# Are There Any Good Reasons For Not Having Church Membership?



## KMK

One of Calvary Chapel's distinctives is they do not have church membership. I am aware that there are certain major drawbacks to that but CC seems to be doing pretty well in spite of that distinctive.

Given the growing uncertainty of the church's relationship with the US government, lawsuit-happy lawyers, the IRS, etc, are there any good reasons to not have church membership? Could you foresee situations where it would be better to not have membership?


----------



## SolaGratia

CC does not hold to church membership! 

No wonder they act like if they have no mother 
(The Church) and father (The Lord).


----------



## KMK

SolaGratia said:


> CC does not hold to church membership!
> 
> No wonder they act like if they have no mother
> (The Church) and father (The Lord).



I am not sure what you mean...


----------



## Sonoftheday

To most of the churches I have attended church membership is pointless anyways. They dont practice church discipline, they dont withhold the Lord's Supper from anyone, they do not evangelize an anyway but rather have worldly things in the church to draw the world in. There is no accountability or authority present in the church, and while the churches i have attended practice church membership there is absolutely no difference between a member and a non member who attends other than partcipating in business meetings.

That said, I believe there is absolutely no reason why a biblical church should not practice church membership. This sets the flock under the care of the elders seperate from visitors to the church. The elders are then able to practice thier leadership and guidance over those members who place them over them. I love the idea of church membership whenever it is practiced in the proper way and would not give it up under any percievable circumstance.


----------



## SolaGratia

It is a manner of speaking throughout church history giving reference to understanding the role of the Church and her sons. 

Thus, I am following along that understanding equating church membership as being a son of the Church by having the Church as a Mother and God as our Father. 

"The early Church quickly caught on to the implication that if the Church is the Bride of Christ, then she is the Mother of the faithful. Cyprian said it so well in the third century: "You cannot have God for your Father unless you have the church for your Mother." John Calvin declared that "there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, [and] nourish us at her breast....[A]way from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation." God is our Father, the Church is our Mother. There is a whole realm of possibility for beautiful imagery and poetry in this, as we recover the faithful teaching of the Word of God." 

Also:

"I believe in the Holy Catholic Church"
(The Apostles' Creed)

"No man can have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother."

"No salvation outside the church"
(St. Cyprian)

"There is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, [and] nourish us at her breast....[A]way from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation." 
John Calvin, Institutes 4.1.4

From Scripture:
Isaiah 66:7-13
Gal. 4:21-31
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


----------



## Herald

Bryan brings up a good point. Why be a member of a church that is severely dysfunctional? In this day in age where you can wet your finger, put it in the air and allow the wind to blow you to the nearest church, we have become spoiled. Our selection of churches is like the food court at a mall. But it hasn't always been that way and it still isn't in certain areas. If your choices of churches is limited then joining a church that preaches the gospel, yet is deficient in praxis, is not about validating the church or its leadership. It's about being part of the body of Christ. Membership denotes commitment. Christians should be wholly committed to their local fellowship, even if they are opposed to the way it is run.


----------



## SolaGratia

KMK said:


> Could you foresee situations where it would be better to not have membership?




What do you mean by membership? 

When is it "better" to fear the Govt., especially lawyers and the IRS, rather than God, now and in the future?


----------



## KMK

SolaGratia said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you foresee situations where it would be better to not have membership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by membership?
> 
> When is it "better" to fear the Govt., especially lawyers and the IRS, rather than God, now and in the future?
Click to expand...


This is an extreme case, but, if you were a pastor and your government threatened to torture and kill all members of churches, would you still insist on keeping a membership roll?


----------



## BertMulder

Christ said something about confessing His Name...

Also, outside the Church there is NO salvation...


----------



## SolaGratia

Pastor Klein,

I have never herd of John Weaver but I notice in another board that he is one of your favorite preachers. I notice from sermonaudio.com that he has a sermon title:

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?
» 11/27/2005 (SUN) » Proverbs 8:32-36

Maybe this will help!


----------



## KMK

BertMulder said:


> Christ said something about confessing His Name...
> 
> Also, outside the Church there is NO salvation...



Does this really have to do with whether your name is on a membership roll? Just because Calvary Chapel does not have a membership roll does not mean that everyone who attends CC misses out on salvation. Having been a part of a CC church I can tell you that they do enforce discipline to a certain extent. They do have a high view of preaching the Word. They do a great deal of evangelism. They certainly do a lot of baptizing in the name of Christ. In addition, there are many brave CCers who would go to the stake and proudly claim Christ. They can be a very zealous bunch.

Perhaps I should be more specific. Is there ever a reason for not having a membership _roll_ complete with the signing of covenants etc.


----------



## KMK

SolaGratia said:


> Pastor Klein,
> 
> I have never herd of John Weaver but I notice in another board that he is one of your favorite preachers. I notice from sermonaudio.com that he has a sermon title:
> 
> Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?
> » 11/27/2005 (SUN) » Proverbs 8:32-36
> 
> Maybe this will help!



I am quite aware of what Pastor Weaver's answer would be.


----------



## Blue Tick

> One of Calvary Chapel's distinctives is they do not have church membership. I am aware that there are certain major drawbacks to that but CC seems to be doing pretty well in spite of that distinctive.



The appearance of doing well is not the same as doing what scripture commands and teaches. What CC appeals to is emotion, individualism, self-centered idol worship, and
anti-establishment attitudes. The concept of having an formal membership within in CC is an anthema and those churches that do are equally archaric and dead. My experience with CC is that the "pastors" are not pastors but CEOs who run the "Church" as a papacy. The top down and that's it. Do not question. The sad thing is that they believe their running it biblically.




> Given the growing uncertainty of the church's relationship with the US government, lawsuit-happy lawyers, the IRS, etc, are there any good reasons to not have church membership? Could you foresee situations where it would be better to not have membership?



No. There isn't a good reason why one shouldn't formally profess faith in Christ and become a member in a church. However, each person, and each case is different. People have baggage. They've been mistreated, abused, misinformed, and taught poorly. It's up to the session and other mature believers to lovingly, gently, and patiently instruct people to the importance of church membership.

Being in church membership is a lot like marriage. There's this euphoric stage where everything's great and nothing could ever go wrong. However, when reality sets in and people begin to live in community with one another and see each others faults the temptation is to criticize. It's easy to put on a mask in a large church. But that mask can't be worn in a marriage and that mask can't be worn in a small communal church. Nor should it be. We’re called to love one another, to be tender hearted to one another, and to carry each other's burdens. As I like to remind my wife lovingly I’m her means of sanctification as she is mine. The same goes for people that we’re in community with.


----------



## Galatians220

*I believe that there's no good reason not to attend a Christ-exalting, Gospel-preaching church every week in which one is able to do so.* I agree with you, John J.

That said, I also believe that actual membership is a different story. If one has once, twice or more suffered abuse, mistreatment, informal "excommunication" on unBiblical grounds, etc., etc., as a "perquisite" of membership in different churches, then one is understandably very wary of becoming a member of any congregation thereafter. _How many times_ should a person subject himself to ostracism, scapegoating, becoming the object of lies, gossip, ridicule, shunning or whatever else anyone feels like dumping on their "brother" or "sister?" Seventy times seven? Of course, we have to forgive that many times, and infinitely more, when someone does those things to us, but should a Christian seek or continue membership in a congregation in which that kind of behavior appears to be countenanced or even encouraged? Such congregations are out there - and they're neither few nor far between. 

There is "the visible church" and "the invisible church." But that's a whole other topic.

Whatever happened to Galatians 6:10? There's way too much

 in churches these days.


----------



## staythecourse

*Scriptual evidence for church membership*

Membership is convenient for all but Biblically speaking Christians were evident in the Bible and early church history. If I were Sola Scriptura I could not enforce membership now. It's extra-biblical. I am a member now but my brothers are obvious: We attend, we are involved, we help each other, we tell others of Christ. Then there are those that show up and leave each Lord's Day. 

I went through the ritual, stood before the congregation, had the pastor speak for me (not a great idea in my opinion) and shook hands with people (I had already been baptised). The members are evident. The players are, too.


----------



## KMK

Blue Tick said:


> One of Calvary Chapel's distinctives is they do not have church membership. I am aware that there are certain major drawbacks to that but CC seems to be doing pretty well in spite of that distinctive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The appearance of doing well is not the same as doing what scripture commands and teaches. What CC appeals to is emotion, individualism, self-centered idol worship, and
> anti-establishment attitudes. The concept of having an formal membership within in CC is an anthema and those churches that do are equally archaric and dead. My experience with CC is that the "pastors" are not pastors but CEOs who run the "Church" as a papacy. The top down and that's it. Do not question. *The sad thing is that they believe their running it biblically*.
Click to expand...


They may be in error, but they do base their polity on the Bible. They use the theocratic model under Moses whereby the pastor is basically Moses and the elders are appointed because the burden of being the 'Moses' of the church is too great. (Exo 18) I disagree with their form of polity but it is actually based on the Bible.



Blue Tick said:


> Being in church membership is a lot like marriage.



This I agree with. Many (not all!) do not want to commit to a church body for the same reasons that many do not commit to marraige.


----------



## KMK

Galatians220 said:


> *I believe that there's no good reason not to attend a Christ-exalting, Gospel-preaching church every week in which one is able to do so.* I agree with you, John J.
> 
> That said, I also believe that actual membership is a different story. If one has once, twice or more suffered abuse, mistreatment, informal "excommunication" on unBiblical grounds, etc., etc., as a "perquisite" of membership in different churches, then one is understandably very wary of becoming a member of any congregation thereafter. _How many times_ should a person subject himself to ostracism, scapegoating, becoming the object of lies, gossip, ridicule, shunning or whatever else anyone feels like dumping on their "brother" or "sister?" Seventy times seven? Of course, we have to forgive that many times, and infinitely more, when someone does those things to us, but should a Christian seek or continue membership in a congregation in which that kind of behavior appears to be countenanced or even encouraged? Such congregations are out there - and they're neither few nor far between.
> 
> There is "the visible church" and "the invisible church." But that's a whole other topic.
> 
> Whatever happened to Galatians 6:10? There's way too much
> 
> in churches these days.



Believe you me, I understand where you are coming from with spiritual abuse! For those of us who have been abused, it should definitely make us cautious about which church to hitch ourselves to, but is that really a good reason not to get back in the saddle again?


----------



## KMK

staythecourse said:


> Membership is convenient for all but Biblically speaking Christians were evident in the Bible and early church history. If I were Sola Scriptura I could not enforce membership now. It's extra-biblical. I am a member now but my brothers are obvious: We attend, we are involved, we help each other, we tell others of Christ. Then there are those that show up and leave each Lord's Day.
> 
> I went through the ritual, stood before the congregation, had the pastor speak for me (not a great idea in my opinion) and shook hands with people (I had already been baptised). The members are evident. The players are, too.



Probably because I am an old fogie, I am having a hard time understanding you. I am not sure what 'players' are. But I think what you are saying is that the fact that membership in a local church is never mentioned in the Bible is a good reason not to have membership. Is that correct?


----------



## Archlute

You would not believe the long term damage that CC views have inflicted upon the spiritual maturity and understanding of those who call themselves Christians here in SW Oregon. The idea of holding a committed membership in a particular congregation is nearly as bad in their eyes as being forced to sit under a gay Roman priest leading a Mormon temple service. It has played upon Chuck Smith's generation's pre-existing anti-establishment sentiments, as well as passed them on to the following generations of youth who have been caught up in CC. There is total individualism, resentment toward any doctrinal authority, toward church discipline, and anything else that would take away the illusion of total autonomy in matters of the Church.

There is sexual and financial sin that is routinely ignored, and whenever they become dissatisfied with one another, the split off into the various house churches in the area which are constantly leeching away members from other bodies who are either about to be disciplined, or who are probably not regenerate to begin with. I have run into a number who have had a "great experience with Jesus" but they haven't the foggiest idea of what the Gospel is all about! 

I have been very unimpressed with a movement which attempts to speak with such authority regarding spiritual matters (if you've ever been around them for any amount of time, you'll know what I mean), but yet who have so little understanding of so many things in the Christian life and theology.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming....


----------



## KMK

Archlute said:


> You would not believe the long term damage that CC views have inflicted upon the spiritual maturity and understanding of those who call themselves Christians here in SW Oregon. The idea of holding a committed membership in a particular congregation is nearly as bad in their eyes as being forced to sit under a gay Roman priest leading a Mormon temple service. It has played upon Chuck Smith's generation's pre-existing anti-establishment sentiments, as well as passed them on to the following generations of youth who have been caught up in CC. There is total individualism, resentment toward any doctrinal authority, toward church discipline, and anything else that would take away the illusion of total autonomy in matters of the Church.



I agree. And 'Papa Chuck's' influence is so widespread here in SoCal that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who has not spent some time in a CC. (Myself included)

That is not to imply that there aren't many wonderful things about Chuck Smith. His view on church polity is a problem, however.


----------



## Blue Tick

> Membership is convenient for all but Biblically speaking Christians were evident in the Bible and early church history. If I were Sola Scriptura I could not enforce membership now. It's extra-biblical. I am a member now but my brothers are obvious: We attend, we are involved, we help each other, we tell others of Christ. Then there are those that show up and leave each Lord's Day.
> 
> I went through the ritual, stood before the congregation, had the pastor speak for me (not a great idea in my opinion) and shook hands with people (I had already been baptised). The members are evident. The players are, too.



Can you defend your position that church membership is "extra biblical"?


----------



## Blue Tick

> I agree. And 'Papa Chuck's' influence is so widespread here in SoCal that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who has not spent some time in a CC. (Myself included)



Likewise, myself included. My wife and I met at CCBC in Murrieta. She was a student/employee, I was a full-time staff employee.

I praise God that he opened our eyes and took us out of that madness.


----------



## Hippo

My view is that church membership is only important in so far as it is necessary in order to enforce biblical church discipline, if there is no discupline then membership is merely an extra biblical form of bureaucracy that only encourages sectarianism.

It is the discipline that is important not membership.

Membership is important as it is the mechanism by which an individual becomes accountable to a group of elders (I suppose it is correct to say a church of elders) or whichever form of church government that is in place.

The important issue in my mind is that membership does not divide the church by allowing Christians under discipline to find sanctuary in a new body but that there is respect between real churches where new members have to be released (subject to no abuse being present) by their old congregations.


----------



## staythecourse

> Probably because I am an old fogie, I am having a hard time understanding you. I am not sure what 'players' are. But I think what you are saying is that the fact that membership in a local church is never mentioned in the Bible is a good reason not to have membership. Is that correct?



I meant "players" as in false professors. Forgive me for being too loose in my vocabulary.

And, yes, since it's not mentioned in the NT in the way we have church membership today it's arguably good not to have it.

I believe, based on experience, that members automatically come to church to worship because they desire it. There are exceptions and discipline is needed. That is NT membership for the most part.



> Can you defend your position that church membership is "extra biblical"?



A person was recognized as a member of the body of Christ if these qualifications were met: Confession of Jesus and baptism. That defined membership. They then ate communion, were taught, gathered regularly, etc. Anything beyond that to define membership to the church would be extra-biblical. For me, it was agreeing with the 1689. I have many brothers who do not agree with the 1689. I hope that suffices as an example of "extra-biblicalness" of modern day church membership.

Regarding the authenticity of a person belonging to Christ church discipline at the local church level is meant to correct the problem unless an apostle acted as Paul did with the church of Corinth.

I hope I explained myself a little more clearly. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.



> My view is that church membership is only important in so far as it is necessary in order to enforce biblical church discipline, if there is no discipline then membership is merely an extra biblical form of bureaucracy that only encourages sectarianism.



That says it well. Frankly it's easier to put names on a role in order to do church discipline, exhortation, and accountability (not just to elders but to one another) if all agree. But in our church not all of us think that the Pope is absolutley the anti-Christ (as an example) yet we raised our hands (so to speak) and made a vow to adhere to the 1689's interpretation of Scripture. Am I making my opinion muddier or clearer with this example?


----------



## JonathanHunt

Hippo said:


> My view is that church membership is only important in so far as it is necessary in order to enforce biblical church discipline, if there is no discupline then membership is merely an extra biblical form of bureaucracy that only encourages sectarianism.
> 
> It is the discipline that is important not membership.
> 
> Membership is important as it is the mechanism by which an individual becomes accountable to a group of elders (I suppose it is correct to say a church of elders) or whichever form of church government that is in place.
> 
> The important issue in my mind is that membership does not divide the church by allowing Christians under discipline to find sanctuary in a new body but that there is respect between real churches where new members have to be released (subject to no abuse being present) by their old congregations.




I think you're absolutely spot-on, Mike. Also from the issue of church discipline flows proper church government. Without discipline, even the leadership seems pointless and ineffective. Membership is a formal acknowlegement that you place yourself under the elders - submitting to those in authority over you.


----------



## py3ak

Would those of you who are elders discipline a person (admonish, rebuke, fence and/or shun) someone who was not on the membership roll but who had been attending for some time, if unrepented sin was discovered in that person's life?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

The reason people do not want to be church members (generally speaking), is due to an individualism that does not wish to submit to other members, and especially to those in authority over them.

If there is no membership, then how can you have leaders to rule over the elders since there is no one in membership to rule over?


----------



## KMK

py3ak said:


> Would those of you who are elders discipline a person (admonish, rebuke, fence and/or shun) someone who was not on the membership roll but who had been attending for some time, if unrepented sin was discovered in that person's life?



Discipline (discipling) takes on many forms, but yes, since we do not yet have membership, all of the disciplining I do is done without membership. It is possible, but it sure would be easier if we did have membership.


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> Having been a part of a CC church I can tell you that they do enforce discipline to a certain extent.



We live in a lawsuit wacky world. In his Peacemakers material, Ken Sande stressed the importance of having a well-defined covenant of understanding for church members setting out mutual expectations especially in the area of church discipline. 

I would think that any church that attempts discipline without a clear understanding on the part of the congregation is asking for trouble.

I think a defined membership serves to protect both the leaders and the members. It also serves as a concrete expression of mutual love.


----------



## KMK

tcalbrecht said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having been a part of a CC church I can tell you that they do enforce discipline to a certain extent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We live in a lawsuit wacky world. In his Peacemakers material, Ken Sande stressed the importance of having a well-defined covenant of understanding for church members setting out mutual expectations especially in the area of church disciple.
> 
> I would think that any church that attempts disciple without a clear understanding on the part of the congregation is asking for trouble.
> 
> I think a defined membership serves to protect both the leaders and the members. It also serves as a concrete expression of mutual love.
Click to expand...


These "Peacemaking" resources look very interesting. Do they have your endorsement?


----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> These "Peacemaking" resources look very interesting. Do they have your endorsement?



Yep. My wife and I have attended their conferences and we have used sets of the Peacemaker audio materials. I believe they are fairly well-respected in the Reformed community. Sande is a PCA ruling elder, and the PCA’s CE&P has them listed on the web site for reference material.


----------



## fredtgreco

The Peacemaker materials are fabulous. There is a very good book written by Ken Sande's past, Al Poirer (a PCA pastor) called _The PEacemaking Pastor_.

Highly recommended.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

At least three times in Revelation is mentioned the names WRITTEN in the book of life. Are we typically supposed to be imitating the heavenly on earth? See also Heb. 12:23.

1 Tim 5:9 speaks of the widows "enrolled". Whoops! Was this extra-biblical?

Where did all those lists of names from the Old Testament church, or in the genealogy of Christ, come from?

Other refs:
Num 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, every male, by their polls; 
and many more from Numb. 1; Num 3:40, 43; Num 11:26; Num 26:53

Deu 25:6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his *name be not blotted *out of Israel.
("blotted out" is picturesque, yes, but OF WHAT?)

1Ch 12:31 And of the half-tribe of Manasseh eighteen thousand, who were mentioned by name, to come and make David king.

Many, many other references.

This should be sufficient to show that that from time immemorial, there have been church rolls and names, and our names are written in heaven, and we should be more than happy to acknowledge that our own rolls are imperfect imitations of heaven's roll, and eminently biblical in practice to have them. A permanent record is better than record in someone's memory. Perhaps in times of persecution, one might want to forgo them... but that would be a circumstantial prudence.


----------



## KMK

Contra_Mundum said:


> At least three times in Revelation is mentioned the names WRITTEN in the book of life. Are we typically supposed to be imitating the heavenly on earth? See also Heb. 12:23.
> 
> 1 Tim 5:9 speaks of the widows "enrolled". Whoops! Was this extra-biblical?
> 
> Where did all those lists of names from the Old Testament church, or in the genealogy of Christ, come from?
> 
> Other refs:
> Num 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, every male, by their polls;
> and many more from Numb. 1; Num 3:40, 43; Num 11:26; Num 26:53
> 
> Deu 25:6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his *name be not blotted *out of Israel.
> ("blotted out" is picturesque, yes, but OF WHAT?)
> 
> 1Ch 12:31 And of the half-tribe of Manasseh eighteen thousand, who were mentioned by name, to come and make David king.
> 
> Many, many other references.
> 
> This should be sufficient to show that that from time immemorial, there have been church rolls and names, and our names are written in heaven, and we should be more than happy to acknowledge that our own rolls are imperfect imitations of heaven's roll, and eminently biblical in practice to have them. A permanent record is better than record in someone's memory. Perhaps in times of persecution, one might want to forgo them... but that would be a circumstantial prudence.



Great post! I agree that it is a simple thing to prove that God is not _against_ church membership.

Someone mentioned to me also that a reason for no membership roll might also be in cases where there is an extremely small church. For example, if the core of a church is just two families, do you really need a roll?


----------



## fredtgreco

Contra_Mundum said:


> At least three times in Revelation is mentioned the names WRITTEN in the book of life. Are we typically supposed to be imitating the heavenly on earth? See also Heb. 12:23.
> 
> 1 Tim 5:9 speaks of the widows "enrolled". Whoops! Was this extra-biblical?
> 
> Where did all those lists of names from the Old Testament church, or in the genealogy of Christ, come from?
> 
> Other refs:
> Num 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, every male, by their polls;
> and many more from Numb. 1; Num 3:40, 43; Num 11:26; Num 26:53
> 
> Deu 25:6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his *name be not blotted *out of Israel.
> ("blotted out" is picturesque, yes, but OF WHAT?)
> 
> 1Ch 12:31 And of the half-tribe of Manasseh eighteen thousand, who were mentioned by name, to come and make David king.
> 
> Many, many other references.
> 
> This should be sufficient to show that that from time immemorial, there have been church rolls and names, and our names are written in heaven, and we should be more than happy to acknowledge that our own rolls are imperfect imitations of heaven's roll, and eminently biblical in practice to have them. A permanent record is better than record in someone's memory. Perhaps in times of persecution, one might want to forgo them... but that would be a circumstantial prudence.



Somebody's been reading Morton Smith!


----------



## Stephen

KMK said:


> One of Calvary Chapel's distinctives is they do not have church membership. I am aware that there are certain major drawbacks to that but CC seems to be doing pretty well in spite of that distinctive.
> 
> Given the growing uncertainty of the church's relationship with the US government, lawsuit-happy lawyers, the IRS, etc, are there any good reasons to not have church membership? Could you foresee situations where it would be better to not have membership?




They have no church membership and as a result there is no accountability. People can live however they please and never receive discipline. Calvary Chapel is not a true church because it does not have the marks of a visible church.


----------



## staythecourse

> 9A widow is to be (N)put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been (O)the wife of one man,
> 
> 10having a reputation for (P)good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has (Q)shown hospitality to strangers, if she (R)has washed the saints' feet, if she has (S)assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.



The list of people needing/deserving handouts not church rolls in my understanding of the text.


----------



## staythecourse

Let's see where my reasoning goes with the genealogy lists.

The ultimate reason for the list was to prove Christ's birth fulfilled prophecy. It did and the temple was destroyed with all the records.

It's purpose was to establish men from the line of Levi to perform the priests function.

It's purpose was to establish who was in what tribe to get their allotted land.

It's purpose was to confirm who was a Jew.

The last purpose would be the one I believe would most likely be applicable to the church.

The genealogy list was 100% accurate as to the blood line. A church membership list is 100% accurate in what regard? You would have to tell me as a Presbyterian because I don't understand how that might work out in Presbyterian doctrine. In the Baptist regard it would be 100% accurate regarding everyone who made a profession the Jesus is Lord (a true confession vs. a false confession which knocks the percentage way down). If the list is kept up to date (in this fictional Baptist church where discipline and excommunication it practiced well) it gets close to 100% as compared to the Book of Life but only God knows the heart. 

In contrast, Jews could not be removed from the list and they can be from a church role due to excommunication, death, (and in another category, moving away where we should hope that person would "join themselves" to another body using the 1689 vernacular)

The list did show who was set apart and had to obey the law. That's a good point for application today. This is where we use discipline and excommunication.

The genealogy list was 100% accurate as to the blood line. A church membership list is 100% accurate in what regard? You would have to tell me as a Presbyterian because I don't understand how that might work out in Presbyterian doctrine. In the Baptist regard it would be 100% accurate regarding everyone who made a profession the Jesus is Lord (a true confession vs. a false confession which knocks the percentage way down). If the list is kept up to date (in this fictional Baptist church where discipline and excommunication it practiced well) it gets close to 100% as compared to the Book of Life but only God knows the heart. 

These are just notes on my thinking and not a reasoned post. My apologies.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

staythecourse said:


> Let's see where my reasoning goes with the genealogy lists.
> 
> The ultimate reason for the list was to prove Christ's birth fulfilled prophecy. It did and the temple was destroyed with all the records.


So, why not just keep lists of the Davidic line, notes for succession, since no other lines mattered?


staythecourse said:


> It's purpose was to establish men from the line of Levi to perform the priests function.


So there was another seriously important reason.


staythecourse said:


> It's purpose was to establish who was in what tribe to get their allotted land.


Yet a third seriously important reason. This is starting to get serious.


staythecourse said:


> It's purpose was to confirm who was a Jew.
> 
> The last purpose would be the one I believe would most likely be applicable to the church.


In other words: _to distinguish a CHURCH member from the rest of humanity._ I agree, it sounds like a very important reason. In fact, it sounds like a sufficient reason all by itself.


staythecourse said:


> The genealogy list was 100% accurate as to the blood line. A church membership list is 100% accurate in what regard? You would have to tell me as a Presbyterian because I don't understand how that might work out in Presbyterian doctrine. In the Baptist regard it would be 100% accurate regarding everyone who made a profession the Jesus is Lord (a true confession vs. a false confession which knocks the percentage way down). If the list is kept up to date (in this fictional Baptist church where discipline and excommunication it practiced well) it gets close to 100% as compared to the Book of Life but only God knows the heart.


I'm not sure what bearing this has on the question of whether or not a church should keep a roll. An identifiable roll of persons helps the church officers know whom they are responsible for, that is "especially those of the *household* of faith" (Gal. 6:10). The list would be exhaustive, that is 100% of the people on that roll are to be attended unto by those who "watch for your souls, as men who must give account" (Heb. 13:17). Account of whom? The membership! I don't have to give an account for people not on my list, the ones who are someone else's list. I have a general Christian duty to them, and nothing more. Ah, but some people I will have to give account for. How should I know who they are?

Yes, indeed this is a limiting concept. And its gracious that it is so, because otherwise my duties as a minister would outstrip my capabilities. I think some churches don't want a list, because they don't want God to hold them accountable for anyone. I think they will be very surprised, because instead, God will likely demand an "accounting" that is vast.


staythecourse said:


> In contrast, Jews could not be removed from the list and they can be from a church role due to excommunication, death, (and in another category, moving away where we should hope that person would "join themselves" to another body using the 1689 vernacular).


Well, this is just plain wrong. A Jew most certainly could be excommunicated from his people. Num 19:20 "If the man who is unclean does not cleanse himself, that person shall be *cut off from the midst of the assembly*, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. Because the water for impurity has not been thrown on him, he is unclean." Refusal to undergo ritual purification was reason to be excommunicated. Even if you argue that every time such language is used, it means _death,_ not living excommunication, the result is simply excommunication in a theocratic context. So dead or not, he was still excluded from the assembly.


staythecourse said:


> The list did show who was set apart and had to obey the law. That's a good point for application today. This is where we use discipline and excommunication.


Of course, and sufficient reason all by itself.

So what have we demonstrated? Only that from ancient days, there have been good, prudential, and biblical reasons to have a church roll--a list of identifiable, separated people that the church recognizes, for purposes of ministry and discipline. Which makes this comment:


> The list of people needing/deserving handouts not church rolls in my understanding of the text.


pretty difficult to justify, being a dismissal of 1 Tim 5:9, which is nothing but a subdirectory of the larger enrollment, even if you just thought of it as a "virtual" roll, and refused to write it down.


----------



## staythecourse

> Originally Posted by staythecourse View Post
> It's purpose was to confirm who was a Jew.
> 
> The last purpose would be the one I believe would most likely be applicable to the church.
> In other words: to distinguish a CHURCH member from the rest of humanity. I agree, it sounds like a very important reason. In fact, it sounds like a sufficient reason all by itself.



These things get so drawn out! I got eat right, sleep and exercise before I get in these debates which I'm not good at.

I have to admit ignorance and see if I am understanding you rightly pastor. The Jew and the church are the same?

I only got as far in my reasoning that the lineage defined who had to obey the Mosaic law because the were in covenant. I then tried to see the differences between the to "roles of names" to see of the differences can be explained away to be completely applicable to the church (or to what extent or what modifications)

Also, I was saying that a Jew could never be taken off the list even if excommunicated because it was a blood line. It had nothing to do with violating the covenant.

They were passive in being put in the lineage as we are passive in being put in the Book of Life because we were acted upon and were given faith in Christ.

I know my post is convoluted and I do not explain myself well but please bear with me and make the most of the post if you can!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

staythecourse said:


> Originally Posted by staythecourse View Post
> It's purpose was to confirm who was a Jew.
> The last purpose would be the one I believe would most likely be applicable to the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words: to distinguish a CHURCH member from the rest of humanity. I agree, it sounds like a very important reason. In fact, it sounds like a sufficient reason all by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These things get so drawn out! I got eat right, sleep and exercise before I get in these debates which I'm not good at.
> 
> I have to admit ignorance and see if I am understanding you rightly pastor. The Jew and the church are the same?
Click to expand...

Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. 
Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the *church* [ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: 
Act 7:39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, 

Yes, Israel was the church in the OT.


staythecourse said:


> I only got as far in my reasoning that the lineage defined who had to obey the Mosaic law because the were in covenant. I then tried to see the differences between the to "roles of names" to see of the differences can be explained away to be completely applicable to the church (or to what extent or what modifications)
> 
> Also, I was saying that a Jew could never be taken off the list even if excommunicated because it was a blood line. It had nothing to do with violating the covenant.
> 
> They were passive in being put in the lineage as we are passive in being put in the Book of Life because we were acted upon and were given faith in Christ.


Why do we need to "explain away" the *fact* of lists of names in the Bible, lists used in the conduct of religious business? Or to look for reasons why we should not apply such practice to a NT situation? Even if you only think confessors ought to be on such a list, can we not see a similarity in rationale for either?



But, I have to say that I understand why some Baptists would take this position, since (under that view) the NT situation is so "spiritual" that there is no visible administration of the New Covenant. Such a roll would be, at best, a pragmatic concession to weakness of memory.

Our rolls are NOT simply current lists of members/attendees. They are a part of the _administration_ of the church, a _historic_ process. These are the records of the church. So the roll reads all the members, past and present. Past members are marked as "deceased" when they die, their earthly membership is remembered. Excommunicated members are recorded first at their baptism, and later note is made of their discipline. I have seen the same person marked as "restored" at a later date.


----------



## staythecourse

> But, I have to say that I understand why some Baptists would take this position, since (under that view) the NT situation is so "spiritual" that there is no visible administration of the New Covenant. Such a roll would be, at best, a pragmatic concession to weakness of memory.



Yes, that explains my underlying reasoning and put well.

But, taking a Presbyterian or Baptist church role, kept accurate and to the best of man's ability the big difference which to me makes a lot of difference, is that the Jewish genealogy was 100% accurate comprising the real church (going to heaven believers) + going to hell non-believers with Abraham's blood in their veins.

The church role is any man's best guess. We can't weed out the baddies to make a perfect role - so, and here's my point, why keep one? Since it will be wrong let's not keep one. The 100% accurate book is the Lamb's Book of Life.



> Our rolls are NOT simply current lists of members/attendees. They are a part of the administration of the church, a historic process.



I understand your reasoning here but I can't agree. If any family had an ongoing line of believers in the "Smith" family, let's say, I'd say Amen! But we see the membership grow from "faith to faith" and (Praise God) He sure does grant faith to my brothers' children but often not.


----------



## Herald

py3ak said:


> Would those of you who are elders discipline a person (admonish, rebuke, fence and/or shun) someone who was not on the membership roll but who had been attending for some time, if unrepented sin was discovered in that person's life?



I would confront said person. Discipline? Difficult to do since they have not submitted to the leadership of the church.


----------



## staythecourse

Bill,

If you have a pastor's heart (and man, I know you do) you would tell that brother whome you love to get his act together cause he's in trouble with God! The bigger the pastor-heart, the more obligated he feels to Christians around him. Your rebuke may do the trick to get him in line.

We have a familiy at our church who will not become members for theonomist views (true story) but he has a relationship with the pastor and our big-hearted pastor treats him in many ways as a friend, brother, and counselor but (shock) he ain't on the role!


----------



## KMK

Contra_Mundum said:


> An identifiable roll of persons helps the church officers know whom they are responsible for, that is "especially those of the *household* of faith" (Gal. 6:10). The list would be exhaustive, that is 100% of the people on that roll are to be attended unto by those who "watch for your souls, as men who must give account" (Heb. 13:17). Account of whom? The membership! I don't have to give an account for people not on my list, the ones who are someone else's list. I have a general Christian duty to them, and nothing more. Ah, but some people I will have to give account for. How should I know who they are?
> 
> So what have we demonstrated? Only that from ancient days, there have been good, prudential, and biblical reasons to have a church roll--a list of identifiable, separated people that the church recognizes, for purposes of ministry and discipline.



It is because of posts like these that I am a part of PB! 

Would you mind, Rev Buchanan, if I used this in the 'paper' I am writing about membership?


----------



## KMK

North Jersey Baptist said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would those of you who are elders discipline a person (admonish, rebuke, fence and/or shun) someone who was not on the membership roll but who had been attending for some time, if unrepented sin was discovered in that person's life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would confront said person. Discipline? Difficult to do since they have not submitted to the leadership of the church.
Click to expand...


Isn't 'confrontation' a form of discipline, Bill? Many times all my wife has to do to discipline me is confront me.


----------



## Herald

staythecourse said:


> Bill,
> 
> If you have a pastor's heart (and man, I know you do) you would tell that brother whome you love to get his act together cause he's in trouble with God! The bigger the pastor-heart, the more obligated he feels to Christians around him. Your rebuke may do the trick to get him in line.
> 
> We have a familiy at our church who will not become members for theonomist views (true story) but he has a relationship with the pastor and our big-hearted pastor treats him in many ways as a friend, brother, and counselor but (shock) he ain't on the role!



That is what the confrontation would be about. Maybe I should have said that progressive discipline would be difficult if the person was not a member. You really could not bring them up in front of the church since they are not members.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would those of you who are elders discipline a person (admonish, rebuke, fence and/or shun) someone who was not on the membership roll but who had been attending for some time, if unrepented sin was discovered in that person's life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would confront said person. Discipline? Difficult to do since they have not submitted to the leadership of the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't 'confrontation' a form of discipline, Bill? Many times all my wife has to do to discipline me is confront me.
Click to expand...


Ken, see post #49.


----------



## py3ak

Bill, the concern I have (which doesn't invalidate the practice) is suggested by something Bruce said about a membership roll defining the limits of accountability. In one sense, I can certainly see how this is so. And if you practice close(d) communion, then it may be that a confrontation is that all can be done with someone who is not a member. But in churches which practice open communion, if the elders are not willing to discipline a non-member by barring them from the Lord's table (or if they will take no responsibility in prayer and visitation for that person --and I'm not saying that Bruce practices or advocates either of these), then I think something has gone rather wrong. In today's climate it often does take people quite a long time to be sure that they want to join this particular church: perhaps there is a distinctive they don't understand; perhaps they are Baptists in a presbyterian wilderness; perhaps the membership class at the church is a 3-year course. If they are discovered in flagrant, unrepentant sin during that time they should be barred from communion: if a problem is suspected, they should be visited.


----------



## staythecourse

> That is what the confrontation would be about. Maybe I should have said that progressive discipline would be difficult if the person was not a member. You really could not bring them up in front of the church since they are not members.



In my imaginary church you could


----------



## KMK

North Jersey Baptist said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would confront said person. Discipline? Difficult to do since they have not submitted to the leadership of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't 'confrontation' a form of discipline, Bill? Many times all my wife has to do to discipline me is confront me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ken, see post #49.
Click to expand...


Uuuuummmm... This is post #49...


----------



## py3ak

I think he meant post #48.


----------



## KMK

py3ak said:


> I think he meant post #48.



Gotcha. Why would it be impossible to establish a matter with someone who is not a member? I think there is 'de facto' membership. If you show up to my church every Sunday to hear me preach and ask for my prayers and attend fellowship with the church for months on end, then you are, for all practical purposes, a member of my church. I don't see what would stop me from establishing a matter with such a person.

It is not the perfect situation, I agree, but it is still _possible_.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

KMK said:


> ...are there any good reasons to not have church membership? Could you foresee situations where it would be better to not have membership?



Top 10 Reasons To Not Be A Church Member:
10. I retain my own independence and not have to submit to anyone in the church for accountability, prayer, discipleship or participation.
9. I can come to church whenever I feel like it.
8. When I don't feel like coming to church, nobody gives me annoying phone calls asking me why I didn't come to church.
7. I can live my life as sinful as I wish without anyone in the church ranting on me about it.
6. There's weekly dues of tithes or offerings that's expected of membership. As a non-member, I don't have to give anything.
5. Members are expected to participate in the many major church events and activities. As a non-member, I can pick and choose if I want to come to any of them or not.
4. I don't want to serve others; I want others to serve me.
3. I can complain and criticize about the church members and its leaders because I'm not really part of them.
2. I'm already serving and involved in the church as a non-member in the exact same capacity and opportunity as the members of the church.

And the #1 benefit to not being a church membership is....

*drum rolls

*more drum rolls

*even more drum rolls

*cymbals clash

1. Membership is like marriage - too tied down. I like checking out many ladies; and I like checking out many churches. So to Joshua Harris telling me to "Stop Dating The Church," no way jose...


----------



## calgal

servantofmosthigh said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...are there any good reasons to not have church membership? Could you foresee situations where it would be better to not have membership?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 Reasons To Not Be A Church Member:
> 10. I retain my own independence and not have to submit to anyone in the church for accountability, prayer, discipleship or participation.
> 9. I can come to church whenever I feel like it.
> 8. When I don't feel like coming to church, nobody gives me annoying phone calls asking me why I didn't come to church.
> 7. I can live my life as sinful as I wish without anyone in the church ranting on me about it.
> 6. There's weekly dues of tithes or offerings that's expected of membership. As a non-member, I don't have to give anything.
> 5. Members are expected to participate in the many major church events and activities. As a non-member, I can pick and choose if I want to come to any of them or not.
> 4. I don't want to serve others; I want others to serve me.
> 3. I can complain and criticize about the church members and its leaders because I'm not really part of them.
> 2. I'm already serving and involved in the church as a non-member in the exact same capacity and opportunity as the members of the church.
> 
> And the #1 benefit to not being a church membership is....
> 
> *drum rolls
> 
> *more drum rolls
> 
> *even more drum rolls
> 
> *cymbals clash
> 
> 1. Membership is like marriage - too tied down. I like checking out many ladies; and I like checking out many churches. So to Joshua Harris telling me to "Stop Dating The Church," no way jose...
Click to expand...


and that is the Calvary chapel way: no commitment required or desired.


----------



## beej6

KMK said:


> Gotcha. Why would it be impossible to establish a matter with someone who is not a member? I think there is 'de facto' membership. If you show up to my church every Sunday to hear me preach and ask for my prayers and attend fellowship with the church for months on end, then you are, for all practical purposes, a member of my church. I don't see what would stop me from establishing a matter with such a person.
> 
> It is not the perfect situation, I agree, but it is still _possible_.



Is 'de facto' membership like common law marriage?
I would certainly agree that you would have the right, as any brother would, to address a matter. But without a defined and clear statement that I have submitted to you and the other elders as a member of your church, it's simply advice. You have no authority explicitly.


----------



## DMcFadden

calgal said:


> and that is the Calvary chapel way: no commitment required or desired.



Interesting the way Calvary Chapel keeps surfacing in this thread (all the way back to the OP). Their theology is purportedly "balanced," but results in a strongly anti-Calvinist Arminianism (they still sell Bryson's anti-5 pts. book and offer his tapes although Chuck Smith attempts to strike an irenic position for non-Calvinism or a "balance" between the "extremes" of Calvinism and Arminianism, http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/books/caatwog.htm). On the five points, 3 and 4 are clearly Arminian. Point 1 uses the language of "balance" but falls short of a Calvinistic understanding. On Point 2, they adopt the prescient view. And, finally, while they affirm "perseverance," their application of Matthew 7:21-23 washes away much of the meaning. 

I guess if you view soteriology as dominated by my free will, it makes sense to have an ecclesiology to match.


----------



## danmpem

Stephen said:


> Calvary Chapel is not a true church because it does not have the marks of a visible church.



Could you elaborate please?


----------



## danmpem

DMcFadden said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> and that is the Calvary chapel way: no commitment required or desired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting the way Calvary Chapel keeps surfacing in this thread (all the way back to the OP). Their theology is purportedly "balanced," but results in a strongly anti-Calvinist Arminianism (they still sell Bryson's anti-5 pts. book and offer his tapes although Chuck Smith attempts to strike an irenic position for non-Calvinism or a "balance" between the "extremes" of Calvinism and Arminianism, Calvinism, Arminianism and the Word of God). On the five points, 3 and 4 are clearly Arminian. Point 1 uses the language of "balance" but falls short of a Calvinistic understanding. On Point 2, they adopt the prescient view. And, finally, while they affirm "perseverance," their application of Matthew 7:21-23 washes away much of the meaning.
> 
> I guess if you view soteriology as dominated by my free will, it makes sense to have an ecclesiology to match.
Click to expand...


I've heard much of that too, but the two that are near my town are much more toward the Calvinistic side than anything else.


----------

