Wanda "Deb" Martin (known better as simply Deb) over at The Wartburg Watch is jumping into the church membership and church covenant topics head first with back-to-back posts, one on each. In the first post - titled Confusion and Ignorance Over Church Membership? - Deb links to a study by Grey Matter Research that concludes there is "widespread confusion and ignorance on the subject of official membership in a place of worship."
At the end of that post, Deb wonders why the study was done - hmmm - and the next day continues with Are Covenants A 'Yoke of Bondage'? , outlining some of her own experience with church covenants and the unintended - or otherwise - results.
What is just as interesting as what Deb writes about is the comments sections of both posts. People write in with their own stories about church membership and covenants. Every time I see something on these topics, I am amazed by the fallout caused by the law of unintended consequences. Give each post a read.
Because theology is everybody's task
Showing posts with label Re-Thinking Church Membership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Re-Thinking Church Membership. Show all posts
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 34) - Why Is The New Covenant Not Enough?
Alan Knox at the assembling of the church does a re-post of something he did two years ago, and re-asks the same question: Why is one covenant (the new covenant) not enough?
He adds this very good question at the top of the re-post:
I'm not sure what Alan's intended scope is when he refers to "church covenants," but I'm assuming he also means - and if he doesn't mean it, I will add it to the list! - to include church membership covenants. Either way, he hits the nail on the head.
What can an extra-biblical church covenant do that the new covenant cannot? After examining this question in several paragraphs, Alan concludes with:
I also note here that I have dealt with the same concept in different ways in Part 21 and Part 27 of this series. Please make an effort to read Alan's recent post.
Read the entire series here.
Part 33.
He adds this very good question at the top of the re-post:
In Christ, we are all already part of the new covenant. Because of that covenant we are all now children of God and, therefore, brothers and sisters with one another. That covenant alone covers how we should interact with and treat one another. So, why do so many feel that we still need more covenants, i.e. a church covenant?
I'm not sure what Alan's intended scope is when he refers to "church covenants," but I'm assuming he also means - and if he doesn't mean it, I will add it to the list! - to include church membership covenants. Either way, he hits the nail on the head.
What can an extra-biblical church covenant do that the new covenant cannot? After examining this question in several paragraphs, Alan concludes with:
If we use a “church covenant” to include some believers and exclude others, then we are dividing the body of Christ and making distinctions that only God can make. We are trying to choose who to love and who to serve. (Of course, this makes life much easier, but it doesn’t make it a life that [is] lived according to the gospel.)
I also note here that I have dealt with the same concept in different ways in Part 21 and Part 27 of this series. Please make an effort to read Alan's recent post.
Read the entire series here.
Part 33.
Sunday, August 05, 2012
"Re-Thinking Church Membership" Series Is Back
One of my all-time favorite series here at From the Pew is back on my blog. Yes, I have re-posted all the posts in the "Re-Thinking Church Membership" series. I have also added the link to this series in the "Blog Series" header, as well as to the "Ongoing Blog Series" links in the right margin.
This is another of my "Re-Thinking" series that I took down (I'll go into why this happened at a later date) and planned to re-post after some re-working. Well, this one is now back! This series had reached over 30 posts at the time I took it down.
I look at a common doctrine of church membership as is widely taught in conservative evangelical circles today. I show how this particular doctrine misses the mark biblically, how it is widely supported by many well known evangelical leaders, and I have proposed a solution for the unintended consequences it fosters, all to the disbelief of its adherents. Stay tuned as this series grows.
Please read it in its entirety to get the overall flavor of what I'm saying about church membership. If this is too much, I plan to sometime in the near future re-post each of the posts one at a time, every few days, over the course of a couple months to allow an easier time in following along. I hope this series provokes its readers to further thinking about this important topic.
This is another of my "Re-Thinking" series that I took down (I'll go into why this happened at a later date) and planned to re-post after some re-working. Well, this one is now back! This series had reached over 30 posts at the time I took it down.
I look at a common doctrine of church membership as is widely taught in conservative evangelical circles today. I show how this particular doctrine misses the mark biblically, how it is widely supported by many well known evangelical leaders, and I have proposed a solution for the unintended consequences it fosters, all to the disbelief of its adherents. Stay tuned as this series grows.
Please read it in its entirety to get the overall flavor of what I'm saying about church membership. If this is too much, I plan to sometime in the near future re-post each of the posts one at a time, every few days, over the course of a couple months to allow an easier time in following along. I hope this series provokes its readers to further thinking about this important topic.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Individualism Both Allowed and Condemned - Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 33)
In a recent post, Chaplain Mike Mercer (filling in for ailing Michael Spencer at the Internet Monk) asks some questions after reading evangelical megachurch pastor Rick Warren's article at the Christian Post, titled Following Jesus Means Belonging to a Local Congregation. After identifying Warren's thesis, "When we're called to follow Christ; we're also called to belong to the body of Christ," Mercer notes his idea that pastors today have as one of their biggest hurdles, "it is hard to convince people who attend church to commit themselves to the church family and become members."
Mercer then moves to Warren's placing of blame: '“today’s culture of independent individualism.” As a result, we have many “spiritual orphans who move from one church to another without any identity, accountability or commitment.”' Warren concludes his article with an exhortation:
Mercer's last statement here has been a point of mine all along in this series. The "formal membership" systems that many churches construct ultimately place the duty of becoming members in the hands of the sheep. The two class system both allows the so-called individualistic non-member status to exist, and condemns it at the same time. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, what does this say about the membership system that many churches construct? I think it creates the very thing it is designed to prevent.
There is also the assumption that fully committed Christians who obey all the commands of God with regard to church and yet who have not signed on some dotted line somewhere are somehow deficient and neglectful of God's commands. Warren contradicts himself in his last statement. Committing yourself to a group of believers and joining the membership are two different things. One can do the former without doing the latter. But since membership is something that God does, and not we ourselves, members in God's eyes can be wrongly labeled non-members in man's eyes. This is the problem with the membership that so many men have created. Telling people that they're wrong by simply obeying God isn't going to get everybody to sign on the dotted line, and isn't a very good tactic.
Read the entire series here.
Part 32 ... Part 34
Mercer then moves to Warren's placing of blame: '“today’s culture of independent individualism.” As a result, we have many “spiritual orphans who move from one church to another without any identity, accountability or commitment.”' Warren concludes his article with an exhortation:
We must remind those who fill our buildings each Sunday that joining the membership of a local church is the natural next step once they become a child of God. You become a Christian by committing yourself to Christ, but you become a church member by committing yourself to a specific group of believers. The first decision brings salvation; the second brings fellowship.But then Mercer asks the following questions of Warren's argument:
■It seems, right from the start, that Warren is conceding the point that one can belong to Christ without being a member of the church. Membership in the church
is a second “step” in the Christian life—important but ultimately a matter of choice on the part of the individual Christian. Is this disjunction between belonging to Christ and being a member of the church biblically and theologically sound?
■To what extent is “independent individualism” not just a cultural problem, but also an outgrowth of the kind of gospel we preach and the kind of churches we create in evangelicalism?
■Couldn’t one logically conclude from this approach that, in the final analysis, for evangelicals the church, though important, is ultimately optional?
Mercer's last statement here has been a point of mine all along in this series. The "formal membership" systems that many churches construct ultimately place the duty of becoming members in the hands of the sheep. The two class system both allows the so-called individualistic non-member status to exist, and condemns it at the same time. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, what does this say about the membership system that many churches construct? I think it creates the very thing it is designed to prevent.
There is also the assumption that fully committed Christians who obey all the commands of God with regard to church and yet who have not signed on some dotted line somewhere are somehow deficient and neglectful of God's commands. Warren contradicts himself in his last statement. Committing yourself to a group of believers and joining the membership are two different things. One can do the former without doing the latter. But since membership is something that God does, and not we ourselves, members in God's eyes can be wrongly labeled non-members in man's eyes. This is the problem with the membership that so many men have created. Telling people that they're wrong by simply obeying God isn't going to get everybody to sign on the dotted line, and isn't a very good tactic.
Read the entire series here.
Part 32 ... Part 34
Friday, February 12, 2010
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 32) - Alan Knox on Scriptural Language of Membership
Alan Knox contends in a recent post that the biblical passages on membership can be misunderstood due to connotations carried by the English word "membership" that don't occur with the Greek word:
Read the entire series here.
Part 31 . . . . . . . . Part 33
The Greek term translated “member” is closer to the English terms “limb” or “part”.I have reached the same conclusion without going to the Greek. It is understood by Paul's words that the "members" he has in mind when describing the church are limbs and organs and not paying country club participants whose membership can be revoked by the board or by themselves. I am my brother's brother whether we have dinner together at my house or his in-laws' house. Membership in Christ's body doesn't change based on our location on this planet. When we gather, we are members of one another.
What’s the danger? Well, someone can become a “member” of a group by decision of either the individual or the group. However, a “limb” (i.e., arm or leg) does not decide to become part of a body, nor does a body decide that a “limb” is now part of it. The “limb” is part of the body by definition… identity.
In fact, this is exactly what Paul is teaching in the passages above. If you read the context, you’ll find that [we] are “members” of one another – we do not have to choose to become “members” of one another. We find that God through his Spirit makes us “members” of one another, the group does not decide that someone may become a “member”. While this language of choosing and deciding is applicable for the English term “member”, it is not applicable in the Pauline usage of this concept.
Thus, we cannot translate the scriptural language of “members of one another” into an organizational concept of membership, in which either party can choose or decide to become a member of a group.
Read the entire series here.
Part 31 . . . . . . . . Part 33
Monday, December 07, 2009
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 31) - Review Of Whitney (1)
As I mentioned in Part 29, I would be reviewing a chapter in Donald Whitney's book, "Spiritual Disciplines Within The Church." My 1996 copy has chapter 3 as "Why Join A Church?," titled the same as the article on his website. The web article is a revised version of the first printing of the book. Quotes in this series can be found in the website article.
Whitney starts out his article with a question from a new Christian about church membership:
Two, as simple as the idea of church membership is (and I have shown how simple it is in this series), Whitney's seminary training and pastoral experience never adequately dealt with the concept of being a member of Christ's body. Such a fundamental point of doctrine was completely missing from a learned man's toolbox.
Three, the new Christian wanted to see a command to formally join a church from the bible itself.
Four, the logic of the new Christian's question - basically, "is obedience to God enough?" - was uncomfortable to somebody used to participating in a traditional system of "formal" church membership.
I will continue with more analysis of Whitney's subsequent study and the answering this new Christian's questions in the next post [Updated: obviously I wasn't able to continue with the analysis I anticipated. Maybe sometime in the future] in this series.
Read the entire series here.
Part 30 . . . . . . . . Part 32
Whitney starts out his article with a question from a new Christian about church membership:
"Why should I join the church?"First, a few observations. Several of which I have already addressed in previous posts in this blog series. One, the new Christian describes the state of his Christian walk. He is fully engaged in his church, is obedient to God's commands, and agrees with being baptized. Yet the membership question that he raises presupposes something about the idea of church membership that he has been confronted with: there is something missing. Obedience to God is not enough for the Christian life. There must be something more.
Despite my seminary training and pastoral experience, I was unprepared for this new Christian's question. He agreed from our study of the Scripture that he needed to identify himself as a disciple of Christ through baptism, but he asked, "Can you show me from the New Testament that I'm supposed to officially join anything?"
Now he really had me.
"If I come and worship as often as the members," he continued, "if I fellowship with these believers as much as anyone else, if I profit from the teaching and other ministries of the church, and if I actively demonstrate love for my brothers and sisters in Christ here, why should I formally join the church?"
His question struck me with an uncomfortable logic. [Emphasis his]
Two, as simple as the idea of church membership is (and I have shown how simple it is in this series), Whitney's seminary training and pastoral experience never adequately dealt with the concept of being a member of Christ's body. Such a fundamental point of doctrine was completely missing from a learned man's toolbox.
Three, the new Christian wanted to see a command to formally join a church from the bible itself.
Four, the logic of the new Christian's question - basically, "is obedience to God enough?" - was uncomfortable to somebody used to participating in a traditional system of "formal" church membership.
I will continue with more analysis of Whitney's subsequent study and the answering this new Christian's questions in the next post [Updated: obviously I wasn't able to continue with the analysis I anticipated. Maybe sometime in the future] in this series.
Read the entire series here.
Part 30 . . . . . . . . Part 32
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 30) - An Analogy
Throughout this series I have dealt with the idea that Christians who assemble with a body of believers, who worship God, who serve others, who love others, who attend all church meetings and pray, give, encourage, exhort, admonish, help, and all the other commands of the bible, still must formally join a church through their formal membership system to be obedient. I have thought of an analogy that puts this idea in perspective.
"You know, Steve, you were born in America to parents who were born in America. They were also born to parents who were born in America. You were raised by your parents in America. You attended American schools, worked in American jobs, and pay taxes to the US government. You watch fireworks on the Fourth of July and remove your cap during the national anthem at a ballgame. Don't you think it's time you become an American citizen?"
Wow. I guess so.
Read the entire series here.
Part 29 . . . . . . . . Part 31
"You know, Steve, you were born in America to parents who were born in America. They were also born to parents who were born in America. You were raised by your parents in America. You attended American schools, worked in American jobs, and pay taxes to the US government. You watch fireworks on the Fourth of July and remove your cap during the national anthem at a ballgame. Don't you think it's time you become an American citizen?"
Wow. I guess so.
Read the entire series here.
Part 29 . . . . . . . . Part 31
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 29) - Coming Soon: Review of Donald Whitney
Although I had previously been exposed to a formal church membership doctrine, the first time I read a popular evangelical author on the subject was through a chapter in Donald Whitney's book, "Spiritual Disciplines Within The Church," in about 1997. At a newly formed church we were reviewing his book during a bible study just after a church merge.
My previous experience with a legalistic church's membership ideas - and the practical problems they caused - prompted me to be extra careful with Whitney's book. I'm glad I was, as I recently reviewed my own margin notes in the copy I had in my bookshelf for years. I caught a number of errors in Whitney's reasoning back then, but over these years I came to the place of being able to spot more. As my bible study reviewed his book, we as a group found some problems, too, with this chapter on church membership.
Whitney's original printing (I'm guessing my 1996 copy our bible study bought in '97 was the first printing) has been revised since then. The chapter in question can be read here at his "The Center For Biblical Spirituality" website. Whitney's material, in this book and others, has been widely influential in the Reformed world over the last fifteen years. This particular chapter has been referenced by others with whom I have taken issue in previous parts of this series.
My aim is to review his writing on church membership, most specifically from this chapter. I expect to do this over another dozen or two parts in this series [Update: I will likely alter the amount I write about Whitney's view, probably in the downward direction]. I will also include references from the original printing, as some of the author's points are re-worded or re-emphasized in the version on his website.
Get a head start on my series by reading his chapter here.
Read the entire series here.
Part 28 . . . . . . . . Part 30
My previous experience with a legalistic church's membership ideas - and the practical problems they caused - prompted me to be extra careful with Whitney's book. I'm glad I was, as I recently reviewed my own margin notes in the copy I had in my bookshelf for years. I caught a number of errors in Whitney's reasoning back then, but over these years I came to the place of being able to spot more. As my bible study reviewed his book, we as a group found some problems, too, with this chapter on church membership.
Whitney's original printing (I'm guessing my 1996 copy our bible study bought in '97 was the first printing) has been revised since then. The chapter in question can be read here at his "The Center For Biblical Spirituality" website. Whitney's material, in this book and others, has been widely influential in the Reformed world over the last fifteen years. This particular chapter has been referenced by others with whom I have taken issue in previous parts of this series.
My aim is to review his writing on church membership, most specifically from this chapter. I expect to do this over another dozen or two parts in this series [Update: I will likely alter the amount I write about Whitney's view, probably in the downward direction]. I will also include references from the original printing, as some of the author's points are re-worded or re-emphasized in the version on his website.
Get a head start on my series by reading his chapter here.
Read the entire series here.
Part 28 . . . . . . . . Part 30
Monday, September 14, 2009
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 28) - A Real Life Example
Bob Spencer at Wilderness Fandango, a reader and occasional commenter on this blog, posts about his church's recent adoption of a "formal membership" system. Bob admits that he doesn't "get it" about the church membership requirements. "Commitment" as it is defined by the church leaders seems to be the point. Quoting:
Read the entire series here.
Part 27 . . . . . . . . Part 29
...Are you tithing? Are you taking part in a church-based ministry? Are you attending regularly (according to to definition of the church leadership)? In the case of the church I was attending, if you make a solemn commitment to these things and five others, you're in. If not, you're out....and...
Does anyone else think it odd that I can say of myself, I am a child of God, a member of his family by adoption through Christ, but I am not a member of the local church, because by their standards I haven't measured up? You see, they've raised the bar a good deal higher than Jesus did.
Another thing: I've heard it said that for a Christ-ian all life should be ministry. But the local church likes to privilege its own organized and established ministries above all else. You have to be committed to participation in one of our church-based ministries. It simply doesn't count that you're pouring yourself out, day by day, to your children. Sorry, that just doesn't register on our membership scale. You need to come to church and fold bulletins, or pass plates, or work in the bookstore, or pull weeds in the garden, in addition to that other stuff. That way we know, we can measure it, and then we can confirm your status of membership.Read Bob's post. The membership system he describes seems typical of the mentality I have written about in previous parts of this series.
Read the entire series here.
Part 27 . . . . . . . . Part 29
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 27) - A Sermon On Membership In The Church - by Kevin Johnson
Kevin Johnson at Prophezei, puts an mp3 of one of his sermons in a blog post. [Update: link no longer in use] (Listen to the actual sermon here. [Update: link no longer in use] He also prints a disclaimer: "Warning: Listen at your own risk.") He preaches on what makes one a member of a church - being there and participating. Simply being a functional Christian implies that one is already a member of that church. He also explains how his church creates their membership roll:
Part 26 . . . . . . . . Part 28
We recognize you for who you are in Christ. You want to be a member of our church? Come. Take communion. Sing the hymns. Pray with us. Live with us. Do it on a regular basis. And we will consider you a member. We will recognize you as a member. And we'll even do it whether you agree with that or not. Because this is not about an individual decision to join the church. This is about the church being the church. So, if you come, and you take communion, and you do it on a regular basis, and you give to the church, and you worship...I'm sorry, you're gonna be put on the membership list.Pretty simple, huh? He also gives a challenge to those who believe in Sola Scriptura: Where in the bible does it say to require an additional oath to become a member of the church? The sermon is average sermon length, I'm guessing 30-40 minutes.
Part 26 . . . . . . . . Part 28
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 26) Christendom And A Dangerous Open-Door Church Policy
Racking my brain over the recent posts (here and here) made at Internet Monk regarding church membership, I'm going here to combine my thoughts with another concept I have yet to write about: the relationship of church to its surrounding culture. This might explain why so many churches today feel the need to resort to so many extra-biblical methods in constructing man-made church membership systems.
Hearkening back to parts 14, 15 and 17 of this series where I commented on Part 2 of Pulpit Magazine's article on church membership where elders at Grace Community Church admit that they don't know who to shepherd, I quote the following:
Scenario 1: Small churches in a culture hostile to Christianity (such as the first several centuries A.D. in the Roman Empire, or behind Iron Curtain communism of the 20th century, or within communist China or North Korea today, or in any number of Muslim societies) tend to have "closed-door" policies and meet in secret out of fear of persecution. Secret symbols (such as the fish), or sayings are used to denote real Christians before meeting with them. Great care must be taken in not revealing the existence of church meetings simply out of concern for the lives or property of others. Church leaders know who are theirs to disciple, and they know them intimately.
Scenario 2: Churches that exist in societies that are dominated by Christianity, i.e. "Christendom" (such as the middle ages with the Roman church, many post-Reformation protestant regions, Puritan New England or the Antebellum South, or even many regions within America during its first several hundred years, or even the synagogues of ancient Israel) tend to have "open-door" policies and meet in buildings with open doors, completely accessible to the general public. Communities are made up of a majority of professing churchgoers, and everybody knows everybody else's business in general. There is little threat of "outsiders" entering in to cause persecution or other problems since everybody in the community is already "on the inside." Church leaders know who are theirs to disciple, and they know them intimately.
Scenario 3: Many churches today exist in a society increasingly disinterested in Christianity and increasingly hostile to the gospel of Christ. Yet they continue with an "open-door" policy. Communities are made up of wildly varying religious beliefs, and churches are infiltrated by all kinds of strange people with greater freedom of mobility and transient lifestyles. Anybody who is a spy for the government or a foreign religion or a pot-stirrer or divisive fool or atheist or unbeliever can enter the doors anonymously at any time and cause havoc. Church leaders struggle with knowing who are theirs to disciple, and fail as a result of having little legitimate control over their congregations. They complain quite a bit about declining spirituality and faithfulness in churches today, but really bring on their own problems by allowing it all in right through their open doors. They therefore resort to draconian legalisms to define what a disciple is. Real Christians who are real Christians can often fail to measure up to their definitions and exactments, and suffer as a result, and are often the ones blamed by frustrated church leaders for their own inability to deal with their flocks.
I'm wondering whether in today's religious climate churches that fit scenario 3 wouldn't be better off with a "closed-door" policy. Church meetings would be private affairs in private homes or buildings, and those who assemble would consist of only those that the shepherds are currently discipling. New converts would come via evangelists or by lay-ministering, but only those new converts would be invited to church meetings. Evangelism wouldn't happen in church to a great number of unbelievers, but out in the world. Church leaders would know who are theirs to disciple, and they would know them intimately.
Part 25 . . . . . . . . Part 27
Hearkening back to parts 14, 15 and 17 of this series where I commented on Part 2 of Pulpit Magazine's article on church membership where elders at Grace Community Church admit that they don't know who to shepherd, I quote the following:
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.My sense is that many church leaders are simply overwhelmed by the size of their congregations and feel the need to resort to methods that reduce their responsibility to smaller numbers. They make up extra-biblical requirements such as giving ascent to sectarian confessions or making covenants with each other (as if there were anything to covenant about that isn't already included in the New Covenant of Christ's blood). But, looking at several scenarios that describe a church's relation to its culture might shed some light.
Scenario 1: Small churches in a culture hostile to Christianity (such as the first several centuries A.D. in the Roman Empire, or behind Iron Curtain communism of the 20th century, or within communist China or North Korea today, or in any number of Muslim societies) tend to have "closed-door" policies and meet in secret out of fear of persecution. Secret symbols (such as the fish), or sayings are used to denote real Christians before meeting with them. Great care must be taken in not revealing the existence of church meetings simply out of concern for the lives or property of others. Church leaders know who are theirs to disciple, and they know them intimately.
Scenario 2: Churches that exist in societies that are dominated by Christianity, i.e. "Christendom" (such as the middle ages with the Roman church, many post-Reformation protestant regions, Puritan New England or the Antebellum South, or even many regions within America during its first several hundred years, or even the synagogues of ancient Israel) tend to have "open-door" policies and meet in buildings with open doors, completely accessible to the general public. Communities are made up of a majority of professing churchgoers, and everybody knows everybody else's business in general. There is little threat of "outsiders" entering in to cause persecution or other problems since everybody in the community is already "on the inside." Church leaders know who are theirs to disciple, and they know them intimately.
Scenario 3: Many churches today exist in a society increasingly disinterested in Christianity and increasingly hostile to the gospel of Christ. Yet they continue with an "open-door" policy. Communities are made up of wildly varying religious beliefs, and churches are infiltrated by all kinds of strange people with greater freedom of mobility and transient lifestyles. Anybody who is a spy for the government or a foreign religion or a pot-stirrer or divisive fool or atheist or unbeliever can enter the doors anonymously at any time and cause havoc. Church leaders struggle with knowing who are theirs to disciple, and fail as a result of having little legitimate control over their congregations. They complain quite a bit about declining spirituality and faithfulness in churches today, but really bring on their own problems by allowing it all in right through their open doors. They therefore resort to draconian legalisms to define what a disciple is. Real Christians who are real Christians can often fail to measure up to their definitions and exactments, and suffer as a result, and are often the ones blamed by frustrated church leaders for their own inability to deal with their flocks.
I'm wondering whether in today's religious climate churches that fit scenario 3 wouldn't be better off with a "closed-door" policy. Church meetings would be private affairs in private homes or buildings, and those who assemble would consist of only those that the shepherds are currently discipling. New converts would come via evangelists or by lay-ministering, but only those new converts would be invited to church meetings. Evangelism wouldn't happen in church to a great number of unbelievers, but out in the world. Church leaders would know who are theirs to disciple, and they would know them intimately.
Part 25 . . . . . . . . Part 27
Monday, August 11, 2008
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 25) Internet Monk Series
Michael Spencer, aka the Internet Monk, or iMonk for short, has started an at least two post series on church membership. His first post is an interview with Jonathan Leeman with 9 Marks Ministries. I am excited about his series, but am not holding my breath in expectation of something new and refreshing from the evangelical community.
Spencer states a basic concern for his series: "Is the concept of local church membership viable- even essential- today or should it be abandoned?"
My answer to his question would be this: The concept of local church membership as described by the bible is both viable and essential - today and always - and should never be abandoned, but the concept of "formal" church membership as put forth by many churches and their pastors today should be abandoned as quickly as possible.
Part 24 . . . . . . . . Part 26
Spencer states a basic concern for his series: "Is the concept of local church membership viable- even essential- today or should it be abandoned?"
My answer to his question would be this: The concept of local church membership as described by the bible is both viable and essential - today and always - and should never be abandoned, but the concept of "formal" church membership as put forth by many churches and their pastors today should be abandoned as quickly as possible.
Part 24 . . . . . . . . Part 26
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 24) - The Fruits of Formal Membership
I happened across a pastor's blog while link surfing, and found a very good example of the logical conclusion of the idea of formal membership. This pastor is a Southern Baptist pastor and he made a couple of posts about a membership problem the SBC is dealing with. (Read his first post, then his second post that links to this one here about the meeting [Update: links no longer in use]). It seems that his denomination has 16 million "members" while only 6 million of these "members" actually attend church on a regular basis. This problem was addressed at an annual meeting, and the discussion had some interesting twists. In trying to tackle the problem, they found it necessary to look at how "church" is defined, then had to look at what constituted an "ordinance." This might not be necessary for a church if it looked at what a member actually is. It is a baptized Christian who assembles. Being tempted to redefine "church" or "ordinance" based on an understanding of "membership" is dangerous, because it looks at the relationship inside out.
There was also talk of purging all non-attending members from the rolls, but an objection was made that this would eliminate their greatest source of "evangelistic prospects." I'm not making this up. All this shows how basing one's idea of membership on things other than what the bible demands of us can lead to huge problems. Human nature (the sinful one) dictates that people will take the "formality" of "formal" membership and run with it. Apparently 10 million SB's think they can be members without assembling. They view "formal membership" as license to, well, do nothing. Membership is found in assembling, not in being formal. The fruits of each of these concepts will always follow.
This is a real life example of what I have said before: "formal" memberships serve mostly to create the very kind of Christians (non-attenders and pew-sitters) that they are designed to prevent.
Read parts 1-10 here, parts 11-20 here, and parts 21-30 here.
Part 23 . . . . . . . . Part 25
There was also talk of purging all non-attending members from the rolls, but an objection was made that this would eliminate their greatest source of "evangelistic prospects." I'm not making this up. All this shows how basing one's idea of membership on things other than what the bible demands of us can lead to huge problems. Human nature (the sinful one) dictates that people will take the "formality" of "formal" membership and run with it. Apparently 10 million SB's think they can be members without assembling. They view "formal membership" as license to, well, do nothing. Membership is found in assembling, not in being formal. The fruits of each of these concepts will always follow.
This is a real life example of what I have said before: "formal" memberships serve mostly to create the very kind of Christians (non-attenders and pew-sitters) that they are designed to prevent.
Read parts 1-10 here, parts 11-20 here, and parts 21-30 here.
Part 23 . . . . . . . . Part 25
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 23) - Member For A Day
In previous posts in this series I've made the point that the church is an assembly of the body, and those who assemble (i.e. baptized Christians) are therefore members. Some of the objections to this idea from those who advocate formal membership center on the idea that those who they wouldn't deem members, but I would, might have some influence on the way a church operates. A formal membership, then, to them, is a safeguard against unwanted "drop-by" type of influence.
What about voting privileges? What about selecting a pastor? What about involvement in a building program? What about serving in the choir or nursery? If people that just drop in or only attend occasionally voice their views on important matters, it would have a negative affect on our church.
I think a problem with these kind of objections is that they are based on the idea that the church is much more than an assembly of Christ's body. It is viewed also as a building, a bureaucratic institution, a certain form of government. I don't think this is what the New Testament had in mind. These are secondary issues that shouldn't take precedent over the core idea of church. These things are outside of the idea of assembly. They are traditions of men. Jesus warned of placing traditions of men on par or above the Word of God.
I've visited dozens of churches in my life. Each time, I have submitted to whatever liturgy was followed, whatever a leader asked of the assembly. I called upon the name of the Lord just like everybody else, prayed just like everybody else, sang just like everybody else, listened to the preaching just like everybody else. Many times I fellowshipped with others there, just like everybody else, and encouraged others (and received encouragement) just like everybody else. I was a member for a day.
Read parts 1-10 here, parts 11-20 here, and parts 21-30 here.
Part 22 . . . . . . . . Part 24
What about voting privileges? What about selecting a pastor? What about involvement in a building program? What about serving in the choir or nursery? If people that just drop in or only attend occasionally voice their views on important matters, it would have a negative affect on our church.
I think a problem with these kind of objections is that they are based on the idea that the church is much more than an assembly of Christ's body. It is viewed also as a building, a bureaucratic institution, a certain form of government. I don't think this is what the New Testament had in mind. These are secondary issues that shouldn't take precedent over the core idea of church. These things are outside of the idea of assembly. They are traditions of men. Jesus warned of placing traditions of men on par or above the Word of God.
I've visited dozens of churches in my life. Each time, I have submitted to whatever liturgy was followed, whatever a leader asked of the assembly. I called upon the name of the Lord just like everybody else, prayed just like everybody else, sang just like everybody else, listened to the preaching just like everybody else. Many times I fellowshipped with others there, just like everybody else, and encouraged others (and received encouragement) just like everybody else. I was a member for a day.
Read parts 1-10 here, parts 11-20 here, and parts 21-30 here.
Part 22 . . . . . . . . Part 24
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 22)
Read the entire series of posts here.
A pastor I know tells the story about a former church of his that didn't have a "formal" membership. There were some people there that were living in a pattern of sin, so the pastors decided to confront them with their sin in order to correct them, and restore them to a right relationship with God. The people in sin replied, "since you don't have a formal membership here, we're not members, and therefore you don't have any authority over us to confront us." The pastors agreed, and decided not to pursue the confrontation, and the sinning people were allowed to remain in the church and to continue in their sin. Years later, each of these pastors recalled this instance and used it as a reason in their arguments for constructing "formal" memberships in each of their subsequent churches.
But with the biblical idea that every Christian is already a member of the church they attend simply by the fact that they are a Christian, what the pastors should have said is this: "Not so fast. But you are members of this church because you are members of Christ and you attend here. You are in sin, and we're here to help you back to God." Most arguments that I have heard for man-made "formal" memberships place such blame on rebellious Christians who refuse to obey the church leaders in becoming "formal" members of the church. But the reality is the opposite. Yes, those people in sin are to blame for it, but it was the church that refused to practice discipline because of their church membership doctrine. Because such churches refuse to obey Christ in disciplining sinning people, they allow sin to continue unchecked. Quite often these types of churches complain about "pew-sitters", yet these people are "pew-sitters" because the churches refuse to recognize them as members of the body, and refuse to discipline them to become mature Christians.
In Matthew 18 Jesus did not say, "If your fellow formal church member sins, go to him." He said, "If your brother sins, go to him." Who is one's brother but a fellow Christian? Jesus understood that all His people are members of His body, but many churches don't. Jesus also didn't say, "Church leaders with formal membership doctrines will build my church and the gates of hell won't prevail against it." He said, "I will build my church and the gates of hell won't prevail against it." Formal membership doctrines neglect the treatment of all Christians as fellow brothers, allow sin to exist in their midst, and refuse to help all gain the status of mature Christians.
Part 21 . . . . . . . . Part 23
A pastor I know tells the story about a former church of his that didn't have a "formal" membership. There were some people there that were living in a pattern of sin, so the pastors decided to confront them with their sin in order to correct them, and restore them to a right relationship with God. The people in sin replied, "since you don't have a formal membership here, we're not members, and therefore you don't have any authority over us to confront us." The pastors agreed, and decided not to pursue the confrontation, and the sinning people were allowed to remain in the church and to continue in their sin. Years later, each of these pastors recalled this instance and used it as a reason in their arguments for constructing "formal" memberships in each of their subsequent churches.
But with the biblical idea that every Christian is already a member of the church they attend simply by the fact that they are a Christian, what the pastors should have said is this: "Not so fast. But you are members of this church because you are members of Christ and you attend here. You are in sin, and we're here to help you back to God." Most arguments that I have heard for man-made "formal" memberships place such blame on rebellious Christians who refuse to obey the church leaders in becoming "formal" members of the church. But the reality is the opposite. Yes, those people in sin are to blame for it, but it was the church that refused to practice discipline because of their church membership doctrine. Because such churches refuse to obey Christ in disciplining sinning people, they allow sin to continue unchecked. Quite often these types of churches complain about "pew-sitters", yet these people are "pew-sitters" because the churches refuse to recognize them as members of the body, and refuse to discipline them to become mature Christians.
In Matthew 18 Jesus did not say, "If your fellow formal church member sins, go to him." He said, "If your brother sins, go to him." Who is one's brother but a fellow Christian? Jesus understood that all His people are members of His body, but many churches don't. Jesus also didn't say, "Church leaders with formal membership doctrines will build my church and the gates of hell won't prevail against it." He said, "I will build my church and the gates of hell won't prevail against it." Formal membership doctrines neglect the treatment of all Christians as fellow brothers, allow sin to exist in their midst, and refuse to help all gain the status of mature Christians.
Part 21 . . . . . . . . Part 23
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Re-Thinking Church Membership (Part 21)
Read the entire series of posts here.
Over at Reformed Catholicism, Kevin Johnson makes the argument [Update: link no longer in use] that simply being a Christian is reason enough to be viewed as being a member of a church. To quote:
Read the whole article. [Update: link no longer in use] Kevin makes some great points.
Part 20 . . . . . . . . Part 22
Over at Reformed Catholicism, Kevin Johnson makes the argument [Update: link no longer in use] that simply being a Christian is reason enough to be viewed as being a member of a church. To quote:
The reason, for example, that vows of membership are wholly unnecessary simply has to do with the nature of what Baptism already is. Among other things, Baptism is a public profession of faith and serves as the sign of the entrance vow or commitment in our churches–or at least that’s how it should be. The notion that a particular commitment beyond that which we embark upon in Baptism is necessary is frankly going well beyond a biblical understanding of the church and far off normal catholic practice in the matter...
Likewise, churches that pretend that membership vows are necessary to embark upon good church discipline and commitment in their churches also hit well wide of the mark. What commitment isn’t implicitly or explicitly made in Baptism that is reflected in these church vows that are made when a new family joins these churches? Why is an additional post-sacramental vow necessary to reaffirm what has already been promised in converting to Christ?...
Put simply, if you are a Christian you are already a member of the Body of Christ.
Read the whole article. [Update: link no longer in use] Kevin makes some great points.
Part 20 . . . . . . . . Part 22
Saturday, March 15, 2008
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
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
Friday, February 29, 2008
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
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
Thursday, February 21, 2008
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
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
Sunday, January 20, 2008
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:
Part 16 . . . . . . . . Part 18
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)