I've heard this question often and even recently. "I go; why join?" Are there biblical reasons that we should join a church (instead of just attend ... you know ... at least most of the time)? Yes, I think there are.
First, Scripture is not obscure. Scripture is full of "one anothers," things we are commanded to do with "one another." Obviously that can't be done apart from ... others. When God's Word says not to neglect meeting together (Heb 10:25), it is quite clear that we need to "assemble" -- to get together. But there is more. According to Paul, the purpose of church is "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:12-13). Try that without commitment or involvement. Try that by attending without really participating. Paul describes us as a body, each as a different body part, doing what our part does for the whole (1 Cor 12:12-25). (The length of that reference ought to clue you in to the importance.) Each of us has a role to play in the local gathering of believers and when we don't, it costs the body -- the body of Christ. Beyond that, Peter describes us as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9). Do you think you do that alone? Do you wish to avoid the other royals, to skip out on your nation, to ignore the people of His possession? Isn't that a bit arrogant? And then there is the notion of protection. The author of Hebrews says we should obey our church leadership "for they are keeping watch over your souls" (Heb 13:17). Without being part of a local body, you're like a lone gazelle, just waiting to be hunted down by a pack of predators.
Why don't we become members of our local body of believers? Maybe we've been hurt, and as we all know, because one person does something wrong, the only wise thing to do is to avoid all people everywhere, right? Of course not. But we might try. Perhaps it's because there are so many bad churches out there. But it was Jesus who said, "I will build My church," so unless you have a weak Jesus, it stands to reason there will likely be a living local body somewhere ... or perhaps you need to make it so. In clubs and social gatherings, membership is optional. In the body of Christ, membership in a local body is the only way to obey the "one another" commands, the only way to serve your fellow believers, the only way to receive the protection the body offers. When you boil it all down, the only reason not to join is a simple refusal to obey. And that can't be a good stance for a serious Christian.
34 comments:
The Bible never says you have to join a local church body as a member.
We do everything members do, help with everything members help with, supply funds as do members, etc. We are even in the photo directory. We see no need to sign a man-made form.
The Bible never says, "You have to join a local church body as a member." It's surely not in there. But all the biblical reasons I listed are. None of them said anything at all about it? I mean, most churches, if they're doing their job, require commitment and accountability that only membership affords. And refusing to join argues for neither.
I have to wonder, given that you're doing all that members do, why you would refuse to become one.
I know I've been in the wrong for this for too long. Forgive me Lord.
We have been members of churches in the past, and then they end up going wacky and we leave. E.g, A Missouri Synod Lutheran Churh, the pastor decided to start teaching Big Bang from the Pulpit. So we joined another LCMS; when we began home-schooling the pastor attacked us as being radical! (this was in the Chicago area where were dealing with evolution being taught, gang issues, etc and yet we were radical?). Moved to Iowa, Joined a Bible church; 6 months later they decided to become the local Willow Creek. Found another Bible Church; after a year the Pastor retired and the new pastor wanted to bring in the Pensacola/Brownsville Revival. Friends invited us to a Plymouth Brethren Church; lasted two years when several families (mine inlcuded) left due to a sin in the church which the leader ship refused to deal with! Our next door neighbors invited us to their church. Again we became members and were very active (the pastor here got involved with our PB leaders and they finally took action about the sin issue and the family causing the problems just left the church rather than be held accountable). Well, 14 years there and the pastor decided to go market-driven/seeker-sensitive---lost a whole lot of members. So we went to one where I knew the Pastor who was an excellent teacher. 3 1/2 years there and the "Worship Pastor" decided we needed very loud music and refused listen to the many complaints so they lost some families, including my wife and I. Now, for the past 5 year's we've attended a church where on of the families who left "Willow Creek" go, a family from the PB church attend, and a family from the one who became market-driven go and it was them who invited us. It's the best church for being fundamental in music and teaching we've ever attended, but I don't know what the future holds will not go through pulling membership again.
Stan,
I wholeheartedly agree that membership in a local church is strongly implied, at a minimum, in the scripture you cited. If nothing else, church membership provides accountability and structure for believers. Without going into detail, I've experienced a church handling things in a way that personally affected me negatively. Yet, I'm still a member. It's kind of like Churchill's comment on democracy. I just don't see any scriptural support for a believer taking their ball and going home, simply because churches are collections of sinful people who sometimes sin.
Listening to Glenn's reasons for not being a church member, I'm struck by several things.
1. He claims that do everything that members do, while clearly not doing everything that members do.
2. One aspect of membership that is seemingly being ignored, is the fact that non members do not participate in the governance of the church.
3. It seems like Glenn's problem boils down to the fact that the local church is a collection of sinful humans, who sometimes fail to do the right things, and actually commit sins.
I'm not sure how a small group of sinful people who remove themselves from a local church because of other sinners, makes things better.
Craig,
So you think it's wrong to leave a church when they bring in false teachers and false teachihngs? This isn't how things personally affect me; I just don't tolerate false teachings being brought into a church. It has nothing to do with being an assembly full of sinners.
And, no, "membership" isn't even implied in Scripture. Being part of an assembly is, but nowhere is it even suggested that one has to sign on as a member.
Yeah I clearly don't do things members do when they welcome false teachings into their assembly. And as I pointed out, many members left the churches I left for the reason I left. After the one we attended for 14 years went bad we decided to not be official members any more. We act as members without signing a paper. Find in Scripture where that is a sin!
One other thought. Isn't it a bit strange to choose to not have skin in the game in terms of actually joining a church, then simply bail when the church goes through a difficult time?
"Going through a difficult time"?!?!?!?
These assemblies completely changed and are still what they changed to!!
My "skin" is in the game. I was a member of everyone but the last with the loud music. And that one refused to tone it down so why sit where they disregard the harmful effects of their "worship" music. One member had brain surgery and also complained about pain loud music caused her. She had "skin in the game" and they didn't care.
I worked with the leadership of every one of those churches before we gave up and left--and as noted, in every instance many others left for same reason. So the last church (with the loud music) and the current one are the only ones in which we were not members because we didn't/don't want to go through the hassle of withdrawing member ship again.
Ah, but your legalistic interpretation which says you have to sign on as a member would fly in the face of NT teachings where no evidence says people signed up as members. They were considered "members" of the Christian assembly at which they worshipped, and, yes in later years they would get some sort of letter when moving elsewhere which proved they were a real Christian.
Yes, we do everything paper members do: give offerings, volunteer for cleanups, set-ups, setting up commmunion, participating in VBS, etc. But we don't have our name on a piece of paper.
Glenn,
Not necessarily, and not as the first option. In most churches non member have little or no say when it comes to governance. Therefore when you have something come up, your only options are to live with the problem or leave. My experience was that when it comes to standing up and fighting for a local church, that it's the members who do so. Interesting, you seem to be saying that sin has no relation to false teaching, I would have thought that those two were closely linked.
Membership likely looked different during the 1st century, but I'm not sure that it's possible to definitively make any specific claims about what "membership" did or didn't look like in the early church.
I don't think anyone is saying that it is a sin to not be a member of a church. I watched the church I grew up in, and attended until 2006 go through multiple "crises" during my time there. I believe that there is value in staying and fighting for a local church when things go wrong. Look at how much effort Paul put in to dealing with false teachings in the churches he started. He didn't just walk away and leave them to their own devices.
I could be wrong, but your tone about this sounds pretty cavalier and distant. Look, you do you, I'm not saying that this is a hill I would die on or that church membership is necessary for salvation. I am saying that if the local church is the means through which YHWH works out His Kingdom on earth, and if we are given Spiritual Gifts to be used as part of "The Body of Christ", then it seems like someone leaving a church is letting down those left behind.
Obviously, there are circumstances where the only option is to transfer membership from one local church to another, no one is saying otherwise. But it seems like it's a bit extreme to suggest that the presence of sin in churches is cause to wash ones hands of church membership entirely.
The reality is that you were very clear that you "do everything members do", when this is simply not the case.
Glenn, just let me say, I understand about "churches gone bad" kinds of stuff. I've had to leave churches where I was a member when heretical concepts were getting included and embraced. But I chose not to think, "Because there are churches that go bad, I should never join another church." That kind of logic works out into all sorts of error.
Stan,
I agree. I think that problem lies in concluding that churches go bad, as opposed to people go bad. I strongly believe that the first option when people in a church start to go bad, is to work to correct or get rid of the people at the root of the problem, rather than to leave the problem to others. The more I think about it, I'm not sure if music volume is "false teaching", as much as personal preference. Musical content/theology would be a much bigger concern than style of volume. I also think that this notion of not joining a church as as to be prepared to leave when things go "bad", seems like an outgrowth of the consumerist mentality we've seen over the past 10-15 years. I'd submit that someone who's made the commitment of membership, is more likely to stay and fight whatever bad stuff is happening.
I also realized that these arguments sound a lot like the arguments we hear for not getting married. The "It's just a piece of paper", "I'm just as committed as I would be with a ceremony", "I do everything married people do", sound a lot like the arguments for not joining a church. Given how YHWH seems to feel about both His Church and marriage, and how often marriage is used as an illustration of the church, the marriage example seems relevant.
Craig,
There was not even an intimation that false teaching isn't sin. Only one church we left had an issue of sin vs false teachings and the church didn't want to deal with it becaus the didn't want to cause offense and so the sin issue caused several families to leave to avoid getting affected personally. And, yes, I sat with the leadership before throwing up my hands and leaving.
I noted that I was a member in those previous churches and tried to work to fix the issues and gave up and left.
So it's frustrating to be told one MUST be a member, which I've had to revoke membership too many times.
And yes, my wfe do indeed do everything in church that any member does. The only thing I don't do is put my name on a membership form!
Stan,
We have joined the church at which we are attending. We have joined it in every way but signing a paper and having a public statemen saying we are now members. After attending for almost 5 years we are treated as members by everyone including the pastor.
I don't say because churches have gone bad I'm not joining another church, I'm saying we've gone through enough revoking memberships and moving on that I don't want to bother with the membership nonsense. We are members here, paperwork or not.
Craig.
Gee thanks for pretending to know my heart. Your analogy with people not wanting to marry is a false analogy.
By the way, when the leadership is who is bringing in the false teaching and the discerning members meet with them to no avail, one has no choice but to pack up and leave.
How exactly is the marriage analogy false? The reasoning you give is the same exact reasons given there. And as Craig pointed out, the Church is frequently explained in the terms of marriage.
David,
Realy. If you want an analogy with marriage then it would be adultery or abandoment. When a church brings in false teachings it's like adultery or abandonment of Christ. So is the husband not allowed to divorce his wife if she abandons him or commits adultery?
Oh and by the way, a piece of paper used to never be required for marriage; that is a later institution. And many states have common-law marriage; no paper required.
"So it's frustrating to be told one MUST be a member, which I've had to revoke membership too many times."
I'm pretty sure, I haven't told you that you "MUST" be a member, but if that's what you got, it's all good.
"And yes, my wfe do indeed do everything in church that any member does. The only thing I don't do is put my name on a membership form!"
In other words, you do not do everything a member does. I personally have never been involved at a church that would allow a non member to participate in church governance (even to vote on things), but I'm sure this isn't universal.
"Gee thanks for pretending to know my heart. Your analogy with people not wanting to marry is a false analogy."
If you say so. Except, we frequently hear people say things like "We do everything a married couple do, except we don't want to put our names on a marriage license.". Also, given Jesus' regular comparisons between marriage and The Church, I think it works pretty well. Probably not perfect, but pretty good.
"By the way, when the leadership is who is bringing in the false teaching and the discerning members meet with them to no avail, one has no choice but to pack up and leave."
Really. Again, I've never been involved with a church where the "leadership" was completely immune from discipline. The church my son goes to just put their founding/senior pastor on a 12-18 month sabbatical to deal with some issues in his style of leadership (not false teaching, not impropriety, not sin), just because he could be pretty abrasive. I've been through several situations where people in "leadership" were removed against their will, it's not pretty, but I can't believe that it's impossible. If it is, then leaving is probably the best option.
Glenn, I've never claimed to know your heart. I can only draw conclusions based on what you've said and on my experience in church leadership over the past 30+ years.
I think that this is common for most of us when things we feel strongly about are questioned, bit I've experienced both Art, and now Glenn sounding a bit like Dan.
Glenn,
While divorce might be allowed in those circumstances it's not required.
As far as the "piece of paper" argument. I'd suggest that the piece of paper is symbolic of the commitment formalized on that piece of paper. The reason why living together isn't a predictor of success in marriage is that the lack of the commitment formalized on the piece of paper means that the threshold for walking out is lower. I'd suggest that when someone chooses to make the formal commitment to church membership, that they are less likely to walk away when things get a little tough.
I haven't told you that you "MUST" be a member
The implication has been there from the beginning and is proven by the ration of crap you’ve been giving me for not agreeing with you legalistic ideology of what being a member means; I.e. something official with paperwork or ceremonies or announcement or whatever.
You’re being ridiculous when you keep saying we don’t do what other members do just because we don’t officially became a member. Yes, we and other regular members who haven’t joined, do indeed vote on everything. The only difference is that our voting sheet is a different color, and used for gathering overall consensus.
Your saying: I also realized that these arguments sound a lot like the arguments we hear for not getting married. is indeed a judgment of a heart issue; judging my motives.
The marriage analogy is stupid. There is no requirement Scripturally to sign on to any church as an official “member” rather than just being a member of the assembly. And those who use excuses for fornication rather than getting married are living in sin. There is nothing sinful about not being a “formal” member of a church assembly. AND a marriage license didn’t used to be required and even sometimes now it’s not required to be recognized as a legal marriage. Jesus analogy always referred to married people (and they didn’t have licenses) and their commitment to each other.
When a church leadership all agrees to allow false teaching into an assembly, just how do members “discipline” them when there is nothing in their by-laws to allow for members to evict them? And what about when the majority agree with bringing in such false teachings?
Saying I sound like Trabue is definitely an ad hominem attack. I would you to prove that Trabue has the same reasoning I have for not being an official member of an assembly. Trabue isn’t even Christian so nothing he says regarding the faith is legit.
The piece of paper isn’t symbolic, the proven commitment is. And you keep ignoring the FACT that only the last church we attended (which we left due to music volume—which wreaks havoc with my hearing aids) and the current church are those which we were not members.The piece of paper in the others did not make me have second thoughts about leaving.
"The implication has been there from the beginning and is proven by the ration of crap you’ve been giving me for not agreeing with you legalistic ideology of what being a member means; I.e. something official with paperwork or ceremonies or announcement or whatever."
The fact that you infer something, doesn't automatically mean that inference is correct.
"You’re being ridiculous when you keep saying we don’t do what other members do just because we don’t officially became a member. Yes, we and other regular members who haven’t joined, do indeed vote on everything. The only difference is that our voting sheet is a different color, and used for gathering overall consensus."
This would be a much more convincing argument, if it didn't end with you admitting that your "votes" don't actually have the same value that member's votes do. Beyond the obvious, that you clearly do not do everything that members do, if you did you'd be a member.
"Your saying: I also realized that these arguments sound a lot like the arguments we hear for not getting married. is indeed a judgment of a heart issue; judging my motives."
Not in the least, just noting that the arguments are very similar.
"The marriage analogy is stupid. There is no requirement Scripturally to sign on to any church as an official “member” rather than just being a member of the assembly. And those who use excuses for fornication rather than getting married are living in sin. There is nothing sinful about not being a “formal” member of a church assembly. AND a marriage license didn’t used to be required and even sometimes now it’s not required to be recognized as a legal marriage. Jesus analogy always referred to married people (and they didn’t have licenses) and their commitment to each other."
If you say so. I'll simply point out that the marriage "piece of paper" is simply a physical confirmation of a nonphysical action.
"When a church leadership all agrees to allow false teaching into an assembly, just how do members “discipline” them when there is nothing in their by-laws to allow for members to evict them? And what about when the majority agree with bringing in such false teachings?"
Without being in the situation, I could only speculate. Look, if your ability to attend a church with no formal attachment or the ability to leave at will without the bother of any paperwork, then you do you.
"Saying I sound like Trabue is definitely an ad hominem attack. I would you to prove that Trabue has the same reasoning I have for not being an official member of an assembly. Trabue isn’t even Christian so nothing he says regarding the faith is legit."
Nah, it's simply an observation. You know, compare and contrast.
"The piece of paper isn’t symbolic, the proven commitment is. And you keep ignoring the FACT that only the last church we attended (which we left due to music volume—which wreaks havoc with my hearing aids) and the current church are those which we were not members.The piece of paper in the others did not make me have second thoughts about leaving."
Again, the volume thing is a personal preference issue, not a theological issue. Look, you've been quite clear that this is a hill you are willing to die on, and that's your call. It just seem a but surprising that you've chosen this vehement tone simply because people disagree with you.
At best this is a secondary issue (IMO) and should be treated as such. Y'know liberty and charity and all that.
It's OK if people disagree with your personal choices, and defend their positions.
I understand, being burned, wronged, and even sinned against, sadly, by the church. Isn’t that where true and real forgiveness, by us, is actually tested? Unforgiveness is definitely sin.
Church membership definitely does not violate biblical directives. It is not sin or wrong, however, resisting a local Church’s membership requirements, if you call it your fellowship, sounds akin to original sin.
… But the Lord looks at the heart.
Craig,
Look the article itself states the reasons to become a member are biblical and my point is that nothing in Scripture says you must be a paper-member of a church. If the Bible stated it was required then I’d have no beef, but it doesn’t require it. I’m not inferring something that isn’t there. If Stan says Scripture supports it, then I’m not inferring that!
The non-member ballots are good for the leadership to understand overall consensus. To say that therefore we don’t do everything a paper-member does is just downright silly especially when you say that voting was the only thing we don’t do and yet we vote!
No, the arguments against being a paper-member are not the same as for not getting married. There is absolutely NO commonality. The confirmation in marriage isn’t the paper, it’s the vows.
Using Trabue to attack me is weaponizing his name. Again, I could use the LDS comparison for their requiring paper-membership to your requirement; same logic.
I never even intimated that the volume was a theological problem. It was a pastoral problem and plenty of people are unable to withstand such loud music (and how does volume being loud equate to better worship). I never treated it as a primary issue, just said that was a reason for leaving that church.
If it’s okay for people to disagree over personal choices, then why do you continue to badger me about mine?!?!
Doug,
Um, no it isn't akin to original sin, not even a sin at all. First, I'm not resisting membership since it isn't required and I've never been approached to join. The Lord indeed looks at the heart and knows I'm innocent of any sin here.
I'm not saying we'll never join, but right now we're just biding our time as non-paper members.
Glenn,
This has reached an absurd level. You seem way more combative and defensive about this that seems appropriate.
I'll simply say that you keep demonstrating that you do not do "everything" a member does, or do so in a manner that is not the same as a member, while simultaneously insisting that you do "everything" a member does. I'm not sure why you've decided that this disagreement is a hill to die on, but you do you.
Craig,
Because I don't vote as a memember, you say no matter how active I am in this church assembly I do not everything that a member does. That is, to me, an asinine statement to be told I don't do everything because I don't vote as a memember.
It's a hill to die on because from the beginning of the article when I noted there was no bibilcal warrant to be a member you've been attacking me with all sort so implications and outright statements that I may have ulterior motives for not wanting to be a paper-member of a church. You use the analogy of a marriage when even marriage often doesn't need a paper to validate it (imagine, the government's audacity that you must have a license to marry!) It is the VOWS which prove the marriage, not a piece of paper; i.e. actions. Our actions at church prove our real membership even if we don't have the paper-membership.
All the while you harp that I can't be a member unless I'm a paper-member. And the implication, even by Doug, is that somehow I must be sinning or refusing to accept what the Bible doesn't say is required! And of course it must be for some nefarious reason.
Glenn.
What's asinine is that you continue to argue that you do "everything" a member does, while acknowledging that you do not do "everything" a member does.
As I keep saying, you do you. If you want to make a secondary or tertiary issue into an essential feel free. Just be honest that you don't do "everything" a member does. I think that you are inferring much more than I am suggesting.
Personally, it sounds like this is a case of protesting too much.
FYI, when you use the term "paper member", it almost sounds like you are trying to denigrate or minimize "paper member"ship.
Craig,
Yep, your legalistic ideology about membership just can't handle that I am a member in every way but signing a paper; you know, that thing not required in scripture.
The issue I'm making is that it is a legalistic ideolgy to say I'm not a member without the paperwork (actually there is no paperwork to sign, it's just an administrative thing). I am indeed a bonafide member according to SCRIPTURE.
Protesting too much to your continued denigrating of me.
Um, if you want to believe I am denigrating or minimizing membership by my term "paper member" then it's all in YOUR head and judging my heart. I only used the term to discuss the issue with you, distinguishing true membership (biblical) vs a man-insituted idea that you hae to have some administrative paperwork to be a voting member of that particular assembly.
I'm finished here.
Glenn,
It has NEVER been about paperwork. It has been about commitment, submitting to the leadership, etc. Just as marriage has never been about a license and bookkeeping at the courthouse.
Stan, Stan, Stan,
I am committed to my assembley, and am submitted to the leadership, etc.
Your analogy with marriage is poor, as noted above.
You just can conceive of a biblical membership.
Well, Glenn, you can reject the marriage argument if you like as "stupid" ... but you'll have to talk to Paul about that (Eph 5:31-32).
Stan,
WRONG. Paul said nothing about a formal/paper membership. Eisegesis doesn't work.
Post a Comment