Comments on: Evangelical Untouchables 4: How Important is Church Membership?

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:27:47 +0000

Hey Brian,
Greetings in Christ, my fellow heretic. May God bless your homes, families, and friendships.
I’m surprised every time people actually show up in my humble abode to worship God and share the fellowship of Christ. Generally, I try not to count them, though sometimes I do run out of cushy coach seats and have to go hunting for sitting devices of various kinds (not excluding milk crates and bean bags). As far as membership rolls are concerned, I can’t imagine formalizing and contractualizing my closest and most valued friendships in that way.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:02:38 +0000

This is an odd question for someone who gathers with other believers in our homes. We have no “organization” to join.

The membership I am part of is that I RSVP’d for the great wedding one day.

Brian

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 05 May 2009 09:08:11 +0000

My primary problem with formal church membership is that it doesn’t leave much room for Christ’s literal headship over His body and His individual “members” — to place us and move us about according to His wisdom and purpose.
Say you have a membership at the First United Church of God’s Chosen Darlings, and the Holy Spirit has made it clear to you He desires to place you in a different fellowship that is not institutionally connnected to your present church fellowship. How do you go about obeying God without hurting feelings or being regarded as a traitor or turncoat? The combination of formal membership and a policy of jealous possessiveness when it comes to those members creates negative reactions within the church whenever Christ does His thing and redeploys some valuable members and faithful tithers from one situation of service to another.
In this way, Western churchianity has become much like the world of competitive sports. We share the same love of God — just as football fans all share the love of football — but we’re divided by our desire to see the home team shine over everybody else. And crossing that field and cheering for another team too often means becoming an enemy to those who once embraced you as a brother or sister in Christ.
Maybe, rather than concentrating on upping the numbers on our membership rolls, we should focus on training people up in Christ and then sending them out with prayer and love to do the work He has called them to do. After all, if we are genuinely serving and following Christ, then we are on the same team, regardless of whether or not we choose to see it that way.

By: Jeremiah Lawson

Jeremiah Lawson — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:39:33 +0000

Tom, to piggyback on your question, shut ins can and are overlooked even in churches that have formal membership. Especially in an age where donations can happen on line and sermons can be downloaded a formal member could be at a megachurch and no one would notice they are shut in for health reasons because the measures of activity (giving, attendence, and participation) become impossible to track in a way that accounts for shut ins. A person might be able to give on-line, hear a sermon on-line, and have a kind of “virtual” fellowship that is easy to dismiss if it isn’t the only means you have of staying in touch. Ergo, a shut in of that sort can be treated as though a non-member even though a member.

All that is to say that I can see how the situation of shut ins could be a challenge for either approach to membership. In an era where it’s possible to get junk mail before you can read or years after your dead it’s not surprising.

By: Tom Schwegler

Tom Schwegler — Mon, 04 May 2009 01:54:12 +0000

I don’t insist that formal church membership is necessary; in fact, my current church does not practice it. However, I have a practical question for those who reject it; what becomes of your “members” when they become too old and infirm to attend? Defining members as “those who show up, contribute and participate” works great with people who are younger and/or healthier, but those who are shut-ins or living in nursing homes can no longer meet this criterion. Do you consider that they have left your church because they no longer attend? Do you simply hope that other people remember them for old times’ sake?

This may not be a big issue in churches that are relatively new or relatively small. But successful churches have a way of becoming older and larger, and it seems to me that, once a church passes the point where everyone knows everyone else, it becomes easier for shut-ins to slip through the cracks unless there is some record of their affiliation with and commitment to a particular congregation.

By: Matt Edwards

Matt Edwards — Sun, 03 May 2009 22:55:51 +0000

BrianD asked about 9 Marksâ€™ philosophy of formal church membership. I think their philosophy is worth responding to. First, there is nothing in the 9 Marks document with which I strongly disagree. Iâ€™m not going to come out and say that they are doing membership wrong. They present one way of handling church membership. Second, our rejection of formal church membership does not equal a complete rejection of church membership. I agree with the folks at 9 Marks that people should be committed to a local body and that living in Christian community is essential to spiritual growth. However, I disagree that church membership has to be institutional and not simply organic. The exegetical support that they give for formal, institutionalized church membership is unconvincing. Our position is that everyone who believes and participates in the life and ministry of the church is a member. Thus all of the â€œone anotherâ€ passages that 9 Marks lists would be applicable to those church â€œmembers.â€ The main reason that we donâ€™t have formal membership is that we donâ€™t see how formal membership necessarily increases commitment or unity. Itâ€™s a form versus function discussion for us. Certainly, commitment and unity are important. But the 9 Marks literature implies that you canâ€™t have commitment or unity without signing on the dotted line. That has not been our experience. There is remarkable commitment and unity at our church despite not having formalized church membership. I have been a member of other churches that had formal membership and I did not find them to be more committed or united. In my experience, formal membership leads to a proliferation of church â€œmembersâ€ who are not a part of the daily life of the church. The form doesnâ€™t fulfill the function for which it was created. Since we donâ€™t have a biblical basis for formal church membership, and since we canâ€™t see how the form â€œformal church membershipâ€ contributes to the function â€œunity and commitment,â€ we donâ€™t do it. If we were ever to switch, it would be for practical reasons like decisions regarding financial support (see Darrellâ€™s response).

By: AnneG

AnneG — Sun, 03 May 2009 22:29:55 +0000

Lindsey Williams, I’m not sure exactly what you mean and this is off topic, but the Pope is actually WAY more accountable to a whole lot of people, 2000 years of Church History and, most important, to God and Jesus through the workings of the Holy Spirit. He’s actually more accountable than the average pastor in a local church, especially one that does not associate with a larger body. I can go point by point through history to illustrate if you like, but there are people much better equipped than I here to do the same. So, what exactly do you mean? AnneG in NC

By: Luke J

Luke J — Sun, 03 May 2009 21:59:20 +0000

I can attest to the benefits of church membership – as a member of a church Lindsey Williams formally helped pastor. On many occassions, I have been corrected, encouraged, prayed with, cried with, and loved deeply by elders at my church.

Last year, I went through the most difficult experience of my life, an event I am still struggling to recover from. The church assigns an elder to each member of the church. You are notified by mail who that elder is, their phone number, and their e-mail address and are invited to contact them at any time. Right after it happened, my elder spent time each week for several months counciling me through the predicament.

(Lindsey by this point had left this church to plant the church he is currently involved in; however, he also – good friend that he is – encouraged me later when I went to see him.)

I do not see my church as perfect, and there are times I struggle with decisions that are made, where the church puts its money, how it deals with evangelism and loving the lost, etc.; however, I am committed, as a member, to pray for my elders, deacons, and pastors. I encourage them. I submit to their authority (as long as they generally lead according to biblical principals). I tell them when I think they are wrong. They do the same for me.

None of this happens perfectly, of course. There are times when a person in leadership at my church has said something hurtful to me, and likewise, I’ve said things and done things to the leadership (and other members) that I’m not proud of. But, because I’m a member, I don’t give up because I know they won’t give up – and because I love The Church (big “C” Church).

This is my experience with church membership, and I am blessed by it.

I realize I have not addressed the theological arguments. I just wanted to share from personal experience that church membership can be VERY effective to those who may have been burned by it.

By: Clark

Clark — Sun, 03 May 2009 20:15:10 +0000

To maintain a local church, there are certain “business” sort of things that have to be done. The first deacons were appointed so that the disciples could get on with the spiritual teaching without being tied up with the business of the church. These “business” issues, while a necessary evil, often interfere with the ministry that’s taking place. Nevertheless, grass has to be cut, buildings have to be cleaned, the bills must be paid – and I believe membership rolls must be maintained. Even if it’s not a formal practice, one of the necessary evils in an organization is to know who is and who is not a part of it. It is a flaw in some churches that the business dealings, membership issues included, overshadow things like Bible teaching and sharing the Gospel. We need to downplay the things that matter less, but still acknowledge they matter.

By: Steve Scott

Steve Scott — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:10:44 +0000

Church membership is a fascinating topic for me and I’m glad to see all the comments. It’s clear to me that there is more involved here than simply “is membership biblical?” I see in the comments a number of factors: WHO defines what a “member” is; WHO gets to determine when, how and for what purpose somebody is a member; the relationship between church and kingdom; to what extent do pastors have authority; what the true nature of the church is; where is the line drawn between individuality and individualism.

What troubles me most is that most membership systems I’ve encountered allow for a two-tiered system of commitment to Christ, with a resulting artificial class system of treatment of people. There are the “spiritual” members and the “not-so-spiritual” regular attenders. In my experience and thought, most membership systems actually create the problems they are designed to avoid. Shepherds seem to have an inherent mistrust of sheep and devise systems to guard against their sins to “protect” the church from them, while sheep seem to have an inherent mistrust of shepherds and avoid their systems that hold them in suspicion in the first place. All this divides the body into unneeded camps. The solution? Well, it won’t be easy.