Church Membership and Church Covenants
Most Christians today embrace some level of approval of formal church membership, although this may be changing. Even though there is a general acceptance and approval of the concept of church membership, in practice there often exists a shallow understanding that results in a weak commitment to the church.
It is important for Christians to turn again and again to the Word itself to discover the needed corrective truth that will open to us the fullness of the blessing that God intended to bestow upon us through the church. I am encouraging the readers of this blog to become engaged in this study. Many of us are part of a tradition that values strong commitments to a local assembly or denomination. I am hoping to present a series of articles that explores the issue of church membership and church covenants. I do not presume to have all the answers. Yet, I see it as an emerging issue of importance. Some of the old paradigms are being challenged. That is not bad in itself. But, we clearly need more than an emotional response. So, I will be waiting for your reasoned questions and responses. I value your insights.
The Nature of the Church
Rightly understood, one can not speak too highly of the church for it is the body of Christ. To defame the church is to defame Christ. Those who say I do not need the church to be a part of Christ have seriously misread the Scriptures. This does not mean we can make man the center of our faith. Jesus must be the center of true faith. Paul says that he was given grace so that he “should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known the church the manifold wisdom of God,…” (Eph. 3:8-10). God purposed to make known the unsearchable riches of Christ through the church. The church is portrayed often in the New Testament as the body of Christ. The church is central simply because Jesus is central. Jesus and the church cannot be divided from our perspective. The church has no identity apart from Jesus.
God, through Abraham, chose a nation of people for a special relationship. Israel became His people by a covenant. Peter tells of another group of people who were called. “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” (I Pet. 2: 9, 10)
Peter is of course referring to the church. In this chapter he compares the church to a spiritual house in which Christ is the cornerstone. God chose the church to be His instrument of praise. While God certainly chooses and uses men at an individual level, the individual Christian’s identity is not his own. He is simply “one of the called”. He is a member of a holy nation, called by God to praise God’s name and to accomplish God’s purposes.
Some would say the church is invisible. For many years after Pentecost the Roman government was hostile to the church. In fact the Roman government tried to destroy the church. Constantine introduced a new approach. When it became apparent the church could not be destroyed by decree and force, Constantine decided to unite the church and the State. Now all citizens would be Christians, whether they had been regenerated or not. This created a new problem. Many individuals who were Christian in name were not acting like Christians. Augustine and later the reformer Luther, as well as others, said the true Christians were hid in the church. They were invisible. No one knew for sure who they were.
The Anabaptists, as well as other faithful groups before them, rejected this concept. They believed the church was called-out from the masses. The church was to be a holy people. The church would be highly visible because the Christian would be known by his love and his holy walk. The life they lived would clearly identify them as followers of Jesus.
Accountability in the Church
Most Christians recognize that they ultimately have accountability to God. Some Christians struggle with the thought of accountability to the church.
All true authority resides with God. God has chosen to delegate authority. It is never autonomous.
God has delegated authority to civil rulers. They have a God-given purpose to fulfill. God uses civil authority to accomplish part of his purposes, even when the civil authority is unaware of God. Paul states that the civil authority is “the minister of God to thee for good.” (Rom. 13:4) Paul warns us that to resist this authority is to resist the decree of God.
From the beginning of the New Testament church we see that there were individuals who were in places of authority. First, we see the Apostles were given authority to teach and discipline in the church. After the Apostles, we find there were others who were called to “take the oversight”. (I Pet. 5:2) In Hebrews 13:6, 17 the believers were encouraged by the Apostle Paul to remember those who had rule over them and to obey and submit. He further states that those who are called to rule must give account.
Leadership is viewed in the Scriptures as servanthood. Peter says the leaders are to be examples to the flock, not lords. Humility is the mark of a faithful leader.
Leadership and submission have no meaning where there is no accountability. If there is no accountability, membership in the church has no meaning. There can be no discipline if there is no agreement to mutual accountability in the body.
Discipline is important to the body of Christ. Not all discipline is corrective. In fact, the majority of discipline in a healthy church will be formative. By teaching, preaching, exhortation and encouragement holiness is formed in the hearts and lives of the believers.
When a Christian sins and willfully refuses to repent and leave his sin, there is an obligation for the church to respond. Matthew 18 defines the response when the sin is brother against brother. There will be other situations where the primary responsibility to respond will rest on the church leadership.
We do not embrace perfectionism. There will always be sin in the church. The sin that calls for a response by the church is sin that is not forsaken. It may be sin that is not recognized by the one who commits the sin. Or, it may be recognized, but not repented of and forsaken. Some sins, because of their public nature or the damage they have done to the reputation of the church in the local community, will require a response by the church, even if there is immediate repentance.
Without discipline, church membership loses its meaning. Without discipline in the church, evangelism loses its meaning. The gospel is most effective when it is proclaimed by a faithful church. Efforts to reach out to the community will be severely undermined if sin in the body is ignored or dealt with ineffectively.
What are you thoughts on these propositions? I recognize that different interpretations and applications can be applied to these statements. I will attempt to develop this theme in future posts.
6 thoughts on “Church Membership and Church Covenants”
I appreciate the thoughts in this article. I am wondering about the church response in the case of sin that is public in nature. What does that response look like? Is the response a public response or an internal response?
Dennis, I am assuming your question relates to the sentence addressing sins of a public nature. I recognize that there is a certain amount of risk in making statements like this because they are hypothetical. Generally, I would think that most issues of serious failure on the part of an individual who is a church member would be addressed within the local assembly. Because there are so many possible scenarios a congregation could be wrestling with, I find it hard to say that there is one protocol that fits all situations. It becomes more challenging if a member’s sin is also a violation of civil law. Maybe I am missing your question altogether. If so, feel free to expand your question.
Excellent observations, and quite thought-provoking to me. As Michael Svigel has observed, in contrast to the doctrine of salvation (which has been the subject of ponderous tomes and at the root of major church splits), the doctrine of the church has not been frequently addressed or thoroughly developed. It sometimes seems to me an almost accidental by-product of our views on salvation, plus our own particular ecclesiastical tradition. So my question is, who are we talking about when we refer to the church?
In agreement with what’s written above, the Anabaptist concepts of “the essence of Christianity as discipleship” and “the church as a brotherhood” (H. S. Bender, “The Anabaptist Vision”) are profound and foundational. But do we actually believe and live by this? How can the latter be realized if the former is less than a primary focus?
I think I read somewhere (can’t find it now) that Anabaptists throughout their history, in working out their two-kingdom theology, have often relegated other traditions (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, etc.) to the category of the world. This left only themselves in the category of the Kingdom of God. While I’m not sure I know anyone today who would make this claim, I sometimes feel an uncomfortable tension from some individuals within the conservative Brethren groups when referring to members of other groups. They’re referred to as people who “claim to be Christian”, or our “cousins” instead of our brothers in Christ — in contrast to members of our own group, whose salvation it’s considered offensive to question (fruits or lack thereof notwithstanding). Have other people observed this? What does this tell us about the practical theology in our own hearts?
Is it true that we cannot know with absolute certainty whether another person is saved? If so, how does this effect our concept of the “church” as a visible, distinct group?
Thank you Adam for your comments and questions. I think many believers in the Anabaptist/Pietist tradition are wrestling with the concept of “church”. Those of us in the “brethren” tradition have inherited, maybe unconsciously, very distinct views on church as you suggested. Contrast that to the millennial generation, who some have suggested, see little value in or even have little tolerance for denominationalism.
Carl F. Bowman in his book, “Brethren Society”, suggests that the primary impulse of the Brethren was to restore primitive Christianity. He sees four main elements of the Brethren viewpoint: 1.) Childlike faith; 2.) Unity- to be of one mind in faith and in practice; 3.) Self denial- to deny one’s own selfish will and to submit to the laws of God’s house; 4.)Separartion from the sinful world.
I think it would be fair to say that the Brethren at times did not trust any faith outside of their own experience. Today, the pendulum has swung far the other way for many and the question that is being quietly asked, “Is there any reason for a distinctive group?”. What about denominational loyalty? Is it Biblical?
I perceive the younger generation no longer has the “built-in” perception of church that the older generation may still retain. The younger generation of “brethren” are very quickly losing or abandoning the historical perspective on numerous issues.
There are at least two ways we can respond. One is to dig in and try to hold everything “like it was”. A second response would be to take a fresh look at these issues from a Biblical perspective. I personally value history. It can teach us a lot. But, one of the things we clearly need to avoid in all these discussions is throwing out tired and worn out statements to defend the “way it was”. We need thoughtful and fresh expressions.
Your questions are appropriate Adam. Maybe some more individuals will weigh in on this topic.
DSJ
One thing I find challenging or question is, who is the Church? (conservative vs. non-conservative and non-denominational churches) We look so different and have different beliefs and practices of what the Bible says and teaches, yet our goal, it seems, is the same, to bring the gospel of Jesus to a world that is lost and needs the Savior.
From my experience, I know many people who are Christians because they talk about it, but can’t tell by looking at them. I tend not to talk a whole lot, but people I’ve worked with soon find out I’m a Christian, mostly by my actions I guess. (one co-worker was so proud of herself because she found out I was a “Mennonite” after working with me twice).
I find it a little difficult to be critical of those who are active in practicing much of what Jesus teaches. But, it leaves a question because they neglect some of the the other things that are so clearly taught.
With regard to church membership, I find that a little difficult at times too. I think because it requires submission, and that goes against the old nature. However, to me the benefits of church membership clearly outweigh the risk to being”free”.
There is security and satisfaction, a sense of oneness and unity in being part of a group that holds the same values and standards.
Thank you for your thoughts and questions Owen. I think all of us would agree that there is a universal church. There are many sincere believers in every community and around the world.
I would also suspect that there are many Christians who are a part of the “plain” traditions who struggle to know how to reconcile their tradition with the church universal. How can others ignore or even oppose some of the teachings we value and believe are Biblical and still be a Christian?
This dilemma creates possibly several difficulties. One difficulty is how do we know who is appropriate to partner with in Christian work or outreach? Is it judging other Christians to say to them that we can’t work with them?
I am curious to know if you or any others reading this blog have any insights into these perplexing questions? How can we both faithful and graceful?
DSJ
Comments are closed.