Membership (Revisited)

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Joseph,
What kind of membership do they have?

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.

 

[Scott Bushey]

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

There would never be a point where you would have to "switch membership" from some other church to ours.

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

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.

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

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.

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!

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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.

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

And that biblical basis is . . . ?

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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.

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?

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!).

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

There would never be a point where you would have to "switch membership" from some other church to ours.

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

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.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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.

Without membership, how can you fulfill Christs command to discipline?

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.

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

As far as scriptural reasoning, have you studied this topic as vigorously as paedo baptism? This is more important!

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

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
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.

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.

 

[fredtgreco]

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.

 

[gwine]

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.

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

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.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by gwineI 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,

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.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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"?

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.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

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.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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"?

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.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

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.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

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.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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.

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]

 

[Arch2k]

WCF
V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,(r) the sound preaching(s) and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence;(t) singing of psalms with grace in the heart;(u) as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: (w) beside religious oaths,(x) vows ,(y) solemn fastings,(z) and thanksgivings, upon special occasions,(a) which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.(b)

(r) Acts 15:21; Rev. 1:3.
(s) II Tim. 4:2.
(t) James 1:22; Acts 10:33; Matt. 13:19; Heb. 4:2; Isa. 66:2.
(u) Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19; James 5:13.
(w) Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 11:23 to 29; Acts 2:42.
(x) Deut. 6:13 with Neh. 10:29.
(y) Isa. 19:21 with Eccles. 5:4, 5.
(z) Joel 2:12; Esther 4:16; Matt. 9:15; I Cor. 7:5.
(a) Ps. 107 throughout; Esther 9:22.
(b) Heb. 12:28.

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.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
So then, you have a membership? To be excommunicated from something, one must be communicated.

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.

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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

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.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
So then, you have a membership? To be excommunicated from something, one must be communicated.

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.

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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

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..........

 

[Scott Bushey]

You are "communicated" with MBC the first day you walk in the door.

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

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
So then, you have a membership? To be excommunicated from something, one must be communicated.

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.

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?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

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.

I openly invite anyone and everyone to show me a church that takes church discipline more seriously that MBC.

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.

If someone attends MBC, then they are automatically under MBC's authority.

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 mortify. Think about it - if the church has no members, and thye are not formally communicated, under the authority of the officers, etc., then they are "sorta excommunicated" and simply leave thier church for another. It winds up continually splintering the church.

Some churches include baptism as a privilege of membership. The Scriptures teach that membership in a church does not necessarily include baptism, as is with the case with Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch. However, other cases of mass conversion (3000 and 5000) demonstrate that those baptized were added to the church. In those instances careful record-keeping was done by Luke (the Spirit carried historian). Luke is meticulous in his account of gathering information about the early church. The early church knew exactly how many people professed to be saved. They knew the included number of the local visible church. You may want to check on your own the Scriptures in Acts 1:15; Acts 2:41; Acts 2:47; Acts 4:4; Acts 5:14. The inclusion of men in the church in these instances was not the invisible number of the elect redeemed for all ages, but in the visible manifestation of the local body at Jerusalem. Possibly, knowing the manner in which the covenant is established and propagated, this is a record of men as federal heads of their families, which would have made the covenanted members of the church quite larger, excluding Acts 5:14 since it specifically mentions both men and women. (It is wise to note that Luke is explicit and careful in each instance of recording events in the early church.)

The Scriptures make a distinction of those who belong to different churches, and who are associated in each location. They were publicly known to be visibly connected with a particular local body. Rom. 16:1 says, "œI commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea." Phil. 4:3 says, "œAnd I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life." Col. 4:9 states, "œWith Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you." In these instances Pheobe, Clement and Onesimus are singled out as those who are particularly involved and associated with the church at Rome, in Phillipi and Colossae. In Colossians 4:9, Paul is emphatic, "œWith Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you." Onesimus is not singled out as one of the elect of all ages, but on of those brethren at Colossae. The word Paul uses here is "œek" which is a primary preposition denoting origin (the point where action or motion proceeds). Onesimus´ origin, the place where he is out of or where he proceeds from is the unique relationship he has with the church at Colossae. If someone were to point you out, what church would you be associated with as a covenanted member?

The local meeting house (or local church) is the visible expression of a defined group of believers and their children in a given geographic location. (cf. Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14.) The geographic location defined the group of believers at that location. The church which is at Laodicea, Ephesus, etc. The letter sent by John to the seven churches was not written to believers in heaven. It was circulated among a specific geographic location in Asia Minor. This letter was not written to a structure or building, but a group of believers which made up the 7 churches in those geographic areas.

The Scriptures identify a visible organization within a given geographic location. This would not be possible if the sin of individuality was given permission. How could the church appoint anyone to a given office within a local church in a geographic position if they did not know the person, or, could not visibly identify their commitment to the body of believers? How could a minister be appointed over a specific group of people, and oversee a specific flock, if the sin of individuality was given license? It would be impossible. The hierarchy of the church becomes immediately irrelevant and chaos would reign if individuality were the norm. Preachers and deacons could then be self-appointed. However, the structure of the church necessitates the organization of the church. The basic structure of the church is Christ > Elders (Presbytery) > Deacons (Servants of the Presbytery) > Congregation. (Where Elders are grouped based on geographic local for purposes of oversight for a number of given churches.) Without a formal structure, any man, or woman for that matter, could appoint himself or herself. If they could appoint themselves what rights do the congregation have? How could they have any visible rights at all (such as electing officers in the church)? It would be impossible to exclude anyone from coming into the church and voting since there would be no definable fellowship.

More here...
http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/UnderstandingChurchMembership.htm

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/MurphyThomasDutiesChurchMembers.htm

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by webmaster]

 

[gwine]

I am curious, Joseph, about the appeal process. To whom does a "member" appeal if the elders (or whatever you call them) make a call that they disagree with?

 

[Dan....]

Joseph,

I guess I really opened a can of in the other thread when I asked if your children would be considered non-communicant members of the church once they were baptized.

I have a question for you:

In the other thread you say that you attend morning services at McKinney Bible Church and evening services at the PCA. According to your logic in this thread, if documented church membership were not requisite, then wouldn't you consider yourself a member of both McKinney Bible Church and the PCA congregation? Even though the PCA doesn't consider you a member, you would still, per your logic, consider yourself a member and under the PCA elders' authority, correct? Do you consider yourself to have dual membership?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Dan....
Joseph,

I guess I really opened a can of in the other thread when I asked if your children would be considered non-communicant members of the church once they were baptized.

I have a question for you:

In the other thread you say that you attend morning services at McKinney Bible Church and evening services at the PCA. According to your logic in this thread, if documented church membership were not requisite, then wouldn't you consider yourself a member of both McKinney Bible Church and the PCA congregation? Even though the PCA doesn't consider you a member, you would still, per your logic, consider yourself a member and under the PCA elders' authority, correct? Do you consider yourself to have dual membership?

On Sunday evenings, I just attend a PCA Bible study. They don't have Sunday evening services yet.

However, once the PCA starts having regular Sunday evening services, I suppose you could say I would have "dual membership" at that time . . . even though "member" probably isn't the term I would choose. If someone asks me at that point, I'll probably just say that I go to MBC, but they don't have evening services, so I go to the PCA in the evening.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by gwine
I am curious, Joseph, about the appeal process. To whom does a "member" appeal if the elders (or whatever you call them) make a call that they disagree with?

No one. This is one thing I do not like about independent churches.

I don't see it happening anytime soon, but eventually, I would like to see MBC join a Presbytery. If I stay in this area and am eventually made an elder at MBC, this may become more of a possibility. I could see MBC joining the Free Presbyterian Church, for example. (But such thinking is years down the road in my mind.)

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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?

I am trying to understand, but I have to admit that your argument is not clear to me.

I mean, what stops someone from just telling *any* church to jump off a cliff when they don't like it?

I'm not saying membership is an inherently horrible thing; I just think it's unneccesary. When I was younger, my parents and I went to various churches that had membership, and I honestly don't see what good it does. Suppose you are officially a member of a Baptist, Nazarene, Methodist, Assembly of God, Presbyterian church, or whatever. So what? You get angry, you decide you're going to leave that church, and then you leave. What can that church do about it? How does having your name on their membership roll make their discipline "stick" any more than it sticks at MBC?

Maybe you are getting at something that is just not dawning on me. That is definitely a possibility. But at the moment, all I can say is what I have personally seen at Baptist, Nazarene, and other churches, compared with MBC. Many of the former churches had membership rolls, and yet their church discipline was a joke. I never saw anyone excommunicated until I came to MBC. I have been consistently impressed with the way the MBC elders take Matthew 18 seriously.

Thus, Matt's assertion that "any church that has a membership" offers better church discipline than MBC is laughable, to say the least.




[Edited on 9-30-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Dan....
Joseph,

I guess I really opened a can of in the other thread when I asked if your children would be considered non-communicant members of the church once they were baptized.

I have a question for you:

In the other thread you say that you attend morning services at McKinney Bible Church and evening services at the PCA. According to your logic in this thread, if documented church membership were not requisite, then wouldn't you consider yourself a member of both McKinney Bible Church and the PCA congregation? Even though the PCA doesn't consider you a member, you would still, per your logic, consider yourself a member and under the PCA elders' authority, correct? Do you consider yourself to have dual membership?

On Sunday evenings, I just attend a PCA Bible study. They don't have Sunday evening services yet.

However, once the PCA starts having regular Sunday evening services, I suppose you could say I would have "dual membership" at that time . . . even though "member" probably isn't the term I would choose. If someone asks me at that point, I'll probably just say that I go to MBC, but they don't have evening services, so I go to the PCA in the evening.

Joseph,
I don't believe this would be allowed in the PCA; if you were an actual member there, and they had morning and evening services, according to Heb 10, you would be responsible to be there for both services unless providentially hindered.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by fredtgreco
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?

I am trying to understand, but I have to admit that your argument is not clear to me.

I mean, what stops someone from just telling *any* church to jump off a cliff when they don't like it?

I'm not saying membership is an inherently horrible thing; I just think it's unneccesary. When I was younger, my parents and I went to various churches that had membership, and I honestly don't see what good it does. Suppose you are officially a member of a Baptist, Nazarene, Methodist, Assembly of God, Presbyterian church, or WHATEVER. So what? You get angry, you decide you're going to leave that church, and then you leave. What can that church do about it? How does having your name on their membership roll make their discipline "stick" any more than it sticks at MBC?

Maybe you are getting at something that is just not dawning on me. That is definitely a possibility. But at the moment, all I can say is what I have personally seen at Baptist, Nazarene, and other churches, compared with MBC. Many of the former churches had membership rolls, and yet their church discipline was laughable. I never saw anyone excommunicated until I came to MBC. I have been consistently impressed with the way the MBC elders take Matthew 18 seriously.

Thus, Matt's suggestion that "any church that has membership" offers better church discipline than MBC is laughable, to say the least.

Actually,

It's not laughable. What stops anyone from telling the church of which he is a member to go jump off a cliff is the authority that they have over him. Matthew 18 can't apply by definition to a church that has no members, because its elders have no authority over anyone.

It may be that you are confused because of the functional and practical similarities between MBC and most churches. But there is a huge difference between (1) ignoring lawful authority and being permitted to get away with it (sin on both the part of the authority and the one in submission) and (2) having no authority over you. If I am a member of a Church and I am disciplined, it does not mitigate my sin if another church ignores that discipline. But if there is no authority over me, I am free to ignore the "pious advice" of friends. That is what your elders are. They are friends; they have no authority - you are not covenanted with them. That is a huge deal.

How does Matthew 18 apply if the one being "disciplined" simply says - "Says who?" "You have no authority over me."

"But we do" comes the reply

"Where? Prove it"

And thus it cannot be proven. This is dangerous, ahistorical and unbiblical. Frankly, I am a bit surprised that you take this position, given your (historical) understanding of the acceptance of Romish baptism because of it being a part of the visible church. It is because it has visible, tangible evidence that makes it so. It surely can't be the gospel.

[Edited on 9/30/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Joseph,
Calvary Chapel has no membership. Ft. Lauderdale had 7500 people whom attend. How does one hold these people accountable for tithing, discipline etc.? It is the local church's responsibility to hold the believer accountable. If there is no membership, there is no list. If there is no list, how does one minister to the body if the local body is invisible?

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
However, once the PCA starts having regular Sunday evening services, I suppose you could say I would have "dual membership" at that time . . . even though "member" probably isn't the term I would choose. If someone asks me at that point, I'll probably just say that I go to MBC, but they don't have evening services, so I go to the PCA in the evening.

Joseph,
I don't believe this would be allowed in the PCA; if you were an actual member there, and they had morning and evening services, according to Heb 10, you would be responsible to be there for both services unless providentially hindered.

Then perhaps the PCA pastor won't formally put me on his "membership" roll. I don't care one way or the other.

The PCA pastor has already told me that it would be wrong for me to leave MBC. And regarding the baptisms of my kids, he doesn't think I have sinned in waiting to baptize them, because he said I am providentially hindered from doing it, by virtue of the fact that I am in a credobaptist church. However, now that the MBC pastor has made it clear that he will freely allow his parishoners to get their children baptized if they believe they should, I have no good reason to keep putting it off. Thus, the PCA pastor is planning to talk it over with the PCA elders in mid October.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Then perhaps the PCA pastor won't formally put me on his "membership" roll. I don't care one way or the other.

Fair enough.

The PCA pastor has already told me that it would be wrong for me to leave MBC.

I wonder what his rationale is...........

And regarding the baptisms of my kids, he doesn't think I have sinned in waiting to baptize them,

He is going against his confession; it says that not baptizing them is "a great sin".

because he said I am providentially hindered from doing it, by virtue of the fact that I am in a credobaptist church.

As far as providential hinderance goes, I would agree if you were in China.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
It's not laughable. What stops anyone from telling the church of which he is a member to go jump off a cliff is the authority that they have over him. Matthew 18 can't apply by definition to a church that has no members, because its elders have no authority over anyone.

That's funny that Matthew 18 "can't apply" to a church that has no members, especially since I have personally witnessed it's application a number of times in my past 5 years at MBC.

And you say the MBC elders have "no authority" over anyone at MBC? I'm sure that would surprise everyone who attends MBC. They all seem to think Craig and John do have authority over them, and that is how the people at MBC behave. So if you told them that their elders don't have authority over them, because their names aren't written down in a church roll somewhere, I'm sure they would all be quite surprised.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

It may be that you are confused because of the functional and practical similarities between MBC and most churches. But there is a huge difference between (1) ignoring lawful authority and being permitted to get away with it (sin on both the part of the authority and the one in submission) and (2) having no authority over you. If I am a member of a Church and I am disciplined, it does not mitigate my sin if another church ignores that discipline. But if there is no authority over me, I am free to ignore the "pious advice" of friends. That is what your elders are. They are friends; they have no authority - you are not covenanted with them. That is a huge deal.

I respect my elders as much more than just "friends" . . . and the same goes for others at MBC. I have been out of line before, and the MBC elders have told me to do something I didn't want to do, in order for me to get back in line with Scripture. I knew what they were telling me was right, but I just didn't want to do it at the time. But because of their authority over me, I obeyed them, and I'm glad that I did. However, had I not obeyed them, they may have taken disciplinary action against me.

I AM covenanted with them. I have chosen to attend MBC, and they are the elders of MBC. That is all it takes for me to automatically be under their authority. If I start going to your church next month, then the elders of your church automatically would have authority over me, whether or not they think they do, and whether or not I am entered into their membership rolls.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
How does Matthew 18 apply if the one being "disciplined" simply says - "Says who?" "You have no authority over me."

"But we do" comes the reply

"Where? Prove it"

And thus it cannot be proven.

Fred, with respect, I think you are completely wrong on this text.

Matthew 18 says that "the church" has the authority to excommunicate anyone who is a part of it. Well, if you confess belief, and attend MBC (or any other church), then you are a part of MBC (or whatever church). Thus, "the church" you are attending has the authority to excommunicate you, if they have valid cause for doing so.

Originally posted by fredtgreco

This is dangerous, ahistorical and unbiblical.

Why is it dangerous?

How is it unbiblical?

Still, no one has demonstrated any Scriptures mandating the keeping of "membership rolls" at a church.

It is true that certain Biblical characters were identified with this church or that church. But the same goes for me! If you said something about "Joseph Gleason, that guy who is part of McKinney Bible Church", you would be speaking accurately. Ask any MBC person what "his church" is, and he will answer "MBC". So the way we *speak* of a person belonging to a church doesn't necessarily change based on whether there is a membership roll or not. --- Thus, any Biblical texts saying that so-and-so is part of such-and-such church is inconclusive. There is no Scripture (to my knowledge) that definitively reveals a church keeping membership rolls.