Church Membership Issues
by William F. Hill, Jr.

 

Recently I wrote a series of articles/editorials dealing with a matter that I believe has caused much damage to the body of Christ.  I posted these articles on my blog, The Parchment ( http://www.theparchment.org).  I have compiled them here in the order they appeared in order for those who are interested to print them or otherwise view them as they were presented.  -- William F. Hill, Jr.

Personal Musings Regarding Church Membership, Part 1

Within the last few months I believe God has been working on my heart and my conscience in a matter that I am about to share.  Please understand that these thoughts I am sharing are not "organized" nor are they polished in any way.  These are simply my thoughts as it pertains to the subject matter.  For those who know me personally they will likely not be surprised to see these words in print.  Perhaps some will, but however I am perceived after writing these thoughts please understand that I do not share these thoughts lightly nor do they come without days and hours of thought and reflection.  

I believe there is a serious problem in the Protestant church today.  I have been and am growing more concerned that this problem, if left unchecked and examined and diagnosed for what it is, will leave the Church of Christ anemic and damaged.  This problem is that of the ease upon which people leave godly churches, (not perfect) and join with another communion (or start another church) for the sake of their "ideals" or "ways to do ministry" or "preferences" or whatever sounds good.  In some cases I have heard some people offer their reasons as being "God told me...” or "God led me..."  Yet I wonder, why?  Further, how can one validate the notion that God actually "led them" to do so in the first place?  Further still, how can one even challenge such a notion?  It seems rather unclear to me.  In some cases people have offered their reasons for leaving doctrinally sound churches, (again, not perfect) because the church they were attending was somehow violating their "conscience".  Again, how can one understand this and how is one to challenge this view?  After all, a person's conscience can only be captive to the word of God rightly understood.  What if a "weaker brother" has a wrong or incorrect understanding of Scripture on a matter and wrongly applies it to his given situation?  There is no guarantee that because a person argues that they left a church over a matter of conscience they are correct in doing so.  As sinful man our consciences are also sinful and in this we often error.  So let me ask: when can a person legitimately leave a communion that is doctrinally sound (not perfect) and join elsewhere?  Are there ever times when we are allowed to do so?  I am beginning to have serious doubts as to the validity of those who think they can.  

Please keep in mind that in these thoughts I am discussing churches that are sound in theology and sound in doctrine.  I am not arguing that people should remain in theologically inept communions or, for that matter, apostate ones.  What I am asking and seeking is the correct understanding of church in light of God's providential working in placing people in churches.  Do we have a duty to labor where we are placed (for a lifetime, if necessary) or do we have a right to simply walk away when things get rough or it appears that we will never change the minds of those around us?  I would argue that American church goers in general have become so individualistic in their thinking about this matter that they are quick to answer, "Yes".  However one only has to look at the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century to see that the reformers in no way desired a schism nor did they desire to start a new "church".  What they desired was to see the Roman Catholic Church repent of apostasy.  This was their hearts desire.  People today, however, leave their doctrinally sound churches for reasons that fall far short of this.  They leave over disagreements in "application" instead of differences in "doctrine".  Certainly application is necessary and without it doctrine would be useless however there are often times that people split hairs over application and leave churches unnecessarily.  

How are we ever to impact our world with the truth if we are so easily fragmenting and leaving those we say we love and those we were providentially called to labor among?  This needs to stop.  

My mind is daily dealing with this matter realizing that what I am saying will not be popular or rub people the right way.  The fact is that even in my own life I have been part of the problem.  I also have left churches for reasons that, in retrospect, were not worth dividing the church over nor were they worth breaking fellowship for.  

These are my disjointed thoughts.  More later.

Personal Musings Regarding Church Membership, Part 2

As indicated in my original article on this subject I would be adding more of my thoughts about this issue.  Again, as I continue to work and labor through this matter I would appreciate comments and opinions as it relates to this most serious matter facing the Protestant church today.  

I am grateful to the article titled: "Church Hopping" by Chris Schlect and it can be read in it's entirety at: http://www.patriarchy.org/church/church_hopping.html    I will be using it as a springboard to my comments throughout this post.

When are people allowed to leave a church that they have committed to serving and laboring within?  Are there ever viable times and reasons for people to leave and attend elsewhere?  Can these be identified?  I think they can.  

First, God's people are allowed to leave to join with another communion when He has providentially called them to relocate due to work or other matters providentially orchestrated.  Of course this is really not "leaving" the church.  It is simply a "transfer" to another congregation and in this the elders of both churches should rejoice to see God at work in the lives of His people.  Yet some will say, "What if the move is not necessary"?  I would suggest that in these times that discussion with the elders of the current work would be an important guide to ascertaining the need for the move.  Any move that comes under the direct and clear permission of the elders cannot be seen as being divisive.  This course of action simply allows one to stay under the umbrella of headship that God has established for His church.   Another case where a person is allowed to leave is when they have the clear and direct blessing of the elders for doing so.  Each person must judge what this means to some extent but common sense makes it rather simple.  If the elders send a person out to join with another congregation this action should be friendly and without friction.  Yet many leave churches today without this "blessing" and the result of such action is turmoil and heartache.  A lack of action by the elders does not always equate to "blessing" and in that we must be very careful.  The elders may not stop you but this in no way means that you are "permitted".   

Second, a person is allowed to leave churches when clear doctrinal differances affecting the major tenets of the faith exist that are of an irreconcilable nature.  Here is where most people usually confuse practice with orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy must precede orthopraxy.  However many people make illegitimate leaps towards practice and in that create a rule of orthodoxy.  This is backwards.  Orthodoxy must lead to good orthopraxy necessarily.  However, far too often people create a new theology because they are reversing this issue. There are any number of issues facing the church that would illustrate this most clearly.  Some of these issues are homeschooling, courtship, age-segregated Sunday schools, youth groups (or the lack of them) modesty, women working, birth control (or the lack of it), etc.  There are no prescribed rules in Scripture that require that people follow them according to some rule someone has made.  For example, God has not prescribed homeschooling as the cure all for our cultural problems, (that is the job of the Lord Jesus and the church militant).  He has mandated the full and complete weight of responsibility to the fathers and heads of households in this matter and in that we should be humbled and in awe.  However, we should not be leaving our local fellowships as a result of these kinds of matters that are mere preferences and practice especially if the church is not discouraging people from following their conscience in these matters.   No, we must leave only when the current congregation is apostate or has so clearly left fundamental and clear tenets of biblical orthodoxy.  Anything less violates the covenantal relationship that God places people into and calls them to labor within.  If you feel strongly that these "practical" issues are vitally critical then labor where you are placed to seek reform.  Leaving will not fix it.

Third, leaving is allowed when staying would force one to sin.  This is where most people will play the "my conscience says this or that" card.   Yet our conscience cannot be captured to unbiblical requirements or, for that matter, man-made rules of application.   Our conscience can only be captured by the Word of God rightly understood.  If you are mishandling Scripture and claim that your conscience is being "held captive" to it then your captivity is your own fault.  It is not God who placed this burden on you.  It is your own poor understanding of Scripture.  I would caution people to be very careful how they apply this aspect.  Further, the key word in this third option is "forced".  Most people are not forced to sin when they stay in churches that do not "see” it their way or "do” it their way.  Most simply use this as a convenient excuse to grant themselves permission to leave and do what they want anyhow.  For example, I have yet to be a part of a church that refused to allow me to homeschool.  They may have seen other viable options to education but they in no way told me I cannot homeschool.  Thus I cannot legitimately accuse this church of forcing me to sin.   Some will object and say that in some churches they are made to feel "isolated", as a result of their views.  I would suggest that one can only feel this way if you allow it.  If this is truly happening leaving will not fix it.  Only following biblical requirements for conflict resolution will.

These are hard words -- words that strike deeply into my own heart and soul.  Yet this issue is serious.  God's people need to wake up.  The “family” is not the bride of Christ -- the Church is.

Personal Musings Regarding Church Membership, Part 3

At the encouragement of another visitor to the Parchment I am including a link to Calvins Institutes of the Chirstian Religion that speaks to this matter of leaving doctrinally sound churches.  John Calvin is, arguably, the greatest Christian scholar apart from the apostle Paul.  We would do well to listen to his words.  The section I am referring to is Book 4, Chapter 1.8-12.  You can access this by clicking the link below:

John Calvin's institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 1.8-12

Here is a snippet taken from Book 4, paragraph 12:

Here, however, I have no wish to patronise even the minutest errors, as if I thought it right to foster them by flattery or connivance; what I say is, that we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a church, provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of piety consists, and keep the use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord. Meanwhile, if we strive to reform what is offensive, we act in the discharge of duty. To this effect are the words of Paul, "If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace," (1 Cor. 14: 30.) From this it is evident that to each member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor, continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly arranged.

Personal Musings Regarding Church Membership, Part 4

In keeping with my theme of thought over the last few weeks I would now like to turn to my own experience as it pertains to this matter of church membership.  Part 5 of this "series" will begin to explore some of my thoughts regarding church vows, specifically those taken in the Presbyterian churches.  With that said let me begin.

Almost one year ago today an event happened at a Reformed and Presbyterian church that I was a member.  The details of the event are not critical to this discussion but what can be said was that it resulted in some leaders and families leaving this church in order to start a new work in order to conform to their preferences.  They left over issues of preference and not issues vital to the faith.  The church I was attending was not apostate nor was it even close.  In fact, it was and remains today, a strong church theologically.  Certainly it is and was not always everything it should be, but it is working to always seek God's best for the sheep that attend her.  It must be said from the outset that this new work was not a work of that church nor was it approved by the elders of said church.  When this event took place the elders wrote a pastoral letter to the congregation instructing us to not follow those that left and that those that left were doing so of their own free volition and not due to support from or by the elders.  They further availed themselves to us all to answer questions as best they were able.  It was a difficult time for us all.

As a result of many matters I chose to set aside my vows and disregard the directives of my God ordained elders in this matter.  I refused to humbly adhere to the advice offered by them.  I refused instruction from good friends who cautioned me to carefully think this matter through.  I was rebellious.  Over the course of the last year and due in no small part to this matter I came to realize my own sin in this issue.  I am biblically called to be in submission to the authorities God places over me.  I am called to submit to my elders.  I had a God given responsibility to both listen to them and obey them in this matter.  I refused.  I rebelled.  I was in sin.  May God forgive me for this action and begin to heal His church for the heartache that this split has caused so many people.

We are Christians.  We are united to one another and we are to live in harmony with one another because of the fellowship we have in Christ.  We are to work for unity as often as we can and in areas we disagree we are to be charitable, working and laboring together for the glory of God and His church especially as it pertains to secondary doctrines and matters.  We are not called to divide.  We are called to love.  Love does not seek its own.  Love does not desire its own way.  Love desires the good of the body and the unity of this most precious work God has given us -- His church; His bride.  For me this is what brings me the greatest regret as I look back over the last year.  The attitudes I carried and the actions I demonstrated presented something that is sinful.  May God, in His great grace forgive me for this action and may He work to bring others to a place of repentance over this matter.  

The Church and Authority

I was recently discussing with a freind this topic of church authority when my friend made a comment that disturbed me.  The comment centered around the idea that fathers have "sole authority" in their home.  This is a main idea of those that are currently ensnared in this "Patriarchy movemement" (read "legalism).  Fathers, although they are the "primary" authority are not the "sole" authority.  Each Christian father ought to be a part of local church.  Thus, by definition, he is then under the authority of the elders of that local congregation.  Therefore the father is not the sole authority in the home.  The father is the "primary" authority to be sure.  However, the church is there to assist as those that are in covenant with the father.  They are also in authority over the father in all matters of faith and practice.  Practically speaking, this means that if the father gets out of line the church has the right and the responsibility to deal with the wayward father.  The church has also the privilege to assist this father in whatever way they can to further his calling as a father.

Why is it that we bristle at the idea of church authority?  What is it about the subject that so bothers us?  Sure, no one will say it outloud.  People are too cultured.  They guard their tongues enough to avoid saying that they dismiss the notion that the church has any real authority.  Yet, we do not think it really does.  I sometimes have wondered if, as Protestants, we have become such haters of Roman Catholicsim that we have gone too far the other way.  The church of the Lord Jesus has REAL authority given to her.  Our elders have real authority.  They not only offer "ideas" or "counsel".  They speak for Christ when they speak to us.   If we only view their words as "good advice" then we might as well call ourselves "congregationalists".  Furthermore, the elders then do not have any real authority since, in the end of things, it is what I think that becomes the final authority.  

Personal Musings Regarding Church Membership, Part 5

While doing some research this morning on the subject of Reformed Ecclesiology I came across this quote:

Since the church itself is held in such low regard today, little wonder church membership is not highly regarded. Many civic organizations or professional associations have much higher requirements for membership than the church. In how many local civic clubs could you remain a member in good standing while never attending or paying dues? That civic organizations should have higher standards of membership than the church of Jesus Christ is truly a shame. For no other organization has the power of the keys, the power to admit people into heaven or ban them from the presence of God . (S.Pribble; link: Is Church Membership Optional? )

What a sad commentary on the state of the modern church.  Yet I would challenge any of my readers to argue this point to the contrary.  We view the church this way because we do not really consider the church to be all that the Scriptures say it is.  We treat it like a "volunteer organization" of which we can just up and leave whenever the urge strikes.  Some will argue, "If my conscience is bothered by what my church is doing certainly I have the right to leave."  Sadly this is more of an excuse to leave then it is a reason.  Often people leave a church for one reason or another and never offer a single word of explanation as to "why".  The fault for this lies with both the leaving member and those that remain.  Some questions should be asked before leaving.  First, did you communicate your struggles with your elders before departing?  Second, have you labored over the matter in prayer and a diligent reading of God's Word? Third, are you departing over critical and central doctrines?  Fourth, have you worked patiently to reform those elements that have caused you to consider leaving?  

Some questions should now be asked of those that remain.  First, what did you do to discuss the concerns with the leaving member?  Second, did you attempt to contact them after hearing that they did leave to ascertain the problems and gently rebuke them (if necessary)?  Third, did you remind them of the membership vows that they took before the assembly of God's people and gently instruct them to rethink their actions?  No, what usually happens is this: a member gets upset over something.  This member then allows it to brood and simmer within until they can no longer deal with the problem or issue.  At this point they are already looking to go elsewhere.  Then they leave without honestly working to deal with the matter as they should.  After this those that remain simply comment about the departure of so and so yet cannot honestly explain the issue or the reasons that led to the departure.  

This matter is serious if we really believe the last line of the quote I offered.  This is not a bridge club or a chess club.  It is not a club at all.  It is the community of believers called by the providential wisdom and divine decree of the living God of which we better take seriously.  Do you?

The Nature and Unity of The Church

On New Years Eve I was prompted to read some of the articles written by the late John Murray, former professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton and later at Westminster Theological Seminary.  One article in particular caught my eye.  No surprise that it is on the unity of the church.  He writes:

It is to be admitted that the fragmentation and lack of co-ordination and solidarity which we find within the strictly evangelical and Reformed Churches create a difficult situation, and how this disunity is to be  remedied 'in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace' is a task not easily accomplished.  But what needs to be indicted, and indicted with vehemence is the complacency so widespread, and the failure to be aware that this is an evil, dishonoring Christ, destructive of the edification defined by the apostle as 'the increase of the body into the building up of itself in love' (Eph. 4:16), and prejudicial to the evangelistic outreach to the world. If we are convinced of this evil, the evil of schism in the body of Christ, the evil of disruption in the communion of saints, then we have made great progress.  We shall then be constrained to preach the evil, to bring conviction to the hearts of others also, to implore God's grace and wisdom in remedying the evil, and to devise ways and means of healing these ruptures, to the promotion of united witness to the faith of Jesus and the whole counsel of God .(Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 2, p. 335, emphasis mine)

Note with me what the author says about this fragmentation:  It is an evil.  It is dishonoring to Christ. It is destructive to the edification defined by the apostle Paul.  Powerful words!  I implore those with such a low view of Christ's church that they would be quick to divide over matters not germane to the central doctrines of our most precious faith to repent; to fall to their knees and plead with God for a return to their first love.  May we all be impacted with a new view of Christ's bride -- the Church of which He came to give His life for.

Membership Responsibilities

Continuing my reading of John Murray on matters dealing with Ecclesiology he writes the following comments worthy of our attention:

Ideally there ought to be only one Christian church throughout the whole world, the church of Christ, one in doctrine, one in worship, one in government, one in discipline.  Romanists and Episcopalians have no monopoly of the formula 'one holy, catholic and apostolic church'.  It is inherent in the nature of orthodox Protestant confession that the church of Christ throughout the world ought to be one in doctrine, worship, government, and discipline.  Division within the church arose from unfaithfulness to Christ and declension from the apostolic pattern.  Everyone imbued with zeal for the honour of Christ must deplore the fragmentation which has marred the body of Christ and to a large extent dissipated its witness. (Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 1, p. 275)

Christians talk about influencing the culture and turning the minds and hearts of the world to what the Scriptures say to our world.  We discuss "cultural impact" at great lengths and certainly there are many reasons why we do not stem the tide of much of what is happening in our world today.  Yet, it is my studied opinion that one of the greatest reasons we do not demonstrate a powerful witness to the world is, by and large, because we are a fragmented bunch that leave our churches and start new ones or join with others when things do not happen the way we think it should.  As Murray writes, we must see this fragmentation (starting new churches; leaving sound churches; starting another denomination, etc) as a key factor to the driving away of the Christian witness in our world.  Murray continues that it was at times necessary, however, to maintain the purity of the church, to divide.  As a result of sin and error different denominations have risen up.  The question now is "to which branch of Christ will you join"?  After we belong to a church we have a responsibility to it.  Murray commenting on this writes:

There is, indeed, no stereotyped formula which all of us can apply in the various situations in which we are placed by God's providence.  And we must not take lightly the matter of severing our connection with one denomination and joining another.  Sometimes we may run away from solemn responsibilities and opportunities by severing our ecclesiastical bonds. And if we belong to a church that is unfaithful we should do what we can to bring that unfaithfulness to an issue before we abruptly terminate our connection with it. Our corporate responsibility is most intense in that very communion in which we happen to be, and this responsibility requires the ministry of reproof and protest.  (Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 1, p. 276, emphases mine)

Now this is certainly not the predominant attitude of the majority of church goers today!  What normally happens is that member so and so gets upset at some issue, doctrine or method and leaves.  No warning; no discussion -- nothing.  Sure, some might complain and comment here and there about the matter.  It has been my experience that people who are disgruntled with what the church is doing handle it wrong anyhow.  I know I have been guilty of this in my life.  Instead of discussing the matter with the elders people backbite, gossip and slander the elders.  Friends, God has a word for this type of attitude and action. It is called "SIN" and it needs to stop.  Some might even discuss it correctly with those who are in authority in the church.  Yet, far too often it is insufficient effort.  Ultimately the disgruntled member simply decrees that he is leaving and does so.  I have heard all kinds of excuses offered by people for why they leave a church.  Most of the time the excuses are not as the matter Murray here presents, ("unfaithful").  Murray's counsel to us is that we labor and fight where we are placed before we simply walk away.  Just because you can leave does not mean you should leave.  As one pastor commented recently -- "You may be right (about your issue) but in some cases there is a deeper right to consider".  We are to labor where we are placed.  We are to be diligent in our calling to a local body.

Pluriformity?
T he image to the left is designed for one purpose: to confuse you. You see, this image is the family tree of the Presbyterian church in the United States. As you can see it is a convulted mess of schism and division with the occasional union of one branch to another, (a larger image is available by clicking it). What a mess! Ever since I was introduced to the Reformed Faith I have wondered one simple thing: Why are there so many reformed denominations in the United States? . You would think that since Presbyterians subscribe to the same doctrinal standards, (The Westminster Standards) that there would be little need of so many individual Presbyterian denominations. Yet there is the OPC, PCA, RPCNA, RPUS, RPCUS, CRC, ARP, and so many more. In this "alphabet soup" there is little unity except for the lip service of "fraternal relations" given by the leaders of these denominations. Frankly, this notion of lip service is incomplete because at the end of the day there is no real union at all. Consider the following comments written by John Frame:

Among the Reformers, Calvin was most concerned with the unity of the church, specifically with the visible unity of the Protestant movement.
Resisting the tendency of Protestants to divide into Calvinist and Lutheran camps, Calvin subscribed to a revised version of the Lutheran Augsburg
Confession. More recently, however, some Reformed thinkers have subscribed to the notion of 'pluriformity', the view that denominations are, on the
whole, a good thing. On this view, denominations are God's way of dealing with diversity in temperaments, gifts and doctrines. They maintain peace in
the body of Christ in the way that good fences make good neighbors.

Other Reformed theologians, however, have rejected pluriformity, believing that God never ordained denominational division and that he intends for
differences among believers to be worked out within the church, not over good fences. That position became more influential in the late twentieth
century. Reformed denominations have formed organizations, such as the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, the International and American Councils of
Christian Churches, the World Reformed Fellowship and the National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. They have sought
'fraternal' or 'sister church' relationships with other bodies. Some denominations have discussed union with others.

It seems to me that, although Reformed churches are committed in theory to seeking union, there is a notable tendency for them to shy away from any
actual union and indeed to create new divisions unnecessarily. Reformed churches tend to glory in their distinctives: their history, their ethnic origins, the theological battles of the past that have made them different from others.

Further, when groups of people leave a denomination over some issue, they tend to form new denominations rather than join denominations that already
exist. So those who left the CRC over the issue of women's ordination did not, for the most part, join other Reformed or Presbyterian denominations,
but formed new bodies. In my judgement, these new denominations were unjustified, and therefore add to the divisions in the body of Christ.

So why the need of so many Reformed denominations? Most people of a Reformed flavor would readily agree and argue that the best expression of God's church on earth is found within the Reformed Theological system. This system is expressed in the governmental paradigm of Presbyterianism. Again, most Reformed people would agree that Presbyterianism is the most accurate expression of Chirst's church on earth. Consider what the PCA Book of Church Order says:

The scriptural form of church government, which is representative or presbyterian...This scriptural doctrine of Presbytery is necessary to the perfection of the order of the visible Church (PCA Book of Church Order Chapter 1.1 and 1.6)


With that said, most if not all American Presbyterian denominations find their standards in those of the Westminster Assembly, namely the Westminster Standards. All of the elders, (teaching and ruling) are required to adhere to these standards when they take their ordination vows. Simply put, those churches find their standards in the same theological system no matter what denomination they find themsleves. If one were to take a piece of paper and draw a line down the middle and on the left side of this line list those things that are agreeable and on the right those things that are not I think we would find that there are far more things to agree with. It is those things on the right side of the line that cause this disunity and it is those things that need to be examined and debated with the goal being unity and not seperation. Why can't the denominations of the OPC and the PCA, for example, seek to unite under the same theological system and standard (The Westminster Standards)? What would actually happen if they sought to unite with the express goal to deal with those things that currently divide them? Certainly it would spark greater "official" debate and discussion of these matters with the encompassing mandate that all involved would submit to the will of the brethern just as they do now in their individual presbyteries and sessions. Yet most people believe this will never happen and I believe the reason is plain: Sinful pride. We are more interested in our "theological distinctives" then in true unity founded upon our one Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We are more interested in squabbling over what divides us instead of being as the Westminster Divines and uniting with the goal of solving those things that currently divide us with the rule of the day being submission to the brethren. As long as we continue this way of thinking (on purpose or not) we will never impact a world we say we are so concerned to impact. In this way we are a disgrace to our most precious faith we say we love. We must not ignore our differances! We must work together to resolve them and seek the peace and purity as well as the unity of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. May God help us....