Many
Churches practice 'membership' wherein they wish for local congregants to bind
themselves to the congregation and agree to adhere to certain doctrinal
statements and to be under the authority of the leadership. In many Churches a
little ceremony or ritual has also been created to go along with this process.
Whether it
is admitted or not, everyone and every congregation adheres to some sort of
creed. We all believe something and even in loosely affiliated groups there are
boundaries. In creedless bodies, the problem is, the boundaries are often not
well thought out, and many individuals have given little thought to what they
believe.
Anti-creed chaos
I've shared
the story before but once I walked into a local 'church' and the service had
just ended. A woman was up front singing 'Going to the Rapture and I'm going to
get married' to the tune of 'Going to the Chapel'. It was blasting over the
sound system and I could see from the speakers and the instruments up front it
was probably a pretty vivacious (if you want to call it that) meeting. Jesus
wallpaper (that was a new one for me) covered the room. I asked the sound-man
for a copy of their doctrinal statement and smirking he handed me his Bible.
They believed (thankfully they folded) that they followed 'just the Bible', of
course from my standpoint what they were doing had almost nothing to do with
the Bible. They had a definite creed and I'm sure they went looking for it
whenever they read the Scriptures.
That said,
there's also a real danger in constructing and binding people to very
theologically complicated and developed creeds. They can become divisive.
Instead of guiding, they can function like restraints or chains that actually
prevent any kind of corrective.
Requirements of 'Membership'
Dutch
Reformed Churches require all their congregants to adhere to the Three Forms of
Unity: the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession.
I contend most congregants when signing their name to these documents do not
understand what they're doing. Besides even if I can agree with 85% of what
they say, should I be excluded from fellowship because I won't sign on to an
obscure theological point?
Presbyterians
rightly decry this as being too demanding and that we need to be more inclusive
in terms of whom we allow into the Church.
So they
don't require Confessional subscription for the average member or layperson,
just an understanding of the Gospel. But the officers are required to subscribe
to the Westminster Confession and of course they will use it to govern the
Church...the people who have signed on and taken vows are to be judged by a
standard they did not agree to be judged by....or else wouldn't they subscribe
to it as well?
The Extra-Scriptural Standards by
which you are held to account
Little does
the congregant realize that though they're not required to sign the Westminster
Confession, they will indeed by judged by it and held to account by it...or
rather how the local body of elders and regional Presbytery interpret it.
That's a wholly different matter and beyond the scope of this discussion.
In addition
the Presbyterian Church has another book called the Book of Church Order. This
outlines all their procedures for dealing with various issues, wrestling with
questions, committees and so forth. This book functions very much as a
Presbyterian equivalent to Canon Law, because it is treated in this way. It is
binding on both the congregation and the consciences of these Elders. They
chafe when I call it this, but it functions exactly like Roman Catholic Canon
Law. It's binding and authoritative...and therefore functionally canonical.
They grow very frustrated when they appeal to this book and I refuse to submit
to it. Personally I would destroy every copy I could get my hands on.
While I find
it to be somewhat duplicitous and deceptive to bring people in without them
fully understanding what authority structure they will be under, for
Presbyterians it's not a problem. For them again the real structure of the
Church, its essence and well-being lies at the level of the Regional Presbytery
which is comprised of ordained men. They are the guardians and caretakers of
the Church. While certainly I believe God has appointed officers to guard the
flock, He did not appoint a regional body of clerics to function as the glue
which binds many congregations together. This smacks of Apostolic Succession
and I've heard some Presbyterians admit this but without shame.
The power rests in the regional
'Presbytery'
You see the
local congregant and thus congregation doesn't matter so much because they have no authority. The
authority rests in the body of elders...not the local body...they have to
answer to the regional grouping. The local body's authority is granted by the
regional and answers to it. Robert's rules of order, keeping minutes and the
rest help in this regard. Elders who are trying to avoid trouble on the
presbyterial or regional level will at times engage in somewhat shady
behaviour. In some cases if only one elder is present, no minutes or notes are
taken. This elder can say things, even outrageous things to people and doesn't
have to report it....plausible denial. But if he visits with another elder, a
report has to be made. I realize this is a pretty serious thing to
say...suggesting some of these men operate in a less than up-front and honest
fashion. Am I suggesting some of these men abuse their power and manipulate the
rules in order to wield it? Absolutely. I want to be clear. That's exactly what
I'm saying.
Sufficiency- The honest and not so
honest
Now, if we
wanted to say the Bible doesn't provide for us enough information to form a
Church government that would be one thing. Episcopalians argue along these
lines. The Bible gives us a rough outline and it's up to us to develop the particulars.
We can take culture and geography into account, and history has given us the
Episcopal and hierarchical form of Church government. They're not trying to
argue it's Scriptural. All they're saying is...it's historical and it works.
When you say, where can I find in the Bible that it says we're to create
Archbishops? They'll say...'it's not in the Bible.' At least they're candid. I
can respect the position even though I don't agree with it.
Presbyterianism
has a much bigger problem. They claim to adhere to Sola Scriptura and they
claim the Scripture is Sufficient for all things in terms of the Church and the
Christian Life. How then can they justify what they've done? It's as if the
Scripture is a hook to hang your hat on, but instead of hanging a mere hat,
they've suspended a Volkswagen. Its connection to the text of the New Testament
is comprised of mere threads. They've constructed a colossus on top of a rather
simple foundation. They believe the Scriptures provide the rough outline and
they're merely filling in the gaps via logical induction and pragmatic
requirement.
Biblical polity far more simple
I believe
the New Testament is sufficient for the construction of a Church polity or
government. The Biblical model is real simple. Baptism brings us into the
Universal Church...and we assemble locally. The Lord's Supper is akin to the
Covenant renewal meals of the Old Testament. It binds us to both our God and to
each other. It shows the sign of our continuing, abiding faith. It shows not
just that we've become Christians but that we continue to be. Our faith is
alive. I believe God does use forms and that these forms or symbols are the
means by which we know in time and space who is part of the body. They are
limited of course, but in terms of the normal or normative operation of the
Church, they are essential.
I believe
the New Testament presupposes we will be part of a local congregation. It
presupposes we will assemble with a congregation and when we participate in its
life we come under its authority. The Elders need to do their job and when
people visit, they need to talk with them and get to know them. They need to
explain what the congregation believes. A broad creedal statement might be
helpful. Part of this would be an explanation regarding what I just said above.
This idea of
just coming and going, popping in every once in awhile and so forth is not
really compatible with fellowship, teaching and authority. This doesn't mean we
have to adopt some kind of rigid system of attendance. If people aren't
attending regularly, then it's not a matter of rule breaking, it's a matter of
something being wrong. The elders need to address this, not as Lords, but as
Shepherds.
Church discipline does not require
bureaucratic forms
When someone
is engaged in sin and they refuse to repent then we're instructed by Matthew 18
and 1 Corinthians 5 to put them out of the congregation. Here the Presbyterian
argues, they'll just go down the street to the next congregation. That's a real
possibility. But Presbyterians seem to miss the fact that though they've
erected this massive form structure, this denominational apparatus, the same
thing still happens. So then they have to create new forms to determine which
other mid-level bodies or denominations they will 'join' with and recognize. So
then they create more extra-scriptural bureaucracy and form to govern the
extra-scriptural form they've created.
They're
unwilling to say their denomination and the others they've joined with in
fraternal relations are the only 'true church' but they might as well. It's
very strange in their zeal to protect the church and erect forms that will
guard against schism, they're actually promoting it.
Schism and Communion
When someone
like me attends the local congregation, because I'm not a 'member' of the
Presbyterian Church I and my family are barred from Communion. Sometimes
they'll say if you're a 'member' of a Church that preaches the Gospel, then you
may partake. Well, if someone is part of a church that doesn't...will they
know? The PCUSA doesn't preach the Gospel but would a PCUSA member attending a
PCA know that?
Is
bureaucratic membership more important than an understanding of the Gospel? It
seems so.
Communion is
the sign and symbol of the Church's unity. It's Covenantal in nature. Excluding
someone from this sign is tantamount to saying...you're not a Christian, we
reject you.
So when I'm
barred from participation, but not under some form of discipline, then they are
guilty of schism and promoting disharmony in the Universal Body. I would say
they fall under the condemnation of the Apostle when in 1 Corinthians 3 he
rejects the creation of factional parties. They would say these were
personality cults not factions being created to maintain orthodoxy. I'm all for
protecting the Bible, but you don't have the right to erect structures which
prevent other Christians from partaking in the life of the Church....UNLESS
they agree to a whole body of ideas completely foreign to Scripture. Paul
doesn't provide an occasion to form a proper faction, nor does he elaborate on
the issue. He condemns the idea of forming up into groups and identifying with
the group instead of Christ...and in that sense his critique is very applicable
to all proponents of denominationalism.
Lording instead of Shepherding
Trying to
bind the consciences of people to extra-Scriptural doctrines and the procedures
created as a result is not only legalistic and schismatic, it is claiming a
level of authority not granted by Scripture. It is the 'lording it over' the
flock Peter warns again. We are to submit to the elders, the Scriptures are
clear. If I'm in sin, then when approached I need to submit and repent. But
this authority is not unlimited. The Scriptures themselves are the guide. All
I'm asking for is Scriptural justification for practice. When it cannot be
produced, I'm not bound to follow, in fact I could argue I'm bound NOT to
follow.
Faction Membership versus Biblical
Membership
The whole
concept of Membership falls under this. It's superfluous. Baptism visibly provides
a symbol demonstrating our Unity with Christ and our membership in the Church.
This is the Biblical concept of Church Membership. I'm not denying the concept,
but what it is commonly called Church Membership is something else. It's an
extra-Scriptural form binding the individual to either a faction or a Creedal
statement.
We're
already bound to pray for the Church, to support the members, to submit to the
elders and so forth. These things are not optional. When we're baptized, we are
bound. When someone refuses to do this, they need to be confronted. Just
because the doctrines of Scripture have been abused and millions of people have
been baptized who shouldn't have been doesn't mean we need to create a new
form...a kind of Baptism without water to bring people into the Church.
Aside from
detracting from the real meaning of Baptism it also creates a host of new
problems.
Local
membership is symbolized by the Lord's Supper. The Church needs to warn and
exhort regarding the Supper but it also needs to be careful regarding who it
turns away. I would rather have someone partake for a week or two wrongly then
to just turn someone away when they visit. Again, the elders need to be active
and do their job. Resting in a form...we have a 'membership' list...is an
unacceptable abdication of responsibility and takes away from the profound
ongoing meaning of participation in the Lord's Supper.
The system creates more innovations
and problems
Membership
vows are superfluous. Making it into a ceremony, though they often refuse to
call it that, is an innovation in the realm of worship. It's no different than
lighting candles or something else. They can't demonstrate it from Scripture.
In frustration they usually say...you should do it in submission to the elders.
At this point I ask them, "If the Elders want me to dance down the aisle
chanting and swinging a pom-pom should I do it?"
I've had a
few say 'yes.' But most realize the problem of trying to ask me to do something
that's outside of Scripture. What's next? What if they ask me to pray with
beads? Make the sign of the cross? Kiss an icon? What's the difference?
For men
claiming to hold to the Reformed Regulative Principle of Worship which their
own Confession explicitly teaches...they have a dilemma.
Part 3