#158: On the Integrity of Church Membership and Baptism
A Sneak Preview
Today’s newsletter features an excerpt from a forthcoming article soon to appear at the official website/blog of the Free Will Baptist Commission for Theological Integrity. Hopefully it will stimulate some reflection and conversation.
The main argument that I made in “Church Membership: A Theological Issue?” is this: we can treat membership as a merely practical “how-to” concern (or ignore it altogether) while failing to see its profound theological significance. However, membership is deeply interwoven with understandings of what the church is, what salvation is, and what the future means for life now. To neglect a clear and thorough account of membership will diminish our evangelism, discipleship, and the very nature of the church.
I stand by what I wrote and pray that it will help our churches and leaders. That said, if I failed to do anything, perhaps it was to assume too much about what some of our working definitions of church membership are. Perhaps I didn’t do enough to combat hazy, subjective, loose ideas on the topic.
Let me offer one of the best ones I’ve ever seen from Baptist theologian Jonathan Leeman in his marvelous little book, Church Membership:
“A church member is a person who has been officially and publicly recognized as a Christian before the nations, as well as someone who shares in the same authority of officially affirming and overseeing other Christians in his or her church.” (29)
Leeman’s definition of membership is based on (1) his exegesis of Matthew 16 and 18, and (2) his definition of a church. Of the latter he says,
A local church “is a group of Christians who regularly gather in Christ’s name to officially affirm and oversee one another’s membership in Jesus Christ and his kingdom through gospel preaching and gospel ordinances.” (62-63).
These two moves are crucial. How can you look upon a mass of individuals assembled in a particular room on a Sunday morning and say, “Good morning, church,” if you don’t have a right idea of what the New Testament calls a church?
Likewise, how can we treat people with the proper kind of spiritual seriousness if we don’t know the difference between a sheep and a goat? And what should our churches do to acknowledge that people have moved from the goat pen to the sheep pasture?
What Are Members?
The subtitle of Leeman’s book is an essential phrase concerning membership: “How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus.”
I always find it humorous whenever a professing Christian finds fame, whether in film, music, or sports. If you ever bump into someone from their hometown, they will be quick to claim them. They may even claim them as a Baptist, Presbyterian, or whatever church they once belonged to. It’s interesting that this never happens when a professing Christian (and member on a church’s roll somewhere) is accused or convicted of a serious crime. No one from that church steps up and says, “Yep, he/she is one of ours!”
Why? People intuitively know that such people are capable of somehow representing a person, group, institution, or cause. Christians are Christ-followers. They bear his name. Likewise, his church bears his name.
Leeman’s work on membership reminds us that by virtue of true conversion and proper baptism, Christians have been recognized as Kingdom citizens, spiritual people with spiritual authority, disciples who bear Jesus’ name.
How Are We Approaching Membership?
This claim leads to a harder question: is this the understanding of conversion, catechesis, and baptism that we are communicating? Do we teach, preach, and model a clear conception of being a member of the body?
Read the whole thing tomorrow at fwbtheology.com
Kudos to Tim Dalrymple and the leadership team at CT. I appreciate this transparent and forthright refutation of the rumor floating around about their being supported by the Biden Administration and/or U.S.A.I.D.
“Christianity Today Has Not Received U.S.A.I.D. Funds.”
On this note, perhaps we should all be a bit wary about accusing different entities of getting money from over here or over there. Most of us don’t understand the intricacies of how grants, subsidies, contracts, and related things work.
And then sometimes, we learn that some company, agency, or organization we hold dear has once given money to Planned Parenthood (or some other problematic entity). Our outrage quickly abates as we realize it’s hard to “do life” without ever patronizing a business that doesn’t have a DEI program, or hasn’t given money to LGBTQ causes, or the like.
Certainly, Christian churches and organizations should hold themselves to a higher standard of institutional integrity. But we cannot believe everything we hear either that confirms a bias we might already harbor, knowingly or not.
I don’t catastrophize about it. I think it’s a problem, that as I say, is going to fix itself one way or another. I do think that it poses some pretty serious challenges to the existing political order. I don’t think, for instance, that there’s any way that the existing welfare state can survive, because the welfare state basically individualizes the burdens of having children and socializes the benefits of having children, which means that it disincentivizes people from having children.
Louise Perry (in response to being asked about falling birthrates)
Modern culture paints masculinity in extremes. On one side, masculinity is toxic—something to be suppressed, softened, or erased. On the other, masculinity is brutal, aggressive, and dominant—something to be weaponized. The result? A generation of men is confused about what they’re supposed to be.
But Jesus offers a different vision. He was neither passive nor oppressive. He was fierce yet gentle, authoritative yet humble. He protected the weak, challenged corruption, and served the outcast. His strength was not wielded for his own gain but for the good of others. And he ultimately laid down his life—not out of weakness, but out of the greatest strength of all: the strength to love sacrificially.
Patience is the evidence of an inner strength. Impatient people are weak, and therefore dependent on external supports—like schedules that go just right and circumstances that support their fragile hearts. Their outbursts of oaths and threats and harsh criticisms of the culprits who crossed their plans do not sound weak. But that noise is all a camouflage of weakness. Patience demands tremendous inner strength.
Annie Jacobsen, Nuclear War: A Scenario
Winn Collier, A Burning in My Bones: The Authorized Biography of Eugene H. Peterson
Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God
I didn’t get an ideal opportunity to enjoy Presidents’ Day, though I did purchase a mattress. After all, that's what really counts.
So today, let’s end with a little poll. Let me know who your favorite president is—not necessarily who you think was most consequential, though those two may coincide for you. And yes, I have intentionally excluded recent presidents from the poll (for several reasons).