Church Membership: Why I do not support it

I am a pastor at Reality Carpinteria church. At Reality Carp, we have frequently been asked why we do not have "church membership" by those in the body who wish to be faithful to any pattern of church structure given in Scripture. I think that search is very noble, as we should test what we do against Scripture, and not simply traditions of men. It is for that very reason, that this particular church staff (myself included), has departed from "church membership" as it is traditionally defined, because we have deemed it an invention and precept of men. It is also my stance that this is a non-essential doctrine, that is, it is nothing to divide over, and if it weren't for the honest questions that are asked regarding membership, I would have preferred to leave it be. However, it is an important issue for many people, so allow me to explain my position for your information:

First, I want to clarify what you probably mean by “church membership.” Many churches require those who call themselves a part of the local body to “become” members of that church, by going through a series of requirements, like a believer’s class, counseling, baptism, and then usually followed by signing a paper, in which they are then pronounced “members.” Whatever the process may be, we do not distinguish in this way for the reasons below.

1) We cannot find it instructed anywhere in the Bible. While it is clear that the Church is made up of “individual members” (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:20), nowhere does Scripture command us have anyone sign a paper, or have a membership system in place. So, our main reason is that church membership is not supported by Scripture, and therefore unsupported by this church body.

2) Church membership actually stems from the tradition of the Early Church. In the 1st century, Rome had associations that were legally recognized by the government, some of which were religious. The Jewish religion, for example, was recognized by the Roman government as a legitimate, sanctioned worship structure. Since Christianity came from Jewish roots, the Roman government included it under the umbrella of Judaism, and therefore offered its approval for it. However, this was put to a stop in A.D. 64, during the time of Emperor Nero. Christianity was soon discovered to be completely different from Judaism, and the protective covering was lifted. But what is REALLY interesting is that the Early Church began to mimic Roman associations and pagan societies who had a kind of “belonging” in their groups, and so they adopted church membership in order to bring that same type of belonging to their congregations. So that’s the history of church membership; it did not originate from Scripture, but from the influence of Roman associations and pagan societies.

Now, the last thing I want to address is the question of how we are able to practice church discipline without a membership in place. My answer is: quite well! Now let me first address the texts that deal with it: Matt. 18:17 and 1 Tim. 5:20-21. The latter text is addressed to Timothy in regards to handling an elder in the church who is sinning, so this text does not apply to members of the church. The first text does, and as far as I can see it, this text can be carried out with or without membership. In other words, membership is irrelevant. Allow me to explain…

Church discipline is an authority that is granted to pastors of the church who exercise it whenever the appropriate situation arises, and they do so by the authority of Jesus Christ. What that means is that we as pastors do not need to know beforehand that a congregant has signed a document, before we can exercise authority. To do that is to say that our authority as church elders, and our grounds for practicing church discipline comes from that written document! And that is entirely unscriptural. A pastor’s authority comes from Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd, who has commanded us to shepherd the flock of God among us, exercising oversight (2 Pet. 5:2,4), and it doesn’t matter whether the attendees are members or not. In fact, Paul the Apostle often exercised church discipline with churches that he had never been to. Why? He was given the authority to do so, by Christ Himself. This happens at Reality Carpinteria among the staff, and it happens at Reality Adorn on Friday nights throughout the week. And the protocol remains the same whether the person has been going for years and calls the church their home, or they have been only once and don’t plan on belonging.

-Chris Lazo

Claim: "The Lord Told Me"

It is a trap for a man to say rashly, "It is holy!" And after the vows to make inquiry. -Proverbs 20:25

Be careful with the "Thus saith the Lord" syndrome. We are often quick to claim that God is leading us in a direction that were really captained by our emotions.

Even worse, we use presupposed hermeneutics to guide the coarse of Scripture in our life, determining ourselves what we THINK it ought to mean. This is a subjective reading of the Bible as opposed to an objective one.

Three rules (though far from an exhaustive list) may help us from falling into deception:

1. Private interpretation does not mean that we should rely solely on our own judgments, ignoring the insights and research of others;
2. Private interpretation does not mean that we have the right to "distort" the Bible in accordance with our own conceptions;
3. Private interpretation does not mean that we can ignore the history of interpretation in the church. Dr. Sam Storms

On the other hand, we DO sometimes feel as though the Lord is prompting or directing us through a particular passage or text, do we not? Can the Lord speak prophetically to us through a specific text, or even a subjective impression we got from the Bible? While I do strongly suggest treading lightly in this area (because our subjective impressions can often be faulty; Jer. 17:9), I also believe that it's by using the objective standard of the Word of God, that we are able to steer our less sturdy, subjective leanings along a straight path. A guideline that probably makes the best prescription, was made by Edmund Clowney in a conversation with Wayne Grudem:

The degree of certainty we have with regard to God's will in a situation is directly proportional to the degree of clarity we have as to how the Word of God applies to the situation (Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. 128.)

With that being said, be careful of deceptive teachings, for they are often malefactors of these simple guidelines, and as Jeremiah testifies concerning the heart of God in such matters:

"I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to them, But they prophesied." -Jeremiah 23:21

double standards & self-refuting claims in an argument

I've been following the response to a post by a friend on Facebook, on Prop 8.

It's an ongoing conversation between those who are voting "no," and those who are voting "yes." Those on this thread who are voting "no" hold the position that Prop 8 is hateful and discriminatory propaganda. That's ok; they are fully entitled to this opinion, and their vote. But observe some of the flimsy reasoning they brandish in their arguments against a couple Christians who are supportive of Prop 8:

1) "Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution."

2) "If I remember correctly, there's an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated.'"

3) "How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?"

4) "I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians."

Now, several others on the thread responded with sound, opposing arguments that need not be refined. Instead of rummaging through the details of the conversation, I want you to take a deeper look into the silly logic behind some of these statements, made above in the four points. Consider the faults in them:

1) Your personal beliefs on homosexuality should not be imposed upon the California Constitution.

Well, any vote you or I cast is going to be imposing on someone's beliefs, because not everyone agrees....that's why we vote, hello? Now...if my Christian beliefs (which are the foundation for my moral decisions) are not supposed to be incorporated into the voting process, than what is? How is this person who is voting against the proposition deciding her vote? I imagine it's from her personal beliefs. And I don't think her personal beliefs on homosexuality should be imposed upon the California Constitution.

2) If I remember correctly, there is an important commandment people are forgetting: 'treat others how you would like to be treated."

I've heard this pleading of Jesus' command made several times, and while it is a command to be followed, the quoter fails to draw into her conclusion consistent knowledge of the entire council of the Bible. We actually don't need to go very far for you to see what I mean...just finish the verse: "...for this is the Law and the Prophets." -Matt. 7:12 

Hmm...So while Christians are commanded to treat others the way we want to be treated, we are still under the command NOT to practice homosexuality, since that was a command given by the Law the Prophets. In fact, if you were to keep reading down that chapter, you find some rather hard-edged truth-claims being made by Jesus Himself: 

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." -Matt. 7:13

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." -Matt. 7:15

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." -Matt. 7:19

Someone should probably warn Jesus about the way He's treating people. Just kidding. Jesus is obviously not against the Christian warning, proclaiming, or preaching the truth (in love). And His previous statement about treatment has nothing to do with whether we are to speak out the truth or not. That is why Christians are "imposing their beliefs" on the Constitution. Because the Constitution is made up of people's beliefs, and during the voting process, the secular government is ASKING us to share our beliefs! For Christians, we get our beliefs from the Bible. 

{This assertion is also peculiar because the same person who made the first objection (which itself was a double standard) is now using the very Bible she wishes was not being imposed on her, to argue against the Christian voting for Prop 8. But I digress...}

3) How would you feel if you were prohibited to marry the person you love?

These types of questions that are geared towards coercing your emotional response sometimes work well, but in this case, it does not. Why? Because Bible-believing Christians know that what or how we feel doesn't really matter in light of our clear instruction. Because let's be honest, we DO feel bad when we are prohibited from ANY kind of sin. That's why we needed Jesus in the first place, to help us stop sinning against Him.

To answer her question, I would probably feel the same way the cell phone driver feels when the cop prohibits him/her from using their cell phone while driving. I for one, like using my cell phone while driving, and I don't care if some people get in accidents, because I don't. And I'm sick and tired of people imposing their beliefs about cell phones on me, just because someone got in an accident with one.

4) I am deeply offended that you would impose your religion on me and my fellow Californians.

The logic behind this statement is somewhat self-refuting, and collapses upon itself when applied to, say, my position. You see, I (like her) am also deeply offended when others (like her) impose their opinions about me and my religion on me and my fellow Californians. So her statement is nullified by mine. Or the other way around? Ha:) (Silly logic).

...Just kidding, I'm not offended:) I just wanted to prove the point behind a very bad apologetic for Prop 8. And I'm still going to vote against what she is voting for based on my personal beliefs, which came from the Bible which I hold to be true.

Because I'm a Californian. And RockTheVote.com wants me to step up, and claim my voice.

The God-man (The Deity of Jesus Christ)

Christianity teaches that Jesus is God. There are several objections to this claim; we will deal with four of those objections here

Objection 1: Jesus was a prophet or good teacher.

Objection 2: Orthodox Christianity sprang "from the Nicene conference in 325 A.D., when it was decided by vote of the bishops that Jesus was God."

Objection 3: Verses speaking of Christ submitting to the Father, praying to the Father, and attributing to the Father more greatness seem to nullify His deity.

Objection 4: Jesus seems reluctant to be called God.

---

These first two objection must maintain three presuppositions:

1. Jesus never claimed He was God
2. None of His followers ever claimed He was God
3. None of His enemies thought He was claiming to be God

Let’s address each of these assumptions…

JESUS DID CLAIM HIS OWN DEITY:

• He tells the Jews in defense of His authority, that "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working" (John 5:17-18).

The proper study of any literature tells us to exegete the meaning based off what the hearers in that culture understood Him to say…

It says very clearly in the next verse that "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

• In John 8:58, Jesus says to the Jews, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."


Here, Jesus applies the Old Testament name of God that Yahweh used of Himself when Moses asked Him for His Name, to Himself (Ex 3:14). If there was any doubt of this, we but need to look to the listeners of that time to make note of their reaction. Remember, these were adult religious Jews who by the time they turned 13, memorized all of the Old Testament, and would have heard and discerned clearly what Jesus was implying if He claimed deity.

There reaction: "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple." Jews often stoned those accused of blasphemy. Why would they stone Him for this statement?

• A clearer example of this is in John 10:30-33, when He tells the Jews, "I and the Father are one."

This is a blatant claim to deity

Their response: They "picked up stones again to stone Him..." They stated, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
 The Jews also accuse Jesus of claiming to be God, as well as fully man. It wasn't unclear to them though they might disagree, in fact, they were going to murder Him for it, and eventually did.



• Jesus states in John's vision, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8).

Interestingly, God the Father makes this claim several times:

• "I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last. I am He" (Is. 41:4).
• "I am the first and I am the last, and THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME" (Is. 44:6).
• "I am He, I am the first, I am also the last" (Is. 48:12).


JESUS WAS CALLED GOD OR WORSHIPED AS GOD BY:

• Isaiah (Is 9:6) His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

• Thomas (John 20:28) Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

• Paul (Titus 2:13) Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

• Peter (2 Peter 1:1) ...by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

• John (John 1:1-2, 14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

Who was the Word? Look at vs.14 --> And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.

• The angels (Heb 1:6) He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

…Though it is strictly demanded by Jesus Himself "to worship the Lord Your God only"

 (Matt 4:10).

• God the Father! (Heb. 1:8) But of the Son {He says,} "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

Objection 3: Verses that speak of Christ submitting to the Father, praying to Him, or verses that speak of Him attributing the Father to be greater than Him nullify His deity.
For example:
• “And He went a little beyond {them,} and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” –Matt. 26:39
• "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” –John 14:28

But consider this:
This word [greater] is what is called a quantitative term,
not a qualitative term.

A quantitative term describes quantities, levels, positions, etc.

A qualitative term describes qualities, character, nature.

--If I was to say that there is a great amount of water in this cup,

....I would be speaking quantitatively.

--If I was to say that the water in this cup is great,

...I’m speaking qualitatively (because I’m describing the nature,
the quality of the drink...“it is great.”)

In other words, Jesus was NOT speaking about the nature of the Father being greater or better.

He was referring to His humanity, which carries along with it, some limitations. 

That's also a reason Jesus prayed to the Father.

Think about this:

If Jesus was God, why did He...

• Sleep? (Matt. 8:24)
• Eat? (Mark 2:15)
• Drink? (John 4:7)
• Battle anxiety? (Luke 22:44)
• DIE?? (Luke 23:46)

None of these things are needs or limitations that God the Father has, but remember that Jesus (while %100 God) was also %100 human too. And because of His human limitations, He needed to sleep, eat, drink, suffer, and die.

And because He was made in the likeness of men, He needed to pray too (Phil. 2:6-7).


Objection 4: Jesus seems reluctant to be called God.
For example: “As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”
–Mark 10:17-18

But Jesus IS good!

Consider His claim:
• "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.”
–John 10:11

Actually, He's a little more than good. He's perfect:

• “For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens” –Heb. 7:26

Jesus wasn't rebuking the young man for calling Him good. He was making sure that the kid new the connotations and truthfulness of the apparent flattery. He was implying Hid Godhood!

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT…
Jesus is described as God by the testimony of Scripture:
• The very exact representation of the nature of God (Heb 1:3).
• The image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15)
• The maker of all things (Col. 1:16)
• Before all things (Col. 1:17)
• The beginning, itself (Col. 1:18)
• The sustainer of all things (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3)
• Unchangeable (Heb. 1:12)
• Eternal (Heb. 1:12)
• The first place in everything (Col. 1:18)
• The fullness of deity (Col. 2:9)
• The head over all rule and authority (Col. 2:10)
• The head of the church (Col. 1:18)
• The mystery (Col. 2:2)
• The treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3)
• The author and perfector of our faith (Heb. 12:2)
• The One who makes holy (Heb. 2:11)
• He is the substance, or the reality (Col. 2:17)


Listen to this description by the Apostle John who saw Jesus in a vision:
{I saw} one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet {were} like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice {was} like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. (Rev. 1:13-16)

It’s no wonder that men who encountered Him fell down like dead men. 

John was in the presence of the powerful Son of God, and he attempts to stretch the limitations of his language to describe what Jesus was like. He basically states that Jesus' face was like a solar flare, the strength of the sun.

The amount of energy released is the equivalent of millions of 100-megaton hydrogen bombs exploding at the same time!
http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/flare.htm

John uses a dramatic figure of speech to tell the Church that Jesus' is indescribably glorious!

Indeed, it's no wonder that John tells us later that Heaven "has no need for the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and it's lamp is the Lamb." 

(Rev. 22:5)

Christ is the center of Christianity, all else is circumference. –John Stott

Long live the King.

ad hominem

(Latin, “to the man”)
An argumentative tactic where a person fails to engage the substance of an argument, choosing instead to opt for a personal attack on the character of the one making the argument. A popular and humorous extreme of this would be to respond to someone by saying “Your a monkey’s uncle.” Another example might be saying “Your just a right-winged fundamentalist. How could you know what you are talking about?”1

This is a popular tactic you should be aware of when discussing an imperative issue. Sometimes someone with an opposing viewpoint will use an ad hominem argument. I was recently discussing a theological issue with someone who had strayed far from the truth of Scripture. This particular person's reaction to a very solid case of evidence was to point out my spelling mistakes!

While this is humorous, it is also important to remember that when you are wanting to help another person get back on track (theologically), you might have to remind them of what the issue is at hand.

For example, the validity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

When you are presenting evidence for the resurrection of Jesus for that person to observe, he/she may want to go on a tangent about how much trouble Christians have brought onto the world, or question the reliability of Scripture. These are UNRELATED to the issue! Gently and respectfully set aside a later time to discuss these issues, so that the evidence for the issue at hand (resurrection) can be reasoned with.

Stay on topic!!

---

1.http://wordoftheday.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2008/06/24/ad-hominem/

The word "Trinity" is nowhere mentioned in the Bible...

One of the first objections I hear to the doctrine of the Trinity, by everyone from Bart Erhman to the Jehovah's Witnesses, is that the word Trinity isn't even spoken of in the Bible.

They're right.

And neither is the word Bible anywhere in the Bible.

Or omniscience.

Or the Incarnation (meaning God in the flesh).

And yet we teach all of these things, because the word form of these concepts do not need to be present in order for the truth of the concept to be clearly implied or spoken of in Scripture.

And it follows logically from the substantiated claims Jesus made about Himself, and the claims God makes about Himself, that the concept of Trinity is taught in the Bible.

Polygamy and the Bible

Does the Old Testament condone polygamy through instances of it in the lives of men like Abraham, Solomon, and David?

The answer is: "No," it does not.
The Old Testament and the New Testament are pretty straight forward on the structure of a relationship; it needs to be a covenantal marriage between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). The Old Testament is even more direct with Solomon, when God previously prohibits the kings of Israel from "multiplying wives" for themselves (Deut. 17:17). We can also follow along the story of Abraham to see that he indeed departed from the will of God's plan when he disregarded the promise of a future Isaac, and took up Hagar as his wife to birth Ishmael. Even further, the New Testament not only reiterates this, but it reinforces this truth through Jesus' own words (see past NT references), and through the requirements of a church pastor, who must be the husband of "one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2).

Concerning the acts of polygamy in the OT, this is actually a beautiful thing about the Bible: it doesn't embellish or exaggerate the accounts of holy men of God. Rather, it shows them as the sinners they are. Even Abraham sinned. The Old Testament only record these sins without ever condoning them. In actually, it blatantly opposes them, and shows the characters as they really are: humans in need of a Savior.