Individual church membership

[jaydam]

Does anybody have input on any opinions the Bible has on joining an individual church's membership roles? Aren't we all just members of the Church?

I came to God and church 2 years ago, and after a great salvation experience I joined the membership role of the nondenominational church I was attending. I didn't think anything of it, until I've begun to see that church roles seem to be jealously guarded, add some extra adherence as far as if I ever want to move churches, etc.

I have no problem supporting the church I am attending currently,I don't see anything unbiblical there more than any other church, and don't foresee myself leaving any time soon, but in general I see this idea of a membership role in individual churches as a competition and a control beyond what I see in the Bible where we are all just members of the big 'C' Church.

Membership rolls seem to be something 90% of churches do, and I'm just trying to figure out how biblical it is, since it seems to pit churches into competition to grow their own rolls rather than just operate as the 'C'hurch instead of competing churches.

When did this individual church roll style begin? I don't see that it was in the NT.

[Paidion]

As I see it, any group which requires a formal membership is not a Christian Church, but a religious club. A true local Church is an expression of the "the big 'C' Church" which you mentioned. It will recognize the members of the only real Church there is, and won't require some special local membership which distinguishes them from other Christians.

The early Christians didn't have an office known as "the pastor". Each member shared and minstered to the others, and received from others, each one waiting for the spirit of God to move him before he opened his mouth to speak or to minister in any other way in the meetings.

[jaydam]

The early Christians didn't have an office known as "the pastor". Each member shared and minstered to the others, and received from others, each one waiting for the spirit of God to move him before he opened his mouth to speak or to minister in any other way in the meetings.

Where do you find that this was the way meetings were run?

[Singalphile]

I would not say that it's necessarily good or bad to have membership roles/lists. Your little church group and probably practically all churches would acknowledge that there is one "big 'C' Church" in the world.

As a practical matter, it is probably helpful to have some kind of list of the people in a congregation, contact information, family members, etc. I guess that's what 1 Timothy 5 is talking about.

We all became members of this forum by creating an account and going through a little approval process. It helps keep things orderly and keep out the "trolls" and "flamers".

In your ideal vision of how you would like to fellowship with or pastor a group of Christians, do you think it might be necessary to have some kind of similar process? (That's a question for anyone.) I guess so.

[psimmond]

It seems quite often membership determines whether or not a person can vote on issues in that local church. Although I feel similar to Paidion on this issue, I suppose you wouldn't want people who don't even regularly attend to pop in one Sunday and cast votes on something they know nothing about.

I guess you might also want to use members as elders, deacons, teachers, etc., since they have agreed to the churches Statement of Beliefs and aren't likely to stray too far from them in their teaching or in their walk of faith. (And they're probably likely to stick around for a while since they've gone through this process, which demonstrates a certain level of commitment.)

[Paidion]

I would not say that it's necessarily good or bad to have membership roles/lists.

Membership lists make a "church" disctinctive from other Christians. When we do that, we don't have a church; we have a club. The early Christians didn't join even the "big C" CHURCH. It was God who joined them to it!

So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46,47 NKJV)

It seems that the sectarian spirit began with the Corinthian Church, although they may not have come to the point of having membership lists:

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (I Cor. 1:10-13 NKJV)

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(I Cor. 3:4-11)

If Christians are God's building, as Paul says, and are "perfectly joined together" with no divisions, how can there be Lutherans, Mennonites, Wesleyans, or followers of some other such man? The Church of Christ cannot be divided into sects or denominations. It is ONE Holy, apostolic Church. The very word "denomination" pre-supposes that the Church is divided. The thinking is that just as in the world of cars we have Chevrolets, Fords, Hondas, etc., so in the world of churches, we have Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc. That is the mistaken concept of denominationalism. There ARE NO denominations in the Christian Church, but outside the Church, there are many Christian Clubs playing at being churches. A congregation can be an expression of the Church of Christ, but not if it is a member of a club.

It seems quite often membership determines whether or not a person can vote on issues in that local church.

How true! But the very fact that they vote on issues is further evidence that they are clubs; clubs vote on issues. Can you find a single example of any church in Paul's day, or even in the second century, voting on issues? The Church of Christ is not a democracy. It is a theocracy. It is led by the spirit of God, and decisions are made as the Lord makes known his will to his people. In one expression of the Church where I used to meet with fellow disciples, a group of brethren met to make a major decision. They just sat and prayed for an hour or two. Then when they began to discuss the issue they discovered that the Lord had planted in the heart of every and every brother that which He wanted them to do. There was not even one dissenting voice.

[thrombomodulin]

Is it not the case that membership roles are, in a defacto sense, imposed upon any brick and mortar church by civil government? What I mean is that legal systems require property ownership to be defined. By property, I have in mind ownership for the building, grounds and church assets (e.g. monetary donations).

I suppose a gathering could elect to assign the ownership of all assets to one trustworthy person, and membership roles could be then abolished. The alternative is ownership shared by the group. Is it not required to establish legally who that group consists of in some objective way? The common procedure seems to be to form a corporation (e.g. 501c3), create bylaws governing the decision making process, and a create a governing board to execute those bylaws consisting of several men. The board itself could be the only members, but membership roles are usually used as a means establishing elections for the board. In my understanding, this is the only valid reason for a church to have membership roles. I am not a lawyer, or by any means a legal expert, so my understanding of the law of the land may perhaps be incorrect. I would like to know if others agree or disagree that this is a valid reason to create membership roles.

Peter

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

How true! But the very fact that they vote on issues is further evidence that they are clubs; clubs vote on issues. Can you find a single example of any church in Paul's day, or even in the second century, voting on issues? The Church of Christ is not a democracy. It is a theocracy. It is led by the spirit of God, and decisions are made as the Lord makes known his will to his people. In one expression of the Church where I used to meet with fellow disciples, a group of brethren met to make a major decision. They just sat and prayed for an hour or two. Then when they began to discuss the issue they discovered that the Lord had planted in the heart of every and every brother that which He wanted them to do. There was not even one dissenting voice.

Quote from an article I came across:

4. When both Acts 14:23 and II Corinthians 8:19 are taken literally, and used with Acts 6:2-6
(in context), they indicate that the early Church (both Jew and Gentile) chose (by a show of
hands) their own leaders (Pastor, Overseer, Elder or Deacon) to fill special offices in the Church
as deemed necessary by the acting Overseers, who led them in such elections.
A. The acting Overseers (Apostles, Evangelist, Pastor, Elders) were the ones responsible
for “appointing” men to the office of Elder or Deacon, because they led the church
members in their selection or election of such men, and officially “ordained” them into
the office.
(1) In Titus 1:5, Paul told Titus to “appoint Elders in every town.” He used the
word “kathistemi” (to appoint or ordain).
(2)When Acts 14:23 explains how Paul and Barnabas “appointed Elders for them
in each Church,” it uses the word “cheirotoneo” (to appoint or chose by a show
of hands).
B. When we compare all three Scriptures, it is clear that the acting Overseers decided
when the Church needed either Elders or Deacons, how many the Church needed, the
duties of their jobs, and the qualifications they must meet before they could be selected
(or voted on by a show of hands of the church members); and then they officially
ordained them into that position or office.

You can read the article here, it isn't long:

http://173.254.28.49/~soctmcom/Scriptur ... ations.pdf

I'm interested in how you would refute it. It seems obvious in Acts 6 when the first deacons were chosen that the apostles determined that the position was needed, established the qualifications, and turned over the selection to the "brothers". How they were chosen (raised hand, acclamation?) isn't stated but it is easy to imagine some brother speaking up and saying "I recommend brother so and so....".

In their minds there must have been a "list" of who was a brother (member), and how different is that from having it written down?

IMO too much is being made over having recognized membership in the local church (look at the uses of "church/churches in the NT and it seems to be used most often as a reference to a local congregation rather than the "church universal"). I think the problem (of membership) is more one of trying to ensure everyone adheres to some lengthy creed rather than accepting one another as brothers and sisters in spite of differing opinions on the less weighty matters, which most of them are.

[Homer]

Hi Peter,

I think it is a practical reason and not forbidden, so we have the freedom to do so. Years ago I heard of a church In California that lost their building to a cult that took over due to lack of adhering to "details" such as membership.