Many megachurches eschewed membership and what they got was a lack of commitment to their mission; big financial debts, but no one committed to paying them; people who dabbled in Christianity;hangers-on who took and took and took but gave nothing back–or in the immortal words of Ross Perot, “a giant sucking sound.”

I know. I was part of a church like that. It was in the top twenty of the Church Report list of top 50 most influential churches, yet it nearly collapsed for lack of a membership program.

I really appreciate your thoughts and views on this subject, and agree with them, by the way.

I know that there are difficult situations such as the one described by EC. I do not want to minimize the problem at all, but I worry about two things in this age of “Audience” church.

One is atomization and the other is accountability, or the lack thereof.

Today there is such an emphasis placed on personalization, and therefore isolation. Where’s the community? Where’s the fellowship?

This brings me to accountability. The stats of men who are addicted to internet porn are staggering. Why is this?

I believe a big reason is the privatization of our faith in America, and I am talking about the church. People don’t feel safe in talking to their elders because they have not built relationships with them, nor do they plan to stay if the “going gets rough”.

One can slip into the large sanctuary virtually unnoticed, watch a sermon on a jumbo screen grab a coffee and slip back out again.

As Michael said, we need covenant relationships where members agree to be accountable to one another and the leadership.

There are many extremely Calvinistic Baptist churches whose views on baptism would exclude Calvin himself from being their pastor, a teacher… or even a member! They wouldn’t even break bread with their spiritual father.

Eclectic Christian wrote: “So what do we do? I would love to hear how you and your readers would handle this.”

Not having a real solution for EC, I hate to have to say this, but… “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” I live in a metro area of 7 million people, so I tried several churches until I found one that I could be part of. The problem I have with statements of faith being used as litmus tests for membership is that they are far too limiting on peoples’ faiths. I have no problem with chruch leaders saying, “this is what WE believe, in minute detail” but they also should say, “we still welcome those who disagree in non-essential things.” For somebody to say, “you don’t agree with us EXACTLY, so screw you, go somewhere else” (as if there were somewhere else to go, as Eclectic Christian’s testimony bears), I would say is a form of persecution. Sad but true. And many of today’s top leaders wonder why there are so many “pew sitters”, “regular attenders” and “non-members” around. They are the ones that have created many of them with their exclusionary membership requirements.

Iron sharpens iron. For a church to say that they won’t allow members in their midst who have different views is to essentially say, “we refuse to be sharpened by other iron.” Why can’t Baptists learn from Presbyterians (or vice versa, insert any two other traditions here).

For me, theology has been such a personal journey and I have developed my views in such great detail that if I ever had to look for another church to join, I know for a fact I wouldn’t be able to agree with their statement of faith. Why should I be required to? I already have come to disagree with a number of points of my current church’s statement of faith, just through personal study. None of this means that I would be unable to love and minister to others. Many people live in the “post evangelical wilderness” if I may borrow a metaphor. Let’s welcome them into our churches.

It seems as if there is an aspect of membership that has not really been covered in this series. Peaches makes the comment that “If a church created false standards for membership… I would find a different local body with whom I could join without these reservations.”

For me and my wife, in our town in Canada, that is just not possible. Our town has two evangelical churches, both small, neither of which can we sign the statement of faith because of doctrinal differences. We attend a church in the next town over, which is about as close as we can get as far as a theological match. It is difficult for us to be members there for two reasons:

The membership covenant calls for whole hearted agreement to the statment of faith. The statment of faith includes inerrancy, with which I find it difficult to have whole hearted agreement.

Secondly, membership required baptism as a believer by immersion. Both my wife and I were baptized as believers, but my wife was in a tradition that poured. Rebaptism seems as if it would make my wife’s first baptism meaningless, when it was in fact a very significant event for her as a believer. I want to emphasize that she was not baptized as an infant, but as a believer.

The church does not let you exercise leadership spiritual gifts (to those of junior high age or older) unless you are a member.

So what do we do? I would love to hear how you and your readers would handle this.

Right now we are considering that I would affirm the statement of faith (while metaphorically holding my nose), so that I could exercise my gifts within the church, while my wife remains a non-member. (Her giftedness lies in areas that would still allow service despite not being a member.)

It almost feels like excommunication, not being able to be a member of a church, and I really wish that more churches would consider Steve Scott’s viewpoint that “any professing, baptized Christian who assembles with a church is already a member and should be treated like one.”

I would add the caveat, that statements of faith are there for a reason, and I would also expect that a member would not teach contrary to the statement of faith.

We are looking for words of wisdom here. Any help would be appreciated.

If a church created false standards for membership, why would you attend and then complain? It seems to me that this is a serious enough doctrinal divide that I would find a different local body with whom I could join without these reservations.

On the other hand, it’s convenient for us to find a “principle” to stand on that allows us to do as we please.

What I don’t see in Scripture is any covenanting between people in a church above and beyond what is already required of us in the New Covenant of Christ’s blood. Profession and baptism demand all the requirements in and of themselves. Since this covenanting isn’t required by Scripture, anybody who decides to assemble on a regular basis (obeying God and submitting to the elders) without covenanting is fully within obedience to their Lord Jesus Christ. For a church to say, in essence, “we will treat you as less than a member because you obey the Lord of your conscience in not signing up” is, I think, quite mistaken. Yet it happens. I know many people who have refused to “covenant” into a formal membership of a church, yet live lives of obedience contrary to the Jesus freak mentaility. Many of these people have been treated as lesser Christians because of it, simply for obeying God. People feel the different level of treatment accorded them and it doesn’t always feel good. I should know, I’ve experienced it several times.

I believe that any professing, baptized Christian who assembles with a church is already a member and should be treated like one. What’s wrong with that? I’ve read articles and books that commented on membership within the early church. It’s unanimously agreed upon that they kept a membership list, but the method used to create the list isn’t quite clear. I’d bet that they simply made a list of who was there.

Thanks for your series. Looking forward to that last interview.

I believe that in some ways church membership can be compared to marriage. Some people choose to live together without the commitment and covenant of marriage. This makes their exit from the relationship easier.

Some people may remain in the “audience” of the church and not commit to the membership covenant so they can come and go from different churches more easily.

Just as the public covenant of marriage takes a relationship to another level, so the public covenant of church membership takes the Christian to another level. Not everyone is willing to make that commitment or enter that covenant.