Greg,

Thanks for alerting us to your participation in Southern's panel discussion on multi-site churches.  I not only appreciate the link, but appreciated how you represented the "opposed" position and how all the men engaged one another charitably.  It was a good Christian "scuffle."  Which is to say, nobody got hurt and there was love for all.  Thanks for modeling that, brothers.

I have to say, though, the multi-site church issue feels like it's in that category with emergent churches for me--something receiving a lot of attention and ink disproportionate to it's importance and impact.  That's not to say it's altogether unimportant and having absolutely no impact; I just don't think it's huge on either score.  At best, I think it's too early to tell.  But what do I know?  I'm not a real student of the movement.

The one issue I am troubled by in these discussions, though, is the differing approaches to the Scripture.  Are we to take a regulative or normative approach?  Are we to read silence as tacit approval for an innovation or a "freedom"?  Or, are we to follow what is commanded, modeled, and their necessary consequences to govern our thought and practice?  It seems that if we argue from silence to "freedom," we're going to be in a whole heap of trouble when it comes to pragmatic innovations.  And we'll find ourselves at risk of inadvertantly untangling some knots that God in His wisdom tied.

I suppose that's an argument from and for conservatism in our approach to Scritpure and the life of the church.  But it's not an argument against growth or against actively and aggressively seeking the salvation of sinners.  The argument for multi-site, insofar as it hinges on calls to reach more people, makes a presumption at this point.  Some seem to presume that if you're growing and you're not interested in multi-site then you just may be limiting the growth potential of the kingdom.  And conversely, if you are a practitioner of multi-site you're increasing the growth potential of the kingdom.  Hmm....  Maybe....  For me, jury's out on that.  Sounds spurious.  And it flirts with a "size equals success" error.

Al asked a wonderful question when he asked Pastor Ezzell, "What are you losing with multi-site?"  I thought the pastor gave an honest and for him painful answer.  He's losing contact with his people.  On some level we all do at some point of appreciable size.  But should we intentionally choose a strategy that increases the likelihood of that loss?  Seems unwise. 

Perhaps the limits of single-site, single-serivce congregational life are limits divinely appointed to ensure careful pastoral oversight.  To ensure none of us actually have more sheep than we can handle by God's grace.  Perhaps.

We should all want our churches to grow... to grow with new converts to the faith as rapidly as we can manage it ... and to grow increasingly deeper in spiritual maturity until we all reach the fullness of Christ.  But at any cost or by any means necessary? 

I am humbled by John Knight's comments to my post on special needs the other day (you can read the full response at the second website listed below).  He has now alerted me to two resources that I did not know existed, both Bethlehem Baptist Church related.  I pray the church of Jesus Christ not miss God-given opportunities to shepherd all His people.

Check out these two websites:
http://www.hopeingod.org/MinistriesSpecialNeeds.aspx
www.theworksofGod.com

Matt, I think you are correct.  If the person is unable to communicate their trust in Christ, the church shouldn't take them into membership.  This isn't to say they don't trust Christ, but rather simply that they can't communicate it in a credible way.

I took a call from an elder in a church yesterday asking about membership for one who has "special needs", who is apparently severely limited in his ability to relate and converse, to the point of an inability to convey the gospel in any meaningful way.  The parents of this 30 year old man are anxious to have him received into membership.  This family lives in the southern part of the U.S. and, as the elder described it, believe membership is a "right." 

This is one of those times where I don't want to be an elder/pastor.  These situations break one's heart and cause sleepless nights -- am I doing the right thing by admitting or denying membership? 

At some point you have to make a decision.  As difficult as it is and given the severity of the applicant's condition, I counseled the elder to view this situation as analogous to a child who was too young to communicate a credible profession of faith and therefore not grant membership.  We're not saying he is not a Christian; we're simply saying it is nearly impossible for us (the church) to discern.  But of course the church should extend care to him in every way possible.  

I was asked for counsel on this matter and don't have much more to go on then I have conveyed in this post.  Can anyone give some guidelines in such a matter without getting into specifics?

I've gotten into several conversations with friends lately about which church they should join, or how they should advise their friends to evaluate a church. 

I was recently reading The Top 100 Questions, by Richard Bewes (Rector, All Souls', Langham Place, London 1983-2004), and he had 4 good questions to ask yourself about the church you've been visiting:

1.  Does the Bible actually get opened here?

2.  Is this the kind of church you could take an uncommitted friend to?

3.  Is there a recognisably New Testament feel to the church?

    Here's what he meant in this question:  "Is it Trinitarian in its emphasis on Father, Son and Holy Spirit as equally God?  Is the saving death of Christ at its centre (I Cor. 2:2)?  Do the hymns reflect this?  Are baptism and the Lord's Supper . . . a proper part of the church . . . ?"

4.  On the whole, are the arrows pointing outwards from the church?

In fact, these are 4 good question not just to tell your friend, but for yourself as you pray for and evaluate your own church.

I'm pretty confident that the topic most discussed in our new members' classes is baptism.  We have folks coming from around the world and most every denominational background it seems.  And they want to know about baptism, our practice and their experience.

In the membership interviews, I've long suspected that about half the people coming for membership report that they were not believers at the time they were "baptized."  And, no, this is not simply all the Presbyterian brethren now joining a Baptist church; it's a lot of Baptists and other believers' baptism churches.

My anecdotal sense was given a little statistical support from John Hammett's book, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches.  Here's an interesting paragraph:

The validity of many contemporary baptisms was further challenged by a 1993 study done by the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.  In their study of adult baptisms (those over eighteen years of age) in Southern Baptist churches in 1993, they found that the majority of adult baptisms (60%) could be called rebaptisms.  Some were baptisms of those who had previously been baptized as infants, but 36 percent of these adult baptisms were of those who had been previously baptized in Southern Baptist churches.  When asked why they were seeking rebaptism, many said that it was because they had not been regenerate believers when they were first baptized (Phillip B. Jones et al., A Study of Adults Baptized in Southern Baptist Churches, 1993 (Atlanta: Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1995), p. 5.  Cited in Hammett, p. 112).

Hammett helpfully states the obvious: "This means that either these individuals were unusually deceptive or that some churches and pastors baptized these individuals without clear assurance that they were baptizing believers."  I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess the latter.

First, if spell-check says "rebaptisms" isn't a word, it's probably a made-up idea.

Second, if you're reading this and it describes your pastoral practice: Stop that.  You're hurting the individual and the church.  Stop it.  Only baptize believers, or at least be a consistent Presbyterian.  We love you Lig!

Okay... Hammett is much more helpful than my comments above.  Here's his next paragraph (may the church in the West learn from these brethren):

By way of contrast, Baptists in other parts of the world do not have this problem.  In Romania, while there is no rule, no one would think of asking for baptism prior to the age of fourteen.  The same is true of many Baptist groups in Africa and Asia.  I was struck by the practices of Baptist churches I saw in Brazil.  Upon profession of faith, a new convert was placed in a new convert's class for from six to thirteen weeks.  The central purpose of this class was to make as sure as humanly possible that the individuals involved had understood the gospel and were making valid professions of faith.  After the class, the next step in the process of preparation for baptism was speaking to the congregation.  Candidates described their experience of conversion and answered questions from the pastor and congregation concerning what they believed about Christ, their experience of conviction of sin, and their understanding of the gospel.  Only then did the congregation vote to baptize the individuals.  The contrast with the lack of care concerning baptismal candidates in Baptist churches in North America is striking.  Regenerate church membership began to disappear when Baptist churches in North America began to baptize and bring in members who gave no visible evidence of regeneration.

It was interesting to read the uproar last week about the salary Manhattan's famous Riverside Church offered its new pastor. The church is infamous in evangelical circles for its pastors that have stretched evangelical tenets to their breaking point--Harry Emerson Fosdick in the 30's and 40's, William Sloane Coffin in the 70's and 80's. It started as a Baptist church but its membership policies were broadened in the 1930's. Today, Riverside describes itself as "interdenominational" and is formally associated with the United Church of Christ and American Baptist Convention.

Greg,

I appreciated the last post on membership, particularly the responsibility/obligation aspect of exercising the keys.  And the point about deciding to baptize and deciding to be baptized requiring some explicit decision making about professions, etc.  Helpful, brother.  Looking forward to Jonathan's book.  Speaking of which... do you have to be a U.S. resident to get a manuscript or something???

As I read Tim's response to you, I wondered if we're not actually closer than we think.  So, if I understand Tim correctly, he's identifying baptism as the defining rite for entrance into the visible community.  We would agree with that, wouldn't we?  I mean, I don't think any of us practice baptizing folks without taking them into the membership of the church.  As I think about it, we try to temporally connect baptism with adoption into the membership of the church, as we presume was the practice of the early church.  So, I'm wondering out loud if the difference boils down to how clearly we communicate to people the association we believe must exist between baptism and self-conscious membership/mutual belonging.  The particular procedures we may use around that baptism-membership unon may vary (someone may lead with a six session new members' class; someone else may have a voice vote following the baptism service; etc.).  But that the union of baptism and membership exists in the NT is shared by all. 

So perhaps this all boils down to a somewhat pragmatic question: Which set of conversations/practices/procedures etc. increase the likelihood of healthy body life in a local congregation?

For my part, I would contend that the clearer we make mutual belonging and commitment, the better the membership practice.  There are some other things I'd want to make clear that strengthen the belonging and commitment (theological commitments, for example), but the heart of it is explicit intention and attention to 'one anothering' under the care of the elders for the advance of the gospel.

Thoughts??

Last night I began reading through John Stott's The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor.  A dear member of the church gave me an autographed copy after a visit to London and All Souls where Stott served for so many years.

After reading the preface and the first chapter, I'm a little saddened that I've left this book unread for so long.  It's vintage Stott--relentlessly clear and biblically centered.  In the opening chapter, he spelled out a couple assumptions undergirding the book, assumptions pertinent for recent discussions here on the blog.

Stott writes:

First, I am assuming that we are all committed to the church.  We are not only Christian people; we are also church people.  We are not only committed to Christ, we are also committed to the body of Christ.  At least I hope so.  I trust that none of my readers is that grotesque anomaly, an unchurched Christian.  The New Testament knows nothing of such a person.  For the church lies at the very centre of the eternal purpose of God.  It is not a divine afterthought.  It is not an accident of history.  On the contrary, the church is God's new community.  For his purpose, conceived in a past eternity, being worked out in history, and to be perfected in a future eternity, is not just to save isolated individuals and so perpetuate our loneliness, but rather to build his church, that is, to call out of the world a people for his own glory. ... So then, the reason we are committed to the church is that God is so committed.

A little later, Stott meditates on Acts 2:47 and the hints there of the early church's commitment to evangelism.  Acts 2:47 reads, "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."  One of the truths Stott directs us to is:

The Lord did two things together.  He 'added to their number... those who were being saved.'  He didn't add them to the church without saving them, and he didn't save them without adding them to the church.  Salvation and church membership went together; they still do.

In our day, we unfortunately have broken apart what the early church seemed to view as a natural, necessary, and seamless chain of events: gospel preaching and evangelism, leading to conversion and baptism, leading to church membership and communion.  It's difficult to imagine that Paul or Peter or John could conceive of something called a 'Christian' that was not a baptized, communing member of the church.  I think Stott is absolute correct when he refers to such creatures as a "grotesque anomaly."  Part of what is critical to healthy community in the church is the conceptual and temporal tightening of the events in this chain.  The clearer these things are (the gospel, conversion, the practice and meaning of baptism, church membership and the privilege of communion) and the more joined together they are in practice the stronger will be the ties that bind the church.  Loosen these and you unravel the church.

Mike, thanks for the interview with Steve Timmis.  Steve, thanks for the gracious and thought-provoking contributions.

I'm still nibbling on the comments about preaching.  But I wanted to toss out a couple words about membership.  Since coming to FBC, I've had conversation with tons of people about church membership.  Sometimes I'm explaining or defending the concept, other times I'm answering questions, and still other times I'm trying to connect the concept to relevant other issues like baptism and the Lord's supper.

As I think about Tim's approach, I'd have to say it only works in a small setting.  Mike, I think your comment/observation about setting is critical and not secondary at all.  You can't address membership by a "whoever comes consistently" approach in a large setting because you can't know who is coming consistently and you can't even know who is or isn't a Christian unless there is some process for examination.

Let me give three anecdotes from conversations I've had since coming to FBC.  The names are changed to protect the innocent.

Mary

Pastor T: So, Mary... it's been great having you around.  You're such an encouragement at our services and Bible study.  Can I ask you a question?  Why haven't you joined the church?

Mary: What?  I've been a member of the church for 15 years!

Pastor T: Seriously?  We've looked at the records going back to when they were kept by hand.  We searched twice and can't find any mention of your joining.  And, sadly, though I've come to know you a bit, others really don't.  How do you think that happened?

Mary: I don't know.  But I've been here for 15 years.  And I want everyone to know that I love and am committed to this church.

This was an actual conversation.  I think it fits the markers that Steve laid out for their concept of "church belonging."  But given our context, a couple hundred on Sunday mornings, Mary was more likely to slip through the cracks than receive the kind of necessary and admirable discipling that Timmis is rightly calling us to.  Without a process for making her known, considering her profession, and affirming mutual commitment between the whole and the individual, the ability to disciple is seriously diminished.  In fact, Mary had never been baptized as a professing believer.  There can't be effective disciple-making and "church belonging" if the person isn't known to the church.

Eric

Pastor T: So, Eric... we've been updating the membership directory over the past couple months, trying to add updated photos of all the members.  I see you've not taken a picture.  Why not?  You're a member.

Eric: What?  I'm not a member here.  I've been coming here for years, was even baptized here, but I'm not a member.

Pastor T: How did you get to be included in the membership?

Eric: I don't know.  But could you please remove me from the membership list?  There are some things I need to work through before joining any church.

Here the problem was including a regular attender who didn't want to be included.  I'm afraid that in a church of any size, there are always some number of such folks.  They may be Christians, but that doesn't mean they want to join.  The reasons vary: (a) don't understand the importance of membership; (b) been hurt by previous churches; (c) avoiding accountability or submission to leadership, and so on.  But it would be a mistake to just assume that such folks want to be "members" or be a part of "church belonging" just because they've shown up over a period of time.  Their regular attendance may communicate little more than lifelong habit because they grew up in a religious fami.

Azariah

Pastor T: Hello, is this Azariah?  Good to finally connect with you.  I've been hoping to catch up with all the members of the church, to get to know them as I settle into the pastorate here.

Azariah: Good to hear from you.  I'm glad you called and I've been appreciating your sermons (as I said earlier, these are fictionalized accounts!).  Actually, I've been meaning to talk with you about something you keep saying in your sermons.

Pastor T: Oh yeah.  What's that?

Azariah: It's the constant reference you keep making to the crucifixion and the necessity of trusting in Jesus alone.  Why do you keep saying that?  That's a terribly outdated mode of thinking.  Personally, I don't think a person must believe on Jesus.  A good Muslim or a faithful Hindu is as close to God as many Christians I know.  And personally, I dabble in a lot of different religious ideas.  I don't think Christianity or Jesus has a monopoly on spiritual truth.

Pastor T: So, would you describe yourself as a Christian?  What do you think it means to be a Christian?

Azariah: No, not really.  I'm not really sure what it means to be a Christian; attend a church and live a good life I reckon.  But anyway, we're all on a journey.  And everybody has to find their own path.  When I joined the church a few years back it was mainly because I felt comfortable here and found encouragement and strength.  I didn't sign on to all this 'Jesus is the only way' stuff.

Well, no membership practice is perfect.  So a formal practice isn't the cure all for the church's woes.  Sometimes even non-Christians make their way into the membership.  But that's the exception rather than the rule when a good membership culture and practice is in place.  It's closer to the rule when "church belonging" is equated to "whoever consistently attends." 

At the end of the day, I'm wondering how the churches Steve describes keep the distinction between the church and the world, and to what extent they intend to limit "church belonging" to regenerate members.  The approach only seems to work in small settings where everybody knows your name... and they're always glad you came.  No, wait, that's Cheers.  But you get my point.

Hey Jonathan,

OK, I'll bite on your question.

There are several balls to keep in the air here:

1. It can be difficult to find a good church when you move.
2. Some churches don't take in new members very frequently.    
3. Christians should be under the care and discipline of a church. 
4. The church needs to keep its witness clear and its membership meaningful.  

It seems like most churches that are trying to have meaningful membership either have some mechanism for automatically removing members after a certain period of time (which serves #4 well but isn't so helpful for #3) or deals with it on a case-by-case basis (which serves #3 well but is time consuming and can be unhelpful for #4 if it's not followed up rigorously).

I began my pastorate thinking that case-by-case was the best way to handle these situations.  But as the church gets bigger and more people move away, I am seeing the virtue of the "we love you, but six months and you're off the rolls" approach to folks who haven't joined another church.  It's simply too much to keep in contact with everyone and follow up on them in a way that would constitute meaningful long-distance shepherding.  Basically, their membership becomes meaningless after a short while of living out of the area anyway.

Just my two cents.

Here's a Desiring God 2 minute video with Josh Harris on church involvement. Take a look.

When I flew into London at the beginning of the year, the group for which I was preaching sent a car service to pick me up from airport. It was a long drive to Luton, where I was staying (it's like Cleveland, just without all the charm), and so Roy the Cabbie immediately began to evangelize me. About 45 minutes into his personal testimony, I was able to interrupt Roy and tell him that I too was a Christian. We chatted for a while and I asked him about the church of which he was a part.

He replied, "I have no use for the church. I've got my preachers on the radio, my Bible in the glove box, and my passengers are my congregants. What do I need the church for?"

Well, I don't think I changed Roy's mind that night. But he came to mind in the past weeks as I have been reminded again what a precious gift the church is to God's people.

In the last week or two of my wife's pregnancy, the doctors became concerned that there might be something seriously wrong with the baby. We wouldn't know until he was born, but we were facing the possibility of a child who would know a lifetime of suffering or even worse. That's hard stuff for a parent to face, but by God's grace we didn't face it alone.

A few ways the church met us in our time of need:

-- The sermon text for that Sunday was Luke 12:4-34. Not many better passages to reflect on then the Savior's words "Fear not, little flock".

-- Brothers and sisters wept with us and prayed tirelessly. Their sympathy was palpable.

-- Some families had already served us by going through suffering with faith and hope. We were able to look at them and their testimony and be reminded that God will sustain us through the worst.

-- When the baby was born healthy (all thanks to God), our joy was reflected to us in scores of phone calls and emails and hugs and handshakes all week.

In one sense, this is nothing special: stuff like this happens in thousands of churches all over the world every week. Joys are celebrated, sorrows are shared, burdens are born and love is grown.

In another sense, this is the most special thing in the world: an absolutely gracious gift from God to his people.

Roy the cabbie, wherever you are, I hope you've found a good church.

In an earlier post, one reader asked:

Are small groups Scripturally valid? Or, are they a modern aberration?

The reader goes on to say that small groups...

feel like ... a great opportunity to foster relationships with those within my congregation, and perhaps a great context for a non-pastor to disciple younger believers. However, I have been chided by some fellow Reformed folk for my willingness to do this; they see the Word and Sacrament as the primary means for Christian growth, and feel small groups have their roots in Rogerian psychotherapy rather than the Scriptures. Help!

What say ye?  What guidance does the Scripture give for small groups?  Does dude need to switch from Rogerian psychotherapy to Neo-Freudian psychoanalysis?  Or maybe a straight behavior mod approach a la Thorndike or Wolpe?

Dever is on sabbatical cleaning his office, so I guess us working class men have to address this one.

"Apart from small groups, is it possible for a church of 300+ to be united in purpose and so connected that all suffer/rejoice together and that all have "the same care for one another"?"

That's what one person asked in the comments thread to a post Matt Schmucker ordered me to write on technology and community.  Speaking of Matt... it must be nice to sit around and listen to Sovereign Grace-produced T4G CDs and demand that other people do all the real posting!  But I'm not bitter or anything.

The post on technology and community is here for any interested.

The question above is a good question, and it seems to be based on the premise "large is bad for community."  At least there is the presumption that beyond certain membership limits, community simply cannot be meaningful.  And so much of the writing on "community" carries this tone if not this explicit teaching.  To have "community," we're told, we must have small clusters of people that really get to know one another.

But let's take the question in two parts and invite everyone to dive in on this.

1.  Is it possible for a community of 300+ "to be united in purpose"?  I'd say very definitely "yes."  In fact, there are organizations and groups far larger than this that unite in purpose.  We read of the early church: "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.  Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.  All the believers were together and had everything in common.  Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.  Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts." (Acts 2:42-46a)  We're talking a church of a few thousand at this point, certainly larger than 300.  And they were united in purpose because they were united in the apostles' teaching.  And they met together--not once a week--but every day in the temple courts!

We see other churches exhorted to the same like-mindedness (Phil. 2:2) and unity (Eph. 4:1-6).  And praise the Lord, I think there are plenty of living and breathing examples of this kind of common cause among churches today.  Many church leaders rather skillfully use their church's statement of faith, covenant, budgets, membership practices, and the Lord's Supper as means for cultivating common cause and unity.

2.  Is it possible for a community of 300+ to be "so connected that all suffer/rejoice together and that all have "the same care for one another"?"  Again, I would say "yes."  That's the very thing that is so striking about 1 Cor. 12:24-25--"God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.  If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it."  This is God's work.  "In fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be" (1 Cor. 12:18).  The Father intentionally organizes the body in such a way as to: (a) rule out division in the body, and (b) promote equal concern between the parts.  That's what it means to be the body.  "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body.  So it is with Christ." (1 Cor. 12:12).  And this is God's work.  The more I stare at 1 Cor. 12 the more enamored and awed I am of the church.

If we aren't doing this, we aren't being the body.  But if we are doing this, God is wonderfully at work, and it probably means we're working very hard at it and that the "equal concern" isn't necessarily expressed in equivalent ways.  In other words, "showing equal concern for each other" does not mean that 299 members provide precisely the same response with the 1 member suffering/rejoicing.  There may be different responses and yet equal concern.  And, I've seen this maintained in a congregation of 500.  That congregation had an active small group ministry, and lots of good things happened in them.  But the members owned the whole body, and the equal concern was expressed in things like the evening service, table fellowship (which we see in Acts 2:46b), individual acts of care and service, as well as coordinated acts of empathy and love.  It takes all of that, but it's very doable with God's help and the blessing of His Spirit.

I'm convinced that one of the reasons our churches aren't as strong as we would hope is that so few Christians have actually had this experience in a local church and consequently so few expect to see it happen or to contribute to it happening. 

Well, that's my quick two cents.  Others??

Recently I've been reading Bill Hybels' Courageous Leadership with a brother in the congregation.  It's been a good time of fellowship with the brother, and sometimes some surprising moments of agreement with Hybels.  The book draws from his 30 years with Willow Creek and shares the leadership lessons he's learned in that time.  It's light on Bible and heavy on personal experience, but still manages some good nuggets.

Take this reflection following a kitchen conversation with his daughter's a college-aged friend, who had attended Willow's youth group for four years throughout high school.  After the young woman stunned Hybels by admitting that she was converted, discipled, and learned to serve at the youth group but never heard much about or attended Willow, Hybels offered this reflection:

Without my being consciously aware of it, Willow had evolved from a close-knit, single-identity, biblically functioning community into a decentralized, multi-identitied, loosely connected federation of sub-ministries.  For many people, all they really knew of Willow was the sub-ministry to which they related.  Even on staff, many people identified more strongly with the department they were working in than they did with the church as a whole.

That's why we don't all seem to be on the same page.  We're not!

The problem with this was that not every sub-ministry was as committed as it needed to be to the goals of spiritual growth that we had agreed upon as a church.

I think Hybels hits on a problem that weakens many churches: members being more committed to a part of the church--their favorite ministry or small group, etc.--than they are to the entire body of Christ.  Hybels' concern was the way it seemed to distract people from pursuing the same goals in the church.  But it's deeper than that.  It may be an indication of of a weaker love than we imagine.

Each part of the body is called to show equal concern for every other part of the body, and the body as a whole for each individual part (1 Cor. 12:25).  That's a high calling.  But that's what it takes to love as deeply as Christ Jesus has called us to love.  And that's what it takes to build church-split-preventing unity, lost-member-seeking concern, caring-for-the-poor-among-us compassion, and suffering-with-others empathy.  If the members love only their little clique or part or ministry, then the muscular body we may enjoy at one point will slowly atrophy over time.   

So recently I've been pondering a church's acceptance of the resignation of a dear local church pastor friend.  The events leading up to the resignation were really unfortunate and painful.  In the end, the church accepted the resignation with a vote of something like 105 (against) to 115 (for).

Here's my question.  Should the folks on the "losing" side of the vote leave the church?  Without doubt some will, and reasons will vary, but should they leave?  What are the biblical texts that should guide a Christian's decisions in a case like this?

Greg, greatly enjoying your series of posts on what you're looking for in elders. 

Focus on the Family tells us that October is Pastor Appreciation Month. And maybe you're the compliant type, and so you're wondering how you can adequately express your appreciation for your pastor.

Well, in Thabiti's (you remember him, he used to blog here) excellent book What Is a Healthy Church Member?, he gives us some excellent advice. Speaking of pastors, he writes:

Few things are more discouraging or dishonoring to such men than a congregation inattentive to the Word of God. Faithful men flourish at the fertile reception of the preached Word. They're made all the more bold when their people give ear to the Lord's voice and give evidence of being shaped by it. As church members, we can care for our pastors and teacher and help to prevent unnecessary discouragement and fatigue by cultivating the habit of expositional listening.

On our eldership at the moment we are having a conversation about the relationship between membership and receiving the Lord's supper. In other words, when fencing the table, should we mention that someone ought to be a member of an evangelical church in good standing if they are to receive the Lord's supper?

My inclination would be to argue that they should be, precisely because in membership a church is taking responsibility for admitting someone to the Lord's supper. It is not an individual meal, but a body meal (e.g 1 Corinthians 10:17, 11:20, arguably 11:29). Therefore, there needs to be a body (a church) that is taking responsibility for admitting them to the Lord's supper.

My question is whether there is much written on this. I can find a great deal written on the relationship between baptism and membership, and even the relationship between baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Obviously it would be the same question if everyone who was baptised was a member of a local church, but sadly there are many churches who will practise baptism (maybe of a 13 year old) without admitting to church membership (maybe at 18), so it does become a slightly different issue in the current evangelical climate.

Where will I find material written on the relationship between membership and the Lord's Supper that we could read through together as elders?

If nothing is written, how about some posts on it?

For those of you thinking through the importance of membership in a local church, I would direct you to an interview Jonathan Leeman did with Michael Spencer here.. Spencer asks difficult and common questions. Leeman's answers? I'll leave that for you to judge.

Recently, I heard a PCA pastor say that he wanted to train and teach his folks in such a way that should they ever remove from his church and town they wouldn't even think of joining any other kind of church.  When I heard that my eyebrows went up and my head tilted ever so slightly rightward.  Huh?

Then this morning I read this application question in John S. Hammett's Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches:

Could you see yourself becoming a member of a church of a different denomination?  Why or why not?

Writing a Baptist ecclesiology, Hammett most likely thinks Baptist churches conform to the teaching of Scripture more faithfully than others--at least on the point of baptism, congregationalism, and regenerate membership.

But I wonder what you brothers think.  Could you see yourself becoming a member of a church of a different denomination?  Why or why not?  What would be the deal breaker for you?

You guys are seriously testing my knowledge of Robert's rules of order!  Hence both of my post titles alluding to Robert's rules begin, "Point of clarification."  Come to think of it, who was Robert and why did he get to set the rules? 

Greg, a question about your five areas of voting.  Would you all take some kind of congregational vote on missionaries?  I'm thinking something loosely premised on Acts 13?  Thoughts?

Jonathan, regrading your question...

It seems like the only way around the problem is straight through it. You could do a mass membership meeting (like some kind of Moonie wedding), but I think it's better to take people in one by one, even if that is time consuming. If you take in a bunch of people without examinging their profession of faith, you've really short-circuited the whole point of meaningful membership. If you bite the bullet now and do this well, it will surely bear a lot of fruit down the road.

Given the constraints described in the email, I'd probably use some time on Sunday morning to teach about membership and explain the process. It's not wise to make a drastic move before you've taught on it well.

The pastor of a 500+ attending church has written asking about how to introduce the practice of membership to his church. They planted 13 years ago and have never had any formal practice of membership. But he has since become convinced of the necessity of membership. He writes,

How do we initiate a membership program when we already have 500+ people who call our church their home?  We've talked about classes on Wednesday night, early Sunday morning (we don't have formal adult Sunday School), or even teaching a four-five week Sunday morning series about membership - but how do we then move forward with actually making people members?  Are we to interview 500+ people?  Do we 'grandfather' in the whole group, and if so, what would be the criteria and procedure?  Do we have a 'mass' membership service to include all those interested?  And if we were to do that, how are we going to monitor whether this mass of people are actually ready for membership?

Thoughts?
 
 

I can't remember if I read this in 9 Marks or if I've heard Mark say it 99 times, but I seem to recall that Mark's assertion is that if you have the first mark, expositional preaching, in place then you're going to have a greater opportunity for seeing the others take shape over time.  If I'm remembering that correctly, that makes expositional preaching pretty foundational and perhaps "necessary and sufficient" for joining with a body. 

It seems that using the entire list of 9 characteristics as a screen for selecting a church may be to leave off the church reform assumptions that they're written in response to.  Perhaps this is an instance where "beginning with the end in mind" is actually a poor way to start.  Perhaps we should start with looking for evidences of God's grace in a local body, and maybe put a premium on a couple of marks (expositional preaching, sound gospel).  Maybe we labor in love and prayer with the other saints to see the Lord grow the other marks, so that the threshold for joining is significantly lower than 7 of 9 marks or something like that.  Perhaps get the preaching right and the gospel and labor for the rest? 

Here's the other thing I've heard a lot around CHBC.  In the why join a church section of the membership matters class, big emphasis is placed on avoiding a consumer mentality and joining a church as a provider.  There might be a subtle way in which turning the 9 marks into a grid for selecting a church (rather than reforming a church) could feed a consumer mentality and dampen the need to approach every church with a heart to provide.  Our gifts are for the common good, for the edification of the body.  While trying hard to avoid the pride that suggests "we have what this church needs," prospective members should be searching for ways to contribute instead of merely receive.

I hope I'm not flogging a dead horse, but I'm returning to the issue of believers' baptism and church
membership.

In the comments around there have been sentiments that sound something like this: "churches belong to Jesus not to the leaders of the church: therefore if a person belongs to Jesus, they must be allowed to join your local church." (see point 4 below for this) Or "the local church cannot have more requirements for membership than the kingdom of God." (see particularly point 3 below for this)

A friend of mine who was considering ordination in the Church of England, though previously having baptistic convictions, expressed it something like this. "I hate the way that baptist churches exclude faithful Christians from membership just because they have different understanding of baptism. It is just like the Galatian heresy, denying full fellowship to those you understand to be members of the body of Christ."

Let me say a few things to this.

1) It is not Galatian to require something that is required by Scripture. It is Galatian to require something NOT required by Scripture. This therefore begs the question, "Is believers baptism required by Scripture?" If it is (as baptists believe) then baptist churches are not Galatian.

2) The Galatian heresy denied even table fellowship with the uncircumcised. Baptists will have a very high level of fellowship with paedobaptists. (In an hour I'm heading off to an evangelistic talk that we are  putting on with Anglicans, Presbyterians, E-freeians, and baptists.) We'll even eat!

3) As soon as you have said that membership is for those who give credible evidence of salvation, you exclude some believers from membership. You are saying that there must be credible evidence of salvation. Are my children believers? I don't know. They might be - but they are so young that it is hard to tell. If a church wants to be sure that it will not deny membership to any believer, they must be paedobaptists (and paedo-communionists). In fact even paedo-communionists feel required by Scripture to excommunicate people who are being disobedient to Scripture - they are not suggesting that they have finally determined that this person is not a believer at this point. Was the immoral brother of 1 Corinthians 5 a citizen of heaven? We don't know... only time would tell.

4) Baptists have traditionally understood Jesus' headship of the church to imply that a church has no right to recognize baptisms that are not biblical. If Jesus has commanded us to practice believers' baptism (Matt 28:18-20) and the Spirit of Christ inspired the book of Acts that makes it clear that we are to repent and believe and then be baptized, and inspired 1 Corinthians 12 that makes it clear that membership of the body is for those who have been baptized, we do not feel that we have the authority to recognize baptisms that are not commanded by Jesus.

The "unrepentant sin" question is clearly part of the puzzle when welcoming the unbaptised into church membership. A reason why permitting this (even unwitting) disobedience would be more serious than others (e.g. an unwitting denial of the bible's teaching on the millenium) is that baptism itself defines who the church is.

Baptism defines whom we recognise to be members of the visible church, just as Spirit baptism creates the members of the invisible church. (1 Corinthians 12:13). People from both sides of the debate have agreed this. (See, for example, Thomas Shepard's The Church membership of Children)

When I became a convinced credobaptist aged 19, I don't think that I was approaching the subject from a historically baptist viewpoint. I saw that the New Testament commands people to be baptised upon their profession of faith, and that was enough for me. I failed to see the ecclesiological significance of credobaptism: that the church would strive to be a community of belivers only.

There are two relevant implications of the fact that baptism defines church membership.

First, To permit a conscientious paedobaptist into the church is to permit someone to belong to a church who has a very different idea of what a church is. In order to be a church together, do we not at least need to be able to agree what a church is? Is it (1) a covenanted community of believers. Or is it (2) a community that includes believers and their children?

Can we belong to the same church as those who disagree so deeply about what a church is?

Second, if baptism defines church membership it is going to be far easier for a predominantly paedobaptistic congregation to admit a credobaptist to membership (they believe him to be baptised). A credobaptistic congregation is going to have a greater weight on their conscience to admit to church membership one that they understand not to havec been baptised. In order to do this, they would have actually have to deny something that credos and paedos have usually agreed upon: that only the baptised may be admitted as members of the church!

Suddenly the move towards apparent unity requires disagreement on one of the things that we have previsouly been united upon!

A friendly question to ask those who hold to an "open membership" position:

What are some of the potential negative consequences of this position?  Particularly, what will it mean in defining a clear, bright line between the church and the world?

Maybe it simply worth noting that there is a long history, first in England, then in the States, of Baptists addressing the question of whether the unbaptized should be accepted into the membership of Baptist churches.  To put it in a less sterile way, should the church really be split over a difference in baptism?

The most famous account, and one that Mark has lectured on in academic circles, involved the famous tinker from Bedford, John Bunyan. The author of Pilgrim’s Progress defended his practice of allowing the paedo-baptists to join Bedford Baptist Church in Differences about Water Baptism No Bar to Communion (1673). Bunyan offered ten reasons to allow the unbaptized into membership. First, both the baptized and unbaptized are subject to Christ. Second, Eph. 4:1-6 points to one baptism that unifies all believers. Third, all believers share faith in the essentials—life, death, resurrection of Christ. Fourth, a church should not deny communion to someone with whom God has communion. Fifth, a lack of water baptism does not “unchristian” anyone. Seventh, love trumps division. Eighth, churches are wrong to separate over more serious matters than baptism (1 Cor. 3:1-4). Ninth, denying church communion is tantamount to denying the privileges and blessings of salvation. Tenth, it is contemptible to cast off a saint from church communion.

William Kiffin challenged Bunyan in his own day, but a hundred years later another Baptist minister, Abraham Booth, challenged Bunyan’s arguments in A Defense for the Baptists (1778). Not surprisingly, Booth lacked something of Bunyan’s flourish; Booth’s arguments are simple and straightforward. First, the New Testament presents Baptism as a necessary prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. Second, the necessity of Baptism ought not to be left up to the individual’s conscience (as Bunyan had argued). The church must retain the right to exercise God’s commandment in a matter as clearly prescribed as the subject of baptism. To prioritize an individual’s conscience over biblical teaching threatened the entire dissenting movement of which Booth was a part. This is very interesting. According to Booth, to allow unbaptized persons into the church on the basis of their convictions contrary to the congregation’s teaching threatened the very integrity of the church. His church might as well hang up its separatist credentials and join with the Church of England:

For if it be lawful to dispense with an appointment of God, out of regard to our weaker brethren; we cannot reasonably think it unlawful to practice the appointments of our National Church . . . And if we may safely connive at one human invention; why may not the Church of England make what appointments she pleases? (Defense for the Baptists, Baptist Standard Bearer, 50-51)

What observations can be made based on this discussion? Regarding the first question, Bunyan sought out certain themes in Scripture that seemed to contradict denying membership to a Christian: unity and love being the primary ones. Next, he traded on the emotional weight of these themes and prioritized them above other apparently contradictory ones: obedience [to the command to be baptized] and truth [regarding the necessity of baptism preceding communion]. Booth saw something greater at stake in the discussion than simply whether a few Baptist churches would become mixed. Churches prizing the conscience of the individual above the clear teaching of Scripture threatened leaving their young Baptist roots. This, of course, is eventually what happened to Bunyan’s church. Not during his time, but a few church splits later, Bedford Baptist became Bedford Congregationalist. 

Time to bring this to an end.  I'd still like to discuss in another post trends in America including two   Baptists, Dagg and Dargan, an interesting event in the 1820s where a Congregational and Baptist association sought to become one for the purpose of evangelism in the Northeast, as well as Watts Street Baptist, a church in North Carolina that changed its baptism policy nearly forty years ago.  After that, it will be a good time for me to offer some reflections on the current discussion.

OK, I'm on vacation with my family, but I took print-outs of the Piper/Grudem exchanges on baptism and chruch membership.  9Marks guys, can we weigh in on this?  What would you add to, disagree with, nuance in this argument?

Baptism SHOULD be required for church membership:

1)  Because Jesus clearly commanded baptism and to disobey this command is sin [whether intentional or not].  To continue in such an unbaptized state is unrepentant sin [whether intentional or not].  Thus, no careful paedo-baptist will follow John P's apparent "generosity" about membership.  That is, they will never knowingly admit someone to the Lord's Table that they understand to be unbaptized (even if they took that evangelical Quaker or believing Salvationist to be their brother or sister in Christ).  John P wants us to admit to the Lord's Table those that he and we all agree are not baptized.  John has no doubt that infant baptism is not baptism.  He is solid on that point.  But I think that actually leaves his position unusually open to other difficulties--knowingly admitting the unbaptized to regular communion.  I simply don't want to take the responsibility to so disregard Jesus' commands (not that John P intends to in anyway disregard Jesus' commands).  I especially don't want to do this in what has been an area of relatively unanimous Christian agreement from Jesus til now.  Baptism precedes the Lord's Table.  MUCH more could be said on this, but it probably already has been.

2)  Because according to the New Testament, it is not merely the elders, but the entire membership of the local church that bear responsibility for establishing and patrolling "border & boundary" issues of discipline (Mt. 18; I Cor. 5) and doctrine (Gal. 1; II Tim 4).  I think John P recognizes the importance of unity among such a responsible body, but he understands [I think] the local congregation NOT to be this responsible body, but rather the active followers of the elders--but merely followers.  A congregationalist on the other hand (as Baptists have traditionally been) understands that it is the congregation who must ultimately establish such issues. John P would NOT want such divisions on baptism in the body that he takes to be the final earthly adjudicatory--the elders--and neither would we Baptists.  The difference is, we think that body is the congregation as a whole, led by elders, yes, but only with the necessary and Biblical consent and cooperation of the congregation.  (So, in classic terms, John would be an independent, but not a congregationalist.)

Much more we could say here, but, reader, please keep in mind that this is written by one who loves John Piper, appreciates his ministry (see earlier blog post) and who is planning to have an Anglican Dean and a Presbyterian former Moderator of the General Assembly preach in his Baptist pulpit in the next few months.  There is a great unity in active cooperation, honoring, encouragement and love that is not broken by our lamentable temporary separation over local church membership.

Guys, comments?

In my head when I am thinking about the content of the gospel, I usually have the 6 frames from two ways to live in mind. These cover

1) Creation of man to live under God's loving rule
2) Sin as rebellion against God's rule.
3) Judgment
4) Penal Substitution
5) Resurrection & Enthronement of Christ
6) Response of Repentance & Faith.

Webb touched on only 1/2 out of 6 (he affirms the resurrection) on this score.

If this had been the answer that someone had given during a membership interview I was conducting, it would have sparked at least two major lines of questioning.

1) Why did Jesus have to die?

I would ask various follow up questions until I had heard several things
a) Human beings are sinful
b) God will punish all sin - we all therefore deserve hell.
c) Jesus died, taking the punishment that sinners deserve, so that all who trust in him will not be punished  for their own sin.

2) Will EVERYONE receive the benefits of Jesus' death and resurrection?

Again, I would ask follow up questions until I had heard that salvation is granted only to those who repent and believe.

Unless I heard clear answers in that direction, I would probably encourage someone to go over the gospel through a one on one bible study with a church member before recommending to the elders that we recommend this person to the congregation for membership.

Have you ever thought how long you will stay committed to your church? American society is very transitory. Often people leave their church to move to another part of the country because they’ve accepted a better paying job. They are moving up on the corporate ladder, buying a bigger house, and enjoying life with more disposable income. 

Here’s a novel idea: Why not turn down a job promotion in order to stay committed to your local church? That is, make your church more of a priority than your career. 

Matt Schmucker once said to me (and I’m paraphrasing here):

“Maybe a few of us need to be willing to commit our lives to one local church over a lifetime. We need to be willing to sacrifice our lives for the sake of bearing long-term fruit for the kingdom.”

Now you might think I’m just talking about laypeople, but I’m also thinking about pastors here. Researchers say that on average, pastors stay at churches for only 3.5 years. Too many pastors are eager to “move up” to bigger churches with bigger sanctuaries, bigger salaries, more staff, and more ministries. 

There is only so much you can do if you stick around for just a few years. In contrast, when you stay in a local church for a lifetime, you can think, plan, and act with a long-term vision. You can build relationships over the long haul. You can commit to transforming one community for a lifetime. A long-term vision with a long-term commitment can make a tremendous difference.

So what say you? Might you consider staying in your church over the long haul? 

One caveat: Life is complicated. There are lots of normal transitions in life. For example: a high school student graduates and goes to college; a young girl gets married and moves out of her parents’ home; a seminary student graduates and takes his first pastorate; etc. Yet, with all of these exceptions in mind, I still think my point is valid. In general, people make church secondary in their major life decisions when it should be primary. 

(P.S. Matt – you said to quote someone wiser than myself in my first post. How did I do?)