Biblical Reasons For Church Membership  by Rev. Jack Lash,  June 1986 [last revised 9/95,  printed May 15, 2006]

 

There is an assumption in the Bible that every Christian will be a part of the Church of Jesus Christ:

Ø Matthew 18:15‑17 "If your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax‑gatherer.”

Ø 1Corinthians 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches. (NASB);

Ø 1Corinthians 11:16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (NASB);

Ø Hebrews 12:22‑23 “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first‑born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect...”

Ø The epistles of the New Testament are not addressed to individual Christians but to churches. When an apostle wanted to get a message to all the Christians in a certain area he addressed a letter to the churches of that area. See 1Cor.1:2; 2Cor.1:1b; Gal.1:2b; 1Thes.1:1; 2Thes.1:1; Rev.2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,14. Does this not imply that the apostles expected that every Christian was a part of a local church and that by communicating with the churches, they would be reaching all the Christians in that area?

Ø Compare also Colossians 4:16 “When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.” (NASB)

 

The Bible also makes it plain that church attendance is mandatory:

Ø Heb.10:25 ("Let us not forsake the assembling of one another, as some are in the habit of doing.")

Ø 1Corinthians 14:23 (“When the whole church assembles together...”)

Ø The example of Jesus in Luke 4:16 (“He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath...”), though there was certainly no “church” worthy of His attendance.

 

But also, the issue of church membership itself, which has been questioned by some in our generation, can be demonstrated from the Scriptures. Consider the following arguments:

 

1. First of all, the concept of the covenant requires the practice of church membership. Each believer, besides having a personal relationship with God, is also in a legal covenant with God (the new covenant) and therefore with His church in the world. The fact that it is a legal covenantal relationship and not just a personal intimate relationship necessitates legal actions and records with regard to baptism (which is the covenant ceremony establishing a covenant with God and with His Church universal and with a specific branch of that Church). This is identical to a marriage covenant which necessitates both a personal (and hopefully intimate) relationship as well as a legal covenant between the two parties. It is possible to have a very close intimate relationship with someone without entering into a covenant with that person. But biblically both the marriage relationship and the relationship between God and man are covenant relationships, requiring more than personal closeness to fulfill God's requirements. Transferring church membership is merely the transferring of a covenant from one specific branch of Christ's Church to another much like a citizen would transfer his citizenship from one state to another. As all citizens of the U.S.A. must also be citizens of a particular state in the U.S.A., so all members of Christ's body must be members of a particular branch of Christ's body.

 

2. Matt. 16:19‑ "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."  What are these keys if they are not the keys of the administration of the covenant given to the elders of Christ's church on the earth? In other words, Christ gave to the apostles the authority to decide who should be and who should not be members of the covenant and therefore citizens of the kingdom of heaven. They were given the responsibility of taking in new members by baptism (Matt. 28:19) and removing from membership (through excommunication) those who have broken the covenant (Matt. 18:17‑18). The "keys" also gave to the apostles the duty of conferring on others, through ordination, the right of the "keys" so that these duties might be fulfilled in every "branch" church of the universal Church of Jesus Christ. Once a man has been given the "keys" he also has the right and duty to pass those keys on to those that are chosen to carry out these responsibilities. This is what ordination is all about.

 

3. According to the Scriptures, who is supposed to vote for deacons (Acts 6:1‑6)? (And elders as well, assuming we are to choose elders by congregational vote as we are deacons.) On the day of a congregational vote, what would prevent a man from bringing some friends to vote who visit the church periodically? How can it be made sure that only  believers who are committed to this church be allowed to vote, if there is no church membership?

 

4. 1Peter 5:1‑2‑ "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder,... Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers..." (Later, Peter refers to the flock as "those entrusted to you".) Hebrews 13:17:  "They (the church leaders) keep watch over your souls as those who will give account [that is, give account of the souls put by God under their care]"  How does a church elder know who has been put under his care if there is no church membership? How does he know who to discipline, for example? A shepherd must know which sheep are a part of his flock if he is to be held accountable for protecting and caring for them. If the good shepherd is supposed to leave the 99 in order to go after the one lost sheep, he must know clearly who is and who is not part of his flock. If he knows the lost sheep is part of his responsibility, then he will pursue it. But if all the sheep are up for grabs and do not belong to any specific flock, then why should he spend his time chasing after one who has wandered? If he chases after all sheep who are wandering, he will do nothing but chase down wandering sheep. He will never get back to the 99. But of course if there is no official flock membership then there really is no 99 to return to. It's just a bunch of sheep that happen to hang around the same shepherd, but there is no special commitment to that shepherd or to the other sheep who hang around him.    

 

5. 1Peter 5:5‑ "Young men, be submissive to the elders.." Hebrews 13:7‑ "Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith."   Heb. 13:17‑ "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden..." How can a person obey these scriptural commands if he is not a member of any church? (And if he considers himself to be under the authority of the church even though not an official member of the church, then why doesn't he obey the elders' appeals to become an official church member?)

 

6. 1Corinthians 5:12‑13a‑ "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside." How do we know who is inside or outside the church if there is no church membership? The fact that Paul speaks of two distinct groups: those inside vs. those outside, implies that there is a list of folks that have committed themselves to Christ and to His church. These are the ones who are to come under the judgment of the church, if necessary. How does one get onto this list? By attendance at church? This is no indication of salvation.

 

7. 1Corinthians 5:2 "Shouldn't you rather ... have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?" and 1Corinthians 5:13b: "Expel the wicked man from your number." These verses also imply that there was a list of church members. Otherwise what were they to expel the man from? How do they know who to expel if there isn't a list of church members? If a church attendee is involved in a serious sin, how does the church decide whether or not he should come under church discipline?

 

8. The passage just cited from 1Cor. 5:13b is actually a quotation from the Old Testament, from Deuteronomy 17:7; 19:19; 22:24; and 24:7. In this provision from the OT law, the Israelites were commanded to carry out God's penal instructions and thereby remove the evil from Israel. In the community of Israel there was no doubt who belonged to the nation of Israel. Very careful records were kept because the law was significantly different at many points for Israelites than it was for those who were not citizens of Israel. The same principle of expelling evil from Israel is applied by Paul in I Cor. 5:13b to the new Israel, the church. As we have already seen, the law is still to be applied very differently to "outsiders" than it is to church members (1Cor. 5:12‑13a). This necessitates the same clearly defined membership/citizenship as there was in OT Israel. It also necessitates the same careful record‑keeping as they practiced in Israel.

 

9. The matter of church discipline also raises the question of who is responsible to discipline a Christian if there is no church membership. Suppose a man is associated with several different churches. Which one is responsible before God to exercise Biblical discipline? If you feel obligated to pursue the steps of Matthew 18:15‑17 with him, which church do you bring him before in the final step (v. 17)? What if you press charges against him at one church where he is declared guilty but he runs to another church which absolves him of guilt. The fact that the Bible speaks of a process of church discipline whereby a court of the church actually declares a man guilty or innocent of certain charges (I Cor. 5:3b‑5a) implies that each Christian must be under a certain jurisdiction. Each Christian must be under the jurisdiction of some church(‑court) that has the responsibility of discipline over that believer. This is parallel to citizenship. Each person must be a citizen of a certain country/state/county/city which has jurisdiction over him. This jurisdiction is also the jurisdiction in which a man is given the privilege of voting, which is also the way it should be in a local church.

 

10. The question of officer eligibility also points to the necessity of church membership. Who is eligible to be an elder or a deacon in a certain church? If there is no membership, are all those who attend eligible? What about the man who is very godly but attends several churches on an occasional basis instead of one church regularly? Is it proper to bring in a man who is well‑known as a godly man in the community but has had no involvement in  a particular local church and nominate him for the eldership?

 

11. James 5:14: "Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord." It is interesting that this passage does not tell us to call our closest friends when we are sick, nor even to call the elders we are closest to, whatever church they serve at. We are told to call for the elders of the church. If a believer is not a member of any local church, which elders is he supposed to call? This verse implies that each believer is connected to a certain local church, not just relationally but legally. Once again, the subject of jurisdiction is raised. It is assumed in Scripture that each believer comes under the specific jurisdiction of a particular local church which has oversight and authority over him in matters of discipline, prayer, nurture, teaching, etc.

 

12. The practice of excommunication (see Matthew 25:15‑17; 1Corinthians 5:5,13; 1Timothy 1:20; 2Thessalonians 3:14) implies that a church has the duty to restrict who partakes of the Lord's Supper. (Excommunication is an act of church discipline whereby a man is excluded from taking communion until he repents of his sin, hence the term ex‑communi-cation.) On what basis is the decision of who should be allowed to partake to be made? If the excommunicated person is forbidden, what about the town drunk who wanders in bombed? What about the outspoken atheist who takes communion as a joke? What about the three‑year‑old child from a non‑Christian home that was brought to church because she spent the night at a church member's house on Saturday night? What about the drug addict who comes to church one Sunday because he wants to get his life together? What about the second week he is there? How about the third? Where do you draw the line? Unless church membership is the criteria for participation in communion, what criteria is there?

 

13.  It seems clear that in addition to attending on the Sabbath day (Luke 4:16), Jesus was an official member of his synagogue, as were all Jewish children. In this, He is an example to us. He did not resist this natural part of being in the community of faith.

 

 

Membership Matters                        By William H. Smith, Jr.      (Abridged)

 

Church membership matters; no other society on earth is more important to be a member of...

Many of us know the argument against the social institution of marriage: “Marriage is about love and relationship, and commitment between two people. It doesn’t need society’s recognition or blessing. What does a ceremony or legal piece of paper add? If we think of ourselves as married, we’re married.”

Then, as marriages fail and people become disillusioned, we hear a new argument: “I’ve tried marriage and I’ve experienced failure and pain. I’m not sure I’ll ever get over it. I won’t go through it again.” Of course, many such people don’t mean they intend never to have a marriage-like relationship again. They just mean they feel justified in rejecting the institution of marriage.

It’s striking how similar are the arguments we sometimes hear regarding church membership. Some say, “Being a Christian is between God and me. The church isn’t an institution; it’s just a way of referring to God’s people in the world. I’m in the real church and I don’t need my name on the roll of some congregation.” Others, who have had a bad experience might say, “I was a member of the church and something bad happened (the preacher ran off with the organist, someone betrayed a confidence, people hurt my feelings), and I don’t want to go through it again. So, I’ll attend church, but I won’t join.”

This “modern” view of the church and church membership contrasts with the view at the time of the Reformation. (We go back to the Reformation, not because we believe the Reformers were infallible or because we idealize the Reformation as though it were a golden age, but because the Reformers purposely and self-consciously examined the Bible in order to reform their views of theology, worship and government in accord with the apostolic pattern.)

 

The Belgic Confession (1561) teaches: We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and outside of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it . . . (Article 28).

Similarly the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) asserts: But as for communicating with the true church of Christ, we so highly esteem it that we say plainly that none can live before God who do not communicate with the true Church of God, but separate themselves from the same. For as without the ark of Noah there was no escaping when the world perished in the flood; even so do we believe that without Christ, who in the Church offers Himself to be enjoyed of the elect, there can be no certain salvation; and therefore we teach that such as would be saved must in no wise separate themselves from the true Church of Christ. (Chapter XVII:11).

Then there is the clear teaching of our own Westminster Confession:The visible church which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (Chapter XXV:2)

How different this reformational view is from that of so many who claim to be Christians and yet who insist their relationship to God is a purely personal and private matter, and who sincerely believe that the Church is of little consequence, surely not so consequential as to have anything to do with the matter of one’’s salvation.

 

Church membership matters. There is no other society on earth of which it is more important to be a member and no one of which it is a higher privilege to be a member. Christ died for the Church and he is her Savior, Husband, and King. The Church is his body and bride. And to the Church he has given the wonderful privilege of dispensing his grace by the ministry of Word and Sacrament.