The founding of the church in Acts records a connection between believer’s baptism and church membership. While no information is necessarily given concerning the form this membership took, the Bible clearly says, “those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.”1 To what were these newly baptized believers added? Prior to this event, the disciples had been meeting together in the upper room, a group consisting of one hundred and twenty people.2 With the coming of the Holy Spirit, the new believers were added to the church at Jerusalem. For those first Christians at Jerusalem, church membership meant a daily devotion to fellowship, study and prayer, along with generosity and care for each others’ needs.3 From the beginning it was standard practice for church membership to coincide with the ordinance of baptism.
As the gospel spread from Jerusalem throughout the Roman Empire, churches were established among the formerly pagan Greeks and Romans.4 The Apostle Paul exemplified obedience to the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 to “make disciples of all nations,” not simply by sharing the gospel, but as Arnold puts it, “with an equally zealous commitment to forming communities of believers and teaching them.”5 With the entrance into the church of so many believers who did not share the religious background of the Jews, it became necessary for churches to establish a mechanism by which these people could enjoy Christian fellowship, while being instructed in the rudiments of the faith, yet without disrupting the overall working of the church. In essence, a newly professing Christian would remain outside the full membership of the church, where for a period of often up to three years he would be taught Christian doctrine in preparation for his baptism.6
This process went beyond simply teaching doctrine in an academic forum. The church maintained oversight of the professed believer to see that his life demonstrated the genuineness of his faith. Arnold explains that during this time, “Part of the responsibility of the church leaders was to carefully examine the occupations and practices of the new believers. Certain kinds of behaviors, lifestyles, and professions were deemed inconsistent with the faith. New believers were told in no uncertain terms that they needed to renounce these practices and quit them or they would not be able to join the Christian community.”7 Clearly, both the church and the individual Christian believed that church membership was critical; else why go through such an extensive vetting process?
With the conversion of Constantine in the 4th century, the church began to relax its membership requirements to accommodate the integration of church and state. As a result, many were admitted into the church without going through the catechetical process.8 Several different groups within the church reacted against this development. Most notable were the Donatists, who broke fellowship with the Empirical church over the issue of restoring those who had denied Christ and refused to stand facing persecution.9 Augustine responded to the Donatist controversy by emphasizing the mixed nature of the church and claiming that the true believers in the church would only be revealed at the final judgment.10 Although there continued to be reactionary groups within the church, Augustine’s position characterized the church for more than one thousand years with little mainstream opposition, and few, if any questioned the value and necessity of being joined to a church.
That Christians ought to join an assembly was maintained by the Reformers, but exactly who should join and how became issues of some controversy. Luther rejected the control of a hierarchical priesthood in favor of the community of believers, each of whom was to be a priest for the rest. He believed that an isolated member could not live without the support and nourishment that came from that community.11 Calvin focused on the invisible nature of the church as the “company of the elect,” but he also acknowledged the importance of the visible involvement of believers in the ministry of the word and the ordinances of the church. 12 During this same period, the Anabaptist movement opposed the Protestant practice of infant baptism, due to their concern that the visible church not be confused with the rest of society. The Anabaptists contended that belonging to the true church could only be the result of a conscious decision by the individual.13
The emphasis placed on voluntary membership in the body of Christ as a result of a personal decision to accept Christ, coupled with the increase in individualism in Western society led to a shift in the understanding of the importance of church membership.14 According to Gonzalez, by the nineteenth century “North American Protestants tended to think of the church as an invisible reality consisting of all true believers, and of the visible churches or ‘denominations’ as voluntary organizations that believers create and join according to their convictions and preferences.”15 This perspective constituted a reaction against the abuses of authority in the church, and American Christians increasingly began to exercise their right to not join a church, especially if they felt the expectations of membership were too high.16 Churches responded by lowering their expectations to match those of an increasingly transient culture, which in turn devalued church membership even more. By the mid-nineteenth century, many churches, especially in the American south, were filled with attendees who had no interest in joining the church.17 Since that time, the trend away from church membership has continued to accelerate as Christians have become more influenced by a postmodern culture which rejects anything that smacks of institutionalism.18 From the perspective of many Christians, the risks associated with the authority of a local church far outweigh any possible benefits. At this point, if confronted with a challenge to join a local church many Christians would simply ask, “Why bother?”
1 Acts 2:41, NASB.
2 Even though these believers met together prior to Pentecost, it cannot be said that they were a true church until they received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. At that point, they were united both by a common faith and a common baptism, that of the Holy Ghost into a true church. Note what Volf says regarding the presence of the Spirit in the church, “Hence all Christian churches have understood the signs of ecclesiality to be externally perceivable and simultaneously necessary conditions or consequences of the ecclesially constitutive presence of the Spirit of Christ.” Volf, 130.
3 See Acts 2:41-47 and 4:32-35.
4 Vanhoozer identifies the church as, “the people of the gospel, a people assembled by the gospel, in order to proclaim the gospel.” For a discussion of the relationship between the church and the gospel, see Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Evangelicalism and the Church: The Company of the Gospel,” in The Futures of Evangelicalism: Issues and Prospects ed. Craig Bartholomew, Robin Perry and Andrew West (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004), 40-99.
5 Clinton Arnold, “Early Church Catechesis and New Christians’ Classes in Contemporary Evangelicalism,” JETS 47.1 (March 2004): 43.
6 Ibid., 44.
7 Ibid., 51. Arnold quotes the Testamentum Domini concerning the practice of examining those who completed their catechesis and were preparing for baptism, “And when the days approach [for the occasion of baptism], let the bishop exorcise each one of them separately by himself, so that he may be persuaded that he is pure. For if there be one that is not pure, or in whom is an unclean spirit, let him be reproved by that unclean spirit. If then anyone is found under any such suspicion, let him be removed from the midst [of them], and let him be reproved and reproached because he has not heard the word of the commandments and of instruction faithfully, because the evil and strange spirit remained in him (2.6).” Arnold also questions whether this practice would be accepted in today’s church, “We clearly struggle against a powerful cultural pressure not to intrude into someone else’s private affairs and especially not to make any kind of judgments about their moral behavior and lifestyle.”
8 John Hammett, “Regenerate Church Membership,” in Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches ed. Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2008), 24.
9 Church historian Justo Gonzalez questions the claim that purity in the church was the motive of Donatism. However, he acknowledges that their argument with the church over the process of restoration and membership did raise serious theological questions for the church to address. Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1984), 151-157.
10 Hammett, 24. He points out that Augustine’s argument was based on Christ’s parable of the wheat and the tares. Augustine said that the field was the church, and it was occupied by both believers and unbelievers until the eschaton. He maintained this view in spite of the fact that Jesus identified the field as the world, rather than the church (Matt. 13:38).
11 Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1985), 33-34. Gonzalez also points out that though some historians consider Luther an individualist, he denied that any Christian ought to live outside of the community of faith.
12 Vanhoozer, 48.
13 Gonzalez, vol. 2, 53-54.
14 Art Azurdia suggests that the evangelistic method is at least partly to blame for this shift. He says, “Evangelistic methods which stress ‘a personal relationship to Jesus’ have taken their toll on the church. The concept of the local church as a living organism has been lost and an atomistic view has taken its place. Gone is the idea that Christians are ‘one body in Christ, and individually members one of another’ (Rom. 12:5). Church members have little regard for the fact that they are part of the whole.” Art Azurdia, “Recovering the Third Mark of the Church,” Reformation and Revival Journal 3.4 (Fall 1994): 74.
15 Gonzalez, vol. 2, 242. Vanhoozer makes a similar statement to Gonzalez, “It was easy for nineteenth century evangelicals to see the church as a voluntary association of individuals who were believers before they were members of the church.” Vanhoozer, 58.
16 Hammett, 32. He asks, “Would people not be offended and driven away from our churches today if we were to return to serious questioning of those coming for baptism and to a regular practice of church discipline? Is this a battle even worth fighting?”
17 Ibid., 26.
18 Leeman, 54-55. Another trend which is just as problematic is the rise of mega-churches which allow members to join without the demands of interpersonal involvement, accountability and commitment. In these churches, membership may be on the rise, but it is essentially meaningless.