Institutional Church Membership

[Homer]

I think the best reason for church membership is a practical, and unbiblical one: churches usually own property. And legally, who owns it? I heard of a church many years ago in California that was infiltrated by a cult and lost their property because they had no way of determining who were members and who were not.

[SamIam]

Homer,

What if the corporation that legally owns the property is, in practice, controlled by the elders of a church, and the elders are selected not by popular vote, but by a consensus of the existing elders and the congregation, would that not also prevent a "hostile takeover?"

SamIam

[steve]

So am I safe to assume there is no biblical basis for a membership requirement within a local church? That it is not directly commanded or even described within the Book?

Not only is there no biblical basis for what we call "membership" today, but there is no biblical basis for what we call a "local church" today. In the Bible, all Christians in a locality are automatically members of the only church in town—something brought about, not by the believer joining a group, but by the Holy Spirit joining the believers to Christ Himself.

What we call a local church today is a voluntary association of like-minded religious folks who want to meet together apart from the other similar (but different in some small ways) groups in the same town. There is lip-service paid to the idea that all the local churches are one Body in Christ, but, in practice, many of them answer to headquarters in another state, and require fairly close agreement with their views as a requirement for membership.

[Homer]

Hi Sam,

You wrote:

What if the corporation that legally owns the property is, in practice, controlled by the elders of a church, and the elders are selected not by popular vote, but by a consensus of the existing elders and the congregation, would that not also prevent a "hostile takeover?"

I think that would cover it except I think here in the State of Oregon the legal requirement is for there to be persons designated as "trustees".

As for selection of elders, the church we attend is very similar. The elders pick someone by unanimous agreement, then the congregation must agree. If there is one person with a legitimate objection, he cannot be an elder.

God Bless, Homer

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:

What we call a local church today is a voluntary association of like-minded religious folks who want to meet together apart from the other similar (but different in some small ways) groups in the same town. There is lip-service paid to the idea that all the local churches are one Body in Christ, but, in practice, many of them answer to headquarters in another state, and require fairly close agreement with their views as a requirement for membership.

What if the congregation is independent, has no creed, the requirements for membership are minimal (i. e. simple confession of faith, baptism by immersion), all are welcome, a wide variety of views are acceptable (the like-mindedness is in the minimal essentials), and all who endeavor to follow Jesus as Lord are considered brothers and sisters?

[steve]

In such a case, Homer, you have a very good congregation—one that follows biblical principles (as I understand them) pretty faithfully.

There is still the question of what is meant by "membership." I am not aware of any church that would feel comfortable with their "members" also maintaining similar active membership in other churches in the same town. The purpose of defining "members" seems to be to distinguish which attenders are loyal to the group, and which ones are tentative. Loyal members are usually saying (by becoming members), "I belong to this group in a way that I do not belong to other groups." It is hard for me to distinguish between this concept and that expressed in the words, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Cephas." If there is a distinction that I am not able to see, then I might find nothing to object to in it.

[mattrose]

While I respect Steve's point of view here, I still don't sense that mindset in our denominatinal church (Wesleyan)

Frankly, most of our people would be overjoyed if all the churches in our area merged together
We meet independently b/c that's the way it is, not b/c that's the way we want it to be

[blackheart]

Okay - I think I understand - but my next question would be

What are the strongest arguments used by church leaders to encourage local church membership?

One brother actually stated that Luke was defining a church membership roll when he calculated the initial number of believers on Pentecost - They must have had a list to know how many new believers were joining the church, right?

[christopher]

That sounds like something I've heard John MacArthur say.

That's really reading things into the white space IMO.

[Homer]

Hi Christopher & blackheart,

Would it be reasonable to assume a formal list of members might be utilized once the church got to be a certain size? It would seem to be at least as important to know who were considered Christians in a particular locale as opposed to what must have been a much shorter list of those deserving support:

1 Timothy 5:9-11 (New American Standard Bible)

9. A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man,

10. having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints' feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.

11. But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married,