# Church membership?



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 8, 2021)

Let me start off by saying I ABSOLUTELY believe in all saved to be an actual member of a church and not just merely attending church…


Now for my question, is church membership explicitly taught in the scriptures or is church attendance acceptable? I ask this as I am not sure if the scriptures teach it is. I know that church attendance is essential, but is membership essential, too? I’d say yes, but I don’t know where I can find proof it is.

What I mean by this is do truly saved ppl have to have their name on a local church membership roll?

TIA


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 8, 2021)

If this is in the wrong forum, someone from the staff, please move it to the appropriate forum.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 8, 2021)

The reason why I say member is essential is because I take the pastor/shepherd, member/sheep very seriously. If someone is not an actual member of a local church, they are not under the authority of a pastor/shepherd. That would make them a sheep w/o a shepherd, and I cannot accept a shepherd-less sheep. I was attending a local church for close to 3 years and my wife and I finally took our membership there last month. We wanted to make sure we’d be happy there and could serve the Lord in our community.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 8, 2021)

convicted1 said:


> If someone is not an actual member of a local church, they are not under the authority of a pastor/shepherd. That would make them a sheep w/o a shepherd, and I cannot accept a shepherd-less sheep.



This is the answer to your original question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 8, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> This is the answer to your original question.


I agree, but where exactly is this taught? If someone asks me, what verses can I use to show them? Thanks for your answer.


----------



## TheInquirer (Nov 8, 2021)

I think church membership is a merely a tool to formally identify the relationship between shepherd and sheep. A wedding ceremony isn't explictly commanded in Scripture but we do it to recognize publicly the covenant commitment being made.

I am sure churches have freedom in the manner in which they identify the shepherd/sheep relationship whether it is a signed document, a verbal commitment, a period of attendance, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Nov 8, 2021)

convicted1 said:


> I agree, but where exactly is this taught? If someone asks me, what verses can I use to show them? Thanks for your answer.


It is taught implicitly. How do they know which widows to take care for if they don't know who are members of the church? We need to not get too excited if we don't see an exact verse stating exactlty what a doctrine is. A lot of these things are inferences, i.e. good and necessary consequence. I should add, since we are not dispensationalists, I think you will find support for the practice of knowing exactly who is a member of the covenant to be found in the old testament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 8, 2021)

convicted1 said:


> I agree, but where exactly is this taught? If someone asks me, what verses can I use to show them? Thanks for your answer.



You don't need a specific verse. It's a negative argument. If there isn't anything like church membership, then it is impossible to place someone under discipline.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You don't need a specific verse. It's a negative argument. If there isn't anything like church membership, then it is impossible to place someone under discipline.


Now _this_ is a great point!


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 8, 2021)

De Jager said:


> It is taught implicitly. How do they know which widows to take care for if they don't know who are members of the church? We need to not get too excited if we don't see an exact verse stating exactlty what a doctrine is. A lot of these things are inferences, i.e. good and necessary consequence. I should add, since we are not dispensationalists, I think you will find support for the practice of knowing exactly who is a member of the covenant to be found in the old testament.


Thanks for your response. Couldn’t they know who the widows are by just them attending church?


----------



## Jack K (Nov 8, 2021)

The only way to miss church membership in the Bible is to ignore the Old Testament or to mistakenly think the church did not exist yet in those times. The assembly of God's people is carefully counted and individuals listed by name in Numbers 1-4 and 26, and in Ezra 2. That's six whole chapters of Scripture dedicated to the practice of numbered, named church membership. Would one of the slaves freed from Egypt tell Moses he wanted to tag along to the promised land but did not want to be named and registered as a part of the congregation, as described in Numbers 1:18? Or would one of the returnees from exile tell Zerubbabel he wanted to come with him to Jerusalem, but to please not list him among those catalogued in Ezra 2?

As we move into the New Testament, I would think the burden would be on the one opposed to membership to show that God no longer cares about numbering his people, and that belonging to the assembly is now more of a fuzzy free-for-all. This would be hard to show in light of ample evidence that God does still care who belongs and wants the leaders of his church to know whom they are overseeing, just like Moses and Zerubbabel did. Acts 2:41, Acts 4:4, and Acts 6:1-7 show that the church kept tracking its numbers and membership into the apostolic age, and passages that speak of expelling members (like 1 Corinthians 5:2) imply the church leadership knew who was in to begin with. You can't expel him if he's just looking in from the fringe, can you?

Of course, in the apostolic age, baptism would have been enough to show church membership and get you numbered. If you were baptized you were part of the body, and everyone knew which local church you belonged to since there weren't multiple choices in each city. In that sense, what we refer to as church membership today is a bit different in that it also helps us specify exactly which elders in what local church are in charge of a member's care. But it is a mistake to claim that to have some membership in some church is nowhere taught in the Bible. It's very clearly there.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 8, 2021)

Jack K said:


> The only way to miss church membership in the Bible is to ignore the Old Testament or to mistakenly think the church did not exist yet in those times. The assembly of God's people is carefully counted and individuals listed by name in Numbers 1-4 and 26, and in Ezra 2. That's six whole chapters of Scripture dedicated to the practice of numbered, named church membership. Would one of the slaves freed from Egypt tell Moses he wanted to tag along to the promised land but did not want to be named and registered as a part of the congregation, as mentioned in Numbers 1:18? Or would one of the returnees from exile tell Zerubbabel he wanted to come with him to Jerusalem, but to please not list him among those catalogued in Ezra 2?
> 
> As we move into the New Testament, I would think the burden would be on the one opposed to membership to show that God no longer cares about numbering his people, and that belonging to the assembly is now more of a fuzzy free-for-all. This would be hard to show in light of ample evidence that God does still care who belongs and wants the leaders of his church to know whom they are overseeing, just like Moses and Zerubbabel did. Acts 2:41, Acts 4:4, and Acts 6:1-7 show that the church kept tracking its numbers and membership into the apostolic age, and passages that speak of expelling members (like 1 Corinthians 5:2) imply the church leadership knew who was in to begin with. You can't expel him if he's just looking in from the fringe, can you?
> 
> Of course, in the apostolic age, baptism would have been enough to show church membership and get you numbered. If you were baptized you were part of the body, and everyone knew which local church you belonged to since there weren't multiple choices in each city. In that sense, what we refer to as church membership today is a bit different in that it also helps us specify exactly which elders in what local church are in charge of a member's care. But it is a mistake to claim that to have some membership in some church is nowhere taught in the Bible. It's very clearly there.


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 8, 2021)

convicted1 said:


> Let me start off by saying I ABSOLUTELY believe in all saved to be an actual member of a church and not just merely attending church…
> 
> 
> Now for my question, is church membership explicitly taught in the scriptures or is church attendance acceptable? I ask this as I am not sure if the scriptures teach it is. I know that church attendance is essential, but is membership essential, too? I’d say yes, but I don’t know where I can find proof it is.
> ...


"Attending" implies being in audience at an event.

"Membership" describes belonging to a body.

If you can anywhere identify a prescriptive Biblical church example that excludes the concept of the latter in favor of the former, I'd be utterly astounded.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 8, 2021)

I will say there are a number of nondenom-type churches that are cagey about the term "membership" for various reasons, while having a very real _de facto_ membership in place. 

Kind of runs parallel to the whole "no-creed-but-the-Bible-but-don't-disagree-with-our-creed" business.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 9, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> "Attending" implies being in audience at an event.
> 
> "Membership" describes belonging to a body.
> 
> If you can anywhere identify a prescriptive Biblical church example that excludes the concept of the latter in favor of the former, I'd be utterly astounded.


Plus, if someone regularly attends a church but isn’t a member, if they are living ungodly for an extended period of time, the church can’t really bring them under church discipline, seeing they are not an actual member, correct?

So, seeing this _could_ happen, could that church ask that person to not attend until they repent? This could be a black eye as others not members of that church may not know they’re an actual member of that church and think that church doesn’t discipline their sheep.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 9, 2021)

Jack K said:


> The only way to miss church membership in the Bible is to ignore the Old Testament or to mistakenly think the church did not exist yet in those times. The assembly of God's people is carefully counted and individuals listed by name in Numbers 1-4 and 26, and in Ezra 2. That's six whole chapters of Scripture dedicated to the practice of numbered, named church membership. Would one of the slaves freed from Egypt tell Moses he wanted to tag along to the promised land but did not want to be named and registered as a part of the congregation, as described in Numbers 1:18? Or would one of the returnees from exile tell Zerubbabel he wanted to come with him to Jerusalem, but to please not list him among those catalogued in Ezra 2?
> 
> As we move into the New Testament, I would think the burden would be on the one opposed to membership to show that God no longer cares about numbering his people, and that belonging to the assembly is now more of a fuzzy free-for-all. This would be hard to show in light of ample evidence that God does still care who belongs and wants the leaders of his church to know whom they are overseeing, just like Moses and Zerubbabel did. Acts 2:41, Acts 4:4, and Acts 6:1-7 show that the church kept tracking its numbers and membership into the apostolic age, and passages that speak of expelling members (like 1 Corinthians 5:2) imply the church leadership knew who was in to begin with. You can't expel him if he's just looking in from the fringe, can you?
> 
> Of course, in the apostolic age, baptism would have been enough to show church membership and get you numbered. If you were baptized you were part of the body, and everyone knew which local church you belonged to since there weren't multiple choices in each city. In that sense, what we refer to as church membership today is a bit different in that it also helps us specify exactly which elders in what local church are in charge of a member's care. But it is a mistake to claim that to have some membership in some church is nowhere taught in the Bible. It's very clearly there.


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 9, 2021)

convicted1 said:


> Plus, if someone regularly attends a church but isn’t a member, if they are living ungodly for an extended period of time, the church can’t really bring them under church discipline, seeing they are not an actual member, correct?
> 
> So, seeing this _could_ happen, could that church ask that person to not attend until they repent? This could be a black eye as others not members of that church may not know they’re an actual member of that church and think that church doesn’t discipline their sheep.


Possibly? Although I would be interested to know how common this actually is, in our current context, at least.

In my experience, growing up in a rural church, people not attending church is step 1 of showing that they're upset or something is wrong. It doesn't usually take too much to convince people to stay home and watch a football game instead.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 9, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Possibly? Although I would be interested to know how common this actually is, in our current context, at least.
> 
> In my experience, growing up in a rural church, people not attending church is step 1 of showing that they're upset or something is wrong. It doesn't usually take too much to convince people to stay home and watch a football game instead.


I could see someone pulling this. They attend a local church but aren’t an official member. In their mind, they can do as they please and not face discipline seeing they aren’t officially a member of that church. I said I could see this happen, but thankfully I haven’t.


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 9, 2021)

convicted1 said:


> I could see someone pulling this. They attend a local church but aren’t an official member. In their mind, they can do as they please and not face discipline seeing they aren’t officially a member of that church. I said I could see this happen, but thankfully I haven’t.


Right. I could _see _it happening. And I'm sure it has. Just wondering how often.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 9, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Right. I could _see _it happening. And I'm sure it has. Just wondering how often.


Seeing how easy believeism and FGT is running rampant in some (NOT REFORMED) churches, I can see it possibly being pretty prevalent.


----------



## Christopher Robin (Nov 9, 2021)

Lots of biblical stuff that "translates" into church membership in this article I wrote a few years ago. To submit to the King is to submit to His appointed authorities as well. I was aiming at people who say "I love Jesus but I don't trust His people" when I wrote it. Enjoy!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager (Nov 9, 2021)

Jack K said:


> The only way to miss church membership in the Bible is to ignore the Old Testament or to mistakenly think the church did not exist yet in those times. The assembly of God's people is carefully counted and individuals listed by name in Numbers 1-4 and 26, and in Ezra 2. That's six whole chapters of Scripture dedicated to the practice of numbered, named church membership. Would one of the slaves freed from Egypt tell Moses he wanted to tag along to the promised land but did not want to be named and registered as a part of the congregation, as described in Numbers 1:18? Or would one of the returnees from exile tell Zerubbabel he wanted to come with him to Jerusalem, but to please not list him among those catalogued in Ezra 2?
> 
> As we move into the New Testament, I would think the burden would be on the one opposed to membership to show that God no longer cares about numbering his people, and that belonging to the assembly is now more of a fuzzy free-for-all. This would be hard to show in light of ample evidence that God does still care who belongs and wants the leaders of his church to know whom they are overseeing, just like Moses and Zerubbabel did. Acts 2:41, Acts 4:4, and Acts 6:1-7 show that the church kept tracking its numbers and membership into the apostolic age, and passages that speak of expelling members (like 1 Corinthians 5:2) imply the church leadership knew who was in to begin with. You can't expel him if he's just looking in from the fringe, can you?
> 
> Of course, in the apostolic age, baptism would have been enough to show church membership and get you numbered. If you were baptized you were part of the body, and everyone knew which local church you belonged to since there weren't multiple choices in each city. In that sense, what we refer to as church membership today is a bit different in that it also helps us specify exactly which elders in what local church are in charge of a member's care. But it is a mistake to claim that to have some membership in some church is nowhere taught in the Bible. It's very clearly there.


This is what I was getting at. Exactly.


----------



## Santos (Nov 9, 2021)

convicted1 said:


> Seeing how easy believeism and FGT is running rampant in some (NOT REFORMED) churches, I can see it possibly being pretty prevalent.


It is very prevalent in my experience. As a matter of fact, a lack of seeing church discipline after reading about it in scripture is what pushed me into the reformed tradition. I was in a church where there was so much inconsistency and lack of accountability among leadership and membership that I began to look for an explanation. As I read I found that pretty much the only churches that practice church discipline were reformed. I didn't even know what reformed was. And that is a longer story.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## KMK (Nov 9, 2021)

convicted1 said:


>



Are you saying Jack traveled?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 9, 2021)

KMK said:


> Are you saying Jack traveled?


I meant that as a slam dunk post. It was an awesome response in my book.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 9, 2021)

Back then folks did not have cars to drive an hour to church. You attended the gathering of the believers near you. It was more organic. I don't think membership rolls were kept. But you knew who your neighbors were who were Christian.

Just like in the jungle where I lived. If you live in a village 4 hours walk from another village, and you have no cars, then you are going to participate in your own village church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Nov 9, 2021)

I think all of you have made some excellent points!

I also like this verse in Acts: 
So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:41 

I know the passage does not speak directly of church membership, and there could be multiple meanings, but I think one thing is clear, that people were known and added to the church.


----------



## KMK (Nov 9, 2021)

convicted1 said:


> I meant that as a slam dunk post. It was an awesome response in my book.



It looked more like traveling than a slam dunk. But I'm old school.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Nov 9, 2021)

KMK said:


> It looked more like traveling than a slam dunk. But I'm old school.


Now, it wasnt a travel, in my opinion. Sadly, UK lost that game. It was the NCAA Championship game, too.


----------

