Is Church Membership Biblical?

We live in between two moments of history in which even very committed Christians may be hesitant about church membership.

Behind us is a world in which the biggest danger as a church member is abuse from the church itself. Whether it is a legalistic crusade where one was an outsider and shunned, or else the leadership engaged in some form of heavy-handed shepherding—most have had bad experiences, and some can even use the adjective “cultish” without exaggeration.

Now, in front of us is a different world, a world a bit more like the Christians faced in the Roman Empire, or as believers under Islamic or Communist regimes now live. Here the danger of membership comes from the outside. Would some list of church members, their contact information, or even records of communications be a wise thing to formalize (or, we might say, “materialize”) in such an underground climate?

The reality is that we cannot prove from historical records what the practice of the early church was on things so specific as a form of a vow, or lists for the purposes of the deacons caring for those in need. But the case for church membership does not depend on such specifics.

It is true that there are no texts in the Bible that speak of membership in the sense of anything like a written covenant or rolls. On the other hand, there are those texts that speak of membership already being a fact, whether we formally recognize it or not. Consider the following passages: 

“Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1 Cor. 12:27; cf. Rom. 12:5).

“Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another” (Eph. 4:25).

Those who argue against formal church membership are often aware of such verses and reply that they are nothing to the point. They would not deny a real or essential membership in the body of Christ; but they may say that this is as “invisible” as the invisible church itself is. If it is a reality, then no further “man-made” structures are needed. 

However, as any serious student of theology knows, a great deal of what we know to be true from Scripture comes not from discrete ink patterns that we often call “proof texts,” but rather from larger summaries of truths in the form of logical arguments, so long as each premise can be shown to have explicit Scriptural support. Obvious examples of this include the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the obedience of Jesus in our place, and the eternality of God. None of these are spelled out in a single text. We arrive at them by putting texts together, and realizing that it must be so by a kind of accumulation of component truths. 

Granted, the importance of formal church membership is certainly not an essential of the faith like those other examples are. Nevertheless the method of discovering its truth works in the same way. Bear in mind that this is not an overall case for church membership. Many other positive reasons could be given for that. All we are doing here is setting aside the notion that church membership cannot be “found in Scripture.” This idea is fundamentally a symptom of a larger failure of our age to read the biblical text in a theological and contemplative manner.

A Cumulative Case

At the very least, one can show that formal church membership is biblically permissible and functionally inevitable, even if not explicitly mandated. And that can be shown by making a cumulative case—a conclusion from a number of premises, which premises can be shown from Scripture.

What makes our premises is to consider the biblically commanded actions which cannot be done without a formal distinction made between members and non-members. One example is formal discipline. Jesus says,

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mat. 18:15-17).

We must ask the question: Tell it to whom? What is this “church” exactly, that we would tell it to them rather than to some other group, or to anyone indiscriminately? The same logic applies to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5 regarding excommunication. To whom does Paul direct his admonitions? And to what extent is the special fellowship denied to that false brother?

It is all very nice and abstract to say of any of these duties, “Oh, we can keep track of that well enough without some list or some vows?” Really? Have you ever practiced the last stages of a church discipline case with the slightest bit of controversy and hard feelings attached to it? It will not cooperate with our spirit of independence. It has an independence of its own. And although this is just a brief summary of what the Bible says, if I can allow myself one practical implication of similar principles: How do we merely “have an agreement” with those who would teach or lead in some capacity in a church, and yet remain unaccountable when it comes to the substance of the agreement?

There is also a series of “one another” commands that require something of that same distinction. For example, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed” (Jas. 5:16). Again, it will be objected, “As a Christian, I can pray with whoever I want, confess to whoever I want, or no one at all except God alone!” Indeed. Except that if it was always, only to God alone, you would not be keeping the spirit of this command in James 5:16. But beyond that, if we are resolved to confess our sins to just anyone, or to keep in confidence (or not) those confessions we do not take to belong to that same definable church, well then, we may easily find ourselves right back in the Matthew 18:15-17 problem. And while we really are our brothers keeper and thus made to bear “each other’s” burdens, are we really meant to bear anyone and everyone’s burdens? That’s a lot of burdens for someone who is working so hard to avoid the burden of church membership.

There are also activities of caring for groups specifically in the church first: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Gal. 6:10). And then read this, considering how pastoral care of souls and the mercy ministry of deacons are intertwined:

“Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not. So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan. If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows” (1 Tim. 5:9-16).

Why the talk about “enrolling” widows. Enroll them to what? And with what? And which widows? And why?

There is a principle to the Apostle’s instructions on mercy ministries. Stewardship and discipleship come together in this, that the church’s investment of help ought to flow toward those who are (a) professing believers and (b) showing that they really cannot work or else are showing diligence in getting to work. Now if churches must give an account to God for how they handle the funds that have come by tithes and offerings, and they must do so by this principle. But how exactly do elders and deacons think through that without being able to draw mental circles around those who meet those categories and those who do not?  

Churches, just like Christian individuals, have liberty to do that which is most conducive to obey what is mandated in Scripture, even if the means inferred are not. Again, we apply this rationale to many other things in the Christian life, perhaps even without thinking about it. For example, we are told to “make disciples” (Mat. 28:19), but we are not told to use a physical curriculum. Would anyone say that using physical curricula is “unbiblical”? I would think not. Such examples range from the obvious to the not so obvious. The New Testament nowhere says that women may partake of the Lord’s Supper, yet we rightly infer the inclusion of women from 1. the nature of their inclusion in the body (Gal. 3:27-29) and 2. the communal dimension of the sacrament (1 Cor. 10:16-17). 

Now let us say that all of this is granted. It still may be asked: Why a covenant or vows? Since the making of vows is a subject fraught with its own common misunderstanding (not the least of which is the modern interpretation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:33-37), and since I have already refuted that erroneous view that Jesus was outlawing all vows there, I would only commend that sermon to anyone who may struggle with the vow in particular.