Biblical Church Membership 1 Corinthians 5, 12, 13, 14, etc www.rlfaber.com/membership.html Version 3 - April, 7, 2024 short-v1   summary-v2 R. L. Faber

Preface: This article is written with the believer in mind who attends a local assembly faithfully and for conscience's sake does not wish to 'join' the assembly or become a 'member' in the modern sense of 'joining a church'. This is NOT written for those who make a habit of forsaking the assembly.

Purpose

The purpose of this article is a defense of our conscience perspective on "church membership". We are concerned about the modern church membership confusing a Christian's true identity. Christians are members of the body of Christ. From our perspective, the sermon series on church membership confuses what the Bible says about membership. We will attempt to show, that the Bible does not support the modern idea of becoming a church member as a formal process. We believe in the community of Christian dialog (1 Cor 14, etc), pursuing like mindedness and following our conscience as we study God's Word.

"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." ^{Rom 14:5}

"Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" ^{Psalm 133:1}

Intro: The Situation

The Bible teaches that all believers are members of the body of Christ. Believers are members of the church (both at the local level and the universal church). So believers are church members. The believers in the first Jerusalem church were church members. But when you come to our modern day church, there is another idea. There is this modern idea that believers may or may not be members of the "local church". We find this very confusing. The Bible does not talk about this situation other than the near instant joining to the church as people believed. Most of the early church joining (church membership) was very quick and tied to belief. There is of course the exception when some feared Paul was not genuine. He was denied joining because they didn't trust him. But this was still tied to belief. We observe from this that there may be a few days when the church is unsure if they can recognize someone as a true believer to be part of the church. And we are speaking of the "local church" in these cases of joining the church. ^107.verses  

So, church membership is assumed of all believers and is based on belief. After thinking about the modern idea of church membership for many years, we have chosen to refrain from the modern kind of church membership because we assume all Christians are already members. We understand that it may take a little while for a local church assembly to recognize someone as a Christian, but that is not a question of membership. ^108.intro  

Sometimes church leaders will suggest "attenders" show more commitment and join the church they are attending. They may also suggest the attender join or find another church they can join. There may even be a suggestion that the faithful attender needs to find a church with elders they can submit to, to follow the Bible. This assumes a few things. This assumes the leaders and attender have submitted to modern ideas about church membership. Another possibility is that leaders may say that believers who merely "attend" are considered "outsiders" according to the Bible. We believe these are serious misunderstandings of scripture. A friend encouraged us to write down our ideas. ^112.intro  

When looking for a church to attend, Christians may assume a church is open to different opinions on the topic of "church membership." Many churches, like the typical Evangelical Free church are open and tolerant of attenders who decide to remain attenders. The local church we attend has had very tolerant views in the past (e.g. the 2006 formal membership documents). Attenders may have a strong belief in biblical church membership, but not see the Bible indicating any kind of "formal church membership." The Bible must be our guide for something this important. ^113.intro  

If there are differences of opinion in the church, what should a Christian do? We believe that, generally, Christians should stay in the community to discuss differences of opinion (1 Cor 14, etc). If one just decides to leave without a discussion, it is a sign of the relationship not being very healthy. Consumer oriented churches experience this more. If there is more of a sit and listen setup, the attender is more inclined to leave when things don't seem right. If there is more of an active "one-another" character in church, then why would one leave? We are concerned to hear of hinting that "attenders" should leave without a good opportunity to discuss what the Bible says about these ideas. In our local church situation, there was a strong statement in the 4th sermon that suggested leaving to find another church in certain circumstances. So in our particular case, we are wondering if the elders want us to leave. Of course we will leave if we are 100% sure we are being kicked out. But as we leave, we may be thinking of 1st and 3rd John, which is not a good way to leave. On the positive side, the elders at our local church made a clear call for discussion and debate, which is great. ^111.intro  

Misunderstandings can happen very easily. A good open forum discussion can help, but there is still a real possibility that we can misunderstand each other. Our concern was a clear statement that it might be better for some folk to find another church with another set of leaders to submit to, even if they have good friends at the church. It appears the church was previously more tolerant of different opinions about church membership, but has moved to a stricter way. Are we understanding or misunderstanding? ^110.intro

In our case, there seems to be a different theological position involved. It seems that the elders follow a more Old Testament oriented way of thinking at times. In addition, it appears that there is an assumed loyalty priority that some would see as unbiblical. ^83.schaeffer   For example, with the more Old Testament oriented way of thinking, someone might think of "the seat of Moses" as valid for the New Testament Christian under the Law of Christ. ^{97.newcovenant}   Douglas Moo explains the settled nature of the state of the Christian in the New Covenant. Justification and "covenant membership", "righteousness" denotes God's vindication of people already in covenant relationship with him. ^{98.covenantmembership}  

The Bible calls all believers "members" in 1 Cor 12. So it is surprising to see explanations from some modern church leaders that attenders are not members. It is surprising to hear that some modern church leaders consider attenders to be "outsiders." It matters who is "in" and "out" of the church (1, 2 & 3 John). And we are trying to avoid thinking about the 501(c)(3) organization. The church is a spiritual "body" that is expressed locally in assemblies at the city/town level. ^23.city   The Bible uses the term "member" to show how Christians are all part of the body. So we don't mind living outside of the 501(c)(3) membership structure if it is unrelated to how the Bible uses the term "member." We intentionally avoid what feels like a human addition to us. We care deeply about the biblical meaning of "member" and church (ekklesia). We must respect our conscience as the Bible says and as Martin Luther said many years ago. ^109.intro

From our perspective, the idea of the "501(c)(3) membership" is a human addition. If you are willing to accept this IRS guideline, then you must comply with the requirements to keep the government happy. But this is not the real church membership Paul is talking about. In our case, we noticed the sermon series seemed to be treating the "501(c)(3) membership" as the true church. The sermon series appeared to equate the modern idea of church membership with the biblical idea of membership in 1 Cor 12:12-30. When this happens, attenders are not just placed outside the 501(c)(3) institutional part of the local church. They are placed outside the church! (1 Cor 5, 1, 2, & 3 John) ^114.intro

So there are four big issues.

• Believers are put outside of the church (1 Cor, 1, 2, & 3 John, etc) ^{98.covenantmembership}  
• The insider/outsider misunderstanding of 1 Cor 5:12-13 (an identity issue)
• Suggestions to look for another church to submit to elders (a submission and authority issue)
• The presentation model vs the NT community model (a one another issue) ^55.oneway  

Sometimes a person to person discussion can help clear things up. We have been looking for this. Meanwhile, the refinements of this article may be helpful. ^115.intro  

Introduction: Our Understanding Of Membership

Here, we will explain our basic understanding of "biblical church membership" and the modern practice of "formal church membership". We realize there is a big issue, so we need to get to the main ideas. If regular attenders are being called "outsiders", there is a serious issue.

Biblical church membership is very simple. Even a child can understand it. Biblical membership is immediate, permanent, unified, and based on belief. The modern kind of membership is different. It is delayed, temporary, separated and formal. The modern kind of membership is temporary because it is only valid while you are a "member" of a church and is lost when you leave. It is separated from other 501(c)(3) assemblies in town. The New Testament membership considered church at the city/town level. This modern kind of membership requires a formal process with instruction, oaths, evaluation and ceremony.

According to the Bible, entrance into the Christian life is through "belief in Jesus Christ" in which one becomes part of the "body of Christ." Believers are "in Christ", having "died with Christ" and are made "righteous in Christ" (2 Cor 5:21). ^1.believe   A believer becomes part of the "one body of Christ." Being part of the "one body" means being part of the church, a permanent membership that can never be lost. ^{118.permanent}   Of course a believer is encouraged to not neglect assembling together (Heb 10:25). But we know that being a faithful attender at a local church assembly is not what makes you a "member." The New Testament shows Christians to be instantly "members" of the "one body in Christ" and included in the church. Church members in the Bible are an interconnected "body." They are not part of "lone ranger" churches. They are not part of a church body that is isolated and independent. The Jerusalem church beautifully demonstrates these things.

The only question is how long it takes for a local church to recognize you as a Christian. The early church recognized Christians with incredible efficiency. In one case they added 3000 to the church in one day.

Unfortunately, with the modern kind of church membership, joining a church is a completely different process. This "secondary church membership" has become commonplace these days. Christians reading their Bible are confused. Many churches use the same word for their "membership" as the more fundamental idea of biblical church membership that is based on belief. ^{98.covenantmembership}  

Introduction: Their Understanding Of Membership

In November 2021 the elders of our local church presented their view of "church membership" in 4 sermons. ^2.sermon   The series argued for "formal church membership" and said this is what the Bible means by "church membership." We appreciated the tone of the sermon series and the encouragement for the topic to be discussed. The elders were honorable in presenting the topic along with an open request for discussion and debate. ^3.elders There were statements like, "So over the next few months we ask that there be a church wide discussion about these matters" ^4.elders   The presentation was appreciated because it clarified the position of the church and put the topic "on the table." We are responding because we respect the elders but also care about biblical truth. We also wonder if others may be confused. We are responding because we value clarified Christian identity. We learned that Christians who have agreed to "formal church membership" are considered "insiders" and "regular attenders" are considered "outsiders." ^{2.sermon   5.mckinley}  

Introduction: Our Response

We have 4 articles in response. We hope to explain our view of biblical church membership and our understanding that all Christians are "insiders." We would rather have early feedback, if possible (before spending a lot of time on this). The worst situation is to spend months or years without interaction about the topic (anti-discussion). Our goal and hope is peace, clarified Christian identity and freedom to hold our conscience position (Rom 14). We would like feedback to understand the church's position and to clarify this article.

1. Our first article is by Jamon S.R. Sorrells. ^7.sorrells
2. Our second article is a few YouTube Videos. ^8.pearl  
3. Our third article is by Matt Slick of CARM.org. ^9.slick  
4. Our fourth article is the rest of this document.

We have been quietly holding back our views to avoid offending leaders because we felt this topic was too sensitive. Now, since the topic has been "put on the table", we are glad for the freedom to talk about this important topic. It is important because we are discussing the visible identity and status of Christians! ^{12.facetoface   116.otherside}  

Terminology

First, lets define our terms!

• member (biblical use)   (permanent membership)   In the biblical context of 1 Cor 12:12-30, "member" just means part of the "body of Christ". It does not refer to the modern kind of formal church membership where a person joins a 501(c)(3) organization to belong to a local church assembly. ^14.thiselton  
• member (everyday use)   (temporary secondary membership)   This usually refers to the modern idea of formally joining a local church assembly. Someone could be referring to the biblical sense (above), so this term is ambiguous. ^14.thiselton  
• formal church membership   (temporary secondary membership)   This refers to joining a local church assembly in a formal way that usually involves instruction, oaths, evaluation and ceremony. ^20.rosner  
• 501(c)(3) church membership   (temporary secondary membership)   This refers to joining a local church assembly with the government 501(c)(3) organization requirements. The organization is under government requirements to have "bylaws", "officers", "membership", etc. Most Christians today are fine with this, but some may have conscience issues about church being directly connected with the government. A church chooses to become incorporated. This is a voluntary choice to allow the state to control its affairs and add requirements. ^{21.government} Many Christians don't think about how the government 14 part test of a church may violate biblical requirements. ^{22.churchtest}
• church   This is ambiguous. It could refer to a secular or Christian assembly in the Bible. It could also refer to a "501(c)(3) church organization". The context really matters, especially with our "modern" views of "church".
• local church   This is ambiguous. It refers to church in a locality, but the early church assumed church at the city level. Our modern churches usually assume a single assembly. ^25.carson This could be a serious problem if one thinks like the Corinthians who were splitting into sub-groups of "Paul", "Apollos", "Peter" or "Christ" (1 Cor 1:12). Paul says, "Is Christ divided?" ^{23.city 89.division}
• local church assembly   (or "assembly")   This refers to a particular church assembly in a locality. It could be a house church or a traditional church that meets in a special building. ^25.carson
• church ministry   This is ambiguous. It normally refers to the leadership that is connected to a "501(c)(3) entity" and is responsible for a single local church assembly. But it could also be used of leadership in biblical days, such as the Jerusalem church, which was organized at the city level. ^23.city

Focusing on "member" a bit more, we know that words often have multiple meanings and so it is with the word "member." After looking at about 5 of the popular online dictionaries, we chose Britannica for its clarity and narrowed down their definitions to the two most relevant. https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/member

• 1. Someone or something that belongs to or is a part of a group or an organization
• 3.a. old-fashioned : a body part (such as an arm or a leg)

This definition helps a little bit (1.), but is not good enough. We have to dig deeper to get more clarity.

1. The Meaning of the Word "Member"

In order to show the complexity of the modern word "member" for the church context we will look at the third Google result searching for "church membership" as of April 2022. We will dig into this 3rd link to illustrate how the word "member" is confused and not in agreement with biblical membership. We will try to show how the text is carefully worded to achieve a certain idea for the modern reader (that may not be what the Bible is speaking of). The link authors want the reader to think the modern formal church membership idea is the same as biblical church membership. We hope you will see the difference.

The website gracechurch.org/.../church-membership says (as of April 2022),

Notice how the wording is so carefully stated. An individual "becomes" a member of body of Christ, but then there is a need to be "qualified" for another kind of membership (membership of the local expression of that body). We call this being a bit tricky with God's Word. The idea of needing the additional qualification to become a member of a local expression is not discussed in the Bible. It is in fact introduced with our modern ideas. The "local expression of that body" is also some of the tricky language used. The Bible speaks of Christians being or becoming members. But this new modern idea creates a new "second" kind of membership out of the "local expression of the body" that one must "qualify" to get into. The "local expression of the body" is a new and separate concept while the Bible keeps it simple. Where is this separate membership ideas discussed in the Bible? It is not. The article says, one is "qualified" to become a member of a "local expression of that body", but the Bible simply says "they were added", meaning they were added to the local expression of the body in Acts 2:41. This is really important! Can you see that the Bible assumes a local expression of the body but the article is creating a new group that one must do something to join? The article uses the term "member" for both which causes the confusion. The "member" terminology confusion is the core issue. The Bible shows a permanent same day kind of membership. The Bible speaks of membership as immediate and based on belief. The modern church however tries to separate "membership" into a "secondary" event and a process that we are calling "formal church membership."

When gracechurch.org says,

We completely agree. And the early church Christians could never have to worry about feeling this way because they were added to the local expression of the body on the same day. All 3000 believers were added to the local church in a single day. Today the formal membership process changes the dynamic. Today things are very different. Now, for the first time, you can experience being "disconnected from the body." Now, you can experience salvation without belonging to a local church because many local churches block admittance with a formal process.

When gracechurch.org says,

We completely agree with the first sentence because it is straight from the Bible. But the next statement is tricky. It is both implying something negative about "regular attenders" and is technically irrelevant because regular attenders don't stay home... they attend. A second tricky thing is the insertion of the word "formally" as a commentary and interpretation of being "added to the church." But when the 3000 were added in Acts 2:41, this was not a formal process like in our days. Most people would call this informal to the extreme. The early church way of joining the local church was extremely fast and informal.

The biblical word "member" is meant to be very practical as one attends at a local church assembly. And 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 is a beautiful passage that helps us see that the outcast, poor and disadvantaged Christians are actually essential in the local church. In reality, the biblical word "member" simply means to be part of the body of Christ. It simply means to be part of the Kingdom (Matt 6:33) which means part of the church. A Christian normally participates in the church by meeting together with other Christians (Heb 10:25), but a Christian is not defined by faithful attendance.

Believers are "members" and are part of the local visible expression of the church in their city/town/postal whether they are recognized or not. The early church was able to recognize and baptize 3000 in one day, which is impressive. But it was not always easy. Paul was not immediately recognized because he had been persecuting Christians and the Christians in Jerusalem did not trust him. "And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple." (Acts 9:26)   Paul was actually a "member" and part of the church even while he was not recognized by the Christians in Jerusalem. Barnabas helped Paul get recognized, but in reality, Paul was part of the church since the day he believed and was made righteous "in Christ."

The problem arises when churches are not clear about the big difference between biblical membership (based on belief) and the modern secondary membership idea called "formal church membership". If a church today thinks that "membership" has evolved from the early church idea of immediate membership to a modern "formal church membership", they are taking an interpretive liberty that some Christians can not accept. The membership that is based on belief is a safe interpretation with lots of biblical support. The modern kind of membership that requires membership to evolve is lacking in biblical support. Our conscience is clear following the example of the Apostles and our conscience is concerned with adding a formal membership process when the early church avoided it. The modern trend of redefining "membership" as a subset of Christians who have gone through some kind of a "formal process" does damage to the "one body" if the terms are confused. We prefer clarity.

Elisabeth Elliot describes having been identified with a church that thought about "membership" like this, ^26.elliot  

This church wanted to include all Christians in "membership". They wanted to avoid an "exclusive membership". They wanted to guard the "one body" and many members idea of 1 Cor 12:12-26. They wanted to avoid a "secondary status" and "special class" that can easily cause divisions in the church. They wanted to make it clear that even those not part of their local assembly, are included in the "one body of Christ". If they used the term "member", it was only in the sense that all Christians are "members" in the "body of Christ".

This idea is supported by the best commentary of the Greek on 1 Corinthians! ^17.thiselton   Thiselton is concerned about how the word "member" has changed so the biblical meaning is in danger of being misunderstood. ^18.thiselton   He is convinced the word "member" has been lost to the "modern social meaning". ^{14.thiselton   19.robinson}   He says,

Modern readers of 1 Corinthians 12:12-26 are often confused into thinking their status as a "formal church member" is the same as the biblical meaning of "member". How can you understand the biblical text if you conflate the terms? The use of "member" in the Bible is simply referring to Christians who believe and are "part of the body of Christ". Biblical membership is very different.

2. Causing Divisions in The Body

The central passage on biblical membership that we are using (1 Cor 12:12-31) warns about "division in the body" (1 Cor 12:25). However, instead of listening to the plain meaning of scripture, the modern formal membership methods separate the "in" and "out" Christians. Only 2 verses away from the warning about division, 1 Cor 12:27 says, "Now you are the body of Christ", thus making all the Christians included in membership. Paul says, they "are" members and he says they are "individually members of it [the body]." From our perspective, there is no doubt that the simple meaning of scripture is that all Christians are members. But the formal membership process wants to hijack this simple meaning and change it to assume a lot more. They will say, yes, you can become a member, but only after you follow the church's list of membership requirements. Instead of members who "are the body" (1 Cor 12:27) having the "same care" for one another (1 Cor 12:25), the formal members who are "in", feel perfectly comfortable calling other Christians "outsiders". The formal membership group is comfortable ignoring the conscience convictions of Christians who are not able to join based on biblical principle. ^26.elliot   The formal church membership idea splits the "body of Christ" into two distinct groups, causing division. ^{89.division 90.division}  

Thiselton's commentary on 1 Corinthians raises this concern, ^15.thiselton  

A very shocking thing can happen when "formal membership" thinking dominates. The modern formal membership process can get such a church ministry mindshare and focus that it can become the main thing of the ministry. Thabiti Anyabwile explains,

There is a tricky thing happening in merely assuming something of the status of Christians who have not followed the local church process. 1 Cor 12:27 says they "are the body" but the modern formal way says you "can become." When Anyabwile says attenders need to,

he is essentially saying the attenders are not yet "in" the "local assembly of believers"! So he is essentially "putting these Christian attenders out" of the "local assembly of believers" by his wording. He is not just saying "outside" the "formal church members".

When Matt Chandler begins his article on "Church Membership" with this quote,

he is essentially saying that the attenders are not yet "in" the church. He is essentially "putting these Christian attenders out" of the church by his implication. Does he not see how his statements cause division and are uncharitable to the regular attenders who have been made righteous in Christ? ^{1.believe 92.partiality 89.division}  

The topic of "membership" is of great importance because it defines Christian identity in the visible local church.

3. Insiders and Outsiders

Until this sermon series, ^2.sermon   we have never heard of the interpretation that the "insiders" are those who have agreed to "formal church membership". We believe this is a serious misunderstanding of the biblical text in 1 Cor 5:12-13. Since we know an "outsider" is really a non Christian, to be called an "outsider" is essentially to be called an "unbeliever". We know the "outsider" is the one God will judge who is outside the true church (not a believer). ^35.garland   It appears many Christian leaders are misunderstanding this verse because they have confused the two meanings of the word member. The true interpretation is that Paul is telling us to judge the "insider" Christian who is in sin and purge them from our Christian community (hoping they will repent).

We believe calling Christian "regular attenders" by the classification "outsider" shows a serious misunderstanding of the text. ^{5.mckinley 6.mckinley}  

We have never been asked to understand this verse in the reverse. If you flip the meaning of "outsider" and "insider", you can have an interesting twist. Suddenly the "outsider" is referring to the Christian brother who you are supposed to love. The one who has been made "righteous" by Christ is called an "outsider" (essentially an unbeliever). Instead of a single classification of "insider" for Christian, we confuse things, creating two classes of Christians. With this modern interpretation, the Christian in your local assembly could be an "outsider" or an "insider". If Elisabeth Elliot was attending your church, you would have to call her an "outsider" to be consistent with her membership views and your idea of excluding "regular attenders." This meaning is convoluted and not the intended meaning of Paul. ^35.garland   Instead of Christian unity, this creates division. Some, like Wayne Grudem, are more welcoming, but are still confused. ^79.grudem  

Even though we may be called "outsiders", thankfully, the scriptures assure us of our true identity in Christ. God's Word reminds us, "But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord," (Rom 4:23-24) ^102.identity

4. Oaths and Vows

Some Christians have a conscience issue with taking oaths and vows. Jesus said,

In the modern formal church membership process, there is usually a set of oaths that must be taken. If this is questioned, the comparison to marriage is usually made. But if the concern is to follow Jesus who says to avoid oaths, we might think his words would be sufficient.

A person's conscience is more important than winning an argument based on hard cases that may not be easy to explain. ^68.sproul Suppose someone's conscience is concerned about taking oaths and vows. Suppose this is especially the case in the context of Christians with their voluntary behaviors and choices. Suppose they are less concerned about being forced to take oaths under pressure from unbelievers, but very sensitive to taking oaths in a Christian setting, because in the "family", they expect greater sensitivity to what Jesus says (if this is your conscience view).

The one with this conscience perspective can still make resolutions. The desire to refrain from oaths does not mean avoidance of strong intentions and solid resolutions. The one with this conscience perspective may be just as committed as another person who has no fear of making oaths and vows.

What good does it do to try to change a person's conscience conviction if they are trying to literally follow Jesus on this topic? Why try to change someone's views on formal membership oaths when Romans 14 would seem to allow for tolerance on this conviction? Why try to cause abandonment of a conscience conviction when the conviction is based on Jesus very words? Jesus is a high enough authority. ^93.authority It doesn't matter if Martin Loyd Jones thinks you are ridiculous. ^67.jones   It doesn't matter if D.A. Carson thinks you are insensitively absolute. ^30.carson   To ignore your conscience would be wrong (Romans 14).

5. The Boundary of Elder Responsibility

The Bible says elders must

So according to the Bible, elders are to shepherd the flock,

These can be interpreted in various ways, but we understand the "flock of God" to be the true Christians not those who have gone through a formal process. The flock at the local level is also defined by being "among you". This means the Christians who show up and who are in your gathering. We also assume this flock is thought of locally at the city level because this is how the early church consistently thought about the local visible church. ^23.city   (We don't want to debate this, but this is our conscience perspective)  

An elder must be "willing". If an elder is not willing, and there are other godly "older men" in the Lord who are willing, then something may be wrong. Willingness is very important. If you put too much responsibility on the modern pastor/elder, they may get overloaded. The early church elders would not have dreamed of the complexity of running a modern "501(c)(3) kind of church". ^75.london   It is no wonder that some pastors will want to limit their responsibility. One solution is to limit the responsibility to the "formal church members". Mark Dever calls the 300 "regular attenders" at his church by the term, "outsiders" and does not feel as responsible for them. In his mind, they are not officially included in "the flock". He only considers the 700 "formal church members" to be his responsibility. In his opinion, he will not "answer to God for" the "outsiders" (regular attenders). ^61.dever   The Good Shepherd, however, leaves the 99 to go after the 1 lost sheep (Luke 15:1-7).   Knowing the good shepherd model, we wonder about this new kind of shepherding model that says the 30% (regular attenders) are not "the flock". ^{62.dever   96.laniak}   We seriously wonder about calling the "regular attenders" "outsiders." The burden of pastoring with the 501(c)(3) extra requirements is a voluntary choice. Pastoring is one thing, but pastoring with the added 501(c)(3) requirements is a choice. ^{21.government}   1 Peter 5:1-4 says to willingly care for those among you. Ezekiel 34:4 shows the distracted leadership model, ^96.laniak  

As we said above, we think the biblical record of "how all the churches" did things is still important today (1 Cor 11:16), and one principle is considering the church at the city level. ^{23.city 25.carson 32.carson}   You may not feel this is something for today, but our conscience conviction is that according to both the example and the tradition of the Apostles, the church considered itself at the city/town level. This means the boundary of elder responsibility is the same. This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you (Titus 1:5). We think it is important to include all Christians who are "among you", including all Christians in your local assembly and all Christians in your local city/town church just like in Jerusalem. ^{24.city 25.carson 32.carson 68.sproul}  

6. The Formal Process

Some Christians may have concerns over how the Apostles did church with simplicity compared with the formality and process of our modern church. ^{101.earlychurch 29.carson}

The formal requirements of the modern church membership process are very different from the near instant membership and baptisms in the early church. Think of the "3000 added in one day" (Acts 2:41) or the Philippian Jailer "baptized at once" (Acts 16:33), or the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) who "commanded the chariot to stop" to get baptized. Some Christians may have conscience concerns about joining when they don't see the modern formal joining process in the Bible.

Here is one example of a church's membership requirements.

The process is an active participation and partnership...

    1. Attend Membership Classes  
    2. Complete the Membership Application 
    3. Interview with one of the Ministry Staff 
    4. Recommendation by the Ministry Staff 
    5. Approval by the Ministry Staff 
    6. Public Reception of New Members 

    Requirements for Membership
      A Valid Testimony of Salvation
      Agreement with our Statement of Faith 
      Agreement with our Core Values
      Believers Baptism by Immersion
      Fellowship Connection with the Church family 
      Ministry Participation 

When we compare this with the early church, we see a very different way.

    1. They believed 
    2. They were baptized and added to the church ("instant membership") 
       (This all usually happened in the same day, even with 3000!)

Why is the early church way so fast and so careless about formality ?

Perhaps there are reasons.

Why do we assume we have it right and the Apostles way is obsolete?

Why do we set some people aside (not "in" the church) even though they have a conscience view about wanting to follow the Apostles way! ^68.sproul

We applaud the older, simpler, friendlier way. ^{104.relational}

• The early church (3000 added in one day... Not formal at all) ^{100.earlychurch}
• The house churches in China (Read Watchman Nee for how many of them think) ^{46.china 47.nee}  
• The early days of our local church (I've heard how it was in the past)
• Elisabeth Elliot's church (avoid using "membership" to exclude others)
• My experience in simple African churches
• My research of the early church way (informal and more relational) ^{104.relational}  
• Welcoming Christians as "insiders" based on knowing them (Like Elisabeth Elliot)

We warn against the formal way with oaths and vows that ignores the conscience of some. ^{68.sproul 83.schaeffer}  

• John Piper (good preacher, but wrong on this) ^13.modern  
• Mark Dever (nice guy, but wrong on this) ^13.modern  
• Matt Chandler (seems nice, but not nice to attenders) ^64.chandler   ("Lone Ranger", "adulterous", "separated", "profane", "enemy")
• Not my experience in simple African churches or my understanding from reading the New Testament ^103.story

7. Repeated Formal Membership Process

Biblical "membership in the body of Christ" is permanent. This kind of "membership" is immediate and permanent and based on belief. The Jerusalem church beautifully practiced this kind of membership with immediate baptisms of 3000 in one day and the membership in the church was permanent. There was no need to require "membership" as the Christians were naturally involved relationally in the many house churches. Later, when 5000 men were added to the church, there must have been a lot of inter-assembly people gathering in the house churches, often meeting in one or another or multiple homes. The main thing is that they thought of the church at the city level, so it did not matter one bit how they assembled within that one church. They probably gathered based on the most convenient location (part of the city), but there were no association rules. There is certainly no record of slowing down attending and involvement by adding a new "membership" barrier after they were already permanent members in the body of Christ. There may have been 50 or 500 house church assemblies, but they clearly considered the church as one church at the city level. What a beautiful picture of unity that the whole city of unbelievers could see. ^23.city  

The Christians did not need to get new memberships if they went to live in another town. They only needed to be recognized. But if the Jerusalem church could add 3000 members in one day, recognizing a new Christian moving into town would likely take much less time. There is no evidence of losing "membership" when someone had to move to a new location. There is no idea of needing to re-establish "membership". Membership in the Bible is simply based on belief and this didn't change when moving to a new location. There is no record of a "membership process" for Christians who moved to a new town.

The modern idea of "formal church membership" is completely different from the biblical idea and must have been invented at some time in church history. The modern temporary kind of "membership" must be repeated for each new church one attends. For each new church there is a new formal process with instruction, oaths, evaluation and ceremony. If you move to a church next door, in the same town, it is the same. The modern church expects you to begin the formal church membership process all over again.

In the modern church "membership" model, each church has some Christians who are "in" and some Christians who are "out". In the biblical "membership" model, all Christians are "in" and all are "members" (based on belief). In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, the "membership" is simply being part of the "body of Christ". ^{14.thiselton   27.repeated}  

8. 501(c)(3) Government Regulations

Many Christians do not know the implications of the government rules for 501(c)(3) organizations. The requirements for churches are strict and some Christians do not have a clear conscience about joining this. In the US, "501(c)(3) organizations are highly regulated entities. Strict rules apply to both the activities and the governance of these organizations." ^{21.government}  

One of the more troubling things that is required by the government regulated "501(c)(3) church" is the specifying of many details that would make the early house churches in Jerusalem no longer valid. If you care about this, then there is a problem. If you don't care about massive differences from the early church being regulated then there is no problem for you. If you want to support a "church ministry" regulated by 501(c)(3) rules, then you are required to have a "membership" that makes sense to the IRS. The 14 (or 15) part test is used to define if a church is a valid church. ^{22.churchtest}   But a Christian may not be comfortable with the IRS defining so many details about the church. Why should the government define the "church membership" in how it relates to other assemblies? ^{22.churchtest}   The IRS 14 part test #6 requires "A membership not associated with any other church or denomination".

If we apply this to one of the many house churches in the early Jerusalem city wide church, almost all of the 14 tests will fail. Some Christians are concerned about joining in "membership" with an organization that is directly connected to the government and must follow certain government guidelines. ^{21.government 22.churchtest 80.organization}

9. Christian Love and The True Church

If the teaching on "formal church membership" is true we would expect to see it expressed in the Bible and it should not be a hard sell. In fact it should not be a sell. It should be plain. If it is not plain, then maybe something is wrong. When we look at times when Christians see things different, this is a time to see how they get along and what kind of unity, love, kindness and care is expressed.

Unfortunately we see an increasingly unloving and unkind pushing of modern second "membership" on Christians who are refraining for biblical reasons. In the process of testing all things (1 Thess 5:21), we look for how we are instructed by the preachers and test things by the Bible. ^49.testing If there is truth in what is being said, there should be lots and lots of time for discussion with all the details being allowed to be shared. If there is truth in what is being said, it will not be a one way presentation but will have a bit of the character of 1 Cor 14 in the discussion. There are a lot of "one another's" in the Bible and they are most important when there are differences of opinion and differences of conscience (Rom 14).

If Christians are being told they are "unspiritual", "uncommitted", "lone rangers", without a really good opportunity to respond, then there is no love in it. One test of your view of membership is to apply it to someone who disagrees with your view, like Elisabeth Elliot, who wrote about avoiding the modern kind of church membership and ask if she is committed or not. ^26.elliot Sometimes it is commitment to scripture that keeps people from joining modern church membership.

There seems to be some irony in hearing leaders speak about pushing "membership" (without hearing the other side) as an expression of love. The pushing of the "formal church membership" on Christians is not even close to being kind if they have felt their view has been repressed for many years. If one side is presenting the argument, then the others side will not feel any love by being told they are not even in the church! ^{63.anyabwile 60.dever}  

Most Christians do not know there are a lot of issues with the "formal church membership" idea. Most Christians are not aware how the "501(c)(3) membership" practice creates two classes of Christians. One of the most unloving ways of treating Christians is to say they cannot participate in church and are not even in the church (in the biblical sense). ^83.schaeffer This is all applied to a Christian who has serious conscience convictions as they faithfully try to follow God's Word.

We think love will not control the conversation (the discussion will be fair). Love will not prevent the other side from explaining their understanding of scripture (in a fair open way). If the modern "membership" idea is true, it should not be afraid of some examination. Truth should have no fear the other side presenting its case. (Prov 18:17)  

Why do we see 9Marks through Matt Chandler quoting the Cyprian quote on the topic of church membership? ^64.chandler Why does a famous pastor call this conscience perspective "sick." ^13.modern Why does another say avoiding "membership" is because of "spiritual issues." ^13.modern

We find Christian charity and clarity in this definition of the church by Matt Slick of CARM.org.

We find Christian charity and clarity in this statement from the Evangelical Free Church of America. EFCA.org/sof This statement is biblical, appropriately inclusive, and could fit with the story in Acts 2:41-42.

The early church showed love when they gladly accepted 3000 into membership in one day. They were all "insiders." They had their troubles, but at least they had their Christian identity settled.

Conclusion

We are defending our conscience perspective on "church membership" because we know God's Word presents Christians as "members" and part of the body of Christ. ^{1.believe 93.authority}

We believe the church should not have a divided membership model. ^{22.churchtest} The church is already fragmented enough. ^32.carson

We want to live at peace with other Christians while maintaining our conscience perspective (Romans 14:5, Psalm 133:1, John 17:23). ^{30.carson 68.sproul}   Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17) teaches us to "test all things" (1 Thess 5:21) and to "hold fast to what is good." ^49.testing

We will stand before God someday and we do not think it wise to compromise our conscience perspective with oaths and vows and other ideas that we don't see in the Bible. We are called to be faithful to His Word (Jeremiah 23:28).

Our understanding of "church membership" has been influenced by many years of Bible reading and experiences at various churches since the 1970s. Our story has influenced our thinking just as Elisabeth Elliot's affected her, or Watchman Nee affected him. ^{103.story 26.elliot 47.nee}

We have noticed the resistance of recognizing Christians as "part" of "the church", because of "bylaws" and "formal church membership" related to "501(c)(3) regulations". But we feel that the Apostles deserve the highest respect. ^93.authority For us, modern "membership" is a massive confusion of the biblical meaning of the word "member" which is clearly meant to include all believers. ^{117.conclusion}

Thankfully, we know our identity is in Christ. Thankfully this topic has been "put on the table" (and is now free to discuss). Thankfully, we have enjoyed the opportunity to study a little deeper We are his unworthy servants and he grants us the awesome privilege of serving in his kingdom! (Luke 17:10).

APPENDIX

Questions:

1. "If a long time attendee, not a member, falls into blatant sin yet refuses to repent, what if anything should the leadership do?"

   Quick Answer:
   If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. 1 Thess 3:14-15

   We fully agree with following the Bible on this. We think this can be done as long as one is not afraid of 501(c)(3) issues. If there is any fear of risks due to 501(c)(3) legal complications then we would say that is one reason why we personally have concerns with the 501(c)(3) model. We wonder about choosing the 501(c)(3) path if it only works if everyone agrees to the 501(c)(3) model. We wonder about choosing the 501(c)(3) way and then saying it is hard to follow if everyone does not submit to join the 501(c)(3) system. If you follow a doctor and take strong medicine with severe possible side effects, you really should not assume that everyone is going to be willing to take the medicine. You should not be surprised if there are side effects to the strong medicine of 501(c)(3) government requirements. In spite of the hardships with the 501(c)(3) way, we still think churches that are 501(c)(3) incorporated should attempt to follow the biblical guidance in the very clear verse above. There may be side effects, but it is mostly a question of how brave and willing one is in following the biblical instruction. The details of how that would work would be another much more detailed discussion.

   Also we must say that this question needs preparation to clarify assumptions. One can't answer this kind of question without getting into the assumptions of church in our modern age. There are so many different interpretations the more we wander away from the early church ways. For example, when the question says, "not a member", that is a very loaded statement (as our article tries to explain).

   A little more:

   • Most Christians in churches these days are not used to the biblical instruction to "not associate" (when appropriate). In some traditions, "not associating" or shunning, may be normal but for most Christians, this is a very odd practice. The only way most Christians participate is if the leaders organize the process. If the leaders think it is appropriate and are willing to enforce it, then the ordinary Christians will usually go along with it. We understand this to be primarily for ordinary Christians, however. If the ordinary Christians just wait for the leaders, we think something is wrong.
   • We think the biblical instruction is intended for ordinary Christians, not primarily or particularly for leaders. Unfortunately, if there is a highly organized ordained clergy formalizing the process, the ordinary church attenders/members will get used to thinking it is not their job. The early church and the Apostles, however, spoke to the whole church about this important practice. Very importantly also, the context of the local church was homes. Of course the elders should be responsible and take action if others are not willing to deal with the situation. In 1 Corinthians 5, we see Paul is rebuking the church (not just the leaders) for failing to perform this very important duty. We see the Bible clearly speaks about this in the New Testament and the Old Testament.
   • We also believe this avoiding is especially meaningful in the early church setting of the full meal Passover like Lord's Supper and in the setting of a 1 Cor 14 style assembly with men speaking for the building up of the body. We believe this idea of avoiding does not work well in the larger formal modern church meetings today. Even though it is less meaningful today in the traditional institutional setting, we still think this biblical instruction should be followed. We also think 3 John talks about not welcoming certain people into your home (a similar idea) which we assume to be a house church situation. Some things may be hard to apply in our modern day, but we applaud efforts to try to follow this important Biblical idea.
   • We think it is important to remember that the person being avoided is still considered a "brother", so he or she is still considered an "insider."
   • We assume the scope of avoiding takes place at the city level. We assume the early church pattern of considering church at the city/town level, so avoiding must also be at that level. We don't think "avoiding" someone makes much sense if the person is fully welcome at a few other churches in town. We understand the early church to have had both a house church size meeting, but also an association and an idea of "church" at the city/town level. Any person in that church model would know it would not make sense to join another local assembly, because it would not work. Eventually, someone would leak the information and they would be embarrassed. So, far differently from today, they would actually fear the possible situation of being avoided. This is biblical.
   • But we also assume there was no need for a large broadcasting of the news about the person being avoided. Yes, there was something of a broadcasting of a situation in Corinth (1 Cor 5), but that was when the church had failed. Also, we do not think the news would have been broadcast the same way at a larger church like Jerusalem, unless the situation was not handled at the smaller group level. Initially, the avoiding only needs to be applied at the house church level. Our model today is different on a few accounts. First, there seems to be more of a broadcasting when the church assembly is large. Then there is the 501(c)(3) fears (worry that someone who is not a 501(c)(3) member will sue... Just crazy, but it is a concern). But most importantly, the modern church cannot practice not associating because of the disconnected assembly setup (which is part of the 501(c)(3) rules). People being avoided can easily find a kind welcome somewhere else in town and the 501(c)(3) model enforces a disassociation of memberships. Additionally, with modern transportation, movement to other towns is very easy. Someone can easy ignore their local city/town. There is no easy answer to some of these issues. But our understanding is that we should not assume 501(c)(3) when interpreting the Bible.
   • We may have already stated this, but to clarify, we assume an elder only needs to get involved when things go wrong with the process. We see judging in the church to be something done by ordinary Christians (1 Cor 6). According to our understanding of the Bible, elders are not very busy with this task, normally. They step up to the plate when others are passive. Others will generally be passive with the traditional model of church. So we have concerns with the traditional model of church for reasons like this. We affirm the Biblically sensitive proponents of the "other trend" that D.A. Carson speaks about in "Showing the Spirit", partly because of this issue. (See NTRF as one group we have liked for being Biblical and part of this "other trend" that D.A. Carson speaks of)
   • You might notice that an early church model (using homes and being connected at the city level) really changes how this all works. Our assumption is that the early church model worked the best... and ought to be what we strive for, but we are also glad when traditional churches strive to obey the Bible even when it is hard.
   • These ideas are just "getting started" thoughts...

2. a) Who is an elder responsible for?
   b) Do you agree with the authority of the local elder body?
   

   Quick Answer: a) Mostly covered above b) Yes, but it is a bit more complex (see below)

   Longer Answer:

   • Yes, according to a biblical loyalty priority
   • We may understand the biblical model differently, but are very supportive Biblical eldership. For example, we have diligently read Alexander Strauch's book about 20 years ago, and reviewed it a few times... We also listened to John Piper's theology school discussing the book as they used it as their main textbook. This is our favorite book on biblical eldership.
   • We really like the early church model (house churches). We may understand eldership a bit differently because of this. We are very supportive of following the patterns, traditions and teaching of the apostles. We see the apostles patterning a simple house church eldership at the city level. This may influence some of our understandings of "Do you agree with the authority of the local elder body." The authority is to the degree that it is Biblical as D.A. Carson explains very well. He is also supportive of "both trends"... not just the traditional model. We also agree with D.A. Carson on this.
   • We are skeptical of modern 501(c)(3) organization and wonder why it is almost always assumed to be the only way.
   • Eldership and membership are interrelated. If the membership is closed to biblical members, then the eldership may not reflect God's intentions.
   • Based on our reading of the Bible, we see eldership as primarily and older mans job. In the OT, the elders would sit in the gate and discuss things (See Ruth, etc). The modern church tends to keep elders busy. We do not see that in the Bible. If this model is followed, you may get a different set of elders than God's intention. This is all factored into the "Do you agree with the authority of the local elder body." Yes, we agree with the Bible. But we have concerns and questions.
   • Assume some familiarization with older discussions by (Piper/Grudem)
   • Assume some familiarization with older discussions by (Dever/Ligon/etc)
   • Biblical authority words need clarification. ^peitho (See also NTRF and many others who explain this well)
   • Responsible for those "who are among you" (assumed)
   • Elders must be willing (1 Peter, Mark Dever 30% issue)
   • Responsible at the city/town level (assumed) vs elder at one assembly (compromise)
   • The good shepherd model (OT/NT), then discuss (Dever 30% issue)
   • Study of Alexander Strauch's book, then discuss.
   • OT study on elders is interesting/discuss.
   • NT study on 1 Cor 6 is interesting/discuss.
   • Questionable idea of "voting" (More evidence of lots/consensus) (See NTRF on this)
   • Our modern 501(c)(3) structure and the "officer" idea (discuss) (Not quite the sense we get reading the Bible)
   • Eldership tied to government 501(c)(3) organization creates fundamental conflict with 501(c)(3) rules. If we would apply this to the early church model, it would be a problem. There are serious hidden issues in the "14 part test."
   • Might the Bible mean more "older in the Lord" than voted on? We are not sure and have questions based on our Bible reading.

     FOOTNOTES
     

     1.believe

     We believe in Christ, have died with Christ and are "righteous in Christ."
     

     Belief and membership are foundations of our Christian identity, being "righteous in Christ."

     "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation." (2 Cor 5:17)
     "Now if we have died with Christ" (Rom 6:6,8)
     "righteous in Christ" (Rom 3:22; 4:5-8; 8:4; 9:30; 10:4,6; 2 Cor 5:21 Phil 3:9; Hebr 10:14; )
     

     Matt Slick from CARM.org explains Christian identity and the church well, including ideas like "church members" and "members of the Body of Christ" without referring directly to modern formal church membership. The biblical language and meanings need to be clearly understood before assuming it directly correlates to our modern ideas of church membership. This article is much better at following the biblical meanings than the gracechurch.org article mentioned in part 1. carm.org/.../what-is-the-christian-church/

     
     

     2.sermon1

     Brick Lane - Biblical Principles of Church - Part 4
     

     These are the November 2021 sermons on "Biblical Principles of Church" focusing on "church membership and presented in 4 sermons. The 3rd and 4th are the most important. This link goes to the 4th sermon. brick52.org 2021/11/7 #4   The BLCC Delve (delvebricklane.org) also has the 4 sermons along with transcripts. https://www.delvebricklane.org/biblical-principles-of-church. The 4th sermon's "Full Transcript" seems to be ommitting the most important quotes (as of 2/15/2024).

     
     

     3.elders

     Study by the Elders on Church Membership
     

     In November 2021, the elders presented their findings on formal church membership. They chose the traditional, modern views of formal church membership. ^13.modern  

     When we wrote an article about "membership" around 2013, we generally did not share this with our friends at church to avoid possibly offending the leadership. We knew this topic might be a sensitive topic. We avoided sharing the article even though we felt it had good information. We wanted to respect the leadership because of the differences of opinion in our understanding of what the Bible teaches. We know there are strong opinions on this topic. But, still we were shocked at the even stronger views against what the Bible teaches (from our perspective). The sermons on "Biblical Principles of Church" were significant for clarifying the churches position.

     Years ago, we had heard and enjoyed the 9Marks "interview series". ^{73.9marksinterview}   This was long before Jonathan Leeman had written his book on "Church Membership". ^74.leeman   At some point, while on the Men's Council, we were offered the book, "The Compelling Community". ^{71.compelling}   The book had some good points, but we were concerned by the stronger views on "church membership". We kept this quiet, but felt something might be brewing. We had our own biblical responses to the book and the previous Josh Harris book, but we held back from discussing our views in case it might cause tension. We didn't think anyone would understand our perspective unless there was in depth study on the topic.

     We were shocked to hear that "regular attenders" who have convictions to remain "regular attenders" are no longer as welcome as they used to be. They are actually encouraged to go look for another church. We started to understand from the sermon series that "regular attenders" who have been attending for a while and have a conscience view, are now being classified as "outsiders". We noticed that the support for the modern formal view was branching out into other topics like baptism, the Lord's Supper, excommunication, assembly meetings, etc. We noticed things in the series that conflicted with our some of our friends. ^29.carson   We noticed the series was not just about church membership, but was quite broad.

     So we started reviewing the sermon to see if we heard it right and we started to read about the topic. We thought, if the elders have studied this topic for almost 2 years, we should also do some study. We might also need some time to dig into this topic, especially as this is not just a discussion on church membership, but is also making assumptions about the Lord's Supper, baptism, excommunication, the church, leadership, ordination, sacramentalism, etc.

     
     

     4.elders

     Study by the Elders and the "Church Wide Discussion"
     

     This is an important quote from the 4th sermon that caused us to assume there might be a healthy open discussion on this topic. Unfortunately we were wrong. Everywhere we tried to open the discussion, we felt closed doors. Finally we were encouraged to write and discuss the views with the presenter.

     "So over the next few months we ask that there be a church wide discussion about these matters" Sermon 4, (minute 38:08) ^2.sermon   "In small groups, in various ministries... get together... we are asking that people talk about these matters, review them, think about them". (38:58) "Ask your questions... have your debates" (39:00) "Really pray about our church as we think through the issues". (39:10) "The elders will be praying" (38:14)

     
     

     5.mckinley

     Mike McKinley - Separating Insiders and Outsiders (9Marks)
     

     McKinley appears to be confused and misunderstand some of the basics of biblical membership and Christian identity. He confuses insiders and outsiders in the Christian community. We think this is a serious misunderstanding of scripture. ^35.garland  

     https://www.9marks.org/article/separating-insiders-and-outsiders/

     He starts to get confused with these words... Our responses are in brackets "[]".

     "As such, a clear line of membership helps to make these ethical and teleological goals a reality in the life of the church. It marks out these people as a display of his mercy and kindness to the surrounding world - all to his glory." [Yes, there was a clear line of membership when the 3000 were added... they believed]

     Throughout Scripture, we see a pattern of God making his people visibly distinct from the world. When the local church practices meaningful church membership, it simply participates in what God has been doing all along. [Hopefully you are not saying the early church adding 3000 in one day was not meaningful!?]

     One day, the Lamb's book of life will be the only membership roll, and the reading of that roll will be dreadful and awesome. Until that day, churches, by keeping lists, show love for those on the inside and those on the outside (cf. 1 Cor. 5:12-13). [This is a dangerous doctrine being introduced here... DANGER! We know what he is getting at by insider/outsider as this is all over these 9Marks membership articles] However imperfect these earthly lists might be, they prepare everyone for the final reading of the list that bears no mistakes. [Actually, based on our understanding of biblical membership and this agenda to confuse it with "formal membership", we think this is more like undoing scriptural truth. Whenever the list declares a Christian to be "outside", which Paul used for meaning "unbeliever"... this is DANGEROUS! Whenever someone who has conscience concerns about joining, like Elisabeth Elliot, is called an outsider... this seems to be undoing scripture and seems very DANGEROUS!]

     
     

     6.mckinley

     Mike McKinley - Church Membership and the N.C.L.H.G.A. (9Marks)
     

     9marks.org/...church-membership-and-nclhga/ ^5.mckinley  

     Our responses are in brackets "[]".

     "Now it remains to be seen whether the contemporary practice of church membership accurately reflects the New Testament pattern for the life of the church. By church membership, I mean the formal agreement between an individual and a congregation to be committed to one another in life and discipline. [WHY are you trying so hard to propose something that is so easy to see is not in the Bible... you are imposing this idea into the text (our conscience perspective after years of Bible reading)]

     If we conclude that church membership is consistent with the Bible's commands for the church, we are obligated to pursue it in our churches. To that end, we will consider two main questions in this article: First, was church membership practiced by the apostles and the New Testament church? Second, is church membership required by the commands of Scripture?

     Was church membership practiced by churches in the New Testament? Scripture gives us indications that the answer to this question is "yes." While none of these examples are overwhelming on their own, taken as a whole they form a substantial argument. Let's look at three.

     1. None of the rest dared join them [Yes 3000 were added in 1 day... instant baptisms and membership...agreed]

     2. Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age

     [Yes, there was some orderly care for the elderly widows... agreed]

     It's difficult to imagine the church keeping a list of widows but not keeping a list of members.

     [1. The 3000 added in 1 day was clearly informal and probably an estimate. This is a good example of complete disregard for formality. 2. They may have had a list... we don't know... Why does it matter so much to you? If you want to number me as I attend your church I will not object... but why do it? Remember God did not like David numbering the Israelites. What is your reason for doing this? We know there is a lot more you want to get than simple numbering. Obviously we know the end-game, at least in the church we attend... it is a very formal process... Not simply numbering. ]

     3. the discipline the church inflicted on an individual as the "punishment by the majority".

     [Yes, the Christians in Corinth were ignoring the purity of the church... and let a sinful situation continue... How much worse our churches are... The Corinthians were rebuked for not dealing with sin in the church. I've never seen an excommunication in 50 years of church attendance. I'm sure there has been sin the leaders knew about. I have never seen a church sanctioned case of the church being told to "not associate" with "so and so". Yes, we agree with scripture, the Corinthians failed, and we do too]

     Was it the majority of people who happened to be present the day the vote was cast? [Who said they voted? If we go by scripture, the Apostles showed more that they either discussed toward agreement, like the Jerusalem council or took random picks from pre-approved choices, like Matthias and Justus. Matthias was selected without a vote... Most likely there was good discussion and general consensus. Most likely they did not just let a majority win and have the minority loose. That sounds very unbiblical to our conscience perspective. Where do we see that kind of behavior in the Bible? That sounds like American politics influencing church life.]

     Westminster Confession states: "or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture". [Why mention this confession when we are discussing important biblical interpretation questions? Can't we stay with scripture? Please review to R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur YouTube debate over baptism to hear how strongly they state the importance of scripture over church tradition and side documents! You know some people are offended by some things in this confession. It is not a document we think should be discussed when we are interpreting the Bible over controversial issues! We need good clear hermeneutics... not raising divisive doctrinal positions. It seems as if you are using a phrase to justify a human tradition. Can we just stick with scripture?]

     1. Church Discipline: First, this punishment is described in verse 2 as removing this man "from among you." The result of the church discipline is the removal of the sinner from the congregation. This necessarily implies the presence of a formal membership. How else could someone be removed if they did not belong in a formal sense in the first place? [What an amazing leap! Wow, you really are making a huge assumption. You are introducing a "necessary formal membership" based on nothing! The 'removal of a man' was just that. Each Christian was supposed think the same way... See the sinner and remove him... Hopefully the elders would notice and act if the rest of the church didn't do it first. There is no clear evidence of this being formal. Knowing that the early churches normally met in homes, the burden of proof is on you showing the formality when the church meetings were usually more on the informal side (See R. Banks, etc). The Bible does not say it is formal and does not evidence formality. It only rebukes them because they didn't do it (individual and group level responsibility). The elders are mostly to blame in this case. Each Jerusalem house church was supposed to practice this on a daily or weekly basis... how do you turn this normal practice into a formal process? And worse than that... How do you suddenly connect it with entrance into the church with a formal membership? This is crazy hermeneutics! ]

     Second, the church's discipline is to occur when "you are assembled together" (v. 4). For our purposes, simply note that there was a definite and formal assembly of the church, and they knew who to expect when it gathered. [So now you are stuck on "formal" from now on... This is the fallacy of "begging the question". The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It sounds like you are sneaking "formal" into the conversation, and later you are going to define what you think it means for us today. Just keep in mind... Other Christians may be wondering how this would fit into the original church model as a test of your modern theory. The same thing should apply to any simple house church in Jerusalem, Corinth or even a Chinese house church today. Each individual must participate for this discipline to work well. Many instructions are told to the church... and of course the elders are responsible to ensure it happens. But are the Christians in a congregation supposed to wait for "someone else" to formalize it before acting? No. The church should act (individually and corporately) and the elders ("older in the Lord"), are responsible if the other Christians do nothing. They should lead by example, but should not necessarily be the actors. That is not how we understand leadership in the early church. Elders are supposed to ensure things are done right and often they will not need to do anything when the church is functioning properly. In this biblical case, there may have been very little formality once they were convicted by Paul of ignoring God commands. There is no clear evidence of formality. But there was responsibility. The most dominant observation we observe is modern churches failing to follow "not associating" (after years of observing churches). And when they do, they wrongly assume the formal way.... No. The early church methods must be tested within the assumptions of how a informal house church would function. The larger churches today, without city level association, tending to ignore clear teachings in the Bible, are often somewhat defective (we think), when compared to the biblical patterns established in the New Testament.]

     Third, Paul means for the church to discipline only those "inside" the church (v. 12). Obviously, the church knew who was an insider and who was an outsider. Proper church discipline is impossible without defined church membership.

     [Yes, the church knew... it was those who believed. But apparently you do not know who is in the church and who is not. The Bible makes it clear, but you have a strange interpretation of "in" and "out" that we do not see following from the Bible. We think you are really confused at this point (understanding in/out). The church knew insiders were Christians... but it appears you are confused by that... You are so confused... you think someone is an "insider" if he is within the "defined church membership" of the 501(c)(3) kind. We think you are confused and are building on a foundation that is not sound. We are quite sure you are wrong... because the Bible is so much more foundational that the things you are basing your logic on. Even if it were not supported by the commentaries, we know God's Word enough to see the problem, but the commentaries also agree with us. It is not because the commentaries agree with us. We know what the Bible is saying about membership based on belief and Christian as "insiders" (which is what Paul meant). Paul did not intend for you to add a barrier to entry like the modern kind of "formal church membership".]

     2. Accountability to Leaders: Hebrews 13:17... "respect elders". Who constitutes the flock over which the elders watch? [According to the Bible, this is the Christians in the city/town local area. We are not strict... it could be city/town/postal, and it obviously is a bit more flexible now that we have much different transportation systems these days. But we still think that both the OT and NT support local responsibility in agreement with scholars we have noted. This is our conscience perspective, not something we want to fight/argue about. ^23.city]

     For whom must the leaders of the church give account? [1 Peter 5:1-3 says those who are "among you". So this is the Christians who show up at your meeting/gathering. The text also says you must be "willing". Are you willing? Or should others be invited to the task? If you are not willing, then you are not qualified. You certainly should not be blocking others if you are not willing. If Christians are "among you", then that is the "flock" of the location... and it extends to the city/town. Of course we can grant the idea that there may be an extra focus on the local assembly. But this is not to be contentious to the point of calling Christians "outsiders" who operate at the city/town church level (based on their conscience perspective). Paul said... do such and such as all the churches do... so there was supposed to be a following of the Apostles pattern and a following of the churches that were established by the Apostles.]

     The citizens of their city? [Is this meant to be a serious question? I would think we know the Bible well enough to not need to confuse Christians and non Christians. This question seems to be demeaning of the discussion]

     Anyone who ever attends their church? Of course not.

     [Wow, that is shocking... and new kind of pastoring is brewing. I would say, of course yes. 2 Peter 5:2 says "among you". This is surprising. If you are not willing, then please allow others to pastor them. There are other non-formal-members who are "older in the Lord", who might be willing if you don't block access to the "regular attenders". It really sounds like you are trying very hard to make scripture say something it doesn't say about membership being "formal".

     They must be accountable for the members of the church, those whom everyone recognizes have been committed to their care. [Everyone? Elisabeth would not agree... We would not see it as you are saying it... Everyone?]

     Church leaders cannot function properly without church membership. [How do so many other churches function without a "formal membership"? How did the simple house churches function properly, like in the Jerusalem church, with 3000 members in one day... that is not formal, yet they went with the flow and functioned without the divisiveness that I am feeling against our conscience perspective. It is not a little thing to be calling 30% of the believers "outsiders" when they are "among you". We will say it again, 1 Peter 5:1-2 speaks of "among you" and "willingly".

     3. Metaphors for the Church: Sheep do not hop from flock to flock; rather, the shepherd knows exactly how many sheep he has in his care. [Wow, you are really not connecting with the role model of the many little assemblies in the one single Jerusalem church. There was probably a lot of hopping going on. There was certainly nothing said against it. Why would they anyway when they considered the church one at the city level. We like "The Chosen" episode 2 for showing a beautiful picture of a welcoming attitude even down to the smallest home setting. Why? They were all part of the single church of Jerusalem. This is our conscience positions and the biblical pattern we follow. Why don't you follow this pattern too? We also like Ezekiel 34 on this topic.]

     Surely, we best reflect these metaphors when we formally tie ourselves to a local congregation.

     [We would say surely we cause damage when we introduce foreign concepts to the church and make it seem as if it is in the Bible. Read CARM.org, read Theopedia... We don't even agree with them, but they are at least saying this kind of membership is not in the Bible. It seems to be coming from some outside pressure. Perhaps it is the 501(c)(3) 14 part test, or your pastoral friends, we don't know.

     Conclusion: Church membership is a thoroughly biblical concept. There is strong circumstantial evidence that it was practiced in some form by the New Testament church. More compellingly, the Bible prescribes a certain organization and inter-relation within the church that is inconceivable without formal church membership.

     [That seems completely baseless... I am proving from the Bible, with clear scripture... and you are using nothing to prove the "formal" aspect of membership. The church is not fundamentally a 501(c)(3) business. So why force bylaws, voting, an IRS defined membership that cannot associate with other assemblies in town, etc. on those with conscience concerns. If your conscience is clear ok. But if our is not, why push for all this?"

     
     

     7.sorrells
     Jamon S.R. Sorrells on Why Do Churches Require Formal Church Membership?

     Jamon S.R. Sorrells has written an excellent article on church membership, lost on the internet, but thankfully, found by a friend from Georgia in archive: Biblical Church Membership - Sorrells (archive version)

     This article is good because it explores the topic from a Biblical perspective. Many times you will hear the call to join into "church membership" without any significant Biblical study and reasoning. Even the usual books that advocate church membership like "Stop Dating the Church", by Josh Harris or "The Compelling Community", by Mark Dever and Jamie Dunlop do not dig very deep into a biblical basis for why the church does the modern kind of "church membership". Instead, there is a long list of assumptions about the way "church" should be done and the things that work in their modern church experience.

     
     

     8.pearl

     Here are a few YouTube videos that we have grouped under "Pearl". Michael Pearl is a character, and we don't agree with everything he says of course, but we like what he says here. The YouTube "1Nemind" guy starts off with some good thoughts on what we think of with biblical church membership. Francis Chan is another type of character, and we also don't agree with everything he stands for, but we really like a lot of what he stands for when it comes to being part of a local church. He tends to question some of the traditional ideas based on what he sees in the Bible itself. This kind of thinking is what we want to see.

     1. Michael Pearl on Church Membership

     We like Michael Pearl from our days of homeschooling and met him and his wife at a homeschooling conference at a Pottstown church many years ago. Here he explains the "body of Christ" and the "city church" in a down to earth simple Tennessee way that is clear and to the point. This is the kind of material we would like to discuss.
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5GTb_-4fw
     

     2. YouTube: 1nemind video

     This random YouTube guy seems to see the simple plain teaching of the Bible better than some of the "experts". Why can he see it, but the popular preachers tends to not see it? What do you think of what he says? This is the kind of material we would like to discuss.
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHpmo6AejC4&t=46s

     3. Francis Chan on The Church

     Francis Chan talks about his ideas of 'church' in "Rethinking Church" and "We Are Church". We don't endorse everything he says, but we generally like what he says about the church and "church membership". He seems very close to how we see things. There is a lot more material here, if you have time, but there are a few key videos that summarize his thinking. This is the kind of material we would like to discuss. (If you are short on time, skip the Rethinking Church and just look at his "We Are Church" thoughts)

     We Are Church (Going to the Bible to understand church) ^(77.chan)  

     Rethinking Church (If you have more time) (Optional) ^(76.chan)  

     
     

     9.slick

     CARM.org and Matt Slick on Church Membership
     

     CARM.org is a biblical source with good answers to hard questions. Here, Matt Slick gives a reasonable answer that we present for being a bit more open to both sides of the argument. We don't fully endorse this view, but we find this view more bearable and reasonable. It is a bit of a compromise view, but is short and well said. Below are some quotes we liked, but he says a lot more that show him to be more open and compromising. We suggest you read this article as it is short, reasonable and biblical to help set the foundation for a good discussion.

     "Some even go so far as to say a true Christian should belong to a local church after having gone through membership classes."

     "I do not see this as a requirement in Scripture."

     "But people sometimes read into these texts and say that you can't obey your leaders without church membership (Hebrews 13:17), or that an elder cannot shepherd the flock without church membership (1 Peter 5:2), or that the elders who rule best are able to do so only in church membership parameters (1 Timothy 5:17). Such reasoning is not sound. Any Christian who attends a local body is automatically a member of that church by the fact he is a Christian."

     "The Bible doesn't say anything about church membership, at least not in the modern style..."

     Carm.org - "what does the bible say about church membership"

     Theopedia.com on Church Membership (Optional)
     

     Theopedia is sort of like Christian + Wikipedia. ^10.theopedia  

     Peter Dehan on Church Membership (Optional)
     

     Peter Dehan talks about the modern church and "church membership". ^11.dehan  

     
     

     10.theopedia

     Theopedia on Church Membership
     

     What does the Bible say about church membership?

     Theopedia is sort of like Christian + Wikipedia. The article has some good information and makes some interesting points. We don't agree with some things they say, but we found some open and honest information here.

     "Many modern, independent churches reject the idea of membership, believing it to be an unnecessary and human addition to belonging to Christ and to the 'invisible church'."

     "the history of church membership in Evangelical churches begins with the Catholic Church""

     membership - Theopedia.com

     Read we certainly, we do not endorse them in general. We do not know them very well.

     
     

     11.dehan

     Peter Dehan on Church Membership
     

     Peter Dehan talks about the modern church and "church membership" in a strong and clear way...

     "Church does the same thing when it touts membership. To become a church member, there are hoops to jump through: attend classes, agree to certain teachings, follow specific rules, and commit to donate money, possibly even at a certain annual level.

     ... To everyone else, they offer tolerance but withhold full acceptance. After all, church membership has its privileges.

     There's one problem.

     Church Membership Is Not Biblical

     We made it up.

     Having members separates church attendees between those on the inside and everyone else; it pushes away seekers. Membership splits the church of Jesus, separating people into two groups, offering privileges to one and instilling resentment in the other.

     It is a most modern concept, consumerism at its finest.

     https://www.peterdehaan.com/christianity/why-we-shouldnt-join-a-church/

     We like him, but do not fully endorse everything he says

     
     

     12.facetoface

     Face To Face Discussion vs Just Words
     

     Sometimes face to face conversations are far better than articles and text based conversations. The Compelling Community suggests speaking to people individually if possible, rather than through a sermon. ^{72.compelling}   Apparently, the elders and the spokesman have not followed this advice for some reason. ^2.sermon   Perhaps as the Compelling Compelling says, "It's tempting to address an issue in the Sunday sermon rather than risk an awkward private conversation." ^{72.compelling}  

     But we are thankful the spokesman has encouraged discussion and recognizes that this is a sensitive topic. We have found it difficult to find real discussion on the topic, but we are preparing for a discussion by working on this article. With a topic this important and this broad, we expect many details in the discussion. We would much rather not have any need or cause for this kind of discussion, but unfortunately it seems we are in a position of needing to deal with this issue. If the elders have studied this for almost 2 years, we also may need some time. But since the conversations are difficult to find, it is hard to judge how much effort to put into a response. Will anyone read it? Will it be scrutinized? We don't know the tone of the possible discussion because all we have is sermons and existing members who hardly notice what has been said. We are looking for satisfactory biblical explanations of our questions, we need significant time to prepare a response because there is so much to say.

     Sometimes face to face conversation is better for clearing up misunderstandings as has been well said in a recent sermon. ^28.hegeman   We would rather a more interactive approach, but the leadership has chosen to avoid that. At least this method will allow each side to carefully state their views and cautiously formulate their position. This way there can be something written or spoken that can be referenced in discussion and hopefully there will be more agreement after a good discussion.

     
     

     13.modern
     Modern Pastoral Support for Formal Church Membership

     Here are some of the videos we have watched from popular speakers on the topic of formal church membership. We really like some of these preachers. Unfortunately they don't have good answers for people who think about biblical membership as Elisabeth Elliot describes.

     Matt Chandler:
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlS0PJJ4UFw0

     Talking points...

     • suspicions of institutions
     • unpopular to talk about these things.
     • submission to obey elders/leadership.
     • "in" and "out" of the church.
     • "belong" to a local body/people.
     • Acts 2, unifying people... "one another verses"
     • suspicious of institutions, but a call to come and "belong".
     • "Beauties of membership"
     • longing to connect at a deeper level
     • you can disagree and still get along
     • can't happen without the commitment to a local body.
     • we agree on the things that matter most, so now we can work through disagreements... There is Charity now, because I see you as a "brother in Christ". Gets created in a local body. That's the hope, the vision of membership. We are linking arms... Going and reaching the lost together. We have each other's backs. I've longed for this my whole life. This body has received me... a beautiful thing.
     Alistair Begg:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAwgzQC0ETk

     • 16:00 min: Because the New Testament knows nothing of unattached members
     • 28:00 min: A perfect church... don't join... you'll make a mess of the place.

     16:00: Tell that to Elisabeth.... what a huge misunderstanding you have!

     28:00: Tell that to Elisabeth.... what a huge misunderstanding you have!

     John McArthur:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3d_2amA1g

     • 23:50 min: It is a spiritual issue
     • 25:00 min: The Bible knows nothing of a free floating Christian
     • 26:00 min: It is a spiritual issue, don't make it anything else

     23:50: Tell that to Elisabeth.... what a huge misunderstanding you have!

     25:00: Tell that to Elisabeth.... what a huge misunderstanding you have!

     26:00: Tell that to Elisabeth.... what a huge misunderstanding you have!

     John Piper:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBDvc9TMRkA

     • 21:00 min: "Leave me alone", and that would be a perfectly fitting response
     • 26:35 min: There's got to be some way to define that (the flock), or I'm dead!
     • 27:46 min: "those in your charge"... "a lot"... "a portion"... the way we do it...
     • 29:00 min: "member" is implied in 1 Cor 12... "the body". There's the biblical basis for using the word. So it is with Christ... then he goes on to describe the situation in Corinth.
     • 30:00 min: "to relate tangentially to the body"... seems sick... ill... like a growth.

     21:00: Tell that to Elisabeth.... what a huge misunderstanding you have!

     26:35: Of course you are... you are doing 100 things that the early church would not expect of elders.

     27:46: 4000 members... so different from the early church... so different.

     29:00: Tell that to Elisabeth.... what a huge misunderstanding you have!

     30:00: Tell that to Elisabeth.... what a huge misunderstanding you have!

     Joshua Harris:
     

     Joshua Harris's book, Stop Dating the Church used to be the number one book recommended for reading about church membership. It is so strange how he has gone from respected pastor to a non Christian. But despite the strangeness of this, here is a summary of our thoughts...

     When we first read this book we wondered how he could be so against the young man who was 'two-timing' (going between 2 churches every Sunday). We wondered if Joshua had inherited his ecclesiology or if he had ever thought much about the early church. Since the early church considered the whole town to be the same "church" we assume a church like the one at Jerusalem might have encouraged a young man to actively participate in a few house church assemblies if he wished, since it was apparently something he desired, and since they were actually the same church anyway. We wondered how Joshua Harris could be so out of touch with biblical church thinking. ^76.chan  

     
     

     14.thiselton

     Thiselton on The Biblical Meaning of "Members" in 1 Cor 12:12-30
     

     The quotes below are from Thiselton's commentary on 1 Corinthians on 1 Cor 12:12-30.

     "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it." (1 Cor 12:27)

     Thiselton - NIGTC Commentary on 1 Corinthians - Copyright 2000 - Eerdmans
     

     "Certainly, for Robinson, the language of members must be disengaged from the modern meaning of members of a social group. page 991
     "Once again, we continue to accept Robinson's warnings that for modern readers members has lost its original force through the modern social meaning of body, and continue to use limbs and organs as the modern equivalent." page 1011

     See also Robinson: ^19.robinson  

     
     

     15.thiselton

     Thiselton's Concerns with Modern Member Terminology Confusion
     

     Thiselton seems to think that the word "member" is being misused today. The quotes below are from Thiselton's commentary on 1 Corinthians on 1 Cor 12:12-30.

     "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it." (1 Cor 12:27)

     Thiselton - NIGTC Commentary on 1 Corinthians - Copyright 2000 - Eerdmans
     

     "The obsession with groups and with status tears and splits the body of Christ, limb from limb and organ from organ." page 1011,

     
     

     16.thiselton

     Thiselton on The Lord's Supper and the Passover
     

     We see the Lord's Supper as being closely identified with the Passover. And for us, the Passover being very related to the Lord's Supper also influences our understanding of a simple belief based church membership. This simple belief based membership tends to include rather than exclude (other than belief). We see inclusion (based on belief at the family level) instead of a formal individualistic acceptance based modern idea of church membership. More could be said, but for now we are mainly trying to point out that there is strong support for the Lord's Supper being identified with the Passover which is a foundation for additional thoughts.

     Thiselton says,

     "the presupposition that it refers directly to the Passover meal"

     Thiselton, page 756, 758, 759, NIGTC Commentary on 1 Corinthians - Copyright 2000 - Eerdmans
     

     
     

     17.thiselton

     Thiselton - The Best Commentary on the Greek for 1 Corinthians
     

     Here we would like to establish that Thiselton is one of the best commentaries based on our looking at ratings as of 2022 when we did most of the research. Here are some references from our looking into the best commentaries.

     https://www.bestbiblecommentaries.com/1-corinthians/ "the best commentary on the Greek text... Thiselton has outdone himself" (The best commentary on the Greek of 1 Corinthians is Thiselton according to D.A. Carson.)

     Others consider it the best commentary in general.
     https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/top-5-commentaries-1-corinthians
     https://www.challies.com/resources/best-commentaries-on-1-corinthians/

     Logos considers it the 3rd best commentary, putting Fee and Garland above it.
     https://www.logos.com/guides/commentaries/best-commentaries-1-corinthians

     
     

     18.thiselton

     Thiselton - Looking for a new word for "member"
     

     Thiselton is concerned about how the word "member" has changed so the biblical meaning is in danger of being misunderstood. Rather than trying to convince everyone what the biblical word "member" means, he chooses a new word. He struggles with an alternative, but finally finds "limbs and organs" to be the best. Thiselton is convinced the modern reader needs a new word because the word "member" has been lost to the "modern social meaning". ^14.thiselton  

     
     

     19.robinson

     John A. T. Robinson: "The Body"
     

     "The use of the word body to mean a group of people is to us so familiar - 'corporate' in fact now means 'social' and nothing else - that it is easy to forget that is was quite unfamiliar, if not entirely unknown, to the people to whom Paul was writing." page 49
     "The language of 'membership' of a body corporate has become so trite that the idea that the individual can be a 'member' has ceased to be offensive." page 51
     "He is not saying anything so weak as that the Church is a society with a common life and governor, but that its unity is that of a single physical entity: disunion is dismemberment." page 51

     Robinson, John A. T. - pg 49, 51 - Copyright 1952 - "Studies in Biblical Theology - The Body - A Study in Pauline Theology" - SCM Press Ltd. 56 Bloomsbury St. London. Robert Cunningham and Sons, Ltd.
     

     
     

     (20.rosner)

     The Fairly Informal Christian Worship
     

     "the bread and wine that would be consumed at the meal. This did not require a special sanctuary or an elaborate liturgy and may have had more in common with ordinary dinner parties..."

     "the fairly informal nature of the early Christian worship."

     Ciampa and Rosner, page 542, PNTC, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, Copyright 2010, Eerdmans
     

     
     

     21.government
     The Choice To Live Under the Government 501(c)(3) Organizataional Requirements
     https://www.501c3.org/what-is-a-501c3/. "501(c)(3) organizations are highly regulated entities. Strict rules apply to both the activities and the governance of these organizations."
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization "Churches must meet specific requirements to obtain and maintain tax-exempt status; these are outlined in "IRS Publication 1828: Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations". This guide outlines activities allowed and not allowed by churches under the 501(c)(3) designation. In 1980, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia recognized a 14-part test in determining whether a religious organization is considered a church for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. ^{22.churchtest}  

     Some Christians do not mind the IRS being involved in their church but very often they don't know how involved the requirements are and how it relates to the church setup by the Apostles. Other Christians are concerned that the IRS is given so much authority to define and regulate important aspects of church. For example, when the IRS controls how the "membership" relates to other local churches, they are meddling and influencing how the church operates. The IRS for example, expects each group to have a "separated membership", "a membership not associated with any other church". ^{22.churchtest 23.city}   The IRS uses the 14 (or 15) part test as a guideline for defining a church. The Jerusalem church could not have been called a church by these 14 tests. They would have been disqualified by almost every one of the tests. Each of their house churches would have been forced to not associate with any other house church in Jerusalem. ^25.carson   But they had a guiding principal of keeping the church fully united at the city level. ^23.city  

     Most Christians support the "501(c)(3) regulations, but they don't know the details. They may not care about the implications or they just have a higher priority on the tax savings. As long as they don't have to deal with the details and as long as others are dealing with it... they are fine with the regulations. They go along with the 501(c)(3) regulations because it is the usual thing. Only the small minority are concerned. For some, these government "501(c)(3)" regulations and the 14 part tests are a direct issue with formal church membership because they see there is no clear independent spiritual membership distinct from the IRS membership and the regulations also enforce it. ^{22.churchtest}  

     
     

     22.churchtest
     The IRS 14 Part Test of a Church

     The IRS has a 14 or 15 part test (or guideline) for determining if a church can qualify as a church for IRS 501(c)(3) purposes.

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)_organization,

     In 1980, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia recognized a 14-part test in determining whether a religious organization is considered a church for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.

     • 1. A distinct legal entity
     • 2. A recognized creed and form of worship
     • 3. A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government ***** THIS MAY BE A BIBLICAL ISSUE *****
     • 4. A formal code of doctrine and discipline ***** THIS MAY BE A BIBLICAL ISSUE *****
     • 5. A distinct religious history
     • 6. A membership not associated with any other church or denomination ***** THIS IS A HUGE BIBLICAL ISSUE *****
     • 7. A complete organization of ordained ministers ministering to their congregations; ***** THIS IS A BIBLICAL ISSUE *****
     • 8. Ordained ministers selected after completed prescribed courses of study; ***** THIS IS A BIBLICAL ISSUE *****
     • 9. Literature of its own;
     • 10. Established places of worship; ***** THIS MAY BE A BIBLICAL ISSUE ***** ^33.carson  
     • 11. Regular congregations;
     • 12. Regular religious services;
     • 13. Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young; ***** THIS MAY BE A BIBLICAL ISSUE *****
     • 14. Schools for the preparation of its ministers. ***** THIS MAY BE A BIBLICAL ISSUE *****

     We have lots of issues with these tests! If we had a choice, we would not submit to this kind of authority, especially since this is voluntary!

     If we were defending a first century house church in Jerusalem to the IRS, we would have trouble with almost all of these "requirements" of a church!

     This IRS test directly relates to our "conscience convictions". We strongly care about following the Apostles, and their traditions (1 Cor 11:2), so we have trouble with the IRS putting these rather controlling requirements on a "church". Even if this "test" is just a "guideline", we don't like the idea of a secular official being allowed to define which churches are "in" and which are "out".

     These guidelines are directly opposed to anyone who might want to do the simple house church model. We cannot ignore this important trend. ^29.carson  

     The IRS use of the word, "member" can begin to influence people so they begin to think in terms of the IRS assumptions when using the word "member".

     In the following article there are about 24 uses of "member" or "membership". These days, it seems like most Christians use the word "member" this way and hardly notice the Bible may mean it in an entirely different way.

     https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopica94.pdf

     This article has about 12 uses of "member" or "membership".

     https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0530028.pdf

     Most Christians have come to understand "membership" in a way that agrees with these 501(c)(3) 14 part tests. They hardly notice something that would have shocked the Christians in Jerusalem in the first century. How clearly do you see the "BIBLICAL ISSUE" in each of the tests above?

     
     

     23.city
     City Church

     The Bible records a consistent record of considering the visible local church meeting at the "city" (or town) level. The Jerusalem church considered the whole city to be one church, even though the 3000 probably gathered in 50 to 100 house churches.

     D.A. Carson ^25.carson  

     Douglas Moo ^52.moo

     Brian Rosner ^38.rosner  

     Alexander Strauch: ^40.strauch

     Robert Banks ^48.banks  

     Watchman Nee ^47.nee  

     John Hammett ^45.hammett

     The Apostles seem to have consistently assumed a local church to be at the city level and this created a unity that even unbelievers could easily observe. The basis (or "ground") of the church was at the city/town/postal level (not at the individual assembly level). If someone asks how we do this in a large city like London, they are distracting and missing the point. Even people outside the inner part of London say, "lets go into the city". The city of Jerusalem was large enough to see that a rather large city church model can work just fine.

     We think considering church at the city/town/postal level is the best way to respect the traditions, practice and ways of the Apostles. We believe if we do that, God will work out details of how it will work. We have almost completely deviated from this model so we understand that it may not be easy to change what has been going on for decades.

     We understand the church at the city level to be both biblical and supported by respected scholars, but we do not want to argue about this point. This is our conscience perspective and we see many reasons why God might have intended this model for the Church. Mostly, however, we just want to follow the Apostles. It appears that this model will very directly demonstrate Christian unity, but that is not why we would do this.

     Sadly many do not realize how dis-unified the church is and how it appears to unbelievers. ^32.carson  

     Some Christians are hesitant to commit to a sub-group that is not following the early church Apostolic pattern of embracing the whole church at the city/town level as "the church" in the locality.

     Considering church at the city level is a good way to begin thinking about baby steps toward approaching the idea Jesus mentions of being "perfectly one" with other believers (John 17:23). ^unity   Leaving for greener pastures sounds good, but is the opposite way. ^leaving  

     
     

     24.city
     The City Church and Scholars and Christian Membership

     There is both biblical evidence and scholarly support for seeing that the early church considered church at the city level.

     Unfortunately, if you are involved in "formal church membership" along with the 501(c)(3) model, there is a "church 14 part test" (test #6), which says a church cannot have a shared membership with the rest of the assemblies in the city/town. ^{22.churchtest}

     This is one reason some Christians may be unwilling to become a modern kind of member with this kind of sub-group that cannot follow the Apostolic pattern of embracing the whole church at the city/town level. ^23.city

     Some Christians care deeply about the disunity and divisions in the "body of Christ" and care less about the money that can be saved.

     Will you dismiss this Christian perspective when they are trying to avoid this modern trend and just want to follow the Apostles? Are they disqualified from your church because of your church "bylaws" (required by 501(c)(3) test #6?). Also, some Christians may believe that considering "the church" at the city/town level is the most obvious way to demonstrate to the watching world that Christians can actually love each other! To some, this is the testimony to the world that John 17:23 is talking about. ^{24.city 90.division 48.banks}  

     Considering church at the city level is a good way to begin thinking about baby steps toward approaching the idea Jesus mentions of being "perfectly one" with other believers (John 17:23). ^unity  

     
     

     25.carson

     D.A. Carson on The Early Church and Local Church Assemblies
     

     D.A. Carson on early church and modern church assemblies (mp3)

     D.A. Carson explains,

     The church in Jerusalem was made up of one unified "church": denominations had not yet been invented. But although for a while Christians could meet together in a large venue such as Solomon's porch, it wasn't long before this venue would not do, both because they became too numerous, and because of virulent opposition. This meant that the one "church" in Jerusalem was soon broken up into many house groups. It was the same in Ephesus. There wasn't one physical assembly, even though Christians spoke of the "church" (singular) in Ephesus. All the people of the one church in Ephesus met in different locations, in different assemblies. It was not long before Christians became so numerous that there was no one site suitable for a single meeting. Obviously, they could not rent the stadium - the same stadium where, slightly later, they were fed to the lions - so they met in various houses. As a result, what we refer to as "house churches" in the ancient world functioned in some ways a bit like our individual "churches," except that our local churches are often bigger, and sometimes much bigger, than their "house churches." But all of their "house churches" in one city constituted, as far as they were concerned, the "church" of that city. How the elders of that one "church" were distributed, it is impossible to say. Perhaps smaller house churches had one elder each; perhaps larger house churches had several elders. We simply do not know.

     Out of these terminological realities have sprung two or three competing theories. In particular, the Presbyterian view of things holds that all of the elders - the presbyters - of a particular area constitute one body, the body as a whole having some kind of control over all the local churches in that area. But there is another view, one with which I am personally more comfortable. But to explain it, I need to establish a larger framework.

     In the New Testament, a final authority rests, in many cases, with the congregation. In 1 Corinthians 5, for example, there is an instance of church discipline that goes to the whole congregation, however much it may be instituted by the elders. Again, in Matthew 18, the Lord Jesus insists that when things come down to the crunch, you tell the conflict to the church. You tell it to the church - for not only is there wisdom in the whole church, but there is a final sanction in the whole church.

     http://riversidecommunitychurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Carson-Defining-Elders.pdf

     ^20.rosner  

     
     

     26.elliot

     Elisabeth Elliot on "Members"
     

     "We were not called 'members', for all Christians are 'members' of the Body of Christ and we eschewed any more narrowly defined membership".

     (In other words, ''we deliberately avoided a more narrowly defined membership'')

     Elliot, page 33, These Strange Ashes, Copyright 1975 - Harper and Row

     Elisabeth Elliot's Simple Missionary Church Experience
     

     Elisabeth Elliot also describes her experience attending a simple missionary church. She tells how a visitor came to the church and

     "proceeded to take over", to the "consternation of all".
     She describes the "brethren" as
     "puzzled" that "a man could complete the required course in Bible school and remain so ignorant of New Testament principles of church polity".

     Elliot, page 36, These Strange Ashes - Copyright 1975 - Harper and Row
     

     
     

     27.repeated

     Repeated Formal Church Membership
     

     According to the Bible, if you are a Christian, you are a "member". Being part of the "body of Christ" is something that happens at conversion. Being part of the "body of Christ" is something that the Bible teaches us to respect from day one. Any delay for membership classes, evaluations or ceremony are an anti-pattern. The biblical pattern is that faith is what matters (Gal 5:1-6, Rom 4:5). The biblical pattern is not working to establish a certificate or proof by human evaluation. If you are a Christian, you are a "member". If you visit a church as a Christian, you already come as a "member". When the first Christians became Christians, they all became members on the same day, because they believed in Jesus that first day (Acts 2:37-41).

     The main point of the Bible is this: If we are Christians, we are members of the "body of Christ"! ^14.thiselton   This is a permanent identity from the instant of your conversion. The modern idea of a formal process that gets defined by church leaders and may have 10 steps with, instruction, oaths, interviews and ceremony is sometimes a long process can take months or years. Usually, this formal process is begun many years after conversion. But the biblical record of "3000 added in one day" (Acts 2:41), shows a "fast track membership" ^{100.earlychurch}   The "3000 instantly became members of the body of Christ" and "members" of the visible local church. They were all joined to the local church as "official members" on the same day!

     If we move from our 9th church to our 10th church, why should it take a whole day if the early church added 3000 in a single day? Why should a new member take months or years if the early church could add 3000 in a day? If we move to another assembly within our city or town, why would there even any "adding" if the church is already the same church (at the city level)? ^23.city

     
     

     28.hegeman

     Andrew Hegeman's Sermon
     

     Andrew Hegeman's sermon on 3/6/2022, mentioned the foolishness of progressing in a chat or text based discussion when sometimes what is really needed is a face to face conversation. This can sometimes clear things up much better than just using words. But on the other hand, there is value in carefully written documents and theological discussions cannot best be done with only face to face conversations. For some discussions, there is real value in carefully written documents. The problem mainly comes when there is written documents without supporting face to face conversations, when face to face is possible.

     
     
     29.carson

     D.A. Carson on The "Other Trend" - "Showing the Spirit"
     

     I suspect that there is biblical warrant for thinking, on somewhat more remote grounds, that there were aspects of corporate worship characterized by a great deal of spontaneity, Spirit-led sharing, mutual edification, and the like, and other aspects characterized by solemnity, formal reading and explication of the Scriptures already given, enunciation of apostolic truth, and corporate prayers and singing. So far as our practices today are concerned, this means we should give more thought to developing in our own contexts both trends found in the biblical evidence. Even if we cannot satisfy both emphases in every service, the least we must do is develop structures in which both emphases are worked out in proper proportion in the total life of the church

     D.A. Carson refers to the early church interactive participation and mutual edification seen in 1 Corinthians 14:39-40 as something with some evidence, even though he seems very reticent to talk about it. He spends only 2 pages on the topic (page 135-136). Still, we grant him some respect for at least accepting and admitting to the evidence.

     For others, there is a lot of biblical evidence for this way, and in fact 1 Cor 14 is one of the most clear pictures of a church meeting in the Bible. It is not something to say so little about. If this was the way church was done in the early church why is there so little said about this?

     D.A. Carson mentions some of the "popular writers" of this "trend", like Jon Zens and Robert Banks in the footnotes on the same page 136. ^(41.strauch)  

     But there are a lot more writers within this trend... some better than others, but that is another big topic.

     
     

     30.carson

     D.A. Carson on The Sermon On the Mount and Taking Oaths
     

     We disagree with D. A. Carson with his interpretation of following Jesus carefully in avoiding the taking of oaths (promises, etc).

     Some people think this prohibits them from taking oaths in a courtroom, or from taking an oath of allegiance. Their desire to obey God's Word is admirable; but I submit they have not really understood it... it is important to discover just what [Jesus] is saying before we take his statements with such insensitive absoluteness.

     Then D.A. Carson proceeds to list some cautions and considerations...

     It needs to be noticed, first, that the Old Testament does permit men to take oaths, even oaths in God's name.

     But our starting point is when Jesus says, "but I say unto you", he makes Old Testament oath taking irrelevant, so why mention it? It only causes confusion if you go to the Old Testament to answer question from the New Testament. (Heb 8:13) (Gal 6:2).

     We catch D.A. Carson being a "modern" when he says this,

     For the follower of Jesus, it is best to simply say "Yes" and mean yes, to say "No" and mean no. In the context of Jesus' day, anything beyond this comes from the evil one (Matt 5:37)

     For us, taking oaths and vows is not obedience to Christ. We disagree with D. A. Carson on this point. We can't just assume this was a "cultural" thing. Our conscience is bothered to ignore what Jesus said, and especially in matters close to the church community. If we have failed in the past by taking any kind of oath or vow we may have taken, that is besides the point. We don't feel that we should interpret scripture based on our failures.

     pg 49. "precisely because they have vowed before God and man"...

     We say, no, precisely because God declares the man and wife to be one!

     D.A. Carson says,

     "teaching them to obey everything Jesus has commanded" (28:18-20) pg. 41
     We say, why not apply this to vows?

     D.A. Carson says,

     "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same...." (Matt 5:19-20) pg. 40.
     We say, why not apply it to vows?

     Carson, page 40, 41, 49, 50, Jesus's Sermon On The Mount And His Confrontation With The World A Study of Matthew 5-10, Baker Books, Copyright 1978, 1987. Two Books In One D.A. Carson Paperback edition published 1999 Paperback 4th printing 2005

     
     

     31.carson

     D.A. Carson on The Authority of The Elders
     

     You see, in the New Testament, the authority that rules the church is not primarily an authority of independent office; it's an authority that is ministered through the Word. I cannot stress that enough. We do not obey pastors/elders/overseers because they are pastors/elders/overseers, because they've got the job and therefore they're "up," we're "down" - they're the administrators so we obey them; and then also there are people that teach. That is not the idea. The idea is that the authority they wield in ministry is precisely the authority of ministering the Word of God. That is why if they claim to be teaching the Word of God, yet are transparently lending their support to false teaching, you have every right to challenge them, because they are not to put themselves over the Word of God: they are under the Word of God. But if they are genuinely teaching the Word, then of course devout Christians will see that the real authority lies in the Word, in the Lord of the Word, even if in due course such elders accrue to themselves an enormous amount of credibility and a functional authority, because they are seen to be faithful teachers of the Word of God. Thus, the administration of authority in the church is not so much bound up with office, or merely manipulation of administrative leaders, although in any large organization there are various needs for and kinds of administration. Rather, the fount of authority is the Word. And out of this framework come teachers who explain that Word well and apply it well, so that believers say, "Yes, this is the mind of God."

     http://riversidecommunitychurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Carson-Defining-Elders.pdf

     
     

     32.carson

     D.A. Carson on "The Church Fragmenting"
     

     There is something larger than what is normally considered with church membership. According to the preface of D.A. Carson's "The Cross and Christian Ministry",

     "it is now commonplace to confess that evangelicalism is fragmenting" ^34.unity  

     
     

     33.carson

     D.A. Carson on "Holy Places" in the New Testament
     

     "To worship the Father 'in spirit and truth' clearly means much more than worship without necessary ties to particular holy places (though it cannot mean any less)."

     Carson, p. 226, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, Copyright 1991, Eerdmans

     
     

     34.unity

     The Unity of the Church
     

     There is something larger than what is normally considered with church membership.

     "it is now commonplace to confess that evangelicalism is fragmenting" The preface of D.A. Carson's "The Cross and Christian Ministry",

     In other words there is a real issue as Ian Murray has written in "Evangelicalism Divided" and John Frame in "Evangelical Reunion", of churches not showing great unity (John 17:23).

     We believe the world can easily see when Christians can't get along. They know for sure that the Christian thing is not real when they see Christians can't get along... They can't even love each other, let alone enemies! They can't even get along in the same church! (John 17:23).

     "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:21)

     "I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." (John 17:23)

     When there are differences, and still peace, that is the test of true Christian unity. How will the unbelievers see anything interesting if we all just split up into disconnected groups? (John 17)

     
     

     35.garland

     Paul's use of "insiders" and "outsiders" in 1 Cor 5:12-13
     

     Unfortunately, 1 Cor 5:12-13 is being misunderstood by evangelical Christian leaders who are very close to our core beliefs (9Marks). We are very close to the evangelical beliefs of many of the pastors and friends at 9Marks. But, sadly, they are confusing an important scripture passage and using it to try to reinforce their views of "formal church membership". ^{5.mckinley 6.mckinley}  

     The proper understanding is that Christians are insiders and unbelievers are outsiders.

     Garland

     The use of the term "those outside" in the NT simply "states a fact without any insinuation of censure". It refers to the host of people who are not Christians".

     Garland, page 190, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, David E. Garland - Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

     D.A. Carson considers this one of the best commentaries on 1 Corinthians. Challies 1-Corinthians

     Ligonier 1-Corinthians ranks it as 3rd best.

     The Reformation Study Bible

     One of our favorite study bibles is the Reformation Study Bible which we understand to be showing agreement with Garland. The 1 Cor 5:12-13 note says,

     The church has authority to exercise discipline within its own fellowship, not to regulate the behavior of non-Christians.

     Biblehub free commentaries: The Jamie-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

     We looked on the biblehub.com for older free commentaries and found this, which we also understand to be in agreement with Garland,

     ...what have I to do-You might have easily understood that my concern is not with unbelievers outside the Church, but that I referred to those within it. also-Implying, Those within give me enough to do without those outside. do not ye, &c.-Ye judge your fellow citizens, not strangers: much more should I [Bengel]. Rather, Is it not your duty to judge them that are within? God shall judge them that are without: do you look at home [Grotius]. God is the Judge of the salvation of the heathen, not we (Ro 2:12-16). Paul here gives an anticipatory censure of their going to law with saints before heathen tribunals, instead of judging such causes among themselves within.

     
     

     36.rosner

     The Lord's Supper and the Passover
     

     "The Lord's Supper, like the last supper, was based upon the Passover Seder"

     "The Lord's Supper is best understood as a covenant-ratifying meal in which the whole community was to participate."

     Ciampa and Rosner, page 474, PNTC, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, Copyright 2010, Eerdmans

     "For the Christian to share in the cup of blessing in the Lord's Supper 'represents a participation... in the redemption achieved in this context not by liberation from the oppression from Egypt, but the costly purchase of freedom from sin (1 Cor 6:19; 7:23) won through the `body and blood` of Christ.'"

     Rosner, page 475.

     "The Lord's Supper, like the Passover meal on which is was based, should have served as an experience that strengthened the unity of God's people, not one that would divide them.

     Rosner, page 545.

     
     

     37.rosner

     Brian Rosner on The Lord's Supper, the Passover Seder and Sons
     

     "Each Jewish father was to explain to his son that he celebrated the Passover Seder the way he did "because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt".

     Imagine the son not being allowed to participate in the Passover Seder. Our conscience perspective finds this disallowing a son (baptised or not) to be quite contrary to the biblical expectation for how to treat younger children in the community. Those who believe in baptism done like the New Testament clearly shows, will intentionally wait for a child to be old enough to understand. But at the same time, there ought to be a fear in denying the "Passover" like Lord's Supper to any children of Christians (who are called holy in 1 Cor 7:14).

     "At the celebration of the Lord's Supper each one should have the opportunity to rejoice in "that which the Lord did for me".

     "Any behavior that would marginalize members of the community or treat them as lesser members of the body must be strictly avoided."

     Ciampa and Rosner, page 551, PNTC, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, Copyright 2010, Eerdmans
     

     
     

     38.rosner

     Brian Rosner on The City Church
     

     "and the words, 'not even' point to private meals also. If Paul had meant only the Lord's Supper, there would not have been any need for these words.

     "He could not simply attend another church in town. 'The church of God in Corinth' was his only option

     Ciampa and Rosner, page 218, PNTC, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, Copyright 2010, Eerdmans
     

     
     

     39.fullmeal

     The Lord's Supper was a full meal
     

     "it would have been one loaf of bread that was broken and shared among the believers

     "the Corinthians were evidently celebrating their version of the Lord's Supper in the context of a full meal (full at least, for some of the members but not for all of them)."

     Imagine little children being "fenced" from the Lord's Supper, watching their parents eat a full meal and being denied participation in the Passover Seder like full meal.

     Ciampa and Rosner, page 552, PNTC, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, Copyright 2010, Eerdmans
     

     To the early church, eating supper at church was mixed up with the Lord's Supper.

     Spiros Zodhiates Th.D., First Corinthians 11, Is Conformity to Customs Necessary In The Church? - Exegetical Commentary Series Copyright 1997, AMG Publishers

     
     

     40.strauch

     Alexander Strauch on The City Church
     

     "The phrase 'in every city' is another way of saying 'in every church.' As the New Testament writers consistently record, the local church embraced all believers within a particular city (see Acts 20:17). The New Testament never speaks of churches within a city, only the church. Thus, in each city, that is, each church, Titus was to designate a plurality of elders"

     Strauch, page 227, Biblical Eldership, Alexander Strauch - An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership - Revised and Expanded, Copyright 1995. Lewis and Roth Publishers

     "So according to Acts, Jerusalem had one citywide church, many house churches, and one body of leaders. This also appears to be the case in Antioch (Acts 11:26, 13:1, 14:27, 15:3,30) as well as in Ephesus.

     Strauch, page 144.

     
     

     41.strauch

     Alexander Strauch on Popular Writers of the Other Trend
     

     "I agree fully with the counsel of Jon Zens, editor of the journal Searching Together."

     Strauch, page 83, Biblical Eldership, Alexander Strauch - An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership - Revised and Expanded, Copyright 1995. Lewis and Roth Publishers

     "Robert Banks, a prominent leader in the worldwide, home church movement, makes this observation in his book, Paul's Idea of Community."

     Strauch, page 109.

     
     

     42.strauch

     Alexander Strauch on Obeying Your Leaders (Plurality)
     

     Strauch, page 269, Biblical Eldership, Alexander Strauch - An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership - Revised and Expanded, Copyright 1995. Lewis and Roth Publishers

     
     

     43.strauch

     Alexander Strauch on Obeying Mindlessly
     

     "The requirement to submit, however, is not meant to suggest blind, mindless submission. Nor does it suggest elders are above questioning or immune from public discipline (1 Tim 5:19 ff.). The elders are most assuredly answerable to the congregation, and the congregation is responsible to hold its spiritual leaders accountable to faithful adherence to the truth of the Word. .... All members have a voice in assuring that what is done in the church family is done according to Scripture. So there is a tightly knit, delicate, and reciprocal relationship between elders and congregation."

     Strauch, page 292, Biblical Eldership, Alexander Strauch - An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership - Revised and Expanded, Copyright 1995. Lewis and Roth Publishers

     
     

     44.strauch

     Alexander Strauch on Jesus as the Chief Shepherd
     

     "...Jesus Christ is the Chief Shepherd, Scripture is the final and sufficient guide, and the elders are Christ's undershepherds."

     "... the elders are under strict authority of Jesus Christ and His Holy Word. They are not a ruling oligarchy. They cannot do or say whatever they want."

     Strauch, page 291, Biblical Eldership, Alexander Strauch - An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership - Revised and Expanded, Copyright 1995. Lewis and Roth Publishers

     
     

     45.hammett

     John Hammett on The City Church
     

     "In fact, it is a fascinating fact that the New Testament never speaks of churches (plural) in a city (singular)."

     Hammett, pg 180, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches - A Contemporary Ecclesiology, John S. Hammett, Copyright 2005. Kregel

     
     

     46.china

     House Churches in China
     

     palladiummag.com/...house-church-movement-in-china/

     
     

     47.nee

     Watchman Nee on Local Churches
     

     Anyone wishing to belong to a church in a given locality must answer two requirements - he must be a child of God, and he must live in that particular locality. Membership in the Church of God is conditioned only by being a child of God, but membership in a church of God is conditioned, firstly, by being a child of God and, secondly, by living in a given locality.

     Most believers of today are so utterly blind to the scriptural basis of a church that if one asks another, "To what church do you belong?" The first thought of the one questioned is of the specific line of teaching he approves of, or the group of people with whom he has special fellowship, or how his group of Christians is different from others, or perhaps the name that particular group bears, or the form of organization they have adopted-in short, anything but the place in which he lives. Few would answer that question with, "I belong to the church in Ephesus," or "I belong to the church in Shanghai," or "I belong to the church in Los Angeles." It is our being in Christ that separates us from the world, and it is our being in a given locality that separates us from other believers. It is only because we reside in a different place from them that we belong to a different church. The only reason I do not belong to the same church as other believers is that I do not live in the same place as they do. If I wish to be in the same church, then I must change my residence to the same place. If, on the other hand, I wish to be in a different church from others in my locality, then the only solution to my problem is to move to a different locality. Difference of locality is the only justification for division among believers.

     
     Read article with Robert Banks discussing this more. ^48.banks  

     
     

     48.banks

     Robert Banks - Local Ground of the Church
     

     Robert Banks discusses the "local ground" of the church with reference to Watchman Nee's well known ideas. ^47.nee  

     b. While linguistically ekklesia has its roots in ek=out and kaleo=call, hence 'called-out' ones, the word had not had that sense for some in inter-testamentary or early christian times. There, as the Greek grammarians point out it means an assembly, and NT scholars now generally agree that this is the way the word is used in the NT as well. It's not difficult to see how this meaning developed from the earlier one, for a gathering is a group of people who have been called out from their normal activities to be together. In the NT period, the emphasis is upon the 'being together' rather than the 'calling from', which is why those who stress the latter as decisive for its meaning are off target.

     c. Ekklesia is used in writings contemporary with the NT of a whole range of assemblies, not just civic ones. The word has a very broad usage, and can be used of any group of people coming together intentionally for some purpose.

     10. I don't know that I can say anything worthwhile in a short space about 'right encouragement' in relation to the long-term functioning of a house church. All I know is that where such groups are in relation to one another and seek each other's welfare in regular and practical ways - for example, through regular pastoral meetings and exercising hospitality to one another, and where a few people model and encourage this in various ways - just as Paul and his colleagues did, mainly through letters from a distance but on occasion through visits - house churches can last, grow, and multiply in ways that benefit their members, other believers in the city, and the wider community in which they live.

     I think I am talking here about the kind of thing that happens in a healthy family, that is, helping to create a culture of affirmation and mutual concern within which all members can grow and give themselves to others. Well, more than enough said. Although what we have been discussing is not of interest to most, would it worth informing the moderators about our dialogue and, if you still have a copy of it all, offering it (slightly edited perhaps) to be in a file that people can download who are interested in this sort of thing? What do you think? And, if you're agreeable and have the materials, would you be willing to organize it?

     Shalom,

     Rob

     This is the full discussion between Robert Banks and someone else interested in his NT understanding of the "local ground of the church".

     localchurch.html

     
     

     49.testing

     Testing
     

     • 1 Thess 5:21 "but test everything; hold fast what is good."
     • 1 Cor 14:29b "let the others weigh what is said."
     • 1 John 4:1b "test the spirits"

     Focusing on the testing in 1 Corinthians 14, a lot hinges on what the 'prophecy' is in our current day. What does the NT mean related to our contemporary experience?

     We believe the testing idea from 1 Corinthians 14 is valid no matter what we believe about how 'prophecy' is understood in this text.

     We don't like the word, because of the confusion with it, but we believe prophecy is important, agreeing with John Piper. We believe that even if you don't think prophecy has anything to do with these modern days and has nothing to do with preaching, the idea of testing of "what is said" is still supported in 1 Corinthians 14.

     But before dismissing 'prophecy' immediately, these are some current thoughts, mostly from TGC.

     Mark J. Cartledge on New Testament Prophecy thegospelcoalition.org/c-p-a-n-t-prophecy/

     Wayne Grudem review of David Hill's "New Testament Prophecy" thegospelcoalition.org/n-t-prophecy/

     Someone else, positive of David Hill on "prophetic preaching"

     "since we know that the 'aim of prophecy is to edify, exhort and encourage, it coincides therefore to a large extent with what we call a sermon today.' All the same, it would be a serious mistake to read back onto Paul modern styles of pastoral preaching. Few churches appear 'to test' preaching from the pulpit, and nothing suggests that early Christian prophecy was a sustained, uninterrupted, twenty-minute monologue delivered by a 'trained' speaker. .... "all corroborate Hill's view that the 'proclamation of the prophet is pastoral preaching.' page 960 and 961

     Richard M. Blaylock, negative of Hill's "prophet preaching" idea, and believing that NT prophecy is always entirely authoritative.

     thegospelcoalition.org/t-a-d-o-n-t-prophecy/

     
     

     50.proverbs

     Proverbs - Until the Other Comes and Examines Him
     

     "The one who states the case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." Proverbs 18:17.

     
     

     51.moo

     Douglas Moo Commentary on Romans
     

     There is a good online training video of Douglass Moo teaching on Romans. He gets to Romans 7 starting around lecture 28. biblicaltraining.org/romans/douglas_moo

     We have listened to his training video on the topic, so we know enough of his view to know we are generally in agreement with his view. D.A. Carson notes in the Zondervan NIV Study Bible also have good notes on Romans 6-7-8. And of course Carson and Moo have taught together at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

     Douglas J. Moo, Commentary on Romans - Copyright 1996, Eerdmans
     

     
     

     52.moo

     Douglas Moo on The City Church
     

     But we must qualify "local church" to mean the Christian community in Rome, for chap. 16 makes it clear that the Christians in Rome, all of whom Paul addresses in the letter (cf. 1:7), met in several "house churches." Our oneness in Christ, Paul reminds us, extends beyond those with whom we meet weekly for worship, embracing all who call on the name of the Lord.

     Douglas J. Moo - Page 763, Commentary on Romans - Copyright 1996, Eerdmans
     

     
     

     53.packer

     J.I. Packer - Knowing God - Views on Romans 7
     

     J. I. Packer, page 233, Knowing God - Copyright 1973, InterVarsity Press
     

     
     

     (54.differences)
     D.A. Carson, Other Trend, And Differences in Perspective

     We write because we believe dialog is respectful. When there are differences, we think both sides should try to listen to the arguments of the other side and then discuss the points. Unfortunately, sermons are one way. They are only good for presenting teaching to a group of people, but are not good communication when there are differences. There is a reason why 1 Corinthians 14 shows another way.

     We are glad to see some theologians understand this other way enough to suggest that we should consider both trends (both ways). We do detect the appearance of resistance to the other "trend", but we know that this other trend that D.A. Carson endorses is very biblical. ^29.carson   Another difference that may be fundamental is our belief that the local church should exist at the city/town level, not at the sub-town assembly level (usually the 501(c)(3) level also). ^52.moo   We think the splitting up into many disconnected assemblies helps to create division. Our view is based on our understanding of scripture, but we want to cooperate with others who see things differently. The right way, in our understanding, is to accept both trends as D.A. Carson says, but realize that accepting both trends will test our biblical reasoning and understanding.

     Although there certainly are differences, that is the only time when true Christian unity is seen. If Christians are separated into little agreement groups, there is no expression of unity. How will the unbelievers see anything interesting if we all split up into disconnected groups? (John 17) ^34.unity  

     
     
     55.oneway
     The One Way Model vs The One Another Model

     We live in a one way church model these days. Almost all conversation is done in a one way format. In the early church this was not so. Even in the days before the early church, Paul would attend a synagogue and was given opportunity to address the congregation. It seems we have abandoned the NT community model with active one-another based communication (1 Cor 14, etc). Almost everything is communicated in sermons. Certain topics are studied in private and then communicated back to the laity in a formal way. There is no natural opportunity for men to give feedback.

     In the early church community model, seen clearly in 1 Corinthians 14, there is a good opportunity for instant and ongoing feedback. This model does not work well with the consumer model however. If you want the laity to sit passively, then you really do want a consumer model. When there are issues, however, the presentation model has some limitations. The presentation model does not allow for the one-another ideas that are prevalent in the NT. The early church (ekklesia) was quite different from our modern church experience. The early churches usually met in homes and encouraged a dynamic one-another model of active discussion by all the members* (See 1 Cor 14, etc). But if we can't even agree on who are the members of the NT community, then talking about how the model behaves is somewhat moot. ^othertrend

     * PS. We certainly do assume a complementarian style model that is the most plain reading of 1 Corinthians 14, etc.

     
     

     56.misunderstanding
     Misunderstandings

     Sometimes there are situations like when Moses confronted the two tribes ^{Joshua 22:10-34}, only to find a big misunderstanding. In this case, they returned from a confrontation situation in peace and joy because of the unity that actually existed. One side had built a memorial that was seen as an offense by the other side. But in the end, after a discussion, there was like mindedness and solidarity.

     
     

     57.atkerson
     Obey? Be Persuaded and Yield
     the common Greek word for "obey" is not found in Hebrews 13:17. Instead, the word used is 'peitho', which fundamentally means persuade or convince.
     The expositor Vine went a step further and stated that with 'peitho', 'the obedience suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion.

     Atkerson, page 37, New Testament Church Dynamics, Stephen Atkerson, Copyright 2018

     See more on 'peitho'. ^58.peitho  
     

     58.peitho
     Obey? Be Persuaded and Yield

     laymansfellowship.com/.../obey-analysis-2/

     The Bible seems to clearly lean towards "persuade" or "be persuaded" for peitho. If you review all of the verses you will see translators lean heavily towards the meaning of persuading or being persuaded. There is a pretty small minority of cases where the word "obey" is used by translators. In some of cases where "obey" is used, switching to "persuaded" seems to be viable. This leaves us with a very short list of verses where obey is appropriate and Hebrews 13:17 appears to be one of the instances where "be persuaded" is completely viable and harmonizes with other portions of the Bible and sound doctrine.

     The use of "obey" in Hebrews 13:17 seems inappropriate because it makes it sound like the same thing as "children obey your parents" or "slaves obey your masters" which both use an entirely different Greek word (hupakouo) which clearly indicates the need for obedience to commands issued by parents or masters. Peitho does not carry with it the idea of obedience by command. Given the meaning that is translated to the reader when the word obey is used and then compared with "children obey your parents" and "slaves obey your master", the uninformed mind could form deceptive and harmful thoughts about the command authority of leaders in the church setting.

     Due to the fact that the author of Hebrews used hupakouo (obey) in two other places (Hebrews 5:9, 11:8), it is clear that intention of the author of Hebrews was to convey a different meaning by using a different word (peitho) in Hebrews 13:17.

     scripturerevealed.com/.../the-hebrews-1317-dilemma/

     What about the word "submit" in Hebrews 13:17? According to Vine's and Strong's concordances the English word "submit" is translated from the Greek word hupeiko. This word occurs only once in the Bible. It is here in Hebrews 13:17. Since it is already qualified by the requirement to "be persuaded" before you "submit", this verse cannot be used to advocate blind obedience that is sometimes required by leaders. We are required to "submit" to those things that we can "be persuaded" are true according to the Word of God. There is a dangerous false teaching that says that even if we do not agree with church leaders we are to "submit" and somehow we will be blessed. This teaching is not backed up by the scriptures.

     libertyforcaptives.com/...authoritys-most-abused-verse/

     In the case of Hebrews 13:17, the word translated "obey" is peitho in the middle voice. According to BAGD, this should better be translated as "allow yourselves to be persuaded by," rather than "obey." This translation fits the lexical possibility, fits the context of the book of Hebrews, and also fits the biblical theology of the basis for spiritual authority being persuasion based on truth and trust, not position.

     What about the word often translated "leaders" in this verse? The Greek word is the present participle ageomai, which means "to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide."  The idea is of a person who guides others on a path; a leading person among peers. This is a different nuance than the noun-form of the word, agemon, which means "one who rules, especially in a preeminent position, ruler" as in Mt 2:6, or "head imperial provincial administrator, governor" as in Mt 10:18; 27:2, which refer to secular authorities who wielded undisputed positional power.

     Finally, the word for "submit" is not the common word used elsewhere in the New Testament for submission. Instead, it is upeiko, which is hard to define because it occurs only here in the New Testament. BAGD says it should best be translated "to yield to someone's authority, yield, give way, submit."

     "Allow yourselves to be persuaded by your leaders who guide you; they alertly care for your souls as people who must fulfill their responsibilities and give an account; allow yourselves to be persuaded so that their work might be a joy, not a burden; for that would be of no advantage to you."

     
     

     59.traditions
     Obeying Apostolic Traditions

     Some Christian leaders think it is acceptable to do church with a great degree of freedom based on personal choice. You are the elder... You can do what you think. We are inclined to not think this way. When you are an elder, we think you are mostly responsible for reflecting and maintaining biblical truth. ^(31.carson)   It is not just what you think would work in our modern day.

     Thankfully, there are a couple verses that show how it should be... We should be following the Apostles not only in the commands but also in their traditions. They had plenty of traditions. Do we try to follow the traditions and "ways" of the Apostles?

     What if you are into one thing, like "formal" church membership, and you have a Christian "among you", who wants to follow "non formal" church membership because it is so plainly taught in scripture and is more in line with the traditions of the Apostles. Are you going to resist these Christians even though the Bible says to give them some slack? (Romans 14)

     Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

     
     

     60.dever

     Mark Dever on Church Membership... And Love
     

     youtube.com/MarkDever

     9marks.org/message/...with-love/

     
     

     61.dever

     Mark Dever on who are pastors responsible for in the local church?
     

     Mark Dever calls the 300 "regular attenders" at his church by the term, "outsiders". In his mind, they are not officially included, so they are not officially part of his flock. He says the 700 "members" are within the scope of his responsibility. He says the "members" are the focus of his pastoral ministry. He tries to care for them much more than the "outsiders". In his opinion, he will not "answer to God for them".

     youtube.com/watch?v=oxPoLYRqy2g

     (NOTE: We need to improve the quotes. The quotes here are loosely quoted from memory... Watch video to get it more right. But we think we are capturing the gist of what he said. tbd)

     
     

     62.dever

     Mark Dever and the Good Shepherd Model
     

     We believe the good shepherd will look out for the needs of the weak, needy and lost Christians who are attending, but feeling a bit lost for some reason. Perhaps they have a feeling of isolation and abandonment? Perhaps they are misunderstood? The good shepherd is the one who cares more for the lost than the found. He cares more for the "straying". ^61.dever  

     We believe there is an "insider" "outsider" confusion that is causing leaders to feel as if they should abandon some of the sheep. ^35.garland  

     There is also a similar online article by Thabiti Anyabwil that says, 9marks.org/...moving-attenders-members/

     We need to help the attender-and existing members-understand what being "in" the church means and why being "outside" is unhealthy.
     From time to time we may encounter an attender whose objections to joining our church appear insurmountable. Perhaps he disagrees with us about some important doctrine or practice.

     But is leaving a good option? ^85.leaving  

     This can be emotional for some people-especially those who've developed an attachment to the church but have never joined. Such situations require pastoral patience and empathy. But we do this for the good of the attender, desiring what we know God demands of him or her-active membership-which is better by far.

     How do you know what God demands of him? Perhaps you don't know where the person is coming from other than the debate context, which is not a good way to know the person. The only real way to have any clue about what God demands of him is to be sure of what God says, what you believe, and how the other person is understanding scripture. If they are following Jesus on a conscience issue that you are overlooking as unimportant, you could be misdiagnosing the situation completely! You could be saying you "know what God demands of him" and be completely off track!

     We're trying to grow Christians, not our membership rolls. Sometimes that means helping people join elsewhere while we continue to shepherd the flock God has placed under our care (1 Pet. 5:1-4).

     When you say you are "helping people join elsewhere" this may appear to someone else like you are "helping people find a job somewhere else" (In other words, you are fired!). This can come accross as controlling (in an unbiblical way) and mean. Can you really have a clear conscience about this approach? Continuing with a Christian group is discussed differently in the Bible.

     They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. (1 John 2:19)

     Putting people out of a Christian group is also discussed in the Bible.

     And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. (1 John 2:19)

     Are you willing to associate with that kind of behavior? Could suggesting the same idea be somewhat related? Might this behavior offend God? If it offends the Christian who you are dealing with, who has God's Spirit, are you so sure of yourself that you are willing to risk this offense in order to maintain a more "pure" set of followers? What if the person hearing the suggestion feels like they are: being "removed", "kicked out", "ejected", etc. ? From their perspective, this may be the most unloving thing a Christian leader could do! Perhaps this leader might have some good intentions. But has this idea been thought about from a biblical perspective? Has this idea been tested by running it through the men spoken of in 1 Cor 14, preceded by 1 Cor 13?

     While we give the bulk of our time to our members because we are accountable for them in a greater way, the attenders at our church need our ministry, too.

     The real question is does this idea fit God's model of care in Ezekiel 34? Who says you are accountable for only the ones you claim? In light of scripture, we do not recommend this kind of shepherding model.

     
     

     63.anyabwile

     Moving Attenders to Members (9Marks)
     

     Thabiti Anyabwile explains that the teaching on "membership" is central and core to "the ministry".

     Moving people from attendance to membership is an opportunity to love. In a real sense, it is the ministry. 9marks.org/...moving-attenders-members/

     Moving "attenders" to "members" dismisses the many reasons why some attenders prefer not to join (this article). The wording is subtle, but this goal of modern ministers, to "help individuals understand the necessity and joy of belonging to a local assembly of believers?, assumes they do not belong to the assembly of believers. And this is compatible with the practice of classifying "attenders" as "outsiders". They don't realize that Paul uses the term "outsiders" for "unbelievers", so they don't realize how "unloving" and "unkind" this confusion of terms really is! ^35.garland  

     
     

     64.chandler

     Matt Chandler with Strong Words (9Marks)
     

     9marks.org/...church-membership-biblical/

     To talk about "church membership" and begin the article with this quote from Cyprian is very uncharitable. If Elisabeth Elliot was attending Chandler's church, and she remained a "regular attender", why would you associate her with this quote? This article is not about non Christians attending at a church... it is about the idea of "church membership" in general. This quote does not help for peace with fellow Christians.

     "The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother." Cyprian, Treatise on the Unity of the Church, 6.

     Here are a few random notes from the article...

     • When Matt was a young pastor, he wondered if "membership" was biblical
     • "When you organize the church it loses its power.", occasionally resonated with him
     • Hebrews 13:17 is what "leapt off the page" (It does in English, but English does not do justice to the Greek) ^58.peitho  

     
     

     65.questions

     Questions and Some Answers
     

     In my teenage and college years of Bible reading, I started to develop nagging questions about how and why the church today was so different from the early church that I read about. I had learned about hermeneutics in Bible college, so I tended to avoid commentaries to avoid bias and my study Bible notes were good enough. I wondered why churches felt so free to deviate from the practices of the early church. I was sure the Apostles wanted the churches to follow more than the bare minimum. I understood the Apostle Paul to be speaking above our modern culture and generally in universal timeless ways when he instructed Christians and churches to "imitate me as I imitate Christ".

     I had thoughts like:

     • Why do most churches have one pastor unlike churches in the NT?
     • Why do most churches make a formal membership process unlike the NT?
     • Why do most churches ignore other churches in town unlike the early church?
     • Why are there city elders in the OT and NT but not in our modern churches?
     • Why is the church building so important today, but not with the early church?
     • Why do we omit the Lord's Supper as a full meal unlike the early church?
     • Why do most churches ignore the "do not associate" instruction?
     • Why is there more of an interactive participation emphasis in the early church?
     • Why are the Apostle Paul's difficult commands assumed to be cultural and not for today?
     • Why does Jesus say don't make vows but everyone seems to ignore this?

     I didn't get any serious answers to my questions and continued in my Christian walk. These thoughts stayed in the back of my mind. Whenever I had questions, my Bible would get marked up with highlighting, notes and questions at each of the relevant passages.

     Some Answers to the Nagging Questions
     

     In 1998, while working at Reuters, a Christian friend Dan, shared information about an alternative Christian perspective that finally provided some answers to some of my "nagging questions". These kinds of questions were usually brushed off as unimportant, but this writer faced them head on. He had a good understanding of God's Word and had been experiencing some small church meetings more patterned after the early church. He had also put his thoughts into a book. It was interesting because his ideas were both contemporary and yet trying to follow the Apostles ways of doing things. He showed how following the commands and traditions of the Apostles is actually something we are told to do and there is a blessing in it. This Southern Baptist preacher, Steve Atkerson, also had some friends at the "New Testament Reformation Fellowship" who I started to like. His ideas were respectful of the Apostles in following their commands, practices, and traditions. He was bravely trying to follow the Apostles in spite of being misunderstood by the typical modern church. I had finally found someone who was seriously dealing with the hard questions I had been asking. He was dealing with implications of how the early church did church in the New Testament. This was exciting to me. I still greatly appreciate the writings of NTRF to this day. ^66.ntrf   Since then, I have found many other writers who also want to respect the Apostles way of doing things. In "Showing the Spirit", D.A. Carson calls this the "other trend". ^29.carson  

     A Special Church and An Experiment
     

     When we moved from Pottstown to Morgantown PA, we found a very special church that we have attended for about 17 years. We knew the famous stories of Jim and Elisabeth Elliot, Nate Saint and Joni. Here, we found special connections with these stories and we were blessed by powerful preaching week after week. Our children were raised at this church and we made many friends. Of course we noticed differences from some of our friends at NTRF, but we appreciated the church immensely.

     While we continued to attend this special church, we visited an NTRF House Church Conference in Connecticut and began experimenting with a small house church for about 2 years. ^66.ntrf   The experience was memorable, but we could not find enough interest in people wanting to follow the patterns of the Apostles and the early church ways (NTRF style). So we just continued attending our special traditional church where we enjoyed great teaching and wonderful Christian fellowship... to this day.

     
     

     66.ntrf

     NTRF - New Testament Reformation Fellowship
     

     NTRF.org

     Here is an example presentation from NTRF to show the kind of teaching they do. We very much appreciate this kind of teaching even though it is a bit out of the norm for most Christians. D.A. Carson calls this the "other trend" in "Showing the Spirit". ^29.carson  

     This teaching should be respected in the church today, but it is usually dismissed as unusual. We think NTRF is generally very biblical and here is one example where something is said at odds with the typical elder ruled modern church where decisions are made behind closed doors and then announced to the congregation. Other times decisions are made about who is "in" and who is "out" of the church based on the misunderstanding of 1 Cor 5. In contrast, NTRF would say this is the wrong way to do church based on what the Bible says (esp. minute 6:45-7:45). youtube.com/NTRF

     Small: Original Church Size Strategy for Real Disciple Making

     
     

     67.jones

     Martin LLoyd Jones - The Sermon On the Mount on Oaths
     

     Jones, page 190, STUDIES IN THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT D. Martin LLoyd-Jones, Eerdmans, Copyright 1959-60 First Edition (in two volumes) 1959-60 Second Edition (in one volume) 1971, 1976

     
     

     68.sproul

     R.C. Sproul on Respecting Another Person's Conscience
     

     Martin Luther said, "To act against conscience is neither right nor safe." Was he right?

     The manipulation of conscience can be a destructive force within the Christian community.

     Legalists are often masters of guilt manipulation, while antinomians master the art of quiet denial.

     The conscience is a delicate instrument that must be respected. One who seeks to influence the consciences of others carries a heavy responsibility to maintain the integrity of the other person's own personality as crafted by God. When we impose false guilt on others, we paralyze our neighbors, binding them in chains where God has left them free.

     thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/taylor/...conscience/

     Page 92, R.C. Sproul, Ethics and The Christian - Right and Wrong in Today's World Copyright 1989, Tyndale House

     
     

     69.compelling
     Mark Dever and Jamie Dunlap - The Compelling Community - Leaving A Church

     Page 167. The Compelling Community, Mark Dever and Jamie Dunlop, 9Marks, Copyright 2015 Where God's Power Makes a Church Attractive, Crossway

     The Compelling Community - When to Leave a Church

     Here there are suggestions on when to leave a church, but we don't find the arguments compelling. There are some biblical principles that they seem to be missing. They seem to be arguing for a model that allows the leadership to avoid responsibility and allows the attendee to act like a consumer, rather than the biblical model of working through issues.

     Our view of leaving is different from "The Compelling Community".

     The Bible says in 1 John 2:19,

     They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

     John is saying that sometimes "leaving" can be serious.

     But the Compelling Community does not mention this and instead says,

     If someone feels they can no longer trust their church's leaders, he should find a church where he can obey Hebrews 13:17.

     This is misleading for two reasons. 1. It assumes the issue should not be addressed. This is like splitting. Perhaps the issue could be discussed and resolved. It doesn't explain if there is any discussion... it is arguing from the church attender consumer perspective. 2. It assumes a meaning of the word 'peitho' in Hebrews 13:17 that is misleading. The word means persuade. There is supposed to be church leaders trying to persuade, which can only happen if they are listening to the church member/attender.

     The Compelling Community says,

     as a church changes direction, it serves no one to only make changes that everyone agrees with.

     This is misleading. Ideally there would be full agreement which is what the Bible encourages. So in principle this is quite wrong. But there is a reasoning based on churches wanting to make changes that they know some will not agree with. Here the issue is not everyone agreeing or not... the issue is how biblical the direction is. The Compelling Community says,

     sometimes the way a members love his church is by leaving it.

     This may be true in some cases, but if this is being suggested by the leadership, it may be a little bit like Diotrephes who was putting people out of the church. Just suggesting things can be making people feel unwelcome. The Bible seems to strong prefer sticking together with Christians who we are supposed to learn to love, discussing issues if there are disagreements. Members are supposed to pursue biblical truth as well as leaders. Sometimes after a 'peitho' (persuasion effort), there may be a need for the member to yield, which is also part of the meaning of 'peitho'.

     Generally, the leadership suggestion to look for another church, if your conscience views are not compatible with the views of the elders. is not biblical... it is a convenient way to avoid dealing with conflict and people who think different.

     Currently, we don't want to leave and we currently don't see scriptural support for leaving just because of differences.

     We have considered this our local church assembly for 16 years. We have many friends here. We appreciate and respect the spokesman and the elders. We hope for some kind of resolution, but we have to be willing to leave if it becomes clear that the leadership really wants us to leave.

     On page 59, the Compelling Community credits Paul with using language of "insiders" and "outsiders" in an inaccurate way. We are surprised to see this level of misunderstanding the biblical text for such a seemingly significant ministry involved in helping churches 'build healthy churches'.

     We believe calling Christian "regular attenders" by the term "outsiders" is not loving and is unbiblical.

     We don't share their view on the Christian community in a locality. Imagine if we had a family issue and just left? God would want us to talk about it at great length and try to reconcile. We should listen to each other until we fully know what the other is saying and thinking. We are not inclined, to just leave as easily as the "Compelling Community" seems to suggest.

     We think when there are issues, that is the time to see Christian unity on display, not a time to leave! We feel "The Compelling Community" teaching is not biblical if it omits intense communication and suggest leaving before serious dialog. The Compelling Community book says, people should leave when you "find your church too autocratic" or when you "can't trust your leadership". But they seem to be encouraging the consumer mentality! A more committed community does not leave so easily. We feel that differences are the time to stay and seek solutions, exceptions, understandings, reformation, etc... but not abandonment. Of course, every situation is different.

     The most important thing in a good relationship is spending time together and listening. We have met for many years with men over breakfast and the Bible, and this has been the best time for encouraging healthy relationships. Sometimes we wonder why so few Christian men are involved with other Christian men like this when Jesus set a pattern of it. We have personally seen the difference between being on a committee and being in a relational breakfast, with the Bible as the core topic and a few men.

     How could the leadership know a person unless they have been actively involved in men's groups and spending time together in God's Word? How can a leader lead well if he doesn't take time to interact with men and then suddenly enters into a situation of disagreement? Proverbs 18:17 assumes two sided communication with some examination on both sides.

     In Acts 15:1-41 there was an issue and the apostles and elders met together to deliberate about the matter. Then it says in Acts 15:7, "After there had been much debate". That is respectful. Thankfully, the spokesman for the elders said, "let the discussions begin"... "have your debates". That is respectful.

     As proverbs puts it, "The one who states the case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." Proverbs 18:17. ^{(50.proverbs)}   So this article is a response. I'm hoping it will trigger discussion and debate, for the Glory of God. But if this is all a misunderstanding, we don't need a debate. Right now, however, things aren't so good.

     
     

     70.compelling
     The Compelling Community - Leaving Small Group
     "2. Restrict involvement to members... What did we do? We began to restrict the benefits of community to members. So we told the congregation that only members could volunteer in the children's ministry. Only members could join a small group. Only members could serve as ushers. And so forth. We made some exceptions along the way. For example, we encourage brand-new Christians to get into small groups right away even while they're figuring out membership. But for long-time Christians, we require commitment to the entire body..."

     Dever, p. 130, The Compelling Community, Mark Dever and Jamie Dunlop, 9Marks, Copyright 2015 Where God's Power Makes a Church Attractive, Crossway

     
     

     71.compelling
     The Compelling Community - The Book

     Dever, p. 130, The Compelling Community, Mark Dever and Jamie Dunlop, 9Marks, Copyright 2015 Where God's Power Makes a Church Attractive, Crossway

     
     

     72.compelling
     The Compelling Community - Speak with People Individually

     Dever, p. 100, The Compelling Community, Mark Dever and Jamie Dunlop, 9Marks, Copyright 2015 Where God's Power Makes a Church Attractive, Crossway

     
     

     73.9marksinterview

     9Marks Interview Series
     

     Around 2010 we listed to many hours of the 9Marks Interview Series and really enjoyed the show.

     One memorable interview was with the hosts talking about how they "could not do church together", but they could preach at each other's churches. The response we appreciated was something like, "but that's not loving". They could not get past the "baptism" views that kept them not able to "do church" together. I thought about how our local church assembly has had struggles, but have gotten past the issue (baptism views).

     Another memorable interview was with John Hammett and Phil Newton. We purchased a book by John Hammet and Phil A. Newton inspired from this 9Marks interview series. We liked John Hammet, because he was a little more open to early church ideas and he had been a missionary in Brazil. We got the Phil Newton book just to compare with Alexander Strauch's book on Biblical Eldership.
     

     74.leeman   (top)

     Jonathan Leeman - Church Membership
     

     "the trend these days is one of shunning the practice of organized religion and showing a distaste or fear of commitment, especially of institutions. Jonathan Leeman addresses these issues with a straightforward explanation of what church membership is and why it's important."

     9marks.myshopify.com/.../church-membership

     This book presents the traditional church view of church membership that we are arguing against. There are so many confusing things in this book, we don't know where to start. It really needs a lot of work to address all the issues. Of course we agree Christians should be committed to the local church, and Christians should be "numbered". Some of the arguments are highly in tune with modern church, but not very in tune with the early church that we are supposed to imitate.

     We have not started a response to this book yet...
     

     75.london

     Pastors at Risk, Help for Pastors, Hope for the Church - H.B. London, Jr. and Neil B. Wiseman. - Chariot Victor Publishing - Copyright 1993 by Victor Books/SP Publications.

     
     

     76.chan
     RETHINKING CHURCH: Francis Chan

     We read the book.... have not finished the video... but seems good

     youtube.com/watch?v=tPQi8ZgBaMM&t=970s

     
     

     77.chan
     WE ARE CHURCH DOCUMENTARY: Francis Chan

     This is really good... We like this!

     youtube.com/FrancisChan

     • Consumerism
     • Start with a blank piece of paper.... what is most emphasized in scripture
     • Pursue those things
     • Not about the sermon... its about....
     • Not a ton of prep work... be people are loving each others...
     • How we arrived at "the new start"

     
     

     78.grudem
     Wayne Grudem and John Piper on Membership

     thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/taylor/grudem-response-to-piper/

     
     

     79.grudem
     Wayne Grudem - Welcoming, but Not Welcoming

     9Marks and many others are pushing for a more exclusive "formal church membership", but we are encouraged to see some with little more of a more welcoming attitude.

     Wayne Grudem writing to John Piper says, ^78.grudem  

     I do not see denial of church membership as "virtually the same as excommunication," nor do any of the Baptist churches known to me.

     Non-members who are clearly believers in Jesus Christ are welcomed as believers into many aspects of fellowship. They share in the Lord’s Supper together with members (in all but a very few of the most strict Baptist churches). They participate freely in worship and prayer and fellowship. Sometimes a Baptist church will even have a Bible-believing Presbyterian or Episcopalian or Methodist or Lutheran pastor preach as a guest from the pulpit. That is far from "excommunication"! thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/taylor/grudem-response-to-piper/

     This is more welcoming, even though we consider this view completely wrong because of wrong biblical assumptions. At least, there is a love for believers as there ought to be. We think there should be a lot more love for the believers to shun a secondary membership creating 2 groups, but at least there is a welcoming tone.

     Wayne continues,

     "non-members are encouraged to minister to others in the church - they can become active members of home fellowship groups (and in some churches, such as my own Scottsdale Bible Church, they can lead such groups). They can become (in various churches) members of the choir or worship team, youth group workers, ushers, greeters, and so forth. These all give visible signs of treating this unbaptized person as a brother or sister in Christ. (I realize that Baptist churches and denominations have varieties of allowed participation in such things, but they all allow some measure of participation and treat unbaptized Christians as Christians.)"
     Of course we strongly differ with Wayne here,
     "But there is a still a clear difference between members and non-members. Unbaptized believers are not members, so they cannot be elders or church officers. They cannot speak or vote at church business meetings. In other words, they can have no formal, recognized part in determining the ongoing policies and teachings of the church."

     But we don't have much choice in some cases. We are at least glad when there is a welcoming spirit where there is no sign of this:

     • Being called "outsiders" (essentially unbelievers)
     • Being encouraged to leave the church (Non welcoming)

     We also strongly differ with Wayne on this, only because of modern church,

     • Baptism is required for church membership

     In the early church, this would be fine (the statement above), because baptism and membership happened together at the same moment, hour or day.

     We find the "factual correction" at the end of the article very interesting. Wayne Grudem says that "Baptism is required for church membership" "is so commonly assumed in nearly all churches", but he does not take into consideration the deviation from the early church "3000 added in one day" concept, that makes the requirement no longer valid.

     Who cares if "it has been the practice of all major denominations throughout history" if the practice has distorted the example and way of the Apostles?

     The correction states that The Evangelical Free Church does not require baptism for church membership.

     This is interesting. They seem a little more perceptive to our complicated situation today where immediate baptisms are frowned on. Formalism has taken over. You can no longer just follow the most plain reading of scripture. If you try to follow the Apostles on this immediate membership and baptism (on the same day), you will get a negative reaction. We sometimes will refrain from what we know is best to show some respect to the leaders of our modern churches.

     Our suggestion is this. Pursue "biblical membership" because it is a Christians clear identity based on belief. If you understand this principle, you can believe it in your heart even if all the people around you say the opposite. This is the first thing to claim, because the Bible grants true "church membership" just like the Jerusalem 3000 believers.

     Baptism ought to be simple like the early church (3000 in one day), but this seems a bit harder to deal with because it is an outward event. But always ask yourself this question. Why is a second day needed? If someone believes in God, if it is clear, then why wait another day? Why be formal over something so important? Throw off restraint! Think of the Ethiopian eunuch who commanded his chariot to stop to get baptized. Think of the Philippian jailer that wanted to get baptized that evening. Think how he ignored all evaluation protocol and included his family. Think of the joy of 3000 being "added" in one day. Think about how important examples are, when we in the New Testament are encouraged to look back and learn from examples (Not just commands).

     Now these things happened to them as an example... 1 Cor 10:11a

     
     

     80.organization

     Considerations: "The Church is an Organization"
     

     Is church fundamentally an organization? We know there is some organization in the church from the example of the early church and there is certainly order. But it may be a stretch to call the church an organization. The modern idea of a 501(c)(3) organization ^{21.government} is a far cry from the early church that has some organized ways. For example, there is the organized way of conducting a worship service in 1 Cor 14. If one has something to say to encourage or build up the body, the one standing up is supposed to sit down. But being orderly and having some organization can be completely different than what we see in our modern organizational systems. ^{21.government}

     It may not really be biblically accurate to simply say "the church is an organization". That may be loosing some nuances that are foundationally important. Or we may be introducing organizational requirements that would have horrified the Apostles. ^{22.churchtest}   We need be very clear what we mean by organization and what are the secular organizational structures we agree to live under. We need to be clear about the details of the organizational structure we are promoting and listen to others who may see concerns in the Bible with our idea of organization.

     To explain what we mean more clearly, we offer some thoughts from other Christians on this topic.

     D. A. Carson: "Although the unity envisaged in this chapter is not institutional, this purpose clause at the end of v. 21 shows beyond possibility of doubt that the unity is meant to be observable.

     Carson, p. 568, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, Copyright 1991, Eerdmans

     Francis Schaeffer: Quotes from "True Spirituality" "The basic thing is not organizational unity..." (p. 166) ^83.schaeffer  

     David Adeney: Believing and Obeying Jesus Christ: The Urbana 79 Compendium "Here I saw that the church is not, as we so often think, the outward organization; it is that inner fellowship of men and women who love Jesus Christ and are faithfully witnessing to him. ^82.adeney  

     David W. Dyer: "Nowhere in the New Testament are we instructed to try to build some kind of church group or organization. This is very important. ^81.dyer  

     
     

     81.dyer

     David W. Dyer: "The One True Church" - A Grain of Wheat Ministries
     

     "Nowhere in the New Testament are we instructed to try to build some kind of church group or organization. This is very important. We are never told to try to get a number of believers together and organize them into some kind of group. We are never taught that must build up "a" church. We are never exhorted to try to put together some kind of Christian organization."

     It is our job, being led by the Holy Spirit to build up one another. This is our part of the work. Then, it is the work which God Himself does to join us together...

     Dyer, pg 64. "The One True Church", David Dyer, A Grain of Wheat Ministries, First Printing 2007.

     fivewords.org/#thechurch.html

     agrainofwheat.com/englishpublications.html

     
     

     82.adeney

     David Adeney: "The Messenger in China Today" - Real Christians
     

     "Let me tell you some lessons which I have learned from these brothers and sisters. First, I learned to distinguish that which is essential in a church stripped of all the Western trappings of the past... denominations gone, no church buildings, no paid pastors, very few Bibles, no regular Sunday services because people work at different times in the factories. There was none of what we associate with church. There were young people who had never been to a church service, never possessed a Bible and yet loved the Lord Jesus Christ. (p. 226)

     Here I saw that the church is not, as we so often think, the outward organization; it is that inner fellowship of men and women who love Jesus Christ and are faithfully witnessing to him. (p. 226)

     Third, I have learned that the witness of the Chinese church has not been through the pulpit or public witness; it has come through humble loving service. ... (p. 227)

     In China it has been very difficult indeed to speak publicly about the Lord Jesus right up to about a year ago. Things are rather different now. There is more freedom. (p. 227)

     Alexander, Believing and Obeying Jesus Christ: The Urbana 79 Compendium, Edited by John W. Alexander, InterVarsity Press, Copyright 1980.

     
     

     83.schaeffer

     Francis Schaeffer: "True Spirituality" - Loyalty Priority
     

     "There always seems to be a legitimate reason for reaching out and steadying the ark. As Uzzah reached out to steady the ark, he thought he had a good reason for disobeying the word of God (2 Samuel 16:6,7). At this point, he no longer trusted God to steady the ark." (p. 173)

     "In a fallen world there is need of organization, and there is also need of Christian leadership. But the leaders, ... organizational and Christian leadership do not stand in antithesis to true spirituality. (p. 175)

     "With such a mentality in the Church we can also say something about the attitude of loyalty. Loyalty in the Church of Christ should be in an increasing scale. To reverse the scale is to destroy the Church. The primary loyalty must be to God as God, on a personal level. This is personal loyalty to the person of the living God, and it is essential and first, above all other loyalties. (p. 175)

     Third in importance is loyalty to organizations, not because they have been called Church organizations and have had historical continuity for a certain number of years, centuries, or millenia, but only as far as they are biblically faithful. Below this, in fourth place, must be that which is often put first, and that is loyalty to human leadership. It must be kept in its proper order. To reverse the order is to be totally destructive. ... (p. 175)

     Once more let us stress that the end to be attained in working for the purity of the visible Church is loving relationship, first to God and then to our brothers. ... (p. 175)

     The local church or Christian group should be right, but it should also be beautiful. The local group should be the example of the supernatural, of the substantially healed relationship in this present life between men and men.

     The early churches showed this on a local level. For example in Acts 2:42-46 we have something that sets the tone. ...

     How many orthodox local churches are dead at this point, with so little sign of love and communication: orthodox, dead and ugly!

     There must be the mentality, in the local situation, of an interest in people as people, and not just as church members, attenders, or givers. These are people, and this is related to our statement that we believe in a personal universe because it all begins with a personal God. (p. 177) ...

     The environment of the local church or other Christian group must be conducive for these things to grow. (p. 178)

     ... there is to be a thing of beauty, observed by those within, and those outside. (p. 180) Schaeffer, True Spirituality, Francis A. Schaeffer, Copyright 1971, Tyndale House Publishers

     See notes on "authority". ^93.authority  

     See more on this topic by Francis Schaeffer. ^84.schaeffer  
     

     84.schaeffer

     Francis Schaeffer: "True Spirituality" - Organizations
     

     "The basic thing is not organizational unity, though it has its place." (p. 166)

     "Organizational and financial matters should not be allowed to get in the way of the personal and group leading of the Holy Spirit." (p. 173)

     "Organizational and financial arrangements of the Church should not rule out faith or contradict the supernatural." (p. 173)

     "There always seems to be a legitimate reason for reaching out and steadying the ark. As Uzzah reached out to steady the ark, he thought he had a good reason for disobeying the word of God (2 Samuel 16:6,7). At this point, he no longer trusted God to steady the ark." (p. 173)

     "In a fallen world there is need of organization, and there is also need of Christian leadership. But the leaders, ... organizational and Christian leadership do not stand in antithesis to true spirituality. (p. 175) These quotes follow next... but are less focused on "organization". ^83.schaeffer  

     Schaeffer, True Spirituality, Francis A. Schaeffer, Copyright 1971, Tyndale House Publishers

     
     

     85.leaving

     Why Suggest Leaving Just Because We Differ?
     

     We believe it is not appropriate for church leadership to suggest anyone leave a church assembly because of not following in formal church membership. If a Christian chooses to leave an assembly, we believe this should be up to the Christian person and not suggested by the leadership.

     If the church leadership does suggests leaving, it may bring to mind cases of Christians leaving in the New Testament. If a Christian leaves an assembly for personal reasons that may be fine, but leaving for the wrong reason could be this issue:

     They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 1 John 2:19

     If your conscience is not at peace with leaving, and especially if there are leadership issues that ought to be tested (as the Bible suggests) or unity to encouraged through discussion, then it may be precisely the wrong thing to leave.

     Christians will have differences. But the Bible teaches us to try to get along with each other and to discuss our differences. We are encouraged to listen to each other and pursue peace. This means staying to discuss rather than just leaving. Suggestions to leave over differences may actually be an ignoring of Jesus's prayer for unity.

     ...that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. John 17:23

     Generally, we do not agree with the teaching that encourages separating and splitting over Christian identity issues as fundamental as church membership. When Christians have differences and they are directly related to important biblical concepts, there really should be discussion and listening.

     Generally, we consider leaving to be a rather serious consideration if the idea is triggered by the leadership. Leaving can be perfectly fine if it is done for the right reasons. But it can also be a serious issue, even showing you are an unbeliever in some cases:

     "that it might become plain that they all are not of us". 1 John 2:19

     If we find a local church assembly and it is the best we can find in the local area, why would we leave just because we find some differences? We believe there ought to be a bit of Romans 14 freedom to hold different conscience convictions. If both sides are conservative, evangelical and biblical, there should be no reason why they can't get along if they are foundationally based on God's Word. We think Christians should always be looking to the scriptures for reforming ideas, but be very wary of showing disunity by leaving.

     We may have to modify our modern ways and do some listening. Sometimes different perspectives allow us understand God's Word more clearly. Christians who think different from us can be a tool that God may intend for us. The standard should be God's Word much more than modern methods and "bylaws" ^95.authority   We each have our conscience convictions, but we each ought to be open and willing to participate in biblical discussion that is wanting peace. ^34.unity  

     We should be willing to questions our ideas like "formal church membership" if they are not clearly presented in scripture. More importantly, in the context of the one "body", is it safe to encourage people to leave if they don't agree with us? Are we sure it is safe to call Christians "outsiders" who have been called part of his one "body"? Are we sure that 9Marks is not going to far to suggest "regular attenders" be encouraged to leave if they don't agree to these "formal church membership" ideas? Are we sure the formal practices of our modern churches are not getting a bit far from the simple clarity and authority of scripture? Are we allowing fair opportunities to hear both sides of the argument? Are we sure that we are not blocking the "iron sharpening iron" idea?

     We are not suggesting the following in our local case, but in the worst case, the suggestion to leave could be like Diotrephes:

     ...he does not receive the brothers himself, and he hinders those wanting to do so and throws them out of the church. 3 John 9-10

     More on leaving from the Compelling Community book. ^{69.compelling}  

     
     

     86.501c3ban

     There's an added dimension to our bewilderment; namely, how to skirt the quicksand of the absolute ban in Section 501(c)(3) on political activities; that is: [not] "participat[ing] in, or interven[ing] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." (emphasis added)

     forpurposelaw.com/501c3-political-ban-history/

     Fifth: No part of the net earnings of the corporation shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributable to its members, trustees, officers, or other private persons, except that the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Article Third hereof. No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

     https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/suggested-language-for-corporations-and-associations

     
     

     87.thoughts

     But, who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person." (1 Cor 2:11)

     
     
     88.we

     This article includes some uses of "we" and some uses of "my" because both are true at times. Sometimes we are including family and friends who agree with us. Other times we are saying something more from the author's perspective.

     
     

     89.division
     Causing Division (in the Bible)
     "I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (1 Cor 1:10)

     "For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part..." (1 Cor 11:18)

     "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

     "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:21)

     "I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." (John 17:23)

     Matt Slick

     carm.org/.../pride-in-the-christian-church/

     "Where is the humility of teaching about the non-essentials and saying that it is possible that another position on them may be true? When do teachers say that other gifted teachers see things differently... and that that is okay? Unfortunately, those who focus on the non-essentials to the point of division in the body of Christ counter Christ's own words which speak of unity and love.

     More:

     ^{92.partiality}

     ^90.division

     More on parting ways: (The best of the worst)

     gotquestions.org/Paul-and-Barnabas.html

     
     

     90.division
     Unity and Divisions are seen by Unbelievers

     Matt Slick on The need for unity in the church

     carm.org/...the-need-for-unity-in-the-church/

     "What if the world started to see how the Christian Church started to love not only their own church members but other church members? What do you think the world would say if the churches' bickering stopped? What do you think the unbelievers would say if they saw us living more and more the loving attitude and a sacrificial life of Christ across denominational barriers? It would be a tremendous witness for Christ. It would be a tremendous assault on the enemy and I know that God would use it mightily to bring others to Himself by his grace."

     Max Lucado on One Church, One Faith

     Inspired from the Good Friday service 2022 bulletin featuring Max Lucado on page 2.

     "May they all be one," Jesus prayed. One. Not one in groups of two thousand. But one in One. One church. One faith. One Lord. Not Baptist, not Methodist, not Adventist. Just Christians. No Denominations. No Hierarchies. No traditions. Just Christ. Too idealistic? Impossible to achieve? I don't think so. Harder things have been done, you know. For example, one upon a tree, a Creator gave his life for his creation. Maybe all we need are a few hearts that are willing to follow suit. What about you? Can you build a bridge? Toss a rope? Span a chasm? Pray for oneness?

     p. 250. August 17. Grace for the Moment Volume II, Copyright 2006 Max Lucado Published by J Countryman, a division of Thomas Nelson, Inc.

     The visible church is watched by unbelievers and they really do take notice. The problem is they usually notice when things go wrong. One Russian co-worker wondered what religion I was and he listed a few Christian denominations. To him, the disunity in Christianity was so strong, he actually considered the Christian denominations he listed to be different religions. The Apostles may have had intentions of associating at the broader locality rather than sub-group assemblies to make a witness and testimony to those watching the church.

     Jesus says,

     "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:21)

     Sometimes Christians refrain from joining in membership to respect what they see in the Bible. These Christians may feel a conscience desire to follow the early church model designed by the Apostles and clearly seen in the Jerusalem church. This will be noticed by the unbelievers who usually do watch what the Christians are doing.

     Some who object to secondary memberships are trying to avoid the wrong kind of associating. If there is ignoring of other churches in town, there is naturally some kind of division going on. These things are usually noticed by unbelievers and Jesus seems to also care about this (John 17).

     Christians who avoid sub-group memberships believe there is a reason why Paul told Timothy to appoint elders in every town (Titus 1:5). The town concept is so significant that all the New Testament churches considered themselves at this level. ^(city)

     
     

     91.division

     UNUSED
     

     Our Modern Process and Locality Divisions

     For instance, if someone is trying to obey their leaders (Heb 13:17) from their city/town church (Alexander Strauch p142-144) they will be hindered by the commitments to a sub-group. Another characteristic of "second membership" is the public profession in a large formal setting. If public speaking is the number one fear, there may be some whose weak souls are affected by the format. The "second membership" concept can easily create a kind of division in the body because now there are two groups... the ones who follow the simple membership ideas they read in scripture (1 Cor 12:12-26) and the "second membership" group. Some will not want to encourage this division. Some will not want to join the church and state in an entity with such close ties with the state (501(c)(3) requirements).

     One of the ideas Jamon Sorrells mentions is the danger of showing favoritism to "second members" (James 2:1-6). The idea may be subtle, and inspired by the IRS tax code, implying the organization needs to be organized and have board members and participating members, could it be that the church is being snookered into a partnership with the state that has linked us with endless little traps that we don't realize. Here is a quote from the IRS related to 501(c)(3) that mentions a required "organizational structure" and the agreement not to talk about politics (which is a serious loss of freedom that will bother some Christians - Rom 14). Finally, some Christians may object to being part of something that requires this kind of legal language. ^86.501c3ban  

     
     

     92.partiality
     Partiality

     and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet," James 2

     "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

     In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. 1 Tim 5:21

     
     

     93.authority
     The Highest Authority

     The topic of "church membership" speaks to the very identity of a Christian. In our local church, we are tested in how we accept or reject fellow Christians. The hightest authority is not necessarily our local church views. If we have understood God's Word, then anyone who has understood God's Word on this topic can be following the highest authority. It mostly depends on our trust in God's Word. ^83.schaeffer   We must follow Jesus and the Apostles, even if "an angel from heaven should preach" something different. (Gal 1:8)   Even if we are told otherwise by wise and respected elders, we must follow God's Word and its clear teaching. (1 Kings 13:11-25)(Romans 14:16)(1 Thess 5:21)

     Our understanding of the authority in the New Testament does not grant authority like the "teachers of the law" and the Pharisees who "sat in Moses' seat". This is an Old Covenant way of thinking. We believe the Christian is no longer under the Law (of Moses) and lives in the realm of the New Covenant (the Law of Christ, where there is a new kind of freedom). Jesus introduced a whole new way and the law is now obsolete according to New Covenant teaching. ^{97.newcovenant}   We agree with D.A.Carson and many others who would explain the role of elder authority as based on the leadership faithfulness in following scripture. We respect elders as they follow God's Word. ^31.carson

     Jesus submitted to the synagogue procedures of his day, because he put himself under the Law to fulfil the Law. We are released from the Law and it would be a serious Galatian like error to put ourself back under the Law. If any elder tries to gain the "Moses' seat" kind of authority, our understanding of scripture is that this is wrong and should be rejected on biblical principle. It is very wrong to go back to the Old Covenant authority structure when God has initiated a new way. ^{97.newcovenant}   We must follow the commands, examples, traditions and ways of the Apostles and test all things (1 Thess 5:21) ^(49.testing)   according to this standard. This is our biblical conscience perspective.

     Our respect for biblical authority begins with following Jesus and the Apostles in what they clearly teach about "church membership".

     Some of our core concerns are these:

     1. Respect Jesus as "the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls". (1 Peter 2:25) (John 10:1-5) ^44.strauch  
     2. Respect Jesus when he speaks about things like oaths and vows. (Matt 5:33-37) (James 5:12)
     3. Respect the way of the Apostles (respect their way of doing things). The early church added "3000 in one day. This clearly speaks about no formal process and a very fast count of the numbers. The count may very well have even been an estimate.
     4. Respect Jesus and the Apostles related to divisions and classifications. We are concerned about adding a "second" kind of membership to the biblical kind of membership. This "second" kind of membership can easily create division by creating two classes of Christians.
     5. Respect the Apostles clear teaching on "the body of Christ". ^{14.thiselton   19.robinson}  
     6. Respect the Apostles warnings about leaving a local church. ^85.leaving  

     We fully intend to respect our local church elders as they faithfully follow God's Word. As they are faithful in following scripture, we intend to submit to their leadership. D.A. Carson explains authority in the local church very well. ^31.carson  

     The idea is that the authority they wield in ministry is precisely the authority of ministering the Word of God. ... Thus, the administration of authority in the church is not so much bound up with office... ... the fount of authority is the Word.

     Here are a few points in how we see obeying Christian leadership.

     • As local leadership follows God's Word, we are called to follow. ^31.carson  
     • We need to understanding the real meaning of the biblical words talking about "submit" and "obey" so we are not getting confused and assuming things based on the English words (know the Greek on such important words... Word studies are quite easy to do in these modern days) ^58.peitho  
     • We are not called to blindly follow earthly authority. Acts 20:17-31 ^43.strauch   And our conscience perspectives are important when we understand scripture differently from others (Romans 14). It doesn't mean our conscience is right, but nor does it mean it is wrong. It is very important however, and sometimes there are things that we may need to go down different paths just based on our conscience. This is the point of Romans 14. ^68.sproul   There is a proper loyalty order where we must obey God before human leadership. ^83.schaeffer  
     • We can sometimes agree to disagree with leadership. Sometimes we need to just overlook the smaller issues. For example, if the leaders say we cannot vote, we go along with it. If they say we cannot teach adult classes, we bear with it. If they say we cannot be part of our small group, we may complain a bit, but we probably should ^{70.compelling}   obey even in this. We should be permitted the freedom to question leadership decisions based on the Bible and our conscience, but when the issue is that the elders have decided, and it may affect others, we generally need to obey the leaders. The leaders need the freedom to make decisions to keep the order that they think they need in the local church.
     • Alexander Strauch says, "obey your leaders", as a plurality. ^42.strauch   This implies we need to discuss our view and ideas with the plurality to understand some of the details of the debate. If one of the elders agrees with some points of our view and they have never heard our view, then we are not involved in the plurality. The elders as a plurality are the ones we are to obey. In order to understand each other, there needs to be communication (clarification, presenting, discussion, debate). (Acts 15) This would imply a two way conversation with the ideas presented by both sides and some conversation. As Strauch says, the Bible does not say, "obey your leader, and submit to him". So we might find that one or two of the plurality would understand our conscience position and see that we are trying to obey the highest authority, and that includes obeying our local leadership under that higher authority.
     • If we question elders over questions related to following God's Word we know that God's Word tells us to test all things (1 Thess 5:21) and follow our conscience convictions (Romans 14). ^{43.strauch   49.testing}  
     • If there are disagreements, that is they time to stay and discuss. The Bible does not suggest leaving as a solution. ^85.leaving  

     When there are disagreements, that is the time to stay involved in the local church and show our unity by respectfully discussing any issues. According to the Bible we should remain together rather than leave just because of disagreements. As long as there is sincere pursuing of God's ways, we should have no reason to leave and leaders should certainly not suggest Christians leave (unless the person is disrupting order and the person is not basing their views on the Bible). If the leaders abandon biblical truth and start wandering off to added things not found in scripture, there may be a time when a Christian must leave because of the leaders. But as long as they are pursuing biblical truth, even if there are massive differences, we should stay and try to work through differences. The early church demonstrated this (Acts 15:2). ^{69.compelling}   There may come a time when leaving is the only option, but that is usually when there are serious issues or when there are no issues, just personal reasons. ^85.leaving

     We of course take the interpretation of Colossians 3:16 as Doug Moo does in his highly rated commentary (Ligonier: puts it as #2 as of 2022). And since we hold to our conscience perspective on biblical membership, we of course reject any restriction on this verse base on the 501(c)(3) modern kind of membership that would create a new barrier and make this scripture of "none effect".

     this text gives to each member of the congregation the responsibility to teach and admonish other members pg. 289
     And third, teaching and admonishing, while undoubtedly often the responsibility of particular gifted individuals within the congregation (such as Paul or Epaphras) or elders were also engaged in by every member of the congregation. pg. 290

     Moo, pg 289, 290, The Letters to The Colossians and Philemon, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, Douglas J. Moo, General Editor: D. A. Carson, Copyright 2008, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

     
     

     94.authority
     Questioning and Discussing While Respecting Authorities

     Christians ought to be able to discuss things they disagree on. The best community allows discussion and avoids division. We think this is part of the unity and diversity seen in 1 Corinthians and in John 17.

     Sometimes conscience views don't need to be talked about. But other times issues become larger and ignoring them just makes the issues worse. Usually it is most respectful when church leaders avoid talking about differences in public forums. But sometimes differences can create disunity, and to avoid talking about the differences only makes it worse. The early church demonstrated a willingness to argue/debate over important things.

     "Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. Acts 19:8 NIV

     So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. Acts 17:17 NIV

     And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them... Acts 15:7

     What good is it if the men "weigh what is said" and don't express their evaluation? 1 Cor 14:29

     Paul demonstrates a willingness to participate in arguing for important things, and also a willingness to listen. We believe Christian unity is best seen when there is peace and community in the midst of differences. It is not a Christian way to sit passively in a pew and blindly accept what is said. Nor is it a Christian way to be argumentative. Paul argued, passionately, perhaps. But there is a time for everything.

     The word "obey" in the Bible has an interesting Greek meaning. It means to be "persuaded by" or to "yield as one is being persuaded by another". ^58.peitho  

     "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. 1 Tim 3:16-17.

     
     

     95.authority

     John MacArthur - The Authority of God's Word
     

     This is a good short little video that shows respect for the authority of God's Word. We also like Ezra 10. In Ezra 10:3, it speaks about a special people, who although they sinned, they showed a fear of God when Ezra explained the scriptures to them.

     "all those who tremble at the command of our God" (Ezra 10:3)

     YouTube/MacArthur/authority of...

     
     

     96.laniak

     Timothy S. Laniak - Shepherds after My own Heart
     

     We appreciate this book's focus on Shepherds and for its wise observations of Old Testament shepherd discussions as used or hinted at in the New Testament. Chapter 8 (p 145ff), for example, focuses on Ezekiel 34.

     As the discussion goes to Mark in chapter 10, there are good observations (p 178,179) about how this important passage in Ezekiel 34 relates to key themes in how Jesus cares for the weak and needy sheep. See also pg 188b and pg 190 (of Chapter 11, Matthew). Jesus really is shown to be the Good Shepherd of Ezekiel 34.

     We have not discovered much that is amazingly insightful in the book, but what stands out as exceptional, is the quality Biblical Theology that is being done in the book. The observations connecting passages like Ezekiel 34 (and others) to New Testament passages of how Jesus acted as the Good Shepherd, are beautifully done. Some books push agendas. This one reflects the scriptural focus quite well.

     Here is one random quote from Chapter 8, pg 152.

     "The perennial problem with kingship was the tendency to forget whose the people were. (p 152)

     
     Laniak, "Shepherds after My own Heart" - Timothy S. Laniak - Edited by D. A. Carson - Copyright 2006 - Intervarsity Press

     
     

     97.newcovenant

     New Covenant Oriented Theology - The "New Realm"
     

     We generally follow a New Covenant oriented theology distinct from both Dispensational and Covenant Theology. We were first introduced to this distinction from Ferris L. McDaniel in 1986 at Northeastern Bible College ^{(99.mcdaniel)}. There is a subtle New Covenant oriented theology in the views of D.A. Carson (including his work on the Zondervan NIV Study Bible notes). Others like John Reisinger, Douglas J. Moo, Fred Zaspel, etc, are a bit more clear.

     For the most clear modern presentation of this view we recommend Douglas Moo's recent "A Theology of Paul and His Letters" chapter 24. In particular, he addresses this view on pages 616-23.

     Moo, p. 616-23, A Theology of PAUL and HIS LETTERS, Douglas Moo, edited by Andreas J. Kostenberger. The Gift of the New Realm in Christ. Copyright 2021, Zondervan Academic

     Here, Doug Moo is discussing his new book on Paul's Letters at TGC.

     thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/deyoung/paul...dr-douglas-moo/

     One side effect of an old covenant oriented perspective is when things like "covenant membership" are added to be "in" the church. Sometimes justification and the "new creation" are confused with being part of the Christian community. We are concerned about a clear biblical picture of justification "in Christ" through faith in Christ. ^{(98.covenantmembership)}  

     
     

     98.covenantmembership

     Covenant Membership - Old Covenant orientation vs The "New Realm"
     

     Doug Moo discusses the idea of "covenant membership". We have heard much about this from Mark Dever in 9Marks interviews and it seems to be very common in many churches, although we did not hear about it in many churches we attended years ago. This 9Marks article talks about.

     9marks.org/membership-matters...covenant/

     In this article, Sam Storms says he has drawn heavily from 9Marks authors and others. www.samstorms.org/...article-10-things-you-should-know

     We understand justification and the "new creation" as defining who is "in" the church. We do not believe the bible teaches a secondary covenantal joining process to be "in" the church. The focus of knowing who is "in" and who is "out" of the church by a formal process is not the way Paul is speaking of being a member of the "one body in Christ". Justification, faith based membership is essential for understanding the real church and who is "in" or "out" of the church. Our conscience perspective is concerned when the visible church re-defines membership some other way.

     While discussing justification, Moo says, "Another idea sometimes associated with justification is covenant membership."

     As Moo is discussing justification, he notes some who advocate an assumption of covenant along with faith. Moo quotes N.T. Wright of the New Perspective who teaches this covenant membership idea. "To be justified, in his view, is not only to be declared to be "in the right" but also to be recognized as one who is "in" the covenant - a member of the people of God.

     "It is also doubtful that being justified in Paul ever has the sense of a recognition of an existing reality. Passages such as Romans 4:5; 5:1, 9 make clear that justification is God's powerful word, creating a new status that did not exist before" (Moo quoting John Piper).

     Moo, p. 482, A Theology of PAUL and HIS LETTERS, Douglas Moo, edited by Andreas J. Kostenberger. The Gift of the New Realm in Christ. Copyright 2021, Zondervan Academic

     "We become effective 'members' of the one body of which they are a part (vv.4-5."

     Moo, p. 623.

     Another resource from Moo is his commentary on Galatians from 2013. He says,

     "... what is truly theologically bedrock for Paul is the idea of the believer's incorporation into Christ. Both membership in God's people and justification occur as a result of that fundamental union"

     How can a local church call a believer a "non member" if they have membership in God's people? The most they can say is... we don't know. They can say, yes, Paul you have been killing Christians... it may take us some time to trust you. Or, yes the Jerusalem church added 3000 in one day, but we are slower... it may take us a few days.

     Moo, p. 58, Galatians, Douglas J. Moo, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Copyright 2013.

     The discussion above is also very much related to John Piper's Piper, p. 43-49. "Counted Righteous in Christ", Copyright 2002, Crossway Books.

     
     

     99.mcdaniel

     Ferris L. McDaniel - Systematic Theology 1986 at Northeastern Bible College
     

     Later he taught at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

     Interestingly he did his dissertation at Dallas challenging Dispensational Theology.

     In his Systematic Theology class of 1986 at Northeastern Bible College, he had an important critique of both Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. The students felt warned about both of these theological systems.

     In our opinion, he left a New Covenant oriented Theology, but not sure how he would say it.

     sebts.edu/.../McDaniel.aspx

     
     

     100.earlychurch
     The Early Church - 3000 Added In One Day

     At this point we would like to make an important scripture very clear and point out how we understand it. Then suggest some solutions.

     So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41
     This is very plain Bible language that shows a relatively immediate baptism and membership. Baptism and membership usually happen within minutes, hours or at least within the day. Today, things are much more complicated, ^78.grudem but we don't give up on pursing biblical truth just because it is hard.

     
     

     101.earlychurch

     The Early Church Way
     

     gotquestions.org/early-Christianity.html

     "The early Christians had a pure, simplistic approach. The people were able to concentrate on the study of God’s Word, service and dedication to one another, hospitality, benevolence, and missions (Romans 1:8; 15:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:7-8; Acts 13:1-26:32). The programs and technology present in many churches today can be useful tools in helping us emphasize the same things, but can also sometimes be distractions. Compared to the structured organization of the church today, the early church looked more like the informal settings of one of our Bible studies or small groups."

     
     

     102.identity
     The Believer's True Identity in Christ

     Even though we may be called "outsiders", thankfully, the scriptures assure us of our true identity in Christ. God's Word reminds us, "But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord," (Rom 4:23-24)

     Eph 3:12

     John 3:16

     1 John 3:14

     1 John 5:13

     Romans 5:1

     Romans 8:1

     Romans 8:16

     Romans 8:38-39

     Hebrews 10:22

     
     

     103.story

     Our Story
     

     When I was about 8, I started to read my Bible at boarding school during mandatory quiet times at noon. Over the next few years, I read the NT carefully and covered most of the OT. I have good memories of meditating on John 10 and being impacted by Jesus as the Good Shepherd with the KJV "verily verily, I say unto you" language. I was drawn to this wonderful God and Shepherd and savior. At about 9 years old, I distinctly remember going back and forth trying to accurately understand the difficult passage of Romans 7. I remember reading the chapters before and after repeatedly to get the context. I knew Paul well, my favorite apostlolic writer, so the passage seemed wrong if he was speaking of his current life struggle. Eventually, at the age of 9 or 10, I was convinced Paul was using a writer's technique to refer to a man under the Law. Later on I found agreement with the view expressed by Doug Moo in his famous commentary on Romans ^51.moo   and I was sure J.I. Packer's view was wrong. ^53.packer   Of course I didn't know these scholars until much later, but I could understand the logic and the complexity of how Paul could be understood in two very different ways. I recall marveling and wondering about the "predestination" idea in Ephesians 1. I tried to figure out marriage, divorce and remarriage, but gave up being sure about it. I was captured by a deep respect for the Apostle Paul in his service and dedication to Christ. I never went to church and I never heard a sermon at boarding school, but spiritually, this was probably the most significant time in my life. I loved Jesus. My eyes were opened to Biblical truth.

     One memory I had, perhaps a bit related to "church membership", was the feeling of distance from the adults when we were allowed to observe them sharing in the Lord's Supper. I was around 9, at boarding school, and some students were allowed to sit and observe the teachers sharing in the Lord's Supper (only once). I felt a distance and a feeling of why I was not allowed to join in this event... I could not imagine Jesus supporting this exclusion. I understood the celebration from Bible reading and thought the exclusion to be unnatural. Later, as a teenager, I wondered why Christians didn't follow the pattern of the full meal. It seemed strange, based on my simple Bible reading of the Corinthians enjoying a full meal when they assembled. ^{39.fullmeal 15.thiselton}   I knew Jesus would have invited children. Later on, I learned from a Jewish co-worker how the children are a focus in the Jewish Passover. ^37.rosner   Later on I learned that Bible scholars see strong connections between the Lord's Supper and the Passover. ^{15.thiselton 36.rosner}   Later on I would be horrified to hear of some churches denying the Lord's Supper to children of Christian families. Imagine denying the Passover meal to children in the Jewish Passover! ^{37.rosner 39.fullmeal}   To me, this is unthinkable! But it was not until later that I cared more about the patterns and practice of the Apostles. At this point, I knew children are usually ignored.

     Back at home (at Mukinge mission station in Zambia in the 70s), I lived among about 50 AEF missionaries in one of the most rural parts of Africa. One day I recall my mother asking me about my faith as if she didn't know if I was a Christian or not! I was away at boarding school for 3 or 4 months at a time, but I was still shocked she didn't know me better... She asked me to write something out for her about it, but how could I write about something so meaningful to me... when I had spent so many hours meditating on God's Word... how could a slow writing 3rd or 4th grader articulate this? I recall looking at what I had written and realizing that massive disconnect between reality and what is communicated. I observed how little someone can know you. Years later I noticed my mother regularly spending time in God's Word, and I knew what that meant. At home, my father would often read Watchman Nee, "Table in the Wilderness", my mother the Proverbs and I regularly heard the local African preachers at the mission church. We often attended the missionary prayer meetings. But it was the context at boarding school... the forced quiet time and the threat of the "paddle", that had done the most good in giving me an opportunity to focus on God. There were no distractions on my bedside besides a few matchbox cars and a King James Bible. Later I spent some holiday candy money on a little blue RSV New Testament (~1976) which I carefully compared translation style with the KJV.

     When I was 10 I came to America and lived in NJ for a while. Our family moved to Bangor PA. We eventually settled into attending Bethel Bible Church. We attended at this church for about 15 years during the time of 3 pastors. In Africa, I had a safe Christian community at the boarding school. In America, however, I was sent to public school. During many years of public school I did not find any Christians until the 12th grade. Occasionally the Christians were asked to raise their hands. That way I could see how few Christians there were. For a couple years, I was oppressed by a kid who had visited our little church and hated me from then on. It caused me to spend more time in my Bible, especially in the Psalms. I read my NIV Study Bible more extensively and started a habit of highlighting. I spent many evening hours reading and meditating on God's Word, and covering the Bible more carefully. Our little Bible church did not have much of a youth group. But there was one time when the youth groups in the area got together. I thought the larger gathering was great. I wondered what it would be like if the churches were more connected like the churches in the New Testament. I observed how the NT early churches operated as one church in each town. This was very clear in the Jerusalem church. But our little church acted independent. I knew of many churches as my father stayed in the US due to sickness. He travelled to colleges to help represent the mission in the North East. Sometimes I travelled with him. I knew that my father had maintained his "membership" in an Evangelical Free church and my mother in a conservative Baptist church in New Jersey, but there did not seem to be any biblical reason for this practice. During these teenage years, I started to notice differences and started to get questions of why Christians did church so differently from what I read about in the Bible.

     In these days, in the 1980s, I noticed the "church membership" practice occasionally in our little Bethel Bible Church, especially during "business meetings." I don't remember being instructed on "joining as formal church members", but occasionally there were special business-like meetings where about half of the church could vote because they were "members." I noticed that most of the voting was formal and conducted in particular way with a lot of "seconding" and formality. I was learning about the "501(c)(3)" formal aspect of modern church. This did not interest me as it did not seem biblical. I was interested in the Bible, what Jesus said and the spiritual side of the church. I figured, if they want to maintain this system, they could do it, but I had no interest. I thought that the organizational formality may be a necessity, perhaps, but I did not find it interesting. I wondered if the Apostles would approve of it. I wondered what Jesus would say if he visited our modern churches. At this point these were very subdued thoughts. It wasn't until 1989, after reading an NTRF house church book that I became more passionate about why the apostles my have designed the one-another, community oriented church model.

     After high school, I went to Northeastern Bible College for a year, at the suggestion of my parents. This was a good time of seeing what Christians do in the academic world and how some Christians train for ministry. I had a 4th year roommate, Bill, who wanted to become a pastor. I had a great time being part of a Bible college Christian community. I had a few special professors who I still appreciate to this day. Church membership was never raised as an important issue during these years as I was involved with a few churches. Most Christian college students just participated in churches in the area. There may have been an active formal membership process in place, but I did not notice it. I hardly thought about it during these days.

     After college, I was working for the Philadelphia Phillies in State College with Christian workmates. I became very involved in the various Penn State campus ministries, especially the International Christian Fellowship. I attended church with the "international Christian" group friends at a Calvary Bible Church. I enjoyed the close knit Christian community of friends. I was involved with campus ministry groups most days of the week. I had more time to reading God's Word and recall spending long hours looking at a few copies Marshall's NIV/NASB/Greek interlinear (and an analytical lexicon). I had many good reading sessions, sometimes for blocks of 6-8 hours on Sunday. One day in a church service, a new Christian PHD student from Singapore, full of the joy of the Lord, mentioned a mission need in Brazil. I went to help a mission and there met my future wife. We were married 2 years later. Before I married, however, my boss decided to stop being a Phillies Software manager and start DiscipleMakers. So I lost my job.

     Thankfully, I soon found a job with Reuters in the Norristown area around 1995 and started attending Calvary Fellowship in Wayne. I was married by the pastor at this church to my dream girl from Brazil at Portland Baptist Church in Portland, PA. I had been baptized at the church when I was about 15. During these years working at Reuters I met a man who shared some house church ideas that got me to reading an NTRF book by Steve Atkerson. This was not so much new information, but rather a discovery of someone who actually followed the simple/plain reading of the Bible as I understood it.

     The next part of my story, I will call it questions and some answers   goes into my discover of Christian writers who especially appreciate the early church ways. Most Christians are not interested in this. But it is part of my story.

     
     

     104.relational

     Getting to Know Christians vs Formal Methods
     

     The elders in the early church were apparently able to keep the church organized with simple lists and records without resorting to modern formal membership practices. Yes, they numbered them (3000 added in one day), but this may very well have been an estimate. When have you ever seen exactly 3000 get saved? It may have been exactly 3000, but we are inclined to think the author was not concerned about the exact number. (and also the next number was 5000)

     The point is, the biblical evidence does not call for a strict formal numbering, much less a "formal process". The membership was numbered at 3000, but sometimes in our obsession with numbers we count our church attenders on a weekly basis. This reminds us of David wanting to number his nation. We think the 3000 conveys "exciting growth", and the "precise" numbering was a very low priority, if they ever bothered.

     There was structure in the early church, but there was also an incredible lack of organized structure at the same time. Some widows were going hungry before they took some action. Adding 3000 in one day is a very informal way of doing things. Our modern formal church methods may turn adding 3000 into a year long process. But the early church patterned more immediate responses to belief. Why do most Christians and churches wait years after someone believes to start talking about baptism and membership? We think the Bible's pattern was meant to be followed. But our rationalizations today make the apostles pattern obsolete. Why do we wait to begin planning baptisms and wait even more to begin the formal membership process?

     The Bible does not teach a "formal kind of membership". The early church included those who believed. They did not try to interview the 3000. Apostles did not show a teach and show a pattern of guarding the fence of entering the church. Rather, they instructed all Christians to avoid those who had blatant sin. This "purging" would eventually have the effect of encouraging a true faith membership. Our churches today do not generally practice this at the ordinary Christian level. Instead, there is a fencing on entry. But we do not see it as biblical. Jesus clearly demonstrated letting a whole bunch of his disciples walk away on one of his hard teachings. He did not try hard to woo them back. Likewise today, good teaching of the Bible will scare some people away. The 1 Cor 5 story of a man living in sin is very biblical. The creation of a list of requirements to enter into membership breaks the biblical pattern of it being based on faith. The Apostles did the right thing by welcoming all 3000 into the church as "official members". They knew that years down the line, true believers would stay and false ones would leave. Jesus demonstrated an easy "in" inclusiveness. But his teaching that was so offensive to a "man of the world", many decided to leave and were no longer "disciples". Likewise, if someone shows faith, we belive the right thing is to allow easy entrance. If they are really in love with the world, it will soon show and they will walk away from the church.

     9Marks suggests Christians should leave if things are'nt going well. 9Marks encourages the leadership to become more particular about the Christians (members and non-members) and then encourages the leaders to suggest the non-members leave to find another church. If you don't agree with the leadership, they suggest you leave and find another church.

     This may sound ok, but the suggestion may be somehow related to the very thing John warns about in 1 John 2:19! "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. Suggestions are powerful, and they can easily make someone feel unwelcome if the suggestion is to leave. Why would leaders give a suggestion to leave? If the "regular attender" is following their conscience perspective on church membership, why send them away? It makes people wonder about motives and it seems to go directly against what 1 John 2:19 says.

     If church was a little more like 1 Cor 14, where each one has a song or a lesson, the Christians would know each other so well that "formalism" would feel strange. If the church is separate from the world, 21.government   the world cannot meddle with a proper New Testament church. Christians are told, "Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked person from you." 1 Cor 5:12-13. God will give wisdom, if we seek him, to know when this is appropriate, but I have never seen this happen in my lifetime of attending at churches.

     Any kind of "formal church membership process" can easily create a new kind of "secondary membership", usually a "501(c)(3) member", that causes division in the true membership that is "one body" (1 Cor 12:12-26).

     In the New Testament, the elders should never be equated with the "seat of Moses" (Matt 23:1-3) since they operate more by example and Christians are free from the Law (Rom 7, Rom 6:14, Gal 5, etc).

     The early church found it easy to get to know each other because they were meeting in each others homes and often sharing meals together. The sharing of life made the "formal membership" silly. If someone like Elisabeth Elliot attended your church, you could easily get to know her because of the fellowship. A "formal ceremony" would not help you know Elisabeth, and you would offend her by telling her she was an "outsider" who should join into a "secondary membership" The "formal process" may be a nice ceremony, but it also places you into a group that Elisabeth would not join based on biblical principles. You can easily create a division of those who have a conscience issue about joining a "501(c)(3) membership" and the ones who are content with simple biblical membership (1 Cor 12:12-26).

     The secondary membership usually has an extended process, a requirement to take oaths, a requirement to make certain commitments and joins you in a little bit of a connection of the church with the state. Some Christians may have issues with the process when they read in Acts about 3000 becoming members in one day. Others may have a conscience issue with the oaths or commitments. And finally, others may be concerned with indirectly joining something that is so bound to the state (irs.gov/...requirements-501c3-organizations). You may have no problem with joining the church with the state, but another Christian may have a conscience issue with it (Romans 14).

     
     

     105.onthetable

     UNUSED

     
     On The Table and Open For Discussion
     

     We are very glad that the leadership considers this a public issue for discussion and debate. We have felt restrained from talking feely about this topic to avoid possibly offending leadership. Now we are glad that this issue is open and on the table! We feel a burden has been lifted. Now we are able to talk about our struggle with this issue. Recently, a good friend, said, "yes, I know you are into that stuff" (we have spent many mornings in God's Word together over the years). "Why don't you write an article about it?" It had been a thought, but that comment was good encouragement to begin this article. The reason for the article is that there are a lot of details in the sermon series and there are a lot of details in a response! It seems best to have this written down so we can avoid endlessly repeating what we have to say in response. It has been preached about at the sermon level in some detail, so we are responding with an article that also has some detail.

     We have been finding more in depth discussion a bit elusive. Perhaps this article will help. It is very difficult to talk about this issue. It seems no one really wants to talk about it. It doesn't seem appropriate for our small group. It doesn't seem right for our morning breakfast time with men (we don't want to distract from general biblical encouragement). It really is a very detailed thing! Just think of a series of 4 sermons, each 40 minutes long. Think of all the preparation by the spokesman and elders. Think of the times in the past when the stage has been set in the preceding 10-15 years of sermons. How can one respond? There is a lot to say. There is a lot to study. There are so many books and articles related to the topic. Scripture must be interpreted very carefully. We do not want to be UN-Berean. We assume a response is a proper expression of testing and evaluation. ^{(50.proverbs)}  

     
     
     106.submit

     UNUSED
     

     Submitting to the Elders

     Before discussing the obedience and submitting to the elders we should understand a few things.

     • God's Word is obviously a much higher authority, there should be no discussion if someone is going by scripture against what an elder is saying not based on clear scripture.
     • The word 'peitho' in Heb 13:17 needs to be understood more because it has been abused and misunderstood and the English does not do very well at showing the "persuasion" underlying meaning of the Greek. ^58.peitho  

     
     

     107.verses

     Verses on members and membership in the Bible

     Matthew 16:18 ESV And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

     Matthew 18:15-20 ESV "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. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. ...

     Matthew 18:20 ESV For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

     Matthew 28:18-20 ESV And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

     Acts 2:42-47 ESV And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, ...

     Acts 2:47 ESV Praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

     Acts 2:42 ESV And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

     Acts 2:41 ESV So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

     Acts 6:1-15 ESV Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. ...

     Acts 9:31 ESV So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.

     Acts 11:22 ESV The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch.

     Acts 11:26 ESV And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

     Acts 12:1 ESV About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church.

     Acts 12:5 ESV So Peter was kept in prison, but earnest prayer for him was made to God by the church.

     Acts 14:27 ESV And when they arrived and gathered the church together, they declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.

     Acts 14:23 ESV And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

     Acts 15:3 ESV So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.

     Acts 15:4 ESV When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.

     Acts 15:41 ESV And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

     Acts 16:5 ESV So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.

     Acts 20:17 ESV Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him.

     Acts 20:28 ESV Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

     Romans 12:4-5 ESV For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

     Romans 15:5-7 ESV May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

     Ephesians 2:19-22 ESV So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

     Ephesians 4:12-16 ESV To equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

     1 Corinthians 12:12-27 ESV For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. ...

     Ephesians 3:10 ESV So that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

     John 4:23 ESV But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.

     1 Corinthians 5:12 ESV For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?

     1 Corinthians 1:10-13 ESV I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

     Hebrews 13:17 ESV Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. ^(at1)  

     Hebrews 10:25 ESV Not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

     Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

     1 Timothy 3:15 ESV If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

     Ephesians 5:23 ESV For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

     Ephesians 4:12 ESV To equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

     1 Timothy 5:17 ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

     Galatians 6:10 ESV So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

     1 Corinthians 12:27 ESV Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

     1 Corinthians 12:1-31 ESV Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; ...

     Colossians 3:16 ESV Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

     Colossians 1:24 ESV Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

     Colossians 1:18 ESV And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

     Ephesians 5:25 ESV Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

     Ephesians 1:22 ESV And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church,

     1 Corinthians 12:18 ESV But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.

     1 Corinthians 13:1-13 ESV If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; ...

     1 Corinthians 5:13 ESV God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

     Ephesians 1:22-23 ESV And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

     1 Corinthians 12:13 ESV For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

     Romans 12:1-21 ESV I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. ...

     Ephesians 5:30 ESV Because we are members of his body.

     1 Corinthians 12:28 ESV And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

     Romans 16:17 ESV I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

     Ephesians 4:15-16 ESV Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

     Ephesians 4:11 ESV And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,

     Ephesians 1:23 ESV Which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

     Galatians 3:27 ESV For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

     1 Corinthians 5:1 ESV It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.

     1 Corinthians 1:2 ESV To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

     Romans 16:1 ESV I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae,

     1 Peter 1:22 ESV Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,

     Hebrews 12:23 ESV And to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

     Hebrews 3:6 ESV But Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.

     Ephesians 4:4 ESV There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call

     Galatians 2:9 ESV And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

     2 Corinthians 6:16 ESV What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

     1 Corinthians 12:20 ESV As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

     1 Corinthians 6:19-20 ESV Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

     1 Corinthians 5:7 ESV Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

     1 Corinthians 5:1-13 ESV It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. ...

     Ephesians 2:11 ESV Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands-

     1 Corinthians 11:18 ESV For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,

     Ephesians 4:25 ESV Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.

     1 Corinthians 14:23 ESV If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

     1 Corinthians 5:11 ESV But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

     Philemon 1:2 ESV And Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:

     Philippians 1:27 ESV Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

     1 John 2:19 ESV They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

     1 Peter 2:5 ESV You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

     1 Peter 5:2 ESV 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;

     Hebrews 12:6 ESV For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives."

     James 5:14 ESV Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

     Titus 3:10 ESV As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,

     1 Timothy 3:5 ESV For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?

     Revelation 1:20 ESV As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

     Revelation 2:1 ESV "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: 'The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.

     Revelation 2:12 ESV "And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: 'The words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.

     Revelation 2:10 ESV Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.

     Revelation 2:18 ESV "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: 'The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.

     Revelation 3:1 ESV "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: 'The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. "'I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead.

     Revelation 3:7 ESV "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

     
     

     108.intro

     Introduction Expanded Notes
     

     What is church membership? Are we clear on what the Bible says about church membership? Are we clear about what the modern culture says about church membership? Are there differences? Have we considered the pros and cons of the modern kind of church membership? Have we both read the same books on the topic? For example, John Piper's church seminary was using Alexander Strauch's book on Biblical Eldership as their main text on eldership. There is a lot of content in a book like that. But one pastor at our local church was completely unfamiliar with this book. It is helpful to know what books are being used or possibly avoided as we often base some of our thinking on books to help us interpret the Bible.

     We would like to ask some questions about the sermon series on membership and find out more from the presenter, of how these ideas fit with what the Bible says. We are also interested in the views of the elders and how they came to these conclusions. We are interested to know if there is full agreement with the sermon even after hearing our issues and concerns.

     From our perspective, the modern kind of church membership has grown into something of significance because of many factors outside of the Bible. When we read the Bible, we get a completely different idea about church membership. How do we read our Bible so differently?

     Ever since coming to America, we have noticed the modern church membership trends. As years have gone by and internet information has grown, we have noticed the same arguments are often repeated in support of the modern idea of church membership. But we are primarily interested in what the biblical text says. Even if, theoretically, an angel might come and try to teach us something otherwise, we want to avoid the possibility of the culture influencing our thinking more than the Bible. We believe the biblical idea of membership is foundational to Christian identity.

     This modern kind of church membership seems to have the potential to disrupt the peace and harmony of Christians. From a human perspective, it may seem to have some positive advantages to help organize the church. The IRS 501(c)(3) rules actually require a 501(c)(3) membership. This IRS idea of membership does not allow multiple "churches" in town to share the same membership. Could we be making modern membership required because the IRS says we must have a membership? Is the IRS influencing our modern ideas of church membership? If we assume the 501(c)(3) model, it does make life easier to just follow along with what the IRS says. Some Christians leaders will naturally assume a 501(c)(3) organization is the right way to do church. But the modern kind of church membership also creates two kinds of Christians in every church "organization". Some Christians may feel so included ("in") that they may call other Christians "outsiders". We believe this is utterly foreign to the thinking of Paul in 1 Cor 5. We believe he is thinking of unbelievers in 1 Cor 5 when he refers to "outsiders".

     We admit that there is a strong openness to the modern 501(c)(3) kind of church membership these days. We agree that there is a prevalence of pro formal church membership teaching that may confuse the mind of the average Christian. But based on 1 Corinthians, etc, we believe Christians should be encouraged to discuss these ideas with the presenter rather than be given no choice other than hearing a one a way presentation with some hinting (or suggestion) of leaving to find another church where they can submit to the elders. This completely misses the point of our reasoning based on the Bible.

     But now we are hearing that "regular attenders" are considered "outsiders"! We heard that even Paul thinks of us as "outsiders" based on 1 Cor 5:12-13. We are shocked. All our life we understood Paul to be talking about "outsiders" as being unbelievers. If we look at our Reformation Study Bible notes, it agrees. Informally, as we ask our friends, they generally seem to understand this. We are surprised to find the modern promoters of "formal church membership" misunderstanding Paul.

     
     

     109.intro

     Introduction - Thought We Were Safe
     

     We thought we were safe at this local church, since it was said that "a fair number of attenders have chosen not to join" (2006). We understood that by following our understanding of the Bible, we would remain in the less respected group of "regular attenders." We knew there would be a cost to maintain our biblical view and conscience perspective. We sensed we would not be understood, but at least we would be safe. We thought we would be accepted spiritually as "members" because we know Jesus and because love can cover over a lot of things.

     We knew there would be misunderstanding and held in a lower status. As we looked over the formal membership documents years ago we understood this. Perhaps we might have continued looking for a church if we had seen the membership documents up front, but we had already been coming for a year. Our previous local church did not have formal church membership and just included all Christians as part of the church "body." Even with the differences on formal church membership we were happy with our choice attending the best church in town. As we read the membership documents, we stopped right away when we saw oaths and vows applied to a long list of requirements. Our conscience must be in submission to scripture. This is a priority. Perhaps we take some things a bit more literally than some of our friends. But we thought we would be safe as "regular attenders." We thought we could bear the consequences (not being able to vote, not being able to teach classes, not being understood, etc).

     
     

     110.intro

     Introduction - A Stricter Way
     

     It seems there is call to submit to elder decisions or else find another set of elders to submit to. This is not the way we understand biblical submission toward elders. The reason we say this is because there is a higher authority in the scripture to which we appeal. We believe we are appealing to the highest authority (when we follow our conscience convictions based on our biblical understanding). The beauty of the previous model was the allowance for different views (which we think is a very biblical concept in this particular case).

     
     

     111.intro

     Introduction
     

     Since the presentation, November 2021, we have been in a state of limbo. There was a suggestion for attenders to leave (a tentative suggestion), but we are not sure that is what was meant for sure. On one hand, we would like to discuss the situation, but on the other hand, we would also like to guard the conversation because there may be sensitive considerations. We would like to protect any sensitive concerns the presenter or the elders may have before any possible broader discussion on the topic. We find the situation a bit difficult. Unfortunately both the preparation of the sermons and our response have quite a few thoughts. There seems to be no way to simplify something that has become complex due to long term entrenched positions. Apparently, the Elders have spent about 1-1/2 years studying church membership. So there is obviously a lot to figure out. It takes time to patiently listen to each other and some points may need time to think about how to respond. It is very easy to misunderstand each other.

     
     

     112.intro

     Introduction
     

     We wonder if this idea was taught to the elders or if the elders have independently examined the scriptures to arrive at this conclusion. We wonder if the elders came to this conclusion based on their own self study of the Bible or if it has been something they have grown up with and just think seems right. The idea of "attenders" being "outsiders" based on 1 Cor 5 seems very strange to us. The sermons series is the first time we heard about this bizzare idea of "insiders" being modern church members and "outsiders" referring to anyone not joined to the IRS 501(c)(3) membership of a local church. This seems like a very strange interpretation to us.

     
     

     113.intro

     Introduction - Biblical, Challenge, Change
     

     The thief on the cross was theoretically a church member of his city wide church. There was just not enough time for him to attend and be recognized. We do not see formal joining in the Bible. And, we believe the Bible would clearly indicate this practice if it was important. We believe there is good evidence for supporting a much simpler understanding of biblical church membership. We present this view because we have been challenged on our biblical views and because we hope for a change in the church's views so Christians can hold to a freedom of their biblically based conscience convictions.

     
     

     114.intro

     Introduction - Placed outside the church
     

     We know that Paul is talking about real church membership in 1 Cor 12:12-30. ^{Eph 4:3-6, Romans 12:4-8}   We know this is very different from the modern kind of "501(c)(3) membership". We know Paul is really talking about unbelievers in 1 Cor 5:12-13, so being called an "outsider" translates to unbeliever. We are sure the elders probably did not mean this even in the slightest. But because we are so sure of Paul's meaning, it translates to us as if being called unbeliever. It communicates a separation, at some level, because we know what Paul means in 1 Cor 5 when he uses the term "outsider."

     
     

     115.intro

     Introduction - Face to Face Discussion
     

     Sometimes a person to person discussion can help clear things up. A sermon shortly after the 2021 series suggested face to face conversations rather than sticking with a text based exchanges. ^{12.facetoface}   We have been looking for this. Meanwhile, the refinements of this article may help inform others and will help remind us of some of the talking points in case there is a discussion someday. Discussion does seem like the biblical way (Matthew 18, etc). ^55.oneway   Unfortunately, our differences are sometimes full of misunderstandings. ^{56.misunderstanding}  

     
     

     116.otherside

     The Other Side
     

     You have heard the arguments in favor of "formal church membership" from sermons, videos and articles. ^{2.sermon 13.modern}  

     But have you heard the other side?

     "The one who states the case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." Proverbs 18:17.

     
     

     117.conclusion

     Conclusion Expanded
     

     We have noticed the resistance of recognizing Christians as "part" of "the church", because of "bylaws" and "formal church membership" related to "501(c)(3) regulations". We wonder why there is such strong feelings against many early church ways. We understand scripture as expecting obedience to commands, examples, traditions and ways of "all the churches." ^{59.traditions}   We feel that the Apostles deserve the highest respect. ^93.authority For us, modern "membership" is a massive confusion of the biblical meaning of the word "member" which is clearly meant to include all believers. Why does the "501(c)(3)" have such a powerful grip on church practice? Why are we called an "outsider", against Paul's meaning, even though we have been numbered and have participated for many years? Why is there no hesitancy to call Christians "outsider", when there is clear evidence that Paul means "unbeliever" when he says "outsiders." ^35.garland  

     
     

     118.permanent

     The Permanent Membership
     

     "... the one with its focus on Christ in heaven, the other with its center in Rome on earth -- went on day after day as a permanent reality"

     Banks, p. 39-40, Paul's Idea of Community, The Early House Churches in Their Cultural Setting, Robert J. Banks, Copyright 1994, Baker Academic