Is “church membership” biblical?
I wrote about church membership around a year ago on my old blog. This post is somewhat a continuation to that post but I have come to a slightly different conclusion, that is: (1) "church membership is ‘unbiblical’, as in, the early church did not have membership within the congregation and it appears that the early church purposefully avoided membership. (2) However, church membership in countries (or cities or locations) where there is freedom of religion may be appropriate or even necessary.'“ Allow me to explain.
1) The Early Church Avoided “Membership”
The general notion of membership, that is, some sort of exclusivity (i.e.: benefits, power, influence, community etc.) within a larger group of people, exists in the New Testament—namely the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, the Jerusalem council, was an institution with a hierarchy that may appear to be similar to many modern-day organizations and institutions (check out my Master’s thesis for more information). The Sanhedrin was exclusive to 71 members, in which most of the members were Pharisees (who were also married). Certainly, there were a bunch of other Pharisees who were not part of the Sanhedrin.
Joseph of Arimathea (the guy who asked for Jesus’ body) was a member (bouleutés) of the Sanhedrin (Lk 23:50) . This shows there is language of membership is in the New Testament. However, the early church purposely avoided transferring this term. The early church did not transfer the language of membership (bouleutés) nor a “high priest” (archiereus), while transferring that of eldership (prebuteros).
On the other hand, the early church used terminology of “member” (melos) in depicting believers as parts of a body (cf. Matt 5:29-30; Rom 6:13; 6:19; 7:5; 7:23; 1 Cor 6:15; 12:12; 12:18-22; Eph 4:25; 5:30; Jas 3:5-6). The presented image is organic, not “institutional” in the way of the Sanhedrin. A true Christian is a member of the church, and the believers of a church organically know these members. (I believe this is true to this day. You can tell who's a “member” of the body based on their fruits and commitment.)
Here’s an excerpt from my paper:
Thus, church membership in Scripture presents an imagery of wholeness and unity, that of one body. There is a distinct contrast between membership in Scripture and that in modern-day membership, as the imagery presented from institutional membership is oftentimes that of an umbrella, in which the organization oversees the individual members of the institution with necessary hierarchies.
A sharp difference between organic membership and organizational membership relates to the intrinsic connection between the member and the body. In the church, there is an intrinsic connection between the members and the body—such as that of one’s limbs to one’s body or that of a family. A member of a family is intrinsically connected to one’s family through blood, indicating that one cannot be separated from one’s family. On the other hand, organizational membership functions differently. There is no intrinsic connection between the member and the body, as the members of the Sanhedrin are individuals participating in the council and its benefits and power.
So, I think it is reasonable to say “no, church membership is not a biblical notion—in the sense that the early church did not opt for exclusive membership seen in some churches today”. But this leads to a more important point:
2) Why the Early Church did not require “membership”
The historical context sheds light to why the early Church did not require membership. The early church did not require membership because of the weight and implication of being a Christian. Being a Christian back then (and in many countries today) was no joke. It was a matter of life and death. To be a Christian—claiming Christ as Lord over all—was a death wish and could result in martyrdom. Think about how all the apostles were martyred (I recommend McDowell’s book "The Fate of the Apostles”).
Certainly, there were believers in the church that were lukewarm (i.e.: Church of Laodicea—Rev 3:14-22) and believers facing all kinds of sin (I immediately think of the Corinthian church). As a whole, however, the reality of “being a Christian = persecution” was far more vivid than countries today with freedom of religion. Even if it wasn’t death, it likely meant one would be banished from their homes and societies, explaining (one reason) why the early church lived together.
In light of this context, it is understandable why membership would not be required, as the believers would have experienced the bond shared through the Blood of Christ—they were literally going through life and death together as the tight-knit family of God. A believer could not exist outside the church.
3) How Church Membership could be appropriate
To begin, I don’t think churches in countries where being a Christian brings massive ramifications (countries where Christianity is illegal) require membership. As one who has lived and served at underground churches because of official persecution against Christianity, I have tasted and seen the organic relationship shared between believers. I would also argue that believers in those countries understand the cost of discipleship through personal and shared experiences.
However, the notion of church membership (in the institutional manner practiced today) becomes relevant when it comes to countries where Christianity is legal and, at least on paper, there is a “lower” cost of discipleship. (e.g., United States) Church membership might be more appropriate because it can be “easy” to be a Christian—at least a nominal one. There are certainly churches where a lot of people attend on Sundays in a ritualistic manner without actual commitment to Christ and His Lordship. Church membership, in those cases, may be an attempt to make a distinction between “Sunday church-goers” versus those who are truly in relationship with Jesus and His Bride. Church membership is thus an attempt to draw a believer’s commitment to God and the faith.
Still, I would contend that church membership is not necessary to distinguish true believers versus nominal/carnal/uncommitted ones as their lifestyles (produced fruit) should reflect their relationship with Christ. In every ministry I’ve led (with my wife), we know who is a true, committed, and mature follower of Christ without official membership distinctions (documentation, class etc.). There is an organic connection and lifestyle that reflects a true member of Christ’s body and the local church, oftentimes through shared convictions of holiness, righteousness, and the internal testimony (comfort) of the Holy Spirit.
4) Conclusion
Is Church membership biblical? Probably not, in the same way that a senior pastor is “unbiblical” (there was no senior pastor in the Early Church). The early church avoided transferring the “high priest role” of the Sanhedrin (e.g.: Jn 11:49) in its structure as well. This does not mean having a senior pastor in churches today is inappropriate (the development of the church in the 2nd Century seems to prove the point).
Still, we need to be cautious in considering a notion that is not strictly rooted in Scripture. The ideal of every church structure, purpose, mission, and method is to consider the example of early church. Therefore, there could be potential dangers with church membership, such as potential dangers with a senior pastor (i.e.: abuse of power, idolization, unhealthy influence etc,).
For example, institutional church membership may allow them to vote on certain issues. What’s the problem? First, I don’t think democratization and congregational voting on church policies is biblical (unless its extremely unimportant). This is not to say that the voices and opinions of church members do not matter. Scripture affirms that leadership/rulership lies in the elders and deacons. Church leadership should constantly keep in touch and conversation with the congregation (duh!). But that isn’t democratization.
Personally, I struggle to see grasp the benefits of institutional church membership. What does church membership actually guarantee? Even among “official members”, it is the fruit and lifestyle of specific mature Christians that stand out and reflect their “true membership” to Christ. On the other hand, I’ve encountered “church members” who are only “members” in name—not in reality. They do not serve nor display the fruit of the Spirit. No one respects them because their Christian faith is not respectable. Their “membership” only serves as a glorified title, perhaps tied to their tithes, without transformational and spiritual impact.
However, if you are reading this and you’re in a country (let’s say the USA) where one can be a nominal Christian, and you’re attending/noticed a church with membership, that may not be problem. Rather, the ultimate question is whether the congregation is truly a member (melos) of Christ’s body—proclaiming and exalting Christ as Lord and Savior with their message and their produced fruit (the lives of the believers)—and whether the church operates with blameless leaders. If a church is truly a biblical church—a part of Christ’s body—the membership should not be a problem.
I pray that we may all approach issues of membership biblically and that we may always examine ecclesial (church-related) topics with Scripture in the forefront.
