Sermon Tone Analysis

“Those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls… And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.”

[1]

Charles Spurgeon spoke of his intense desire to be a member of a local church in an account provided during a sermon.

“I well remember how I joined the church after my conversion.

I forced myself into it by telling the pastor, 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 for church membership, I would call a church meeting myself and tell them I believed in Christ and ask them if they would have me.”

[2]

Clearly, this stalwart of the Faith held a high view of membership in the local congregation.

However, church membership has fallen into woeful neglect among the churches of our Lord in this day.

I am not certain when the transition occurred, but membership in the local church seems to be well nigh universally disregarded, if not actually disdained, today.

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

However, believing assuredly leads to belonging, for the one who believes will love the church as much as does the Saviour who redeems it [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 lands where being a believer may well entail considerable cost, it is rare that one would find a Christian who remained unconnected to a local congregation.

Being a believer is synonymous with being a member of a local congregation, both in the Word of God and in historical experience and in the experience of 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.

[3]

In studying the New Testament, I observe that the writers frequently address or speak of a “church” and often refer to the “churches.”

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

In other versions of the Bible, the word “church” and its cognates occurs 110 times.

[4] I leave it to you to find the extra occurrence.

In six instances, the Greek term ekklesía occurs in the autographs though the word is 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 very few 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 treat membership as the expected practise of all 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.

*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 to fail to hold membership in a church; thus, 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 is seen as an act of commitment; it is a statement of purpose in which the Christian commits himself or herself to the Body of Christ.

The one uniting with a 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 that is under consideration today during my service before the Lord.

I have methodically taught from this passage.

It is not that it 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, there are treasures yet to be found in these verses.

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

In a thought-provoking lecture, C. S. Lewis wrote, “The very word membership is of Christian origin, but it has been taken over by the world and emptied of all meaning.

In any book on logic you may see the expression “members of a class.”

It must be most emphatically stated that the items or particulars included in a homogeneous class are almost the reverse of what St. Paul meant by members.

By members he meant what we should call organs, things essentially different from, and complementary to, one another, things differing not only in structure and function but also in dignity.”

[5]

I 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 through review of the New Testament documents.

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

This was a company of about 120 persons identified as belonging to Christ.

As an aside, this number included: “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.”

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

Included were the remaining Apostles, Mary the mother of Jesus, the brothers of Jesus, the women that had followed Him throughout His ministry (no doubt including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James [see LUKE 24:10 and MATTHEW 27:56]) and others.

What we observe, therefore, is a distinct group in which the composition 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, for they were threatened by the civil and religious authorities because of their identification with the Lord; but also no person who refused to identify as part of the group would have been permitted the privilege of serving since they did not belong.

We note a count of those who had received baptised when they confessed Christ as master of their lives in ACTS 2:41.

Why maintain a record of the number 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 was 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 who would serve 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]?

There simply was not, nor is there now, sufficient resources for a church to provide for all the needy in a given community!

Paul writes of enrolling widows.

This enrolment served a dual purpose of providing guidelines for distributing assistance and to permit appointment to an official order of service within the church.

A list of widows was maintained for a 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, only with observation for an extended period could the elders know her devotion to caring for the needs of the congregation.

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

Unspoken, but nevertheless apparent, 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 the capacity Paul describes.

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 the list appears 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.

The Apostle urged these elders to “pay careful attention … to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit” had made them “overseers.”

Paul sought to ensure that they understood the importance of his charge; the flock is identified 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 seeks to preserve the underlying Greek by saying 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].

The mere fact that “leaders” are mentioned implies that there must be followers.