With all the talk of baptism and church membership around here of late, I think some are getting the wrong impression. I am for MORE “membership”. Involvement and fellowship with Christians, accountability and edification—all of these things are vitally important in the Christian life.
My posts on church membership have been focusing solely on the formal definition of “membership”. In no way do I want to disparage living as a member of Christ’s body in a local church.
With this in mind, I thought now would be a good time to talk about being church. It’s not enough to just attend church or even to be a member of a church. We are called to be the church. We are to church. Church should be understood as a verb.
I know this sounds a little odd but in the Bible we are called to a radical togetherness which I’ve previously called “one another ministry“. What follows are excerpts from an old post of mine which highlights the importance of the “one another” commands in Scripture.
Clergy over the laity mindset, excessive pastoral authority, a cultural lack of community, an emphasis on individualism, market-driven church ministry philosophies, a modern consumer mindset to Christianity–all of these and more contribute to what I believe is the greatest need in churches today: the “one another” ministry.
What is the “one another” ministry? It is the mutual encouraging and exhorting, indeed even admonishing, which is to be woven throughout the life of a church. It is the pattern we see over and over in the NT (Acts 2:44-47; 4:32; 18:27; Jn. 13:34-35; Rom. 1:12; 12:10, 16; 13:8; 15:1-7, 14; 1 Cor. 12:25; 14:26, 31; 2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 5:13; 6:1-2, 6; Eph. 4:2-3, 32; 5:19; Phil. 1:27; 2:2; Col. 3:13, 16; 2 Thess. 1:3; Heb. 3:12-14; 10:24-25; James 5:16; 1 Pet. 1:22; 4:8-11; 1 Jn. 1:7; 3:11). The above list is not exhaustive, either!
The post goes on to cover 7 points:
1) This “one another” ministry is a way God’s Word is intended to Work in us.
2) This “one another” ministry is needed lest our faith die.
3) We must depend upon God to energize this “one another” ministry in our personal lives.
4) We need to always abound in this regard and grow, doing “one another” ministry “more and more” .
5) This “one another” ministry has many facets.
6) This “one another” ministry is clearly a duty of every believer, not merely the church leaders, elders, deacons, or pastors.
7) This “one another” ministry is indispensable.
Read the whole post: “1 Thessalonians and Churches’ Greatest Need“.
Bob,
I know you seek to be biblical in all things and that you in no way believe in less commitment. I know you are trying to avoid adding extra-biblical requirements to being a part of the visible/local church. I applaud all of those things.
I also give you a standing ovation for the point of this post! I wholeheartedly agree!
But some more thoughts on membership in general:
Although your motivation isn’t an avoiding of commitment, service, accountability, responsibility, or following a leader; the majority of those who are against formal membership have that mindset.
Do you believe the church is a “covenant community”? Do you believe in church covenants? Do you see any similarities between local church membership and marriage (in a covenantal sense)? In the past I have likened the decision NOT to join a church to the decision to NOT get married, but still live together. Josh Harris wrote a book about “Dating the Church”. I’m not sure the analogy works, so I am open to critique, but your view that discontinuing formal membership might improve commitment, is like saying that discontinuing formal marriage would improve faithfulness/commitment to one partner.
I am not trying to beat a dead horse. I just believe that commitment is vital to the local church and therefore the membership question is one of utmost importance. Thanks for the interaction!
Don,
You make many good points. Perhaps formal membership in our day and age is very helpful. But again it is not necessary as long as we actually are not dating the church but married to it.
To use your analogy, if we have been formally married do we really need a “marriage license”? The license makes it official in the eyes of the state but the ceremony before God and people makes it official in God’s eyes. We are members of the body of Christ, a formal vote to install us as members is only an official external step.
We should treat people like they really are members in the Body, since it is the Spirit who sets us as members not some ecclesiastical body.
Bob,
Do you make any distinction between the universal/invisible and local/visible church?
I treat all orthodox, fruit-bearing, professing believers as members of The Body of Christ, but I see a distinction between that acknowledgment and acknowledging them as members of my local covenant community. To be a covenant community there needs to be be an “official” covenant that we agree to.
Don,
I do distinguish. I also like the idea of covenanting together.
But, where do you see the local church described as a covenanting together group? Where is a church covenant in Scripture? Scripturally, I see it assumed that believers in a general locale are part of the same local expression of Christ’s body. I never see anyone outside of a local body. I do see people changing geographical locations, and one church writing another church about the individual (think Apollos in Acts 17?). I see people moving around to other churches (think Aquila and Priscilla). But I don’t see churches centering on peculiar secondary doctrines.
This of course does not mean the existence of multiple evangelical churches is a bad thing. It may help us be church better in today’s world. But we often lose our focus on unity and what we share with those who aren’t in our church but are members of Christ’s universal body. We forget we are responsible to edify and help them as well.
Bob,
Good questions. I cannot off the top of my head come up with specific Scriptural examples. This means I will need to do more study to make my points stick. Thanks for the provocation! 🙂
I wish for more unity as well, but not at the cost of secondary distinctives. Practically speaking this is a challenge. Maybe two types of fellowship? I see this happening in Together for the Gospel and other venues. I just don’t know how it works on a local basis–especially coming from my personal experience of fundamentalism and secondary separation.
Just for the record, Don, I don’t think 2 types of fellowship is so bad an idea. The key is fellowshipping and unity across traditional lines. This doesn’t have to be at the expense of doctrine, but secondary doctrines are secondary, after all.
Thanks for the interaction. You keep me on my toes too. And of course I don’t have a totally thought through, one-size-fits-all ecclesiology.
Blessings from the cross,
Bob