The Argument that Church Membership is Unbiblical

[awretch]

Hello,

I've been reading up on church membership (the way it looks like today in most churches and the way it "might have" or "might have not" in the early church). I've read up on the "it is biblical" side but I'm now trying to read up on the other side that says it is unbiblical. But it's really difficult to find much on it - there are some blog articles and so forth but by and far, there are an overwhelming number of articles saying that church membership is biblical. I was wondering if anyone holds to this view and would be willing to share your thoughts/views?

(For full declaration, I'm undecided on the topic. However, I do think that the side that says it is biblical has the burden of proof since it's not explicitly taught in the Bible. So far, my understanding of the "it is biblical" side pretty much boils down to the general response of "it is implied".)

[tabibito]

There isn't a whole lot directly available in the scriptures, but from what can be gleaned:

It depends on what you mean by "church"
- at the local level, you would need to investigate individual church procedures and compare them with the procedures in the synagogues of the first century.
- at the denominational level, there is no scriptural warrant for the existence of a controlling body extending beyond the nearby area (parish) of a congregation.
HOweVer, an apostle, even if his sphere of influence is normally within a given congregation, can intervene in local affairs elsewhere: for a time and at need - so the local congregations aren't self ruling in the absolute sense.

Of the mainstream and more or less mainstream churches, it seems that the baptists have a structure most closely resembling the (very fuzzy) picture presented in the scriptures.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't agree with taking an oath for local church membership which confers full privileges that a Christian should enjoy by virtue of being a Christian, i.e. communion.

[One Bad Pig]

As far as I can tell, one needed to be baptized in the church or have a letter from one's home church in order to receive communion (which was synonymous with membership). From quite early, baptism required the recitation of a creed (from which developed the Nicene Creed). After the Creed was incorporated into the liturgy, there may have been less need for a letter in order to attest to one's beliefs.

[Jin-roh]

I'm assuming we mean putting your name on the church's/denomination books and such?

This isn't 'biblical' in the same sense that pastors with microphones, a bible book store, or a internet message board dedicated to theology are 'biblical.'

Doesn't mean it is wrong. It means it probably needs to be evaluated some other way.

[awretch]

There isn't a whole lot directly available in the scriptures, but from what can be gleaned:

It depends on what you mean by "church"
- at the local level, you would need to investigate individual church procedures and compare them with the procedures in the synagogues of the first century.
- at the denominational level, there is no scriptural warrant for the existence of a controlling body extending beyond the nearby area (parish) of a congregation.
HOweVer, an apostle, even if his sphere of influence is normally within a given congregation, can intervene in local affairs elsewhere: for a time and at need - so the local congregations aren't self ruling in the absolute sense.

Of the mainstream and more or less mainstream churches, it seems that the baptists have a structure most closely resembling the (very fuzzy) picture presented in the scriptures.

Yea, I'm mostly referring to the local level. Sounds like you are saying that it's unclear. So playing devil's advocate here... just as there is a regulative principle for worship, shouldn't we then follow a similar "regulative principle for church government and membership"? That is, if it is not explicitly stated and can only be "fuzzily" implied, then we should not prescribe church membership (at the local level)? This would seem to be a consistent approach... yet, to suggest such a thing in any evangelical (or in my case, specifically Reformed Baptist or Reformed Presbyterian) church causes people to look surprised and become defensive as if the very suggestion is an anathema... hence my exploration into the topic. What are your thoughts?

I don't agree with taking an oath for local church membership which confers full privileges that a Christian should enjoy by virtue of being a Christian, i.e. communion.

Yea, I agree with you on that but what about more nuanced activities? The current church I attend officially holds to the view that serving the local body is a privilege. So if you are not a formal member, they do not permit you to volunteer for things at the church (and that's helping with anything including cleaning toilets - though don't misunderstand, I don't really want to clean toilets! ;) lol ). Yet, at the same time, they are not strict in some areas. Sometimes, I get the feeling that they are unsure and don't want to reject resources placed in their midst but to be somewhat consistent with their belief, they draw a haphazard dotted line. They also say that you are depriving oneself of the benefits of the church body - fellowship, church discipline, etc. What are your thoughts? Are there strong verses or passages to support what they believe?

(Not having been fully convinced for church membership, I did not join the official roster.)

As far as I can tell, one needed to be baptized in the church or have a letter from one's home church in order to receive communion (which was synonymous with membership). From quite early, baptism required the recitation of a creed (from which developed the Nicene Creed). After the Creed was incorporated into the liturgy, there may have been less need for a letter in order to attest to one's beliefs.

This is interesting - I have not yet come across this view. I'll look up on this some more.

Presently, my reading seemed to suggest the 1st century church may or may not have had membership (the strongest Scriptural evidence seems to indicate that at the most, only the leadership and decons were official "members"). But rather, because Christians could not be a part of the synagogue, they were not afforded protection from Roman-Emperor worship exemption for Jews. And no one in their right mind would join a Christian church because of persecution (inviting trouble for oneself). Sinclair Ferguson suggested that much of the early persecution prior to Nero was simply because Christians were not exempt like the Jews and by Roman law, had to burn incense to Ceasar or face the death penalty. So if you were a Roman and had a grudge against a Christian, you could have them arrested on the charge of "treason" - not burning incense to Caesar. So I'm thinking that there was no official membership because everyone pretty much knew everyone. In other words, if you were in the local church, you were effectively a "member". But I am still not sure... I think part of it is because we are so accustomed and used to this "formal membership" at the local level. You get interviewed, agree to a membership covenant or a membership policy, and then voila, you're a member! But is it right? I mean, if it's incorrect, it could potentially change how we approach quite a few things.

[tabibito]

Yea, I'm mostly referring to the local level. Sounds like you are saying that it's unclear. So playing devil's advocate here... just as there is a regulative principle for worship, shouldn't we then follow a similar "regulative principle for church government and membership"? That is, if it is not explicitly stated and can only be "fuzzily" implied, then we should not prescribe church membership (at the local level)? This would seem to be a consistent approach... yet, to suggest such a thing in any evangelical (or in my case, specifically Reformed Baptist or Reformed Presbyterian) church causes people to look surprised and become defensive as if the very suggestion is an anathema... hence my exploration into the topic. What are your thoughts?

It looks as though you're asking what rules should apply before a person can be accepted as a member of a congregation. (If I have misunderstood, apologies). Those rules are reasonably solid - the person must subscribe to the basic tenets of the gospel, and live in accord with the principles of the gospel - those principles don't expect full adherence to begin with, but they do expect an improving standard. Basically: if Jesus is your lord, you do what he says. If Jesus isn't lord, you're not part of the body of Christ. Any member of the body of Christ should be accepted as meet for service to Christ. The principles require fellowship with other believers too. Being on a membership list is not a requirement, coming under the heading of "adiaphora" - but you don't get to walk into a congregation and demand that they play by your rules. I've been with the Anglicans for the past (almost) three years. You get press-ganged by them into membership if you take communion three times in their church within a year: no papers signed or whatever - it's just automatic. If I didn't like that, because it too is adiaphora, I was free to make sure that I didn't become a member.

[Bill the Cat]

Yea, I agree with you on that but what about more nuanced activities?

That to me is more an organizational function that has nothing to do with Church membership as it does with X church, inc. inclusion

The current church I attend officially holds to the view that serving the local body is a privilege.

Sorry if this sounds crass, but that's a bunch of hooie. Service is a requirement of Christians to the body. Once we become Christians, we are expected to serve our neighbor. It is a privilege to represent Christ. It isn't a "perk of membership" that we get to be a part of the clique.

So if you are not a formal member, they do not permit you to volunteer for things at the church (and that's helping with anything including cleaning toilets - though don't misunderstand, I don't really want to clean toilets! ;) lol ).

That seems to be more about employment (whether paid or volunteer) policy than church membership. Are all formal members volunteer employees? Is that the way the Church wants to see their congregants? Free labor?

Yet, at the same time, they are not strict in some areas. Sometimes, I get the feeling that they are unsure and don't want to reject resources placed in their midst but to be somewhat consistent with their belief, they draw a haphazard dotted line. They also say that you are depriving oneself of the benefits of the church body - fellowship, church discipline, etc. What are your thoughts? Are there strong verses or passages to support what they believe?

One does not need to sign a man-made paper to fellowship. One need not utter a man-made oath to submit to a spiritual authority for discipline and discipleship purposes... you get the drift? Jesus simply said "drop what you are doing and follow me". He said "Whosoever is not against us is for us" Ephesians 4:4-5 is what I typically use when pressed by local church boards to formally "join" their congregation.

[One Bad Pig]

This is interesting - I have not yet come across this view. I'll look up on this some more.

Presently, my reading seemed to suggest the 1st century church may or may not have had membership (the strongest Scriptural evidence seems to indicate that at the most, only the leadership and decons were official "members"). But rather, because Christians could not be a part of the synagogue, they were not afforded protection from Roman-Emperor worship exemption for Jews. And no one in their right mind would join a Christian church because of persecution (inviting trouble for oneself). Sinclair Ferguson suggested that much of the early persecution prior to Nero was simply because Christians were not exempt like the Jews and by Roman law, had to burn incense to Ceasar or face the death penalty. So if you were a Roman and had a grudge against a Christian, you could have them arrested on the charge of "treason" - not burning incense to Caesar. So I'm thinking that there was no official membership because everyone pretty much knew everyone. In other words, if you were in the local church, you were effectively a "member". But I am still not sure... I think part of it is because we are so accustomed and used to this "formal membership" at the local level. You get interviewed, agree to a membership covenant or a membership policy, and then voila, you're a member! But is it right? I mean, if it's incorrect, it could potentially change how we approach quite a few things.

I'm going more by 2nd-century documents (e.g., Justin Martyr's Apology) describing church worship than by Scripture per se. The problem with using Scripture to determine everything is that Scripture wasn't written to deal with everything. The NT epistles were occasional works dealing with specific problems in the local church; the order of church services doesn't seem to have been a problem. The liturgy of the early church was closely based on synagogue worship (open to whomever was at the service) followed by the Lord's Supper (open only to those in good standing). There may or may not have been formal membership rolls, but the deacons/doorkeepers were clearly expected to know who was eligible to receive communion and who was not; the doors were shut for the duration of the Lord's Supper, and only those eligible to receive could be present.

[awretch]

I read everyone's comments including one that I missed. I think a bit more context might help.

We rent the basement of an existing church and part of the rental agreement is that we cleanup after our use of the facilities. Naturally, someone has to clean the toilets, sweep the floors, etc. The pastor has decided that the best way to get everyone involved is to have a list whereby members are rotated for various tasks - cleaning toilets, sweeping/mopping floors, childcare, bringing snacks for Sunday morning, opening the doors for the services, setting up the chairs, etc. I think part of the list is for practical reasons - if you ask people to signup, no one is going to signup for cleaning duty! But either way, he calls it part of the privilege of serving the body as an official member (like your name is on a roster/list). But this also extends to other things - whenever the church or other members need help, the idea is that they come first. Members are asked first and non-members are not asked. Even if a non-member offers their resources and time, it is politely rejected (except for our money, of course lol sorry, I tend to be cynical - I'm sure that's not his intent). So that's what I meant by "cleaning toilets". The leadership will be able to apply church discipline in cases that warrant it - to members only. Members also get to "vote" and learn about the church's finances. They also have access to the pastor for "counselling". But in truthfulness, having talked to other members, it really isn't a vote - it's more of out of ceremony (that is, the decision has already been made beforehand by the leadership). As for the counselling, I've since been convinced that I really don't need it from the pastor - I really should be searching Scripture myself and praying so that's actually a blessing in disguise. Of course, it goes without saying that non-members do not get to participate. The church justifies this governance structure by saying that it's biblically mandated and presents various verses and passages saying that while it's not explicitly mentioned, it is implicitly commanded (from their point of view, I'm being "sinful" in a sense).

Now, this doesn't sit well with me. I mean, like everyone else, I have time and resources, too. Is it outside the realm of possibility that God answered some of their prayers by placing me at this church? But I'm prohibited from serving the body because my name is not officially on a roster/list. And that's why I started looking into membership and whether it is biblical or not. One of the more major themes preached on at this church from time to time is the regulative principle of worship. But regulative principle can also be extended to other major topics that can have profound impacts on our theology. As an example, John MacArthur used "regulative principle" as a major point to argue that paedo-baptism is unbiblical. In addition, the pastor isn't consistent in his application of what is for-members and what is not. Here then is where I started getting conflicted - if they are to be consistent with "regulative principle", then it should apply to church membership (your name in a roster/list) and serving the body. But I am stuck because there are so few resources written on this subject that rejects membership. Rather, almost all resources are written in support of membership and this type/style of church government (especially in the Reformed Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian circles).

I don't mind if the conclusion is "it's not biblical" - I'm not going to go to them and whine and complain about it. There are plenty of other ways to serve and the Lord will open doors for me if indeed membership is extra-biblical. And if it is biblical, then I'll apply for membership. But I want to be sure - I want to be Berean about this. Due to a lack of resources and a very positive experience with folks on TheologyWeb before the big crash, I came here to hear people's thoughts. Who knows, maybe someone is aware of a verse/passage/other that explains everything!

[One Bad Pig]

I read everyone's comments including one that I missed. I think a bit more context might help.

We rent the basement of an existing church and part of the rental agreement is that we cleanup after our use of the facilities. Naturally, someone has to clean the toilets, sweep the floors, etc. The pastor has decided that the best way to get everyone involved is to have a list whereby members are rotated for various tasks - cleaning toilets, sweeping/mopping floors, childcare, bringing snacks for Sunday morning, opening the doors for the services, setting up the chairs, etc. I think part of the list is for practical reasons - if you ask people to signup, no one is going to signup for cleaning duty! But either way, he calls it part of the privilege of serving the body as an official member (like your name is on a roster/list). But this also extends to other things - whenever the church or other members need help, the idea is that they come first. Members are asked first and non-members are not asked. Even if a non-member offers their resources and time, it is politely rejected (except for our money, of course lol sorry, I tend to be cynical - I'm sure that's not his intent). So that's what I meant by "cleaning toilets". The leadership will be able to apply church discipline in cases that warrant it - to members only. Members also get to "vote" and learn about the church's finances. They also have access to the pastor for "counselling". But in truthfulness, having talked to other members, it really isn't a vote - it's more of out of ceremony (that is, the decision has already been made beforehand by the leadership). As for the counselling, I've since been convinced that I really don't need it from the pastor - I really should be searching Scripture myself and praying so that's actually a blessing in disguise. Of course, it goes without saying that non-members do not get to participate. The church justifies this governance structure by saying that it's biblically mandated and presents various verses and passages saying that while it's not explicitly mentioned, it is implicitly commanded (from their point of view, I'm being "sinful" in a sense).

Now, this doesn't sit well with me. I mean, like everyone else, I have time and resources, too. Is it outside the realm of possibility that God answered some of their prayers by placing me at this church? But I'm prohibited from serving the body because my name is not officially on a roster/list. And that's why I started looking into membership and whether it is biblical or not. One of the more major themes preached on at this church from time to time is the regulative principle of worship. But regulative principle can also be extended to other major topics that can have profound impacts on our theology. As an example, John MacArthur used "regulative principle" as a major point to argue that paedo-baptism is unbiblical. In addition, the pastor isn't consistent in his application of what is for-members and what is not. Here then is where I started getting conflicted - if they are to be consistent with "regulative principle", then it should apply to church membership (your name in a roster/list) and serving the body. But I am stuck because there are so few resources written on this subject that rejects membership. Rather, almost all resources are written in support of membership and this type/style of church government (especially in the Reformed Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian circles).

I don't mind if the conclusion is "it's not biblical" - I'm not going to go to them and whine and complain about it. There are plenty of other ways to serve and the Lord will open doors for me if indeed membership is extra-biblical. And if it is biblical, then I'll apply for membership. But I want to be sure - I want to be Berean about this. Due to a lack of resources and a very positive experience with folks on TheologyWeb before the big crash, I came here to hear people's thoughts. Who knows, maybe someone is aware of a verse/passage/other that explains everything!

This does help. I think your problem is not church membership per se, but how it's applied to your church in particular. My parish doesn't mind non-members sitting in on church meetings - and even when the church officers meet, anyone is welcome to sit in as long as something sensitive is not being discussed (e.g., a parishioner who needs help with an abusive situation). The only time I recall a church of which I was a member balking at helping a non-member, it was non-members obviously not aware of Baptist fundamentals calling the pastor to ask that he baptize their infant. I am also uncomfortable with members being assigned tasks. Granted that 10% of the people in a volunteer organization tend to do 90% of the work, I've never been a part of a church which directed its members to perform something which they were unwilling to do. I'm not familiar with the "regulative principle", so I can't help you there.

In your shoes, I'd probably be looking for another place to worship absent some other compelling reason to stay.

[Teallaura]

I think OBP nailed it - church membership is certainly Biblical - but your church's application seems outside any reasonably ascertained Biblical mandates.

Membership serves a purpose - to keep false teachings/beliefs at bay from our governance. It's not supposed to keep us from helping a hurting world - or to make us an elite social club.

[awretch]

Hmmm ok, there are some things for me to think about. Thank you both and everyone else who contributed!

As an aside on the regulative principle...

It's basically just a principle where if something is not clearly or explicitly found in Scripture, then we should not follow it or we should recognize it as extra-biblical. It only applies to major items - things that if we were to do or to remove, it could potentially change our theology or how we behave in a fundamental way. The difficulty is applying it consistently. Churches that make a big deal teaching this tend to find most difficulty in application.

Two examples:
1) Regulative Principle of Worship - King David attempted to bring the Ark back but he did not follow God's prescribed way of worship (that is, using the priests and Levites to bring the Ark back). As a result of his actions, a man died. The principle is that there is a prescribed way to worship God. This is serious as it can fundamentally change how we worship God in church and in our homes. So the regulative principle applies - if it's not commanded, then we shouldn't do it (or at least recognise that it is extra biblical). Churches that follow this typically have very basic worship services - some hymn singing with/without a piano, prayer, sermon, prayer, and that's about it. (Here's more from Theopedia: https://www.theopedia.com/regulative-principle)

2) Regulative Principle of Baptism - John MacArthur used this to argue against infant baptism in the MacArthur/Sproul debate. This can fundamentally change how baptisms are performed. This is serious because baptism is commanded from Jesus at the end of Matthew. Of course, John MacArthur uses more than just the regulative principle to argue his point. But this was just one of the points he used.

So, when it comes to membership, it is not explicitly mentioned or commanded - not in the way we currently do it (ignoring my particular situation). If membership is in fact extra-biblical or unbiblical, then it could potentially change how we carry out (for example) the Great Commission on an individual basis. Or, how pastors view their responsibility to the local congregation. Big things like that - changes our understanding of Scripture significantly. Wouldn't apply to using mics, speakers, computers, etc.

At the most, all I could find was one verse about the leadership being members. But nothing on the rest of the congregation and certainly not in the form of a roster defining member/non-member. Plus the historical considerations that I mentioned in an earlier post. Finally, because it is not explicitly found, the burden of proof then falls on supporters of membership. Even the world uses high standards of proof. In criminal law, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. And in civil law, proof of damages - but that still needs to be strong proof. Herein lies the problem: of the books and articles I've perused, the argument for church membership basically boils down to "it's implied" - they all agree that it's not mentioned in the Bible but say that it must be correct because otherwise x, y, and z verse doesn't seem to make sense (but not taking into account the historical points). In other words, reading heavily into the text in a manner you wouldn't do for other key doctrines! It's just not strong enough. But, it's commonly accepted as correct so I'm not sure if I'm thinking this through logically. Add to that my bias with my particular situation and you can probably understand my frustration!

[tabibito]

Biblically: If you have a position of responsibility (however minor) within a congregation, there would be some difficulty in saying that you aren't an elder.

[One Bad Pig]

Hmmm ok, there are some things for me to think about. Thank you both and everyone else who contributed!

As an aside on the regulative principle...

It's basically just a principle where if something is not clearly or explicitly found in Scripture, then we should not follow it or we should recognize it as extra-biblical. It only applies to major items - things that if we were to do or to remove, it could potentially change our theology or how we behave in a fundamental way. The difficulty is applying it consistently. Churches that make a big deal teaching this tend to find most difficulty in application.

Two examples:
1) Regulative Principle of Worship - King David attempted to bring the Ark back but he did not follow God's prescribed way of worship (that is, using the priests and Levites to bring the Ark back). As a result of his actions, a man died. The principle is that there is a prescribed way to worship God. This is serious as it can fundamentally change how we worship God in church and in our homes. So the regulative principle applies - if it's not commanded, then we shouldn't do it (or at least recognise that it is extra biblical). Churches that follow this typically have very basic worship services - some hymn singing with/without a piano, prayer, sermon, prayer, and that's about it. (Here's more from Theopedia: https://www.theopedia.com/regulative-principle)

2) Regulative Principle of Baptism - John MacArthur used this to argue against infant baptism in the MacArthur/Sproul debate. This can fundamentally change how baptisms are performed. This is serious because baptism is commanded from Jesus at the end of Matthew. Of course, John MacArthur uses more than just the regulative principle to argue his point. But this was just one of the points he used.

Ok, thanks. Yeah, it would be difficult to apply to worship services, because there doesn't seem to have been any need to address in writing how they were set up. Another point against it would be the difficulty that the principle itself is not clearly or explicitly found in Scripture.