Loving fellow Christians is biblical. The recent invention of "local church membership" is not. (Part 3)

How do we know who is in the church?

If you read parts 1 and 2, you may be asking: How do we know who is considered “in the church” if we don’t sign church membership documents at independent church organizations? The answer? Our church membership documents are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Edmund Clowney, the former President of the famous Westminster Seminary, referred to the sacraments and rightly said: “These outward signs mark out a visible fellowship; they structure Christ’s church as a community with membership. Baptism requires a decision about admission to the community. The Supper, a sign of continuing fellowship, implies the exclusion of those who have turned away from the Lord.”[1]

Responding to the most prominent modern arguments

One of the most popular and common organizations that spreads the views of local church membership is 9Marks, run by Mark Dever. Matt Chandler, a well-known pastor of a church in Texas that holds to the Reformed doctrine of salvation wrote an article for them called “Is Church Membership Biblical?[2]”. This article summarizes the most prominent arguments that those who hold to this position utilize.

First, he starts off with a quote from Cyprian that is an excellent quote, but it is used in a very disingenuous way.

 So why do I say this is disingenuous? Because Chandler is using this quote from Cyprian, which is true and Biblical, as a piece of evidence that Christians need to join themselves to singular, organizationally independent local church organizations. This is not at all what Cyprian is talking about, and it is not at all biblical. Cyprian is talking about the worldwide, big “C” church of Christ. He says, “Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress.” Chandler uses this quote and makes it look like what Cyprian is talking about is joining yourself to a singular, independent local church organization, when Cyprian is actually talking about ensuring you are not disconnected from fellowship with the singular body of Christ, which is what Christians confess in the Apostles' Creed: “I believe in the holy catholic (universal) church”. So Chandler sets the tone with that quote to try to make it seem like he has history on his side, but he does not.

His first argument is a section titled: “Two Questions from Hebrews 13:17”. Let’s go through it:

Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Timothy 5:17 do not say anything about “submitting to and honoring an elder body” of a local church organization that is organizationally unrelated to the one true church of Christ. Chandler’s understanding of “an elder body” did not exist at the time the New Testament was written. There was no “Village Church of Ephesus” just down the road from “First Baptist Church of Ephesus” and “Second Presbyterian of Ephesus” and “Willow Creek” in Ephesus, etc. He says, “If there is no understanding of local church membership, then who are we to submit to and obey? Is it anyone with the title of “elder” from any church?” The answer is “YES”! You should submit to and obey any pastor in the one true church of God.

Part of the entire problem is a question that rarely ever gets addressed, but is absolutely central in understanding this subject of submission: What must I obey an elder in? What does an elder have the authority to tell me to do? Chandler, tongue in cheek, uses an example of the horrible and false Westboro Baptist Church picketing a soldiers’ funeral as an example. But the issue here is not that we need Chandler’s understanding of local church membership to guard us from having to obey Westboro Baptist Church’s elders. The issue is that no church elders anywhere have the authority to command Christians to picket anything. “Submitting to your elders” does not mean that Christians must do things that are outside of the scope of the elders’ authority to command. If Matt Chandler commanded the people of the village church to picket a certain Planned Parenthood, does he think that they all must be there, or else they are being disobedient to God and he will bring them under church discipline? Ask yourself: what do I believe church elders have the authority under God to tell me to do? If they told you that you have to show up to a church picnic on Tuesday night, do you think you have to obey them? If they told you that you can’t wear jeans, do you think you have to obey them? If they said you have to go on a certain diet, do you think you have to obey them? What about if they told you what sports you can or can’t play? No church elders have the authority to infringe upon the liberty of conscience of any Christian.

The Bible does not segregate out which pastors in God’s church you are to submit to, and which you are not to submit to. We are to submit to all pastors in God’s church, because they only have authority insofar as they are saying what the Bible says, or as they are conducting themselves within their role within the church organization by selecting the liturgy, for example, or choosing what time the corporate worship service will be on the Lord’s Day. John MacArthur hit the nail on the head in his response when a woman asked him: “To what extent is a member of a church required to obey his pastor? How much authority does the pastor have in the lives of his congregants?” MacArthur responded:

“None. No authority. I have no authority in this church personally. My experience doesn’t give me any authority. My knowledge doesn’t give me any authority. My education doesn’t give me any authority. I have no authority. My position doesn’t give me any authority. My title doesn’t give me any authority. That’s why I don’t like titles. Only the Word of God has authority. Christ is the head of the church and he mediates his rule in the church through his Word. I have no authority. I don’t have authority beyond the Scripture. I can never exceed what is written, 1 Corinthians 4:6. To do that is to become, Paul says, is to become “arrogant and to regard yourself as superior.” I have nothing to say to you that puts any demand on you if it isn’t from the Word of God. You’re probably talking out of some experience where you’ve felt that some undue authority was exercised over you or somebody you know by a pastor. We need to be reminded that, as pastors, even though the Lord has lifted us up and given us this kind of responsibility, we possess no personal authority. If I am telling you what God has said in his Word, that has authority, right? But I cannot exceed what is written. I can’t tell you about your life. I can give you wisdom if you ask, but I may have no more wisdom than somebody else. You would get more wisdom on many many issues out of my beloved Patricia on things than you would get out of me. But she’s not in the pulpit, but she has spiritual insight and spiritual wisdom, and if you ask for advice or wisdom hers in many cases would exceed mine. So the pastor in himself has no authority. Listen to what Paul says, “Who is Paul? Who is Apollos? Who is Cephas?” We’re nothing. It’s all of Christ, it’s all of the Holy Spirit, it’s all of the Scripture, ok?”[3]

So in summary, for Chandler’s first question: “If there is no biblical requirement to belong to a local church, then which leaders should an individual Christian obey and submit to?” The answer is: all pastors in God’s one true church, because Christians are only required to obey pastors insofar as they are telling them what the Word of God says. If it is beyond what is written and isn’t in the Word of God, if it isn’t within their scope of authority, or is contradictory to it, then they do not have to obey.

Chandler's second question is:

“Second, and more personally, who will I as a pastor give an account for?... The Scriptures clearly command an elder body to care for specific people (1 Pet. 5:1-5; also, Acts 20:29-30). Will I as a pastor be held accountable for all the Christians in the Dallas Metroplex? There are many churches in Dallas that I have strong theological and philosophical differences with. Will I give account for what they teach in their small group, how they spend their money, and what they do concerning international missions?”

Once again, Chandler twists the meaning of these texts. 1 Peter 5:2 says to elders in God’s one true church, “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you.” So who are elders to shepherd? The “flock of God” (Christians) who are among them. They are to shepherd Christians whom they personally interact with. This is the same thing with Acts 20:29-30: “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” When Paul tells the Ephesian elders that “fierce wolves will come in among them, not sparing the flock”, he is talking to the elders in the whole city of Ephesus, because it was considered all one local church. The specific group of people the elders in Ephesus were to care for are, very simply, the Christians in Ephesus that they know and interact with; the Christians that are “among them”.

So, to answer Chandler’s questions specifically, “Will I as a pastor be held accountable for all the Christians in the Dallas Metroplex? There are many churches in Dallas that I have strong theological and philosophical differences with. Will I give account for what they teach in their small group, how they spend their money, and what they do concerning international missions?” As a Pastor in God’s one true church, you will be held accountable for how you are leading the Christians among you: all of the Christians you personally relate with. Will you give an account for what other Christians and church leaders teach in their small group, how they spend their money, and what they do concerning international missions? Not if you don’t know them and don’t interact with them. We are finite people. Dallas is a big area. The Ephesian elders in Acts 20 were not going to give an account for Christians they never interacted with in Galatia, for example. But if they did have interaction with Christians in Ephesus, even those they have “strong theological and philosophical differences with,” you better be sure they were responsible for leading those people. Pastors don’t get a pass for how they treat other Christians just because they haven’t signed the same extra-biblical “church membership covenant” document as them. If someone is in the body of Christ (a true Christian), and they are in front of the pastor/interacting with him/among him, then he is responsible for how he treats that person in God’s flock.

The next major section of Chandler’s article deals with Church discipline.

Church discipline and excommunication are obviously very biblical when understood and handled properly. So there is no disagreement there. But to get to his questions, he asks: “How can you kick someone “out” if there isn’t an “in”?” His question assumes that every single local church organization is independent. Why? Because there already is an “in”: those who are in God’s true church are those who have been born again. Those in the visible church, the community of Christians that we can see with our eyes, are those who have received and are receiving the sacraments of the Bible that Christ instituted: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Those who have been baptized, and those who receive the Lord’s Supper, are those who are “in”. You won’t find a single thing in Scripture about signing any “church membership covenant” to show that you are “in” a given church organization. No, you already are “in” the holy catholic (universal) church by your regeneration, and faith and repentance in Christ. You are already in the visible church by your baptism and participation in the Lord’s Supper.

I’ll ask another question to Matt Chandler and those who hold to his position: if a person gets excommunicated from a church he was “in” according to them, for a legitimate biblical reason, can he then just go and freely join another independent local church organization down the road and be “in” there? If they would say, “No”, which they should, then I’d ask, “Why not?” And of course, the answer is because if a person is truly excommunicated for a legitimate biblical reason, then that person is "out" of the entire visible church everywhere. He should be excluded from the Lord’s Supper everywhere until he repents, even though he was never “in” by their standards at those other church organizations. This is contradictory and inconsistent on their part. Chandler asks, “If there is no local commitment to a covenant community of faith, then how do you remove someone from that community of faith?” You remove them by saying they cannot participate in the covenant meal of the one church of God, the Lord’s Supper. And, if it is a legitimate excommunication, then they shouldn’t be allowed at the Lord’s Table anywhere, because excommunication is not only about being declared “out” of one singular independent church organization, it is about being declared "out" of God’s entire visible church everywhere!

In summary: “How can you kick someone 'out' if there isn’t an 'in'?" There is an “in”. It is repentance and faith in Christ, and then baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The “in” to Christ’s visible church are the sacraments. If a person truly deserves to be excommunicated from the Lord’s Supper in one Christian fellowship (if he deserves to be “out” at that one fellowship), then he deserves to be “out” of the visible church and out of Lord’s Table fellowship in the entirety of God’s one true church.

Chandler then moves on to a section he titles: “Lots of Other Evidence for Membership”. He says:

I’m not sure how this is an evidence for the type of church membership that Chandler, Dever, and others advocate for. Can’t the church take a numerical record of those who have been baptized and who take the Lord’s Supper, without some special “covenant” with an independent group of Christians organizationally unrelated to others in the city?

Once again, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the membership documents in God’s one true church. Why can’t an election be done among those who have been baptized and take the Lord’s Supper without some formalized signing of a document and isolated special commitment to an independent group of Christians organizationally unrelated to other Christians in the city? Remember, in the Scriptures, all of the Christians in one locale were considered the local church of that area. It was a metropolitan church, organizationally connected. So an election that was taking place in a given area would have included those who have been baptized and who take the Lord’s Supper (those in the church) in that given area.

Of course the Christians who went to corporate worship together and took the Lord’s Supper together would have known each other. I’m not sure what this has to do with the “church membership” model that Matt Chandler and Mark Dever promote.

Chandler is correct that the local church in Ephesus is organized and working out a plan. But that can be done without the unbiblical model of “local church membership” of Chandler and Dever. Can’t a church and pastors in a given geographic area organize support for a qualified Christian widow in their area without having that widow sign an exclusive covenant document that puts her “in” with one group of Christians and “out” with another group of Christians in the same city? It seems highly factionalistic to suggest that Christians should refuse to care for a qualified Christian widow they know personally in their area just because she hasn’t signed a document they have created.

The commands of God in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 refer to how we are treating Christians in the entire body of Christ. And Chandler asks how we could be obedient to those commands if we aren’t connected to a local covenant community of faith. By no means am I or any other Christian who also holds to our majority viewpoint for thousands of years advocating that we not be connected to other Christians. We should be highly connected with other Christians. But Chandler does what Dever does and turns these passages about “one another” responsibilities into applying to those “in” independent local church organizations, instead of to the entire body of Christ (all Christians).

Finally, Chandler’s last section is titled: “GOD’S PLAN IS THAT WE WOULD BELONG TO LOCAL CHURCHES”:

If by “belong to” he means “be involved with living out the one anothers with the Christians of God’s one true church whom you rub shoulders with in your area,” then by all means, yes! But biblically, it seems unhelpful at best to consider ourselves “in” one independent local church organization and then show very little if any interest in or responsibility to all of the other Christians in our area.

Chandler once again is tying “interacting with others in his own local body” to a type of formalized and extra-biblical “joining” to an independent local church organization. We interact with others in our local body whenever we are interacting with other Christians who live in our same geographic area. We already have joined the visible church by our baptism, and the covenant is continually renewed at the Lord’s Table. We should have great fellowship with others in the body of Christ, certainly. But there is just no biblical warrant to separating out into isolated, organizationally unrelated communities and formalizing some special responsibility that Christians have toward those Christians, while all but ignoring all of the other Christians in Christ’s body who live, work, and play next door in your same city.

Biblically, he should be saying, “Living out the one anothers with other Christians in your geographic locale (your “local church”) is a question of biblical obedience, not personal preference.” However, in the late 1500s this extra-biblial concept was created hundreds and hundreds of years after Christ’s ascension. It is neither biblical, nor consistent with historic Reformed and/or Christian Theology.

In the final installment, I will explore the historical and biblical way forward.

_______________

[1] Edmund Clowney, The Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 272.

[2] Mark Dever, “Is Church Membership Biblical?,” 9Marks, April 28, 2011, accessed December 21, 2023, https://www.9marks.org/article/journalchurch-membership-biblical/.

[3] Grace to You, “John MacArthur on a Pastor's Authority,” YouTube Video, 3:13, December 21, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X65vspiZLLA