have always had is how much of our “membership” is based on articles of incorporation and how much is based on the Biblical text? I’ve tended to stress the ‘corporate” membership for those who want to serve in leadership/teaching positions due to state laws and liability insurance. Yet, anyone who regularly attends our services, ex., you start attending and consider us your “church home”, we are going to deal with you as a member of the Body of Christ, both in edification but also admonition(from the Biblical text this seems to be what occurred). Yes we will allow such people to serve in some limited ways, simply not in leadership capacities.

What mechanism was used by Paul and Timothy to determine church membership? Which church was Paul’s “home church”, and to whom (his pastor?) was he accountable?

we’re going through 9Marks Committing to One Another right now as a church. and they come down pretty heavily on church membership being a requirement. But I read about why people think it is not required.

I think, in the final analysis, I would say, church membership should be the normal outgrowth of a growing Christian. But as soon as you approach this question as a law or requirement or Biblical demand, it usually becomes distorted. It’s not commanded in Scripture. It does seem to be implied or assumed however on some level or in some form that maybe we don’t even imagine today.

(Persecuted churches can be pretty “tense” about who is a member and who is not, for example, just because of the practicalities they face each day.)

?

I studied the question several years ago and concluded that “mandate” is too strong a conclusion, but “practical necessity” is a better description.

It’s like the Bible asked us to go to the moon, and then we ask, “Is a rocket required?” If you can think of a better mechanism (large catapult?), by all means, feel free.

I found my article that SharperIron published: http://sharperiron.org/article/church-membership-practical-necessity. I skimmed it, and I think I still agree with it. :)

[Anne Sokol] (Persecuted churches can be pretty “tense” about who is a member and who is not, for example, just because of the practicalities they face each day.)

The early church operated under intense persecution, often in secret. I seriously doubt there were piles of parchments with attendance records, and that they removed people from the scrolls if they had not attended for 6 months.
I think our concept of church membership is colored by our culture of professionalism=decently-and-in-order. We want formal structures, documentation, and often equate ‘official’ with a signature on letterhead. Gold stickers are optional though.

While membership is certainly understood as a concept, it’s the method of determining membership that concerns me. IOW, faithful attendance isn’t enough- you have to sign papers, take classes, or make some other ‘official’ commitment and promise loyalty and accountability, and whatever that means can change without notice.
I disagree with the analogy that leaving a church is like dismembering a body (or as I’ve often heard, getting a divorce). Causing division is IMO more like dismemberment than quietly leaving because you are no longer in accord with the church (and I’m talking about reasons other than carpet color or choir robes).

NT Churches didn’t vote or make decisions about its leaders or budgets. Requiring membership for that purpose betrays bad NT theology which leads to even worse NT theology. NT churches weren’t incorporated either, so they weren’t beholden to a constitution. Pragmatism drives this silly notion.

“For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore, ‘put away from yourselves the evil person.’” (I Corinthians 5:12,13)

How do you identify those who are “inside” and those who are “outside” without church membership? How do you discipline someone who attends, but is not a member of your church? How do people communicate their willingness and responsibility to be placed under the authority of the local church (as the NT requires) apart from church membership? Does the church have the right to treat anyone as a brother in Christ who is not a member in good standing of a local church? (Not necessarily your church.) Should the church consider someone a brother in Christ who refuses to become accountable to a local body of believers?

These are tough questions. Most of us, as a matter of practical necessity, treat people according to our private estimation of the state of their soul, rather than their public declaration that they belong to Christ by joining themselves to a local body of Christ. But, the NT standard is clear, and we need to teach people according to NT practice, not the sloppy practice of modern Christianity.

What mechanism was used by Paul and Timothy to determine church membership?

We don’t know, but they obviously had one since they could pick people from it and kick people out of it.

Which church was Paul’s “home church”, and to whom (his pastor?) was he accountable?

Apparently the church and the elders at Antioch from which he was sent out and to which he returned and gave account.

“We don’t know, but we think they did something, so whatever we choose to do is necessary and therefore Biblical.” If church membership (as we tend to define it) was such a necessity, why was the definition and mechanism for ascertaining such not explained?
I’m not saying that the concept of ‘local church membership’ is unBiblical or extra-Biblical, but I think we need to be careful about arguing specifics from ambiguity.

How in the context of 1 Cor. 5 are the words “within” and “without” about local church membership?

I think sometimes the current definition of ‘church membership’ erases our accountability to each other as Christians? “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.​”

Which leads me to ask - Where in Scripture are these lines of demarcation drawn between congregations so that each not only acts independently but with complete autonomy?