Church Membership as Lay Ministry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Parakaleo

Puritan Board Sophomore
I've been getting to know a Baptist brother that surprised me (in a good way) yesterday. Loves the Lord, well-versed in the Scriptures, discerning, head of his home, seven children, always sharing Christ with neighbors and in the workplace, etc.

When I spoke to him about his church membership, I was somewhat surprised to learn he belongs to a church that can be described with a quaint word used in these parts, "Bapticostal". A blend of Baptist tradition with modern, Pentecostal-style worship and some charismatic elements thrown in there. As I questioned him more about it, he said he is not a member at the church "by preference", but because he feels called to minister to people in the church as a layman. He also appreciates that the church is ethnically diverse, so he can invite people whom he works with to the church without fear of them feeling out of place.

This was surprising and commendable in a number of ways to me, mostly because we never hear people talking about church membership in this manner. The usual mode of thinking about church membership involves trying to find a church that checks off as many of our theological boxes and preferences as possible. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing... though it can be a source of pride.

I got to thinking about the implications of a man joining himself to a church he disagrees with in order to reform it from within. There is, of course, the matter of authority. Great care would need to be taken not to undermine authority or to become an Absalom. You may have the best of intentions, but God has given authority in that body to the officers. Another implication would be the effect upon your family, especially your little ones. Is it right to subject them to improper worship and unsound teaching on the Lord's Day, even if they are getting better instruction at home? Worship is deeply formative in our lives.

Any thoughts on "missional" church membership? How might you counsel this guy?
 
Last edited:
Any thoughts on "missional" church membership? How might you counsel this guy?

It is not a biblical concept. I can understand joining a less-than-healthy church when there is nothing better to choose from. But to do so as a matter of course in order to try and reform a church from the bottom up is misguided and potentially harmful to the one doing it, as well as those in the church he's joining.
 
Joining a church in order to reform it presents a number of difficulties, especially if you aren't joining as, say, the pastor.

But it is good to consider where you can serve and have needed influence for the better, and where you might comfortably bring anyone you know. These are factors that go into the mix. Perfect alignment on every theological point is not the only way to think when picking a church.
 
I would counsel any Christian to join the church whose doctrine bears the greatest fidelity to the Word of God and whose members adorn the profession of their faith by lives of principled obedience to God. For many, they find that the church closest to ideal, is less than ideal. And God may indeed use their influence to bring about reformation and revival. But no one should join themselves to an unhealthy church in the name of "missional church membership" when they might have united with a more faithful congregation.

Revival does not always consist of bad churches becoming healthier. It may, but not always. Sometimes revival takes the form of believers being led by God's Spirit out of their unhealthy churches and gathering them to those congregations that are (and perhaps for decades have been) most faithful to Christ and his Word. Often, however, this never comes about because so many Christians with a professed understanding of biblical doctrine, and the ways in which the modern churches have undermined it, yet remain in those churches for all manner of pragmatic reasons. In doing this, they deny to those healthier (and often small and struggling) churches the support and encouragement they might have given them.
 
The greatest humility can be a source of pride. The possibility of pride is never a test of doctrine. Just as holding certain doctrines is never a guarantee of humility.

In the scenario as provided it appears that "missional" is functioning as one of the marks of the church, that is, it is being used to identify the true church for the purpose of joining it. This in itself could become a box-checking exercise and a source of pride.

I would think that using "mission" as a mark of the church is quite confusing as it makes it impossible to distinguish a true from a false mission. The bare presence of missional activity does not make it a genuine Christian work. You could have all kinds of false doctrines hiding behind the cover of the "mission." It is paramount to discern, in the first place, whether the church is teaching true doctrine before deciding on whether the spread of that doctrinal teaching is worthy of support.
 
I agree with what the brothers above have said. One joins a church in order to be discipled by the leadership, not to disciple the leadership. Much less to turn the congregants against the doctrine of the church.

I find it odd that the church he feels comfortable inviting his friends to is one that he thinks is in error on a number of important points. I wouldn't feel comfortable inviting ignorant friends to come and learn from erroneous teachers.
 
[QUOTE/he said he is not a member at the church "by preference", but because he feels called to minister to people in the church as a layman./QUOTE]
I find this troubling. Your standing as a member has no standing on your presence as a lay-person. I would understand this to mean he is not actively participating in any congregation. To whom is he accountable? Who has care over him and his family?
 
We are at our current church (Baptist, even though we are not) in part because a church that was a better fit creed-wise gave us such a truly horrible welcome, even a month into our arrival, that I could not imagine ever inviting a friend there. The biblical commands for a church to love each other, practice hospitality, and refrain from gossip are about as strong as the commands to be doctrinally pure. Doctrine is extremely important and, depending on the seriousness of the errors, will often be a deal-breaker. But it is not the only criteria in play.
 
The biblical commands for a church to love each other, practice hospitality, and refrain from gossip are about as strong as the commands to be doctrinally pure.

The sum of all practical holiness is love. To be sure, an unloving church, is an unholy church. And we ought not to join ourselves to an unholy church any more than a heretical one.

I do believe however, that many write off congregations as unloving for all kinds of silly and superficial reasons which have no basis in Scripture--showing themselves to be at least as unloving as the ones they accuse of the same offense. If the're not sharing a milkshake with the pastor by the end of their first visit, they refuse to come back.

The commands to be loving, forbearing, and forgiving are as essential for Christians visiting churches as they for the churches they visit. Some are seldom more critical and unloving as when they are visiting other churches.
 
We are at our current church (Baptist, even though we are not) in part because a church that was a better fit creed-wise gave us such a truly horrible welcome, even a month into our arrival, that I could not imagine ever inviting a friend there. The biblical commands for a church to love each other, practice hospitality, and refrain from gossip are about as strong as the commands to be doctrinally pure. Doctrine is extremely important and, depending on the seriousness of the errors, will often be a deal-breaker. But it is not the only criteria in play.

To be sure, not all errors are alike. I am wholeheartedly committed to Presbyterian principles, but there have been times that I have recommended strong Baptist churches to unbelieving friends, rather than weak PCA churches. Rev. Law mentioned charismatic elements. For me, that is a deal breaker. A drop of charismaticism can spoil practical Christianity.
 
A drop of charismaticism can spoil practical Christianity.

How right you are. What better than a false spirit affirming unbelief to shelter the soul from Gospel commandments? And the brother I have in mind understands this.

He has been part of Anglican, Episcopal, and Presbyterian traditions growing up, but is now Baptist in his convictions. As he considers those he hopes to win to the Lord with whom he works (he's in construction), he wants to be able to invite them to a church he knows will minister to them, with a track-record of economic and ethnic inclusivism. Yet, as has been wisely observed above, if there are deep concerns about the worship and teaching, why bother to replicate these?

His thinking is also placing great weight on the outward appearance. I know people talk about strategies to integrate churches, and there may be applied wisdom in that, but I still believe plain, "white-bread" churches where the Gospel sounds forth each week can attract and retain God's worshipers of all colors and economic brackets. If the Lord wills.
 
I've heard it said, "As you choose a church, carefully observe the officers; especially the pastor. Whatever he is like as a servant of God and head of his family, that is what you will look like in 10 or 20 years."
 
I would add that joining a church in order to reform it from within not only raises issues re: accountability but also raises the issue of spiritual harm to one's self and one's family where there is doctrinal error being taught and propagated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top