Seth's Journal

Church membership. What exactly do these words mean during a time of heightened relative truth? In the whirlwind of different denominations, styles of worship, and church government, what exactly does being a member of a church signify? It seems to me that there are two major opinions on this subject. One opinion is that church membership does not mean very much at all. To speak frankly, many seem to feel that being a member of a church is a mere formal ritualistic necessity. It is simply being accepted into a gang or club where “Christians” meet. Another opinion is that membership is crucial to distinguishing and holding intact the integrity of local Christian churches. Without membership, they say, there is great difficulty in holding theological uniformity. A slack attitude toward church membership is to open the door to the creeping in of unorthodox beliefs into a local body. In the midst of these attitudes about church membership, what is the truth of the matter? How is the believer supposed to understand his membership in the church? This is the question I seek an answer for. Let the discussion begin.

I have become increasingly puzzled at the lack of understanding about church membership among churchgoers. Even when I ask church leaders about their church membership policies, their answers are at best sincere but insufficient explanations. Why is this? Aside from a lazy approach by many in addressing the issue, the topic is made more difficult to discuss because of the lack of discussion in Scripture. However, churchgoers are not without any biblical precedence. Paul makes it plainly clear to the church at Corinth that they are not to receive those who deny the gospel that he preached to them. He also tells them that they are not to associate with anyone who claims Christ and yet lives an immoral and sinful life. To the church in Galatia, Paul curses everyone who would preach a different gospel than himself. Even from these few examples, then, it is easily seen that there is to be a distinct separation from the world by a local church, which is to be made up of true Christians.

If, then, a local church is to consist purely of Spirit-filled Christians, the question that I ask in my own mind is, how far is the local church to take this exclusivity from outsiders? To put it another way, how is a local congregation to receive persons into their body when they express interest in becoming a regular part of the church? If a local body is too lenient in their membership process, then it seems that such a body is more susceptible to inviting enemies of the cross into the fold. But if a local body is too restrictive, then it seems that such a body is more susceptible to creating an impenetrable barrier to believers who wish to become part of the body.

What is the solution to these problems? It seems that the right direction is towards the very definition of what a church is. The author of Hebrews states that believers are not to forsake the assembling of one another. Jesus says that where two or more are gathered in His name, He is in their midst. He also says that those who are His own will be known by their love for each other. Clearly, then, the basic definition of a church is the assembling of Christians together in the name of Christ. We have further instruction that there are to be qualified elders who are to be in leadership over a local church. However, the legitimacy of a church is not dependent on the presence of elders, although a Christian body is to seek out such men to fill the position of elder. But elders are a topic for a different discussion.

So then, a church is essentially the assembling of believers on a regular basis. The issue concerns the definition of a believer. Without question, a believer is one who has put his trust in Christ for the forgiveness of his sins against God. A believer is one who no longer lives for himself, but lives in Christ. It is no longer he who lives, but Christ lives in Him. Essentially, then, those who join together while living by these beliefs form a church.

But what about other matters of Scripture? What about doctrinal areas such as baptism, soteriology, communion, the Trinity, or the relationship between the Old and New Testaments? What is to be done when two families desire to start a church while having contradicting opinions on baptism, with one holding to believer’s baptism and the other holding to paedobaptism? What are they going to do when the issue of baptism comes to attention in their body? Should the baptist family just tolerate the paedobaptist family as they sprinkle their infants? This matter becomes particularly difficult when both families believe that their preferred style of baptism is a matter of obedience to Christ. To make matters even more difficult, what is to be done if these two families are in an area of the world where they are the only two Christian families nearby? Should they not meet together and share the Word and fellowship with one another?

I do not mean to make baptism the issue of this essay. The topic is merely an example to show my struggles with church membership. As I face these difficulties, I am becoming more convinced that the criterion for becoming a church member should be based upon the essential foundation of Christianity, which is to receive Christ as Savior and follow Him wholeheartedly according to His Word. No knowledge of baptism, the Trinity, soteriology, or the Old and New Covenants is required to receive Jesus Christ and become part of God’s family. Did the thief on the cross get a theology lesson before he believed? No. At the moment the thief was made alive in Christ, he became part of the bride of Christ, which is the Church for which Christ died.

How, then, can a church reject the request of membership by one for whom Christ has died, regardless of theological differences? I understand that there are issues to be worked out in such a situation. There must be caution on the part of church leaders if they are to allow for theological diversity in the body. But I fail to see how such an open approach to church membership is the way to the corrosion of a church’s integrity and stability. I fail to see such teaching in Scripture. Show me. I welcome anyone to show me my error in thinking in a convincing way from Scripture.

Understand that I am not opposed to church membership. Besides the clear commands to assemble as believers, it seems that just by virtue of people becoming Christians that some sort of organized process to assemble believers together becomes an inevitable necessity. My questions concern the covenants, creeds, and other formalities that usually surround becoming a member of a local church.

The truth is, we live in a fallen world. Even Christians are part of this fallen world, and we are subject to the erroneous ways of thinking that are the products of sin. This will always be the case until our bodies are renewed fully in Christ and we are able to see with complete clarity. Why, then, do we as Christians huddle together in our little churches as if we are completely right about our creeds and confessions, while saying, “We could be wrong, but this is what we believe. If you don’t believe it, then you can’t be a member.” If a church is going to have a doctrinal confession, then by all means they should believe it with full conviction! And this idea of allowing Christians to become members of churches by getting around statements in a church’s confession or covenant is, quite frankly, self-defeating. “Well, I know you have a difficulty with this point of our covenant, but understand that we wrote this with the mindset that we would be flexible.” What then is the point of a confession or covenant?

If a church is to have a covenant (and I fully support and encourage the use of covenants, creeds, and confessions), then let them be written according to the fundamental elements of the Word of God which are crucial tenets of the Christian faith, in order that such statements are indisputable. These confessions should only concern elements of Christianity without which Christianity would collapse on itself. I submit that the following elements are the only elements which should be required of Christians desiring membership:

1. Justification by faith in Christ alone
2. Repentance as the necessary evidence of true faith in Christ.

How is it that I can state so few requirements for a local body? I believe that the other necessary beliefs and actions of Christianity outflow from these two basic truths (which could be merged into one statement). How does one repent? He turns from his sin. How does one turn from his sin? He follows Christ. How does one follow Christ? He follows the teachings of Christ found in Scripture. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Clearly, then, a true Christian will follow the required demands of God’s Word, or he will deny the two essential elements I have listed above. When one has done this, then he is subject to the discipline of the local church.

There is much more to be said on this matter, and I am sure that I will say more. For now, I make my conclusion: Church membership is to be according to the requirements of church membership found in the New Testament, which do not include adherence to lengthy and technical documents often filled with jargon difficult to understand. There is no example of this in the New Testament. Rather, we see those counted as members of the bride of Christ as those who have given their lives to Christ by the electing grace of God.

I warn all of those who feel superior towards those other brothers and sisters who do not have the theological knowledge they have received. Those who separate themselves from other believers because of a creed or a covenant are to be ashamed of themselves. This knowledge is of no value without the love of Christ. One may have his flesh melted off over hot coals for his belief in a church covenant and yet afterwards suffer the infinite flames of hell because he did not truly embrace and abide in the love of Christ.