Is
“Church Membership” Biblical?
What is “church membership”? Well, I don’t know, because there is no direct language of “membership” used in Scripture in relation to the church, at least in relation to how “membership” is popularly associated today, such as with organizations, banks, clubs, gyms, parties and so on. There is language of membership, such as Joseph of Arimathea (Lk 23:50), a member of the Sanhedrin. Yet, such language is never transferred to the church while "elder" (presbuteros), also indicating those of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:5-8), was transferred to the church (cf. 11:30; 14:23; 1 Tim 5:1; 5:19; Titus 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1; 2 Jn 1:1). This proves that there's some deliberation with the language of "membership" not being applied to the Church.
Scripture uses the word “member” in describing the relationship of the believer to the body of Christ (cf. Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:14; 12:19; 12:26; Eph 3:6; 5:30), that a believer isn’t a member of the church as one is an exclusive member of an association, but that of an organism—a family. Thus, is “church membership” biblical when many churches have “membership” indicating official submission to a local body—or is one a “member” of the church if one is a believer who attends (and serves) there? Let’s find out.
What is Church Anyway?
There’s no way I can fully answer this question here, but I can allude to simple and solid truths enlisted in Scripture. Church (ekklesia) means “assembly” or “gathering” of believers (not unbelievers; they are not the church even if they "attend" church). Biblically speaking, the church is not referred to as an institution or organization. Rather, the church is referred to as the global body (cf. 1 Cor 12:29; 15:9; Gal 1:13) as well as a local body (cf. Acts 8:1; Rev 2-3) with Christ as the Head (Col 1:18).
Since there is only one
Lord (Eph 4:5), there is one people, regardless of age, gender, and race (Gal 3:28).
However, when considering the language of unity and oneness, particularly that
in Ephesians 4:1-16, the emphasis seems to be on the oneness of the global church.
This is emphasized as Paul mentions “one body and one Spirit” (4:4), the building
of the body of Christ “until we all attain to the unity of the
faith…” (4:12-13), and “…the whole body, joined and held together by every
joint with which it is equipped [to the head who is Christ (4:15)]” (4:16). The
emphasis seems to be stressed on the global church. From my own study of the
use of ekklesia, I find it apparent
that the mentioning of “church” by itself (that is, unless it is a church of a
particular location), it is referred to the universal body of Christ (cf. Rom
16:23; 1 Cor 5:12; 6:4; 10:32; 11:22; 12:28;Gal 1:13; Eph 1:22; 3:10; 3:21;
5:23-24; 5:29-30; 5:32; Phil 3:6; Col 1:18).
Nonetheless, since church, whether globally and locally, is about the people submitted to Christ as Lord, church is naturally about relationships as people are relational. If there’s any sort of structure that defines the church—aside from “Kingdom” as the Kingdom of God is demonstrated through His people empowered by His Spirit—it’s “family”!
How do we know this?
First, an important keyword used in the New Testament to address the church is adelphoi, meaning “brothers (and
sisters)”. While people today can address one another as “brother” with all
sorts of implications, the biological brotherly relationship (or brotherhood) was
known back then (Greco-Roman world) as the closest relationship that one could
attain—even closer than that of marriage! No one would describe someone as a “brother”
unless that person was one’s biological brother.
Clarke writes:
“More commonly Paul describes himself as a
brother to his fellow believers, thus drawing attention away from any sense of
seniority. For somebody from a different natural family to be associated with
another as a brother was not lightly done in Graeco-Roman contexts.”[1]
Second, try
considering the offense when Jesus points to His disciples (Matt 12:49) and
says: “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my
Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”’ (12:50) Jesus seems to
be implying that His true family is not His biological one, but those of the
faith—the church! The notion of church being family becomes even more prevalent
when Scripture uses familial language to describe the body (cf. Jn 19:27; Phil
2:22; 1 Thess 2:7; 2:11; Rom 16:13).
Third, if that
wasn’t convincing, consider the simplest theological notion: God is addressed
as the Father (cf. Jn 1:14; 1 Cor 1:3; 8:6; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3 etc.) and we are
His children (cf. Jn 1:12; Rom 8:6; 9:8; Eph 5:1; Phil 2:15 etc.). This shows
that all believers are brothers and sisters of each other in the family of God—with
God as our Father! The fact that God is Father and we are children of God,
implies family.
If there’s anything to describe the church, it’s a
family called to be as globally aware as possible and tight-knitted locally.
“The metaphor of the family was directly applied to the church, and many of its relationships were described in terms of brother/sister and father/child.” (Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 251.)
Church membership in Scripture
Going back to church
membership, Scripture certainly uses the word “member” in describing the
relationship of the believer to the body of Christ (cf. Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:14;
12:19; 12:26; Eph 3:6; 5:30). However, it does not imply some sort of "exclusivity" as reflected by most association memberships today. Rather, it is noteworthy to consider that the
imagery presented with “member” is that of a body. A hand, leg, mouth, eye, or lung is presented as a member
(organ) of the body.
Membership
initiation?
If you are a (real)
Christian, that Christ is your Lord and Savior and that your life is His, you
are a member of the church. If there’s any outward expression, or “proof” of
that membership (not salvation…as that would be character), it would be baptism.
Yet, baptism serves as a
proof of "membership"regarding the universal/global church, not merely a local
one. In other words, there is no indicator that one requires another baptism
when moving to another local church. I can hardly fathom the likes of Timothy being
re-baptized when he was sent to the Corinthian church (1 Cor 4:17-19). Rather,
we see the disciples of John the Baptist being re-baptized “in the name of the
Lord Jesus” as they weren’t Christian prior. (Acts 19:1-6) Thus, I do not see
any clear indicators of official membership initiation. If one is a believer,
and is of a local body, the believer is a member of the local church body.
What
about Church Discipline?
Some would say that the prevalence
of church discipline in Scripture implies official, exclusive membership. Again, the likes
of 1 Corinthians 16:16, Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 5:5 clearly
illustrate the need to submit to church elders. Yet, when it comes to Hebrews
13:17, the most prominent verse on submission to church leadership, consider the
latter half of the verse:
“Obey your leaders and
submit to them, for they are keeping
watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do
this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
The reason behind
submission to church leadership is for the believer’s and the congregation’s benefit—as
the leaders lead through service (Matt 20:25-28) especially relating to the
believers’ spirituality and sanctification.
Hence, the key question
that relates church discipline to membership is this: “did the church leaders
exercise authority over those who were ‘official/exclusive members’ of the body, or over
all who were the body?”
Consider 1 Corinthians 15.
There was a man who had sexual relations with his father’s wife (5:1). Yikes! Paul
tells the church to remove him (5:2) for a similar reason as mentioned in
Hebrews 13:17—" so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord,” (1
Cor 5:5) that is, for his own spiritual good. Paul continues to tell the church:
“not to associate with
anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual
immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even
to eat with such a one.” (5:11)
This implies that the matter
of official/exclusive membership was out of the question. If one “bears the name of
brother”—implying that he/she is a Christian or claims to be a Christian, this person falls under the church
authority of where he is at. It seems clear that church discipline deals with
everyone in the church that are Christian. (5:12) Thus, church discipline
implies membership—but not in any capacity of “official/exclusive membership”—but with whomever
that is a follower of Christ. And if one of a particular local body did not
submit to those in authority, and fails to repent, he or she should be excommunicated
(cf. Matt 18:15-20) because that is a sin issue, not that of "membership".
If you are a leader of a local
church body, anyone who claims to be Christian and comes to your ekklesia, your gathering of the saints
of God, is under your authority; and if they do not submit to the authority of the elders of the church, maybe they should leave (or be kicked out). Discipline isn't for membership, but for the church; and as long as you are a born-again believer, you are a member of the church.
Conclusion: Bound by Blood—not Membership
A family is bound by blood, not by official membership. A family is exclusive by blood, not membership. In the same way, when all believers have been justified by His blood (Rom 5:9 cf. 3:25; Heb 2:14), we are all similarly bound into the family of God through the Blood of the New Covenant. Perhaps this explains part of Paul’s logic when he wrote that those who are able to partake in communion—the believers of a local body—are participating in the Blood (and flesh) of Christ (1 Cor 10:17). A local body is about shared fellowship with one another through the common denominator—Christ, His blood, and His accomplished work on the Cross! We are members of one another because we are the family of God and of one body, not because of any sort of official membership. If anything, we have membership through the Blood of Jesus.
However, this does not
necessarily mean that all churches that have “membership” are unbiblical, as different
churches may mean different things with “membership”. Some churches may use the
term “membership” to encapsulate what a local body should be—another way of
describing the family of God. In that case, it may be appropriate. I also acknowledge
that some churches are required to have “membership” for legal purposes as an
official organization/institution, in which this is totally fine. At times, membership can even be healthy and beneficial.
However, “church
membership” is immediately unbiblical when it deviates from the nature of ekklesia: when there is exclusivity between the “official members” of a church and other Christians who attend; when the "official members" are favored and cared for while others are not; when
there is a distinct “initiation process” for one to be an “official member”;
when only the “official members” are able to participate in communion while
those who aren’t (but are Christian) are unable; when pastoral help and
discipline is only offered to “official members” and not the other Christians
who are not “members” of the church; and when the church focuses more on system instead of relationship.
[1] Andrew Clarke, Serve the
Community of the Church, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 251.
[2] Scripture DOES have language of membership, but it does not pertain to the church. Luke 23:40 (cf. Mk 15:43) presents Joseph of Arimathea as a member (or council member) of the Sanhedrin. The Greek word used is bouleutés, a term indicating council, likely referring to the same thing as membership today. However, this word is not used in Acts to describe the church at all. You may think that this is an argument from silence, but it is not, because Luke uses "presbuteros" (elder) in Acts, describing the governing body of the church. Yet, "presbuteros" was a term also used in the Jewish Sanhedrin, pointing to the elder board of the Sanhedrin. The point is, we see the NT borrowing certain words and concepts from Judaism into the church, but not the idea of membership. Thus, we can safely conclude that church membership is alien to the New Testament corpus on the nature of ekklesia.
Further supplementary notes:
- One major reason contributing to why many churches have "membership" is because there are multiple churches in an area where one can attend without committing to. For instance, in countries and cities where there is more freedom of religion, one can go to "church A" and attend "church B" simultaneously. Please note that such a phenomenon does not square up with the biblical notion of the early church. There was generally one church of a location back then (cf. Rev 1-3). Thus, to claim that Scripture speaks to "membership" because of a present-day phenomenon that did not match with the situation in the first century appears to be a misuse of Scripture.
- I am not against church as an institution nor am I claiming that there is no church structure back then. Clearly, the leaders of the church were the elders, followed the deacons (probably functions as a "youth pastor" or "worship pastor" today; maybe even some administrative staff), and then there's the flock. We see a clear structure of how the local body functions, but that does not signify that church was then an organization. Church, as in a local church, was still a family.
- Here's another concern about church membership: "Does church membership guarantee salvation?" Is one who is an official member of a local church guaranteed to be a solid believer? I am relatively unsure about this. A true believer is a true believer, and if one is a true believer who submits to Christ, he/she will commit to a body regardless of whether there's official membership. I don't see how official membership is by any means effective to guarantee effectiveness as well.
- I read chapter 3 of "Those Who Must Give An Account". This chapter presents a study of church membership throughout church history. The conclusion is that there is no singular paradigm AT ALL on church membership. The church has always categorized members differently based on the culture, time, and circumstance. Why? Because church membership is not a response to Scripture nor does it have biblical precedence. This may not mean that church membership isn't important, but it is far better to claim that church membership isn't biblical, but needed, rather than stating that it is biblical.
No comments:
Post a Comment