Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: November 7, 2004
THE NECESSITY OF LOCAL MEMBERSHIP
David B. Smith
Need for conversion is beyond question; all honest students of the Bible concur
with this point. To be brought from the world into the church of God — on the
basis of man’s completion of the conversion plan — is a remarkable transition
worthy of deep reflection (Acts 2:47; Col. 1:13-14). Yet, the point of conversion (i.
e., baptism) raises questions concerning one’s identity with regard to the local
congregation. Conversion brings one into the “church universal” (which consists
of all who have been saved), but confusion exists concerning identification with a
local congregation and the necessity of such identification. Basically, to what
extent should the Lord’s “adding to the church” (Acts 2:47) be understood?
The reason for such an inquiry is obvious on at least one account. For years,
congregations have witnessed the drifting of individuals from one congregation to
another. These situations are characterized by the fact that neither the
congregations with whom the short acquaintance is formed nor the individuals
who float between these churches can claim any real association with each
other. Normal tenures for the “floaters” range from six months to a year, though
there have been exceptions in which the time has greatly exceeded the length of
a year.
Only the persons involved can express the true reason for such a course of
action. Perhaps some have experienced unpleasant circumstances where they
have been members previously, and they are keeping their distance to avoid a
similar experience. Others may refuse identification as a means of avoiding
inherent responsibilities involved; apathy toward accountability is the best
summation. Still others argue that there is no Scriptural authority for local
church identification or “placing membership.” Regardless of what reason
various ones may give as the basis for their actions, the very fact that some thus
behave raises the question of the validity/necessity of local church membership.
Differences between the aggregate and the local congregational states of the
church are vital to the issue under consideration. One’s conversion brings him
into the church universal (Acts 2:47). However, one converted to the Christ may
have no particular immediate identification with a local congregation until such
identification is made (e.g., the Ethiopian, Acts 8:39).
However, identification with a local work is required, and this is established by
more than a few examples. When Paul first came to Jerusalem from Damascus
he apparently planned on a lengthy residence. He thus immediately “assayed to
join himself to the disciples” (Acts 9:26, ASV). This is simply another way of
describing what we commonly call “placing membership.”
Later, Paul moved to Antioch of Syria (11:26), and his long association with this
congregation well illustrates the New Testament practice of local church
identity. It is clear that he was a member of the congregation in Antioch (Acts 13:
1-2), the language sealing the issue beyond question. He, along with others,
“ministered [did service] to the Lord” (v. 2) as a part of the congregation there (v.
1). Though his missionary journeys carried him throughout the ancient world,
his “home congregation” remained the church in Syrian Antioch (14:26; et al.).
That Paul could be clearly identified with a certain group establishes, by
implication, the validity and necessity of local church membership.
The New Testament letters clearly establish the congregational membership
concept. With the exception of a few letters addressed to individuals and to
saints “in general,” the New Testament epistles were written to local
congregations. The Lord’s assessment of seven local congregations in Asia
Minor substantiates this point (Rev. 2-3). The fact that an entire congregation
can be called to repentance for the toleration of false teachers and doctrinal
error (2:14-16), well authenticates both congregational responsibility and, by
virtue of such responsibility, the necessity of local membership.
Even in those instances where an individual (or household) is addressed,
reference to local membership is made explicitly in some and by implication in
the rest. John addressed Gaius personally, yet it is clear that a prior address
had been given to the congregation with which Gaius and Diotrephes were
identified (3 John 1, 9). Philemon’s address was equally personal, yet his labor
in a local congregation is beyond question (Phi. 1-2). So a Biblical precedent is
established concerning the reality and necessity of local membership.
To this model we now add the principle of local autonomy. Were no identification
necessary, than all who chose the “lone wolf” behavior of many could forever
remain beyond the reach of oversight and discipline administered in local
congregations (which seems to be the aim of some). However, the principle of
local autonomy implies the identification of every saint in a local setting.
In the very nature of the case, a “local congregation” cannot exist without
members. How could elders be chosen from among the congregation, if the local
congregation is “comprised” of nothing more than “floaters” who have no interest
in either short or long term commitment? Who would such shepherds lead and
feed?
How could church discipline be effectively administered to “drifters”? The fact is,
it could not. Such is one of the “benefits” of this so-called individual freedom. A
simple investigation of the statements of the Lord and of Paul, on the matter of
discipline, reveals a congregational context in each case. The Lord commanded
that, after other steps have been followed, the news is to be told to the “church,”
and the “church” is to be administer of the final plea of restoration before
withdrawal (Matt. 18:15-18). Paul ordered that the last step of withdrawal is to
occur when the local church is “gathered together” (i.e., in the assembly, I Cor. 5:
4). Regardless of the duty enjoined, the New Testament affirms that it is to be
rendered in the local setting.
There are times, however, when a family moves or congregations compromise and
a new congregational setting must be sought. Clearly, one is not expected to
make an immediate decision as to which congregation with whom he will labor,
unless he has such certain knowledge of it that he can confidently do so. It
often takes time to know the true character of a congregation, but it need not be
indefinite, or even long, else one falls into the infamous and unauthorized
“floater” category. Members of a congregation will generally put forth their best
for the visiting member, which fact requires that those searching for a
congregation engage in a deliberate investigation into the spiritual life of the
congregation.
Within a few weeks one should be able to discover any erroneous doctrinal
tendencies or unauthorized practices. However, one is ultimately required to
identify with a sound, local work and render his/her services as a part of that
congregation. For one to assume the prerogative of exemption from
congregational responsibility is sin. The issue of accountability remains at stake
constantly. As with other problems that have grown to enormous proportions in
the church, this is one that needs to be stopped. The souls of those are at
stake who exchange the responsibility of local membership for the haughtiness
of self-sufficiency. Christians need other Christians for both rebuke and
exhortation. Scriptural baptism places one into the church universal, and every
Christian is required to be identified with a local work.
— via “The Gospel Journal” — May 2003