there are a few different thoughts out there on church membership. some people think a formal church membership (through taking classes, signing forms, and being listed on a record of some kind) is biblical. others think that church membership is subjective, meaning you are a member of a body of believers to whom you are committed, but no formality is required. others think it’s completely nonessential to technically be a part of a local body of believers. a “between god and me” kind of relationship.
what are your thoughts on church membership? if you have contextual Biblical references for such, don’t forget to leave them.
Comments
38 responses to “dismembered?”
I don’t have any scripture references, but I kinda like the idea of “members” make themselves known through their involvement in the community.
If you’re active in serving with your church (whether within it or in the area that you live) then you’re a member by action, not by name.
At our Loving God Fellowship (LGF) church plant in Salem, Oregon, we do not ask people to join a church and volunteer all of their expendable time with its activities. Instead, we encourage people to submit to the Lordship of Christ and minister at the point of need in their community as Jesus did. We are all about impacting cities and not about building a church. Christ will build His church.
I know of no Scriptural reference concerning “church membership” or “joining a church.”
Thanks for another great blog entry.
gaj.
Anne,
I work with Rob in the College Ministry, and we need to hang out some time. Here are my thoughts, as I have thought through this a bit before:
As the church we embrace and welcome skeptics, sinners, and unbelievers, in the spirit and example of Jesus (Mark 2:15-17). At the same time, Scripture calls us to set definite boundaries of obedience and discipleship that distinguish God’s people from the world (1 Pet 1:14-16; 1 Cor 5:9-13). I think that church membership (I use this term loosely) is a great way of establishing these boundaries, although not necessarily the only way. If structured the right way, the church invites people into membership so they can fulfill the biblical mandates of mission, accountability, submission, and mutual service. Through membership the church is calling people into a covenant with the bride of Christ, whereby they are committing to:
? It is a way of committing yourself to this particular church, joining with the Holy Spirit to establish a local church that reflects the beauty of the Triune God
? It clarifies the blessings and responsibilities of living in gospel-centered community with each other
? It encourages consistency, accountability, and unity within our church family
Of course there are some more specific things that each church should be calling their members in their own unique way around the areas of spirituality, identity, and community.
I think it is also meaningful that the church define what they are committing to do through the Holy Spirit in the lives of their members (spiritual growth (Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 5:1-3), teaching Scripture (1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 3:16-4:2), sound doctrine (Titus 1:9; 2 Tim. 2:24-25), filling needs (Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-35, Jm. 2:14-17), equipping (Eph. 4:11-13), discipline (Matt. 18:15-20; I Cor. 5; Gal. 6:1), leadership (I Tim. 3:1-13
& 5:17-22, Titus 1:5-9), community and mission (Acts 20:28, I Peter 5:1-5), etc.).
My lecture ends…
Here’s an excerpt from our membership class workbook:
We recognize the need for a formal membership. Because of this, we ask you to commit to membership for four reasons:
1. A Biblical Reason: Christ is Committed to the Church
“…Christ loved the church and He gave his life for it.” Ephesians 5:25
2. A Cultural Reason: It is an Antidote to Our Society
We live in an age where very few want to be committed to anything … a job … a marriage … our country. This attitude has even produced a generation of “church shoppers and hoppers”. Membership swims against the current of America’s “consumer religion.” It is an unselfish decision. Commitment always builds character.
3. A Practical Reason: It Defines Who Can Be Counted On
Every team must have a roster. Every school must have an enrollment. Every business has a payroll. Every army has an enlistment. Even our country takes a census and requires voter registration. Membership identifies our family.
4. A Personal Reason: It Produces Spiritual Growth
The New Testament places a major emphasis on the need for Christians to be accountable to each other for spiritual growth. You cannot be accountable when you’re not committed to any specific church family.
… For what it’s worth.
I seem to always fall on the other side of the fence, call me a contrarian I guess. I would have to agree with Roland’s point #3. It’s practical. However, in the end membership is not the same thing as being devoted to a church or a community.
There is some misused logic listed above. The comments above state if “Membership” then said “Benefits”. Which implies “No Membership” then “No Benefits”. However I am at a church that doesn’t have formal membership, but I can see all the benefits listed above. That couldn’t be if Membership was the cause of said benefits. Devotion to a community brings the benefits above not membership. Membership is quite pointless without being devoted to your church and the Church. In the end membership is just a name in a database and doesn’t necessarily bring about any benefit.
Acts 2:42-47 (ESV)
Romans 12:4-5
This is just my own experience, so it’s certainly not universal…
I grew up in the Southern Baptist church. “Membership” numbers were a badge of pride worn by leadership. “We have X number of members… way more than that other church down the street…”.
I haven’t been to a service in the SB church I grew up in for, oh, 13 years or so, but they still count me as a “member” when it comes to the little “who has the most members” scorecard in the monthly SB newsletter.
Tim,
I think you are kind of assuming that the people who have made comments pointing out the benefits of membership are talking about an empty, numbers-driven membership. This isn’t the case. Membership can be used in a very meaningful way, and I think it unwise to completely dismiss it. All throughout the Scriptures man’s relationship to God is defined through different covenants. A covenant with the Living God and His mission here on earth is very beautiful. Asking people to make a covenant with a local expression of the Bride of Christ seems necessary. I find it alarming that people would be unwilling to do this.
I am trying to find where it became a “formal” expression – meaning recorded. In my head (and I got a B in History of the Bible), I can think of the Catholic Church, being baptized and your name being added. But I can’t think of anything earlier than that.
Anne,
I acknowledge that this is somewhat loose, but in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost it is recorded how many were added to their numbers. So I have to conclude that recorded numbers mean something.
Kendal-
Is that literal? Were they recorded numbers?
Kurt and I (for those of you who aren’t LP staffers, Kurt is our Pastor of Spiritual Formation) were discussing that the first historical point in time when there was a formal process of membership was after the apostasy mentioned in 1 Thess.
He also gave me an Ancient Christian Commentary on Acts which I’ll be digging into soon as it would give historical documentation to that time (it was written in the 2nd-3rd century) as far as any offical recordings.
I’m not opposed to recording numbers…I just wonder how other cultures in the world “handle” (for lack of a better word) “church membership.”
Do you have to be recorded somewhere to be a member of the Church (universal?) What about those who can’t?
Anne –
If I had responded to this question up until about 3-4 years ago, I would have echoed much of the above….
But not anymore.
My thoughts… and I certainly don’t expect anyone else to agree…
I now believe that church membership and attendance:
– have absolutely nothing to do with salvation and little if anything to do with one’s “walk” with God. If anything, I have found that church activity and “busy-ness” have detracted from and robbed time from my relationship with God, my family, my neighbors and those around me.
– do not truly keep one accountable. Accountability is impossible to be maintained in a top-down structure. Leadership can only track attendance within a body of any size, and does not have the depth of personal relationship with each member to maintain any real accountability. True accountability exists in life-on-life relationships, where we can be open and transparent, and develop “keeping” relationships. Through openness, guidance, and speaking and receiving the truth in love, we are “kept” by these relationships.
– does not provide covering, although in many circles, the church teaches that it does. Covering is only provided by God, through the blood sacrifice of Jesus, and is complete.
– is not required by scripture, and is not the same as the “fellowship of believers”. I fellowship with believers everywhere as I come into contact with them. Sometimes it is spontaneous, and other times, planned, but it flows out of our hearts and relationships with each other and with God. My beliefs and relationships with God and with others are lived out of who I am, not through a label or association with a local body. There is only one true church, I believe, which is the collective of ALL who are sons and daughters of God. We are known by our love – the love only God can perform through us. The word “church” doesn’t exist in the Bible as defined today. What does appear is “called out ones” or “gathering” (ekklesia). Not attending church doesn’t mean a person has “forsaken the fellowship of the bretheren” – in fact, I fellowship more now more than ever, and am able to take time to really listen and really move into much deeper relationships.
– has become more of a social club than a relevant force in society today, in most cases. The hierarchy and political nature of corporate business has infected many local bodies (not all – but many), making them competitive, cut-throat and reptilian.
– is not a safe place to be transparent, and is a more likely place to receive judgement and rejection in response to any views that do not line up with that of the leadership or general concensus of that local body.
– many times demands “stewardship” of finances by its members, yet, in many cases, is not accountable financially to its members for what is done with the money once it is given.
– in many cases is abusive, controlling and dictatorial, which are in direct opposition to the teachings and life of Jesus.
– has more of a tendency to be “activity driven” than to be “purpose driven”, centering its spending and focus on meetings, activities, and events, while sacrificing or ignoring the callings, purpose and examples of Christ.
– are divided and specialized around one “gift” or theological system, while ignoring or marginalizing (or in the exreme, attacking) other local bodies whose belief systems differ. Many times, intolerance and judgement are taught rather than love and compassion.
– many times, has conflicts of interests. For example, it benefits the local church “cause” and direction to keep its membership dependent on the leadership and guidance of those in charge, rather than to promote each individual’s growth into the “full measure and stature of Christ”, as given us in Ephesians 4, which could be a good start for how to re-invent an effective body of believers…
Ephesians 4
1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:
“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
…
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
…
32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.
Key questions I would ask when evaluating the fruit of a local assembly would be:
If this local gathering were to close the doors today, and never gather again, what would be the impact to those who were not “members”?
What would be the impact to the Kingdom of God? What is being accomplished with the resources and funds being given? What real change has been realized in the lives of the membership? What is the focus and mission of this local body, and how effective is it as realizing them? How are decisions made, and who is involved? Is the leadership seen as being “above” or “more godly” or able to “hear God better” than the congregation?
With blessings and love,
Jeff
gut honest answer….i don’t care about it AT ALL!
What if you are a member of a church, cannot be counted on, has “shown” little spiritual growth, but… you come every weekend, rub shoulders with other members and non members, but have come to eventually not fulfill the “requirements” of membership? Does membership get revoked? Is there discipline?
Tammy, that is a great question…how much of Biblical discipline do we see today in the American church?
Wow, I do not have the time right now to read through Jeff’s comment, but hopefully later.
Anne,
I am not sure what you are getting at and maybe you can help clarify, but yes Acts 2:41 mention of 3,000 is a literal translation and there is no reason to do otherwise I would think. “Were they recorded numbers,” you ask. Well, they were recorded in Acts 2, which makes me think they were probably recorded earlier elsewhere as well. I think this is somewhat off the issue though. Something I also think that is worth thinking about in regards to all this is church discipline. If you take Scripture seriously, then I do not see how you can get around the absolute mandate and need for church discipline (Heb 12:6, 1 Cor. 4:6, 5:1-13, 2 Cor. 2:6, Matt. 18:17-18, Titus 3:10, 2 Thess. 3:6-15, 1 Tim 5:20, Gal. 6:1, 1 Pet 4:13-19, there are so much more). If this is true, it is going to be hard to practice church discipline if you don’t know who has made a covenant with the church and what that covenant is. I think maybe we need to abandon our modern understanding of church membership and think of it in terms of people making a covenant with a local expression of the church. Now what that looks like is going to be different depending on where and what culture your church is on mission to reach. But it seems that it is something we should take seriously, and I am troubled by the response of, “I don’t care about it AT ALL!” I mean that with all love and grace. The question should be what are we asking the people of our church to commit to as a community that is set apart for the glory and mission of God and then what is the best way for our church to make that covenant real in their lives.
Kendall, sorry – i should have clarified. I know they had recorded numbers (as in 3000)…but did they have a scroll somewhere with everyone’s name on it? If I moved from Corinth to Thessolonica, did they send a letter transferring my membership (I’m being somewhat cynical with this question to ask a question) or did I have some kind of papers I brought with me? Did they just trust I was a part of that covenant?
I’m very logistically minded…and I overanalyze. So I just wonder how it all worked back then.
Re: discipline – I am agreeing with you completely, but I just wonder if we could do a better job defining, as you said, what church membership is (a covenant relationship). I just don’t hear of many people who do things that would require discipline actually going through the Biblical steps of discipline and restoration (if one is open to healing). I think that is where (as a church) we come up seriously short.
as a sidebar:
:::::::don’t not post your thoughts if you have them! i understand this is getting pretty deep but really what the whole point of this post is to explore our thoughts, learn, and encourage! if you have questions – ask…i certainly do not have ANY of the answers :) but that’s part of this whole exploration process….this is a safe place!:::::::
Well, there is a practical reason for having people go through a “class” and get information. I like having stuff mailed to me that reminds of what is going on. So being on the membership roll helps, but isn’t required.
A year ago I would have blown up at the notion of membership, because it was all about numbers. However, a friend pointed out something that shook my theology a bit.
When we look at the scriptures, we know there were 4,000 men in one setting (Matthew 16) eating fishes and loaves. Another crowd showed up at a different time and there 5,000 present (Mark 6). We have 3,000 recorded as joining the Body in Acts 2. So how did we get all these numbers? SOMEONE COUNTED.
That’s right, numbers aren’t evil. Even the Early Church took record. It is what we do with the numbers that matters.
At my church, we keep record of attendance and can show growth by numbers but we don’t have anytype of formal process to count who is on the “in” and who isn’t.
Once Brent (inWorship) and I were co leading a high school group study at a church where membership is required. Several months into the study, and our leadership, the elders came to our home to informed us we would need to stop leading the youth group because we were not members of their church. We still had membership up north at another church of the same affiliation. But not having a formal membership with them negated everything we had been part of. We were committed attenders, faithful to the youth group and the study we were leading. We chose not to transfer our membership from one church to another. Already being members of the body of Christ it just seemed silly to us. I am not against church membership as long as your involvement isn’t micro managed by the leaders due to the “rules” of membership. We had to step down from any leadership role there, but were welcome to continue attending.
We are now in ministry together at a non denominational fellowship where the members of Christ body/His church do not have to become “members” at the Fellowship. We’re already committed members of the Church.
A far as discipline is concerned. I agree Anne, the church has failed at that. It is a whole separate issue from membership.
Anne,
I completely agree, and I sensed what you were getting at, but wanted to make sure. I will say though, in reply to your cynicism, maybe they did have names on a scroll, who knows? Throughout Paul’s letters to various churches he references different “members” of that particular church. I think we both realize that this is not necessarily the point, but I wanted to mention it anyways. I agree that church membership needs to be redefined and probably re-termed (is that a word?) as well. I also agree that church discipline in most churches sucks, but it doesn’t mean we should scrap it (btw, I know you aren’t suggesting this). Restoration (Restoring people to right relationship with Christ and his body) is part of the mission of the church, which is the aim of church discipline.
These are all reasons why I love the push that is occurring towards a more “missional” church model. I think it adds meaning and practicality to these issues.
Good discussion…
I tend to agree with both thoughts here. In the case of our church, formal membership (taking a class, signing the forms, etc) is required in order to vote on our budget, vote on new elders, and make other “member” decisions that can only done if you are formal member.
But I believe that just voting and having the “status” of membership is so much more. When we belong to a church, we have to serve, we have to be apart of the body, and that doesn’t include just showing up on Sunday and calling the church your church home. None of our lay leader positions at the church require our congregation to members. The only requirement that we ask of our lay leaders is that sign and agree to our statement of faith. Failure to agree to our statement of faith is really the only thing that keeps someone from leading or heading up a lay ministry team.
I don’t mean to hi-jack this great discussion, and I will humbly read everyone’s thoughts on this post, but one more quick word of response to Tammy.
“A far as discipline is concerned. I agree Anne, the church has failed at that. It is a whole separate issue from membership.”
I respectfully disagree, and will point back to my response above. These issues are not separate at all, rather directly related.
(BTW Kendal, I find it funny we are both members of the same church & the same staff yet have never formally met…I blame your supervisor and his pink shirts.)
neither do i mean we should “scrap” church discipline. That would be unbiblical. I’m talking more about allowing people in the fellowship to go unaccounted for when there is obvious rebellion and acts of sin that should be addressed that often are not and swept under a holy carpet.
Church discipline should take place whether or not there is membership, in my opinion. It is our job as followers of Christ to hold another accountable. We can do that w/out membership. We can bring a fellow believer before the leadership in the church w/out membership and still have accountability there. That’s my simple answer where I was coming from in the first place…(having had several interruptions by my kiddos who are in serious need of some discipline themselves!)
But, are we disciplining by biblical requirements or disciplining by membership requirements?
Anne,
I am sorry, I should have made this more clear. I am not employed by Lakepointe, I just help Rob out; kind of a master-slave relationship. Is he wearing another pink shirt today? Now that is true grounds for church discipline. But seriously, yea, we need to hang out. Along with Shepherd. I see that guy at random concerts, but we never seem to get together.
Tammy-I don’t see much disciplining (sans maybe on a church staff and high “level” volunteers) going on at any church much at all. that’s a very broad and general statement.
Kendal-NP…he is wearing an Ireland shirt today, but was sporting his pink one a couple days ago. Next time you’re around, pop up to level three (the communications penthouse suite) and enjoy a cold beverage courtesy of whoever stocks our fridge. :)
It’s interesting reading through the comments here, because what I am seeing is a lot of apples and oranges, but essentially all of us fruit :)
Here’s my point. I agree with both Tim and Kendall. your both correct in your views. You are both encouraging the same thing…devotion and commitment to your church. A covenant is a commitment, it’s not a paper or a set of rules, it is a promise. But a covenant is binding and holds you accountable. Can we do this through formal membership…yes, can we do this without formal membership…yes.
What we are striving for is the same thing, committed followers of Christ. Because of their commitment, their will be transformation, serving, giving(time and tithe) and growth. There are a lot of strong feelings towards formal membership, because many have grown up in churches where it was no more than a way to keep track of attendance and tithing.
So, we can discuss our sides, but where we get in trouble is when we start claiming biblical precedence for something that is purely man-made. In the Bible we find covenant, tithing and numbers. We will never find paperwork, tithing letters and required classes. The church has done a great job of creating processes and procedures. Not necessarily bad, until is starts to dissect and separate the Christian community.
The balance is somewhere in the middle. We have to see the value of formal membership as a covenant and accountability and we need to make sure to uphold those 2 things when our church does not have membership.
Great response inWorship. Your words convey the heart of the issue I was striving for. Anne, I will take you up on that offer, and I hope to see you there.
A bigger issue surrounds this one–multiple churches in a given locality. Paul’s letter was addressed to the church in Corinth, for example. Which one? Well, there was only one–not 5000. Being a Christian in Corinth made you a part of the church in Corinth. If the church exercised discipline, there was not another one down the street to welcome you with open arms. So until we get back to the Biblical pattern of churches, church membership may be necessary.
Incidentally, the church I attend has membership but the attendance is about 4 times that number. Also, membership is for one year at a time. At the start of the year membership goes back to zero. Previous members have the option of “re-upping” and others can attend a quarterly class of about 3-hours to become a member. (The class is information about the church.)
Tom,
Excellent points. I know of many churches who have a certain attendance, and their membership is 4 times that number…
I think church membership is kind of like marriage. If you’re willing to commit, stop living together and sign on the dotted line.
My immediate thoughts on this:
1. The earliest words for “church” in the New Testament and Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds provide very loose terms when it comes to formalized church membership.
2. It seems the only requirements for “church” membership were simply ascribing to the “core beliefs” (private) and baptism (public). There is no evidence of a written record any where (and why would there be? – had the Roman authorities gotten a hold of these lists it would be a road map to certain persecution and destruction of the church)!
3. All activities of those belonging to the church (like tithing, praying together, worshipping together, discipleship, caring for the poor and sick, particiipating in the eucharist, sharing your faith, etc…) were merely encouraged, not required. And I should point out, this amazingly was commonplace behavior among churches, not a rarity. Today we sign our life over in membership – and rarely do anything it says (at least I do, but I’m practicing my way out of that)
4. Church polity has become an elaborate web of heiarchy and is hardly recognizable to the biblical simplicity we see at its beginning. However, there is both a great need for this political system and a great problem with it.
5. The problem with today’s church is it’s massive. If we’re looking at our attendance records and all we see is a good or bad number – we’ve completely missed the point of Jesus Christ’s mission. Numbers tell us nothing really, except who came to the show on Sunday! Are these people ascribing to the core beliefs in their life and getting baptised publically?
6. If you can’t answer that question about everyone in your church IT’S TOO BIG! We should be gathering into smaller communities so the need for such politics is rendered meaningless because of the intimacy of those present in the church. However, as it sits now – there is a great need for recording attendance numbers, signing formal membership agreements, and taking classes on what it means to be a part of this or that church. It’s the only way to tell if your flock is committed God’s vision and understands what’s required of them as believer.
7. I’m a member of 3 churches now of different denominations: Assemblies of God, Non-Denominational, and Southern Baptist — and I recieve mail from 5 churches!
A D Rho diveded against himself cannot stand!!
The short answer: Formal membership is only important when it comes to gauging the spiritual maturity of your congregants, which could (and should) be done within a communal intimacy.
i’m in agreement with Kendal [including the ‘along with Shepherd’ comment in its context]. in fact, i have been reading this entire day [does bill read your comments, too?], and, each time i am about to offer a suggestion, he says it better than i might’ve.
and, i too think it is helpful to analyze our language on these sorts of issues and identify the cultural meanings they have begun to develop, when/where/how they are used [i.e. the constituents of certain doctrines that are emphasized or played down in the different protestant traditions, like when anne refers to that odd one to which southern baptists have likely become quite accustomed].
that was confusing. let me explain:
what i mean is, perhaps it shouldn’t be called ‘membership’ as long if the modern baggage it has begun to accrue does not communicate the biblical truth it was intended to represent.
i ended up commenting extensively on a more peripheral issue [semantics] and didn’t really respond to the questions in your post [i was hoping to get off the hook with the ‘yeah, i agree with so-and-so’ way about it]. ahwell.
I’m a very simple guy – our church has formal membership as well as regular attenders who have been there longer than some of the members. I think that “membership” help brings clear identification of one’s involvement in a church community; however, I also know that many of our regular attenders are very committed.
Andrew,
No more talking about it, let’s hang out. Let’s go see some music, or grab a beer, or talk about the importance of semantics. I love it!
I think as we are on mission as the body of Christ and engaging culture it is essential that we are learning some new language. This is should be intentional. Words carry connotations: implicit meanings based on our past experiences. Sometimes these connotations are a hindrance to fresh thinking about what church should look like. So we must replace our old, predictable language with new terms that force us out of our mental ruts and give us a new, common language based on shared perceptions. In summary, language is important because it helps shape our understanding of things.
My membership class was a lesson in ministry leadership.
God led me to this church (after vowing that I would never be a part of a mega-church.) Only now, I am beginning to see why I am here at this church.
Thus, I am a member so I can better connected.
This has been a very interesting discussion. I grew up “in ministry” overseas so I never thought about membership. Now that my husband and I have been at NorthPoint Church (Missouri) I have discovered so many denominations and their concern with membership. People seem to get as worked up about that as they do about denomination. I’ve been researching (used loosely) this exact issue for the past 6 months or so. Thanks for the frank ideas.
Hello all,
Hopefully, I will stay on topic here, as so many things have happened in my Christian walk over the past 3 years…
Up until 5 months ago, I was a committed part of the leadership of a mid-size Charismatic church. For 21 years I was the head of the Worship Ministries, and lead worship every week. In addition, my wife and I lead various small groups over the years. For most of that time, there were no rigid membership requirements, and the church was thriving. All that changed when our senior pastor took the church down the “Purpose-Driven/Seeker Sensitive” path. The congregation was strongly “encouraged” to attend membership classes (Class101,201,etc.). After each class everyone was expected to sign a commitment card (a Covenant) in order to become members and advance to the next level. No, they didn’t toss out any current member who chose not to attend the classes (I, being one of them!), however that became the norm for all new attendees. The covenant cards required unwavering loyalty to the leadership (regardless of any errant teaching), and mandated tithing as a condition of membership as well (which I believe is not required for the NT Church, though I give more…but that’s another topic altogether!) Since I could not, in good conscience, sign these covenants, I would not qualify as being a member.
After several one-on-one meetings with the pastor, It became obvious that my concerns were not being listened to. I stepped down as Worship Pastor. Three years later we left the church, along with 2 other couples who shared the same feelings about the direction the leadership was taking. We did so quietly, not wanting to disrupt the congregation in any way. It was a bittersweet moment, that changed our view of the Body of Christ and what being a member of that body means.
The six of us who left began to meet in our homes for “church”. We gathered around God’s Word, fellowship, and even the Lord’s Supper. This was intended to be a temporary thing until we found another congregation to attend, however we have experienced such spiritual growth and fulfillment that we are considering adopting the “House Church” model as permanent.
The bottom line is that signing a covenant does not make you a member of Christ’s Body. It is through faith in Christ that we are born into the Body. As far as signing covenants to govern (a.k.a.- coerce) compliant behavior is a concept foreign to Scripture. For those who are in need of “church” discipline, this is best handled by those who are mutually accountable to these individuals- by those Christians we are closest to.
I’ll close with this loose paraphrase:
“The better a man is, the less need there are for oaths: the worse a man is, the less he is bound by them.”
Blessings,
Todd