A Circle in the Sand

—Chris Krycho

One of the consequences of holding a high view of church membership is that some people will inevitably be excluded. That is, in some sense, the point: the church is very carefully stating who is, and who is not, recognized as a Christian—so that believers and nonbelievers alike understand that even if the person claims the title of Christian, the church disagrees. Unrepentant sin is serious, serious enough that when people continue in it we treat them as non-Christians. We go back to trying to win them to Christ.

This raises a quandary for churches: where should we draw the line? On the one hand, we dare not unthinkingly allow just anyone to join our fellowship—some people are clearly outside the bounds of orthodoxy, or are stubbornly unwilling to renounce their sinful ways of life. On the other hand, there are a number of issues that historically divided the church that are a bit less cut and dried.

In a conversation with a friend recently, I noted that if issues like baptism were as straightforward as we often act, there would be far less conflict over them. The problem, of course, is that all of our arguments for paedobaptism (baptism of infants) or credobaptism (believer’s baptism) are all arguments by inference; Scripture never clearly answers the question one way or the other. The discussion is important and there are good arguments on both sides; don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Neither the Krychos nor the Kings will be baptizing their children. We’re convinced. But I have a lot of friends who have studied the same passages I have and come to a different conclusion.

The same is true in a number of areas of Scripture: despite many arguments of both sides, the debate between Calvinists and Arminians continues. So do discussions on everything from alcohol to styles of worship. Again, PJ and I have developed strong, consistent views on each of those issues—but where do we draw the line for membership? Must people agree with the elders of a church on every single issue in order to qualify for membership? As a commenter pointed out in our discussion of divorce and remarriage, some people may not be unrepentant so much as convinced of a different argument… should we then bar them from membership?

The solution, I would argue, is twofold. First, each church must decide where its lines are drawn. Each church should have a detailed covenant of membership, decided on by the church under the leadership of the elders. Then, whenever membership is at issue, the church will have a clear, previously articulated position to stand on. Here, the church can spell out exactly how to handle cases of divorce and remarriage, its views on baptism, who may take communion, and so on. A covenant may be long and detailed; it should certainly be prepared prayerfully and graciously. The aim should be unity and clarity, not division. (We will have more to say on the important topic of church covenants in the future.) Anyone who is united with the church on the substantive issues of the gospel and is willing to submit to the church’s teaching, not subverting it or complaining against it, should be welcomed to membership.

We are now faced with an important question: what are we doing if, on the basis of these strongly held convictions, we turn away truly regenerate people from membership? Are we proclaiming to the world that they are not Christians? I think the answer is no, as long our lines are not drawn too tightly—more on this in a moment. When a person wishes to join a church but is not a good match theologically, the elders can and should point to other healthy, biblical churches in the community where people may fit better, if such options exist. When, as is occasionally the case, there is only one good church in a region—whether because it is historically unreached, or because the other churches there have apostatized—the church and elders should consider more carefully: is it worth excluding this person for the sake of secondary issues when they have nowhere else to go? Such cases should be thankfully rare in most of the United States.

Where, then, should these doctrinal lines be drawn? On many of the issues where Christians have historically divided and excluded from membership—issues like a particular understanding of baptism or church government—I would argue that there is a better way. Remember, when we exclude someone from membership and fail to point them toward another community, we are effectively saying to them and to the world: you are not of us. In cases of apostasy and unrepentant sin, that is exactly what we should say, which is why each church must carefully delineate what it holds to be sins. If remarriage is always a sin, remarried couples cannot be members without repenting—even if they disagree. In areas that are not black and white—areas of historical disagreement between believers who can nonetheless affirm each other’s real, saving faith—there must be room for grace.

Personally, I do not think any issue except the gospel itself merits exclusion from the covenant community of God. Many of the thorniest issues can be pierced simply by having sufficient diversity among the elders (another post for another day). Secondary issues are no reason for me to treat a believer like a heathen, as long as they are held thoughtfully in good conscience. We ought to welcome those who would join our fellowships if they clearly evidence understanding of the gospel and are willing to submit to the church’s teaching; if we cannot direct people to another fellowship, we should welcome them into our own. We should be clear on where our lines are drawn, yet flexible on secondary points of doctrine. We should embrace as believers many who disagree with us, even if we ultimately point them to other churches. We should strive in all of these things to build the unity of the people of God!

Where do you think the lines ought to be? What would this look like for a couple convinced their remarriage was Biblically allowable? What about with paedobaptists at a credobaptist church? What about believing Roman Catholics at Protestant churches? Leave a comment!