I'm not sure what "kinds" of membership there are . . . I thought a church either had membership, or it didn't. Mine doesn't.

Frankly, the whole idea of "membership" is a little foreign to me. I know certain denominations practice it, but I'm not sure what the Biblical basis for it would be.

Just for example: Scott, you profess Christ, and of course I believe that the way you live is probably consistent with your profession. Thus, suppose you moved to McKinney and decided to start attending McKinney Bible Church. Since you are a Christian, we would count you as one of us, and you would be immediately welcome. There would never be a point where you would have to "switch membership" from some other church to ours. As far as we are concerned, if you trust Christ, then you are "one of us" the day you walk in the door . . . you don't have to take a "membership class", or fill out a form, or renounce membership in any other local church.

The body of Christ is one. But it is divided into various local bodies. As long as you give us good reason to believe you are a member of the worldwide church, we don't see any Scriptural reason to make up some sort of "membership roll" at our church.

Nevertheless, there are of course practical considerations. If it's your first day at our church, you obviously couldn't immediately be a deacon, elder, missionary, or Sunday school teacher. There is obviously a higher standard of decisioning necessary for choosing people for teaching positions. But other than that, you're just as much "one of us" from the beginning as you are a year later. The body of Christ is one.

The reason I asked the question was because you used the term 'per se'. Thats my point, membership is membership.

There is most definately a biblical basis for the doctrine. Historically, everyone has held to membership.

It seems as if the universal/local distinction is blurred. Would it not be important if I was under discipline from my last church? Excommunicated?

One of the reasons we do this is becuase of what I alluded to above.

It's not a matter of renouncing........

Without membership, how can you fulfill Christs command to discipline? As far as scriptural reasoning, have you studied this topic as vigorously as paedo baptism? This is more important!

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

And that biblical basis is . . . ?

Of course it is important. If you were under discipline from your last church, then we at MBC would not permit you to join our fellowship. (In fact, this very thing has happened before at MBC.) We respect the discipline of other church bodies, and we expect other church bodies to respect our discipline . . . if an MBC person is under discipline and runs to another church, the MBC elders write a letter to that church, letting them know the situation. We take church discipline VERY seriously (probably more seriously than most churches!).

I am not trying to be dense, but I'm not sure what you are saying here. Why do you think official membership is important, and that "switching membership" from one church to another is important? I am not trying to be difficult . . . I'm just trying to understand.

I openly invite anyone and everyone to show me a church that takes church discipline more seriously that MBC. We have excommunicated a few people (for good cause) over the years. And some people have been restored to fellowship. And as I already said, we respect the discipline of other church bodies, and we expect other church bodies to respect our discipline.

We practice a VERY STRONG biblical model of church discipline, and we don't need some "membership roll" to do it.

I admit I have studied baptism more in-depth, but I certainly have not ignored the church membership question. Perhaps I just haven't been pointed to the proper passages . . . would you care to fill in the gap in my learning? Where does the Bible teach the necessity of having an official membership roll? Where does the Bible say that it's wrong to attend Bible studies at more than one local church?

I am not trying to be argumentive. I am certainly open to correction from the Scriptures. Please just make your case from the Bible, and show me where I am missing the boat.

Thank you for your patience!

In Christ,
Joseph

I have not studied church membership, but wasn't "membership" a way of life for Old Testament Jews? It was a big deal to be excommunicated from the temple, so some sort of membership was in place. I am thinking of the account of the blind man being healed and being excommunicated by the Pharisees.

__________________
--chRis
Psalm 115:1

Christopher Reeder
Husband to Kara, Father to Abigail (7), Caleb (6), Grace (4 1/2), Zoë (3), Elijah (1 1/2) and Hannah (born 8/8/2008)

Member: Pilgrim Presbyterian Church (OPC), Raleigh, NC

Joseph,

How can you possibly practice "very strong church discipline" if there is no means of jurisdiction? In other words, what mechanism holds the Church accountable if they discipline one who is not under their authority? How does the Church even know whom is under their authority? Am I? Are you? How are you different from me? From the person who wandered in the church last week?

How is the one under authority held accountable? How is it possible to avoid the "church said" / "he said" scenario?

Further, if belonging to a church is a covenant act, where are the witnesses? The "documentation"?

Isn't the roll in heaven, and also the book of life indicative of how God views the matter? Why would a church not want to have a formal sign of commitment? Sounds a lot like the argument used by those who live together but don't need to be married, because "it's just a piece of paper." It is most certainly NOT just a piece of paper - it is a formal witness that testifies to the commitment when one party seeks to pretend that there never was a commitment.

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

My wife and I attended an Evangelical Free Church for about 4 years before coming to the OPC. Because we never joined the EFC we were not considered 'members in good standing' and thus we were asked not to participate in the Lord's Supper at the OPC church (we were allowed to in the EFC.) This caused us quite a bit of grief and I am still not sure I have a firm grasp on the situation.

Christ commanded us to observe the Lord's Supper, and we could not obey his command. But even as non-members we submitted to the elders of the church and now we are members so the problem is no longer an issue for us.

I, too, would like to see the scriptural reference that requires membership in a particular denomination, much less a particular church. I understand the discipline part because how can you put out some one who is errant. As my good friend Bob would say, "non-membership has its advantages." But to deny the Lord's Supper to a Christian is hard for me to grasp.

__________________
Gerry Winebrenner
member Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Janesville WI

Psalm 95:6-7
Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!
For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.

And since the Church is the Bride of Christ how much more so should its members formally profess their commitment?

Thanks, Fred. That is the best argument I have seen as to why I need to become a member. I have always known that, but it just hit me now.

I do not know where this topic was headed re. another thread, with going to other Bible studies or whatnot. I'm just going to address the issue of membership.

Beside the very practical matter of discipline--(Joseph, I'm glad you guys take it seriously, but practically, if you do discipline you have a "defined" membership, whether its written or not; church records, whether records of baptisms or discipline are functionally the written record and list of your church)--I suggest one place to begin study of membership "rolls" is look at all the lists of names in the Bible, and references to lists of names, beginning with Genesis (geneaologies), Numbers (census) and going to Revelation (book of life (20:15), names of the apostles on the foundation of the city (21:14). See also such like Ezra 2:2ff, Neh. 7:5ff, n.b. vv.61,64. Where did these lists come from? These names represent real individuals, with personalities and identity. That is what Name is all about. The census of the people first conducted at Sinai starts one listing of the church that continued without fail until the end of the Old Covenant era. Does it make sense to have lists of saints on earth reflecting the list of saints in heaven? Should a pastor have a list of sheep he prays for? Shoud the church have a phone directory? How can you publicly announce to the church (and the world) who is now a member, or who isn't anymore, without names.

I think it's either-or, no matter how you cut it. Either you have a "membership" and it is definable (whether a formal list or not), or you don't and its a free for all and people wander in and out according to their whim. In the first case discipline is possible to one degree or another, but sliding out of control as you abandon definitions, to the point where it is impossible.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Gerry,

The "discipline part" has everything to do with communion. I say this not to be flippant, but to take the point to its logical conclusion. After all, where does discipline end if repentance is not shown? Excommunication! In other words, being barred from the table. No membership, no discipline. No discipline, no proper communion.

Who says we have "no means of jurisdiction"? If someone attends MBC, then they are automatically under MBC's authority. Suppose you moved to McKinney and attended MBC for a couple months. Then suppose you decide to divorce your wife without biblical cause. The MBC elders would council you to repent. If you did not do so, then the MBC elders would formally bring up the issue to the entire church body. Then, if you still did not repent, then you would be flormally disfellowshipped, including a written statement from the MBC elders.

So, there are *plenty* of witnesses, and there is ample documentation, as well.

Fred, I believe your comments are well-intended, so I am not angry with you, but I confess that I find your suggestion *extremely* offensive. When you compare MBC to a bunch of fornicators just "living together", you are slandering *your* brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, who believe in the doctrines of grace just like you, and who believe in church discipline very seriously. You will not find many churches that take Matthew 18 as seriously as MBC, whether you want to believe that or not.

We believe that membership is important in the same way that *you* suggested from Scripture: "the roll in heaven, and also the book of life". If someone confesses Christ, then we assume they are entered in the roll in heaven, and that their names are written in the book of life. Thus, on *that* basis, they are welcome at MBC, and are under the jurisdiction of MBC as long as they attend.

Notice that "the roll in heaven, and also the book of life" is NOT some manmade membership roll on a piece of paper in a local pastor's office . . . I don't see anything like that anywhere in Scripture. As you have pointed out, there is a roll in heaven, and MBC figures that roll is good enough. If you confess Christ, we figure you are on *that* roll, so we don't see any good reason to put you on some manmade MBC roll.

Joseph,
The scriptures clearly distinguish between the local church and the universal body of Christ. There is a difference. One needs to establish this distinction first when trying to understand the doctrine.

And MBC agrees with you wholeheartedly, Fred. We have excommunicated people before (usually for divorcing one's spouse without biblical warrant). They are not permitted to attend MBC or partake of the Lord's Supper with us, until they repent.

So then, you have a membership? To be excommunicated from something, one must be communicated.

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]

It seems like church memebership would fall under occasional oaths and vows. A covenant so to speak. Thoughts?

If you don't have church membership, it is impossible (in an orderly fashion to say the least) to distinguish between visitors and members.

__________________
Jeff Bartel
Mechanical Engineer
Member - Trinity Reformed Church - RPCNA

"To believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism" (The Reformation in England (London, 1962), Vol. 1, p. 98)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

You are "communicated" with MBC the first day you walk in the door. If you profess Christ, then you are considered "one of us" until we have good reason to believe otherwise. You can visit next Sunday and take the Lord's Supper, if you want.

However, if we learn that you are involved in something that should bring you under church discipline, then we will deal with it swiftly and biblically, regardless of whether you have been attending our church 2 weeks or 20 years.


You hit the nail on the head. We do not want to make some big distinction between visitors and members. You don't magically become a "member" because you attend our church for one month, or 6 months, or attend a particular class, or sign a particular piece of paper, or whatever. If you confess Christ, then you are "one of us", and are subject to both the benefits of the Lord's Table at MBC, as well as church discipline, if need be.

Again, you are considered "one of us" whether you've attended 2 weeks or 20 years. You are welcome at the table as long as your walk with Christ looks good. And you will come under discipline if you do something that has biblical warrant for church discipline.

Joe,
Without sounding disrespectful, you have blurred the edges in regards to the universal body and the local. You do not seem to make the needed distinction that scripture does..........

How can you do this or defend this practice? No one in church history has held to this kind of idea.

Joseph,

With all respect, there are two implications to this statement, and the first is ludicrous. If I happened to be visiting MBC for one Sunday, and then received a call from MBC that it was undertaking discipline against me, I would rightly tell them to bug off.

But the point then is, when is discipline proper? Two visits? Ten? 15? 32? 77?

Remember that discipine is connectional - both in a positive and negative sense. That is why churches acknowledge baptisms and excommunications of other churches. But how would this apply to MBC? What if someone attended for 6 months, left, and then said that he never considered himself joined to them?

That is why the marriage analogy is applicable. A couple can in fact be married without the license and ceremony - it is called common law marriage - but it is FULL of problems. Common law marriage is a nightmare for custody, divorce, inheritance, etc. Why? Because the intentions of the parties are unclear.

Why would you want your intention to be accountable to a body to be unclear and subject to unilateral revocation?

Put another way: what stops someone from just telling MBC to jump off a cliff when they don't like it?

Non-membership (much like Paedocommunion ideas) is a direct assualt on 1) the government of the church, 2) the officers of the church, and 3) the authority of Christ.

All of this also falls under church government ideas.

Any church that has a membership.


As Fred said, "Further, if belonging to a church is a covenant act, where are the witnesses? The "documentation"?"

This is EXCEEDINGLY importnant. One should retrace Westminster and reread the Solemn Laegue and Covenant as a good example, or any of the witnesses in the OT propounding covenant rededication (such as with Josiah's Reformation in 2 Kings 22-23).

Dittos to Contra_Mundum.


There is nothing in the recorded history of the church (i.e. includes the OT and NT) that demonstrate anything even remotely paralleling that statement. It is quite the opposite, even to the form of abuses seen in Episcopacy and Roman Catholicism. The Ethiopian Eunuch, after being baptized, was not part of any local body. Walking in or out of the synagogue would not have made him any more part of that synagogue than if he just stood where he was baptized for the rest of his life. The local rabbi would have laughed at the thought that someone could have just waltzed in and "individually" made the distinction that they are part of that body.

Scott syas, "The scriptures clearly distinguish between the local church and the universal body of Christ. There is a difference. One needs to establish this distinction first when trying to understand the doctrine."

This is critical. Without making the universal/local distinction, one will always miss membership (except in heaven). Also, be advised, this is exactly what the Federal Visionists do to propose thier theological view (which is abberant in terms of the local church).

Personally, I think the sin of individualism is always "evolving" to cope with society's current trends and attempts to market the church and the Gospel to a fallen world (no membership = no accountability). One of the ways in which the sin of individualism is continually breaking down the church of Jesus Christ is the manner in which Christians wield it as a sword or license to dictate how they may or may not live; both in the context of their own lives and also within the local church. There is a proper use of individualism, but oftentimes it is one of the sins that Christians must take captive, and