# Church membership in the ancient church - what did it look like?



## Pergamum (Sep 25, 2014)

What did church membership look like in the ancient church? Was it formal? Informal? What records do we have? Did they keep a membership roll or did they just have a body that normally met together?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 26, 2014)

Anybody?


----------



## Claudiu (Sep 26, 2014)

I had the same questions this week as I was thinking about church membership.


----------



## hammondjones (Sep 26, 2014)

Well, I don't know about membership rolls, but certainly the process of becoming a member was formal.

*The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome *is a good source on the 3rd century church. A three-year catechumenate, often with extended fasting before a baptism on Easter, became the standard. 

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 26, 2014)

There seems to be a lot of other things, too, taught in this document. If we accept formal membership based on this document, what else should we accept?


----------



## whirlingmerc (Sep 26, 2014)

early on the Apostle's creed was used as a Baptismal creed... so... you would have to at least agree with that

Mark Driscoll made a list (setting aside his present issues for the moment)
Whatâ€™s the Deal with Church Membership? | Pastor Mark

The following are seven evidences that the early church had a notion of membership.

They kept numerical records (Acts 2:37–47).
They kept records of widows (1 Tim. 5:3–16).
They held elections to appoint deacons (Acts 6:1–6).
They exercised church discipline (Matt. 18:15–20; 1 Cor. 5; Gal. 6:1).
Their leaders were responsible for giving an account of their leadership and the church was asked to submit to their leaders (Heb. 13:17).
They had an awareness of who was a church member (Rom. 16:1–16).
Most of the epistles were written “to the church” in given places (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 2:1; Gal. 1:2; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1 2 Thess. 1:1; Rev. 1:4).
To be capable of fulfilling any of these functions, the church had to be organized with some sort of membership.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 26, 2014)

About the list:

-Is this a record or a rough estimate. Do you think names were entered into a registry as they were baptized that day? In Acts 2, being "added" to the church might have meant being added to the Church (Big C...the body of Christ) since so many were "in town" just for those special days. It might have simply meant they were added as visible believers (even if they returned to their home towns after the feast).

-Being aware of widows personally in order to help them is a bit different from "keeping records" of widows. A familial, personal habit of fellowship would have accomplished just as much...the ability to know of and to give charity to those local widows in the custom of gathering with one's assembly (without any bureaucracy or registrar being kept at the church).

-Getting the consent of the church (the gathered believers normally meeting at one location) might be different than taking votes of all eligible members.

-They had awareness of who normally met with a particular gathered body of believers. This does not need to mean they had awareness of who was an official, formal member.

-The epistles were written to churches, yes. But this does not necessitate a belief in formal membership. This could mean an intentionally gathered body of believers accustomed to meeting together at one place. Instead of being an organization with a formal roster, it might have been more of an organic organism that simply grew together informally as they met and worshiped.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Sep 26, 2014)

Mark Dever's chapter on church membership in his book "9 Marks of a Healthy Church" is helpful in addressing this question. And the recently released "Church Membership" (from 9Marks) handles a bit of this, as well, if I recall correctly.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 26, 2014)

Paul needed a recommendation in order to join himself to the disciples. Clearly there was some sort of recognition or welcome being withheld. And from subsequent notes of recommendation, it was clear that the church was able to authorize messengers and thus there was a recognition of people as belonging to some particular church.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 27, 2014)

py3ak said:


> Paul needed a recommendation in order to join himself to the disciples. Clearly there was some sort of recognition or welcome being withheld.



I'm not comfortable with the idea that from Paul's situation we can argue that there was a system in place for everyone. After all, Paul was a notorious persecutor of the church and they were terrified and legitimately leery of him. It makes perfect sense that in his case he'd need someone to vouch for his legitimacy. In fact, Paul's situation seems to reflect what would happen in any social circle given the circumstances surrounding him.

But of course, there were official membership roles, etc. in the early church. Honestly, I think the process employed by a church to decide who is and isn't a member is left up to the church to decide by means of its leadership.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 27, 2014)

I am under the impression that in the early church, things were being formulated and worked out. Given the idea that one of the main doctrines that the HS left the early, local church was that of discipline, one would have to come to the logical conclusion that those elements, relevant to membership were either being worked out or in place from it's inception.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2014)

Did the early church have a list of church members? A congregational vote whereby each hand was counted in a tally? Formal transfer letters from one congregation to another when moving?

Or was it more informal (my belief)? Each congregation knowing like family who regularly met with them? Each major decision gaining a non-formal congregational consent without counting votes? Letters commending the lives of believers to others when they had to move due to a familial relationship?

There is a huge difference in my mind? One is intimate and based on love. The other is organizational and stems from policies and practices (bureaucracy).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 8, 2014)

I don't see a difference. Membership by necessity is tracked whether from memory out of necessity or when the church was small, or formally with lists with education and means to do so more prevalent. Certainly with a large church an actual roll is helpful.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 8, 2014)

Here is an interesting article that seems to show that early churches were, in fact, formal:

The Ancient Mass in the “House Churches” was not as Informal as Many Think Â« Archdiocese of Washington

And I guess the lengthy catechism period prior to baptism also shows a degree of formality observed.


----------

