Is Membership in 1 Local Church Biblical?

28 thoughts on “Is Membership in 1 Local Church Biblical?”

1. Pingback: Pastoral Musings

2. Lest I be misunderstood or misrepresented, I think the church is very important. I think believers should actively contribute and do church, not just be in a church.

   I’m specifically asking if a roll-call style membership is Biblical, and if such a membership emphasis belittles our responsibilities to other believers in our geographical area.

3. Would you consider the list in Romans 16 to be a roll-call? Are all the names mentioned presumed to be the members of the church that meets in the house of Prisca and Aquila? (v.5)

4. Tim,

   Thanks for stopping by. I don’t think the list in Rom. 16 bears on this much. Paul had friends there in Rome for sure. Nothing makes us expect the list is a definitive roll call of membership in a church. Further there are no other such lengthy lists of people in the NT, yet there are other house churches mentioned. Do those churches not have a roll call, or way fewer members?

   I think finding a roll call there would be a bit eisegetical, too. Taking our roll-call mentality and going back and finding a place to read it in.

   In Geneva, there was but one church in Calvin’s time. The Reformers wouldn’t have had our problem. Now we have several churches and we teach membership must be to only 1. Why?

5. Hi Bob,

   You bring up a very interesting question. The local church where I worship every Sunday does not keep a roll. When folks are baptized it is because they want to follow up their conversion with obedience and public acknowledgment of their commitment to Christ. I think it is very important to be plugged into at least one local church and serve in ministry there. But that does not mean you should not attend, encourage or exhort other churches. Our pastors and other local pastors who are doctrinally like minded are always sharing each others pulpits. I came out of an SBC church a few years ago and the non-membership and attendance elsewhere was just not done. We are one body in Christ right?

6. I have a hard time with church membership. it’s just one of my things. I got very involved in a church I loved – and when I say involved, you have no idea, what some churches do to make singles feel like they have a life – but still after 2 or so years, I still felt like I was “dating” the church. Not ready to commit.

   I kept waiting for them to jump on me about it. They were big on membership – by the way they are a reformed pres church – but I never heard much about it. Which is nice because I decided it’s not you it’s me, and I got out of dodge.

   Is it biblical? I guess I’m saying, I don’t know…and that should be all right, shouldn’t it? I mean, some dude telling it’s Biblical isn’t going to convince me. I came by my faith through a personal process, and I come by details about it the same way.

7. Thanks Barry. You hit on the main point here. I’m not against membership, I just think at times it is more of a democratic ideal than a Biblical necessity. I am for involvement and interaction–unity–with other churches. I pray situations like yours become more and more common.

8. Januarys,

   I understand committment is hard. I’m not trying to say don’t commit. I’m just asking if commitment must be formalized through membership. We should encourage all attenders to get involved and to seek accountability and edifying inter-relationships but must we count noses in order to keep tabs on people?

   Someone telling me something is Biblical is not the point. If they can show me Bible, the Bible should be something I’m willing to side with. I’m all for personal discovery of truth, but we don’t have personal truth–truth is transcendent. The Bible is true and we must conform to it.

   Thanks for sharing.

9. Bob,

   “Where do we get the idea of a specific roll-call style membership?”

   I guess you would have to elaborate on what you mean by “roll-call”. Were there church rolls in the New Testament church, is the question that is usually asked. I believe the widow’s list (1 Tim. 5:9) is a list of believing widows in the church. That seems to assume an overall church membership list. How do we choose church leadership or enact church discipline without formal membership?

   In Acts there was only one church in every city, with numerous house congregations. The reason there weren’t more “churches” has to do with the unity of the doctrine. Denominational numbers grow as doctrinal differences abound.

   I agree with your concern of not having any fellowship or unity among like-minded churches in the same town, but to call into question the importance of formal church membership is an extreme overreach. As you can see by januarys comment that your question will bring out many people who cherish individualism and personal choice over body life commitment.

10. barrydean,

    How does your church choose leadership? How does your church make decisions? What kind of authority does your pastor have? Do you ever practice church discipline?

11. Don,

    How do we choose church leadership or enact church discipline without formal membership?

    How does your church choose leadership? How does your church make decisions? What kind of authority does your pastor have? Do you ever practice church discipline?

    And why do we need a list of members for these functions? If we follow Scripture and have elders in our assembly that actually lead our church, they can make many of the decisions. The attenders of the church can be asked to gather for discipline times or decisions requiring consensus among the church, and all who gather can help vote.

    Nothing about this requires us to have to treat certain attenders as less a part of the body than others. Hopefully the people in the church are practicing discipline amongst themselves, with the elders actually shepherding the flock. In such a context people would know each other without having to have a formal list, per se.

    The church is not a club or a governmental body. It is a living organism composed of members of Christ’s body. Recognizing this, why would not a loose association of fellow believers joined by commitment to Christ, and prizing of true doctrine work just as well as a formal list of members with a host of those outside the roll call?

    With Januarys’ comment another point could be made. By setting up church membership as something optional–an extra hoop to jump through–we allow for people to escape covenant commitment. By affirming that all believers joining together are members, and that they are all supposed to commit and participate, we cultivate a community of commitment enfolding in the strays who are uncomfortable with formal membership. Perhaps in both settings those who don’t want commitment will leave, but in this setting, there is less room for people who determine to just listen and attend and not yoke up with the local body.

    I agree these thoughts are experimental, in part. I’ve heard them from others, too. Part of what motivates me is this: why are we adding requirements (formally asking for membership, agreeing to a specific church covenant, etc.) to someone’s being viewed as a member of the church? Why are we so firm in our formal membership ways when they aren’t found in the Bible explicitly? Is it okay to just add rules and stuff in to what God sets down in Scripture?

    Thanks for taking on this topic, Don. I understand I’m not going to convince a lot of people. I’m just trying to start a conversation and see if everyone thinks I’m off my rocker or not.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob

12. How are the elders chosen who are overseeing this nebulous flock? Who chooses them? Are they self-appointed or are they appointed by a presbyter (sp?)?

    Who am I as a pastor/elder responsible for? Any professing believer in my town? Any professing believer who attends? What if they stop attending, what do I do? Who do I have authority over and how is that authority determined?

    What do you do when it comes time for the church to make decisions (and in Acts there were times when the entire church, not just the elders made decisions)? Who gets to weigh in and if you are removed from the church by discipline how can you be removed from something you were never a part of?

    I completely agree that church membership isn’t optional and I also don’t want to add anything to Scripture. I guess I am trying to figure out HOW the early church did what it did when it isn’t spelled out explicitly.

13. Don,

    Church elders and deacons are chosen by the current church elders. The elders make the decisions. Our senior pastor is an elder and is accountable to the other elders. We have assistant pastors who are under the authority of the elder board. Yes we do practice church discipline. We encourage new attenders to attend a class during the bible study hour. In this new attenders class they are introduced to the church’s doctrinal statement and they are told that if they are regular attenders and are professing Christians we consider them members.

    Does this answer your questions?

14. Don,

    Why wouldn’t the pastor be responsible for any professing member who attends?

    As for decisions, simply anounce that we will meet to vote on a decision, and everyone who comes can vote. Perhaps you might want to specify that we want attenders to vote not just people who come only to vote in some kind of conspiracy or something. But even then, you don’t have to have an official list or anything.

    If you look to Scripture on elder selection, you don’t see the members doing that. Paul did it, he told Titus to do it, not the church. In our church, members can recommend an elder but the elder board must approve him. Then the church can vote on him becoming an elder. But in practice the church never disagrees with the sitting elders. The church never comes up with its independent candidate. I see nothing wrong with using the congregation as merely a means to pull down elders the elder board chooses.

    I don’t see any reason you have to have an official list of members to do any of the things you cite above.

    Thanks Barry Dean for sharing what your church does. Do you find that this encourages more people to participate or less? Are there any practical benefits involved in the way your church handles membership?

    Thanks for the participation guys.

15. OK I can sense this horse is getting beat to death – and it looks like I sorta missed the point. But just to help your thought process with your own church…

    I was never denied access to the help of the elders. I was served by the body and served with them. (OOOh cripes I’m speaking Christianese!)
    Access to church resources without having to be a member was the VERY THING I needed to help me start sorting through my stuff. (My issue being with all-male leadership, and some weird fears I have about not being heard. Voluntarily submitting to an authority I didn’t feel would ever be able to fully empathize with the trials of being born female – can be pretty scary!)

    Point being, in my ideal world, membership would be offered to those members who felt it important, and not pushed on those who didn’t. If you want Biblical, I think even you and I would agree whole heartedly that it always comes down to faith – some details can go either way. And I know this sounds nuts because it’s generally not done – but the church I went to respected and built my faith by accepting me without membership, and loved me in my weakness. That’s the kind of church I’d trust to even administer any kind of membership.

    I kind of think of it like a bookstore. Some people buy, some people just visit and read – but no one puts a limit on either of those things.

    AUGH! I got off topic again. What was my point! Oh, yes, that I should not be on your blog, I should be doing my work. 🙂 Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.

16. Sorry, Januarys if we were using you as an example. 1 Thess. 5:14 would say there is a place for the weak within the church–as members.

    I think your comments prove that we have bloated membership into this big scary thing, when the Bible just says everyone’s a member.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. We might be beating the horse to death, but it is nice to see how others think. That’s what blogging is for.

    Be welcome at my blog anytime. We’re not always this serious!

    Blessings from the cross,

    Bob

17. Thanks a bunch, Bob.

    Upon further thought, I realized I am a member of my family. But I’m only on the list of members because my parents chose to include me and take note of my presence.

    Kind of puts a spin on whose responsibility membership is. Ooohhhh. 🙂

18. Another good point! Membership is not a self-duty, its a family affair.

    I’ve enjoyed the interaction. Blessings from Jesus be on you, januarys.

    God bless,

    Bob

19. barrydean & Bob,

    Thanks for the interaction and taking the time to answer my questions.

20. Pingback: More on Church Membership « Fundamentally Reformed
21. Pingback: Hobby-horse time! Is the local church important? With links… « Eternally Significant

22. OK, I’m quite late to the party here. I found this post via Google. This very point came up when me and two other guys from my small group met for some small group training and accountability. Our church requires leaders of small groups to be what you would call “roll call” members. That is to say, you have gone through a members class and have officially joined our fellowship/congregation.

    When this was brought up, one of the guys stopped in his tracks and said “well, that’s a problem – I’m not a member…” From what I could tell, his two main problems were “I don’t see it as Biblical” (later discussion indicated he meant “Biblically justified”) and that previous experiences had tied membership to pledged giving. The second wasn’t an issue with our church, but the first point had me scratching my head.

    I see LOTS of scripture that indicate we are supposed to be committed to the local body, but the support for the formal membership is more inferential and speculative. Then again, some doctrines are like that (e.g., other than some King James passages – try proving the trinity in just a few pithy verses!).

    For an article that argues more-or-less against formal membership, try:
    http://www.batteredsheep.com/biblical_church_membership.html
    While my impression is the author has re-purposed a few verses to prove their point, much of it finds purchase in my mind.

    OTOH, Mark Dever’s site has some arguments for, but the Biblical arguments are a bit on the light side:
    http://marks.9marks.org/mark6
    That doesn’t invalidate the position, but I was hoping to find a weightier response Biblically.

23. I’m way late to the party, too, but we’ve come across a similar situation. My husband and I are very involved in a church that has just put out a notice about having to be a ‘member’ in order to participate in ministry. This is a church plant that has only been meeting for a little over a year, hence the late notice. My husband has been very active playing in the praise band and ministering/mentoring the younger players in their walk with the Lord as well as their musical giftings. We have been very faithful to this church not only with our time and committments, but also our tithe. We have been struggling with the ‘membership’ part of the church because we like to think of ourselves as being members of the body of Christ and not one church or denomination in particular. We have always questioned whether or not it’s actually biblical to have formal church membership, denominations, etc because it creates division in the body of Christ. We don’t feel like it has been necessary for us to sign any papers or make any vows in order for us to be committed. We are committed to serving the Lord. We are very good friends with the pastor and his wife and like to think that he would consider us a part of his church family even though we haven’t officially ‘joined’ his church. Unfortunately, in this situation, we can see where the member vs. non-member requirement to serve in ministry (this is not the first time we’ve seen this) is creating tension in the church and in the hearts of fellow believers. Is this what God would want? We’re still praying about answers on this. I appreciate the comments of all who have participated in this blog and hope God’s peace comes over all of you regarding your position in the church whether it’s as a member, regular attender, pastor, etc.

24. Mrs R,

    While philosophically, I think the member concept is more an outgrowth of American culture than demanded from the text, still we are called to identify with one local expression of the body of Christ. In submitting to a local church, we also submit to the leaders. We are to obey them because they watch for our souls (Heb. 13:7, 17). So while your reservations over the officiality of membership are important, I don’t think they should keep you from joining the church you are so connected with.

    By all means express your concerns over “membership” with the pastor. But membership in my view is a given. We are members, and we should be members specifically of a local body. Verifying that through an official nose-counting process may or may not be important.

    We are unified with other brethren who are more allied with other church bodies, and we should act like that and live like that more in our American church arena, I think. But today there is a trend toward not identifying with any single group of believers, and this tends toward a loss of leadership and a do-your-own-thing lone ranger kind of Christianity. This is neither helpful for our own souls, nor wise.

    Just a few thoughts for you. Thanks for dropping by.

    In Christ,

    Bob Hayton

25. I found this post via Google also, and am quite late as well. Very interesting and diverse posts.
    Let me make a few comments.

    During the New Testament and the times of the Apostles, there was no way you can think in terms of “Christians” and let’s say for example, “the church at Ephesus,” as not one and the same thing. The believers themselves were the church itself and there was only one church.

    And you did not join it, but rather, you were “joined to it” by the Holy Spirit. This is not so today. Christ’s Church existed long before power-hungry men began to institutionalize it!

    Believers did not, (at least in the sense we today use the phrase “become members of the church”), become members of anything! They did not have to “become a member” of what they were automatically a part of by conversion to Christ.

    The events of church history: i.e. – the incorporation of confessions, and creeds, and catechisms, and other traditions of men, have changed that situation.

    Are God’s people “church members?” What is a “member of the church?” How does the Holy Spirit use the word, “member,” in the New Testament?

    Jesus said, “And if your right hand offend you, cut it off and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of the members should perish, and not that your whole body be cast into hell” (Matt. 9:30).
    James wrote, “Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things” (Jas. 3:51.
    Paul stated, “For as the body is one, and has many members, and all members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ” (1 Cor. 12:12). “…gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body…” (Eph. 1:22, 23) “And he is the head of the body, the church…” (Col. 1:18).

    Webster’s Dictionary lists “member” as 1. A bodily part or organ, esp., a limb. 2. One of the persons composing a society, community, or party.”

    The previous Scriptures clearly show the exact kind of “member” the Holy Spirit uses in His teachings. Without exception, in the New Testament, a “member” is a part, or organ, of a body. By figure, “member” is a spiritual part, or spiritual organ, of a spiritual body. This fits the first definition of the word given by Webster.

    Todays church leaders misuse the word “member.” They exchange the Biblical use of “member,” as a bodily organ, for “member,” as one of a society, community or party.

    In doing so, they have as many members as there are denominations. There are “Catholic members,” “Baptist members,” “Presbyterian members,” “Reformed members” and perhaps upward to a thousand other types of party “members.” A Baptist “member,” for example, is not a “Catholic member.”

    Does one have his “citizenship” in a “local church?” Does one place his “branchship,” “sheepship,” or stoneship into a “local First Baptist Church of Chicago?”

    Does one place his “membership” in a “local church?” Well, that’s whats preached and practiced!

    Yet, have we ever read of a “church member” in the whole New Testament?

    There is no such thing, scripturally, as a “church member.”
    Before you can become a “church member,” certain things must take place, brought about by human reasoning.

    1) You must change the concept of what the church really is, which is the totality of saints, into a supposed organizational, institutional, mystical church (society, community, or party), for content of “members.”

    2) You must change parts of two figures, by removing “saints” from the (church), and replacing those “saints” with “members” from out of the body of Christ. A “church member” becomes a hybrid expression.

    3) You must twist the meaning of one kind of “member” (bodily organ), into an altogether different meaning of “member” (a person of a society, community, or party). A party “member” is a transmuted teaching.

    Had God willed that His people be called by other names than He has written, He would have written those other names in His will also.

    We are saints, making up the ecclesia, and not “members,” making up an organizational, institutional church (party).

    If anybody today would claim to be able to worship God at any time and in any place, they quickly are labeled a heretic to the organized religionists. For, if church membership, along with their “place of worship” were taken away, and believers truly worshiped in spirit and in truth, the whole religious system would fall apart. There would be no reason for it to continue. The whole religious system is built upon having your “church membership” placed in a “local congregation” for people to come to so that the works of men can be seen and so that they can continue to be carried out.
    The church today is de-formed and reformation is desperately needed.

    Two thousand years of corruption has changed everything.

    1. Interesting thoughts, Brandon. I admit the situation today is different. But even back when you were a saint at Ephesus, you couldn’t just worship God in the back woods by yourself and never come and fellowship with the saints in Ephesus. There was a belonging idea as evidenced by Paul’s instruction for the Corinthians to withdraw from one of their brethren who was grievously sinning. In today’s age of me-first, individualism gone wild, having a sense of belonging to specific people who can speak into your life is important. And those who decry church membership the loudest, don’t often continue to meet with Christians in a NT Church kind of shared communal sense.

       Blessings in Christ,

       Bob

26. Thanks Bob for your reply.

    1st, your remark, “…you couldn’t just worship God in the back woods by yourself and never come and fellowship with the saints in Ephesus…” is a good point to be amplified.

    Yes, you certainly could “worship” God in the back woods by yourself; and no, you shouldn’t avoid fellowshipping with the saints in Ephesus. As I’m sure you are aware Bob, you can worship God at any time, any place, any day. I’m reminded of the woman at the well in John 4 and Jesus’ interaction with her. The Lord got right to the point with her and told her that the time would come when both “this mountain” and “Jerusalem”, as well as any other geographical locality or appointed structure, would be considered completely irrelevant as a condition to worship. God is spirit and mountain worship will not be acceptable. Neither will temple worship in Jerusalem be acceptable to God. If man is to worship God, then man must worship God as He is, and not as man thinks He is or where man thinks He may be.

    A lot of people attempt to bring God down into a sphere that will enable them to see God according to their belief. But Jesus said that God was seeking a people who would worship Him in the realm and sphere in which God is – in Spirit and Truth.

    Worshiping at a physical location is not spiritual worship. True worship is a constant, continual state of being and will not take place just on Sunday morning and perhaps a night or two each week.

    Secondly Bob, although I AM saying that “church membership” is unbiblical, I’m certainly not advocating “isolationism.” There are numerous places in the Scriptures where believers met for fellowship with a (as you said) “kind of a shared communal sense.”

    Indeed, believers need to fellowship one with another on a regular basis if that is possible.

    I personally believe that meeting together at individual homes is the Scriptural way and have been fellowshipping this way for many years.

    But contrary to what another poster said relating “church membership in a local congregation as the thing that is central to the issue..,” this, I beg to differ, is totally wrong.

    The thing that is central to the issue is this:
    We claim that the New Testament documents provide God-inspired direction for the New Covenant people of God, just as the Old Testament Scriptures structured life for Israel.

    But where do these writings ever reveal what has traditionally come to be known as “church membership?” Where is the “church membership” emphasized?

    The sad fact of the matter is that many “church members” have a deep seated sense of fear that their salvation is at risk if they don’t “go to church faithfully,” submit to their supposed authority of pastors, or give of their “tithes and offerings.”

    Virtually anything in life that places “church membership”, church doctrines, church creeds, church rituals, church leadership, over and above Jesus Christ is plain and simple – idolatry.

    And like it or not, this is exactly what is taking place today in many churches.

    If these traditions cannot be found in the Bible, why do we get our feathers so ruffled when they are questioned? Why is questioning the idea of “placing your membership into a local church” tantamount to challenging motherhood, apple pie, and even God Himself?

    There is nothing revealed in God’s Word about “church membership.” This concept was introduced by the so-called church fathers long after the NT was written. The practice of “church membership” was taken, not from the Lord’s inspired apostles, but from culture and the fathers that inspired it at the time.

    When you read the passages like 1 Cor. 5 or 1 Cor. 14, or anywhere else in the New Testament for that matter, it becomes quite apparent that the Spirit of God is not trying to get us to be more faithful in “church membership,” or to “attend church services,” or a “worship service.” In fact, when this was written, Christians did not even have “church services” of any kind (or church buildings, for that matter).

    It is readily acknowledged by many New Testament scholars that early church gatherings were simple, taking place for the most part in homes.

    So why is the New Testament evidence we DO have concerning Christian gatherings discarded and functionally treated as irrelevant, and that for which there is no evidence – placing your church membership in a local congregation – elevated to assumed some sort of divine status?

    Why do virtually no Western churches resemble the early churches in practice?

    Why do we confess that the New Testament is a sufficient guide for the church’s faith and practice, and yet meet together in ways that contradict its patterns? Are we at liberty to set aside what is revealed about believers being gathered together in order to keep intact the non-apostolic traditions that have been passed down to us?

    Paul said in 1 Cor.12:14 that the body is not one part but many, yet believers generally gather in a way that focuses on one part “conducting the worship service and delivering the sermon” and denies the contributions of all the other parts (except to put a check in the offering plate).

    We must remember that human traditions are not neutral and Jesus said that they come from religious leaders and over time take on the force of law (Mark 7:5-13) and God’s Word is made of no effect.

    A lot in our religion is predicated on the notion, “you must place your membership in a local congregation.” Yet few ever ask, “Where does God’s Word reveal the need for this practice?”

    How can we continue to promote this position for which there is no Biblical evidence, and thereby neglect, stifle, hinder, and suppress the kind of open, edifying gathering ( or as you said Bob, a shared communal sense) which the New Testament does reveal?

    Why, then, do many become so defensive when the position of “church membership” is examined, questioned, and the emperor is found to have no Biblical clothing?

    Even D.M. Lloyd-Jones sensed some of this when he said, “…Do we manifest the freedom of the New Testament church? The notion of people becoming members of a church, and then, coming to sit down and fold their arms and listen, with just two or three doing everything, is quite foreign to the New Testament…”

    Many who hold to and teach this practice of “placing your membership in a local congregation” usually demand your attendance at their church “services”. They will maintain that it is at these church “services” where worship in spirit and truth takes place. The “church elders” make every effort to convince the member that if they do not attend at least one of the Sunday “services”, they have not worshipped in spirit and truth. This is the kind of fruit of such ideas.

    But when you boil everything down, isn’t our basic concern, “What has the Lord revealed to us in His Word in this regard?”

    If we exalt that which He hasn’t, aren’t we going to be the worse for it? Why wouldn’t we want to devote our zeal to what He has shown us in the Scriptures? Is it really beneficial for a deeply-rooted human tradition to continue its reign over church life?

    God does indeed have a membership, but that membership is UNTO HIM, not to a place where you go and attend a so-called “worship service!”

    “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.”

    Sorry for my long rant.

    1. Brandon,

       No, I’m glad you shared the rant. I agree with most of what you are saying. In fact I openly brought up the question of church membership being biblical in this post.

       I wanted to be sure you weren’t of the sort that just abandons church in favor of whatever works. I have great respect for house churches. I don’t think, however, that we sho0uld just write off all non-house churches today, though. There is a tradition of preaching and large style churches that stretches back to the Reformation and beyond. We are right to challenge the tradition, but much good has come of it. Personally, I think too much is made of the examples of Scripture when it comes to definitively siding with one method of church government. I think there is a lot of intentional leeway given in how the NT explains the church and church leadership structure. We are to submit to leaders, but the local church should be about the biblical reason for its existence not building an empire.

       Blessings in Christ,

       Bob

Comments are closed.