The introduction to this article is not unsound. We must be
part of a congregation but the question of 'joining' begs the question with
regard to a denominational polity.
Like Paul in Acts 131, we assemble. When assembling we are
proclaiming our faith and participating in communion when we take the Lord's
Supper – which by virtue of baptism and ongoing profession we are granted
access to. This is the only 'pledge' that is necessary.
Elders must be vigilant and diligent, seeking out new
visitors and attendees and shepherding the flock – talking to people and making
sure they are walking with the Lord, looking for 'red flags', exhorting,
teaching and leading by example.
As I've battled with Presbyterians over membership I'm often
confronted with a marriage-analogy paradigm and Boekstein is quick to employ it
in his article – even though the analogy is without Scriptural warrant.
Attending is compared to dating and membership to marriage.
It's a convenient and for some compelling package but where's the evidence that
the apostles view the relationship of the congregation to its elders in this
way? I'm not alone in suggesting it reeks of clericalism and priestcraft. We
are wed to Christ and while elders have authority they are not stand-ins for
Christ, they are not spouses or priest-mediators. They are shepherds that are
called specifically not to lord it over
the flock.
Boekstein's Old Testament argument rightly ties circumcision
and ritual life to membership in the covenant community and baptism but then
(without warrant) he adds in 'membership vows' – but where do we find these
vows in the New Testament? Are they found in epistolary teaching and
exhortation? Are they found in the Acts narrative?
No, they are absent and additionally absent from the
testimony of the Early Church. They are ecclesiastical innovations and as such
there is an implication with regard to the Sufficiency of Scripture. When it
comes to polity, the Reformed-Presbyterian order functionally argues that the
Scriptures are not sufficient but provide only a baseline or starting point for
a system that is to be constructed by means of theological speculation, philosophically-rooted
deduction, pragmatic innovation and tradition. That's fine but unlike their Episcopalian
cousins I wish they would be honest about it and disavow the pretense of Divine
Right Presbyterianism or the idea that their polity rests on Sola Scriptura.
It's just as contrived as the Episcopal system.
Church analogies symbolize membership Boekstein tells us.
Indeed they do. What he's talking about is union and communion – once again
baptism and the Lord's Supper are sufficient to accomplish this task. We do not
need to add rites, bureaucratic layers or ecclesiastical ones – such as the
presbytery or the denomination.
The argument for membership that suggests Jesus is speaking
of objective numbers (i.e. a list) is laughable – an example of hermeneutical
gymnastics that reminds me of similar Roman Catholic exegetical non sequitirs.
In order for there to be pastoral care, there must be
membership he argues. There must be a commitment.
Well, again if elders would pursue their calling and interact
with the flock, they would have the opportunity to explain to people who and
what the Church is, what they believe and what is required. They could make it
clear that regular attendance is expected and why. They could explain how
baptism is a commitment and that those who have been baptised are held to
account. They could explain that people can't just show up for a few weeks,
disappear for a month and then return hoping to partake of the Lord's Supper
without giving account. Explain that assembling in a local congregation (which
they are bound to do) is in fact a commitment. Unless they're just visiting or
passing through, taking the Lord's Supper is a commitment to that congregation.
In other words it requires that these elders be diligent and do the work they
are called to do. The membership system (all too often) allows them to put
people on a list and then likewise check off a list (attendance, annual home
visit etc...) and assume all is well.
But more importantly the system is superfluous and
unnecessary and it requires extra-biblical rites, vows and is inevitably
connected to a larger polity structure. The presentation in the Reformation 21
article is dishonest because it stretches the Scripture far beyond what it's
saying even while obscuring some of the pragmatic issues that drive the system.
Christians are obligated to live as Christians and that means
assembling with the body and communing. This is confused by churches that are
themselves confused about what it is we're doing on Sunday mornings and more
often than not they downplay and neglect communion and thus water down the
Church's meaning and ability to function.
Imposing vows that are already part of one's baptism, a
commitment that is already attached by definition to the Supper, is to detract
from and dilute the meaning of these sacraments and elevate the meaning of the
contrived man-made ritual – the membership vow taking ceremony.
The statement regarding The Great Commission is also a case
of non sequitir. The extra-Scriptural
membership system is not required. A person is baptised and thus held to
account. Elders pursue their task – fine, keep a list if as a shepherd you are
unable to remember who your sheep are. Membership did not arise for centuries
after the New Testament was written and if a congregation wants to use
something like the Apostle's Creed that's fine but that's a far cry from the
Three Forms of Unity – which when used in a membership context does little more
than promote disunity and schism.
Contrary to Boekstein, his version of bureaucratic and
denominational Church Membership is not required for discipline. I've talked
about this elsewhere how excommunication is confused and turned into a rite-act
that is connected to the membership system. The membership system functionally
excommunicates anyone who doesn't meet their extra-biblical system's criteria
which is why it is actually a schismatic practice.
If an elder sees me passed out drunk on the sidewalk on
Saturday night and I show up to Church on Sunday morning, shouldn't I be pulled
aside and informed that I had best not take communion that day and the elders need
to meet with me right away? Obviously if I repent of my sin that can be
addressed and pursued. If not, then after some patient persuasion I would be
publically rebuked and excluded – and rightly so. No bureaucracy is required.
Paul wasn't checking minutes and forms (let alone canon law or a Book of Church
Order) and he wasn't turning over lists to the IRS for tax breaks. Boekstein's
argument begs the question. He cannot think in terms of polity without the
membership system and so he constantly and consistently assumes it even though
its very premise is unproven and unsupportable.
Excommunication as per 1 Corinthians 5, is to return that
person to the realm of the lost, the realm of the god of this world. That
person is not in communion with us. The communion isn't signified by a
membership vow ritual that's governed by canon law (in the form of a Book of
Church Order). The communion and 'intimate participation' is signified by the
baptised person assembling and eating the break and drinking the wine. It's
really not that complicated.
Sanctification is connected to membership. He's right, but
membership in the New Testament is not the bureaucratic membership of the
denominational structure. When a believer scatters, if the elders are worth
their salt they will pursue that wayward sheep and find out why they've quit
attending. Tragically you can assemble with Presbyterians for a year, talk with
them, eat with them, socialise with them and if you suddenly quit attending the
elders are suddenly reduced to impotency and act as if they can't do anything.
The membership system ties their own hands. Biblically speaking they certainly
can pursue that person and deal with the issue if there's one to be dealt with.
At the end of the day it's the Spirit that binds the Church
together – something the bureaucratic-minded Reformed and Presbyterians have
seemingly forgotten. They can create their forms, build their walls, take down
their minutes and read their books of ecclesiastical order but they can also
create an empty shell with no substance.
I would exhort them to either fence the table completely and
at least be consistent that you view yourselves as the only True Church or
leave aside the sloth (born in no small part of the crypto-clericalism that
creeps in with the pastoral system) and do your job – make the congregation
understand that Baptism and participation in the Supper are akin to
auto-enrollment (to use an unfortunate turn of phrase). If you attend the
assembly you are under Scriptural authority.
And yet tyranny is guarded against by the limiting authority
granted in the Scriptures – not by the bureaucracy, its hierarchical
intricacies and arcane procedures which to be honest often harbour corruption
and protect what is accurately described as a 'good ol' boy' network.
Church members indeed prioritise worship, maintain the unity
of the Church, receive and give instruction and are subject to discipline but
none of this is reliant upon some denominationally contrived and oriented vows
which connect the Christian to an institution. Boekstein falsely asserts that
the membership system must be assumed for these realities to become manifest
and function – once again as if the simple New Testament rites are not enough.
But it does require the elders to get their hands dirty (as
it were), get in the trenches, teach the people and be leaders. Don't rely on
your hireling pastors. It requires the elders to lead and be men of God.
Join or die is a crude but not inaccurate way of expressing
the gospel imperative. For to refuse to join with Christ is to invite death or
rather to embrace the death sentence you're already under. And yet the action
of joining is delineated in the New Testament – a person is baptised and in
light of the gospel lives a life of repentance and faith. In terms of the
covenant they regularly renew their promises and relationship with God, the
Church and their local congregation by means of partaking of the Holy Bread and
Wine.
Joining a denomination, joining an ecclesiastical polity,
joining a canon law system – these are the tools and trade of the clerical
class and their aim to politicise and thus control the Church – not in the
Spirit but in the flesh.
Assemble with a local congregation. It's assumed in the New
Testament and is established as normative and is therefore an imperative
practice. Assemble and submit yourself to the elders as they obey the
Scriptures. Like the Pharisees in Matthew 23, they occupy the office and have a
real authority. We are called to submit to them. Rank or absolutised attitudes
that reject authority are unbiblical. Don't read the culture, its values and
Enlightenment legal heritage into the Scriptures and the life of the Church.
That's all too often what the Presbyterians do.
No, we submit but we also take note that like the Pharisees
in Matthew 23, their authority is limited. We obey as far as it goes but we do
not do after their works – when they claim to follow the Scriptures but give
commands that are not found therein or are contrary to what the Scriptures
present, then their authority is rightly rejected. Christ demonstrated this
repeatedly as he had no time for their made up rites and legalisms. The elders
may chafe at this and yet ironically Reformed churches are filled with people
who did that very thing – questioned the doctrine and leadership of where they
were at and decided to challenge it and eventually leave – making their way to
the Reformed churches. For the Reformed this is valid – until you arrive in
their circles. Then the questioning ends.
Well it doesn't end and though at one time I thought I had
'arrived' as I had come into the OPC, I came to realise that I had not arrived
– in fact I was on the wrong road.
Consumerist approaches to Church are a real problem and I
won't make light of that. But the answer is not to beat people with a man-made
system that seeks to solve real problems with man-made tools. Unity is not
forged through words written in the Book of Church Order – thankfully that unfortunate
work will perish with the other works of men at the Parousia. It represents the
rare case of a book that should absolutely be burned.
There are churches out there that acknowledge the authority
of the Scriptures and seek to be faithful to the Word and yet have no
membership system or roll. They function, sometimes flourish and while there
are modern compromised Seeker-models that eschew membership and fall into
consumerist chaos, there are small but faithful churches that refuse the model
and yet maintain a vital faith and maintain discipline.
Unity is forged by the Spirit working through the Word and
the Church – not denominations, not bureaucracies and certainly not through
bureaucrats and their fussy priggish procedures which strain at the gnat and
swallow the camel.