Is “church membership” biblical?

I wrote about church membership around a year ago on my old blog. This post is somewhat a continuation to that post but I have come to a slightly different conclusion, that is: (1) "church membership is unbiblical, as in, the early church did not have membership within the congregation and it appears that the early church purposefully avoided membership. (2) However, church membership in countries (or cities or locations) where there is freedom of religion may be appropriate or even necessary.'“ Allow me to explain.

1) The Early Church Avoided “membership”

The notion of membership, that is, some sort of exclusivity (i.e.: benefits, power, influence, community etc.) within a larger group of people, was a notion that existed in the New Testament—namely that of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin, the Jerusalem council, was an institution with a hierarchy that may appear to be similar to many modern-day organizations and institutions (check out my Master’s thesis for more information). The Sanhedrin was exclusive to 71 members, in which most of the members were Pharisees (who were also married). Certainly, there were a bunch of other Pharisees who were not part of the Sanhedrin.

Hence, Joseph of Arimathea (the guy who asked for Jesus’ body) was a member (bouleutés) of the Sanhedrin (Lk 23:50) . This indicates that there is language of membership is in the New Testament. However, the early church purposely avoided institutional languages of membership. Meaning, the early church did not transfer the language of membership (bouleutés) nor a “high priest” (archiereus) in it’s structure, while transferring Sanhedrin notions of eldership (prebuteros).

On the other hand, the early church purposefully used language of “member” (melos) in depicting believers as parts of a body (cf. Matt 5:29-30; Rom 6:13; 6:19; 7:5; 7:23; 1 Cor 6:15; 12:12; 12:18-22; Eph 4:25; 5:30; Jas 3:5-6). The presented image is organic, not institutional in the way of the Sanhedrin. A Christian is a member of the church.

Here’s an excerpt from my paper:

“Thus, church membership in Scripture presents an imagery of wholeness and unity, that of one body. There is a distinct contrast between membership in Scripture and that in modern-day membership, as the imagery presented from institutional membership is oftentimes that of an umbrella, in which the organization oversees the individual members of the institution with necessary hierarchies.

A sharp difference between organic membership and organizational membership relates to the intrinsic connection between the member and the body. In the church, there is an intrinsic connection between the members and the body—such as that of one’s limbs to one’s body or that of a family. A member of a family is intrinsically connected to one’s family through blood, indicating that one cannot be separated from one’s family. On the other hand, organizational membership functions differently. There is no intrinsic connection between the member and the body, as the members of the Sanhedrin are individuals participating in the council and its benefits and power.“

So, I think it is biblically reasonable to say “no, church membership is not a biblical notion—in the sense that the early church did not opt for membership. But this leads to a more important point:

2) Why the Early Church did not require membership

The historical context sheds light to why the early Church did not require membership. The early church did not require membership because of the weight and implication of being a Christian. Being a Christian back then (and in many countries today) was no joke. It was a matter of life and death. To be a Christian—claiming Christ as Lord over all—was a death wish and could result in martyrdom. Think about how all the 12 apostles were martyred (I recommend McDowell’s book "The Fate of the Apostles”).

Certainly, there were believers in the church that were lukewarm (i.e.: Church of Laodecia—Rev 3:14-22) and believers facing all kinds of issues of sin (I immediately think of the Corinthian church), but as a whole, the reality of “being a Christian = persecution” was far more vivid than many countries today where there is freedom of religion. Even if it were not death, it was likely that one’s faith would result in being banished from their homes and societies, thus explaining why the early church oftentimes lived together.

Within such a context, it is understandable why membership would not be required, as the believers would have experienced the bond shared through the Blood of Christ—they were literally going through life and death together as the tight-knit family of God. A believer could not exist outside of the church.

3) How Church Membership could be appropriate

To begin, I don’t think churches in countries where being a Christian brings forth massive ramifications (countries where Christianity is illegal) require membership. As one who has lived and served at underground churches because there is official persecution against Christianity, I have tasted and seen the organic relationship shared between believers. I would also argue that believers in those countries understand the cost of discipleship through personal experience.

However, this question becomes valid when it comes to membership in countries where Christianity is legal and that, at least on paper, there is a “lower” cost of discipleship. (Yes, I’m referring to the United States) Church membership might be more appropriate because it can be “easy” to be a Christian—at least a nominal one. There are certainly churches where a lot of people attend on Sundays in a ritualistic manner without actual commitment to Christ and His Lordship. Church membership, in those cases, may be an attempt to make a distinction between “Sunday church-goers” versus those who are truly in relationship with Jesus and His Bride. Church membership is thus an attempt to draw a believer’s commitment to God and the faith.

Still, I would contend that church membership is not necessary to distinguish true believers versus nominal/carnal/uncommitted ones as their lifestyles (produced fruit) should reflect their relationship with Christ.

4) Conclusion

Is Church membership biblical? Certainly not, in the same way that a senior pastor is “unbiblical” (there was no senior pastor in the Early Church—I believe the early church avoided a “high priest role” in the Sanhedrin (e.g.: Jn 11:49). More explanation in my paper), though it might be appropriate today in some regions.

However, I believe we have to be cautious when the church—as an institution—considers a notion that is not strictly rooted in Scripture and in the example of early church. In other words, I think there could be potential dangers with church membership, such as potential dangers with a senior pastor (i.e.: abuse of power, idolization, unhealthy influence etc,).

Here’s one example. A potential danger of institutional church membership is that it allows official church members to vote on church related issues. First, I don’t think allow the congregation to vote on church policies or structure is bibilcal. I believe Scripture affirms that leadership lies in the elders and deacons. There are severe dangers of democratization within a local body. I believe church leadership should constantly keep in touch and be in conversation with the congregation (duh!) but I believe democratization is unbiblical. Thus, some churches that operate with “voting” would only allow church members to vote.

However, if you are reading this and you’re in a country (let’s say the USA) where one can be a nominal Christian, and you’re attending/noticed a church with membership, please don’t write off that church because of membership. Rather, the ultimate question is whether the congregation is truly a member (melos) of Christ’s body—proclaiming and exalting Christ as Lord and Savior with their message and their produced fruit (the lives of the believers)—and if the church operates with godly leaders. If a church is truly a biblical church—a part of Christ’s body—the issue of membership should not be a huge problem.

I pray that we may all approach issues of membership biblically and that we may always examine ecclesial (church-related) topics with Scripture in the forefront.