I appreciate Warren's language of radical commitment to one another. My concern is what he understands as "membership".

In Scripture, a person is identified as a "member of the body of Christ" by the work of the Holy Spirit, not by a decision on the part of the individual or the church. If God brings a brother or sister in Christ into our lives (whether we meet together or Sunday or not) then we are members of one another and members of Christ. We are then "radically committed to one another" because of our comment relationships to God through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

So, if we are using "membership" in a certain "local church" to determine who we are or are not "radically committed to", then we are not follow the scriptural pattern of membership. Instead, we are following an organizational pattern of membership.

-Alan

I agree with Alan. The body of Christ is determined by The Holy Spirit.
Maybe Warren's membership fell off as they find out a few glitches in his preaching.
We need to get back to what the Scriptures say. The church teaches things today that are not in line with God's Word. The adverage Christian who does not read and study The Scripture day and night, yes that is what we are suppose to do,will be led astray before He appears.
Notice the very first thing that Christ says will be the sign of His coming is in Matthew 24:4-5 "Take heed that no man decieve you.For many will come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall decieve many."
We must quit being lazy and study His Word.
It is THE PURE WORD that will led one to the Cross and right into Glory!

Linda

i may be approaching the table of cynicism too much here, but membership has become too closely associated with steady flow of income for the church.

does warren address that?

I agree that real "membership" is organic. I'd add that it both flows from and helps to build a sense of deep community. What I don't agree with is the notion that it can somehow be implemented top down through various programs and structures that most evangelical churches hold so dear; the most these things can do is allow for it; though at worst, they kill it. And in most cases, they don't know how to allow for it. I've had a wonderful regular and faithful fellowship gathering shut down by a church hooked on just such structures and programs.

Skye,
I think Mr. Warren needs more space to flesh out his thinking because just from the little tidbit here I'm getting the impression that membership shows commitment, and yet we know that isn't true...I think I need more information before I can actually assemble an opinion that can address the question.

I really take issue with calling non-membership spiritual adultery. Is he kidding me? We are not supposed to be married to the church - we are supposed to be married to Jesus.

This is why I have a hard time with institutional religion - they define things as sin which are not defined that way in the Bible. And usually they define it to their benefit.

Recovering Alumni
Wow! Good call on the bogus "adultery" charge.

Warren is only right about membership being organic and not institutional. Membership is only applied as believers function in deep, mutual relationships. The system of institutionalized church preaches and poses for deep, mutual relationships to happen, but the systemic assumptions almost completely nullify it all by it's habit patterns.
Example: Sunday morning, the main gathering of believers is dominated by one-way communication driven by one man. There is not one second of "members of one another" function programed for that time. There is not one second of deep, mutual relationship exemplified by the "pastor". The practice and the program is totally institutional and 0% organic. All the talk is completely reversed and denied by the function.

In God's amazing grace, there is some deep, mutual relationship happening within the institution, but so little, we should be grieved about it. From my experience, not one of the hundred members we knew by name (out of 1200) and had been connected to for 16 years had any relational depth to interact about the radical spiritual challenges God gave us to pass on to them. Only 1 of them would open his Bible to even look.

From personal experience, if one "member" (labeled layman) offers anything "radicalis" to Mr. Pastor, shows it is driven by scripture, and does not except the bogus excuse that "I don't see it that way", the "member" will be driven out of the church. Praise God my membership is with Him and not some institutionally addicted pastor!

Institution and organization ALWAYS take precedence over organism and truth. I am pretty sure Warren will never allow organism to trump his institutional organization. Institutional organization is a bogus substitute for the spiritual organization God designed for His body.

Actually, it surprises me to say this, but Warren is exactly right. The New Testament knows nothing of a born again Christian who is not an active part/member of a local church. All those Christ saves, He adds to His body. And all those He adds to His body, He first saves (Acts 2:40-41). Salvation and church membership go together like child birth and family membership.

As for being a part of the body of Christ, pretty much everywhere that metaphor is used, the writer (usually Paul) addresses a visible, local church. The spiritual reality of a universal body is "fleshed out" in local representatives of it. Those things are not enemies but two dimensions of the same reality.

A Christian who is not a member of a church is by NT definition a "grotesque anomaly" (to borrow from John Stott). Warren simply uses provocative language to make the point sharply. Paul used different imagery: The eye cannot say it has no need of you. The foot cannot say because I am an eye I don't belong. Each part is placed in the body as God desires (see 1 Cor. 12:12-27).

To follow the teaching and example of the NT is to be a faithful member of a local church, however one might procedurally practice such membership.

Instead of accusing those of us who are not members of a church of sinning, Warren and his allies should ask us why we've yet to connect with their or a specific church body. There are valid reasons.

this is the fruit of the largely a-historical and individualist theological stance in evangelicalism.

it is also the fruit of divorcing baptism from explicit language of "entering the community of Faith".

If we re-appropriated baptism as rite that indicates, at the very least, public affirmation by the person AND community of what the Holy Spirit has and is doing in the person's life we could tie it to membership.

His comments are very appropriate to our current situation in America.

I know some will easily get offended when told that they are wrong for not assimilating to a local body of believers. Our culture has ingrained us to seek out whatever will make us happy and fulfill our needs.

My friends that are not connected to a single church do so because they like what different churches offer at different times. Why not seek those things? We have changed the church into a consumer mentality. Customize your church "experience" by having it your way.

In turn, many have neglected the very purpose in a local church body. James 5 details God's promises when we have that local body. It is vital to our well-being as a Christian.

Although attending is a great thing, for the child of God membership and fellowship is a must!

"If we re-appropriated baptism as rite that indicates, at the very least, public affirmation by the person AND community of what the Holy Spirit has and is doing in the person's life we could tie it to membership."

I like that, Nathan, and I think you are far closer to the mark than Mr. Warren. Baptism has fallen down the rank and file of life altering events to a quaint little ceremony where people clap, cheer, say "oh yay!" with some expectation of...I don't know...there seems to be no expectation that comes with it. Baptism seems to be an end unto itself, and yet historically in the early church it was significantly huge all the way to the point of being a life altering event of epic proportions...and in some cases, grounds to be executed for treason/heresy.
We seem to have lost the meaning of baptism completely, but hey, membership, there you go, become a member and get "the benefits that comes with membership!"
I'm hoping Mr. Warren isn't going down that path...it would be...umm...disappointing to say the least.

Very interesting comments here. I wonder if the comments for are those who are members of a local church and those against are from those who are not members of a local church.

The bible is pretty clear that the bride of Christ is His church - local gatherings of believers who were so committed to one another that they combined their possessions and cared for one another. For me, being a member of a local congregation signifies my committment to that group, through the good and the bad times. My experience has shown people who were 'committed' to the church when times were good, but as soon as a newer, shinier, version of a local church moved into an easy driving vicinity then suddenly the Lord was calling them to go to the new place.

Interesting how, at least for those I have known, God never called any of them to a place that was struggling, a place where their gifts and talents could have been useful.

I believe that membership signifies committment to that local congregation. I also believe that every believer should be committed to a local congregation. What other hope does the world have beside Jesus moving through His representation here on earth - the church?

I think part of the problem here is that many think membership = commitment and non-membership = non-commitment. However, I don't think that is actually the case.

Its hard to compare our situation to the early church...their "churches" formed based on geography - they fellowshipped with their neighbors, the people they actually shared life with, etc. Now, we drive to a church that is probably not in our neighborhood and the likelihood that we run into anyone from our "church" during our daily life is slim to none...I'm more interested in the idea of being committed to any believer that may cross my path, not just those who attend the same building on Sundays that I do.

"I'm more interested in the idea of being committed to any believer that may cross my path, not just those who attend the same building on Sundays that I do."

These are not mutually exclusive, are they?

In the NT, "Church" most often refers to a specific local gathering of believers, or all those local bodies together, all identified through leaders connected via doctrine and sacrament in an organic way to the Apostles and their successors. All the NT teaching about Church as members of Christ's Body, etc., is also referring to this concrete historic community of people. The NT knows no free-agent Christians, not connected with one of these local bodies and in submission to its doctrinal and sacramental affirmations and to its leaders. One became a member upon confession of faith through water baptism and the Church as all local bodies together maintained its identity as a single organism through Apostolic succession of both doctrine and ordination through the office of what evolved into its Bishops. The Eastern Orthodox Church maintains this practice to this day.

Wait?! Have we so lost sight of the New Testament and what church was?

Historically, the Christian church was a gathering of believers in a local place (someone's home) for fellowship and accountability. I just don't see in scripture where church membership was questioned mainly because: 1) To be there meant that you were going to live for Christ. 2) They chose to join the church because God had already been working in them.

The church at Corinth was dealing with sin, and Paul instructed them to take measures. The final measure is to put him out of the church that Satan might have his way with the man.

Why do we join churches?

Karen,

I'm sympathetic to your view. My point is that many of today's American "churches" are not at all similar to the "concrete historic community of people" precisely because there is no community. Is a church really a church if you aren't "one-anothering" each other. If we only go so we can submit to an authority and belong to a group - aren't we really missing the point? I'm not against commitment - just against commitment to something lesser than radical love and community with our fellow believers.

And to answer your question, no, these things aren't mutually exclusive. Yet, its often presented that way from the pulpit...i.e. being committed to our church means you have to be at this or that function, nevermind how you are ministering or building relationships in your community...but perhaps that is outside the scope of this conversation.

I humbly agree with Alen, Linda, and Dan(First three posts). This does not negate the need to commit to a local group of believers, I just wouldn't connect "Local church membership" and "spiritual adultery" because...
I believe scripture says that 1.) I am a member of "the church" and part of the "married bride" the moment I get saved. 2.)Christ baptises us with the Holy Spirit into THE "Body of Christ." cf. Mk 1:8, 1 Cor 12:13 "...For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body..." 3.) The reason for the Elders given in Eph 4:11-12 "...for the edifying of THE body of Christ:" This need for commitment reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan, "who is my neighbor(fellow church members)?"
There is only one true body of believers, and they meet together in local assemblies. This is why I am able to have been part of different local churches growing up as we have moved. This is why we can have evangelists and other missionary type believers who hardly darken the doors of their official sending church but who are able to use their gifts to edify the body of Christ.
I think that being overly focused on local church membership often leads to us being individualistic as a local body and not working together with other local bodies for the common purpose of ministry to the saints and the great commission. Let us be committed to THE body of Christ as much as we are committed to a local body of Christ.

My church does not stress membership, but membership would not make the people in my church any more committed than they already are. While I do see a biblical mandate for attending a local church, I fail to see a similar mandate for membership in a local church. I am already a member of the church, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ. I am as committed to the North Korean church as it meets in prison as I am to the Christian in Morocco, as I am to the Bible study in Ireland. It is possible to commit adultery against Christ. It is not possible to commit adultery against a local church. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

Jason
"I wonder if the comments for are those who are members of a local church and those against are from those who are not members of a local church."

I am against institutional forms of membership. I am in favor of only organism membership. That is the only kind the Bible talks about because the body of Christ is only an organism. Institution means non-mutual power structures, one-way communication oriented gatherings, perpetual dependency on hired experts, etc, all of which contradict God's instructions. Am I connected to a local fellowship of believers? Absolutely, with qualities of deep mutual relationships, complete leadership reproduction, and 100% of giving going out the door. Do we have a member list? No, but we have inter-generational "members of one another" (Eph. 4:24; 5:30) dynamic happening 7 days a week in ways I never imagined possible when I was a regular sitting in a pew.

There are many saints who are deeply frustrated with the shallowness, selfishness, and bogus power orientations of church in its institutional forms. They don't want to go there but they don't realize there is a form of church life without those things programed in. So they are wandering. Is there selfishness and consumerism built into their wandering? Probably. I wish they would hear the Holy Spirit direct them to the truth. It's available if they will seek after it.

An unappreciated aspect of membership with a local congregation is church discipline. Being a church that does not have formal "membership," we seem to have little recourse with regards to church discipline because when such a circumstance comes up, the person leaves. We have held that folks who want to avoid discipline will leave regardless of membership, but the problem is that we can't let the larger body of Christ (our body and the Body in our community) be aware of the problem because of the lack of membership. I am familiar with churches with a membership covenant that permits the church to exercise Matthew 18 and be legally protected. Outside of this membership agreement, doing church discipline can get you sued for defamation of character. I wish we had a better solution for church discipline. For those who see membership as fluid, as long as it is with a local Body, how do you handle church discipline issues?

Derek,

Why can we not "let the larger body of Christ(our body and the body in our community) be aware of the problem because of the lack of membership"? This is precisely one of the problems of an organizational membership. We tend to only hold ourselves responsible for those who hold the same organizational membership as ourselves. But, according to Scripture, we are members with all brothers and sisters that God brings into our lives, whether we share organizational membership or not.

By the way, organizational membership is not an aid in the discipline process. True relationships is what makes discipline powerful.

-Alan

I'm realizing as I read posts like Ken's that my understanding as an Orthodox of the relationship of the local congregation to the whole Church (as a discreet concrete historic community of Christians organically connected via doctrine and sacrament to the first communities founded by the Apostles and their successors) is one where I see these two realities as necessarily and intrinsically connected. I cannot be rightly connected to the Orthodox Church worldwide, unless I am rightly connected to a local Orthodox congregation. That doesn't mean, however, that I am rigidly bound and obligated only to that local congregation (as might be inferred by those most familiar with protestant "free church" traditions). Rather my membership in that local body automatically makes me a member in the worldwide Orthodox communion (with the privileges and responsibilities of such--such responsibilities include not only love for God and all fellow members of the Church, but for the whole world and even my enemies!). There is no such thing as a Church of Christ that exists without features of an institution (in terms of recognizability as a concrete, historic, organizationally and doctrinally connected community), but I don't believe that "institutional" organization is necessarily exclusive of organism. Certainly, when it inverts the understandings of mutual accountability of loving relationships and the spiritual role of a leader as servant and adopts worldly models of leadership, this is sin that needs to be corrected. But such sin occurred even in the NT Church and did not negate any of what I have written above, nor the "institutional" administrative realities and necessities of any human community (the family being the most basic example of this in human society).

Are you serious? The big news from a conference on "RADICALS" is a talk on church membership? Seriously?

Enough of "What I think is .." or "I feel that ..", what does the Bible say ?!

This discussion has to be approached from the word "Church". What is this word Church ? What is the original Greek Word ? , Where is it used ?. I would love to explain this but I want to engage people here in thinking and understanding for themselves. When everyone understands and knows what "Church" means then they by themselves with the leading of the Holy Spirit, will decide for themselves whether membership is required to belong to a "Church".
Go and Study. Show yourselves approved. 2 Timothy 2:15

If a local church does not have a committed body of members, and a way to know who they are, how will it minister to new believer, each other, and the comunity it is in? I agree that church membership is basically organic rather than organizational, but organization exists to protect the local church. As long as we see the purpose of organization is to allow the local Body of Christ to minister effectively as a living growing organism, it is useful. Organization for the sake of organization however, reduces the church to a social club. While I would not want to be in a church where new ministries that are God inspired are hampered, neither do I want to be in one where there is no leadership oversight of new ministries, no requirements for those who volunteer to lead or teach, or where there is no planning or preparation required to start a ministry. Nor is it good for the local church if people are not committed to it and leave programs, classes, and ministries unmanned without warning, or unbelievable to many, but I've actually seen this, leave the church for another and try to take their ministry (and the people in it) with them to another church. I think the key is balance.

SPEAK VOLUMES

"Christianity Incorporated," a title of a book, is a sign that speaks volumes of how Christian churches are skating on a thin ice today by imitating corporate organizations and risking the essentials of faith and mission.

I am one of the millions who had read Rick Warren's bestseller "The Purpose Driven Life." Also, I had read his other book "The Purpose Driven Church" where he expounded "membership" in 3 chapters,"one telling excerpt of which speaks volumes below:

"On our Life Development Process diagram we call this 'getting people to first base,' and we do it through the process of incorporation, or assimilation. Assimilation is the task of moving people from an awareness of your church to attendance at your church to active membership in your church. The community talks about 'that church,' the crowd talks about 'this church,' but the congregation talks about 'our church.' MEMBERS HAVE A SENSE OF OWNERSHIP." (Emphasis mine)

"Ownership" has the root word "own," the definition in a dictionary of which interestingly speaks volumes: "Of or belonging to oneself or itself, individual. Used to intensify the fact of possession and usually preceded by a possessive pronoun: [My own church]. Sometimes used to indicate oneself as the sole agent of action expressed by the verb: [I build my own church]. That which belongs to one: [It is my own].

A business book "A Passion for Excellence" by bestseller author Tom Peters covered one chapter on "Ownership," an excerpt from which speaks volumes and spills the beans: "Ownership involves the enhancement of pride, pride in ourselves and our close associates."

C. S. Lewis words on Pride flashes on the memory: "According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind."

Tom Peters conceded at the end of the chapter: "The negative side is that we are our own worst enemy..."

Is a book with a cover title "The Fall of the Evangelical Nation," speaks volumes of the writing on the wall?

"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18)

But what is really church membership? Is it signing ones name in the church register? Or is it about active, particpatory, consistent and sacrificial/servanthood involvement and contribution to/in ones local congregation in particular and the wider body of Christ in general? There are thousands of signed-up members who do not actively participate and contribute to the church. Denominationlism and institutionalism also hve their draw backs. It can shift ones attention from pursuing a relationship with Christ and cause one to (unwittingly) focus ones attention on an organsiation. This is spritual idolatry. So Warren mut not only be concerned about spiritual adultery but also about spiritual idolatry. Institutionalism and denominationalism can also cause division and undermine unity in the body of Christ. One has to be as much concerned about both the free-lancing, floating church attendee who doesnot commit and also the institutionalised member who swares allegence to his church organisation.

"Joining" is a biblical term used to describe those who fearlessly committed to walk with the apostles (Acts 5.13). It is association with lasting commitment.

Today I sent an email to my church,as the head pastor used Rick Warren’s comment, above, to “drill” home his point that Christians need to “get into the game” this morning. I am hoping that I will be able to present my reflections/thoughts to him about what he is trying to accomplish; although from what I see on the church website this forum does not exist.

Personally, I am “inflamed” by what I feel is a “guilt tactic” propagated by many Protestant pastors, as well as the Catholic Church, to get the “flock” involved. As well, the other argument points utilized by my pastor this morning included that because we are a “mobile and commercialistic society” we are only concerned about ourselves. These points were presented in such a way as to “hammer home” why churches need membership from its congregants. Apparently its the “selfish” congregants who seek only their own personal satisfaction who are the real problem. That being said, I do want to say, “Really Pastor, really?” Are those the only plausible reasons as to why people are not becoming members anymore? What about former members and “attenders” who have been seriously hurt by pastoral and other church leaders in the church? Are there no concessions for “former members” and “attenders” to “shy away” from church involvement after experiencing abuse from the very church leadership they followed, served and believed in? Guilt making and shaming proclamations like “spiritual adultery” does not have me “rushing” to the front altar in response, beating my breast in some form of abject confession, just because you embrace Rick Warren’s point of view.

Due to past hurts, I am wary of the hierarchical structure that exists in the church, and I know that I am joined by thousands of others who echo the same sentiments. What I would like to see, is much more pastoral, aka church leadership, being more responsible with respect to personal accountability, upholding biblical standards of forgiveness and reconciliation, and becoming more transparent in their own areas of weaknesses and sin. Stop hiding behind sermons, worship songs and works.

My disagreement with Rick Warren is that biblical spiritual adultery is not about people not becoming church members, but it is about believers forsaking the one, true God for other idols. What I would like to ask Rick Warren is to re-consider his position: Is NOT being a “radical (church) member” committing spiritual adultery, or is NOT being spiritually and biblically based spiritual adultery? You decide.

It has been interesting to read so many comments this morning. I am struck at how we are so different and yet the same. All of us want a place to connect and a place to be encouraged and challenged to grow in our faith, whether in a building on Sunday mornings or at a coffee shop on Thursday afternoons.

I agree that membership is important, but it is secondary to the priority of seeing God work and move in the lives of those who attend on Sunday mornings or midweek services, or only come with friends for all the "fun stuff".

We all want to be a part of a Church that takes the gospel seriously and it seems that when we begin to seek God as a body of Christ, God begins to do amazing things in the lives of those who are committed.

Membership can become an issue that overwhelms us and takes over our thoughts. As a pastor, my hope and prayer is that when members, regular attendees, visitors and non-believers attend our service, they understand the main point of our gathering is to worship the God who saved us, the God displayed His love for us through the gift of His son Jesus Christ.

I believe that when that is our focus the following things like membership, finances, buildings, attendance, stay where they are as a distant second.

I agree that membership is important for those who attend and want to become a part of the body in an official capacity, but I also agree that unless we are about the gospel being realized in our lives and the lives of those around us we are nothing more then a organized club.

The Church is a powerful living and breathing instrument of God for His gospel. All the institutional pieces are merely there to keep things organized, whether a group of 5 or 5,000. The amazingly difficult task is to stop thinking that it is up to us to grow or make people change or committ. When the gospel is lived out, when the Holy Spirit is moving, others will want to committ and will want to be a part of what is going on.

So in the end it all comes back to Jesus. Just like it should. Amen.

Church Membership has been and will always be debated but seems to be on the rise.
As a one of the leaders of a church (Calvary Chapel) for almost 15 years where we believed and taught if you attend more than once you are considered a member of our church, with that we covered the issues of legal problems of church discipline should that ever occur. We mentioned this in fellowship before and after, we stressed to everyone that they are welcome as they are and are considered a member of the local church because they are sitting in a chair, very simple. We even had it in our bylaws and in our “What we believe” statements. So we covered the legal issues.
I understand the pros,
- It promotes good organizational practices
- It clearly defines who wants to be committed
- When dealing with church business (money issues, building issues, programs, ministries) makes it easier to organize
- Creates a clear picture of who the Pastor(s) feel they are responsible for
- Legal clarity
But there is CON’s
- It promotes good organizational practices
- It clearly defines who wants to commit
OK you get the point, the same reasons given for pro’s are also con’s.
If you are a Holy Spirit indwelt born again believer in love with Jesus my brother and sister you are committed, you are a member of THE Church. If you are not committed and motivated for others, then you need to question your confession and check and make sure you surrendered all to JESUS, (whole new blog) People compare membership to marriage which is a good example, however membership would be like saying you must sign up for membership to show commitment to your local family, Scripture uses marriage as an example of what we are in Christ, the true invisible church is the bride of Christ, no membership, and through salvation we have become part of the family of GOD.

THE NUMBER ONE REASON I HAVE A PROBLEM, all membership forms that I have seen ask the question “when did you get saved” or something to that nature, does the church have the duty or responsibility to determine who is saved and who is not saved, NO. To authorize church membership is saying “You are saved because we allowed you to be a member” and this person could have never been born again but now thinks his eternal security is all good when it is NOT because he has a badge that says “I AM A MEMBER” False hope.

SECOND BIG REASON, THE THEORY OF COMMITMENT,
If membership is to create commitment, to create community and accountability then something is wrong. These things are the fruit and evidence of a true believer. If a pastor thinks he needs to know who is committed by membership and he, as a pastor is only responsible to GOD for these, I think their idea of “Responsibility” from a biblical view is missing. Pastor are commanded to preach the word, clearly teach and preach GOD’s word and bring forth what GOD is saying in the bible. That is his biggest responsibility, not his only biblical responsibility but one mentioned over and over. But when a pastor does this, what or how someone responds to the word is not his responsibility, only when SIN is in the camp. I have read many blogs on this issue, many pastors claim without membership they cannot be committed to that person and membership provides evidence that a member is committed to him, and somehow this mutual commitment, I thought that is what becoming part of GOD’s Family does?

THIRD BIG REASON, membership creates the “HAVE” and the “HAVE NOT” mentality, peer pressure that is not biblical.
Currently I attend a church that is committed to church membership and I know allot of people who attends and I have been asked to serve in a leadership role but I must become a member to do so, I have moved tables and chairs and cleaned up after events, offered to help people in the fellowship etc… I am committed to CHRIST and therefore to one another, I can clean and pickup that is fine but if I talk or teach or make a decision I must be a member. I am struggling with this, and with the pressure I feel the “HAVE NOT” and a sense of bondage.
One last thing, there is allot of GOOD GOD FEARING people who love membership, and are very dear to me, this is not a primary issue, it DOES NOT determine salvation either way, ONLY Jesus can do that.
IN HIM
Mike t.