Off The Agenda
An argument for the importance of formal membership.
There's a new debate among today's Christians. Does the New Testament require, suggest, even hint at local church membership? Are Christians required to belong to a local church, or is it an option? And what does such belonging entail?
The New Testament knows nothing of a creature reborn through faith in Christ, baptized in identification with Christ, communing with Christ at His table, and not a member of a visible, local, identifiable congregation of other born-again baptized believers.
By "membership" I mean the way in which the individual is known to be intentionally committed to every other member of the congregation, and the congregation known to be committed to the individual. On nearly every page of the New Testament, local church membership is assumed.
For example, no one disputes that each Christian is a "member of the body of Christ." We all belong to the spiritual body of our Lord, united to Him inseparably as Head to torso. In that sense, "member" is a peculiarly Christian idea (Rom. 12:3–8; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:11–16)—not an idea lifted from Rotary, golf, or ski clubs. But the Bible shows that this spiritual union gets worked out in local church membership with other flesh-and-blood believers.
Consider also the "one another" passages of Scripture: "love one another" (John 13:34–35), "honor one another" (Rom. 12:10), "restore one another" (Gal. 6:1–2), etc. Many believe these commands can be carried out with their friends in a coffee shop. But all these commands are given to the entire church. And they mark out the entire community as separate from and witnessing to non-Christians (John 13:35). So, what the apostles have in view isn't the easy, cliquish love of friends, but the radical congregational love of the entire church. This radical vision calls for "no divisions in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other" (1 Cor. 12:25). Equal concern for every part requires the reciprocal commitment of self-conscious, intentional membership.
Finally, pastoral ministry requires local church membership. The apostle Peter exhorts the elders to "shepherd the flock of God that is in your care." The pastor isn't responsible for all the people of an area, but for the "flock of God." This doesn't include just any Christian he contacts, but that identifiable group or flock that is in his care. The sheep, then, must be known and committed to being "under" the care of the pastors. The command to obey your leaders requires local church membership (Heb. 13:7, 17).
Well, if the need for local church membership seems so obvious, why are some people breaking out in hives at the very idea? The reasons are legion, some good and some bad, some theological and some practical. But let me submit that every Christian—with the exception of the most renegade individualist—practices some form of membership. It's either a good practice or a weak one, but it's there.
Some Christians see their active involvement (regular attendance, perhaps serving in a ministry, giving, etc.) as sufficient evidence of their commitment to the church. Beyond that, they don't see the need. But what's critical for building strong, healthy spiritual community is that a few things be clearly in place and taught as part of what it means to be committed to the church.
First, you cannot practice meaningful membership or community where anonymity reigns. If people don't know each other, then it's impossible to knit the relationship fabric that is so central to biblical Christianity. So you need a practice that clearly reduces anonymity and increases interpersonal knowing.
Second, you cannot practice meaningful membership where gospel commitments and imperatives are not explicitly expected. Membership exists in large measure for the impartation of spiritual grace (1 Pet. 4:10–11), the exchange of love (John 13:34–35), correction (Gal. 6:1–2; Matt. 18:15–17), and so on. Membership means we are better together than we are apart. The membership process should make this clear, calling the members to "sign on the dotted line" of loving others across economic, social, linguistic, cultural, and other barriers.
Third, you need a practice that makes it clear that people are submitted to and desiring of pastoral oversight (1 Pet. 5:2). You cannot practice meaningful membership or community where anti-authority, anti-leadership, anti-accountability attitudes predominate. I'm afraid that these attitudes explain much of the resistance to membership; people don't want to be accountable. They imagine that their accountability to Jesus may be maintained without any accountability to His people. But it's among His people—through their love and care and commitment—that Jesus ordinarily establishes accountability with His sheep.
Finally, we need a membership process that maintains the Bible's temporal sequence of conversion, baptism, membership and communion. The observable pattern of the New Testament is: first, gospel preaching; second, hearing mixed with faith; and third, public profession of faith in baptism, which marks entrance into the covenant community, and consequently the privilege of communion at our Lord's Table.
Many have come to believe that membership is not essential because this pattern has been broken apart. It's possible to partake in all the benefits of membership (e.g., communion) without any of the commitments. It's the spiritual equivalent of "shacking up" with someone not your spouse. Until the conversion-baptism-membership-communion sequence is restored, the borders of the Christian life and church will remain fuzzy and membership neglected. Faithful pastors must repair the breakdown of this sequence.
The essence of biblical church membership is alive on every page of the New Testament: mutual love and commitment to all the other Christians in the assembly under the care of godly leadership as an expression of the kingdom and rule of God. That's not abstract. That's concrete, gritty, essential New Testament Christian living (Eph. 4:11-16) that brings discipleship and growth.
