The Decision To Limit The Number Of Cubbies

Recently the leaders of our pre-school group known as Cubbies in our AWANA children’s ministry made the decision to put a cap on the number of children who can be part of that age level this year. This decision was made after a lot of agonizing and it was done primarily for one reason: space restrictions.

In a time when most small town churches and their ministries are in decline, having a growing AWANA ministry that is busting at the seams is a good problem to have. Nevertheless, I know some are concerned about this decision. So, in this post I want to address those who are concerned with some brief thoughts…

·         Though I wish this decision did not have to be made, I support those who made it. They were pressed to the limit last year. I want to give the freedom to those on the front lines actually doing the work to make those decisions—as much as we possibly can.

·         The church values young children and also children’s ministry. We know how important it is to reach out to young children and expose them to the gospel as soon as possible. Those commitments have not changed.

·         Many preschools, schools and other kinds of children’s ministries have to set limits on the numbers of children who can participate due to space and staffing limitations. It does not in any way suggest we don’t care about those children or those children’s families who may be turned away beyond the cap. Please join me in praying that we can keep significant connections to any preschoolers and families who have to be turned away this year and can bring them back in next year.

·         Because we are in the process of planning to expand our facility, this cap should be a temporary cap.

·         Speaking of our building expansion, this is one of the many bits of evidence that we are now at a place of desperately needing to expand—not for luxury purposes, but for ministry purposes.

·         I want to thank all of our congregation for your patience during this time. We have a wonderful AWANA volunteer staff and leadership who all are doing a fantastic job in space that is now too small. We are praying that will change soon.

·         Please keep our AWANA ministry and other ministries in prayer as we “ramp up” for a new year of ministry.

The Chief Membership Objection Answered, Part 2

In my last post I began to address the most common objection that Christians level toward official church membership:  The New Testament Church itself did not have such a process. I gave the first part of the response to that objection--namely that all which church membership comprises was found in the New Testament Church as essentials to spiritual health and growth.

I ended that post by acknowledging that some will still say, "But if the New Testament Church could carry out these principles apart from membership, we can too." I responded to that idea by highlighting the difference between us and the New Testament Church:  They faced the threat of outward persecution and we do not. That is the main difference that leads to our needing formal membership.

I want to come back to that thought in this post and elaborate upon it.

A Persecuted Church Has Less Need For Formal Membership

I am indebted to Jonathan Leeman for this truth. Leeman has written and taught extensively on the subject of church membership recently. He made the point that when Christians in a country or a region of a country are being persecuted or facing the possibility of persecution, it becomes very difficult for people to profess faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. In such an environment the threat of persecution itself tends to become the instrument of clarity for knowing who is in and who is out. For example, if a person in such a place professes faith in Jesus Christ and is baptized, now they run the risk of being ostracized by family, imprisoned, or killed. This tends to cut down on the likelihood that a person will profess faith just because others have or in some flippant way. It increases the likelihood that a higher percentage of professions will be real. The exact opposite is true in lands like ours where we do not face such prices for our faith. That is one of the reasons our churches are wise to have formal membership processes.

In Acts 5:13 we read: “None of the rest (that is, people not currently part of the church) dared join them (other believers), but the people held them in high esteem.” People of Jerusalem knew that Jewish leaders had threatened excommunication from the synagogue for confessing Jesus as Christ (John 9:22) and that openly following him could bring persecution (Acts 4:1-22). As such, no one had the boldness to trust in Jesus and join the other believers. This exemplifies exactly Leeman’s point. Yet, we go on to read in Acts 5:14 that “more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of men and women.” This could only be the case because God was sovereignly calling them, regenerating them, and giving them true faith in Christ. 

In other words, a clear demarcation between believer and unbeliever was set up. No one wanted to join themselves with the church, unless they had truly repented and trusted in Jesus Christ as Savior. In such a climate there are not as many false conversions.  The membership process is designed to help function in a similar way, at least when it comes to helping a person know whether or not they are truly saved and are truly willing to submit to being and making disciples in the church.

But All Of This Can Be True Of Me Without Being A Member

I have known a handful of people both in Fort Collins and here in Minden who are committed to Christ, to the church, we have known they are “part of us,” but they still are not members officially. Those people would say, “All of this can be true of me without membership.” I would answer them in this way, “Yes, most of it can be true. However, you cannot vote and there are some ministries in which you cannot serve.” I would also say, "Though you might be able to fulfill many of these principles apart from membership, most people will not. What is more, in our day and time it is not wise for the reasons mentioned above for a congregation not to have official membership and for a truly committed follower of Jesus Christ not to submit themselves to membership in a church. So, even if there are some exceptions, that is, some who can be committed and fulfill most of what membership involves without being members, it is still best that Christians submit to the membership process and do it for the good and health of the whole church."

I encourage all of us who profess faith in Jesus Christ and who are a regular part of the Minden Evangelical Free Church to submit to the official membership and accountability of the church. I encourage all of us who are members to remember the promises, the covenant, you have made to Christ and this church and carry them out to the best of your ability and by his grace. If you need a copy of that covenant, please contact me and I will get one to you.

The Chief Membership Objection Answered

Two weeks ago (July 13) one of our elders (Chris Kuehn) preached a sermon about the importance of membership. He did a fantastic job laying the foundation for it and also showing why it is important. Yet, I know that regardless of how well someone does at preaching a sermon like that, objections will always arise.

With that in mind, what I would like to do in my next couple of posts is try and address the most common objection to membership, namely, that the New Testament did not ractice a formal membership process as many congregations do today. If they did not, why should we?

Now, before I continue, I must say that I would agree with that—there was not a formal process as we know it (other than baptism—as Chris called attention to in his sermon [see Acts 2:38, 41]). So, again, if the New Testament Church did not have formal membership, then why should we?

The short answer to this question is this:  Because all the aspects of what our formal process of membership involves were present in the New Testament and, in fact, are demanded for a Christian and a congregation who desire to live faithfully before Jesus Christ. Also, I would go on to say that when our situation is similar to the New Testament Church we can probably go without formal membership also. However, when our situation is not like theirs (we are not facing the real possibility of strong outward persecution) we need formal membership.

Now, let me seek to prove both parts of this short answer with more detail. In the rest of this post I will set forth the New Testament principles behind formal membership. Then, in my next post I will address why persecution or its absence makes a difference.

The Principles Behind Formal Membership Are Demanded In the New Testament

1. Affirmation Of A Person’s Faith Profession

In Matthew 16:19 Jesus says to Peter as a representative of the church (see Mt. 16:18): “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Keys are for locking or unlocking doors—here more specifically the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is not saying that what the church looses or binds is decisive for who is part of the kingdom of heaven or not—as if God follows our lead. Instead, the sense seems to be that the church seeks to affirm what God has announced about a person. In other words, if the person has come to receive and rest upon Jesus alone for salvation and thus is following him, then, as God reveals in the Bible, he is part of the kingdom. If he hasn’t, then he is not. The church helps verify or falsify such faith professions. In fact, we can say this is a key aspect of the church’s mission!

This role of the church affirming or not affirming a person’s profession is also addressed two chapters later (18:18) when Jesus deals with an issue of sin in which a person is unwilling to repent and thus must be treated as an unbeliever (which implies his profession can no longer be affirmed). Jesus says, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In this passage two or three witnesses to the person’s lack of repentance (the sense is the more witnesses the better) affirm that their profession of faith can no longer be trusted and so they cannot be treated as one who represents Christ and his reputation. In such a situation heaven agrees that this person’s faith affirmation can no longer be substantiated.

Why is this role of faith affirmation important? It is important since it reduces the risk of people thinking they are truly saved when they are not—the kind of situation found in Matthew 7:21-23, where people profess to know Jesus and be known by him, but their lack of true salvation is demonstrated at the future judgment by their lack of obedience. Second, it is important for the preservation of the reputation of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6:18-20). Part of the reason the church gives a mixed message and weak witness to the world is because many people who profess to represent Jesus Christ are not even truly saved and thus are not new people. What is more, some who truly are saved, but currently hardened by sin (Heb. 3:12-14) are giving a mixed message to others about what it truly means to follow Jesus.

Now, if this authority of faith verification or falsification that is given to the church collectively is to be exercised, then professing Christians must be part of a local congregation, they must avail themselves of relationships with other Christians, they must be known well by other Christians, and the local congregation must know they are part of that congregation as a professing believer or not. All of these things are necessary to discern whether or not they are to be treated as a fellow Christian who should be corrected (e.g. 1 Cor. 5:1-8) or whether they should be treated as one who is an “outsider” (1 Cor. 14:16, 23) and is merely trying to wrestle with what being a Christian is, but they are not yet a follower of Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9-10, 12).

This first principle, then, leads to a second.

2. Clear Knowledge A Person Is Part Of A Local Congregation

In the early days of the New Testament church it was more easily known who was joined to Jesus Christ and thus was part of the church and who was not. For example, in the church in Jerusalem Luke could speak of “the whole church and…all who heard…” (Acts 5:11). In other words, he could differentiate between those part of the church and those not. Just a couple verses later “the rest” is distinguished from “them” and from “believers…added to the Lord” (13-14).

Some 20+ years later when Paul was writing to the church in Corinth it also was clear that the church knew more readily who was part of them and who was not. The church had a responsibility to exercise church discipline (keys of the kingdom) against the former, but not the latter (see 1 Cor. 5).

In both Jerusalem and in Corinth this distinction was made because some professed Jesus Christ, were baptized, and thus assembled together with the church to worship and to serve (cf. Acts 2:38, 41, 42-47; 5:12; 1 Cor. 1:13; 12:13). These were viewed as part of the church, members of the body of Jesus Christ. As we will see in my next post, though it was possible people could be false professors of Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5), it was less likely to make a flippant claim of salvation when hostile surroundings could put a person in peril.

When we fast forward to our own day, we see a situation in which people are mobile—moving from town to town or state to state, but also can visit from church to church within a town. Often people in a congregation will not be close enough to some guests or even short-term regular attenders to know: Have they professed faith in Jesus Christ? Have they publically professed Jesus Christ through baptism? Do their lives and beliefs suggest their profession is valid? Similarly how does a local church today help exercise the keys of the kingdom on those whom they know have committed to Christ to serve him in this local congregation and to be subject to the accountability and authority of the church? A tool that helps with all these matters is the formal membership process.

3. Believers Must Submit To Serve Christ In A Local Congregation

Here is the principle in which we see that Christians commit to each other and acknowledge others need them and vice versa. It is because of this need the author of Hebrews (20-30 years after Paul wrote to the Corinthians) exhorts believers, “let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some…” (Heb. 10:24-25). In these intervening decades some believers had become slack in assembling together, but they are corrected since we need others and others need us. This comes seven chapters after the same author commands us to “exhort one another every day…that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. 3:13).

The New Testament Church understood that Jesus not only saved them as individuals, but saved them to gospel community in which they were to live out their new lives and serve him. To seek to do otherwise (just live as if it’s Jesus and me without any others) was virtually unheard of.  After all, the New Testament calls us to love one another, pray for one another, exhort one another, encourage one another, build up one another, accept one another, etc. How can we carry out this kind of walk with Christ without being committed to serve our Lord among other believers? How can we show the world we are disciples of Jesus by our love for and unity with one another (John 13:34-35; 17:20-23) unless we regularly assemble together and live out life together in a way that the unsaved are invited in to witness this. This is done through committed church life together.

4. Believers Must Be The Ones Who Exercise Authority And Make Decisions In The Church

We discover in Acts 15 that when decisions about issues of conflict had arisen it was “the apostles and the elders, with the whole church” that made a decision (15:22). Most likely the church consisted of the same group of folks we read of early in Acts: those who had repented and trusted in Jesus Christ—professing this in baptism. They did not bring in outsiders. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 5 it was the church that was to make decisions regarding issues of discipline, not those who were only guests or visiting.

This practice in the early church has led churches through much of history to allow only officially recognized members to make decisions about the congregation and its direction. This only makes sense. Again, in a very mobile society in which many people move and in which people often visit different churches it would not be wise to let just anyone cast a vote. It is more likely that a non-member would not have a vested interest in the church and may not be around long-term. As such, typically, they are not in as good a position to be involved in such decisions.

Summary

What we see from this sampling of New Testament principles is that the key ingredients of membership were present in the New Testament Church. Each New Testament fellowship exercised the authority to affirm one’s faith profession or not, they knew who was part of the church or not, they taught the importance of living out one’s walk with Christ within a local congregation, among other believers in a committed fashion, and they seemed to limit decision making to those who were part of the church and not merely outsiders.

So, though the New Testament Church did not take its members through a formal membership process, the principles that make up formal membership all were present among them.

But, this raises a question: Why could the New Testament Church exercise these principles without a formal membership process, but such a process is needed for us? The answer to this is found in a difference between their setting and ours—a difference that centers around the presence or absence of outright persecution. I will address this in my next post.

Barnabas: A Model Joyful Follower

This past week I was studying Acts 4:36-37, where a man by the name of Barnabas is introduced for the first time. As I meditated upon those verses and also what the rest of the New Testament says about this little known Bible character I was reminded anew and afresh just how great a model for us he is.

What follows are some of the traits in his life that make him a helpful example.

1. He Was A “Regular Guy”

Some biblical characters can leave us feeling like they are out-of-our reach. The Apostle Paul is one of those. Paul was a leader among leaders, a person who rose to the top quickly and became well-known. He was like the figures we might listen to at some conference or hear on the radio. If we are not careful, we can conclude that there is little we can learn from them by way of example because we are not that kind of “superstar”.

Yet, Barnabas wasn’t like that. In fact, many of us probably have no idea who this man was. Luke, the author of Acts, introduces him as one whose real name is Joseph, “a Levite, a native of Cyprus” (Acts 4:36) who had come to trust in Jesus Christ as Savior. In other words, he was a temple helper, a Jew whose was born on a small Mediterranean island. Though he was a prophet and teacher for a while in Antioch (Acts 13:1) and though he was Paul’s partner on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:2-14:28), he soon faded away into obscurity. Other than a mention by Paul some 15-17 years later to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 9:5-6)—a mention by the way that lets us known Barnabas has a strong reputation throughout the church—nothing more is said about him.

Barnabas appears to be a regular guy like us. He is not well-known, his name is not up in lights. Rather he is content simply to serve Christ whether others notice or not.

2. He Cared About People, Especially Those In Need

The reason Luke introduces Barnabas is that he serves as a concrete example of a believer who sold a piece of property and then brought the proceeds to the apostles so that they could be used to help fellow believers who were in need (Acts 4:36-37).  Then over fourteen years later he, along with Paul, took relief to famine-stricken believers in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). More than this, when Paul was converted, Barnabas was the first one to reach out to this former persecutor of Christians and he was to the first to extend fellowship to this one who desperately needed it and to encourage others to do the same (Acts 9:27).

This same compassion was also shown to his own cousin, John Mark (Col. 4:10), who deserted Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). Barnabas wanted to forgive him and have him continue in missions work and Paul did not. So sharp was their disagreement that Paul went on this second missionary journey with Silas and Barnabas teamed up with Mark (see Acts 15:39-40). Without taking sides here on who was right and who was wrong, we cannot help but admire the mercy and compassion of Barnabas towards all kinds of people who had needs of various kinds. What is also of note is that that this future author of a Gospel that bears his name (Mark) was eventually reconciled with Paul by the early to mid sixties A.D. (Col. 4:10; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). Though it may be going too far to suggest that Barnabas had something to do with that reconciliation, I don’t think it far-fetched to conclude that Barnabas’ willingness to persevere with John Mark had some impact on his future usefulness in the Church and maybe even his reconciliation with Paul!

So loving and encouraging was this man that his fellow believers did not call him by his given name (Joseph), but rather Barnabas (which means son of encouragement, Acts 4:36). In the Hebrew mindset to say that someone was a son of _ (fill in the blank) was to describe the essence of their character or being!

3. He Was Sold Out To Gospel Ministry

The love Barnabas had for others was also translated into his zeal for introducing people to the good news of Jesus and helping them live out the effects of that gospel. He encouraged the church in Antioch to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose when they first responded to the gospel (Acts 11:22-23), he spent another year teaching these new believers in Antioch along with Paul (Acts 11:25-26), he went on the first missionary journey with Paul where he preached the gospel (13:5, 6-12; 14:1, 14-18, 21, 25), he was persecuted for the gospel (13:46-52; 14:4-7), he most likely witnessed his partner and friend being stoned almost to the point of death for the gospel (14:19-20), and after that trip he stood up for the integrity of the gospel when others wanted to change it (Acts 15:1-2).

Here was just a “regular guy” who loved Jesus and delighted to follow him in all ways. What a great model for all us regular guys and gals today!

4. He Was Content With Playing Second Fiddle

When Barnabas and the younger, spiritually less mature Paul took off on their missionary journey, their ministry began in Barnabas’ homeland of Cyprus. Given the word order that Luke uses—Barnabas and then Paul (Acts 13:7), Barnabas most likely started out as the leader, but soon took a supportive role to the Apostle (see 13:13, 43, 46, 50). We have no indication this was a problem. This man wanted to serve Jesus no matter his role.

5. He Was A Good Man, Full Of The Holy Spirit And Of Faith

This final description of Barnabas comes as a direct quote, a rare word of praise Luke writes with his own pen in Acts 11:24. One of the major themes of Acts is that the coming of the Spirit upon and his filling of his people lead to fruitful ministry among others and for God’s glory. Barnabas was a man who was yielded to Jesus Christ and his Spirit.

The late New Testament scholar, D. Edmond Hiebert, in his 1973 book, Personalities Around Paul, summarizes well the life of this Spirit-controlled joyful follower:

Barnabas stands out as one of the choicest saints of the early Christian church. He had a gracious personality, characterized by a generous disposition, and possessed a gift of insight concerning the spiritual potential of others. He excelled in building bridges of sympathy and understanding across the chasms of differences which divided individuals, classes, and races. He lived apart from petty narrowness and suspicion, and had a largeness of heart that enabled him to encourage those who failed and to succor the friendless and needy. He did have his faults and shortcomings, but those faults arose out of the very traits that made him such a kind and generous man—his ready sympathy for others’ failings and his eagerness to think the best of everyone.

By the grace of God and the work of the Sprit may the same someday be said of you and me.