Session-Controlled Communion & 1st Corninthians 11

[Blue Tick]

My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.

I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."

If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.

Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.

Thoughts....

 

[raekwon]

My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.

I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."

If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.

Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.

Thoughts....

Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.

 

[Pergamum]

My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.

I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."

If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.

Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.

Thoughts....

Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.

BUT...

Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it? The church that would do this could be charged with being manipulative.

Also, how long is long enough then to receive a visitor before pushing them into a decision?

What would be the right thing to do in this case, I am curious....

 

[Blue Tick]

Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.

Rae, can you elaborate a little more on this? Do you mean that if the "Smiths" deny membership they should be pressed into membership and or should be refused the Lord's Supper. What I'm trying to understand should a session actively refuse the Lord's Supper to folks who for all intents and purposes are not a member in any church but are long term visitors to the local body. Long term I mean that they are professing Christians by consistent fellowship on the Lord's day and display fruits of believing. However, there is no formal submission to the local session and no formal acknowledgement of belief before the session.

 

[Blue Tick]

BUT...

Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it? The church that would do this could be charged with being manipulative.

Also, how long is long enough then to receive a visitor before pushing them into a decision?

What would be the right thing to do in this case, I am curious....

Perg,

These are good questions.

 

[raekwon]

Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.

Thoughts....

Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.

BUT...

Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it? The church that would do this could be charged with being manipulative.

No, I wouldn't necessarily that's enough to deny someone communion, but I do have a real problem with people saying that they don't "believe in church membership" in the face of overwhelming evidence that even the early church had some sort of mechanism for knowing who was and was not among their ranks. Membership is just our way of doing that. Every time I've spoken to someone who "doesn't believe in membership", it's because they've been burned by a church in the past and don't want to deal with that responsibility again. (Much like someone who, after a messy divorce, dates and sleeps around, even shacks up, but refuses to marry again.) Folks like that need to be lovingly given a hearing as to their past hurts from other churches, counseled as to their error regarding membership, and encouraged to join. If they still refuse, I'm not saying that they should be denied communion necessarily, but they should understand that they're part of a church that DOES believe in membership, and that there are some privileges that they just won't get without it (such as leadership, voting, etc).

Also, how long is long enough then to receive a visitor before pushing them into a decision?

Seems to me that it's not a function of time only, but of involvement. For instance, take two families who've been consistently attending a church for the exact same amount of time. One only shows up on Sundays and hasn't formed many relationships with folks in the church. The other has become involved in a number of the church's ministries, has friendships out the wazoo, etc. I'd say that both families should be approached about membership eventually, but I'd make the latter a priority. They're already functioning as members for all intents and purposes, anyway.

Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.

Rae, can you elaborate a little more on this? Do you mean that if the "Smiths" deny membership they should be pressed into membership and or should be refused the Lord's Supper. What I'm trying to understand should a session actively refuse the Lord's Supper to folks who for all intents and purposes are not a member in any church but are long term visitors to the local body. Long term I mean that they are professing Christians by consistent fellowship on the Lord's day and display fruits of believing. However, there is no formal submission to the local session and no formal acknowledgement of belief before the session.

Sorry, I answered the question thinking about membership in general, not about how it related to the Lord's Supper.

 

[Blue Tick]

WLC Q. 173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, be kept from it?

A. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.

From J.G. Vos Commentary on the Larger Catechism:

2.) Is the church to decide what persons are converted, and have saving faith in Christ? -- Certainly not.

"...Church Officers and church courts cannot see people's hearts and they have no business to pronounce judgment on whether people are, or are not, truly saved Christians."

5.) What is the position of the catechism concerning the question of open, close (often called "closed"), or restricted communion?

...This question, in the form in which it exists today, is not directly answered by the catechism, or any of the Westminster Standards, because the problems created by denominationalism were not in then in view...Therefore the Westminster Assembly, while stating that the ignorant or scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, did not take up the question of whether members of one denomination should be admitted to the sacrament in congregations of another denomination.

However, the statements of the catechism do have some relation to the question of open, close, or restricted communion.

Open communion means that all persons who wish to come are admitted to the Lord's Supper. (The invitation is usually to "all members of evangelical churches" or "all who are of the Lord," etc., but all who wish to partake are admitted without any investigation of their faith or life.)

Restricted communion means that members of other denominations may be admitted to the Lord's Supper after they have met with the officers of the congregation and have satisfied them concerning faith and life.

Close communion means that only members of the denomination that is administering the sacrament, or of closely allied denominations officially recognized as of virtually identical faith, are admitted to the Lord's Supper...

It should be said at once that the catechism is clearly opposed to open communion [as Vos has defined it here].

This is well stated.
How do we reconcile the LC when it states the following?

Q. 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord's supper?

A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord's supper, to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.

Q. 173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, be kept from it?

A. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their
reformation.

Is it unreasonable for the session to gently inquire as to the spiritual well being of those who are visitors? It seems that this is in accordance with the LC and 1 Peter 5:1-5

The responsibility is on the elders to exercise oversight of the flock. With the topic at hand that were discussing it seems appropriate that the session is to make sure that the Lord's Table is not being profaned by the ignorant or scandalous.
1 Peter 5:1-5

5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Therefore, the elders are to be active in governing of the church maintaining the peace, purity, and holiness of the church.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Is it unreasonable for the session to gently inquire as to the spiritual well being of those who are visitors? It seems that this is in accordance with the LC and 1 Peter 5:1-5...

I do not think so...

 

[Blue Tick]

This is from the Oceanside United Reformed Church in Oceanside California.

Visitors & Holy Communion
Holy Communion is meant to unite us to Jesus Christ as well as each other. Since it is a visible expression of our unity, the apostle Paul says, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, the elders of the church have the responsibility to oversee those who partake; therefore we welcome . . .
—Communicant members-in-good-standing of congregations in the United Reformed Churches in North America.
—Communicant members-in-good-standing of congregations with whom the United Reformed Churches have ecclesiastical relations as members of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council—Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Canadian Reformed Churches, Free Reformed Churches, Heritage Reformed Congregations, Korean American Presbyterian Church, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Reformed Church Reformed Church in the United States, Reformed Church of Quebec, and Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
—Those who are not members of one of the above, but who:
1. Believe in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.
2. Have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. Are communicant members, not presently under church discipline, of a confessional Reformed or Presbyterian congregation.
If this does not describe you or if you do not understand what we mean by this, please abstain this morning. Since we desire to welcome you at the Table to receive Christ and his benefits, we invite you to speak with a Pastor and elder after worship and even to schedule a time this week when we can meet to discuss your relationship with Christ and/or his Church. Please understand that if you do not meet these requirements, we are not saying that there are Christians only in Reformed churches. Rather, this policy helps us to be reasonably assured that you are a like-minded believer by belonging to a church that shares a common confession of the Christian faith with us.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

I have been asked to preach in churches and yet could not partake the supper with them due to their overly rigid fencing rules (wasn't around for an interview the week before...no coin for me). This is silly. If we are baptized members of a local church, we examine ourselves unless clear sin causes the elders to question us.

Perg,

How do you define "church"?

 

[Craig]

Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.

Thoughts....

Our elders consider it rebellion if someone *purposefully* is not a member of any church. The pastors are clear when fencing the table: The normal admonition is given, but people who are purposefully not members of any church are asked to abstain from the sacrament as they refuse to be identified with God's people and be under the discipline of the Church.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

BUT...

Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it?

Absolutely it is. If someone is not in communion with a true church as defined by Belgic Art 29 then they are arguably outside the church. If someone is not in communion with any congregation, why on earth would they expect to come to the Lord's Table in a Reformed congregation?

Where on earth did we get the idea, apart from radical American individualism and egalitarianism, that private persons are the ultimate judge of whether they ought to be allowed to commune at the Lord's Table? Can people just walk in an baptize themselves? Can people just walk in and start preaching because they want to? Of course not! Well, maybe in Muenster or Zwickau but not in Geneva or Heidelberg.

Our Lord commissioned the administration of the supper to the visible, institutional church not to every private person.

The real question here is whether Christ instituted the visible church, whether it has ministerial authority or whether we should baptize ecclesiastical anarchy and chaos.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Absolutely it is. If someone is not in communion with a true church as defined by Belgic Art 29 then they are arguably outside the church. If someone is not in communion with any congregation, why on earth would they expect to come to the Lord's Table in a Reformed congregation?

Where on earth did we get the idea, apart from radical American individualism and egalitarianism, that private persons are the ultimate judge of whether they ought to be allowed to commune at the Lord's Table? Can people just walk in an baptize themselves? Can people just walk in and start preaching because they want to? Of course not! Well, maybe in Muenster or Zwickau but not in Geneva or Heidelberg.

Our Lord commissioned the administration of the supper to the visible, institutional church not to every private person.

The real question here is whether Christ instituted the visible church, whether it has ministerial authority or whether we should baptize ecclesiastical anarchy and chaos.

Amen.

I really have to commend the practice of the Canadian Reformed Churches. Irritated by playing "twenty questions" with the elders before taking the Lord's Supper with a sister church? Then bring what's called a "travel attestation" with you! Get your minister and elders to write up and sign a short note which attests that you are a member in good standing (not under discipline) of _____ Reformed Church. My wife and I plan to request such attestations the next time we intend to commune anywhere other than our local congregation.

Here's an example of such a form from the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated). Scroll to the bottom of the page and view the "Travel Attestation."

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Amen Bryan. Fills me with joy to see I am not the only one who thinks that.

 

[Pergamum]

Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.

BUT...

Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it? The church that would do this could be charged with being manipulative.

No, I wouldn't necessarily that's enough to deny someone communion, but I do have a real problem with people saying that they don't "believe in church membership" in the face of overwhelming evidence that even the early church had some sort of mechanism for knowing who was and was not among their ranks. Membership is just our way of doing that. Every time I've spoken to someone who "doesn't believe in membership", it's because they've been burned by a church in the past and don't want to deal with that responsibility again. (Much like someone who, after a messy divorce, dates and sleeps around, even shacks up, but refuses to marry again.) Folks like that need to be lovingly given a hearing as to their past hurts from other churches, counseled as to their error regarding membership, and encouraged to join. If they still refuse, I'm not saying that they should be denied communion necessarily, but they should understand that they're part of a church that DOES believe in membership, and that there are some privileges that they just won't get without it (such as leadership, voting, etc).



Seems to me that it's not a function of time only, but of involvement. For instance, take two families who've been consistently attending a church for the exact same amount of time. One only shows up on Sundays and hasn't formed many relationships with folks in the church. The other has become involved in a number of the church's ministries, has friendships out the wazoo, etc. I'd say that both families should be approached about membership eventually, but I'd make the latter a priority. They're already functioning as members for all intents and purposes, anyway.

Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.

Rae, can you elaborate a little more on this? Do you mean that if the "Smiths" deny membership they should be pressed into membership and or should be refused the Lord's Supper. What I'm trying to understand should a session actively refuse the Lord's Supper to folks who for all intents and purposes are not a member in any church but are long term visitors to the local body. Long term I mean that they are professing Christians by consistent fellowship on the Lord's day and display fruits of believing. However, there is no formal submission to the local session and no formal acknowledgement of belief before the session.

Sorry, I answered the question thinking about membership in general, not about how it related to the Lord's Supper.

Very good response and I benefitted from it.

For those visitors asking for proof that the NT teaches church membership where woudl you point them?

 

[Pergamum]

I have been asked to preach in churches and yet could not partake the supper with them due to their overly rigid fencing rules (wasn't around for an interview the week before...no coin for me). This is silly. If we are baptized members of a local church, we examine ourselves unless clear sin causes the elders to question us.

Perg,

How do you define "church"?

How do you define church?

There seems to be the universal church of all true believers, and then there seems to be the local manifestations of that universal church in particular places.

However, the Reformers usually spoke of "marks" of a church and by those marks (that sacrament thingy) either baptists or presbyterians are not true churches (unless one can have an irregular church that is still a valid church) because one of our groups is not administering the sacraments correctly.



Dr. Clark, could you give us a summary of the proofs that local church membership is Biblically demanded?

 

[Dearly Bought]

However, the Reformers usually spoke of "marks" of a church and by those marks (that sacrament thingy) either baptists or presbyterians are not true churches (unless one can have an irregular church that is still a valid church) because one of our groups is not administering the sacraments correctly.

This is very true. I think that you have to conclude that one of us is wrong on this matter and therefore not a true church. This doesn't automatically damn members of the erring church, but it does emphasize the importance of these matters.

Dr. Clark, could you give us a summary of the proofs that local church membership is Biblically demanded?

I hope that this is not too forward of me, but I thought I might point to where Dr. Clark has already addressed this question in his essay on the Church:

There is a widespread notion that a truly Spirit-led congregation would not keep anything so earthy as membership records. This is an unfounded and unbiblical assumption which does not square with biblical history and teaching.

In the Old Covenant, God is a bookkeeper. In Exodus 32:32 we see a very interesting phrase. In a prayer, Moses pleads with God not to blot him out of "the Book you have written." The Lord replies to Moses that He will indeed blot anyone who sins out of His "Book".46 David declares in Psalm 9.5 that the Lord has "blotted out" the name of his enemies forever.47 In Psalm 40:7 David is assured that his righteousness is written on God's scroll.

Many of these same themes regarding the "Book of Life" are evident in the Revelation of the Apostle John. To the Church in Sardis the Lord Jesus writes that He will not "blot out his name from the Book of Life" who is faithful and obedient to the Lord. Revelation 13:8; 17:8; 20:12,15; also refer to the Book of Life. It would seem that we are to conceive of a divinely kept book in which are recorded the names of all believers of all ages. This is not to say that there is an actual book, though there may well be.

In Psalm 69:28 David prays for the utter destruction of enemies and for them to be blotted out of "the Book of Life" and not to be listed with the righteous. In this same Psalm vv.9,10 David turns from the "book" to speak twice of the Qahal (which is translated in the LXX with Ekklesia and Synagogue (cf. Deuteronomy 9:10,14 where these two ideas are also closely connected). There is a close connection in David's mind between the Qahal and the "book".

Because God is revealed as a book keeper His Covenant people were also (according to the commandments of God) also book keepers.

There is significant evidence that in the Old Covenant there were membership rolls with the names of all the Covenant families and the Covenant heads of households. Genesis 5:1ff. speaks of the "book of the generations." Moses worked from existing books in compiling his (selective) genealogies. This idea of membership roll figured conspicuously in the life of the Qahal. Later after the exile when the beginnings of the Synagogue can be traced, there is archeological evidence that there were membership rolls there as well. It took at least twelve men in good standing in the community to form a synagogue.

God commanded Moses in Exodus 17:14 to write down the destruction of the Amelakites because without this record there would not be any. In turn (Deutronomy 25.19), God will "blot out" the Amelakites. In Exodus 24:7 we read of the "Book of the Covenant" which contained the laws by which God's Covenant people were to live. God commanded Moses to take a census of the people and to make a record of them (Exodus 30:11). Psalm 87:6 speaks of a "register of the peoples" (NIV). Ezekiel 13:9 speaks of a "register of the house of Israel" (NASB). There was a written record of the descendents of Aaron (Nu 3:10). It would seem to be beyond controversy that God's people kept written records during the Mosaic theocracy. The question remains then whether similar practices continued into the New Covenant era.

There is a great deal of unity and continuity between the Old Covenant conception of the Qahal and the New Covenant Ekklesia. Thus there is good reason to suspect that there is continuity in the practice of record keeping. Remember that in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, one had to join the visible assembly and take the sign of the Covenant.

The most obvious examples of this sort of record keeping are the genealogies of Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. We know from Acts that the Apostles met first in the temple, and then later during missionary journeys, in the synagogue. The organization of the synagogue did play some roll in the beginning of the visible Church. We see in Luke 4:18ff. that there was a reading of the Scriptures and an exposition of the Scriptures in the Synagogue. This practice was continued in the early New Covenant Church.

Another piece of evidence which adds to the presumption of Church membership in the New Covenant Church is the mention in Acts 16:5 that the Church grew greatly in numbers. If the Church in the New Covenant largely equals the Qahal of the Old Covenant and if it grew in numbers then we can fairly say that these converts 'joined' the Church.

There is positive evidence of record keeping (membership lists) in the New Covenant Church. The problem in the daily distribution of bread in Acts 6:1 assumes some sort of record keeping of eligible widows. In
1 Timothy 5.9-16 Paul speaks explicitly about a list of names of Christian widows who were eligible for financial assistance from the Church. He even lays out the qualifications to be on the list. If the Church kept such lists for financial aid, can we reasonably assume that these widows were not on a membership roll? Moreover we cannot help but notice that again Paul's instructions regarding widows presupposes some sort of organized visible body of Christ who administered this aid to its members.

 

[Pergamum]

However, the Reformers usually spoke of "marks" of a church and by those marks (that sacrament thingy) either baptists or presbyterians are not true churches (unless one can have an irregular church that is still a valid church) because one of our groups is not administering the sacraments correctly.

This is very true. I think that you have to conclude that one of us is wrong on this matter and therefore not a true church. This doesn't automatically damn members of the erring church, but it does emphasize the importance of these matters.

Dr. Clark, could you give us a summary of the proofs that local church membership is Biblically demanded?

I hope that this is not too forward of me, but I thought I might point to where Dr. Clark has already addressed this question in his essay on the Church:

There is a widespread notion that a truly Spirit-led congregation would not keep anything so earthy as membership records. This is an unfounded and unbiblical assumption which does not square with biblical history and teaching.

In the Old Covenant, God is a bookkeeper. In Exodus 32:32 we see a very interesting phrase. In a prayer, Moses pleads with God not to blot him out of "the Book you have written." The Lord replies to Moses that He will indeed blot anyone who sins out of His "Book".46 David declares in Psalm 9.5 that the Lord has "blotted out" the name of his enemies forever.47 In Psalm 40:7 David is assured that his righteousness is written on God's scroll.

Many of these same themes regarding the "Book of Life" are evident in the Revelation of the Apostle John. To the Church in Sardis the Lord Jesus writes that He will not "blot out his name from the Book of Life" who is faithful and obedient to the Lord. Revelation 13:8; 17:8; 20:12,15; also refer to the Book of Life. It would seem that we are to conceive of a divinely kept book in which are recorded the names of all believers of all ages. This is not to say that there is an actual book, though there may well be.

In Psalm 69:28 David prays for the utter destruction of enemies and for them to be blotted out of "the Book of Life" and not to be listed with the righteous. In this same Psalm vv.9,10 David turns from the "book" to speak twice of the Qahal (which is translated in the LXX with Ekklesia and Synagogue (cf. Deuteronomy 9:10,14 where these two ideas are also closely connected). There is a close connection in David's mind between the Qahal and the "book".

Because God is revealed as a book keeper His Covenant people were also (according to the commandments of God) also book keepers.

There is significant evidence that in the Old Covenant there were membership rolls with the names of all the Covenant families and the Covenant heads of households. Genesis 5:1ff. speaks of the "book of the generations." Moses worked from existing books in compiling his (selective) genealogies. This idea of membership roll figured conspicuously in the life of the Qahal. Later after the exile when the beginnings of the Synagogue can be traced, there is archeological evidence that there were membership rolls there as well. It took at least twelve men in good standing in the community to form a synagogue.

God commanded Moses in Exodus 17:14 to write down the destruction of the Amelakites because without this record there would not be any. In turn (Deutronomy 25.19), God will "blot out" the Amelakites. In Exodus 24:7 we read of the "Book of the Covenant" which contained the laws by which God's Covenant people were to live. God commanded Moses to take a census of the people and to make a record of them (Exodus 30:11). Psalm 87:6 speaks of a "register of the peoples" (NIV). Ezekiel 13:9 speaks of a "register of the house of Israel" (NASB). There was a written record of the descendents of Aaron (Nu 3:10). It would seem to be beyond controversy that God's people kept written records during the Mosaic theocracy. The question remains then whether similar practices continued into the New Covenant era.

There is a great deal of unity and continuity between the Old Covenant conception of the Qahal and the New Covenant Ekklesia. Thus there is good reason to suspect that there is continuity in the practice of record keeping. Remember that in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, one had to join the visible assembly and take the sign of the Covenant.

The most obvious examples of this sort of record keeping are the genealogies of Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. We know from Acts that the Apostles met first in the temple, and then later during missionary journeys, in the synagogue. The organization of the synagogue did play some roll in the beginning of the visible Church. We see in Luke 4:18ff. that there was a reading of the Scriptures and an exposition of the Scriptures in the Synagogue. This practice was continued in the early New Covenant Church.

Another piece of evidence which adds to the presumption of Church membership in the New Covenant Church is the mention in Acts 16:5 that the Church grew greatly in numbers. If the Church in the New Covenant largely equals the Qahal of the Old Covenant and if it grew in numbers then we can fairly say that these converts 'joined' the Church.

There is positive evidence of record keeping (membership lists) in the New Covenant Church. The problem in the daily distribution of bread in Acts 6:1 assumes some sort of record keeping of eligible widows. In
1 Timothy 5.9-16 Paul speaks explicitly about a list of names of Christian widows who were eligible for financial assistance from the Church. He even lays out the qualifications to be on the list. If the Church kept such lists for financial aid, can we reasonably assume that these widows were not on a membership roll? Moreover we cannot help but notice that again Paul's instructions regarding widows presupposes some sort of organized visible body of Christ who administered this aid to its members.

Cool, thanks! Something meaty to chew on.

I would challenge the fact that either the baptists or Presbyterians must be a false church. I want to be generous and call you paedos true churches. To charge the OPC with being a false church is ridiculous.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Are church members (or self-professed Christians for that matter) "free agents" relative to the visible, institutional church?

 

[Pergamum]

Thanks again, more meat to chew....


Anything else?

What about folks who are forced into a highly mobile lifestyle....can one do that and still be an obedient Christian if local church membership fixes them to one location?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

There are at four sources for the generally held modern "evangelical" skepticism about the visible, institutional church. One is the radical spirit of Anabaptism which manifests itself in Azusa Street/Topeka Pentecostalism. Another is Pietism which places private religious experience above all other values and virtues. A third is the radically egalitarian (democratic) spirit of American evangelicalism post 1789 (with roots in the so-called 1st Great Awakening). The fourth source is the old German liberal notion that religious movements develop from "Kerygma" (authentic, existential, preaching) to "Dogma" (consolidation and ossification). Under the influence of the other movements and ideas this idea has been widely adopted by modern evangelicals despite the fact that, whatever formal evidence there might be for this pattern in church history, in substance it is a failed theory.

None of these movements has anything to do with NT Christianity. To read the values of these movements into the NT is to do injustice to the NT on its own terms. To read the NT through the lenses of these three movements is to do injustice to the Christianity of the NT which was churchly and genuinely Pentecostal. Remember, the foundation of the NT is said not to be the private religious experiences of occasionally gathered together as the Spirit led but "the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20). These were offices and officers. The idea of order and structure are inherent to officers. The NT church wasn't Quaker or Quietist. They did not sit about waiting for the Spirit to descend. In the Apostolic church the Spirit did descend and sovereignly operate in their midst in a unique and powerful way. Through the Apostles the Spirit fulfilled our Lord's intention of establishing an organized, visible, disciplined church with officers and membership.

The White Horse Inn guys were just talking recently about the foundational nature of the Apostolic church. It would be worth a listen.

 

[Pergamum]

What about those in highly mobile lifestyles.... can one be a Bedoin and still a Christian if one moves around all the time?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Even Bedouins live in groups capable of forming a congregation. In monasticism biblical? Does Scripture place any limits on "lifestyle choices" or must the faith constantly adapt to whatever choices sovereign individuals make?

 

[Pergamum]

Yes, mobile churches for mobile peoples....