Monthly Archives: July 2011

The Gospel according to Love Wins

Posted on by
3

Will only a few – select – people make it to heaven?

Will billions and billions of people burn forever in Hell?

How do you become one of the few? 

How do I become one of the few? What must I do to be saved? How can I inherit eternal life? No matter how it is asked – it is a question asked over and over again in the pages of Scripture (Acts 2:37; 16:30; 22:10; Luke 3:10,12,14; 10:25; 18:18;  John 6:28). Bell opens the book Love Wins dealing with how to become one of the few by jumping through passages and asking questions that challenge how salvation is worked out in each story.

So is it what you say that saves you? (Luke 7, 18, 23)

is it what you are? (John 3, Luke 20)

is it who you forgive? (Matthew 6)

is it doing the will of God? (Matthew 7)

is it standing firm? (Matthew 10)

This leaves the reader with the impression and nagging thoughts:

What is the gospel? And does how I live my life now matter?

These two questions are raised in the opening pages of Love Wins (page 6, 11) and determine the “fate of every person who ever lived”:

Some Christians believe and often repeat that all that matters is whether or not a person is going to heaven. Is that the message? Is that what life is about? Going somewhere else? If that’s the good news – if what Jesus does is get people somewhere else - then the central message of the Christian faith has very little to do with this life other than getting you what you need for the next one. …

Which leads to the far more disturbing question. So is it true that the kind of person you are doesn’t ultimately matter, as long as you’ve said or prayed or believed the right things? …

If the message of Jesus is that God is offering the free gift of eternal life through him – a gift we cannot earn by our own efforts, works, or good deeds – and all we have to do is accept and confess and believe, aren’t those verbs?

And aren’t verbs actions?

Accepting, confessing, believing – those are things we do.

In an interview with Lisa Miller, Bell is given an opportunity to answer these questions:

[Lisa Miller] So, if I’m an atheist who gives to the poor, helps little ladies across the street, spends all my free time in charitable works. Am I going to heaven?

[Rob Bell] Well, the essence of grace is Jesus saying, “Left to your own, we are all in deep trouble. We have made a mess of this place. We are all sinners. No one has clean hands.” So, the essence of his gospel was, Trust me, I’ll take care of it. Just trust me.

Now, how exactly does that work out? Because he [Jesus] is unbelievably exclusive. He says these things like, “I’m the way and the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me.” He says things like, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen God.” He’s very exclusive. He’s also fantastically inclusive; he says things like, “I have other sheep.” He says “there will be a renewal of all things — I’ll be lifted up and draw all people to myself.” So he’s like in-ex-clusive. That’s a word I just made up. …  And how exactly that pans out? That’s God’s job.

Bell expands on that theme in the book (page 154-155):

[Jesus said] “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

This is a wide and expansive a claim as a person can make.

What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are exclusively coming through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him.

At this point, if I were not a Christian but was interested in what Bell or Love Wins had to say because of the popularity and the controversy I would be left in a very confused state. How do I become one of the few? What is the gospel? Does how I live matter?  Is something as important as a person’s eternal destiny and after-life left to the notion (and Marine/Special Forces quote) -  “Let God sort em out”?

Does the choice to accept or reject God really matter?

Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want. [page 113]

If the mechanism is not defined that gets people to God then how do we know that we have a choice?

  • Maybe we don’t and the universalists are right – God lovingly takes us into heaven (after all all things are reconciled and renewed right?).

And if we do have a choice – to accept or reject God’s ways for us – then how do I choose?

  • implicitly (but if I don’t even know I am choosing to accept God is that really a choice?)
  • explicitly (but then I must understand my options and what the gospel message is?)

And when I choose to accept God’s ways what determines that I have made that choice?

  • Is it to trust God has already taken care of it (but then trust is an action and now I am doing something right?)
  • Is it having a personal relationship with God (the relationship that isn’t in the Bible (page 10) but is the whole point of love (page 178)?)
  • Is it to do good for others (but then how does an atheist who helps little old ladies across the street accept a God they reject exists?)

When do I have to choose?

  • now or in the after-life (and if I get eternal choices why worry about it now – God will sort it out later right?)

And if the “only thing left to do is trust” because  “Jesus forgives them all, without their asking for it” and “not because of anything we’ve done”  (page 188-190) then why do I have to choose again?

Oh, because trust is an action and a choice.

I understand that Bell is in many cases trying to provoke people to think and to generate discussion but in the end, a reader has to ask – just what is the gospel according to Love Wins?

What is Orthodoxy? [Part 4] Is Origen Orthodox?

Posted on by
Reply

In the book Love Wins, Rob Bell speculates on what happens in the after-life opening up the door on various ideas claiming in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News:

I think that the orthodox, historic, Christian tradition is this vast, diverse, conversation that’s been going on for thousands of years and I think Jesus can handle the discussion. It think he can handle the debate.

Based on these comments we have looked at the orthodox, historic, Christian tradition – or the Rule of Faith – in a series of posts exploring whether it is something that should be considered wide (vast/diverse) or narrow.

Now to this discussion I would like to look at Origen. Why? Because, Origen is considered one of the earliest writers who speculated on the after-life suggesting many ideas found in Love Wins. Origen (185-254) lived primarily in Alexandria, Egypt. His writings are later than the previous two apologists that we have examined and unlike Irenaeus and Tertullian, Origen is not writing against heresies. One might argue that rather he is creating them. In First Principles he is laying out a systematic theology of sorts.

Origen: On the After-Life

In this book Origen speculates on the after life. Before recording his ideas on this topic he writes:

But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church’s teaching—viz., that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners—let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be. [2.10.1]

From this two observations regarding the judgment and the punishment of sinners can be made – according to Origen:

  • they are according to Scripture.
  • they are according to the Church’s teaching.

Rather than jump into his opinions on the after-life, Origen next establishes that there is an after-life and a resurrection of the body:

there will be no absurdity in restating a few points from such works [other treaties he has composed], especially since some take offence at the creed of the Church, as if our belief in the resurrection were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are principally heretics, … [2.10.1]

From this two more observations can be – according to Origen:

  • a creed documenting the Church’s doctrine is in existence.
  • those who reject it are heretics.

Having established the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the soul, Origen states that after we die God will raise out of up the natural body “a spiritual one capable of inheriting the heavens” for those that deserve it, while those that are “destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments” are given a body that “cannot be corrupted or dissolved”. Based on this, Origen would certainly reject the annihilationist view of the after-life. Having established that the church teaches that there is an “everlasting fire”, he moves on to to “see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal fire” [2.10.3].

Origen suggests that there are two possibilities [2.10.5]:

  1. psychological/emotional – the conscience torments the soul because it accuses/convicts the person of all the sin committed.
  2. physical – the pains of general punishment.

However it is his “opinion that another species of punishment may be understood to exist”. Here the pain is likened to the body being torn apart since the soul recognizes it is not connected to God and is in a disordered condition. This state when it has “been tested by the application of fire” will result in “restoration”. Here Origen is advocating the post-mortem evangelistic view.

He bases the restoration on:

  • “God our Physician, desiring to remove the defects of our souls”  will like a doctor take extreme measures to cure us and restore us. [2.10.6]
  • “Nothing is impossible to the Omnipotent, nor is anything incapable of restoration to its Creator” so the “destruction of the last enemy” is when the soul/body ceases to be an enemy and to be dead, but is rather restored. [3.6.5]

What should we make of these ideas in regard to orthodoxy?

Does that fact that Origen wrote out his ideas make them part of the historic, orthodox, Christian faith? Or are they one man’s ideas on what the after-life could be like. More importantly can the speculations withstand the teaching of the Scriptures and the church which even Origen acknowledged were to be the source of truth in his preface to First Principle:

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance [...] it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite  limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these [areas that are in disagreement].

…

seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. [preface]

Then he goes on to list what he considers plain and explicit doctrine clearly communicated by the apostles. Here is how they line up with the Apostles’ Creed.

Apostle’s Creed De Principiis (Preface)
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being [...]
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ [...]
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirity
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried [...] that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die;
He descended into hell
The third day he rose again from the dead that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples,
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty and was taken up (into heaven).
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments
I believe in the Holy Ghost the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son.
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints [clearly acknowledges the teaching of the Church as the basis of truth]
The forgiveness of sins
The resurrection of the body And the life everlasting. that there is a time of resurrection from the dead [...]
Amen.

When Origen writes about his opinions on the after-life he shows that he is familiar with teachings that some will be raised to “eternal fire and punishments”. He then speculates that these punishments are restorative in nature. Even thought he attempts to support his ideas with Scripture he does not claim that these speculations are part of the Rule of Faith/creed. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that even Origen would not have considered his ideas or conclusions regarding “restorative punishment” as orthodox but rather his explanation to things that were (in his view) outside of the clear and plain teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Is orthodoxy narrow or wide?

Is Origen’s list of clear teachings a good basis for orthodoxy? Can they be supported with Scripture?

Is there anything you agree with or disagree with in his list?

Is Rob Bell a Universalist? (or what does Love Wins actually teach)

Posted on by
Reply

Rob Bell is the pastor of Mars Hill church in Grand Rapids, MI. He has written a book – “Love Wins – A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived” that has been a NY Times bestseller due in large part to the debate that ensued (most of it before the book came out) around whether Rob Bell is a universalist. The first to respond (to the promo video) was Justin Taylor and the Resurgence has a good overview (with links) of the early responses to the promo video and the book. Since then there has been a lively discussion on hell and Bell has been interviewed several times – with Lisa Miller of Newsweek, Martin Bashir of MSNBC, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Morning Joe of MSNBC, and Josh Loveless of Relevant Magazine. Bell has also been featured on the cover of Time Magazine and a site has been set up to track what is now known as Hell’s Gate.

Is Rob Bell a universalist? 

I guess to answer that question we first have to know what universalism is. In an interview with Lisa Miller, Bell was asked that question.

[Miller] Let’s get right to it. You have been accused in a lot of the coverage of your book of being a universalist. A universalist, in theological terms, means that everybody gets to go to heaven – everybody is allowed to go to heaven. That means Buddhists, Hindus – you can reinterpret my definition when I’m done – Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Atheists, all get to go to heaven. Are you a universalist?

[Bell] No – if by universalist we mean there’s a giant cosmic arm that swoops everybody in at some point, whether you want to be there or not.  [...] So, if by universalist we mean that love doesn’t win, and God sort of co-opts the human heart and says, “You’re coming here and you’re going to like it,” that violates the laws of love. Love is about freedom, it’s about choice. It’s about, “Do you want to be here?” Because that’s what would make it heaven.

The definition used by Miller and Bell generally agrees with the definitions on several other sites:

  • Christian Universalism denies pluralism and balder forms of universalism by contending that all can or will be saved, but only through the saving work of Jesus Christ. [Jesus Creed: Scott McKnight]
  • Yes, everyone will ultimately be saved. Historically known as “universalism,” this view exists in multiple forms, but in each the outcome is the same: Every human being whom God has created will finally come to enjoy the everlasting salvation into which Christians enter here and now. [the Gospel Coalition: Collin Hansen]
  • [Universalism] is the doctrine that states all people of all time will be saved by being reconciled to God and go to heaven, whether or not faith is professed in Jesus Christ in this life. [the Credo House]

Based on these definitions, the answer is no – Rob Bell is correct in claiming that he is not a universalist. That said, much of what he writes in Love Wins, can be seen as opening door wide on this view for others to accept – even if Bell does not.

At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God. [page 109]

[Note: I have written a few posts regarding whether the orthodox, Christian tradition has such claims at its center for those interested.]

What does Love Wins actually teach regarding the after-life?

Before attempting to answer that, here is a chart that lists the major theological views of the after-life. Within each of these major views there are of course multiple variations, however I have tried to summarize them in general terms as I understand them.

pluralism All will be saved. All religions are equally valid and lead to heaven. Jesus is not (necessarily) the means of salvation.
universalism (christian)
 All will be saved. Jesus is the means of salvation and everyone is saved through His sacrifice regardless of what they believe (or want). In this view there is no possibility for people to reject God.
inclusivism Jesus is the means of salvation but some (unevangelized, young children) will be saved through His sacrifice even if they have not heard or responded to the gospel message. In this view it is possible that some people will eternally reject God.
postmortem evangelism A form of exclusivism where Jesus is the means of salvation and a person must willingly choose to accept God’s gracious gift. If people do not accept the gift in their lifetime they will be given another chance to choose to accept Christ after they have died. In this view it is possible that some people will eternally reject God.
annilationism A form of exclusivism where Jesus is the means of salvation and a person must willingly choose to accept God’s gracious gift in this lifetime. Those who have not accepted Christ are thrown into hell at the judgment. They are destroyed in hell rather than being eternally tormented and punished in hell.
traditional view of hell A form of exclusivism where Jesus is the means of salvation and a person must willingly choose to accept God’s gracious gift in this lifetime. Those who have not accepted Christ are thrown into hell at the judgment. They suffer eternal torment and punishment in hell.

Determining which of these views Love Wins is affirming is a tough question to answer because Love Wins does not advocate or defend any position regarding the after-life. Instead it poses questions and possibilities and reports on what others ask or claim. Rob Bell seems much more interested in generating discussion and stirring up debate than settling any theological questions. Referring to the traditional view of hell (page 110), Bell claims:

Not all Christians have believed this, and you don’t have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives.

In fact on page 115, Bell asserts that we can’t know which perspective or view is right:

Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t …

That said there are four strong points that the book does make regarding the after-life:

  • God is love and love involves the freedom given to us to choose or reject God. Our fate in the after-life is based on this choice.
  • God is not limited to giving us a choice only in this lifetime but can provide one or more chances after death (postmortem evangelism).
  • God is not limited to someone hearing the gospel and choosing only in this lifetime but can accept a person’s implicit acceptance of Jesus because they responded to what they had available (inclusivism).
  • There is a strong reaction against (if not a denial of) the traditional view of hell.

On love, hell, and choices Love Wins does make some clear assertions (points I agree with):

Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want. [page 113]

That’s how love works. It can’t be forced, manipulated, or coerced. … God says yes, we can have what we want because love wins. [page 119]

It is based on these statements (and similar ones in interviews) that I don’t think Rob Bell is a christian universalist (even if he leaves that door open for others).

The rejection of the traditional view of hell in Love Wins is based on the provocative questions more than any clear statements. Here is a sampling:

Can God do this or even allow this [send millions of people to spend eternity in anguish], and still claim to be a loving God? Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life? This doesn’t just raise disturbing questions about God; it raises disturbing questions about the beliefs themselves. [page 2]

Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? [page 98]

Is God our friend, our provider, our protector, our father – or if God the kind of judge who may in the end declare that we deserve to spend forever separated from our Father? [page 102]

Telling a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on people because they didn’t do or say or believe the correct things in a brief window of time called life isn’t a very good story. [page 110]

After reading through this that there is not much room for the traditional view of hell. And one could certainly see universalism in some of these statements.

The postmortem evangelism view is explored in Love Wins. However, the view is presented through what others ask or others claimed – opening up the possibility for the view without advocating for it directly.

And then there are others who can live with two destinations, two realities after death, but insist that there must be some kind of “second chance” for those who don’t believe in Jesus in this lifetime. [...]  And then there are others who ask, if you get another chance after you die, why limit that chance to a one-off immediately after death? [...] At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence.  [page 106-107]

The inclusivism view is explored in Love Wins. Based on the texts in Exodus 17 and 1 Cor 10, Bell draws the conclusion that since Jesus was the rock Moses struck and He was not identified then the possibility exists that others can come to Jesus without identifying Him or placing faith in Him directly too:

 People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways. [...] Sometimes people use his name; other times they don’t.  [page 158]

 [Jesus said] “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”

This is a wide and expansive a claim as a person can make.

What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are exclusively coming through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him.

And so the passage is exclusive, deeply so, insisting on Jesus alone as the way to God. But it is an exclusivity on the other side on inclusivity. [page 154-155]

And this may be the biggest problem in the book – one is left with a muddled and incoherent gospel message. But more on that later.

This quote from the Relevant Magazine interview may explain why it is hard to label Love Wins (or Rob Bell) with any particular view – he does not have one:

Serious, faithful, devout followers of Jesus have wrestled with these questions and have entered into the speculation and have all sorts of ways they thought about this and talked about this. I’m not interested in dying on any one of those hills, I’m interested in dying on the hill that says, “There’s lots of hills, and there’s lots of space here.” That’s what interesting to me.

So while Bell is saying there are a lot of hills, he seems to be far more open to the hills of universalism then he is to the traditional view on hell.

Have you read the book? What do you think, is Bell a universalist?

What view of the after-life does Love Wins teach? 

Members Only?

Posted on by
Reply

I have read a couple of posts on church membership over the last few days some in favor and some against the idea. Having retweeted a post on church membership and getting into a discussion on it,  I decided to post this as a spot to further the discussion beyond 140 character responses.

It is important to define terms in a discussion. When talking about church membership we are talking about people who attend a local church who come forward to formally (how formal that is will differ) join that instance of the universal church.

I like John Folmar’s definition of the local church:

A church is an identifiable group of believers who are self-consciously committed to each other. Their lives are not perfect, but by God’s grace they are substantially, observably different from the world around them.  [...]  To join a local church is to agree to live together with other believers in a way that’s worthy of God’s call to live as a chosen people, royal priesthood, and holy nation. It’s to agree to display God’s glory through gospel-centered living and gospel-centered relationships.   (emphasis added)

The universal church is the body of Christ that includes all those who are reborn in all times and all places. Becoming a member in a local church does not save anyone nor does it place them into the universal church.  Placing one’s trust (faith) in Jesus and His promises made in the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-3), which results in being reborn through the Spirit, is what makes one a member of the universal church.

Jesus is the head of both the universal church and over every instance of it. The church (in both cases) is called the body of Christ:

And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Eph 1:22-23 ESV)

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:12-13)

Once one has become a member of the universal church, Scripture encourages becoming an active part of a community of believers (Heb 10:23-25).  Many local churches have a process of becoming a member of the church. That process  generally involves assenting to the following:

  • a belief in Jesus Christ (and often water baptism)
  • an expressed desire to grow spiritually
  • an acceptance of the local church’s doctrinal statement
  • a willingness to submit to the authority of the local church leaders

It is at this point that there is some debate. Should a local church have membership?

Is local church membership Biblical?

When we ask is it Biblical, what we are trying to determine is whether the principle of local church membership is commanded, supported, and/or  promoted in the Scriptures. In the case of church membership I most would agree that there are no commands for the local church to have membership. However there are some passages of Scripture that can be used to demonstrate that the early church kept records over who was part of the local church (specifically lists of widows and orphans).

One of the supporting arguments for the idea of membership is the requirement for leaders of a local church to shepherd (guide, protect, teach) and oversee the people they are serving. The corollary is that the members of the church (flock) are to submit to their leaders.

  • shepherd the flock of God that is among you (1 Peter 5:2)
    • a verse from a letter sent to several local churches in Asia Minor
  • Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood (Acts 20:28)
    • a verse from Paul’s speech given to the elders of Ephesus (a local church)
  • Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)
    • an exhortation to a local church

Each local church has a form of governance (that model may vary from church to church) that includes a set of people (one or more) who are to lead as elders.  For purposes of this post I use the term “elder” generally as the person or persons confirmed as the leaders of a local church. These men are to:

  • shepherd the flock
  • teach sound doctrine
  • refute false teaching
  • oversee the church (make sure church runs in orderly way)
  • administer discipline
  • be role models to the body
  • serve the church as leaders, teachers, and however else God has gifted them

Most of these duties can be found in 1 Pet 5:1-5. Others can be found in 1 Tim 3.

 1So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Membership is seen as a means of identifying the flock whom the leader is to serve and for a person to intentionally commit to being a member of the flock.

Is membership in the local church prohibited in Scriptures?

Even if we disagree that the Scriptures promote church membership, we can look at the question from a different angle. Does the Bible prohibit it either specifically or in principle? I can’t think of any command or principle that would prohibit a local church from instituting a form of membership.

Why should someone attending a local church become a member?

That is a good question. For most local churches that have membership it is required for people to serve in several areas including leadership positions, teaching, starting a home group, or serving with the children’s ministry. It is also a sign of committing one self to a local church community and may encourage people to work through difficult times rather than just leave for “greener pastures” at another church.

Why should a local church have membership?

I am certain a whole post could be dedicated to this (same could be said for the rest of the questions posed) , let it suffice to say that there are administrative, disciplinary, and legal issues that can be met with church membership. For a congregation-led church it would seem to be important in identifying “voters” – equivalent to registering to vote for elections for political leaders and ballot questions.  In our culture of “sue first” ask questions later practicing church discipline, and protecting the flock may be done best within the context of membership as this article states:

Church membership is generally viewed by the courts as being a matter of contract, whereby members freely choose to associate with a particular church community and in doing so accept the benefits and duties of that association. As explained previously, since non-members have not accepted such duties, a church can encounter significant legal liabilities if it tries to exercise jurisdiction over or impose membership responsibilities on them. For example, since non-members have not explicitly consented to the confidentiality, counseling, disciplinary or conflict-resolution policies of a church, the church may face a lawsuit if it divulges any confidential information regarding the non-member, even if only between a pastor and an elder. Lawsuits also may arise when pastoral counseling fails to meet the needs and expectations of a non-member. And many churches encounter legal threats when they confront a non-member about sinful conduct or notify another church to which a non-member flees about such conduct.

I don’t believe that church membership should be used to create a “social club” or clique – though I am sure many could share stories about how that may have happened. I personally believe that church membership is a principle supported in Scripture (though certainly not required) and that it is an important way for a local church to identify its members and to protect itself legally as it tries to carry out the mission of the church to make disciples through evangelism and teaching and encouraging all to grow more like Christ. I also believe that membership encourages those attending a local church to examine their faith and their commitment to the community that they claim to be a part of.

Why What do you think?