Church Membership: $100 Dollar Baloney
May 10
Church Membership is baloney. Anyone trying to sale it, is selling baloney. There is but one church and Jesus is the head of one church not multiple churches and whoever is hidden in Christ is part of this church, logistically we may express the church, but the church is a whole not parts.
With that entry I want to talk about church membership, especially this nonsense called “biblical” church membership. Once you throw the adjective “biblical” in front of church membership, you no longer are following the bible because no such monster exists in all of the bible. Church membership was not in your bible, is not in your bible, and will never be in your bible. It is a fabricated theological position without even a milligram of biblical support. For someone to make it a standard of acceptance, care and love within a group of Christians (wrongfully defined as “a” church instead of “the” church at a given location) seems to fly in the face of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Yes I did say that.
Church membership is a clever ploy, to control individual believers and to ROB them of the freedom Christ has given them. You see people say “either agree with our doctrine and methodlogy, sign this paper or we will refuse to care for you”. Wow! Who dares to usurp the authority of Christ for man made traditions and then to say I don’t have to obey Christ or His Apostles because I have drafted this document that gives me the right to not to (in my Mater voice).
Its bogus sisters and brothers. It is the equivalent of paying $100 dollars for a bologna sandwich because the meat that produces it is very expensive. There is no such precedent, example, practice or hint towards a membership that either allows or let people off of the hook for caring for you. Or that gives you some type of special privileges or holds back such privileges that other Christians have. This is slavery to man made laws, not Christian principles that motivate us to love Christ and others.
However, today we have now thrown the word “biblical” in the front of the term to give it more credence. We have to keep track right? We have to know what you believe (over and beyond 1 Corinthians 15) to see if we will extend our acceptance to you. Because we are a “true church” that practices “church discipline” and you must sign this here document if you want our acceptance.
Nothing is more hypocritical than those who boast about Sola Scriptura but then insert man made traditions and dangle them in the front of other believers. So the SBC will say “no drinking” but then say they agree with Sola Scriptura, the Reformed dudes say “church membership” but then say they are fighting for the great doctrines of the reformation, especially Sola Scriptura (in my aristocratic voice).
My church membership became permanent when I died with Christ and was raised anew in Him. My church membership became permanent when the Father accepted Christ’s sacrifice on my behalf. My church membership became permanent when Jesus accepted my plea for salvation because I recognized that I had sinned against Him and was unable to earn my own righteousness. My church membership became permenant when the King of Kings sat down at the right hand of glory. Some seminary (or non seminary) trained men with some self-appointed position of self-appointed authority, who cleverly got a group of people to listen to them and build a nice building can’t revoke something that the Divine King has so rightfully given me and sealed.
Come on man, church membership? I guess I will just trust Jesus’ words.
Lionel,
I couldn’t disagree more. What of Hebrew 23:17 and giving an account for those in your care as a leader? Seems to imply church membership to me!
It implies a group of people meeting together. Not membership. Can you give me an example
“Closed communion” based on membership is one of the prevailing views around here. It doesn’t make sense to me. Those holding to this view would take communion with someone they don’t know because they share “church membership,” but they would not take communion with a neighbor or co-worker who they’ve known for years and know to be a godly person.
-Alan
Lionel,
I agree with you on this. Yet I do have spin. I think that people are misguided into believing they don’t need the church because they are fooled by the unbiblical stance of a “biblical church membership”. I do have to insert though, that there is some benefit to having an agreement with the local church. I do agree with you that the local church is only bound by Christ rule and riegn, so anyone who does not care for those of the local church because they are not a part of their particular house building, are sadly mistaken. There is only one church, as there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ.
The question that I have for you and a person like myself is, how do we translate this into a workable and understandalbe model from scripture. I have been blasted for making this very claim. As, TCR stated, there are implication of church membership, but as you stated, and I agree, that the membership was to the church worldwide and expressed through the local members. There was no sector of Christians that were to set the rules and regulations, they were already set by Christ. I am also 100% in agreement that the references to local church activities were indeed referring to local people meeting together with the common goal of elevating Christ and being a true witness, not extablishing organizations and clubs and the likes.
Great post. I hope much discussion can be raised on this one.
Alan,
What is worst is it allows us to segregate the body so that I don’t have to do certain things with you or for you. It also produces church nationalism. We use the words “at my church we don’t do that” or “my pastor says…” It is a horrible practice and one I don’t see in scripture. There seems to be one church in many areas, not multiple churches and thus this doctrinal divide and other thing prevail.
On a side note I can withold love and care because we don’t agree doctrinally. That seems to be a slap in the face of the Savior Alan.
Larry,
One of the hardest things for me to understand was leadership and what that looked like from a practical perspective. Once I got that underwraps (at least philosophically) I was better off. I came to the conclusion that leadership was, is and will always be me yielding my life to someone who displays Christian maturity and personal care for me, regardless of their position.
The problem today is positional (nonbiblical?) leadership that reflects more of a corporate structure not a family of disciples. Thus somone comes in off the street and demands your submission by sheer position. Not like we see established in scripture where Paul plants a church and then comes back and based off of maturity and people already living in these roles recognizes leaders from among the group. So once that was settled I began wrestling with the concept of church membership and found it wanting.
The issue here is that a believer has the freedom to come and go as he pleases and to meet with any group of believer he chooses as long as his moving isn’t sinful. Our distinct churches which share little to no relationship actually isolates belivers and Christians can say to one another I don’t have to care for you because you are not part of my church. Or I don’t have to submit to what you are saying because you are not part of my church or I don’t have to have a relationship with you because you are not part of my church. We do all this stuff to keep busy and we drive past and ignore Christians who live right next door to us in the name of church membership. So I disagree with that model. It doesn’t help people obey Christ, I think it does the exact opposite and actually divides the body more than builds it.
You already know how I feel about so-called “Church Membership”.
LOL @ BLD
Lionel
“I couldn’t disagree more.” Sorry for plagiarizing T.C. R
You write…
“Church Membership is baloney.”
No it’s not.
Baloney – good. Yummy for the tummy!
Church membership – bad.
Never really know what your eating till it’s too late.
Become “Pew-Potatoes. Not much “exercising” spiritual gifts.
Most “spectators.” Few “participators.”
And just why are you insulting baloney?
I like baloney. A lot.
And I like “The Church.” “The Body of Christ.” Every member. A lot.
And I like Jesus. The head of “The Body.” The head of every member. A lot.
Lionel,
It implies more than just a group of people meeting. It also implies that they have leaders 1. to whom they must submit; 2. who keep watch over their souls; 3. because these leaders must give an account for their souls.
How could not necessitate some kind of membership? If not, then it really doesn’t make sense the way things are worded in Scripture.
T.C.R,
If there is relationship I disagree. If you are talking in the organizational structure that we label a church then I agree.
But if we have relationships where we love one another and we are in fellowship then the RELATIONSHIP not the MEMBERSHIP will drive us and motivate us and call us to submit (yield) to the wisdom and Godly lives of the more mature.
MEMBERSHIP means absolutely nothing. I could just go to the next church. See that. That is how a guy can plant a church in an area and people leave their church to join the more “biblical” or more “relevant” church. They just give up their “membership” and go and become “members” of another church. But if we were a family, it would be the equivalent of a sibling leaving one family because the other family has a new Playstation 3. Membership is balogna T.C. Relationship is everything. Membership does not mean nor convey relationship it conveys organization not organism.
Amos,
LOL, that is all I can say, it has to be fried though
T.C.R,
Let me ask you a question. You are a church planter I believe or you at least know church planters. How many church planters do you know when somoene came from another church went and talk to the former church the person was at to see his/her life and ask why, or even turned down such a candidate because they were already part of a local church?
TCR,
Not to interrupt your dialogue with Lionel, however I want to address something you stated in comment #10.
I would like to know where the bible teaches that a leader gives an account for another believers soul. I believe you are making reference to Hebrews 13:17. Here is the verse from the NASB:
“Obey your leaders and submit (“to them”, in italics), for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”
Now, putting aside the issue of whether or not this is universally applicable to all Christians at all times, where does it say that they give an account for souls? Read properly, it seems that these “leaders” will give an account for themselves as to how they perform the task of “watching”. Now unless you believe that church leaders in any way act as mediators between God and church members who are in a non-leadership position (which I believe I Timothy 2:5 refutes), there is reason to believe that one Christian, no matter their position in the assembly, will stand before God giving an account for another Christian. Again I refer to I Timothy 2:5. Also, it seems that the verse encourages Christians to make the leaders’ job of watching joyful and not burdensome, for the sake of the Christian themselves. If it had reference to the giving of an account, then that would imply that your church leaders can either get you off before God or sink you. Well, what would happen then if you had more than one leader and they disagreed?And who would give an account for the leaders’ souls? So, even logically, it can’t be that this verse teaches that certain Christians will give an account for the souls of other Christians.
BLD-
I’m a neophyte in the Greek but from what I understand from others who know it much better than I, Hebrews 13:17 would be much better rendered: Be persuaded by your leaders and give consideration to them, they are watching over you, and they must answer to God. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. The word rendered obey literally means to be persuaded. It does not mean to hear and unquestioningly comply. The word submit literally means give consideration to. All of this is preceded by something said 10 verses earlier: Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. (Hebrews 13:7) Maybe Alan could verify if this is more accurate.
All of this flows perfectly from what Jesus said: For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”- Mark 10:45.
Remember or call to mind those servants who are leading you. Think about how they live and the way they “wear” their faith. You will know they are trustworthy when you observe the selfless lives they live. They have earned and continue earning that trust daily as they serve. Moreover, because of that, we are “persuaded” as persons who also are serving as we yield to their wisdom and are not throwing unnecessary roadblocks in their path.
You are absolutely right, leaders will not give an account for the souls of men, they will give an account for their oversight. The problem is that I have on met a few “elders” in my life who are attaining to greatness in God’s Kingdom by being servants to all, interestingly, none of them have been paid staff or what in the traditional church passes for as a pastor/shepherd, they were and are definitely shepherds but not in the way the current organization would define a pastor, a man is a pastor if he shepherds and sacrificially serves people, if he does not sacrificially serve and shepherd people, he is not a pastor, he is something else, even if he has a title
, no he is something else, not necessarily something bad or evil, but not a shepherd.
Hutch and BLD,
Thanks so much for those comments. The verse is saying these man will give an account for their oversight, don’t make it hard for them (which may lead to strife or animosity and them not wanting to do it). NO ONE will give an account for someone elses soul. Secondly this still has nothing to do with membership, this is saying those whom God has given you the responsiblity to shepherd shepherd them well. This giving is not by some church membership but by relationship and even then we have a unique case because there was only one church in the view of the writer of scripture. Today we have so many churches that this makes no sense anyway. With half of the body not believing the other half of the body are even believers half the time because of doctrinal disagreements.
Lionel-
Yes, I agree with all that you have said about church membership. I was just commenting on Heb. 13:17. I became an eternal life member of Christ’s church when I was born again, I do not make vows or sign covenants with others/organizations and do not expect any from others, I just try to discharge my debt of love to my brethren and lovingly give consideration to sacrificial servants=leaders.
Lionel – T.C. R
Just wondering…
Any place in the Bible where; Pastor = Leader = Authority?
Any place in the Bible where a 501 (c) 3, non-profit,
tax $ deductible, Reigious $ Corporation = The Church of God.
Should we call a $ Corporation, “The Church?” AARRRGGGHH!
Is it possible the reason “Burnout” is such a problem for today’s “Pastor/Leader”
is in bondage, trapped, in a “Place,” $ Corporation, with a “Title” and “Position,”
NOT found in the Bible? Hmmm? Three strikes and…
Did anyone have the “Title” “pastor” in the Bible?
Was anyone ordained a “pastor” in the Bible?
Were any congregations “led” by a “pastor” in the Bible?
Any Pastors – in pulpits – preaching – to people – in pews – in the Bible?
And every “pastor” I’ve met also had the “Title” “Reverend.”
Does anyone have the “Title” Reverend in the Bible?
In my experience…
Titles become Idols.
Pastors become Masters.
Heavy weights on shoulders NOT easy to lay down.
Jesus taught “His Disciples” NOT to be called “Master/Leader”
For you have “ONE” “Master/Leader” The Christ. Mat 23:8-10 KJV
Ezekiel 14:1-7, speaks about “Idols of the Heart,”
and now God will speak to us according to the “Idols of our Heart.”
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear my voice;”
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice.
If Not Now, When?
For ye were as sheep going astray;
but are now returned unto
the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
1Pet 2:25
Be blessed in your search for Truth… Jesus.
P.S. Lionel, is there anyway to get additional comments automatically?
Amos,
I don’t know to the answer of your last comment. Maybe Alan Knox can help me. You can subscribe to comments on the side feed but I don’t know about individual posts.
Lionel,
Yes, I’m all for everything being rooted in healthy relationships. That should be our goal.
True, people do church hop (It’s a phenomenon).
But what of church discipline? I read your post on the matter, but I knew it was going to come up here soon or later. This in itself necessitates some kind of church membership.
T.C.R,
Do elaborate on your last statement. We break “fellowship” not “membership”. So for example how do you employ “church discipline” on a wayward believer not in your local church? Or is church discipline only for people you go to “church” with?
Lawrence,
I read a little Greek and I went back to it just to make certain. According to the Greek text, these leaders are not watching over their souls but the souls of those under their care.
There is absolutely no contradiction with 1 Tim. 2:5, for this role is akin to that of a protective guardian.
Lionel,
For example, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, where church discipline is in mind, these wayward believers were no doubt a part of that church. They must have been known and so on, to even be in this position.
If a mere relationship, then let the wayward walk, but why discipline if there is nothing more? Some kind of church member is here in view.
Amos,
We are in agreement to a degree.
@ T.C.R,
“Mere relationship”? Do you believe that a church membership relationship supercedes other Christian relationships? Does a dichotomy exist?
The saved are added to a visible church via baptism but must foster healthy Christian relationships, must be and enjoy community (I have in mind Acts 2:41, 47; Heb. 10:24-25 and the like).
Regarding church member, I view it as an entry point to what really matters – community, those one another texts being realized and enjoyed.
Lionel – T.C. R
Just wondering…
Any place in the Bible where; Pastor = Leader = Authority?
Did anyone have the “Title” “pastor” in the Bible?
Was anyone ordained a “pastor” in the Bible?
Were any congregations “led” by a “pastor” in the Bible?
Any Pastors – in pulpits – preaching – to people – in pews – in the Bible?
And every “pastor” I’ve met also had the “Title” “Reverend.”
Does anyone have the “Title” Reverend in the Bible?
T.C.R,
In Acts 2, most of those people didn’t even stay in Jerusalem. They were part of those who came for the day of atonement you believe they became part of the “visible” church? If so what visible church did the Ethiopian become part of?
Next we are to meet together, but you believe that necessitates some type of membership? Not relationship? Why is that?
Finally, arent’ I to do the one anothers with every Christian I come in contact with? If I just do this with people in my “church” wouldn’t that be the exact opposite of what was intended?
Amos,
No
Regarding Acts 2, I believe these new believers became part of the Jerusalem visible body but some may have gone on from there (this is not usual).
No dichotomy at all! Both membership and relationship do coexist in my paradigm (which I think is biblical.
).
There must be an entry point. A person doesn’t just become tight in a relationship in a sec. For example, moving to a new hood. You have to move there, be there, and so on. You know the rest of the story.
Of course the “one anothers” extent beyond your local fellowshiop, but they are best enjoyed there, as in any family.
Lionel
Correct – you win the prize.
When we meet – Fried baloney it is. With Hellmans mayo. Yes?
T.C.R,
There is a couple who we are in relationship with and we are not part of the same church (well local visible thingy you are talking about). The entry point was our recognition that we were both in Christ.
Lionel,
“Not part of the same church,” then it doesn’t fit what we have been discussing for over 30 comments.
I am saying we are closer with one another and more open and more relational than those in the churches we were apart of. Membership can not genereate community and most time doesn’t.
trying to follow along, but my bible doesn’t have “Hebrew 23:17″. which verse are you talking about, tcr?
He meant Hebrews 13:17.