Sermon Tone Analysis

“Those who accepted [Peter’s] message were baptised, and that day about three thousand people were added… And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.”

[1, 2]

Charles Spurgeon told of his intense desire to be a member of a local church during one particular sermon.

“I well remember how I joined [the church], for I forced myself into the Church of God by telling the minister—who was lax and slow—after I had called four or five times, and could not see him, that I had done my duty, and if he did not see me, I would call a church-meeting myself, and tell them I believed in Christ, and ask them if they would have me.

I know when I did it I meant it.”

[3]

Clearly, Spurgeon held a high view of membership in a local congregation.

Today, church membership is neglected among the churches of our Lord.

I am not actually certain when the transition occurred, but membership in the local church seems to be disregarded across the spectrum of Christendom.

It seems at times as if membership in the local congregation is dismissed as unimportant.

Modern Christians seem to believe that the Faith of Christ the Lord involves believing only, and not belonging.

However, believing should lead to belonging; for the one who believes will love the church as much as does the Saviour who redeems [see ACTS 20:28; EPHESIANS 5:25].

Church membership is not merely enrolment for the sake of having one’s name on a list, nor is it solely an issue of privilege.

Outside of Canada and the United States—especially in countries where being a believer may entail considerable personal cost—it is rare that one would find a Christian unconnected to a local congregation.

Being a believer is synonymous with being a member of a local congregation—in the Word of God, in historical experience and in the experience of contemporary Christians outside of North America.

However, in Canada, membership is too often associated with paying dues, performing meaningless rituals, abiding by silly rules and simply having one’s name on a roll that is seldom consulted.

However, the New Testament presents quite a different picture of membership in the local congregation.

To be a Christian without holding membership in a congregation is akin to being a hockey player without a team.

Perhaps you enjoy playing the game, but you really do not compete.

Being a Christian without holding membership in a local congregation is somewhat like being a tuba player without a band.

Though you play ever so well, it is only as the tuba lends its melodious bass in harmony with the entire band that the beauty of the instrument is truly witnessed.

To be a Christian without holding membership in a local congregation is to be a sheep without a flock, exposed to danger.

To be a Christian without accountability to a local congregation is to be an orphan without a family.

[4]

In my studies in the New Testament, I note that the writers frequently address their missive to or speak of a “church”; or they will refer to the “churches.”

The word “church,” or the plural, “churches,” occurs 109 times in the ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION of the New Testament.

For those who use the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION of the Bible, you will discover that the word “church” and its cognates occur 113 times.

I leave it to you to find the extra occurrences.

There are six instances of the Greek term ekklesía occurring that are not translated by the English term “church” in the ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION.

It is indisputable that the overwhelming number of occurrences of this word in the Greek text clearly speaks of a local congregation.

This would have been the usual understanding for the first readers of the New Testament, even in the limited instances that we question what the writer may have meant.

This point is sufficiently important to stress so that we gain an appreciation of the importance of the church to early Christians.

Accordingly, it would be fair to say that the local congregation loomed large in the estimate of the writers of the New Testament.

If we should discover that the early Christians valued church membership, we should see their practise as a model to emulate.

If they treated membership as the expected practise of any who name the Name of Christ, we are obligated to adopt that practise in our own day.

In order to explore this issue more fully, I deliver this homily, based loosely upon ACTS 2:41, 47.

In these two verses, I note that Doctor Luke twice stresses addition to the number of the believers.

I am quite certain that his language is not superfluous, but rather than he is carefully reporting what occurred with a view to providing a model for each church during the Age of Grace to adopt.

Consider his Word, then.

THERE WERE ADDED THAT DAY — Honesty compels me to admit that even in the recent past, people joined a church as an act of conformity.

Children attending Sunday Schools were typically urged to “join” the church.

Tragically, churches often were guilty of plucking “green fruit” as people united with the congregation more out of obligation than out of conviction.

Children, especially, sought to please their teachers or to fit in with their peers, and so they “joined” the church.

Likewise, it was once considered social suicide not to be a member of the church; and so joining a church was frequently treated as a mere business decision to enhance social standing in business circles.

If earlier generations erred in treating membership as obligatory for the wrong reason, contemporary generations have moved too far toward a form of individual autonomy that depreciates the need for church membership.

Membership in the New Testament view is an act of commitment.

It is a statement of purpose in which the Christian commits himself or herself to the Body of Christ—His church.

The one uniting with the congregation is accepting responsibility to fulfil the purpose of God through investing his or her spiritual gifts in the life of the congregation that God chooses.

I have focused intensely on the passage before us during the past weeks.

I have turned frequently to this passage.

It is not that this is the only passage available to instruct us in the importance of membership in the local congregation; but it is certainly one of the clearest examples of the early practise of the apostolic churches.

Consequently, the treasures to be found therein have not been exhausted.

Accordingly, I ask that you weigh the teaching implicit in this divine account of the nascent Jerusalem congregation at least once more.

In a lecture now out of print, C. S. Lewis stated, “The very word membership is of Christian origin, but it has been taken over by the world and emptied of all meaning.”

[5] I am not at all certain of the source for Lewis’ assertion that the word “membership” is of Christian origin, but I do know that those saved “were added” to the number of disciples.

That this was an ancient understanding is evidenced in early manuscripts that add the words “to the church” to ACTS 2:47.

[6] Though the words “to the church” were not likely part of the original text, the obvious intent of Luke’s words is that those baptised were enrolled in the membership of the congregation.

That individuals were enumerated and recognised as disciples seems abundantly obvious from the New Testament documents.

In the days preceding Pentecost, we read, “Peter stood up among the brothers” [ACTS 1:15].

This was a company of about one hundred twenty persons identified as belonging to Christ.

Among these disciples were “Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.”

Included also were “the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers” [ACTS 1:13, 14].

“The women” seems to speak of those women that had followed the Master throughout His ministry.

Undoubtedly, this group of women would have included Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary the mother of James [see LUKE 24:10 and MATTHEW 27:56].

Those gathered in the upper room were a distinct group, the composition of which was known to all present.

In other words, there was a criterion for membership and at the least an informal enrolment of those who were thus identified as members.

Perhaps you would argue that before Pentecost, this group was not a church; but it was certainly a prospective church, if not a nascent church.

It had all the elements of a church.

From this pool of members, the assembly prayerfully sought whom God might appoint as a replacement for Judas Iscariot [ACTS 1:21-26].

Among the requirements for appointment was the evident qualification that the individual would need to be identified as belonging to the group.

No unbaptised person could have been part of this group.

They were threatened by the civil and religious authorities because of their identification with the Lord; thus, no person who refused to identify as part of the group would have been permitted the privilege of serving since they did not belong.

In ACTS 2:41 we are given a count of those who were baptised upon confessing Christ as Master of their lives.

Why maintain a record of the number who were baptised if there is no membership?

In fact, throughout the early account of the church in Jerusalem, there is careful attention to the number of believers who are identified with Christ in baptism [see ACTS 2:47; 5:14; 11:24].

If there were no membership roll, how would the disciples know who to choose to serve the members of the church [ACTS 6:1-6]?

Clearly, there was a pool of people that met the criteria proposed for those serving in this capacity.

As far as that goes, how would the congregation know which widows to include in the daily distributions, if there were not a record of those widows affiliated with the congregation [ACTS 6:1]?

Paul writes of enrolling widows.

Whether this enrolment was in order to provide guidelines for distributing assistance, or whether it was an official order of service within the church, cannot be stated with certainty.

However, what is known is that a list of widows was maintained for some specific purpose.

It seems apparent that these women were drawn from the membership of the congregation, since the elders knew them.

Widows were to be “enrolled” after meeting specific requirements, including an age threshold and a history of devotion to godly works [1 TIMOTHY 5:9].

While it might be possible to guess a lady’s age, only through observation over time would the elders be able to know of her devotion to caring for the needs of the congregation.

The evidence assumed throughout the New Testament is that there were lists of members and that these lists were kept current.

Unspoken, but apparent nonetheless, is the fact that those who were not “enrolled” as widows would not be included in their number.

If Paul’s intent was to give instruction concerning an office related to service, the widows who were unenrolled would not be permitted to serve in any official capacity.

On the other hand, if the enrolment was to guide church assistance, that help was restricted to those who truly had need.

The point that should be noted is that a list of those who were recognised as enrolled “widows” was maintained, and it seems to have been drawn from a larger pool since “younger widows” were known but were not enrolled [1 TIMOTHY 5:11].

The elders of the congregations have specific responsibilities for those under their charge.

When Paul addressed the Ephesian elders, he issued a charge that demands careful consideration.

You will no doubt remember that the Apostle urged the elders to “pay careful attention … to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers.”

The importance of his charge is emphasised in that he identified that flock as “the church of God which He obtained with His own blood” [ACTS 20:28].

The language in the translation I use is precise as it preserves the underlying Greek by stating that the elders were to care for “the flock … in which” [en ho] the Holy Spirit had made them “overseers.”

Consequently, the Holy Spirit appointed the elders as overseers; they were not “elected.”

Again, the language demands that we understand that the elders held responsibility over a specific body.

They were not “elders-at-large” who were able to function as elders wherever they might choose.

Eugene Peterson’s treatment of this particular verse states: “Be on your toes—both for yourselves and your congregation of sheep.

The Holy Spirit has put you in charge of these people—God’s people they are—to guard and protect them.”

[7] The elders were not in charge of all Christians.

Elders have no authority whatsoever over any Christians, save for their own flock.

This being so, it should be obvious that there must have been a membership roll.

The writer of the Letter to the Hebrews urges the readers to “obey your leaders” [HEBREWS 13:17].