Is Church Membership Biblical? Part 1

A couple of Sundays ago, the band came over to our house for lunch after the morning service. The topic of church membership came up in conversation. We asked the question, "What is church membership?" A great conversation followed, which showed that people have real concerns about "membership" and what that might communicate to people.

Here I would like to ask the question, "When the Bible speaks of the church, does it ever put forward anything that resembles church membership?" Or restated: "Does God guide His flock in ways that make local church membership a useful means of grace?"

Observation #1
Our church is moving forward in establishing/growing its leadership. We will have our second elder soon, and I am sure there are more to follow. One of the charges given to elders is that they are to pay careful attention to themselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers, and to care for the church of God (Acts 20:28). So, it seems that a reasonable question for an elder is, "Who is the flock for which I am an overseer?" Obviosly, the elders in Ephesus were expected to understand Paul when he made this statement, and Paul spoke of a particular duty to protect some group of people called a "flock." But, how are these people identified?

So, my observation here is this: The elders are to guard a certain set of people, and by having those people make a commitment to that particular church family, agreeing to come under that elder leadership, this role is fulfilled. You can call that church membership if you want to, but what is needed is knowledge of the flock that is to be guarded. Note that this doesn't give us any indication as to how formal this was (written versus verbal).

Would elders be responsible for everyone who ever darkened the door of one of the church's gatherings? I cannot imagine the answer being yes. Wouldn't they be responsible though for those who wanted their godly shepherding? But you may say, "there was just 'the church' in those days, each city with a set of believers, and so the elders were responsible for all of them. But, would elders in our day be responsible for all of the believers in their city, though they may never come to the elders' particular gathering of believers? I think it is reasonable to say "no." So this seems to indicate that people need to commit to being members of one another, in the sense that we have members of our physical body. People need to come under the leadership of the elders, and entrust to them the right to hold them spiritually accountable.

More reasons for us to be committed to a local church are to come...