Is Church Membership Really Required?

Church membership is extra-biblical. That does not mean it is wrong, but it is not mandated or required by Scripture. Period. To say otherwise is to add to God’s Word.

Having said that, I think we are starting to consider different definitions of membership to the mix. At a universal church level, we are all members of one body - Christ’s body. We all serve each other with the spiritual gifts we have been given. At a local church level, if a church decides to have ‘legal membership’ as an entity, then that is a pragmatic decision which is neither right nor wrong. Neither Biblical or un-Biblical. I respect those who choose to have ‘incorporated membership’. That respect should cut both ways.

Problems come when people make ‘too much’ of the local church. They use ‘incorporated’ membership as ‘chains’ to ignore and even deny the existence of our part in God’s universal church. On the other side of the equation, problems also come when people don’t commit to a regular local assembly. They can become Christian freelancers who often do more harm than good to themselves and others.

So at a practical level, I am an incorporated church member of a local Baptist church. But I will argue that is it not required and does not always correlate to ‘genuine commitment’.

It’s required, because it is required in order to obey what else Scriptures require. How does a church put an unrepentant, immoral person out of the church, if they were never received into the church? How does a church deal with the blatant public sins of a professing Christian who only attends, but never becomes a recognized member of the church? You could shame him publicly, and censure him in some way, but you cannot do what Paul requires the Corinthian church to do in I Corinthians five (put him out) because he was never in.

In some ways, this may be like the doctrine of the Trinity. Just because the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible does not mean that the Bible does not clearly and emphatically teach that God is a Trinity, three persons in One. Just because the Bible does not spell out the mechanism for how churches receive and recognize members does not mean that the Bible does not clearly and emphatically teach the necessity for a clear understanding of who is and who is not recognized as a member of the visible church. Some doctrines become necessary because of what else Scriptures teach.

[Mike Harding]

James,

In the book Acts people were saved, baptized, and then added to the church. This is church membership. You can’t discipline officially someone out of the church unless you officially added them to the church. Simply attending does not make someone a part of the church. I had a Jewish man attend my church for years. He was never saved, baptized, and added to the church. His faithful attendance does not make him a member. There has to be some vehicle of official recognition by the church leadership and congregation that a person is saved, scripturally baptized, possesses an orderly walk, and is in agreement with the church’s doctrinal position.

Mike, how is it you are defining membership? Is it those who take a 10 week course and agree to live by whatever confession of faith you use?

I think you and others are complicating a matter. If a person is saved, and attending the church, then he is subject to live accordingly. Again, our church has practiced church discipline multiple times and it really isn’t a problem unless additional, cultural concepts are heaped upon what a member is.

Why are we adding additional requirements to be part of God’s church? This seems to be another case of the Western (American) church creating a religious system and then reading it back into Scripture.

More than ‘church membership’, a person’s water baptism is more of an indication of when they joined the church. It was at that point that they publicly declare they are a follower of Jesus and have witnesses who can hold them accountable. (church discipline). It can become problematic as we live in a mobile society where people move from their first local church (not to mention changing denominations). Regardless of where people ‘church’ on a regular basis (regardless of membership status), we need strong accountability relationships.

But even water baptism is not a 100% correlation to church induction, as demonstrated by the thief on the cross.

Church membership is fine as a pragmatic way to operate a local congregation. It works well for congregations that want a de-centralised form of church governance. I just recoil at the suggestion that it is a measure of spiritual maturity.

JC,

I have been a part of several churches in my life time. All were a taste of heaven to me; but none of them were Paradise. IMO, your illustration of the dying thief’s conversion is probably not the best one for this conversation.

IMO, the key concept to this issue is authority. Does the Bible teach that the individual believer is free to live as an independent nation or is a believer, in any way shape or form accountable, to other believers? To the degree in which you answer this question from the Bible, you have fleshed out your concept of what the Bible is teaching about church membership.

The matter is more likely what constitutes a member rather than your questions Jim. Jim referred early on to someone who enjoys the nonmember status. Such an idea is absurd. When NT truth regarding church order is ignored, then pragmatic solutions are offered to solve the original problem of disobedience to Scripture.

This issue is a live one for my local church. Our constitution prevents ‘non-members’ from serving in any form of leadership. (We have over 20 volunteer leadership positions). By extension a person cannot be a member unless they are 18+ years old and have been baptised by immersion. While this sounds solid, it creates many practical problems.

We have mature Prebyterians and Anglicans who have joined our church who were not baptised by immersion. To nearly all of us, they obviously have the gifts and desire and calling to serve in some of our leadership roles, but they face a dilemma. Do they get water baptised for the sole purpose of meeting a constitutional requirement or is this a sign that we have created ‘church requirements’ that go beyond Scripture? Separately, while rare, we also have some teenagers who are baptised and mature beyond their years. Why are they not allowed to be ‘official church members’?

JC, you highlight where pragmatism rules over scripture. If a person has a credible profession and has been scripturally baptized, then why is some document by man preventing recognition?

Continue with manmade solutions to manmade problems is the wisdom of the day.

JC,

More than ‘church membership’, a person’s water baptism is more of an indication of when they joined the church.

You have happened upon NT or Baptist ecclesiology here. However, you make a sort of non-sensical statement when you speak of baptism as an indication of joining the church more than church membership. Church membership is the result of baptism, and is the same as joining the church. There is no church membership without joining the church, and there is no church membership without baptism.

But even water baptism is not a 100% correlation to church induction, as demonstrated by the thief on the cross.

No one would be inducted into the church for another 50 or so days after the thief. Water baptism is the public confession of Christ which is the profession of faith, it is how you say you belong to Christ and his church.

Do they get water baptised for the sole purpose of meeting a constitutional requirement or is this a sign that we have created ‘church requirements’ that go beyond Scripture?

No one should get baptized for the sole purpose of meeting a constitutional requirement. They should do so because Christ said to do it, and that is not for leaders only.

Larry,

Church membership is the result of baptism, and is the same as joining the church.

If by church membership, we are referring to membership of God’s universal church, then I agree baptism is a good induction point. It gets confusing when we refer to church membership as belonging to a certain local congregation or denomination. My 14 year old son is a follower of Jesus and has been baptised. He is a member of God’s church, but is not eligible to be a member of our local church for another 4 years.

No one would be inducted into the church for another 50 or so days after the thief.

Maybe technically yes, depending on how hardline one is on the exact date of the birth of the church. My point is that there are mature Christians (followers of Jesus) who have never been water baptised. They have a different interpretation to the passages on baptism than I do, but I don’t question their salvation (and by extension membership of His church).

No one should get baptized for the sole purpose of meeting a constitutional requirement.

I agree 100%

[JC]

Larry,

Church membership is the result of baptism, and is the same as joining the church.

If by church membership, we are referring to membership of God’s universal church, then I agree baptism is a good induction point. It gets confusing when we refer to church membership as belonging to a certain local congregation or denomination. My 14 year old son is a follower of Jesus and has been baptised. He is a member of God’s church, but is not eligible to be a member of our local church for another 4 years.

No one would be inducted into the church for another 50 or so days after the thief.

Maybe technically yes, depending on how hardline one is on the exact date of the birth of the church. My point is that there are mature Christians (followers of Jesus) who have never been water baptised. They have a different interpretation to the passages on baptism than I do, but I don’t question their salvation (and by extension membership of His church).

No one should get baptized for the sole purpose of meeting a constitutional requirement.

I agree 100%

[JC]

My 14 year old son is a follower of Jesus and has been baptised. He is a member of God’s church, but is not eligible to be a member of our local church for another 4 years.

This is madness. If the NT is truly sufficient for faith and practice, then this practice is contrary to God’s word.

I am not sure I would call it madness, but I think it shows the deficiencies of “local church membership”

The Normal Christian Birth by David Pawson is a good read on the aspects of becoming born again. While I agree that the moment of regeneration is when we place our faith in Christ, I do think we do a dis-service to the doctrine of salvation by limiting its scope to a ‘single prayer’. I don’t fully understand the mystery of salvation. I am still working it out in fear and trembling. But baptism is part of the new birth process, both in Acts and my experience.

If by church membership, we are referring to membership of God’s universal church, then I agree baptism is a good induction point. It gets confusing when we refer to church membership as belonging to a certain local congregation or denomination.

Then you introduce even more problems because baptism is not an induction into God’s universal church. Faith is. Baptism is for those already in God’s universal church by faith who desire to obey Christ and make that known. There is nothing confusing (at least that I can see) about referring to church membership as belonging to a particular local church.

My 14 year old son is a follower of Jesus and has been baptised. He is a member of God’s church, but is not eligible to be a member of our local church for another 4 years.

Not all churches are like that.

My point is that there are mature Christians (followers of Jesus) who have never been water baptised. They have a different interpretation to the passages on baptism than I do, but I don’t question their salvation (and by extension membership of His church).

They may be spiritually mature in some areas and knowledgeable and gifted, but they are, by definition living in disobedience to Jesus’ command to be baptized, are they not? Having a “different interpretation” isn’t really the issue. Someone can hold a wrong interpretation in clear conscience. Having a clear conscience doesn’t make it okay. But more to the point, refusing leadership for disagreement on a fundamental point of a church’s doctrine isn’t really surprising, is it? Wouldn’t we expect that? Why would a church allow someone they believed to be living in open and persistent disobedience and who disagreed with a fundamental point of the church’s doctrine to be in leadership?