Making The Invisible Church Visible -OR- Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 20)

A long-standing doctrine in Christian history is the doctrine of the invisible church. This doctrine makes a distinction in God's church. It holds that there are "true believers", the ones who are truly saved, but known only to God (hence the "invisible"). This group of people are distinguished from the "visible" church, which is the group of people in its totality who are part of churches. The distinction is made that although there are many people in the church, not all of them are truly saved, as there are false believers in the midst of the church which cannot be readily identified by mere men.

I have recently abandoned belief in the doctrine of the invisible church. I think it is a theological construct that has no real practical basis in this world. One of my reasons for doing so is due to the ironic applications that people make of this doctrine to real life. In my arguments and discussions with those who disagree with me about what constitutes church membership (an example in the comments section here), I've discovered that most of these people use the doctrine of the invisible church in order to identify God's true sheep. They feel the need to construct a formal membership so that pastors can know who they are responsible to pastor. But this betrays a lack of belief in the invisible. Trying to make visible what only God can see is ultimately an attempt to be equal to God. It turns their doctrine upside down. If God is the only One who can see who his elect are, then any attempt on earth to identify these people can only result in failure because we creatures are not God. It's just that simple.

What these people are saying is this: we cannot walk in faith that in ministering to each person who assembles with the church that all of God's people are covered; instead we must walk by sight by only ministering those who we deem as God's true believers that are written down in ink on a list we made. Walking by faith is not possible (and a burden, by the way), therefore walking by sight is necessary.

The New Testament gives no means to divide God's church in this way, and the only expression of the church is the local church; a church of assembled people to claim to believe in Christ.

(For the entire series of posts on re-thinking church membership, click here.)

Part 19 . . . . . . . . Part 21

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 19)

Read the entire series of posts here.

One church I attended for about 8 months had what is known as "closed communion." This meant that only "formal" members, who had achieved formal, man-made membership status were allowed to participate in baptism or communion. Even though I was a convert to Christ and had all the visible outward signs of being a believer, this church wouldn't allow me to participate.

After my 8 months there, this church decided that it was time for somebody like me to pursue membership. They held an extremely high view of "membership." I had already been told that the church would make an excruciating examination of every detail of my life, which would last about 8 months, then after making a formal application to membership the congregation (members only) would vote on whether they thought I was Christian or spiritual enough to be allowed in. But, Jesus taught that Satan sowed tares among the wheat. Now, this church was going to allow tares in their midst to vote on who is wheat? Makes me wonder how much wheat is really there.

Anyway, one night at a prayer meeting I found out the reality of the whole thing. Two categories of prayer were always included, prayer for the unbelievers and prayer for the brethren. Well, this one night the church added a third category of people to pray for, the "unchurched." These were people who attended church every Sunday, were involved in everything, but had never committed to "formal membership." They were in a state of grave sin. So this group of people prayed fervently that night, including emotional pleas to God to right the sin of such people, fist pounding and all. How convenient it was that I was the only one there who fit such a category. They used a prayer meeting to preach to me about membership. The only thing they didn't mention was my name. Legalistic as the church was, this was the final straw. I left the church after that meeting, quietly and without telling anybody why. I was very dejected. Nobody even called to find out why I was no longer attending. I did receive one call from a friend about six months later.

Part 18 . . . . . . . . Part 20

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 18)

Read the entire series of posts here.

One of the reasons I decided to do a series on church membership is due to my experiences with formal church memberships and how their straying from what the bible teaches can affect people's lives for the worse. As an example, after my conversion to Christianity it took four churches a total of two years to baptize me. It wasn't until this fourth church that I was even allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper. Allowed. Two of the first three churches I attended forbid both my baptism and my partaking of the elements - despite my being commanded by Scripture to do both - because I wasn't a "formal" member of their church.

Now one would think that a church would be more than happy to baptize a new convert to Christ. One would think that a church would be more than happy to commune with a fellow believer in Christ. What would possess a church to say to somebody, "we won't baptize you"? What would possess a church to say, "No, thank you, we don't want to break bread with you."? A church that thinks of a formal membership more highly than the life of believers, more highly than the sacraments, more highly than Jesus Himself. Why would a church make formal membership more important than the most important thing of all?

Part 17 . . . . . . . . Part 19

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 17)

Read the entire series of posts here.

Continuing from the same quote, in Parts 14 and 15 of my series, from Part 2 of Pulpit Magazine's article on church membership with regards to pastors' responsibilities:

Elders can shepherd the people and give an account to God for their spiritual well-being only if they know who they are; they can provide oversight only if they know those for whom they are responsible; and they can fulfill their duty to shepherd the flock only if they know who is part of the flock and who is not.

There is a large assumption here. A Christian can be a regular attender (regular assembler) of a church, obey the leaders, obey God, obey the bible, love all their brothers and sisters, and yet not be considered a member by the leaders. Because this Christian is looked at as a non-member by the leadership, they assume that God will not hold them accountable for that sheep. They feel free to ignore that sheep. And I have had elders tell me this personally.  This is scary.

Part 16 . . . . . . . . Part 18

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 16)

Read the entire series of posts here.

I'm taking a slight detour from the train of thought on pastors' responsibilities and commenting on a very important bible passage that I included in Part 15:

The Apostle Peter exhorts church elders and says, "...shepherd the flock of God among you, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:2-3.)

The phrase "those allotted to your charge" is vitally important in establishing the who and how of pastors' responsibility, but most important of all it establishes how membership is established and Who establishes it. Notice very carefully the grammatical structure of this phrase. "Those" are the sheep. "Your" is a possessive pronoun that indicates that it is the elders (pastors) who have the charge . "Allotted" is the verb that ties the sheep to the shepherds' charge.

Now, it is not possible from the grammar - as the elders of Grace Community Church wrongly claim when they say, "those who have submitted themselves to the care and the authority of the elders" are the ones they have responsibility over - it is not possible that the sheep are the ones who do the allotting. The sheep are allotted to the charge of the pastors. The allotting is passive - it is done to them. If it were the sheep that did the allotting, as the Grace elders claim, then the verse would read, "those who have allotted themselves to your charge." It doesn't say that. The sheep are not the ones who allot, they are the ones who have been allotted.

Also, it is not possible from the grammar that the pastors/elders are the ones who do the allotting. Otherwise the verse would read, "those whom you have allotted to your own charge." It doesn't say that either.

The only possibility from the grammar is that the object that does the allotting is neither the sheep nor the shepherds. So Who is the one who allots?  The bible tells us:

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..." (1 Cor. 12:13)

"But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired." (1 Cor. 12:18)

"But God has so composed the body..." (1 Cor. 12:24)

The answer is God. He allots sheep to the charge of shepherds. This He does by assembling the sheep. It is God's assembly, not the shepherd's assembly.  The elders of GCC have made a large mistake in how they view relationships in the church.  Their teachings on the matter are widespread.  It is no great task, then, to realize that large problems can result from large problems in how one views the church.

Part 15 . . . . . . . . Part 17

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 15)

Read the entire series of posts here.

Continuing from the same quote, in Part 14 of my series, from Part 2 of Pulpit Magazine's article on church membership with regards to pastors' responsibilities:

Elders can shepherd the people and give an account to God for their spiritual well-being only if they know who they are; they can provide oversight only if they know those for whom they are responsible; and they can fulfill their duty to shepherd the flock only if they know who is part of the flock and who is not.

The Apostle Peter exhorts church elders and says, "...shepherd the flock of God among you, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:2-3.) The elders of Grace Community Church seem unsure who God's sheep are that they need to shpeherd. But the bible says that they are to shepherd those who are among you. If the sheep are there, they are to be shepherded. All it takes is for an elder to be among them for them to receive shepherding. It doesn't require the sheep's initiation. If a sheep is assembling with other believers, he is to receive shepherding. It doesn't first require the activity of placing himself on a list or having the elders do it for him.

Part 14 . . . . . . . . Part 16

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 14)

Read the entire series of posts here.

Again from Part 2 of Pulpit Magazine's article on church membership with regards to pastors' responsibilities:

Elders can shepherd the people and give an account to God for their spiritual well-being only if they know who they are; they can provide oversight only if they know those for whom they are responsible; and they can fulfill their duty to shepherd the flock only if they know who is part of the flock and who is not.

Jesus said, "Shepherd My sheep." (John 21:16). He did not say, "Shepherd those who you have decided for yourselves are your sheep." Jesus assumed that His sheep were discernible to His shepherds. The pastors at Grace Community church have admitted that they don't know who to shepherd. So instead of shepherding all Christians who assemble, they shepherd only those who both assemble and who come forward to submit themselves to the man-made "formal" membership created by the pastors.

It should be noted here that I am not singling out Grace Community Church and their elders. Their exact teaching is very widespread throughout evangelical churches. It just so happens that they posted an article right after I started this series that contains a great deal of points that I will be writing about. I plan to give many more examples from other sources in future posts.

Part 13 . . . . . . . . Part 15

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 13)

Read entire series in one article here, or as a collection of all posts here.

Quoting from Part 2 of Pulpit Magazine's article on church membership with regards to pastors'/elders' responsibilities in shepherding God's sheep:

The specific duties given to these elders presuppose a clearly defined group of church members who are under their care...Those responsibilities require that there be a distinguishable, mutually understood membership in the local church. Elders can shepherd the people and give an account to God for their spiritual well-being only if they know who they are; they can provide oversight only if they know those for whom they are responsible; and they can fulfill their duty to shepherd the flock only if they know who is part of the flock and who is not.

As I've already shown, a "distinguishable, mutually understood" membership in the local church means those Christians who are assembled. This is very simple, yet the authors of this article, along with the elder that interacts in the comments section, have the idea that pastors have no idea who God's sheep are. Their solution is to create a scheme where the sheep are burdened with the responsibility to come forward and submit themselves to these men. Only those who do so are deemed worthy of shepherding. Continuing with their thought process:

The elders of a church are not responsible for the spiritual well-being of every individual who visits the church or who attends sporadically. Rather, they are primarily responsible to shepherd those who have submitted themselves to the care and the authority of the elders, and this is done through church membership.

It must be noted here that sheep are sheep, prone to wander. Sheep may not even know to "come forward" or if they do, they may be in such a difficult spot in life that they aren't even able to. Jesus spoke of the shepherd who left the 99 to go after the one straying sheep. With the Grace Community model of church from this article, the pastors might not even know that a sheep is missing. A comment from JackW in the comments section really brings light to the issue:

Jesse, Is it possible that this formal membership deal came about because Elders wanted to define their own responsibility and accountability? An Elder should have a pretty close relationship with the One who builds His church and knows who His sheep are, right? An Elder should have the discernment to know who is under his overview, right? … or have they exchanged discernment for a list? Will the Elder not be accountable for all the goats that are on his list as well as the sheep that are not? If the Lord builds His church by sending a sheep your way, are you not going to provide accountability or minister to him because he is not on your list? “… all of this necessarily entails membership.” Sorry, that’s not making sense to me.

Here JackW hits the nail on the head. Many pastors are defining their own responsibility and accountability, ignoring what God already wrote on the subject, and as a result they can't even see God's sheep. They have blinded themselves.

Part 12 . . . . . . . . Part 14

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 12)

Read entire series in one article here, or as a collection of all posts here.

This topic is very complex for me, as there are many interrelated points to consider. How to arrange them and order them is difficult, so I'll take this post to state some basics, to keep myself on track. This is for both me and anybody who might be reading.

My basic premise is that church membership is not something that man has to create, i.e. establish a "formal" church membership through a process where "regular attenders" can become "members." Church membership is an already existing reality for all believers since it is God who places us in Christ's body. Since "church" (ekklesia in the Greek) means "assembly," membership is realized through assembling, not through making a covenant with others, not by fulfilling a list of items created by church leaders, not by meeting man-made standards by a group of church people.

No covenant needs to be made with all others in the church because all relationships, duties, love and actions required of Christians are already part of the New Covenant in Christ's blood. There already is a covenant. Whenever church leaders or groups of people in churches create a list of requirements or standards by which Christians can become members, there are always standards or requirements not included in the bible. Because of this there will always be Christians who because of the way God created them or because of their obedience to God will fail to meet these standards, they will be wrongly treated by the churches as if they were sinning or deficient. Even if the only requirement is that one must become a formal member by doing something to get on the membership list, this requirement is in addition to what the bible requires.

I have a number of experiences with church memberships and how simply being faithful to God is viewed as falling short by those who hold to "formal" memberships. I have also talked with many other people and they have shared their experiences with formal church memberships as well. I hope to deal with some of these. I also hope to provide actual policies (many are ridiculous) on church memberships from looking at church constitutions, by-laws and statements of faith that are readily available on-line simply by going to church websites. There are even those out there who hold so strongly to a man-made formal membership that those who regularly attend a church and who appear to be obedient, faithful Christians in every respect are viewed as unsaved simply by their failure to become formal members.

I also hope to look at the authority of pastors/elders and their responsibilities before God, and compare what the bible has to say with what they think their responsibilities are and what they think God will judge them for on Judgment Day. Stay tuned, or maybe even set up your TiVo.

Part 11 . . . . . . . . Part 13

Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 11)

Read entire series in one article here, or as a collection of all posts here.

Continuing on in my examination of the articles at Pulpit Magazine, here's a quote from Part 1 of their series, from the section on the early church as an example:

In the early church, coming to Christ was coming to the church. The idea of experiencing salvation without belonging to a local church is foreign to the New Testament. When individuals repented and believed in Christ, they were baptized and added to the church (Acts 2:41, 47; 5:14; 16:5). More than simply living out a private commitment to Christ, this meant joining together formally with other believers in a local assembly and devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer (Acts 2:42).

If coming to Christ meant coming to the church - and I have no problem with this - and joining with other believers in assembly, devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayer, why would anybody today who was already doing these things be considered a non-member of that assembly? Only in adding requirements not found in the bible could such an idea be possible.

Part 10 . . . . . . . . Part 12