“I’ve had issues with membership requirement for several years now. I believe fully that people need to commit to those that they fellowship with but I don’t think signing a piece of paper would change people’s hearts in this regard.”

Interestingly enough, I have heard this exact same line of reasoning coming from people who argue that marriage is unnecessary.

For my wife and I, who just left a church we had been members of for 15 years, being members forced us to spend 2 plus years trying to work things out. Leaving was a lot like a divorce and I think leaving would have much easier had we just been “shacking up” with the church.

First, I don’t attend church for the membership, I attend for the fellowship. Frankly, I don’t care if a church gives me assurances or not. My purpose in being Christian isn’t affected by assurance by others. To me, fellowship is far more important, being connected with others that share my beliefs, being a part of their lives and having them be a part of my life. I don’t need others to have faith, or belief, or to be Christian. But fellowship, not membership, does give me something I can’t get otherwise and allows me to give it as well.

Second, I don’t think children should be considered members of a church exclusively. I think that they should be counted as a member of a family, maybe. Counting children does nothing for a church community other than boast numbers.

Third, I will not allow just anybody to teach my children in school and I will not allow just anybody to teach my children in church.

Thanks for your time.

“Many had a formalized, country-club conception of membership that looked bright and shiny on the outside, but had little to do with a rigorous, get-involved-in-people’s lives, call-them-to-repentance, love-them-at-cost-to-yourself gospel-centered Christianity. Membership is about submitting to Christ’s Lordship and Love as mediated through a marked-off, Bible-ruled, keep-one-another-accountable body of people.”

Which unfortunately the first part has been my experience with organized churches, but I am happy to report that my current church resembles that of the second part.

Thank you for a great interview.

Thank you for the very speedy response!

This is really what I was getting at. What *is* the “church” in these contexts? And our answers are inevitably colored by our biases. For what it’s worth, I don’t necessarily have an answer of my own here. But if nothing else, today’s ecclesiastical climate has caused me to at least attempt to question assumptions all over the place. Especially mine, I might add!

Something tells me this isn’t quite the way things should be.”

So we should let anyone who says they are a Christian teach our Children, preach to the congregation, have authority over others? It doesn’t matter if they have any clue what they are talking about or if they are leading people astray, we should just let them go?

If that’s true, why does the Bible make reference to the Twelve checking out Paul’s preaching? Why does it say to not promote new Christians?

The point isn’t that you can’t love others and serve them, but you can’t be in a position of authority until those who will have to account for the souls under their care can be sure you’re a sheep and not a wolf. I don’t see why that would bother anybody.

DD

19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

The context: doors were locked and it appears only the Disciples were present. These are the VERY FIRST WORDS spoken to them by the resurrected Christ. It’s the only time in all of Scripture other than Genesis that we see God “breath” on someone. Obviously something very, very important is happening here.

The plain meaning of verse 23 is that Christ gave the Apostles the power to forgive the sins of any – and more important, the power to not forgive their sins, too. How you get from that to something about assurance and church membership is unclear. Perhaps Dr. Leeman can comment.

Also, Matthew 16:18-19 makes a lot more sense if you consider it in light of Isaiah 22:20-25. Take a look.

I don’t need to tell you that these passages have been debated by churchmen at least since Matthew and John wrote them down, and I’m certainly not claiming to offer the final word here! Briefly, here’s my take (and my assumptions).

In Mt. 16, Jesus describes this power that he gives to Peter and/or the church with the metaphor of a key, which is why pastors and theologians throughout church history have referred to the “power of the keys.” The metaphor is a simple one. What do keys do? Keys lock doors and unlock doors. Keys allow some people to come inside while keeping other people outside. Which is exactly what Jesus intended for this assembly of people gathered in his name to do.

Where does Jesus say this key should be used? Where will this binding and loosing take place? Again, his answer is simple and helpful: on earth. Jesus calls some assembly of people gathered in his name to bind and loose people on earth. What’s a little less clear about these passages is what exactly this binding and loosing on earth signifies in heaven. Roman Catholics say one thing. Protestants another. But just to be clear, this binding and loosing takes place among real flesh and blood people on earth—not among abstract or idealized realities.

Another thing that is a little unclear–at least from this passage alone–is what the exact referent is of this assembly of people called the church. Romans Catholics may point to a hierarchy of bishops and call that the church. Presbyterians may point to the session. As a congregationalist, I believe the most natural reading (and what, admittedly, I’m assuming based on other texts, not this one alone) is that the referent of church is an actual local assembly.

Now, I am not, in the space of a blog post, attempting to make an argument for congregationalism! That’s another conversation. Rather, I’m simply asking that, if you allow me to approach Matt 16 and 18 from a congregationalist perspective, based on my best attempt to systematize all the pertintent texts, here is my interpretation of them.

With that proviso, then, let me say I believe the power of the keys are necessarily exercised locally, because human beings exist locally. Real gatherings comprised of real people are granted by Jesus both the power and the obligation to decide whether or not Euodia or Cyrus or Catherine or Friedrich or McKenzie or Farhod or Jeng is really “one of them”—a Christian, a Christ follower, a disciple. If this real, not-abstract gathering determines that the individual’s profession of faith is valid, they will bind the individual to themselves. If not, they won’t. How do they exercise their authority to bind? They bind with the two external, visible, institutional mechanisms given to them by Jesus: initiation through baptism and ongoing participation through the new covenant meal. How do they unbind or loose? They deny the individual the opportunity to participate in this ongoing meal.

Is that helpful?

While I can see how the verses he referenced can be APPLIED to the local church, to say that those verses are “explicit” in relation to the local church is taking them out of context. These are the same logical/hermeneutical gymanstics that lead other denominations to conclude that some of those verses are establishing Peter as the first Pope. Stuff like that raises red flags to me.

Again, while that can be a valid application, we need to be intellectually honest with context.

“Only those [formal members] shall be entitled to serve in the ministries of the church who are [formal] members of this congregation; non-members may serve on an ad-hoc basis with the approval of the elders.” [Bracketed clarifications mine]

Translation: “To become a Christian, simply believe in the gospel. To behave like a Christian requires the approval of the elders.”

Something tells me this isn’t quite the way things should be.

One of my biggest issues with local church membership agreements is that I think it ends up dividing the body of Christ rather then uniting it. Rather then encouraging fellowship with anyone that is a genuine, orthodox believer, local churches limit fellowship to only those that conform to a certain doctrine and a certain set of rules. I have a good friend that was denied membership simply because he didn’t believe that the 10% was a NT requirement. Is this a biblical reason to disfellowship someone?

I think that some of our perceived need for membership stems from the fact that our churches tend to be quite large and unconnected. If we fellowshiped in homes or even just in really small congregations and were regularly involved in one another’s lives then we would know who the true devoted followers were. Also, if we cared enough to hold one another accountable to biblical truth and to biblical living we would quickly identify those that were true brothers and sisters. We would also find it much more meaningful to disfellowship people that were in rebellion. It would chasten people.

As far as legal boundaries to disfellowshiping people is concerned, I say screw the legal boundaries and obey God. I don’t think that we could possibly right down all the reasons that we might need to disfellowship people crossing the line into pragmatic legalism. Placing rules on people, like “you must tithe” so that you can legally disfellowship greedy people (see 1 cor 5) is doing just that. If a church lost it’s right to be a legal society or even it’s building would that really be a big deal? Obeying God is.