How Credit Scores Work
There was a time when your credit score wasn’t rated by a numerical value, your “credit” worthiness was determined by a variety of human-based interactions. A quick look into pre-FICO score ratings would reveal a world unknown to our digital report age. There once was a time when “Welcome Wagon representatives” and “mutual protection agencies” collected and sold information about your business dealings for banks and other creditors. As America grew, so did the need for precision in credit scores; this grown-up version of a permanent record now follows the responsibility of consumers in their financial commitments. It is a beautiful private system that rewards good behavior and makes us better borrowers–it tells the truth about how we behave in society.
The business world expanded its review of credit worthiness to address actual issues. The issues they were facing had been in the making for decades, mainly the growth of communities and a greater latitude in societal compositions. The early American practice of running a tab at your local general store was based on the individual’s reputation in the community. As the community grew, this became impractical: how can one general store track and lend credit to a major metropolitan area? The 20th century was also marked by tremendous advances in travel. Cars, planes, and bullet trains made it possible for families to lives cities apart, for men to pick and start a new career more than once in their lifetime. There are obvious credit-worthiness issues here: how does the creditor in the new town(s) know if someone is trustworthy if they have no reputation or history that is available? How does one handle multiple lending institutions?
Churches and Credit Worthiness
The church today has some of the same issues in dealing with church discipline. We have a precious commodity extended to those who are in good standing with the Body of Christ. The church unites those baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into a covenant contract for the blessings and benefits of the kingdom. We offer the very blood and true body of Christ to those who are worthy to receive it, feeding and nourishing their mind, body, and soul. How are these precious sacraments to be protected from wolves and the sacred table fenced from those who may take it unworthily?
The Christian church throughout the entirety of its history has used church discipline to regulate the credit worthiness of its members, but for same reasons the business world needed to expand its rating system, the church must address the needed changes in managing its membership. Imagine for a moment that a consumer were to default on his mortgage; the creditor could rightly hold the individual to his contract in repossessing property, imposing penalties, and even initiating civil litigation. Now imagine if this defaulted borrower’s next step was to go to the bank down the street and apply for another loan? How foolish would this second creditor be to not investigate the applicant’s history, or as in is the common case in the modern church, to ignore the warnings of past creditors?
A Pound of Flesh?
In an America with thousands of denominations, this becomes more difficult as we discover many have completely ignored the biblical command for formal discipline and excommunication (1 Cor. 5:5). God’s use of discipline is an act of grace and mercy to those who refuse to hear the elders’ call to repentance. Impenitence, not any individual sin, is the only outstanding debt that the church has the authority to collect on. Repossession of a member’s place at the Lord’s table is “for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved,” says St. Paul. When churches act biblically in their protection of the Lord’s table they are showing a loving-kindness, grace, and mercy to those who are caught in grievous sins. When churches ignore the Apostolic order to not recognize those who have placed themselves outside the congregation, they hurt that individual the most. Just a verse later, St. Paul goes on to explain why we need to separate the covenant keepers from the covenant breakers, “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven” (vv. 6-7)
Obviously, the first step is to reinforce the biblical commission to practice the grace of church discipline. There will always be some confusion when tackling the issue of church discipline, and attacking churches that are weak on this issue will not fix everything. We have to acknowledge that excommunication is difficult even in churches that hold it consistently. The reality of sin doesn’t prohibit our actions to kill sin, but rather it should encourage our devotion to prayer, to Christian conduct, and to utter and complete dependence on our triune God.
The Role of Shepherds
Our duly ordained ministers and elders are called to be shepherds of Jesus’s flock. John MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference is iconified by a pastor’s staff in its logo. I think this imagery is wonderful in so many ways. The pastoral staff is used to delicately wrangle sheep, and it ensures that particular ewes (mother sheep) and lambs don’t lose each other in large flocks. I’ve been told in a number of sermon illustrations that in some cases the human handling of a lamb can cause the mother to refuse to feed it.
This is why we can’t simply use our own human means, or our own human hands, to tend the flock, but must trust in God’s staff in the hands of his anointed shepherds. Too often we try to insert ourselves into disputes, and this subverts the authority of the church leadership, it shows a lack of faith in God’s biblical prescribed pastoral structure. Using human means of reconciliation is rebellion against the Holy Spirit. We need to work on trusting God more. Praying more, gossiping less. More divine intercession, less human meddling.
The second use of the shepherd’s staff is using the end to butt a sheep in the side. As sheep are moved about, they tend to wander off, and the rod is used to keep them in line. I imagine that very few sheep enjoy being poked or jabbed by the shepherd’s staff, but it’s done frequently to keep the flock moving in the right direction, for its safety. The minister does this from time to time in his sermons. Have you been offended by the minister’s righteous jabbing in his preaching? Perhaps that was his staff causing discomfort against an unruly sheep’s ribs? Or has a member forsaken the assembly by placing other pleasures over the Lord’s Day worship service? We should be thankful when the pastor pulls us aside and uses the staff to nudge us back to regular fellowship and communion with believers. Our shepherds use this gentle guidance to keep us from the jaws of wolves or an angry God’s rod of judgment.
The Hooky Hook for Hucksters
The shepherd’s staff is also used to hook a sheep for inspection. A disease in one sheep can quickly spread to a flock of thousands. This means that shepherds are constantly checking up on their flocks. A shepherd who merely puts out food and water will see his flock diminishing. This sort of animal husbandry requires the shepherd’s attention for missing sheep, for sick ones, and for the dangers in the pasture. As he practices church husbandry, the minister is to care for the Bride of Christ in much of the same way. At Church of the King, we expect regular visitations from our elders. This is a time when the elders meet with individual families in private to hear any concerns that a family may have with the church or with their own spiritual life. I know my wife and I look forward to having our elders visit us. It gives us a chance to express any questions we have with them or others in our flock.
At a recent visitation, I expressed our difficulty with the cost of some of the meals we were assigned to bring for our church’s fellowship meals. This is a conversation that would be difficult and even inappropriate to corner an elder with at church, but talking out little problems regularly like this helps develop a healthy relationship between the members and elders. Having the elders over also helps give them a glimpse into our home life. Is Steve Macias giving his wife the respect and honor she deserves? It can be hard to tell during the few hours we meet together throughout the week, but one-on-one with the elders can help them be more prepared if issues do arise. It also gives the elders a time to get a snapshot on how the family is doing in daily life.
My elders ask about our finances. There are no spreadsheets or 1040 forms, but they need to be involved if a family is in need of diaconal assistance. Is this man in need of pastoral guidance in his vocation or even in seeking employment? Are they practicing good Christian stewardship? This is not to place the church at the head of a man’s finances, but rather to recognize that the church is here to serve all of the man. What good is the good news of Jesus, if the families in your church are starving or being abused? The elders ask about marriage. They did this before we were married and check in often to keep in front of marital hardships that will inevitably come to some degree in all unions between sinners. The elders ask about our devotion. Are we growing in the Lord? Is the husband leading the family in home worship and devotion? They can then help shepherd out issues that need to be addressed.
The Problem of Camp Followers
Last March, Rev. R.C. Sproul Jr tweeted, “Those who refuse to join a local church are not soldiers in the Lord’s army, but camp followers.” Developing a proper view of church discipline requires us to take our vows and commitments to the body of Christ seriously. Too many Christians are in open rebellion to their husband Jesus by refusing to subject themselves to a local body in the Bride of Christ. Their resistance to shepherding is, as we’ve seen above, to their own disservice. The Bible explicitly commands believers to submit to a local church’s elders (Heb. 13:17). The Scriptures warrant no such title as “member-at-large” or “long-term visitor,” and these camp followers are refusing to either serve the local body or submit to elders, or both. Camp followers who find themselves connected to weekly bible studies, church events, worship services, and even leadership roles are required to covenant their membership with that local church.
Refusing to submit to a church that you are regularly communing at, fellowshipping with, and benefiting from is a sin. This is a sin that good shepherds will recognize and deal with in accordance with the Gospel. (Matt. 18:15-20) A pastor should explain to the camp followers that they are expected to submit to the Bible’s standard of church membership and privately shepherd them into their calling for the body of Christ.
Camp followers who refuse to submit to the elders should be removed from the Lord’s table for impenitence. The bar for receiving communion is set at the child-like faith of baptism. As First Corinthians 12:13 says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” By our baptism we are made to drink in unity, but the camp follower who refuses to submit to the elders will, as St. Paul declares, “eat and drink judgment on themselves. (1 Cor. 11:29). To protect these straying sheep, the shepherd removes them from communion and toward the hope of repentance in excommunication. Camp following should be called out for the sin it is: church harlotry. The bride of Christ deserves our full allegiance, not just a series of one night stands.
More From The Merchant of Venice
In the famous play, Shakespeare’s Shylock extended credit to the reckless Antonio knowing his full credit report, knowing that he wasn’t likely to keep his financial commitments. The Christian minister is to extend the sacraments of baptism and communion liberally, without regard of whether the individual will be able to perfectly keep their covenant. Much like Shylock, the minister extends those means of grace knowing that his sheep will fail to uphold their side of the covenant. This is not an invitation for a legalistic guarding of the table, but rather an understanding that the table is a place of confession and forgiveness. Each Lord’s Day, the forgiveness of the Gospel is to be offered to all who would confess and forsake their sins, clinging only to the blood of Jesus. Shylock demanded a pound of flesh when Antonio couldn’t pay, but in Christ we are forgiven our debts and we are nourished on the new riches of Christ’s flesh. The “fleshly” demands of the enemy are consumed like wine swallowed in the grace of our Lord’s blood. While we suffer through the uncertainty of excommunication, through the real pain, and broken relationships–there is a hope that amid the storms of sin in our life, that by church discipline Christ will bring our ships home.
A Sanctuary From Sanctification
Credit ratings fail to mean anything if other lenders refuse to heed their warnings, and church discipline is the same. If a church refuses to recognize the legitimate discipline of an individual who attempts to join their congregation, they make their house of prayers into a sanctuary away from sanctification. Not only do they open their congregation up to a toxic leaven left to the buffeting of Satan, but this also prevents this sinner from reconciliation and repentance with Christ’s church, which they have spurned. Welcoming excommunicated Christians to another church is harmful to the individual, to the body, and the unity of the Church.
Excommunications aren’t perfect, and everyone has a story about some mistakes or abuses. But the key point is, because the church is God’s biblical model, we should strive to reform our churches to better serve our members. There is also a shield in place to fix errors: the Holy Spirit. No pastor wants to excommunicate a father or mother of a family he loves or have a false accusation on his conscience when he is promised to be judged more strictly by God Himself (James 3:1).
Christian Credit Score System
When a member moves to another church, which happens for a number of valid reasons, he should have his membership transferred to the care of the new church. The old and new pastors should discuss the move and ensure that it was done with the best intentions, communicating any pastoral knowledge that would help the next minister in his shepherding duties. He should mention if this member had been disciplined in the past, what the elders noticed during visitations, and so on. This is just like Bank of America communicating with Wells Fargo about how you kept up with your mortgage, before they give you a bank loan for a new car. Christians should expect something like a permanent record to follow them throughout their care from a pastor to the next pastor that ministers to them.
Imagine if each of our ministers kept a record of members’ status in the church; we wouldn’t have to include much, just 1. Good Standing since xx/xx/xxxx [Church] or 2. Excommunicated on xx/xx/xxxx [Church]. Remembering of course that FICO is a private credit rating system, the same would be true of a Christian credit score system. When an individual seeks membership in a new church they simply have their name run through our newly conjectured “Christian Faithfulness Index.” And so, if you are in good standing, it is noted. If you skipped out on your last church, it is noted. If you are under discipline, the minister knows you need to reconcile with a previous church, and it is there in black and white.
Sure, at first it sounds a bit strange to our modern sensibilities. But it is nearly the same as we imagine it will be once we stand before the great throne of judgement. Do you chafe at the idea that then all deeds will be exposed? Shouldn’t we welcome the kind of covenant community that not only involves the “fun” parts of fellowship, but also dealing properly with sin, including our own? This system would tell the truth, which could go well for you, or not, depending on what is true. All that a negative report that is accurate can do is to encourage you to repent. This is entirely reasonable. We can hold more conferences on church membership, write more books on repentance, give lectures on character, but if we fail to uphold the Bible’s prescribed means of discipline, it will all be for naught.
Reformed Christians can take the lead and build a reformed network accepting submissions for a “Christian Faithfulness Index.” Incrementally, the Kingdom will incentivize and consistently apply church discipline by preventing ”Joe-Bob” from escaping discipline from First Presbyterian Church by showing up at Second Reformed Church down the street. Churches that practice discipline will see the fruit of Christ’s mercy. Those who find no sanctuary from Satan in anti-sanctification churches will have no choice but to look for new life in our risen Savior.
As a Christian with Bible-based optimism, I believe we will see unity of believers, of denominations, of schisms, of sects, under the present reign of King Jesus. And I believe discipline is a vital part of the sanctification of the bride of Christ.
In closing, I am reminded of a hymn we sing often at Church of the King. As you read the lyrics of “How Sweet and Awful is the Place,” pray that the Lord brings the strangers home.
How Sweet and Awful is the Place
by Isaac Watts
How sweet and awful is the place
With Christ within the doors,
While everlasting love displays
The choicest of her stores.
While all our hearts and all our songs
Join to admire the feast,
Each of us cry, with thankful tongues,
“Lord, why was I a guest?”
“Why was I made to hear Thy voice,
And enter while there’s room,
When thousands make a wretched choice,
And rather starve than come?”
‘Twas the same love that spread the feast
That sweetly drew us in;
Else we had still refused to taste,
And perished in our sin.
Pity the nations, O our God,
Constrain the earth to come;
Send Thy victorious Word abroad,
And bring the strangers home.
We long to see Thy churches full,
That all the chosen race
May, with one voice and heart and soul,
Sing Thy redeeming grace.
Like Steve on Facebook and follow @SteveMacias on Twitter.
<>
Steve speaks much of home visits by the church elders. What of those fellowshipping in a church that work non-traditional hours? For many working all night long on Saturday, it is a much greater committment than the typical congregant to come to church on Sunday morning during the time of day typically used for sleep. I know many people that work at their vocations 6 days/week. Is the expectation that the congregant take on the added burden of not getting proper rest to meet with the elders on Sunday afternoon (and very likely truly violating the intent of the sabbath) or take time away from work (and likely lost income) to welcome a visit from the elders when convenient for the elders? Steve claims that those not holding membership in a local church body are engaging in sin. For those working outside of the traditional 9 to 5 schedule, when will they be able to participate in the requisite membership classes? What of those living in rural areas where the nearest church providing sound doctrine is an unreasonable distance to travel on a regular basis? At the admonition of Steve, they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Submit oneself to a denominational structure and discipline that encourages women in leadership roles over men, teaches dispensationalism, encourages ecumenism, etc., just so that they are not sinning by not having taking membership? This issue is much more complex than Steve is willing to admit or acknowledge in this piece. Much straining at gnats in this piece.
Ben, I will let Steve issue his reply. Here is mine. We are all supposed to be accountable to the elders in our local body (Hebrews 13:17). This means some type of church membership and regular shepherding. There are numerous different scenarios that can arise which make this difficult. At my church we have men who work 12 hours (7 pm to 7 am) and then come to worship. We have men who work 3-11 shifts so they cannot meet in the evenings. We have men who are gone for weeks on business trips. We have people who live 45 minutes to one hour away. Wise elders understand these things and work with the different members to make sure they are being fed and held accountable while not placing unnecessary burdens upon the flock. If they are not doing this then they should not be elders.
As for not having a good church to attend, I would encourage prayerfully considering moving to a place where there is a solid church. I know this might mean a job change or even loss of income, but it will be worth it to be in fellowship with like-minded believers.
In my experience the problem is rarely the things you mention. It is usually elders who do not want to shepherd. Or church members (or non-members) who do not want to be shepherded. If the people want shepherding and the elders are willing to sacrifice to make that happen then almost any logistical problem will be overcome by their commitment to this paradigm. I am not saying it is easy, but it is possible.
With Grace,
Peter Jones, Pastor
Christ Church of Morgantown
What do you think about people who attend a church with no elders, no pastoral leadership, no one to hold the members accountable accept for each other? I ask this because all too often I have seen some “anti-abortion” activists justify their “exhortations” or “protests” of other churches when they themselves have no clear leadership within the confines of their congregation. Furthermore, these parachurch organizations welcome and advocate the participation of “fringe radicals”; nomadic non-church-goers who contend with using their own reasoning, excuses for not being members at a local church all the while “exhorting” other Christians to participate in their cause. Your thoughts Mr. Macias… If you do not know which parachurch organization in which I am referring, please send me a private message. I do not want to cause a disturbance on your thread unless you understand the implications if they catch wind of their mentioning here. Great article by the way. God bless.
I speak for myself of course and not for all the men at Kuyperian Commentary.
Our view of the Church present must be parenthetical of the history in Christendom. I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch (not Loyola) who said, “Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Bishop meaning overseer (or elder) over a jurisdiction larger than one local church and Catholic meaning the church universal. A church without elders is a Church without Jesus.
As you may know, I am the director of a pro-life non-profit para-church ministry here in California. While it is technically a “para-church” organization, my board of directors (President, VP, Board Members) are all Elders in our church. I’ve worked with nonprofits that don’t have this kind of pastoral oversight and it is really easy to get off of the Gospel message. We at Cherish know that our pastors expect us to hold up their reputation and that of their church.
While they were not related to the movement you suggest, several years ago a group of ecclesiastical anarchists formed a “church” in our area. It was spurgeon-esk in theology with a form of the Plymouth brethren polity. No pastors, but were glad to visit our church and others to stand up during the announcements and decry our church’s lack of participation in their battle against gay marriage. We were “cursed” by them. We were and still are a church with lots of politically active members. They were sounding brass, a tinkling cymbal.
We want to disciple men to be social reformers like St. Anselm and Wilberforce. Men who will work and dig in, not terrorists like John Brown or Paul Hill. Our hope must be in God’s sovereignty over his ordained means, not “man-centered” strategies for this “ultimate good” of ending abortion. The only “ultimate good” is Christ righteousness.
Mr. Macias, your response is greatly appreciated. In your page’s inbox, I will present to you an ongoing issue that, with your help, will shed some light on it and hopefully correct many who are going astray with a new “gospel” all the while calling themselves ambassadors and prophets for Christ. The situation I speak of is very similar to the one you’ve described above, but in regard to abortion and not gay “marriage”. Thanks again for you outstanding take on such a matter as this. I am speaking from the heart. God bless.
My further reply:
http://www.brooklynreformed.com/?p=156
Kevin, did you actually read the article; or is your response in haste from a glancing over of Steve’s points? Intentionally denying membership to a local body, is a sin. It is different when I person needs to consider the “church” terrain and take their time in finding a Biblical church. It took me years to find a legitimate church; a Bible teaching church. However, this did not deter me from attending different churches for the sake of discernment. I sought discipleship, and eventually the Lord led me to the church I needed, but it wasn’t before I learned discernment. Many use the excuse “I can’t find a church, so I am not going”… If it’s really that bad, then people need to consider the area in which they live. Being comfortable or living in a place convenient to a vocation while neglecting a good, elder-led, Christ-centered, and Word-based church far away is sinful. I believe AW Pink tried to justify his absence from a local body for sometime, but then eventually repented for having forsaken the Bride of Christ. If I can find this instance regarding Pink, I will provide it for you.
Terrence,
You might take the time to read what I wrote again. There are times when not joining a church is appropriate and there are times when it is inappropriate. The usual Reformed answer to every question is going to be yes and no. Steve’s article did not strike me as one with much balance. There is no reason to think we ought to be impatient when people begin attending a church as if they must make a decision right away. Some people have very good reasons for not joining immediately.
Kevin, thanks for you responses. Again, I will let Steve and Terrence speak for themselves. Here are my thoughts. I am a pastor. When someone begins attending our church we do not put any pressure on to join. If they ask, we tell them what is required. But if they do not ask there is no pressure. We get to know them. We try to understand where they are coming from. Have they gone from church to church for the last five years? Have they left a church they were at for many years? Are they new Christians? Have they left the faith and recently returned? Sometimes people want to join within a couple of weeks. Sometimes it takes months. We are not impatient. But the goal is always the same. Christ, his church, and the individual members are best served when people join a local body, submit themselves to the leadership, and serve the people. If someone attends our church for several months (usually six) and they show no indication of wanting to join we will gently approach them. We will encourage them to consider joining us or if they cannot join us to find another church where they can submit to the leadership. We don’t say to put pressure. We say this because it is healthy to be in covenant with a local body. If they need more time, we give it to them. There is not great pressure, but there is a goal. Both the members and the elders need to have the goal in mind, though they should exercise much wisdom and grace in trying to reach the goal.
One of the main problems is the lack of communication between churches when members transfer or leave. Frankly, there are some people we don’t want at our church. There are troublemakers and gossips and men who have left their wives and never repented. It would be of great benefit if churches would contact a visitor’s previous church when they want to join. And if the previous church would give an honest assessment of the member’s character. The trouble is many pastors/sessions do not know their members well enough to give such an assessment.
Again thanks for the input.
In Christ,
Peter Jones, Pastor
Christ Church of Morgantown
Peter,
Overall, I don’t have a problem with what you’ve outlined. The point I originally made is that seeking church membership ought to be a matter of wisdom on the part of those seeking membership and on the part of those who are leading in a church. I grant that elders have a difficult job in dealing with new parishioners, but it’s also very difficult for potential members to sort out the character of a church and her leaders in what is often considered a reasonable period of time. Often, a church doesn’t display its problems in leadership and elsewhere until someone joins. That’s part of the reason why some time and probably more time these days ought to be in place before someone eventually joins. We ought to think more of the interests of others in a process like this and not immediately come to a wooden conclusion that says obviously this person has some issue since he hasn’t joined just quite yet. Patience with one another and grace toward each other ought to be the order of the day rather than thinking this process is about meeting some goal.
Kevin, I understand what you are saying. But as you said earlier “yes and no.” Yes those in the pew and those on the session need to have patience, wisdom, grace during the process. But the aim is still to have people fully committed (i.e. formal membership) to a church, submitting to its leadership, and serving the other members. I think casual attenders are a much bigger problem than is often admitted. Many, many Christians attend churches on Sunday, but have never formally committed to that body and are not underneath the leadership. These people often float from church to church and lack any real accountability to the body. They want to be known as church goers, but without any real connection to the body. This is a problem. I do not think any of us are saying we automatically assume there is an issue if someone doesn’t join in the first month. But if someone refuses to join after a lengthy period of time then there is a problem. Maybe it us. Maybe it is them. But something isn’t right when someone wants to come, participate in worship, and be with the local body, yet refuses to become a member.
In Christ,
Peter Jones, Pastor
Christ Church of Morgantown
Peter,
A few more things…
1) Believers have a real connection to the body via the blood of Jesus Christ – church membership is emblematic of that reality. So, it’s a bit false to say Christians who attend church but don’t join are without any real connection to the body. It’s true that formal membership is a good thing, but it’s also true that there are times where being a member outwears its usefulness (John 10:35-38).
2) I agree that there are Christians floating about unnecessarily in our churches, but the real problem here is a matter of leadership. As Christian leaders, we must be ready to admit that the fault is mostly our own. True, some sheep wander. But, where are the shepherds when they’re needed? Many of them are too busy building empires or careers and not enough of them are doing the hard spade work of faithful leadership in our churches. When the vast majority of ministers are unfaithful, it’s a bit out of order to exclusively admonish laymen for their failures in this regard. Rather, we should model the proper behavior and encourage others to imitate it.
3) The aim of any potential membership should not be to lock it in but rather to appropriately assist potential members in finding the right way. This may mean becoming formal members. It may also mean occasional or even regular participation with a particular church but not membership. Thinking that the goal is always a matter of getting families to join is working without wisdom and doesn’t take into account the many potential issues Christians face today in attending a particular church.
4) Last, it ought to be remember that we’re largely talking about Reformed polity here and that other traditions do not define the matter similarly. This does not necessarily mean that the Reformed tradition(s) is in error, but it does mean we can learn from other traditions in terms of what they value. Anglican churches for example do not require oaths for membership but generally see someone as a member if they are financially supporting the work and participating regularly in the life of the community. I believe that model has some merit to consider because it is more in line with the actual reality of the membership we have in Christ and less dependent on a sort of card-carrying mentality that seems exaggerated in many Reformed churches. Sometimes, our polity goes well beyond biblical requirements and we ought to remember that when pursuing these issues in the lives of our members.
Correction, the reference in John in point #1 above is John 9:35-38, not chapter 10.
Kevin, thanks again for your thoughts. We are running around in circles here. So I will add a couple of more thoughts and be done. I do not think there is much disagreement. Feel free to respond of course, but I am not sure I am going to say more.
Your #1 is of course correct. Again we are talking about the norm here, not the exceptions. Normally a person should be baptized to be consider part of God’s people, but there are exceptions. Normally a person should be a part of a local church to be consider part of God’s people, but there are exceptions. However, John 9 is about a man getting kicked out, not purposely leaving of his own free will. I agree with your point, but I am not sure the text backs it up.
And #2 is correct as well. The failure of the shepherds is catastrophic in the American church. But how do leaders change the situation? By imitation yes. But also by teaching that commitment to a local body is good and the norm. And of course, there are always false-sheep who want nothing to do with being shepherded.
I would answer #3 and #4 this way. Hebrews 13:17, as well as I Peter 5:3, along with other verses indicate that elders have charge over a specific group of people. I Peter 5:3 uses the word for “lot.” We each have a lot, a group that we shepherd. Hebrews 13:17 says that I am going to give account for souls, specific people in my charge. The Bible does not give a way of making this formal. At our church we use membership vows. But you could use financial contributions or some other means. And I agree Reformed polity can get quite ugly on this point. But there needs to be some way for the shepherds and the sheep to know who is accountable for who. Just the shepherds knowing who is in the lot is not enough. The members must know who is going to give an account for their souls so they can make it a joy and not a grief for them.
Thanks Kevin for the interaction. Your thoughts have sharpened mine.
With Grace,
Peter
Peter,
A couple of other comments–I appreciate your willingness to interact here. We’re not really going in circles, however. Iron only sharpens iron when two pieces are put together. What’s been mentioned to this point is extremely important.
It is easy to talk about what is a rule and what is an exception. The problem today given the American church is that almost everything has become an exception and rightly so. As a result, then, applying the rules without discrimination or wisdom in a church becomes a haphazard endeavor subject to huge ramifications. This is part and parcel why I believe Steve’s post is in need of revision. A new system to evaluate members isn’t needed. Obedience to God and wisdom regarding his word is needed, especially by leaders in the church.
John 9 is relevant to this case because of the underlying moral principles in the passage and not the immediate circumstances. The elders of that synagogue already demonstrated their unfaithful wickedness to the man who had been healed but born blind. Truly, he did not need their permission to leave though they ordered him out. The proof for this is the apostasy and unbelief Jesus notes in throwing the elders/Pharisees out the true assembly of God’s people at the end of chapter 9. The leaders put the former blind man out of the synagogue and Jesus indicates that his leaders were the real ones that had been put out of God’s Kingdom through their unbelief. The man who had been born blind then found that his worship was accepted by Christ even though he wasn’t a formal member of the synagogue (read: visible church) at the time.
We should take care to note that just because we lead doesn’t mean we’re not susceptible to unbelief and error. In some ways, leadership puts us in a position of greater temptation in that regard.
So, as always, this becomes a word to the wise. He who has an ear, let him hear.
Thanks, gentlemen for a healthy discussion on an important subject.
How can you require something of other believers that the Scripture itself does not require??
“The Bible does not give a way of making this formal.”
I find the third paragraph under “The Role of Shepherds” and the first under “The Hooky Hook of Hucksters” highly disturbing. I believe caution should be exercised against pressing biblical metaphors, such as the shepherd/sheep metaphor, too far. (In referring to Jesus as the “Lamb of God,” for example, the Bible obviously does not ascribe to Him every characteristic of a lamb, such as stupidity.) The phrases “poked and jabbed,” “staff causing discomfort against an unruly sheep’s ribs,” “hook a sheep for inspection,” etc., strike me as both grossly insulting to church members and unnecessary in a discussion of proper pastoral oversight. If Hebrews 13:17 is cited, so should 1 Peter 5:1-3.