This thread comes from a question raised by my bride on the "Rebuke an elder" thread.

We have a long history in the restoration congregations of having folks place membership in the particular congregation. Anyone know the history of this? I know it goes back before the Campbells and the restoration movement ... but does anyone know when it started?

Along the same lines, anyone know the reason for this practice, both historicaly and present day? I understand some of the present day useage ... voting, by-laws, local membership = service to local congregation, etc.

What might happen if a congregation decided not to have a local membership roster? Good thing or a bad thing? I understand each congregation can "do it's own thing" with regards to this subject, but what might your opinion be?

-- Anonymous, October 14, 1999

Answers

What might happen? How about....we would be going back to the early First Century Christianity as taught by the inspired apostles.

-- Anonymous, October 14, 1999

Hey ... ya think? WOW -- might bring the restormation MOVEMENT along! Sometimes I wonder if our movement has stopped it's moving.

I ask the question 'cause we will be putting together a local congregation here in Indiana, PA over the next year or so.

Darrell Combs

-- Anonymous, October 14, 1999

Darrell, how do you put together a local congregation??

Just wondering!

-- Anonymous, October 14, 1999

Darrell,

Been here, done that. There is no Biblical precident for "membership." The Lord adds to the Church when a person becomes a Christian. Membership is only needed when there is voting and elections (both of which you will have a hard time finding in the Scriptures). If a Church is Scripturally put in order (as opposed to traditionally) you have an evangelist and eldership, working as a team, making the decisions of the Body. Membership is not needed because the authority is in the hands of th leadership instead of the congregation. A person either submits to the authority of evangelist and elders or he doesn't. That is what makes him/her a part of that particular congregation. The only requirement for "membership" then is only whether a person has submitted to the Lord or not.

I know several people who, in good conscience, cannot "place membership" with a congregation because they do not find anything like it in the Scriptures. Are we to force an extra-Biblical tradition on someone because "that's the way we've always done it?"

There was a fella at my last ministry that said "Yes" and he caused great turmoil in the Church because he had the by-laws on his side.

We came up with new by-laws that appealed to the Scriptures rather than tradition.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 1999

Scott, did I read you right? Did you say the Evangelist and the Eldership has the authority to run the *church*?

I don't think I understand you here.

-- Anonymous, October 16, 1999

Brother Scott. I appreciated the forcefulness with which you cut across the nonsense and got to the heart of Gods plan for the local congregations. The Pastors (Elders) of a local congregation have a great responisibility to Bishop (Oversee) the flock. It is not a just a Office, as some seem to think, but a work that God has set in motion. Ran into the bylaw thing myself and more were concerned about it then the bylaws for the church IN THE WORD, so-to-speak. It has been a concern of mine for some time. The problem has been that those who God has called to be Evangelists in the Kingdom have not been fulfilling their responsibilities. The Church cannot go beyond what it is taught. The "Words of Faith and of Good Doctrine" I Tim. 4:1-5 are imparitive if we are to return to the Pattern given by the Lord. Our mandate from Heaven is to Preach the Word, Set things in order and ordain Elders. "Setting things in order" is very challenging, Is it time yet for the TRUMPET SOUND?

-- Anonymous, October 16, 1999

Seems to me that some of you are running afoul of an idea that you need to give more thought to in this discussion -- that idea being this: there is a vast difference between being UN-biblical and being ANTI-biblical. To be the first is not necessarily to be the second. Do you have a Sunday School program? If you do, did you set it up the Biblical way? Well, of course, you couldn't have -- there IS no biblical way to set up and administer Sunday School. Sunday School programs are UN-biblical. But they are not ANTI-biblical, since they address the issue of educating people in the Word and the Way.

The first century church may or may not have had "membership". The specific topic is not addressed in Scripture. Or is it? What will you do with these phrases from the pen of the apostle Paul: "To the church of God which is at Corinth"; "to the churches of Galatia"; "to the saints who are in Ephesus"; "To all the saints in Christ Jesus in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons"; "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse"; "To the church of the Thessalonians"; "Now when this epistle has been read among you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans"; and so on.

You will object, "But he doesn't say anything about being MEMBERS of the church." And you're right -- he doesn't. But Paul DOES recognize the fact that, even though there is only one Church, there are still many churches. And each stands independent of the others in a very real way, while at the same time being bound by the Spirit of God into one universal Body.

So what does this have to do with "membership"? Everything. If there is no "membership" established in local expressions of the Body of Christ, then there is chaos. Hey, I don't like the way you're choosing how to support missions, or which missionaries you support, in the congregation you attend. So I'm going to come over there with some of my friends, and get you guys to do it right. Or, my elders say this about the way the Lord's Supper should rightly be observed, and we think your elders are wrong, so we're gonna come and fix you up. Or, I can just be free to jump from one group of believers to another, with no committment to any of them, because I'm committed to the Body of Christ wherever it is. We actually had to deal with this. A couple wanted to be teachers in the youth program. But they didn't want to be members of the church, 'cause they wanted to be free to go wherever they felt like going whenever they wanted to. They were not willing to commit to us, yet expected us to commit leadership to them.

The Bible says very little, really, about the organization of leadership and the day-to-day structure of the local church. It gives authority in each congregation to elders, and gives guidelines for what kind of men they should be. But it says not one word about how to select the men, or how to install them into the office. The best it gives is that Timothy and Titus were to appoint them in their respective cities. From that, we can possibly, but not necessarily, infer that the apostles did the same in the churches they were personally involved in.

But then we have a problem, don't we? Who decides what men will be elders? We don't have any more apostles, and the only other example we have is that the local "preacher" took care of it. So are all you preachers willing to start saying to your church, "Hey, the Bible says that I'm supposed to be the one appointing elders around here."

(On a related-but-having-nothing-to-do-with-this-discussion point: Have you ever noticed that the early church, in fact, had Deacons before it had Elders? As a prescribed office, at least. The first deacons were chosen by the congregation and ratified by the apostles and the Holy Spirit, before the New Testament concept of "Elder" had been introduced. There was, of course, bleed-over from the Jewish concept of the "elders", but the NT office had not yet been established, as far as we know from reading Acts.)

Again, it comes back to UN-biblical and ANTI-biblical. Further, the early church didn't have the matter of by-laws to contend with, because they didn't have the idea of "corporation" to deal with. They didn't have budgets to decide, and tax laws to work through, and state recognition to obtain, and building codes to meet, etc.

I have no problem with "church membership". The alternative is shared leadership, and shared responsibility to leadership, among all congregations everywhere (i.e., my congregation answers to your elders). And THAT, my friends, is also un-biblical.

Unless the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 contradicts everything I've said here. That would throw my argument into a cocked hat. Whaddya think?

-- Anonymous, October 17, 1999

Thanks Sam for your response. I am presently frustrated with some good workers our church has presently but they refuse to place membership because it isn't in the Bible. You pointed to the heart of the issue with great clarity.

I had seen it in terms of a "give back to Caesars what is his" frame of mind. The government does impose certain things upon us if we are to receive the benefits of 501-C3 status. They must know we have by- laws and membership.

I don't think this is the issue to theologically die on. There are many more important issues to deal with but yet many consider it a major hang-up. You gave me great food for thought. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, October 19, 1999

I risk a shout into the dark....

We here at the Shelby church of Christ have no membership and I doubt that we are in any danger of being taken over. As we understand the Scriptures the local church is to be led, taught, encouraged, warned, rebuked, guided and equipped by the Elders and the Evangelist. The word seems clear enough that the Elders appoints the Evangelist and the the Evangelist is to train up men and appoint them as Elders. Here we believe that the Elders and the Evangelist are to co-lead the church with equal authority and be mutually accountable to one another, and since we have godly leaders it's working! We took this step main because it is biblical but also because we have had "membership wars" here in the past over exactly how one must "properly place their membership". This is non-sense and it had driven off a good number of folks over the years. The New Testament speaks about FELLOWSHIP in the local assembly - not membership. And if anyone is concerned about how this effects our voting here, it doesn't. We don't vote on IF we should follow the Bible and since our leaders lead by knowing the needs of the flock, we do not need to vote on where we are going or how to get there.

Try it, it works!

Tom Tybeck, Evangelist.

PS. If your Sunday School is teaching the Apostle's doctrine then it is biblical and you do have supporting Scripture.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999