My call this week to join a church instead of merely attending one (or worse) produced some expected pushback. (I wonder if Glenn would reconsider if he knew that Dan agreed with him? Just sayin'.) "Church membership," they told me, "is a man-made institution. It's not biblical." Mind you, "membership" wasn't at issue there so much as a call to involve yourself in a local body rather than merely attending one. And it is true that there is no "Thou shalt join a local church" command in Scripture. So, let's review what we do know from Scripture. 1) Believers are expected to attend church (Heb 10:25). Easy one (for most). 2) Believers are commanded to involve themselves with other believers (see all those "one anothers"). 3) Believers are told to submit to their church leaders whose job it is to guard their souls (Heb 13:17). 4) Believers are expected to commit themselves to the local body (because, after all, do you really want a "liver" that only works occasionally) (1 Cor 12:12-25). Church membership, then, is the human institution (rules instituted by humans) that allows the local church leadership to insure you do those things, without which they have no means to accomplish that.
"I can do all of that," they will still tell me, "without any man-made church membership." Perhaps. But let's consider another venue. Marriage is a biblical institution, instituted by God (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:4-6; Eph 5:31-32). Funny thing, though. Nowhere do we see a command to "go down to the courthouse and get a marriage license" or any example of a wedding. You won't find vows like "until death do us part" in the pages of Scripture. Yet, we still do it. Even believers. We do it legally and through the church, neither of which are contained in the pages of God's Word. Why? Well, there are a few reasons. First, we are commanded to "be subject to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1). Why? "For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Oh, so obeying the governing authorities in this is obeying God. Beyond that, we do it as a demonstration of commitment. We do it as a deeper connection. We do it as a level of accountability. Look, if you cheat on a girlfriend, it's not good, but it's not so big that you require legal action. If you have sex with someone other than your fiance, it's sexual immorality, but it's not adultery (in our times). There are no legal proceedings required to break that engagement. It is that single legal, biblical union called "marriage" that places that relationship in its unique position. Church membership is like that, moving from "I show up and help out" to "I am committed and submitted and deeply involved."
It turns out, then, that church membership is biblical. Consider. Peter wrote, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution" (1 Peter 2:13). He went on to give examples -- government (1 Peter 2:13-17), servants (1 Peter 2:18-25), marriage (1 Peter 3:1-7) -- but the principle was simple. "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution." God uses man-made rules. Yes, church membership is a human institution. It is instituted by church leadership to aid in the requirements for all believers as part of (rather than merely attending) a church. It gives a level of commitment beyond mere attending. It gives a path for the deeper involvement to which we are commanded. It gives a level of accountability (required by Christ) (Matt 18:15-20). It gives a point of submission by the believer to the leadership. From that aspect, if your local body has membership, instituted by the leadership of that church, and you don't submit to it, is that not a violation of Scripture?
26 comments:
Like many things, I believe that becoming a member of a church gives people a stake in the church. Skin in the game, as it were.
Membership is also an image of the covenant we have with God. Covenants shouldn't be avoided by believers.
I never thought I’d see you stop to ad hominem attack comparing me to Dan Trabue in a belief about membership. Should I say YOUR ideology about membership puts you in company with the Mormon church?
Your scriptural “proof” for required membership: 1. Hebrews 10:25: I attend an assembly every Sunday and have for decades (except when required to work or if I was sick)
2. My wife and I involve ourselves with other believers.
3. Hebrews13:17:We have always submitted to the church leaders unless they wanted us to accept false teaching.
4. 1 Cor.12:12-25: We have fully committed ourselves to every assembly where we worshipped.
For Marriage, paperwork was unnecessary for centuries, and in many places it is still not required—that did not alter the fact that the persons were/are married in the eyes of the law.
1 Peter 2, et al:; These are secular institutions by man—that is the context. Not some made up institution for the church. As noted above, we fulfill ALL the requirements of membership and always have until the last two bodies.
God never asks us to sign a paper as proof of our covenant with Him.
Just to be clear, Glenn, there was no ad hominem attack comparing you to Dan. That was a joke. I thought it would be one that you and I could share because we both know that you and Dan are not alike. I was wrong. I'm sorry.
Glenn,
Simply noting that you and Dan share a similar rationale regarding church membership isn't an ad hom, it's simply noting similarities. I do realize that this medium takes away a lot of the things required to communicate humor or sarcasm well, but do we really need to use emojis to hammer home sarcasm?
Craig,
No, heretic/unbeliver Dan shares NO similar rationale with anything I believe. Why anyone feels it is necessary to make a comparison between a solid Christian and a demented/perverted unbeliever is beyond me. I just think it's stooping pretty low when you really can't convince me that formal membership in a church is a virtual "must be≥"
To be fair, Glenn, Dan commented a few times saying that "Glenn is right" and "Membership is a man-made thing." It is a lot like the same rationale. On the other hand, as I indicated above, there have been a few things that Dan and I have agreed on over which I have joked, "Well, I guess I might want to reconsider."
I never saw those.comments by Dan. But a stopped clock is right twice a day so to have Dan say something correct isn't impossible.
But our rationale is NOT the same. And it's not proper to so use such comparison.
No, indeed, you never did. I never publish his comments. But IN his comments, he was saying that he agreed with your rationale on the subject (at the beginning).
This is just interesting. I just came across this video on "How can we persuade someone that church membership is important?"
Membership means being a member, not necessarily limited to non-paper member. Again, he's claiming it's Biblical to be a paper-member. But we are members without the paper and ceremony. That's not separating from the church and the guy if full of with his claim of paper-membership. We are just as much a family of our church as any paper-member.
I could have guessed it would come from Calvinists if you're giving the link. He says you can't love the church if you aren't a paper-member, but that is not biblical
I'm curious, you say Calvinist as if its some insult or lesser theology.
David, Glenn considers it a lesser theology ... at best.
I don't consider Calvinism a lesser theology, but the TULIP acronym is (except for the P) not at all biblical.
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2013/02/i-am-not-calvinist.html
(Not worth discussing here, but I don't know too many actual "Calvinists" who agree with the TULIP acronym as it is written.)
Now, THAT's interesting!
I understand that you may not agree with Calvinist theology, but it is an insult to argue that it is unbiblical. Every Calvinist I know would reject Calvinism immediately if it were unbiblical. You may not agree with us, but don't insult our intelligence. That is rude and unkind.
Also, anyone that says TULIP is unbiblical clearly doesn't understand it fully. You may disagree with it, but don't insult the intelligence and faithfulness of those who believe it.
Doug,
The parts that are unbiblical are the TULI in TULIP. Read my article and you'll see why I say that.
I don't agree with Arminian theology, but I wouldn't say it is unbiblical. I do believe you have a lot more biblical tapdancing to do, and have to reinterpret portions of Scripture, and fail to answer some portions of Scripture, but you're not unbiblical, simply incorrect. We're all capable of and are at times incorrect in our understanding.
Not really sure how you can deny TULI and affirm P since they are all intrinsically tied together. If you are the one that produced the faith that saved you, then you are perfectly capable of losing that faith that you produced. The reason we can be assured of our perseverance is not by our faithfulness but by His work in saving dead sinners by His designs, for those He chose beforehand, who will lovingly accept His gift through their new hearts that He have them. We can be assured that we can't lose our salvation because we play no part in acquiring that salvation. If we are the ones that produce our salvation, we are fully capable of unproducing it.
David,
Read my article. No Scriptural tapdancing, just cited straight. I justify P easily.
Yep, read your article, and it made it very clear that you don't actually understand Calvinist theology with all the "dilemmas" you cited, and all the Scriptures you ignored or hand-waved. I have never once heard anyone explain how "dead in sin" actually means partially alive. You have to ignore that God says that the heart of man is desperately wicked all the time. And to deny limited atonement, in your very own words, is to somehow both deny and embrace universalism. Somehow every sin is paid for in full, but that payment is somehow made invalid by our choice. We're not talking about buying a gift for someone and them refusing it. That would be a pecuniary debt. We're talking a moral debt that must be answered for. By your admission, that debt is paid in full for every sin for every person for all time, and yet some how God is still just to punish them for all eternity. You claim that God didn't make some for Hell, completely ignoring that God said that very thing, "vessels of wrath made for destruction". The claim you make that we must add words to Scripture I flat out deny, because it would be unnecessary to add any words to come to the conclusions I come to. Your denial of irresistible grace very clearly shows that you don't actually understand the teaching. You distorted every single letter of the acronym that you disagree with. There is no problem for God to demand obedience from creatures that can't obey without His intervention. The purpose of the Law is to prove just how fallen we truly are. We all admit (except for those rare people that believe they can achieve perfection this side of heaven) that none of us can obey the Law perfectly, but that is God's requirement of us. We must obey the Law perfectly. He made that requirement. Not me, not Calvin, not Luther, not Stan. You claim that a God that requires perfection for eternal life would be capricious because we can't attain that perfection. But the Law shows what the requirement is and how we have failed to meet the requirement, and can't meet the requirement. Oh, and no Calvinist would say that faith (or the exercising of it) is a work. We say that the production of faith is. What is the biblical source of faith? Paul says God, you say us.
My point in all of this is not to convince you. We can gracefully disagree on these things and still call each other brother. My point is to request an apology for your slander. If you truly have read those Calvinists (and pre-Calvinists) you claim to have read, then you have seen biblical reason for TULIP. You may disagree with our conclusion, but it is slanderous of you to accuse us of being unbiblical. I disagree with your premise that we have some spiritual life presalvation on biblical grounds. You disagree with my premise of spiritual death. It would be slanderous of me to say you are unbiblical, and I wouldn't do that. All I ask is that you apologize for lying about the unbiblical nature of Calvinism. You are free to disagree with the conclusion, but not to accuse us of concluding something we don't see in Scripture, and it is disingenuous of you to claim it so when so many theological greats have already provided biblical reasonings.
So all the passages I cited mean absolutely nothing. I get it.
Who said your references are meaningless? I didn't say your position is unbiblical, only that I don't agree with your conclusion. If I had the time and space I'd be happy to address every single verse and how they don't even deny TULIP. But that's not my point here. You accuse us of something that is false.
Post a Comment