It seems that, every so often, I will run across a person who refuses to become a member of a local church because, as they declare, they do not see the concept of formal church membership in Scripture. Are such people correct? Is there a call in the Bible to go through the membership class, to declare commitment to a local body, and to affirm the beliefs and order of a local congregation? Is there a proper, biblical rationale to call people to formal membership. The membership skeptic demands proof. Can we oblige?
There are many arguments that can be made and have been made on behalf of church membership, and I do not wish to rehash them here. If you want to look at the question of church membership more fully, to wrestle through how it all works, visit 9marks.org and see the arguments that are put forward by that solid organization. However, in my reading today I was reminded of a verse in Scripture that, I believe, shifts the burden of proof off of the elders promoting membership and onto the shoulders of those who claim no such thing is commanded in Scripture.
Hebrews 13:17 – 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.
Now, first things first, that verse does not say anything about formal membership. There is no church covenant mentioned, no membership roll explicitly described. And, generally, at this point the membership skeptic feels confident.
The membership skeptic would say to us that the burden to prove membership rests on the shoulders of a membership proponent. I believe that there are things contained in this verse which powerfully shift the burden of proof for church membership off of the shoulders of the proponent of membership and onto the shoulders of the skeptic. Here are three phrases which I argue at least allow if not codify church membership from this verse, and which a membership skeptic bears the burden of disproving:
· Obey your leaders
· keeping watch over your souls
· with joy and not with groaning
The verse says, “obey your leaders.” That is not a statement that says only obey your leaders if they can produce a specific prooftext for you. The verse is not telling folks, only obey if you see in Scripture that the instruction given to you is actually a direct instruction from God. If such were the intent of the verse, the command should not be “obey your leaders,” but rather “obey what you see in Scripture.”
Of course, we are not to follow a church leader who directs us against Scripture. We are not to follow a person as he leads us into sin or as he makes inappropriately restrictive commands. However, there seems to be, in the call to obedience, a right of leaders to lead, meaning they can instruct people’s behavior at some level so long as that instruction is not a violation of biblical principle.
Thus, if the leaders in a church say that they want people who are a part of that church to covenant together and become part of a formal membership roll, the burden of proof now falls on the membership skeptic to produce a biblical command against the directive of the leaders of the local church. It is not required that the elders prove that membership is required by Scripture. The burden is on the skeptic to show a proof against membership. And I have yet to ever hear any skeptic’s argument go further than to say they are unconvinced of the requirement for membership. Thus, “obey your leaders” makes the case for membership so long as the leaders are in churches that have formal membership.
Second, the phrase “keeping watch over your souls” indicates membership. Those who are leaders and to be obeyed in Hebrews 13:17 have a responsibility to keep watch over the souls of those they lead. Here is the simple question: Over whose souls are leaders to keep watch? As a pastor, am I charged with keeping watch over every human soul? Am I charged with keeping watch over the souls of all in my city, a town of around two million? Am I to keep watch over the souls of every visitor to our Sunday morning services? How many visits must they make before I know that I am watching over their souls?
It is apparent that the author of the book of Hebrews knew that there was some appropriate method for the leaders of the local congregation to know over whose souls they were to keep watch. How did they know? The only sensible way had to include a person’s voluntarily communicating to the leaders that they wished to be united with the local congregation and thus under the care of the shepherds. Call it what you will, that is membership. The burden of proof here shifts to the skeptic to come up with another, logical and biblical argument that proves that this is not some sort of formal membership that is understood by leader and led alike.
Finally, the phrase “with joy and not with groaning” is a clincher. Those under the leadership of elders are to let them lead with joy and not to give them cause to groan. Simply speaking personally as an elder, I will say this: It gives me joy when a person formally, openly, and honestly declares himself or herself to be under our church’s care, committed to the body, ready to serve. The way that we do this is with membership. So, in our congregation, to let us lead with joy and not with groaning is not to be a visitor who has not declared commitment. Instead, to help us lead with joy is to declare formally that you are in, one of the family, under our watch care. The way we do this is through formal membership processes. To oppose membership is to make our jobs harder, causing groaning. Again, the burden of disproving this or overturning it with biblical cause is on the shoulders of the membership skeptic, not on the shoulders of the leaders who have agreed on a simple and formal way to know whom we lead.
There is, of course, much more in the New Testament that indicates that formal membership in the local church was understood. All of that is worth studying. However, it is also wise for those of us who have membership in our local churches to recognize that the burden of proof to oppose membership is on the shoulders of the skeptic who must be able to biblically and convincingly disprove the conclusions drawn from the three phrases in Hebrews 13:17. And, while I recognize that authoritarian and legalistic leadership is a danger to be opposed—a danger which Scripture also teaches us how to deal with—the general and clear call in this verse is to have leaders, acknowledged leaders, who have authority, acknowledged authority, over people who are voluntarily led. This implies membership, a membership which empowers leaders to keep watch with joy.
One objection to what I have written has come to me as I continued to think this issue through. Does what I have just written do away with the principle of sola scriptura? Would a proponent of the regulative principle in worship have to oppose this? My hope is not. I have no belief at all that the elders of a church have the right to develop a doctrine that is not present in Scripture. However, I would argue that the elders in a local church have every right to extrapolate from Scripture sensible practices that fit with the overall tone and purpose of the text. So, for example, while Scripture does not have a policy present for child pick-up from an event, there is nothing wrong with a church’s leadership developing a check-in policy for the protection of children. While Scripture does not say anything about how many cups to use in communion, the elders of the church may develop a plan that works best for the particular church and its context. The point of a membership roll is for the protection of members and the shepherding of the flock. The concept of a membership seems to be implied or at least allowed by Hebrews 13:17 along with many other passages. So, no, I have no intent to promote elder authority beyond sola scriptura. However, I deny that there is anything out of biblical bounds in leaders of a church organizing things for the more faithful shepherding of the flock.
Does this view that I am proposing allow for an authoritarian eldership? No, I do not think so at all. Praise God, the congregation as a unit has the right to speak into the lives of the elders to challenge them where they are in sin. Now, Paul puts clear checks in place. Accusations against an elder are not to be entertained apart from witnesses. Obviously, Paul wanted to keep the church from being rocked by the waves of every disgruntled person in the congregation. But, for sure, if the elders are developing requirements for church life that are improper or unduly harsh, the body has the right to speak back regarding that issue.
Now, let me go back and reiterate the main point I am making: opposition to formal church membership is something that the skeptic must prove, not the church leader. If someone wants to try to have a church without a formal membership, they are not necessarily in sin so long as they have a method of obeying the commands of body life in Scripture. However, I would suggest that such an attempt is far more difficult and less effective—thus less obedient—than it is to have a membership roll and policy. But, and this is the important piece for those who argue against formal memberships, the church that has wisely chosen a formal membership policy has every right to do so and to expect those who wish to be a part of the life of that church to go through the process.
Pastor Travis Peterson 