The Ekklesia of Christ
Chapter 7 - The Ekklesia - Christ’s Purpose
So far we have considered a proper definition of the word translated as “church” in our KJV Bibles, the ekklesia within the broader context of the Kingdom of God, we have reminded ourselves of the errors that can occur if we draw an artificial line of separation between the Old and New Testaments, and we have looked into several metaphors used in Scripture to help us understand this ekklesia into which we have been born by the Spirit of God. You might say that we have beaten all around the bush, and now it is time to contemplate the “bush” itself.
From Scripture, what is the ekklesia? As we have considered our metaphors of the building, the body and the marriage relationship, we would have to conclude that the called-out ones are people who have been bought out of sin through the blood of the Lamb of God. Therefore, the local gathering that we commonly refer to as a “church,” is really not the ekklesia of Scripture, for it may well include both the lost and the redeemed, and it is only the redeemed who are a part of Christ’s ekklesia. The ekklesia is not a building or an organization, yet our word church works for both of these; the ekklesia is an organism, a Body who’s Head is the Lord Jesus Christ. As a Body, the structure, health, and life of the ekklesia are controlled by the individual connections to the life-giving Head, Jesus. Therefore, when we use the word “church” today, we must understand that we are using a term that has accumulated millennia of baggage from an apostate organization and bears no resemblance to the term ekklesia in Scripture, which has, unfortunately, been translated as “church.”
Ekklesia, within the context of our study, refers to a gathering of redeemed individuals who have been called by the Lord to a life of holiness and purity, as opposed to a group who meet together regularly and abide by a particular creed or constitution. Jesus said: “I will build my ekklesia” (Matthew 16:18); it is His work, not ours. Ephesians 4:8 says that when Christ “ascended up on high, he led captivity captive …”; this means that when Christ ascended to the Father He took with Him, into the very presence of God, the saints from the “bosom of Abraham” who had died in the faith (Luke 16:19-31) and were raised to new life in Him when He rose from the dead (Matthew 27:52-53), so that now to be “absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:8). Nevertheless, the building of the Body of Christ is a work that Christ has claimed for Himself, and He began with the saints who had died prior to His incarnation (Hebrews 11), and He continues today with all who repent and place their enduring faith in His redemption – those who will persevere in their journey through life: “we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (Hebrews 3:14). This is very different from drafting a constitution or creed, and then living accordingly; this calls for us to live in harmony with the Word of God, not man’s understanding of it. This is a very significant difference: the former calls on us to place our faith in the men who drafted the creed or constitution; the latter requires us to study and learn God’s Word for ourselves so that we might examine all that we hear, see and read in its pure light. The former will provide a false sense of security and lead to a neglect of the Word of God; the latter will make God’s Word central to our spiritual well-being, and magnify the Lord in all things. “And hereby we do know that we know him [God], if we keep his commandments” (1John 2:3); where are His commandments? – in His Word!
As we examine the ekklesia, the gathering of the called-out ones of Christ, let us consider, first of all, the purpose for the gathering – not what we think it is from what we have observed through the years, but what is our purpose according to the Scriptures? A verse that we have all heard, and one that has been used against many of us from time-to-time, is Hebrews 10:25 – “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” The first part of this verse has become a favorite of “pastors” who want to lay guilt on someone who no longer attends their church, or who only attends sporadically.
Let me say at this juncture that I have no problem calling the gatherings of the Evangelicals and Liberals “church”; but the more I have studied this subject, the less inclined I am to use the same term to describe a Biblical gathering of God’s called-out ones, His saints. The Biblical term is far more exclusive, and I believe we will see that it is designed by God to fulfill a far different function than the modern churches at large that have become little more than religious social groups.
As we look further at Hebrews 10:25, let’s consider the context of this verse, beginning with verse 19 (which some show as a new paragraph). Having just explained to us the once-for-all-time sacrifice of Jesus, our Great High Priest, the writer of Hebrews goes on with this passage:
Having therefore, brethren, boldness [free and fearless confidence] to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated [renewed] for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near [may we draw near; this is a subjunctive clause, indicating possibility but not certainty] with a true heart in full assurance [confidence] of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us [may we; subjunctive mood] hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering [firm, unmoved]; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider [may we consider attentively; again subjunctive mood] one another to provoke [incite] unto love and to good works: Not forsaking [abandoning] the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”1
The writer makes an allusion to the Jewish temple and the fulfillment of the temple system through our Lord Jesus Christ, which is a common theme in Hebrews. “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom …” (Matthew 27:50-51). With the death of Jesus came access into the Holy of Holies, that inner sanctuary of the temple into which the high priest would enter only once each year on the Day of Atonement; it is significant that the veil was opened by God, for only He could have torn it from top to bottom – it was probably about 80 feet tall.2 Jesus opened access to God the Father, symbolically, by tearing the veil, which the writer identifies as His flesh that was torn upon the cross. As our great High Priest, Jesus ascended to the true Holy of Holies once-for-all-time, and opened the way for us to come with confidence through His shed blood into the presence of God – the ultimate fulfillment of the temple sacrificial system. This is an access that is based entirely upon the work of Christ, and so we cannot come without first being cleansed: “… having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 10:22). The Mosaic Law had strict requirements for the cleansing of the high priest before he was permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies (Leviticus 16:3-4); we receive the cleansing from the shed blood of Christ that opens our access to the Father in the heavenly Holy of Holies. Having been cleansed and having come into this holy sanctuary through Christ, we are urged to remain firm in the faith (Galatians 5:1), and to give careful attention as to how we can encourage love and good deeds in those about us through exhortation. In the midst of this, almost as a parenthetical comment, we read that we are not to abandon coming together as evidently some were in the custom of doing. Consider the time that this was written (approximately AD 67):3 Christians were facing persecution from both the Jews and the Romans, and it is conceivable that some were hesitating to congregate for fear of oppression; yet Jesus promised to be present where two or three came together in His name (Matthew 18:20). Out of this marvelous passage that challenges us to stimulate one another to love (agape – an act of the will) and God-approved works because Christ has opened a way for us into the very presence of God, into the Holy of Holies in heaven itself – what gets the emphasis today? Don’t forget to assemble together! Probably the least important thought within the whole sentence and today it receives banner significance; not attending church for a year is placed alongside of adultery and homosexuality by some when dealing with church discipline.4 There is urgency among Evangelicals and independent Baptists to protect their churches (their kingdoms), for it is only through maintaining a sufficiently large group that the pastors (using the term in the Evangelical sense) can justify their own existence within the group, and the success of their programs and projects is dependent upon adequate numbers. Clearly, they are not above taking such a profound passage from the Word of God and using one phrase of it to support their church programs and staffing, even while they neglect the ministry of exhortation.
The focus of Hebrews 10:25 is the need to encourage and exhort our fellow saints to hold fast their commitment to the faith of our Lord Jesus, and to live a life of love, righteousness and holiness (the good works of the new man – Ephesians 4:24). The urgency of such an exhortation is twofold: 1) the need to be continually conscious of the work that Jesus has done on the cross in order to open our access into the very presence of God, that heavenly Holy of Holies, and 2) the warning that follows in Hebrews 10:26. One of the ways that the former can be accomplished is through coming together from time-to-time to be exhorted through the teaching of the Word of God; however, the gathering together cannot be construed to be the emphasis of this passage. As a matter of fact, many times Evangelical pastors, who use this verse to place guilt on anyone who may not be faithful in attending all of the services at their church, do not accurately teach the Scriptures so as to fulfill the balance of the verse that speaks of the need for exhortation. Many times they are too busy teaching those things that the people want to hear, in order to enhance their own security within the church (2 Timothy 4:2-4). They chastise people for their poor church attendance, even while they fail in the far more serious matter of teaching the truth of God’s Word. The warning that follows provides a significant reason for exhortation – “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26). Unfortunately, it seems that most professors of faith in Christ today never bother to read that far – it is far easier to neglect God’s Word here and there than to be forced to change our theology because it does not agree with the Scriptures.
As we consider the purpose of the ekklesia, we must keep in mind the preeminence of the Word of God over what we too often hear within churches today. Jesus is not building His ekklesia to support the man-made programs that are central to the typical modern church. Once we begin to realize that man has developed his own church-building project (quite apart from what the Lord is doing), then we can open our thinking to what the Scriptures really tell us about the plan of God for us, His redeemed ones – His ekklesia. If you are attentive to how often we hear “the church” being personified, i.e., it is given traits that are normally only applied to individuals, it is a beginning to understanding some of the misconceptions that are being taught and readily accepted today. In days gone by, we’ve heard much of the church fulfilling the Great Commission, but was it given to “the church?”
A. The “Great Commission” – What of the “great commission?” To whom was this commission given by Jesus? It used to be a popular subject for many missions’ conferences, but its emphasis seems to have declined in recent years. Perhaps as the theology of John Calvin has been gaining popularity within modern Evangelical communities, the work of missions is losing some of its appeal. Nevertheless, it is still a part of God’s Word to us and very relevant to our subject. Let us look at the five instances where the commission is repeated.
1. Matthew 28:16-20 “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
The first thing to be noted is that the commission, as recorded here, was given to the eleven disciples; even though they all worshipped Him, some still doubted as to what this was all about. The Greek word translated as go is commonly used to signify the end of a conversation, and simply means “to go on one’s way,”5 or to “continue on one’s journey.”6 What we cannot miss is that this is not a command (as we have so often heard it thundered from pulpits), but would more accurately give the thought that: as you are going on your way, here is something that I command you to do along the way – teach. The core of the commission is to teach, or to instruct, all the peoples (ta ethnos, often translated as Gentiles [as non-Jews], identifying those who are outside of the faith), and to live in obedience to (observe) all of the commands that Jesus has given.7 The fulfillment of this command to teach is not confined to a formal classroom setting, but is to be an integral part of our journey through life. What many of those energetic conference speakers missed, as they pounded the word go, was that the command was for everyone to teach careful obedience to the Lord’s commands. It is important to keep in mind that Jesus is the eternal Logos, and the commands that He has given were not just to those throughout His earthly ministry, but are all of the commands within the written Word of God (which all harken back to the Law of God, the Ten Commandments8). Baptizing is secondary to or a product of the teaching; the injunction is capped with the promise that Jesus will be with the eleven all the days (alway) as they go on their way teaching others to walk in obedience to God’s Law.
2. Mark 16:14-15 “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
It is the eleven who are spoken to, and here, too, Jesus is dealing with some who doubted. The same Greek word for go is used here (as in Matthew), and it signals the end of Jesus’ time with them; with the conclusion of His conversation, they are to enter the whole world and herald the Good News to everyone.
3. Luke 24:45-48 “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.”
From the context, we understand this to be addressed to the core group of disciples, and the central message of repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be taken to all peoples (ta ethnos, those who do not believe) in the name of Jesus. They were to go out as witnesses of Jesus’ suffering and resurrection from the dead, which form the heart of the Message of redemption and new life in Christ.
4. John 20:19-21 “Then the same day at evening [the same day that Jesus rose from the dead], being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.”
Jesus said: “As my Father has sent me [apostello – to send forth with a commission], likewise I am sending you [pempo – to send, in a more general sense].”9 Jesus’ incarnation involved a very specific commission from God the Father, namely, the fulfillment of the Scriptures in accomplishing the redemption of mankind. Jesus’ sending of the disciples is more general in nature. There are no specifics given here as to what the “sending” would involve.
5. Acts 1:6-8 “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
Once again, the core group of disciples received these words, and they were to be witnesses of what Jesus had declared and accomplished in ever widening circles from where they were.
What we see in each of these is that Jesus commissioned individuals to take His message of Good News to all peoples – it is individuals reaching individuals within the whole world. Unlike some who proclaim the heresy of spiritual formation theology today, Scripture does not support the idea that a group can experience salvation, but individuals within a group can certainly be saved by personal faith in Christ. However, there is a sense today where “the church” has been elevated to take on the characteristics of an individual. For example, David Cloud says: “A church that doesn't have time for fruitful evangelism is sinning against the Lord of the Harvest and will doubtless give account at the Judgment Seat of Christ for becoming sidetracked.”10 There are several things in this simple statement to which we need to give our attention, because they reflect a commonly held attitude about the “church,” but one that is not in accordance with Scripture. Most obviously, a church cannot sin – people sin; yet we hear this kind of rhetoric all of the time. The local church is personified; it is said to act and react as only a person can. Cloud’s further comments provide some enlightenment as to what he means: “I recall a kind and godly pastor who had allowed his church's visitation program to die.”11 So when Cloud speaks of a church making time for “fruitful evangelism,” he is really speaking of a church having a program of some sort that will be their means of “fulfilling the great commission.” However, the “great commission” was given to the disciples of Jesus who were to function as individuals, not as a group – they were to teach as they went on their ways; it was definitely not given to a group with a mixture of saved and unsaved individuals pledging allegiance to a creed or constitution (like today’s churches). So a group of saved and unsaved who make up a “church,” can, within Cloud’s thinking, sin against the Lord and that group will be held accountable at the “Judgment Seat of Christ.” Second Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one [singular] may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”12 Yes, the redeemed will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, but we will not be judged as a group; it is an individual accountability that we have to our Lord; this is in keeping with the individual connection that we have with the Lord (Ephesians 4:15-16). On the other hand, the unsaved will be raised to stand before God at the great white throne for their final judgment; they will not even appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so it is incorrect to say that “the church” (as Cloud uses the term) will be called to give an account before Christ. It is also clear from Cloud’s words that the church belongs to the pastor, the church has programs through which it endeavors to fulfill its obligations, and so the church takes on human characteristics. Jesus said, “I will build my ekklesia” (Matthew 16:18; cp Jeremiah 31:4a); Jesus is doing the building, it is His ekklesia, and it is an ekklesia, not a church. This may appear to some as knit-picking, but if we are not careful in the use of words, we will tend to communicate something that is not true; we can see this exemplified in the churches today, even those considered to be Fundamental. They are organized around a constitution or creed (which will often identify them as Baptist, Alliance, Evangelical Free, Pentecostal, or whatever); if there is a dispute within the group, they appeal to the constitution. The constitution empowers the clergy to exercise authority, and encourages the laity to submit to them (contrary to Ephesians 5:21); the people become members by pledging allegiance to the constitution, and their spiritual assurance too often comes through being a member in good standing. All of this is extra-Biblical – it stands outside of the Scriptures. We might religiously proclaim sola scriptura (Scripture alone), but our activities will either confirm or deny the reality of this in our hearts.
As we looked at the ekklesia being likened to the body, we saw that Christ is joined to each individual who has repented of his sinful ways and has placed his faith in the finished work of Christ, Who alone provides redemption (Ephesians 4:16). We have individually been gifted for service within the Body, and Christ has strategically placed us so that our gifts will be of maximum benefit to its wellbeing. All of this is clearly personal: we are redeemed individually, we are individually gifted by the Spirit of God, we have been placed individually by Christ within the Body where He desires us to be, and we have individually been commissioned to speak forth the reality of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and the need for obedience to His commands. We cannot shift any of this to the “church”; we cannot hide behind anyone else (whether pastor, priest, or pope), we cannot hide within a program, we cannot depend upon our church membership, nor hang our spiritual hat upon a creed or constitution – “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are [literally – it is (singular)] burned” (John 15:6).13 Failure to accept individual responsibility has permitted many to hide within the programs of a church and feel good about what they are doing, when, in reality, they are simply tossing a few coins into the church treasury while they do nothing. A church cannot sin, but people, those for whom Christ died, certainly have that propensity; Jesus did not die to save “the church”; He died to provide salvation for men, women, boys and girls by whom He is building His ekklesia – it is His project, not ours.
So far we have considered a proper definition of the word translated as “church” in our KJV Bibles, the ekklesia within the broader context of the Kingdom of God, we have reminded ourselves of the errors that can occur if we draw an artificial line of separation between the Old and New Testaments, and we have looked into several metaphors used in Scripture to help us understand this ekklesia into which we have been born by the Spirit of God. You might say that we have beaten all around the bush, and now it is time to contemplate the “bush” itself.
From Scripture, what is the ekklesia? As we have considered our metaphors of the building, the body and the marriage relationship, we would have to conclude that the called-out ones are people who have been bought out of sin through the blood of the Lamb of God. Therefore, the local gathering that we commonly refer to as a “church,” is really not the ekklesia of Scripture, for it may well include both the lost and the redeemed, and it is only the redeemed who are a part of Christ’s ekklesia. The ekklesia is not a building or an organization, yet our word church works for both of these; the ekklesia is an organism, a Body who’s Head is the Lord Jesus Christ. As a Body, the structure, health, and life of the ekklesia are controlled by the individual connections to the life-giving Head, Jesus. Therefore, when we use the word “church” today, we must understand that we are using a term that has accumulated millennia of baggage from an apostate organization and bears no resemblance to the term ekklesia in Scripture, which has, unfortunately, been translated as “church.”
Ekklesia, within the context of our study, refers to a gathering of redeemed individuals who have been called by the Lord to a life of holiness and purity, as opposed to a group who meet together regularly and abide by a particular creed or constitution. Jesus said: “I will build my ekklesia” (Matthew 16:18); it is His work, not ours. Ephesians 4:8 says that when Christ “ascended up on high, he led captivity captive …”; this means that when Christ ascended to the Father He took with Him, into the very presence of God, the saints from the “bosom of Abraham” who had died in the faith (Luke 16:19-31) and were raised to new life in Him when He rose from the dead (Matthew 27:52-53), so that now to be “absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:8). Nevertheless, the building of the Body of Christ is a work that Christ has claimed for Himself, and He began with the saints who had died prior to His incarnation (Hebrews 11), and He continues today with all who repent and place their enduring faith in His redemption – those who will persevere in their journey through life: “we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (Hebrews 3:14). This is very different from drafting a constitution or creed, and then living accordingly; this calls for us to live in harmony with the Word of God, not man’s understanding of it. This is a very significant difference: the former calls on us to place our faith in the men who drafted the creed or constitution; the latter requires us to study and learn God’s Word for ourselves so that we might examine all that we hear, see and read in its pure light. The former will provide a false sense of security and lead to a neglect of the Word of God; the latter will make God’s Word central to our spiritual well-being, and magnify the Lord in all things. “And hereby we do know that we know him [God], if we keep his commandments” (1John 2:3); where are His commandments? – in His Word!
As we examine the ekklesia, the gathering of the called-out ones of Christ, let us consider, first of all, the purpose for the gathering – not what we think it is from what we have observed through the years, but what is our purpose according to the Scriptures? A verse that we have all heard, and one that has been used against many of us from time-to-time, is Hebrews 10:25 – “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” The first part of this verse has become a favorite of “pastors” who want to lay guilt on someone who no longer attends their church, or who only attends sporadically.
Let me say at this juncture that I have no problem calling the gatherings of the Evangelicals and Liberals “church”; but the more I have studied this subject, the less inclined I am to use the same term to describe a Biblical gathering of God’s called-out ones, His saints. The Biblical term is far more exclusive, and I believe we will see that it is designed by God to fulfill a far different function than the modern churches at large that have become little more than religious social groups.
As we look further at Hebrews 10:25, let’s consider the context of this verse, beginning with verse 19 (which some show as a new paragraph). Having just explained to us the once-for-all-time sacrifice of Jesus, our Great High Priest, the writer of Hebrews goes on with this passage:
Having therefore, brethren, boldness [free and fearless confidence] to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated [renewed] for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near [may we draw near; this is a subjunctive clause, indicating possibility but not certainty] with a true heart in full assurance [confidence] of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us [may we; subjunctive mood] hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering [firm, unmoved]; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider [may we consider attentively; again subjunctive mood] one another to provoke [incite] unto love and to good works: Not forsaking [abandoning] the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”1
The writer makes an allusion to the Jewish temple and the fulfillment of the temple system through our Lord Jesus Christ, which is a common theme in Hebrews. “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom …” (Matthew 27:50-51). With the death of Jesus came access into the Holy of Holies, that inner sanctuary of the temple into which the high priest would enter only once each year on the Day of Atonement; it is significant that the veil was opened by God, for only He could have torn it from top to bottom – it was probably about 80 feet tall.2 Jesus opened access to God the Father, symbolically, by tearing the veil, which the writer identifies as His flesh that was torn upon the cross. As our great High Priest, Jesus ascended to the true Holy of Holies once-for-all-time, and opened the way for us to come with confidence through His shed blood into the presence of God – the ultimate fulfillment of the temple sacrificial system. This is an access that is based entirely upon the work of Christ, and so we cannot come without first being cleansed: “… having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 10:22). The Mosaic Law had strict requirements for the cleansing of the high priest before he was permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies (Leviticus 16:3-4); we receive the cleansing from the shed blood of Christ that opens our access to the Father in the heavenly Holy of Holies. Having been cleansed and having come into this holy sanctuary through Christ, we are urged to remain firm in the faith (Galatians 5:1), and to give careful attention as to how we can encourage love and good deeds in those about us through exhortation. In the midst of this, almost as a parenthetical comment, we read that we are not to abandon coming together as evidently some were in the custom of doing. Consider the time that this was written (approximately AD 67):3 Christians were facing persecution from both the Jews and the Romans, and it is conceivable that some were hesitating to congregate for fear of oppression; yet Jesus promised to be present where two or three came together in His name (Matthew 18:20). Out of this marvelous passage that challenges us to stimulate one another to love (agape – an act of the will) and God-approved works because Christ has opened a way for us into the very presence of God, into the Holy of Holies in heaven itself – what gets the emphasis today? Don’t forget to assemble together! Probably the least important thought within the whole sentence and today it receives banner significance; not attending church for a year is placed alongside of adultery and homosexuality by some when dealing with church discipline.4 There is urgency among Evangelicals and independent Baptists to protect their churches (their kingdoms), for it is only through maintaining a sufficiently large group that the pastors (using the term in the Evangelical sense) can justify their own existence within the group, and the success of their programs and projects is dependent upon adequate numbers. Clearly, they are not above taking such a profound passage from the Word of God and using one phrase of it to support their church programs and staffing, even while they neglect the ministry of exhortation.
The focus of Hebrews 10:25 is the need to encourage and exhort our fellow saints to hold fast their commitment to the faith of our Lord Jesus, and to live a life of love, righteousness and holiness (the good works of the new man – Ephesians 4:24). The urgency of such an exhortation is twofold: 1) the need to be continually conscious of the work that Jesus has done on the cross in order to open our access into the very presence of God, that heavenly Holy of Holies, and 2) the warning that follows in Hebrews 10:26. One of the ways that the former can be accomplished is through coming together from time-to-time to be exhorted through the teaching of the Word of God; however, the gathering together cannot be construed to be the emphasis of this passage. As a matter of fact, many times Evangelical pastors, who use this verse to place guilt on anyone who may not be faithful in attending all of the services at their church, do not accurately teach the Scriptures so as to fulfill the balance of the verse that speaks of the need for exhortation. Many times they are too busy teaching those things that the people want to hear, in order to enhance their own security within the church (2 Timothy 4:2-4). They chastise people for their poor church attendance, even while they fail in the far more serious matter of teaching the truth of God’s Word. The warning that follows provides a significant reason for exhortation – “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26). Unfortunately, it seems that most professors of faith in Christ today never bother to read that far – it is far easier to neglect God’s Word here and there than to be forced to change our theology because it does not agree with the Scriptures.
As we consider the purpose of the ekklesia, we must keep in mind the preeminence of the Word of God over what we too often hear within churches today. Jesus is not building His ekklesia to support the man-made programs that are central to the typical modern church. Once we begin to realize that man has developed his own church-building project (quite apart from what the Lord is doing), then we can open our thinking to what the Scriptures really tell us about the plan of God for us, His redeemed ones – His ekklesia. If you are attentive to how often we hear “the church” being personified, i.e., it is given traits that are normally only applied to individuals, it is a beginning to understanding some of the misconceptions that are being taught and readily accepted today. In days gone by, we’ve heard much of the church fulfilling the Great Commission, but was it given to “the church?”
A. The “Great Commission” – What of the “great commission?” To whom was this commission given by Jesus? It used to be a popular subject for many missions’ conferences, but its emphasis seems to have declined in recent years. Perhaps as the theology of John Calvin has been gaining popularity within modern Evangelical communities, the work of missions is losing some of its appeal. Nevertheless, it is still a part of God’s Word to us and very relevant to our subject. Let us look at the five instances where the commission is repeated.
1. Matthew 28:16-20 “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
The first thing to be noted is that the commission, as recorded here, was given to the eleven disciples; even though they all worshipped Him, some still doubted as to what this was all about. The Greek word translated as go is commonly used to signify the end of a conversation, and simply means “to go on one’s way,”5 or to “continue on one’s journey.”6 What we cannot miss is that this is not a command (as we have so often heard it thundered from pulpits), but would more accurately give the thought that: as you are going on your way, here is something that I command you to do along the way – teach. The core of the commission is to teach, or to instruct, all the peoples (ta ethnos, often translated as Gentiles [as non-Jews], identifying those who are outside of the faith), and to live in obedience to (observe) all of the commands that Jesus has given.7 The fulfillment of this command to teach is not confined to a formal classroom setting, but is to be an integral part of our journey through life. What many of those energetic conference speakers missed, as they pounded the word go, was that the command was for everyone to teach careful obedience to the Lord’s commands. It is important to keep in mind that Jesus is the eternal Logos, and the commands that He has given were not just to those throughout His earthly ministry, but are all of the commands within the written Word of God (which all harken back to the Law of God, the Ten Commandments8). Baptizing is secondary to or a product of the teaching; the injunction is capped with the promise that Jesus will be with the eleven all the days (alway) as they go on their way teaching others to walk in obedience to God’s Law.
2. Mark 16:14-15 “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
It is the eleven who are spoken to, and here, too, Jesus is dealing with some who doubted. The same Greek word for go is used here (as in Matthew), and it signals the end of Jesus’ time with them; with the conclusion of His conversation, they are to enter the whole world and herald the Good News to everyone.
3. Luke 24:45-48 “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.”
From the context, we understand this to be addressed to the core group of disciples, and the central message of repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be taken to all peoples (ta ethnos, those who do not believe) in the name of Jesus. They were to go out as witnesses of Jesus’ suffering and resurrection from the dead, which form the heart of the Message of redemption and new life in Christ.
4. John 20:19-21 “Then the same day at evening [the same day that Jesus rose from the dead], being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.”
Jesus said: “As my Father has sent me [apostello – to send forth with a commission], likewise I am sending you [pempo – to send, in a more general sense].”9 Jesus’ incarnation involved a very specific commission from God the Father, namely, the fulfillment of the Scriptures in accomplishing the redemption of mankind. Jesus’ sending of the disciples is more general in nature. There are no specifics given here as to what the “sending” would involve.
5. Acts 1:6-8 “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
Once again, the core group of disciples received these words, and they were to be witnesses of what Jesus had declared and accomplished in ever widening circles from where they were.
What we see in each of these is that Jesus commissioned individuals to take His message of Good News to all peoples – it is individuals reaching individuals within the whole world. Unlike some who proclaim the heresy of spiritual formation theology today, Scripture does not support the idea that a group can experience salvation, but individuals within a group can certainly be saved by personal faith in Christ. However, there is a sense today where “the church” has been elevated to take on the characteristics of an individual. For example, David Cloud says: “A church that doesn't have time for fruitful evangelism is sinning against the Lord of the Harvest and will doubtless give account at the Judgment Seat of Christ for becoming sidetracked.”10 There are several things in this simple statement to which we need to give our attention, because they reflect a commonly held attitude about the “church,” but one that is not in accordance with Scripture. Most obviously, a church cannot sin – people sin; yet we hear this kind of rhetoric all of the time. The local church is personified; it is said to act and react as only a person can. Cloud’s further comments provide some enlightenment as to what he means: “I recall a kind and godly pastor who had allowed his church's visitation program to die.”11 So when Cloud speaks of a church making time for “fruitful evangelism,” he is really speaking of a church having a program of some sort that will be their means of “fulfilling the great commission.” However, the “great commission” was given to the disciples of Jesus who were to function as individuals, not as a group – they were to teach as they went on their ways; it was definitely not given to a group with a mixture of saved and unsaved individuals pledging allegiance to a creed or constitution (like today’s churches). So a group of saved and unsaved who make up a “church,” can, within Cloud’s thinking, sin against the Lord and that group will be held accountable at the “Judgment Seat of Christ.” Second Corinthians 5:10 – “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one [singular] may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”12 Yes, the redeemed will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, but we will not be judged as a group; it is an individual accountability that we have to our Lord; this is in keeping with the individual connection that we have with the Lord (Ephesians 4:15-16). On the other hand, the unsaved will be raised to stand before God at the great white throne for their final judgment; they will not even appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so it is incorrect to say that “the church” (as Cloud uses the term) will be called to give an account before Christ. It is also clear from Cloud’s words that the church belongs to the pastor, the church has programs through which it endeavors to fulfill its obligations, and so the church takes on human characteristics. Jesus said, “I will build my ekklesia” (Matthew 16:18; cp Jeremiah 31:4a); Jesus is doing the building, it is His ekklesia, and it is an ekklesia, not a church. This may appear to some as knit-picking, but if we are not careful in the use of words, we will tend to communicate something that is not true; we can see this exemplified in the churches today, even those considered to be Fundamental. They are organized around a constitution or creed (which will often identify them as Baptist, Alliance, Evangelical Free, Pentecostal, or whatever); if there is a dispute within the group, they appeal to the constitution. The constitution empowers the clergy to exercise authority, and encourages the laity to submit to them (contrary to Ephesians 5:21); the people become members by pledging allegiance to the constitution, and their spiritual assurance too often comes through being a member in good standing. All of this is extra-Biblical – it stands outside of the Scriptures. We might religiously proclaim sola scriptura (Scripture alone), but our activities will either confirm or deny the reality of this in our hearts.
As we looked at the ekklesia being likened to the body, we saw that Christ is joined to each individual who has repented of his sinful ways and has placed his faith in the finished work of Christ, Who alone provides redemption (Ephesians 4:16). We have individually been gifted for service within the Body, and Christ has strategically placed us so that our gifts will be of maximum benefit to its wellbeing. All of this is clearly personal: we are redeemed individually, we are individually gifted by the Spirit of God, we have been placed individually by Christ within the Body where He desires us to be, and we have individually been commissioned to speak forth the reality of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and the need for obedience to His commands. We cannot shift any of this to the “church”; we cannot hide behind anyone else (whether pastor, priest, or pope), we cannot hide within a program, we cannot depend upon our church membership, nor hang our spiritual hat upon a creed or constitution – “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are [literally – it is (singular)] burned” (John 15:6).13 Failure to accept individual responsibility has permitted many to hide within the programs of a church and feel good about what they are doing, when, in reality, they are simply tossing a few coins into the church treasury while they do nothing. A church cannot sin, but people, those for whom Christ died, certainly have that propensity; Jesus did not die to save “the church”; He died to provide salvation for men, women, boys and girls by whom He is building His ekklesia – it is His project, not ours.
Herein are some of the fundamental differences between a church and the ekklesia: the ekklesia has no creed but the Word of God (1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), there is neither clergy nor laity, for we are all one in Christ (Romans 12:5; Ephesians 2:14-18; Ephesians 4:4-6), there is a clear understanding of our individual accountability to God, and our mutual submission to one another in the Lord (Ephesians 5:21). A church, on the other hand, is formed around a creed, constitution or statement of faith (the product of man), which provides structure and authority for the clergy, and ensures that the laity understand their responsibility. The two are not the same, nor can they ever be, for the latter is the invention of man, while the former is the project of the Lord Jesus Christ. When the ekklesia comes together, it is around the Word of God, and they exhort and comfort one another through God’s Word; when the church comes together, it is around programs and functions that are a product of their constitutions and creeds. The ekklesia is the Body of Christ; it is an exclusive group that includes absolutely no unbelievers and no apostates. Yet what is becoming increasingly prevalent is that the church is a social means of dealing with what we call the great commission; it is a setting for the implementation of programs and projects that give the impression of accomplishing Christ’s purposes. Jesus said: “I will build my ekklesia,” and we would do well to permit Him to do just that; ours is to obey His commands (1 John 2:3), hold fast to the teachings of the Scriptures (1 Timothy 4:16), and have a word for those who ask the reason of the hope that lies within us (1 Peter 3:15). The commission that Jesus gave was to individuals (not to an organized institution called the “church”), and we see in Scripture that its fulfillment began on an individual basis just like Jesus planned: the scattering of the believers by persecution would have deterred any early attempts to become organized (Acts 8:1, 4); Philip worked alone (Acts 8:5ff, 26ff), and Ananias (someone not heard of before, nor again) is specifically called by God to prepare Paul (or, Saul, as he was at the time) for ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 9:10ff). Ananias did not receive his commission from a church, a pastor, or a missions committee, nor did he consult with a consistory or church board before venturing forth – he was called and commissioned by God alone to do the work alone.
Why would the Lord save, indwell and gift us individually only to commission an organization to take His Message to the world? Quite simply – He wouldn’t and didn’t. As much as we might like to justify the finely organized institutions that we call “churches,” this is not what Jesus had in mind. We cannot deflect our personal responsibilities onto an organization – yet as we observe Evangelicals and Baptists of all stripes and flavors today, this is exactly what they have done, and continue to do. May the Lord grant us the vision to look beyond the traditions with which we have become comfortable, to see what His Word really says on this subject.
Why would the Lord save, indwell and gift us individually only to commission an organization to take His Message to the world? Quite simply – He wouldn’t and didn’t. As much as we might like to justify the finely organized institutions that we call “churches,” this is not what Jesus had in mind. We cannot deflect our personal responsibilities onto an organization – yet as we observe Evangelicals and Baptists of all stripes and flavors today, this is exactly what they have done, and continue to do. May the Lord grant us the vision to look beyond the traditions with which we have become comfortable, to see what His Word really says on this subject.
Donald McGavran
B. Growth – Whole organizations have sprung up to promote the latest philosophies of how to grow your church (numerically, not spiritually). A search on a popular “Christian” book distributor’s website yielded 4,025 books, ebooks and audiobooks on the subject; a general “Google” search yielded 302,000,000 hits for “church growth.”14 Although the Emergent Church paradigm has made great strides in recent years, where spiritual vitality is completely subjective and we learn how to draw from all faiths in order to experience “God,” the church growth phenomena is certainly not finished yet. Bill Hybels and Rick Warren are notorious poster-pastors for demonstrating the effectiveness of applying the carefully crafted principles of church growth, which they learned from the late Robert Schuller.15 Donald McGavran, a missionary to India for many years, is credited with providing the initial spark that ignited the phenomena of the mega-church in our western world, and the church-growth movement worldwide.
Before we go further in our look at this philosophy, which has spread like wild-fire across the Evangelical community globally, it is important to understand its basic premise, that root from which it springs. As McGavran developed and spread his philosophy of church growth, he based it very firmly upon an Ecumenical understanding of the church. His foundational premise is that “church growth is basically a theological stance. God requires it.”16 Once again, the subtlety lies in the use of terms and how they have been redefined (his statement “God requires it” serves to place whatever he says beyond question for everyone who will not check his teaching against Scripture). Within McGavran’s economy, “church” is a very broad term that includes Adventists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, the Orthodox and so on;17 each in their own right is but another branch of the church, and each, in turn, would flesh out the principles that he put forward within the context of their own traditions, creed, constitution, and/or statement of faith. Therefore, it is not surprising that advocates of this teaching will proudly declare that “tremendous growth is going on in the Christian Church today.”18 If you define your terms just right, you can demonstrate the tremendous growth that is taking place within the church around the world; however, we must bring Biblical discernment to bear on the statistics that are so freely tossed about and realize that they have redefined what it means to be one of God’s saints.
From the beginning of McGavran’s philosophy, which laid down the principles for realizing “church growth,” there has been an emphasis on numbers; simply put, church growth is seen only as an increase in the number of people attending services. They will acknowledge the need for at least a nodding assent to some of the generally accepted themes of Christianity that qualifies anyone, in their eyes, as being a disciple of Jesus; however, “the fruit that the Church Growth Movement has selected as the validating criterion for discipleship is responsible church membership.”19 Although they express a desire to reach the world for Jesus in fulfillment of the great commission, in reality, they are there to see the growth and multiplication of the “church” movement (by the way, this is NOT the ekklesia that Jesus said that He would build). They can disguise this well, at times, but when they declare that “the great obstacles of conversion are social, not theological,”20 their deviation from Scripture becomes all too clear.
The New Evangelical message of the gospel has become a social message calling people to a common venue. Just by way of a reminder, New Evangelicalism sprang up in the late 1940s through a repudiation of Biblical separation,21 a desire to dialogue with the liberals, a felt need to focus on the social needs of the world, and a willingness to reevaluate some “theological problems,” like the history of man, God’s method of creation, the universality of the flood, etc.22 The greatest obstacle to conversion today is the twisted theology that modern Evangelicals hold dear (a product of New Evangelicalism that has infiltrated every Evangelical denomination to some degree); they have redefined the Biblical terms to remove the sting of the Gospel message so that it is increasingly difficult for anyone to be truly saved through their teachings. They are not unlike the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, against whom Jesus declared: “…woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (Matthew 23:13); “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” (Matthew 23:15). Today, men like Rick Warren have great, world-wide projects seeking to establish Christ’s kingdom on this earth, yet the message that they proclaim will not bring anyone into the kingdom of God, for they have skewed the message and broadened the application to the point that they no longer present the purity and truth of God’s Word. Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. program23 endeavors to create a three-pronged approach to resolve all of today’s social ills by drawing together government, business and churches – an unholy alliance where the latter is defined as broadly as possible so as to exclude no one. We are deluded if we think that we can possibly be building Christ’s kingdom while compromising His Word!
Before we go further in our look at this philosophy, which has spread like wild-fire across the Evangelical community globally, it is important to understand its basic premise, that root from which it springs. As McGavran developed and spread his philosophy of church growth, he based it very firmly upon an Ecumenical understanding of the church. His foundational premise is that “church growth is basically a theological stance. God requires it.”16 Once again, the subtlety lies in the use of terms and how they have been redefined (his statement “God requires it” serves to place whatever he says beyond question for everyone who will not check his teaching against Scripture). Within McGavran’s economy, “church” is a very broad term that includes Adventists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, the Orthodox and so on;17 each in their own right is but another branch of the church, and each, in turn, would flesh out the principles that he put forward within the context of their own traditions, creed, constitution, and/or statement of faith. Therefore, it is not surprising that advocates of this teaching will proudly declare that “tremendous growth is going on in the Christian Church today.”18 If you define your terms just right, you can demonstrate the tremendous growth that is taking place within the church around the world; however, we must bring Biblical discernment to bear on the statistics that are so freely tossed about and realize that they have redefined what it means to be one of God’s saints.
From the beginning of McGavran’s philosophy, which laid down the principles for realizing “church growth,” there has been an emphasis on numbers; simply put, church growth is seen only as an increase in the number of people attending services. They will acknowledge the need for at least a nodding assent to some of the generally accepted themes of Christianity that qualifies anyone, in their eyes, as being a disciple of Jesus; however, “the fruit that the Church Growth Movement has selected as the validating criterion for discipleship is responsible church membership.”19 Although they express a desire to reach the world for Jesus in fulfillment of the great commission, in reality, they are there to see the growth and multiplication of the “church” movement (by the way, this is NOT the ekklesia that Jesus said that He would build). They can disguise this well, at times, but when they declare that “the great obstacles of conversion are social, not theological,”20 their deviation from Scripture becomes all too clear.
The New Evangelical message of the gospel has become a social message calling people to a common venue. Just by way of a reminder, New Evangelicalism sprang up in the late 1940s through a repudiation of Biblical separation,21 a desire to dialogue with the liberals, a felt need to focus on the social needs of the world, and a willingness to reevaluate some “theological problems,” like the history of man, God’s method of creation, the universality of the flood, etc.22 The greatest obstacle to conversion today is the twisted theology that modern Evangelicals hold dear (a product of New Evangelicalism that has infiltrated every Evangelical denomination to some degree); they have redefined the Biblical terms to remove the sting of the Gospel message so that it is increasingly difficult for anyone to be truly saved through their teachings. They are not unlike the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, against whom Jesus declared: “…woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (Matthew 23:13); “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” (Matthew 23:15). Today, men like Rick Warren have great, world-wide projects seeking to establish Christ’s kingdom on this earth, yet the message that they proclaim will not bring anyone into the kingdom of God, for they have skewed the message and broadened the application to the point that they no longer present the purity and truth of God’s Word. Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. program23 endeavors to create a three-pronged approach to resolve all of today’s social ills by drawing together government, business and churches – an unholy alliance where the latter is defined as broadly as possible so as to exclude no one. We are deluded if we think that we can possibly be building Christ’s kingdom while compromising His Word!
Pope Benedict XVI
In October of 2007, representative Muslims generated a 29-page letter in which they “petitioned their Christian counterparts to help find steps to be taken toward erasing the misunderstandings about each other that often lead to violence.”24 The letter was initially signed by 138 Muslim clerics from numerous branches of Islam and presented at a conference in Jordan; the fundamental basis for the letter was: love of God and love of neighbor.25 The letter was addressed specifically to Pope Benedict XVI and 26 other named religious leaders, and more generally to leaders of Christian churches everywhere.26 Within a month, four professors from Yale University had drafted a response that was endorsed by some 300 “Christian” leaders, including Leith Anderson (president of National Association of Evangelicals), David Yonggi Cho (leader of the world’s largest Evangelical church in Seoul), Robert E. Cooley (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), Lynn Green (chairman, YWAM), Bill Hybels, Stanton L. Jones (Wheaton College), Tony Jones (Emergent Village), Greg Livingstone (Frontiers), Rick Love (Frontiers), Brian D. McLaren (Emergent Church), Judith M. Rood (Biola), Richard Mouw (Fuller), Greg H. Parson (US Center for World Mission), Robert Schuller, John G. Stackhouse, Jr. (Regent College), George Verwer (founder of OM), and Rick Warren.27 Supporters of this one response (and there were other responses as well) come from well-known seminaries, missions, churches and individuals, and are intermingled with those of liberal schools and churches – this is ecumenicity at work. They choose to believe the lie of these Muslim clerics that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and, by doing so, they are playing into the hands of the Muslim leadership. What runs contrary to all that we in the West have ever learned is that within the Islamic faith “lying is not only permitted, but actually fostered, and even, at times, commanded.”28 Blindness has settled over Evangelicals, even those who at one time seemed to stand solidly for truth and demonstrated a commitment to the Word of God.
The obstacle to conversion remains spiritual, for man is spiritually dead to God, but alive unto the prince of this world (Ephesians 2:1-2); Evangelicals today have “a form of godliness, but [deny] the power thereof … [they are] ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge [a precise and correct knowledge29] of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:5, 7). Ecumenical activity is a very strong evidence that Evangelicals today neither understand nor have a love for God’s unalterable truth.
The obstacle to conversion remains spiritual, for man is spiritually dead to God, but alive unto the prince of this world (Ephesians 2:1-2); Evangelicals today have “a form of godliness, but [deny] the power thereof … [they are] ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge [a precise and correct knowledge29] of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:5, 7). Ecumenical activity is a very strong evidence that Evangelicals today neither understand nor have a love for God’s unalterable truth.
David Cloud
C. Church Membership – If church membership has become the measure of a successful church today, as the church growth promoters would lead us to believe, it is little wonder that the bar of entry has been lowered so as to permit many more to gain access. Nevertheless, what these men, on a mission to Christianize the whole world, seem to have lost sight of is that God has not changed. Jesus declared that the entrance to the way that leads to life is narrow, and there will be few who find it (Matthew 7:14); that plain statement of truth has not changed. Despite the best and most eloquent arguments by church growth men like Donald McGavran, C. Peter Wagner, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren and Bill Hybels, the truth of Matthew 7:14 is alive and well today. These men have achieved a degree of success in making church membership the measure of the success for a church (or its pastor); yet we wonder at the failure of the church within society today. Church membership has become essential within modern churches, and even within Fundamental churches it has become a focus. Although Fundamentalists might not use the length of one’s church membership list as an evidence of blessing, it has become a vital and carefully guarded part of their organized church, and they look diligently to Scripture to find support for it. David Cloud, a popular Fundamentalist and founder of the Way of Life website, has written an article called “Church Membership” in which he outlines four reasons for having church membership, and endeavors to support these with Scripture. Since our subject is the ekklesia, and since membership has become very important to the churches at large, and even to those who declare themselves to be Fundamentalists, let’s take a moment to consider the basis for it as given by someone of Cloud’s stature within the Fundamentalist movement. If church membership is Biblical, then we would expect to find the best Biblical support for it from someone like Cloud.
In his preamble to listing four reasons for church membership, Cloud provides a couple of background points to lay the foundation for his arguments. First of all, he says that membership is entirely a matter of practicality, because it provides the church with a means of knowing who is in and who is out.30 That’s not a good start to demonstrating the Biblical basis for membership. The church clearly is no longer the Body of believers that Christ said that He would build (Matthew 16:18). Jesus openly declared that He knows His sheep (John 10:14), so if we were speaking of the ekklesia that Jesus said that He would build, clearly there is no need for a membership roll. However, we have bought into the lie that bigger is better, and so we must own property, hire staff, implement programs, and develop a budget; church has become comparable to business where the prescribed shareholders must vote on whom they should hire as a manager, into which product lines they should venture, what property to acquire, and how big a budget to approve that will guide their operations going forward. A business typically functions on the majority vote of the shareholders and, without a second thought, most churches have adopted this practice. However, the Biblical mandate is that the teachings of Scripture are to be paramount and are to be protected at all cost; Timothy was warned: “take heed unto [give attention to] thyself, and unto the doctrine …” (1 Timothy 4:16). We are to be cautious in how we use the teachings of the Word of God; we cannot use them to accomplish our own ends. How do we see the democratic vote of the majority displayed within Scripture? The people came together as one to build a tower that would reach unto heaven (Genesis 11:1-8), a project that did not meet with God’s approval; the majority chose to ignore Noah’s preaching and perished from the face of the earth (1 Peter 3:20). The voice of the majority was heard when the elders of Israel demanded a king and the Lord granted them their desire, not because it was best for them, but because they insisted upon it (1 Samuel 8: 4-7). We see the will of the people, influenced by certain leaders, crying out to have Jesus crucified (Matthew 27:20-23). Democracy is founded upon the will of the people, but often “the people” are easily persuaded by a few, and too often they do not know, or lose sight of, what is right and best. What place does such have within the ekklesia of Jesus? It has no place at all! The practicality of church membership within today’s churches is founded upon a general departure from the Word of God.
Cloud then goes on to refer to Acts 2:41 – “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls,” and then he declares that those “who were saved and baptized were added to the church. That is church membership.”31 If that were true, then you would not have Fundamentalists limiting participation in the activities of their churches to those who have their names on the membership roll. You can be saved and baptized, but you may still be banned from singing in the choir, teaching, or sitting on any of their governing boards if your name is not on their membership list. In reality, this is a bit of a red herring, because what is described in Acts 2:41 is not what church membership is at all, even within Cloud’s world. With this “firm foundation,” David Cloud launches into his four points of support for church membership:32
1. “We need church membership because each church is a body and family.”
By way of explanation, Cloud declares that all of the NT believers “are a part of Christ and the family of God but each church is independent and has its own business.”33 In support of this statement, he refers to Acts 14:21-23:
“And when they had preached the gospel to that city [Derbe], and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church [ekklesia], and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.”
Paul and Barnabas travelled back through the country through which they had just come, and established the disciples, exhorted them, warned them of tribulation to come, and appointed elders in each ekklesia. The independence of each ekklesia I would allow, since each one received its own elders, but to say that each ekklesia had its own “business” is to read a modern church context into the Scriptures. The oversight of the local assembly was placed into the hands of appointed elders (1 Peter 5:1-3) to ensure their adherence to the teachings of Scripture. There was no “business” to attend to, for most of these early gatherings were in homes (Acts 2:2; 5:42; 8:3; 9:11, 17; 12:12; 16:32; 17:5; 20:20; Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2). It is noteworthy that those within the ekklesia in each of these towns did not vote on their elders; the elders were appointed by Paul and Barnabas. Democracy had no finger in who would be responsible for attending to the spiritual oversight of these assemblies; the elders were appointed by someone of spiritual maturity. Today, church leadership is largely determined by a majority vote of the members – something that is clearly not demonstrated within Scripture.
Cloud goes on: “We see the same thing in Revelation 1:4 [carrying forward the thought of independence], where each church was addressed individually.”34 Actually Revelation 1:4 is addressed to the “seven churches [plural form of ekklesia] which are in Asia,” clearly a general greeting to all of them; the names of the seven individual groups are not mentioned until verse 11 of chapter 1. However, what follows in chapters 2 and 3 is addressed to the angel or messenger (singular; elder35) of each assembly within the locations mentioned. We must be careful in our handling of the Word of God.
Cloud continues: “In Revelation 1:12-13 Jesus is standing in the midst of the churches, which are signified by the golden candlesticks. In the Old Testament there was one candlestick in the tabernacle, but in the New Testament dispensation there are many candlesticks, as each church is a light.”36 Candle is a mistranslation of a Greek word that means lamp, and this understanding serves to clarify the word picture used by Jesus in Revelation. It is very evident that the lampstand (luchnia) is not the light, but a holder for the lamp or lamps that will give forth the light (Revelatioin 1:12); so the ekklesia is not the light (in contradiction to Cloud’s statement), but it is the context from which the lights of individuals will show forth the Spirit of God, Who is the Light. As we saw earlier in Hebrews 10, the ekklesia is the place where individuals are exhorted and challenged to remain firm in the faith so that their light might shine forth. Cloud’s contention that the current dispensation has “many candlesticks, as each church is a light,” and that this stands in contrast to the OT dispensation, is misleading, and another example of 1) misinterpretation due to a dispensational view of Scripture, and 2) holding the translators’ choice of words for the KJV as the most accurate, without any consideration for the original languages.37 If we follow the illustration that John gives us in Revelation 1, we understand that each ekklesia is not a light (as Cloud contends), but rather that the seven lampstands ARE the seven assemblies just named, just like Jesus said (Revelation 1:20). The OT menorah was a lampstand, used in the tabernacle and temple of Israel, which held seven lamps (Exodus 25:31-37). Each ekklesia is a lampstand from which the lamps will shine forth; Jesus said: “Ye are the light of the world … Neither do men light a [luchnos – lamp], and put it under a bushel, but on a [luchnia – lampstand]; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house” (Matthew 5:14-15).38
Quoting from Cloud: “See 1 Timothy 3:15, which says the church is ‘the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.’ In the context this refers to the church that has pastors and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-14).”39 Cloud refers to 1 Timothy 3:1-14 as the context of a church that has “pastors and deacons,” culminating in being called the “house of God.” First of all, the passage referred to makes no mention of pastors. The Greek word episcope, translated as office of a bishop in 1 Timothy 3:1, means “investigation, inspection, visitation.”40 In 1 Timothy 3:2 the Greek word translated as bishop is episkopos, which means overseer.41 From Titus 1:5-7 we learn that the episkopos (bishop) and the presbuteros (elder) are used synonymously; however, as careful students of the Scriptures, we must note that nowhere, in the passage referred to, do we find the word poimen (shepherd – translated as pastor in Ephesians 4:11). The ultimate context of 1 Timothy 3:1-14 is, therefore, to provide Timothy with some guidelines as to the functioning of the ekklesia should Paul be tarried in coming to him (v. 14). What is clearly evident is that there are some very specific qualifications for those who would take on either elder or deacon roles within a local ekklesia.
Here is a definition of a pastor that might be worthy of consideration within today’s churches and, perhaps, even within the Fundamental Baptist movement: “Pastors … must preach and take care of the religious instruction of the faithful, especially of the young, supply their spiritual needs …, administer diligently the property entrusted to their care, watch over the moral conduct of their parishioners, and remove, as far as possible, all hindrances to their salvation.”42 Although this might well define what is expected of a “pastor” in today’s Evangelical churches, this definition comes straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and serves to illustrate how well we have learned from the influence of Roman Catholic traditions.
The phrase “house of God” (1 Timothy 3:15) was used extensively in the OT to refer to both the original tabernacle and to the temples that were later built and rebuilt; Paul provides here a new understanding of what this house of God is. It is no longer the temple (the building), but it is the “church [ekklesia] of the living God” upon which the truth rests. Again, we see the importance of being firmly established in the doctrine that has come to us through the written Word of God. The house of God is no longer a building, a temple, or a tabernacle, but it is the metaphorical building that God is constructing, of which Jesus is the Chief Corner (Ephesians 2:19-22); what we must also understand is that the house of God has never been a local gathering of saints and sinners around a particular creed or statement of faith. Those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ and are faithfully abiding in the Vine (John 15:4), are a part of the house of God (Hebrews 3:6). We (like Timothy) are commanded to “take heed … unto the doctrine” (1 Timothy 4:16) so that we might remain in the Vine and, in fact, be a support of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
Cloud continues: “In the New Testament each separate church is a spiritual body and has its own members. ‘And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular’ (1 Cor. 12:26-27).”43 We’ve already looked at this passage in 1 Corinthians 12 as it relates to the metaphor of the body that is used by God to illustrate the gifting of the members within the ekklesia. It would seem evident that Cloud has succumbed to straining at a gnat in order to defend his position. I would concur that each ekklesia is a spiritual entity – the reason that we gather is for our spiritual edification and strengthening. However, to say that each separate ekklesia is a spiritual body and has its own members after the fashion of 1 Corinthians 12, demonstrates a serious lack of contextual consideration. 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 clarifies for us: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body ….” It seems quite indisputable that there is one Body, and we are ALL baptized by the Spirit into that one Body. Not every ekklesia will boast of having all of the gifts of the Spirit being exercised within it, but the promise of Jesus is sure that where two or three come together in His name He will be in their midst (Matthew 18:20). It is inappropriate to take a passage of Scripture that deals with the Body of Christ and apply it in this manner to a local church that is made up of believers and unbelievers gathered around a constitution, statement of faith, or creed. Jesus said: “I will build my ekklesia,” and it is that Body (the ekklesia, the kingdom of God) into which we are born; in its truest sense, a local gathering of the children of God is but a small expression of the ekklesia that Jesus is building.
As we have considered the first point in Cloud’s Biblical defense of church membership, the church is a body and family, it seems that the evidence has crumbled under a more careful examination. To use 1 Corinthians 12 as the basis for calling a local church a Body is to skew the intent of the Corinthian passage and create the impression that each church must be the Body of Christ; this would mean that Christ has many Bodies throughout the world when it is clear that there is only ONE Body. Let us move on to consider Cloud’s second reason for church membership:
2. “We need church membership for unity.”
Unity is a subject that is very popular today, especially within the Christian community at large; it actually surprised me to see that Cloud would use this as one of his arguments for church membership. To begin his defense of this point, he appeals to Scripture:
“The Bible requires that the believers have one mind in doctrine and practice. ‘Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment’ (1 Cor. 1:10). ‘Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel’ (Phil. 1:27). For this reason our church has a lengthy statement of faith and we require every member to agree with it, whether he is joining by statement of faith and baptism or from another church.”44
Let’s carefully consider the passages referred to here. In 1 Corinthians 1:10 Paul was addressing the divisions that had become evident among the Corinthians due to some preferring one servant of Christ over another, and still others, perhaps wanting to appear to be particularly spiritual, declaring themselves to be “of Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Cloud says that this is the reason (to prevent such divisions) that his church has a “lengthy statement of faith,” and why they require every member to agree with it. Based on this, what you would expect to find in Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians would be his instructions on how they should draw up a statement of faith and have everyone support it. However, Paul leads the Corinthians to this: “Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (1 Corinthians 3:21-23). In other words, don’t glory in men but rather in the unity that is yours through Christ! Nevertheless, Cloud would use this same Corinthian problem to provide a “Biblical” basis for drafting a statement of faith, and using that as a means for unity. What is a statement of faith? It is nothing more than a document that man puts together outlining, in summary format, what they believe to be the important themes of Scripture. I have seen too many statements of faith that either leave out significant teachings or provide a skewed interpretation of teachings from the Scriptures, for me to find Cloud’s comments on this matter acceptable. Nowhere in Scripture do we find encouragement to paraphrase the Word of God, and then use that to determine who is in or out of a gathering. Is that not the very thing that Paul was trying to lead the Corinthians away from – glorying in man? Whoever drafts the statement of faith will hold a sense of ownership of that document, and any questioning of it will lead to strife and the same failure that the Corinthians experienced; if it is prepared by a committee, then you can rest assured that it is the product of compromise as they haggled over the nitty-gritty of the statement’s content. Even beyond that, the final product is a man-made document that is used as the measure of who is to be accepted into membership; that would be a different measure than what God uses to determine who is accepted into His glory, and perhaps more or less restrictive. If the solution to the Corinthian divisions was simply a statement of faith and a membership roll, I think Paul would have explained that, for it would have been a far more simple way to control the whole problem than appealing to them to turn their eyes away from men and focus them on Christ, Who is their Savior and their Life.
Scripture provides us with the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11) who received the words of Paul with gladness, and searched the Scriptures daily to ensure that what they heard was in keeping with the Word of God. They did not refer to a statement of faith, a constitution, or a creed, but shone the light of the Word of God upon what they were hearing from Paul; the Scriptures were their guide, not a paraphrased, summarized document. Is there a fear to use the Word of God alone lest we find some of our pet doctrines unsustainable? That’s all the more reason that we should commit to using only the Scriptures.
David Cloud then appeals to Philippians 1:27 – “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel ….” Paul’s desire for the Philippian believers was that they would “stand fast in one spirit” (the Spirit of the Lord), and that they would strive together in this unity of the Spirit against the opposition that they were facing (verse 28 – “in nothing terrified by your adversaries”). However, if you look further into Paul’s letter, you read: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus …” (Philippians 2:5). Now we have the whole picture! This is a call to stand fast in the unity that we have in Christ; we must permit His Spirit and His mind to be our guide and strength. What a high calling is ours, to live humbly before God in the mind of Christ and to stand securely in the Spirit of God; this is very much like 1 Peter 1:15-16 – “15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”
There is nothing within the passages, from which Cloud quotes, to inspire a “lengthy statement of faith,” and then require everyone to agree with it. As a matter of fact, his position sounds very much like a unity that is the product of man’s designs. With such an approach to church unity, it would be very difficult to be critical of the late Chuck Colson who labored tirelessly to draw the Evangelicals and Catholics together, and achieved a modicum of success with the document, Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Colson’s approach was to arrive at a statement of faith that was broad enough so as to include Catholics, thereby drawing as many together as possible for the purpose of unity. Cloud says that you need a lengthy statement of faith (Colson’s was about 10 pages), and then everyone must agree with it in order to be included in the membership (if you don’t agree with Colson’s document, you would not be included in their unity). The parallels are uncanny. Granted, Colson’s and Cloud’s documents would say very different things, but the essence of the process is identical. Nowhere in Scripture do you find such action either suggested or called for. The difficulty that the Corinthians faced would have been an ideal situation for Paul to tell them to simply draw up a statement of faith to which everyone agrees – but he didn’t. Paul’s final instruction to them, in his letter of reprimand, is this: “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13). We are to learn to walk in the Spirit of God so “that the righteousness of the law [of God] might be fulfilled in us” (Romans 8:4); such a walk will never be achieved through giving our assent to a statement of faith and having our names added to the membership roll of a church – even a Fundamental one. Our unity is only found in Christ (Ephesians 4:1-6), the eternal Logos (John 1:1), not by submitting to a constitution, creed, or statement of faith.
Cloud’s appeal to these Scriptures provides absolutely no basis for church membership. The unity that we have is found in Christ; as we abide in Him, and He abides in us, we have unity with Him and, by this means, unity within the Body (the ekklesia). It is nothing that we are called upon to generate through drafting a statement of faith; it is a reality that we have in Christ alone. In John 17:20-23 Jesus said:
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us [John 15:10]: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Our unity is IN CHRIST; anything else is of the flesh.
3. “We need church membership for discipline.”
Cloud begins this section by quoting from 1 Corinthians 5:11-13:
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
He then goes on to offer this explanation:
“This passage deals with church discipline, and in verse 12 we see that there are those who are in the church and those who are without. How can a congregation know who is in and who is out, who is under discipline and who is not, unless it has some form of church membership? As we have stated, it is a matter of practicality. Parents can't discipline other people's children, and churches can't discipline those who are not a part of its own family. Also verse 11 says those under discipline cannot eat, which refers both to personal fellowship and to the Lord's Supper. The church has the obligation before God to exercise discipline over its members and those who are under discipline cannot partake of Communion. Thus there must be a way for the church to know who is a part of the family and who is outside.”45
The context, for the Scripture passage quoted, is Paul addressing the Corinthian error of having someone in their midst who professed to be a believer yet continued to live in sexual sin, and they were proud of their liberty in Christ and thought more highly of themselves than they should have (1 Corinthians 4:18). The pride of those in the assembly in Corinth had served to dull their spiritual discernment to the point that they tolerated gross sin in their midst, and refused to deal with it.
There is nothing in the passage quoted that demands a membership list, or even indicates that a membership list would make the discipline easier to administer. Clearly, there are those who are outside of the assembly of believers, and those who are within; but Paul’s admonition in this case is to “put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (5:13), that one who is living in sin while trying to appear to be righteous. It is clear that until there is repentance from this evil, they are to exclude this individual from their fellowship; he is not to be in their assembly (verses 2, 5, 7, 9 and 11 would further support this position). By contrast, the ekklesia that Jesus is building is a pure gathering; it is not a mixture of believers and unbelievers, nor do those who live in continual sin remain within the fold of fellowship, as we learn from this passage. Paul warns them that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”; in other words, tolerating sin is inviting destruction into your midst, for it will permeate the whole assembly if it is not dealt with. The identification of this man within the Corinthian context would not have been difficult for the elders of the assembly; they would have known who it was without having to have a name to cross reference with their church membership roll to see if discipline could be applied or not. If a gathering is too big to know what is taking place within its assembly, then perhaps it is just too big. The crux of the instruction is this: if there is known sin, it must be repented of, or the individual or persons involved are to be excluded from fellowship. This is not difficult to understand, although it may be painful to enforce.
Cloud’s statement: “parents can’t discipline other people’s children” is weak and really does not apply in this matter but it does appeal to our sense of logic, and might win some people over. The elders appointed to oversee the ekklesia are responsible for those who participate in the assembly; they have been appointed to their role by the leading of the Spirit of God, and continue there through their exemplary life. Anyone who attends such an assembly places himself under the authority of the presiding elders; therefore, everyone who attends is subject to Biblical discipline, not just those who have their names recorded on a membership roll. If the elders are truly men of God, and the attendees are truly born of God, then the application of discipline will not be grievous, but part of our exhortation – the reason that we are to assemble in the first place (Hebrews 10:25). This is not a matter of a parent disciplining someone else’s children, for the ekklesia is comprised only of the children of God; we are born of God, and are to be subject one to another and clothed with humility (Ephesians 5:21; 1 Peter 5:5). Just because someone’s name is not on a membership roll, that does not exclude him from Biblical discipline. Isn’t there something wrong if two people attending the same independent Baptist church commit the same grievous sin, and only the member is disciplined? It would seem that an artificial distinction has been created that will not lead to a proper application of Biblical discipline.
Cloud’s defense, in this case, springs from an improper understanding of what the ekklesia really is. It is not a group made up of the leavened and unleavened (1 Corinthians 5:6-8); it is a pure gathering, and the elders bear the responsibility to ensure that it remains pure. When the gatherings have become like our modern churches (Evangelical, Fundamental, Liberal, or whatever), then membership becomes a means of control – but that is not the ekklesia that Jesus said He is building; that is man’s building project and a serious departure from the Word of God. If we return to what the Scriptures say that the ekklesia is, then we will leave behind many of the procedures, trappings, and traditions that have become the essence of today’s church.
4. “We need church membership for authority.”
Cloud begins by quoting from Hebrews those verses that “pastors,” who are endeavoring to either establish or retain their authority, love so much.
Hebrews 13:7 and 17 say, ‘Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. ... Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.’46
He then goes on to explain the importance of these verses:
“According to these passages each believer is to be under the authority of church rulers, and we know from other New Testament Scriptures that these rulers are pastors and elders. How can the church leaders know whom they are ruling if there is no membership? Do pastors have the rule over anyone who visits the church? Of course not, so there must be some sort of membership, which involves a standard by which the church accepts members and a commitment on the part of those seeking membership.”47
In his preamble to listing four reasons for church membership, Cloud provides a couple of background points to lay the foundation for his arguments. First of all, he says that membership is entirely a matter of practicality, because it provides the church with a means of knowing who is in and who is out.30 That’s not a good start to demonstrating the Biblical basis for membership. The church clearly is no longer the Body of believers that Christ said that He would build (Matthew 16:18). Jesus openly declared that He knows His sheep (John 10:14), so if we were speaking of the ekklesia that Jesus said that He would build, clearly there is no need for a membership roll. However, we have bought into the lie that bigger is better, and so we must own property, hire staff, implement programs, and develop a budget; church has become comparable to business where the prescribed shareholders must vote on whom they should hire as a manager, into which product lines they should venture, what property to acquire, and how big a budget to approve that will guide their operations going forward. A business typically functions on the majority vote of the shareholders and, without a second thought, most churches have adopted this practice. However, the Biblical mandate is that the teachings of Scripture are to be paramount and are to be protected at all cost; Timothy was warned: “take heed unto [give attention to] thyself, and unto the doctrine …” (1 Timothy 4:16). We are to be cautious in how we use the teachings of the Word of God; we cannot use them to accomplish our own ends. How do we see the democratic vote of the majority displayed within Scripture? The people came together as one to build a tower that would reach unto heaven (Genesis 11:1-8), a project that did not meet with God’s approval; the majority chose to ignore Noah’s preaching and perished from the face of the earth (1 Peter 3:20). The voice of the majority was heard when the elders of Israel demanded a king and the Lord granted them their desire, not because it was best for them, but because they insisted upon it (1 Samuel 8: 4-7). We see the will of the people, influenced by certain leaders, crying out to have Jesus crucified (Matthew 27:20-23). Democracy is founded upon the will of the people, but often “the people” are easily persuaded by a few, and too often they do not know, or lose sight of, what is right and best. What place does such have within the ekklesia of Jesus? It has no place at all! The practicality of church membership within today’s churches is founded upon a general departure from the Word of God.
Cloud then goes on to refer to Acts 2:41 – “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls,” and then he declares that those “who were saved and baptized were added to the church. That is church membership.”31 If that were true, then you would not have Fundamentalists limiting participation in the activities of their churches to those who have their names on the membership roll. You can be saved and baptized, but you may still be banned from singing in the choir, teaching, or sitting on any of their governing boards if your name is not on their membership list. In reality, this is a bit of a red herring, because what is described in Acts 2:41 is not what church membership is at all, even within Cloud’s world. With this “firm foundation,” David Cloud launches into his four points of support for church membership:32
1. “We need church membership because each church is a body and family.”
By way of explanation, Cloud declares that all of the NT believers “are a part of Christ and the family of God but each church is independent and has its own business.”33 In support of this statement, he refers to Acts 14:21-23:
“And when they had preached the gospel to that city [Derbe], and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church [ekklesia], and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.”
Paul and Barnabas travelled back through the country through which they had just come, and established the disciples, exhorted them, warned them of tribulation to come, and appointed elders in each ekklesia. The independence of each ekklesia I would allow, since each one received its own elders, but to say that each ekklesia had its own “business” is to read a modern church context into the Scriptures. The oversight of the local assembly was placed into the hands of appointed elders (1 Peter 5:1-3) to ensure their adherence to the teachings of Scripture. There was no “business” to attend to, for most of these early gatherings were in homes (Acts 2:2; 5:42; 8:3; 9:11, 17; 12:12; 16:32; 17:5; 20:20; Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2). It is noteworthy that those within the ekklesia in each of these towns did not vote on their elders; the elders were appointed by Paul and Barnabas. Democracy had no finger in who would be responsible for attending to the spiritual oversight of these assemblies; the elders were appointed by someone of spiritual maturity. Today, church leadership is largely determined by a majority vote of the members – something that is clearly not demonstrated within Scripture.
Cloud goes on: “We see the same thing in Revelation 1:4 [carrying forward the thought of independence], where each church was addressed individually.”34 Actually Revelation 1:4 is addressed to the “seven churches [plural form of ekklesia] which are in Asia,” clearly a general greeting to all of them; the names of the seven individual groups are not mentioned until verse 11 of chapter 1. However, what follows in chapters 2 and 3 is addressed to the angel or messenger (singular; elder35) of each assembly within the locations mentioned. We must be careful in our handling of the Word of God.
Cloud continues: “In Revelation 1:12-13 Jesus is standing in the midst of the churches, which are signified by the golden candlesticks. In the Old Testament there was one candlestick in the tabernacle, but in the New Testament dispensation there are many candlesticks, as each church is a light.”36 Candle is a mistranslation of a Greek word that means lamp, and this understanding serves to clarify the word picture used by Jesus in Revelation. It is very evident that the lampstand (luchnia) is not the light, but a holder for the lamp or lamps that will give forth the light (Revelatioin 1:12); so the ekklesia is not the light (in contradiction to Cloud’s statement), but it is the context from which the lights of individuals will show forth the Spirit of God, Who is the Light. As we saw earlier in Hebrews 10, the ekklesia is the place where individuals are exhorted and challenged to remain firm in the faith so that their light might shine forth. Cloud’s contention that the current dispensation has “many candlesticks, as each church is a light,” and that this stands in contrast to the OT dispensation, is misleading, and another example of 1) misinterpretation due to a dispensational view of Scripture, and 2) holding the translators’ choice of words for the KJV as the most accurate, without any consideration for the original languages.37 If we follow the illustration that John gives us in Revelation 1, we understand that each ekklesia is not a light (as Cloud contends), but rather that the seven lampstands ARE the seven assemblies just named, just like Jesus said (Revelation 1:20). The OT menorah was a lampstand, used in the tabernacle and temple of Israel, which held seven lamps (Exodus 25:31-37). Each ekklesia is a lampstand from which the lamps will shine forth; Jesus said: “Ye are the light of the world … Neither do men light a [luchnos – lamp], and put it under a bushel, but on a [luchnia – lampstand]; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house” (Matthew 5:14-15).38
Quoting from Cloud: “See 1 Timothy 3:15, which says the church is ‘the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.’ In the context this refers to the church that has pastors and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-14).”39 Cloud refers to 1 Timothy 3:1-14 as the context of a church that has “pastors and deacons,” culminating in being called the “house of God.” First of all, the passage referred to makes no mention of pastors. The Greek word episcope, translated as office of a bishop in 1 Timothy 3:1, means “investigation, inspection, visitation.”40 In 1 Timothy 3:2 the Greek word translated as bishop is episkopos, which means overseer.41 From Titus 1:5-7 we learn that the episkopos (bishop) and the presbuteros (elder) are used synonymously; however, as careful students of the Scriptures, we must note that nowhere, in the passage referred to, do we find the word poimen (shepherd – translated as pastor in Ephesians 4:11). The ultimate context of 1 Timothy 3:1-14 is, therefore, to provide Timothy with some guidelines as to the functioning of the ekklesia should Paul be tarried in coming to him (v. 14). What is clearly evident is that there are some very specific qualifications for those who would take on either elder or deacon roles within a local ekklesia.
Here is a definition of a pastor that might be worthy of consideration within today’s churches and, perhaps, even within the Fundamental Baptist movement: “Pastors … must preach and take care of the religious instruction of the faithful, especially of the young, supply their spiritual needs …, administer diligently the property entrusted to their care, watch over the moral conduct of their parishioners, and remove, as far as possible, all hindrances to their salvation.”42 Although this might well define what is expected of a “pastor” in today’s Evangelical churches, this definition comes straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and serves to illustrate how well we have learned from the influence of Roman Catholic traditions.
The phrase “house of God” (1 Timothy 3:15) was used extensively in the OT to refer to both the original tabernacle and to the temples that were later built and rebuilt; Paul provides here a new understanding of what this house of God is. It is no longer the temple (the building), but it is the “church [ekklesia] of the living God” upon which the truth rests. Again, we see the importance of being firmly established in the doctrine that has come to us through the written Word of God. The house of God is no longer a building, a temple, or a tabernacle, but it is the metaphorical building that God is constructing, of which Jesus is the Chief Corner (Ephesians 2:19-22); what we must also understand is that the house of God has never been a local gathering of saints and sinners around a particular creed or statement of faith. Those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ and are faithfully abiding in the Vine (John 15:4), are a part of the house of God (Hebrews 3:6). We (like Timothy) are commanded to “take heed … unto the doctrine” (1 Timothy 4:16) so that we might remain in the Vine and, in fact, be a support of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
Cloud continues: “In the New Testament each separate church is a spiritual body and has its own members. ‘And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular’ (1 Cor. 12:26-27).”43 We’ve already looked at this passage in 1 Corinthians 12 as it relates to the metaphor of the body that is used by God to illustrate the gifting of the members within the ekklesia. It would seem evident that Cloud has succumbed to straining at a gnat in order to defend his position. I would concur that each ekklesia is a spiritual entity – the reason that we gather is for our spiritual edification and strengthening. However, to say that each separate ekklesia is a spiritual body and has its own members after the fashion of 1 Corinthians 12, demonstrates a serious lack of contextual consideration. 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 clarifies for us: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body ….” It seems quite indisputable that there is one Body, and we are ALL baptized by the Spirit into that one Body. Not every ekklesia will boast of having all of the gifts of the Spirit being exercised within it, but the promise of Jesus is sure that where two or three come together in His name He will be in their midst (Matthew 18:20). It is inappropriate to take a passage of Scripture that deals with the Body of Christ and apply it in this manner to a local church that is made up of believers and unbelievers gathered around a constitution, statement of faith, or creed. Jesus said: “I will build my ekklesia,” and it is that Body (the ekklesia, the kingdom of God) into which we are born; in its truest sense, a local gathering of the children of God is but a small expression of the ekklesia that Jesus is building.
As we have considered the first point in Cloud’s Biblical defense of church membership, the church is a body and family, it seems that the evidence has crumbled under a more careful examination. To use 1 Corinthians 12 as the basis for calling a local church a Body is to skew the intent of the Corinthian passage and create the impression that each church must be the Body of Christ; this would mean that Christ has many Bodies throughout the world when it is clear that there is only ONE Body. Let us move on to consider Cloud’s second reason for church membership:
2. “We need church membership for unity.”
Unity is a subject that is very popular today, especially within the Christian community at large; it actually surprised me to see that Cloud would use this as one of his arguments for church membership. To begin his defense of this point, he appeals to Scripture:
“The Bible requires that the believers have one mind in doctrine and practice. ‘Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment’ (1 Cor. 1:10). ‘Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel’ (Phil. 1:27). For this reason our church has a lengthy statement of faith and we require every member to agree with it, whether he is joining by statement of faith and baptism or from another church.”44
Let’s carefully consider the passages referred to here. In 1 Corinthians 1:10 Paul was addressing the divisions that had become evident among the Corinthians due to some preferring one servant of Christ over another, and still others, perhaps wanting to appear to be particularly spiritual, declaring themselves to be “of Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Cloud says that this is the reason (to prevent such divisions) that his church has a “lengthy statement of faith,” and why they require every member to agree with it. Based on this, what you would expect to find in Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians would be his instructions on how they should draw up a statement of faith and have everyone support it. However, Paul leads the Corinthians to this: “Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (1 Corinthians 3:21-23). In other words, don’t glory in men but rather in the unity that is yours through Christ! Nevertheless, Cloud would use this same Corinthian problem to provide a “Biblical” basis for drafting a statement of faith, and using that as a means for unity. What is a statement of faith? It is nothing more than a document that man puts together outlining, in summary format, what they believe to be the important themes of Scripture. I have seen too many statements of faith that either leave out significant teachings or provide a skewed interpretation of teachings from the Scriptures, for me to find Cloud’s comments on this matter acceptable. Nowhere in Scripture do we find encouragement to paraphrase the Word of God, and then use that to determine who is in or out of a gathering. Is that not the very thing that Paul was trying to lead the Corinthians away from – glorying in man? Whoever drafts the statement of faith will hold a sense of ownership of that document, and any questioning of it will lead to strife and the same failure that the Corinthians experienced; if it is prepared by a committee, then you can rest assured that it is the product of compromise as they haggled over the nitty-gritty of the statement’s content. Even beyond that, the final product is a man-made document that is used as the measure of who is to be accepted into membership; that would be a different measure than what God uses to determine who is accepted into His glory, and perhaps more or less restrictive. If the solution to the Corinthian divisions was simply a statement of faith and a membership roll, I think Paul would have explained that, for it would have been a far more simple way to control the whole problem than appealing to them to turn their eyes away from men and focus them on Christ, Who is their Savior and their Life.
Scripture provides us with the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11) who received the words of Paul with gladness, and searched the Scriptures daily to ensure that what they heard was in keeping with the Word of God. They did not refer to a statement of faith, a constitution, or a creed, but shone the light of the Word of God upon what they were hearing from Paul; the Scriptures were their guide, not a paraphrased, summarized document. Is there a fear to use the Word of God alone lest we find some of our pet doctrines unsustainable? That’s all the more reason that we should commit to using only the Scriptures.
David Cloud then appeals to Philippians 1:27 – “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel ….” Paul’s desire for the Philippian believers was that they would “stand fast in one spirit” (the Spirit of the Lord), and that they would strive together in this unity of the Spirit against the opposition that they were facing (verse 28 – “in nothing terrified by your adversaries”). However, if you look further into Paul’s letter, you read: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus …” (Philippians 2:5). Now we have the whole picture! This is a call to stand fast in the unity that we have in Christ; we must permit His Spirit and His mind to be our guide and strength. What a high calling is ours, to live humbly before God in the mind of Christ and to stand securely in the Spirit of God; this is very much like 1 Peter 1:15-16 – “15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”
There is nothing within the passages, from which Cloud quotes, to inspire a “lengthy statement of faith,” and then require everyone to agree with it. As a matter of fact, his position sounds very much like a unity that is the product of man’s designs. With such an approach to church unity, it would be very difficult to be critical of the late Chuck Colson who labored tirelessly to draw the Evangelicals and Catholics together, and achieved a modicum of success with the document, Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Colson’s approach was to arrive at a statement of faith that was broad enough so as to include Catholics, thereby drawing as many together as possible for the purpose of unity. Cloud says that you need a lengthy statement of faith (Colson’s was about 10 pages), and then everyone must agree with it in order to be included in the membership (if you don’t agree with Colson’s document, you would not be included in their unity). The parallels are uncanny. Granted, Colson’s and Cloud’s documents would say very different things, but the essence of the process is identical. Nowhere in Scripture do you find such action either suggested or called for. The difficulty that the Corinthians faced would have been an ideal situation for Paul to tell them to simply draw up a statement of faith to which everyone agrees – but he didn’t. Paul’s final instruction to them, in his letter of reprimand, is this: “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13). We are to learn to walk in the Spirit of God so “that the righteousness of the law [of God] might be fulfilled in us” (Romans 8:4); such a walk will never be achieved through giving our assent to a statement of faith and having our names added to the membership roll of a church – even a Fundamental one. Our unity is only found in Christ (Ephesians 4:1-6), the eternal Logos (John 1:1), not by submitting to a constitution, creed, or statement of faith.
Cloud’s appeal to these Scriptures provides absolutely no basis for church membership. The unity that we have is found in Christ; as we abide in Him, and He abides in us, we have unity with Him and, by this means, unity within the Body (the ekklesia). It is nothing that we are called upon to generate through drafting a statement of faith; it is a reality that we have in Christ alone. In John 17:20-23 Jesus said:
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us [John 15:10]: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Our unity is IN CHRIST; anything else is of the flesh.
3. “We need church membership for discipline.”
Cloud begins this section by quoting from 1 Corinthians 5:11-13:
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
He then goes on to offer this explanation:
“This passage deals with church discipline, and in verse 12 we see that there are those who are in the church and those who are without. How can a congregation know who is in and who is out, who is under discipline and who is not, unless it has some form of church membership? As we have stated, it is a matter of practicality. Parents can't discipline other people's children, and churches can't discipline those who are not a part of its own family. Also verse 11 says those under discipline cannot eat, which refers both to personal fellowship and to the Lord's Supper. The church has the obligation before God to exercise discipline over its members and those who are under discipline cannot partake of Communion. Thus there must be a way for the church to know who is a part of the family and who is outside.”45
The context, for the Scripture passage quoted, is Paul addressing the Corinthian error of having someone in their midst who professed to be a believer yet continued to live in sexual sin, and they were proud of their liberty in Christ and thought more highly of themselves than they should have (1 Corinthians 4:18). The pride of those in the assembly in Corinth had served to dull their spiritual discernment to the point that they tolerated gross sin in their midst, and refused to deal with it.
There is nothing in the passage quoted that demands a membership list, or even indicates that a membership list would make the discipline easier to administer. Clearly, there are those who are outside of the assembly of believers, and those who are within; but Paul’s admonition in this case is to “put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (5:13), that one who is living in sin while trying to appear to be righteous. It is clear that until there is repentance from this evil, they are to exclude this individual from their fellowship; he is not to be in their assembly (verses 2, 5, 7, 9 and 11 would further support this position). By contrast, the ekklesia that Jesus is building is a pure gathering; it is not a mixture of believers and unbelievers, nor do those who live in continual sin remain within the fold of fellowship, as we learn from this passage. Paul warns them that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”; in other words, tolerating sin is inviting destruction into your midst, for it will permeate the whole assembly if it is not dealt with. The identification of this man within the Corinthian context would not have been difficult for the elders of the assembly; they would have known who it was without having to have a name to cross reference with their church membership roll to see if discipline could be applied or not. If a gathering is too big to know what is taking place within its assembly, then perhaps it is just too big. The crux of the instruction is this: if there is known sin, it must be repented of, or the individual or persons involved are to be excluded from fellowship. This is not difficult to understand, although it may be painful to enforce.
Cloud’s statement: “parents can’t discipline other people’s children” is weak and really does not apply in this matter but it does appeal to our sense of logic, and might win some people over. The elders appointed to oversee the ekklesia are responsible for those who participate in the assembly; they have been appointed to their role by the leading of the Spirit of God, and continue there through their exemplary life. Anyone who attends such an assembly places himself under the authority of the presiding elders; therefore, everyone who attends is subject to Biblical discipline, not just those who have their names recorded on a membership roll. If the elders are truly men of God, and the attendees are truly born of God, then the application of discipline will not be grievous, but part of our exhortation – the reason that we are to assemble in the first place (Hebrews 10:25). This is not a matter of a parent disciplining someone else’s children, for the ekklesia is comprised only of the children of God; we are born of God, and are to be subject one to another and clothed with humility (Ephesians 5:21; 1 Peter 5:5). Just because someone’s name is not on a membership roll, that does not exclude him from Biblical discipline. Isn’t there something wrong if two people attending the same independent Baptist church commit the same grievous sin, and only the member is disciplined? It would seem that an artificial distinction has been created that will not lead to a proper application of Biblical discipline.
Cloud’s defense, in this case, springs from an improper understanding of what the ekklesia really is. It is not a group made up of the leavened and unleavened (1 Corinthians 5:6-8); it is a pure gathering, and the elders bear the responsibility to ensure that it remains pure. When the gatherings have become like our modern churches (Evangelical, Fundamental, Liberal, or whatever), then membership becomes a means of control – but that is not the ekklesia that Jesus said He is building; that is man’s building project and a serious departure from the Word of God. If we return to what the Scriptures say that the ekklesia is, then we will leave behind many of the procedures, trappings, and traditions that have become the essence of today’s church.
4. “We need church membership for authority.”
Cloud begins by quoting from Hebrews those verses that “pastors,” who are endeavoring to either establish or retain their authority, love so much.
Hebrews 13:7 and 17 say, ‘Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. ... Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.’46
He then goes on to explain the importance of these verses:
“According to these passages each believer is to be under the authority of church rulers, and we know from other New Testament Scriptures that these rulers are pastors and elders. How can the church leaders know whom they are ruling if there is no membership? Do pastors have the rule over anyone who visits the church? Of course not, so there must be some sort of membership, which involves a standard by which the church accepts members and a commitment on the part of those seeking membership.”47
Clark Pinnock
What we need to always be on guard against is the argument that seems to make perfect sense, a reasoning that appeals to our love of logic, but which may, in fact, involve a departure from the truth of God’s Word. At the point where the Lord opened my eyes to the error that pervades Evangelicalism, it was the logic of liberal arguments that was drawing me in. The course at Briercrest Biblical Seminary was Contemporary Theologians, and the study was of the late Clark Pinnock, a Baptist heretic, and the subject was his promotion of the doctrine of open theism – God cannot know what has not yet happened, because God cannot know the expression of man’s free will until it has happened.48 There is a subtle logic in the whole error of open theism that is quite attractive to the natural mind, but the essence of the argument is that, like us, God is limited by time. What these heretics forget is that God is the Alpha and Omega – the beginning and the ending (Revelation 1:8); God knows all of the events of all of time, and He knew them before He created this world. Can we comprehend God’s omniscience? No, and therein is the appeal of such doctrines as open theism – it reduces God sufficiently for us to be able to wrap our minds around some of His greatness. We must be careful that we do not fall for the same subtlety as we look at Cloud’s arguments for membership. His whole premise is based on the assumption that the way we do “church” today is Biblical; my argument is that we have lost sight of what the Scriptures tell us about the ekklesia – we have fallen for the example of the apostate Roman Catholic Church.
Before we look at Cloud’s position in his final argument, we need to consider who the elders are and how they are brought into leadership. “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1-3). It is clear from this passage, and from others, that the elders of an assembly have been given the authority and responsibility of spiritual leadership. Perhaps the difficulty today is not that we need membership to firmly establish authority, but rather that we have lost sight of who the elders are to be. The typical church today will peruse 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 when it is time to look at their leadership (if they actually make it that far), and they (as an assembly) then democratically elect “elders” to a three-year term to have oversight of the church activities; or, they review the passages noted, and vote to call a “pastor” to be their chief leader. In either case, we have missed the established Biblical example. The elders in Scripture were evidently appointed for life (only personal failure, incapacity, or death would see them removed from this appointment, which is why “elders” [plural] were appointed). This is an assumption based upon two things: first of all, they were appointed, not elected, and, secondly, if they were to only hold their appointment for a short period of time, then Scripture would have provided us with the details as to how the transition was to be accomplished. The elders were appointed by men of spiritual stature and maturity, i.e., other proven elders (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5); therefore, the perpetuation of the elders would be through further appointments, not elections. Elders were not put into place through a popularity contest (unlike most elections in churches today), nor were they in for a few years and then released from their responsibilities. These men were responsible for the oversight of the local ekklesia, to ensure that the teaching was according to the Scriptures, and that the gatherings were orderly (1 Corinthians 14:33; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 1:13; Titus 1:5).
The passages that Cloud cites from Hebrews 13 are commonly used to establish the “pastor” as the authority over the congregation, or the laity. However, these are perhaps the most abused passages of Scripture, particularly by pastors who endeavor to establish their authority over the people, even if, as a last resort, through no other means than intimidation. The Greek word translated as “rule” in verses 7 and 17 means to go before or to lead.49 This qualifies the rule as leading by example, rather than being autocratic, and, thereby, it removes the hierarchical thinking that we too often associate with authority. What we must not miss is that this leadership does not apply to a “pastor,” but would have been understood to refer to the elders; as we have already noted, “pastor” and “elder” are not the same and cannot be used synonymously. Hebrews 13:17 says: “obey them that have the rule over you,” and pastors have used this to intimidate people into submission. However, obey, as it is used here, includes the concept of being persuaded (from the Greek); so rather than obedience to someone in a position of authority, it calls for the people to be fully persuaded of the Biblical integrity of the elder, and then to be obedient.50 This is vastly different from how we see this passage being used today: “Believers … must yield to their pastors, follow their admonition, obey their commands, and submit to their authority.”51 Once again, we are called upon to be Bereans: testing what we see and hear according to the Scriptures, and then, being fully persuaded, we are to be obedient. Anything less than this would be following a man, and falling into the same error as the Corinthians; we are to turn our eyes away from man and focus on the Lord. Rather than blind obedience to someone who holds a certain position, this is a command to go to the Word of God and evaluate that elder, and then, if he proves to be harmonious with Scripture, follow him. However, even then there is to be a continuous examination against the standard of the Word of God, so that if the elders should fail in some area, then everyone would not blindly follow them into error.
In the message of Jesus to the messenger of Ephesus, He said: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:6); to the messenger of Pergamos, He said: “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there … them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate” (Revelation 2:14-15). In both of these passages, mention is made of the Nicolaitanes, and it is clear that this group was to be avoided. Names are always of interest in the Word of God – “Nicolaitanes”: what does this mean? There are some who claim that these were followers of Nicolas, one of the seven who were appointed to oversee the needs of the believers gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5), although this is very commonly disputed. It is often argued that these were lovers of pleasure, and were indifferent to immorality and things sacrificed to idols.52 However, if you read Revelation 2:14-15 carefully, it is clear that those who held to the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes were in addition to those who ate things sacrificed to idols and who committed fornication. So we come back to the meaning of the name: it is made up of two words in Greek: nikos, which means “victory,” or “to utterly vanquish,” and laos, which means “people.”53 Therefore, when these are brought together, the Nicolaitanes were those who suppressed, or lorded it over, the common people. Jesus said unto His disciples: “… Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28). The doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is in direct contravention of both the words and example of our Lord. Yet what do we find today in most churches? We have the clergy and the laity, the professional religious leaders and the average person who is taught to look to the clergy for direction and spiritual instruction. We live in a day when the sin of the Nicolaitanes is rampant throughout Evangelicalism, and perhaps even more so among the independent Fundamental Baptists – an inheritance from the Roman Catholic Church that has perfected the clergy-laity separation through their layers of hierarchy from their pastors (or parish priests) all the way to the pope. In Jesus’ words: “… it shall [absolutely54] not be so among you”; yet it is so among us!
Scripture teaches us that the authorities within the assembly are the elders (or bishops); it speaks of elders being appointed within assemblies, but never pastors. It may be a matter of semantics to some, but there can be no equating pastor and elder with Biblical support. I would advocate that the elders are responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of the ekklesia, and if someone comes into the assembly, then they are automatically under the authority of the elders. Part of that responsibility is to protect the group from anything that would draw them away from the clear teachings of Scripture (1 Peter 5:2); it matters not whether that detracting influence comes from someone who is a long time participant in the assembly, or someone newly arrived. To limit the authority of the elders to only those whose names are on a membership list is to bind their hands to adequately protect the flock. Cloud has created a false premise by insisting that the elders do not exercise authority over everyone who attends their gathering. By entering the assembly, one is automatically placed under the authority of those responsible (the elders) – a membership list is irrelevant. Once again, we must face the question of size – if the group is so large that the elders cannot know the people, then perhaps it is too large. Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep …” (John 10:14); if Jesus declared that He knows those who are His, then it should be incumbent upon the elders, who bear the responsibility of ensuring obedience to His Word, to know those who are within their gathering – something for which the Spirit of God would provide assistance. If we would only follow the Biblical mandate, and not our traditions, we would have more gatherings with greater accountability; we would own less property, require fewer programs, spend fewer dollars on real estate, and discover the blessing of the Lord for the few who gather in His name.
Based on these four reasons, Cloud contends that he has proven from Scripture that “a church needs to maintain [a] membership ….”55 Yet, as he concludes his article, he insists that membership is really a matter of liberty, and every church must determine what works for them because “the Bible does not spell out the issue of church membership.”56 I would agree with the latter position, and clearly state that Cloud did not make a case at all for church membership based on the Scriptures that he used. As a matter of fact, more than anything else, he has demonstrated that membership is another of the trappings of modern churches that finds no basis within Scripture. It is a matter of practicality, but that practicality has been necessitated by creating a monster that requires careful handling in order to keep it under control. This is not the ekklesia that Jesus said He would build (Matthew 16:18); this is a man-made organization that is gobbling up men who could have done great things if they weren’t consumed with trying to manage a church; it is consuming untold resources, whether people’s time, money, or their spiritual gifts, with virtually no return. How could this happen? The Corinthians were not so unlike us: they turned their eyes away from the Lord and looked at the men who worked in their midst; over the centuries, we have lost sight of the Lord and His Word, and have been taken in by the impressive cathedrals and exploits of heretics.
This has been a lengthy sidetrack. However, it is important that we understand that the primary basis for how modern churches carry on their business is not supported by the Bible. We have fallen for the lie that bigger is better (a marketing ploy of the Church Growth Movement), and to our own spiritual detriment, we have accepted that success in the Lord’s work can be measured in greater numbers. As we have looked at the concept of church membership and considered the evidence, we must admit that there is no Biblical support for it – it is merely a practical method for controlling the empires that we tend to build. We may admit to the error of the mega-church philosophy, but are we prepared to acknowledge that the churches of today (even those of a Fundamental persuasion) have succumbed to the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing we are to hate (Revelation 2:6)? If we would establish elders (plural) according to the standards of Scripture, God would honor this and ensure that their authority was effective, but never autocratic (1 Peter 5:1-5). Unless God’s Word is used to evaluate our “church” situation, we may be guilty of identifying the small dry stalk in the eye of a perceived offender, even while we overlook the log (large enough to support the roof of a building) that is in our own eye (Matthew 7:3-5).57
Our focus today on numerical growth and membership, stems from building kingdoms that consume modern church leaders, and that require a minimum number of people to sustain them. It is no longer a matter of searching the Scriptures and being obedient to the commands of the Lord; we have programs to support, staff to pay, and property to maintain. This cannot be done through the “two or three gathered” in the name of Jesus; this requires a sizeable, committed group who are prepared to invest their time and money in order to maintain the empire that has been constructed. However, Acts 2:47 says: “And the Lord added to the church (ekklesia) daily such as should be saved.” It is the Lord Who is building His ekklesia – we must not lose sight of this foundational principle.
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby …” (1 Peter 2:2). There, in a nutshell, is the formula for spiritual success. The difficulty today is that there is so little longing for the Word of God; we live in a generation that lusts after the pleasures of life with all of their being, and the average, modern churchgoer is no different. It is a rare occasion, indeed, to find anyone who has a passion for the pure teachings of God’s Word, and who is willing to follow the dictates of the Scriptures. Is it any wonder that there is so little spiritual maturity within the Evangelical community? Yes, we are to grow – but it is to be a spiritual growth in the Lord, not an obsession with bodies in a building, or names on a list. As we considered the metaphor of the Body, we saw that we are to “grow up into [Christ] in all things” (Ephesians 4:15); spiritual maturity and increased holiness must be our desire.
This provides a good basis for our next area of study: the government of the ekklesia.
Before we look at Cloud’s position in his final argument, we need to consider who the elders are and how they are brought into leadership. “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:1-3). It is clear from this passage, and from others, that the elders of an assembly have been given the authority and responsibility of spiritual leadership. Perhaps the difficulty today is not that we need membership to firmly establish authority, but rather that we have lost sight of who the elders are to be. The typical church today will peruse 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 when it is time to look at their leadership (if they actually make it that far), and they (as an assembly) then democratically elect “elders” to a three-year term to have oversight of the church activities; or, they review the passages noted, and vote to call a “pastor” to be their chief leader. In either case, we have missed the established Biblical example. The elders in Scripture were evidently appointed for life (only personal failure, incapacity, or death would see them removed from this appointment, which is why “elders” [plural] were appointed). This is an assumption based upon two things: first of all, they were appointed, not elected, and, secondly, if they were to only hold their appointment for a short period of time, then Scripture would have provided us with the details as to how the transition was to be accomplished. The elders were appointed by men of spiritual stature and maturity, i.e., other proven elders (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5); therefore, the perpetuation of the elders would be through further appointments, not elections. Elders were not put into place through a popularity contest (unlike most elections in churches today), nor were they in for a few years and then released from their responsibilities. These men were responsible for the oversight of the local ekklesia, to ensure that the teaching was according to the Scriptures, and that the gatherings were orderly (1 Corinthians 14:33; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 1:13; Titus 1:5).
The passages that Cloud cites from Hebrews 13 are commonly used to establish the “pastor” as the authority over the congregation, or the laity. However, these are perhaps the most abused passages of Scripture, particularly by pastors who endeavor to establish their authority over the people, even if, as a last resort, through no other means than intimidation. The Greek word translated as “rule” in verses 7 and 17 means to go before or to lead.49 This qualifies the rule as leading by example, rather than being autocratic, and, thereby, it removes the hierarchical thinking that we too often associate with authority. What we must not miss is that this leadership does not apply to a “pastor,” but would have been understood to refer to the elders; as we have already noted, “pastor” and “elder” are not the same and cannot be used synonymously. Hebrews 13:17 says: “obey them that have the rule over you,” and pastors have used this to intimidate people into submission. However, obey, as it is used here, includes the concept of being persuaded (from the Greek); so rather than obedience to someone in a position of authority, it calls for the people to be fully persuaded of the Biblical integrity of the elder, and then to be obedient.50 This is vastly different from how we see this passage being used today: “Believers … must yield to their pastors, follow their admonition, obey their commands, and submit to their authority.”51 Once again, we are called upon to be Bereans: testing what we see and hear according to the Scriptures, and then, being fully persuaded, we are to be obedient. Anything less than this would be following a man, and falling into the same error as the Corinthians; we are to turn our eyes away from man and focus on the Lord. Rather than blind obedience to someone who holds a certain position, this is a command to go to the Word of God and evaluate that elder, and then, if he proves to be harmonious with Scripture, follow him. However, even then there is to be a continuous examination against the standard of the Word of God, so that if the elders should fail in some area, then everyone would not blindly follow them into error.
In the message of Jesus to the messenger of Ephesus, He said: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:6); to the messenger of Pergamos, He said: “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there … them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate” (Revelation 2:14-15). In both of these passages, mention is made of the Nicolaitanes, and it is clear that this group was to be avoided. Names are always of interest in the Word of God – “Nicolaitanes”: what does this mean? There are some who claim that these were followers of Nicolas, one of the seven who were appointed to oversee the needs of the believers gathered in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5), although this is very commonly disputed. It is often argued that these were lovers of pleasure, and were indifferent to immorality and things sacrificed to idols.52 However, if you read Revelation 2:14-15 carefully, it is clear that those who held to the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes were in addition to those who ate things sacrificed to idols and who committed fornication. So we come back to the meaning of the name: it is made up of two words in Greek: nikos, which means “victory,” or “to utterly vanquish,” and laos, which means “people.”53 Therefore, when these are brought together, the Nicolaitanes were those who suppressed, or lorded it over, the common people. Jesus said unto His disciples: “… Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28). The doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is in direct contravention of both the words and example of our Lord. Yet what do we find today in most churches? We have the clergy and the laity, the professional religious leaders and the average person who is taught to look to the clergy for direction and spiritual instruction. We live in a day when the sin of the Nicolaitanes is rampant throughout Evangelicalism, and perhaps even more so among the independent Fundamental Baptists – an inheritance from the Roman Catholic Church that has perfected the clergy-laity separation through their layers of hierarchy from their pastors (or parish priests) all the way to the pope. In Jesus’ words: “… it shall [absolutely54] not be so among you”; yet it is so among us!
Scripture teaches us that the authorities within the assembly are the elders (or bishops); it speaks of elders being appointed within assemblies, but never pastors. It may be a matter of semantics to some, but there can be no equating pastor and elder with Biblical support. I would advocate that the elders are responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of the ekklesia, and if someone comes into the assembly, then they are automatically under the authority of the elders. Part of that responsibility is to protect the group from anything that would draw them away from the clear teachings of Scripture (1 Peter 5:2); it matters not whether that detracting influence comes from someone who is a long time participant in the assembly, or someone newly arrived. To limit the authority of the elders to only those whose names are on a membership list is to bind their hands to adequately protect the flock. Cloud has created a false premise by insisting that the elders do not exercise authority over everyone who attends their gathering. By entering the assembly, one is automatically placed under the authority of those responsible (the elders) – a membership list is irrelevant. Once again, we must face the question of size – if the group is so large that the elders cannot know the people, then perhaps it is too large. Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep …” (John 10:14); if Jesus declared that He knows those who are His, then it should be incumbent upon the elders, who bear the responsibility of ensuring obedience to His Word, to know those who are within their gathering – something for which the Spirit of God would provide assistance. If we would only follow the Biblical mandate, and not our traditions, we would have more gatherings with greater accountability; we would own less property, require fewer programs, spend fewer dollars on real estate, and discover the blessing of the Lord for the few who gather in His name.
Based on these four reasons, Cloud contends that he has proven from Scripture that “a church needs to maintain [a] membership ….”55 Yet, as he concludes his article, he insists that membership is really a matter of liberty, and every church must determine what works for them because “the Bible does not spell out the issue of church membership.”56 I would agree with the latter position, and clearly state that Cloud did not make a case at all for church membership based on the Scriptures that he used. As a matter of fact, more than anything else, he has demonstrated that membership is another of the trappings of modern churches that finds no basis within Scripture. It is a matter of practicality, but that practicality has been necessitated by creating a monster that requires careful handling in order to keep it under control. This is not the ekklesia that Jesus said He would build (Matthew 16:18); this is a man-made organization that is gobbling up men who could have done great things if they weren’t consumed with trying to manage a church; it is consuming untold resources, whether people’s time, money, or their spiritual gifts, with virtually no return. How could this happen? The Corinthians were not so unlike us: they turned their eyes away from the Lord and looked at the men who worked in their midst; over the centuries, we have lost sight of the Lord and His Word, and have been taken in by the impressive cathedrals and exploits of heretics.
This has been a lengthy sidetrack. However, it is important that we understand that the primary basis for how modern churches carry on their business is not supported by the Bible. We have fallen for the lie that bigger is better (a marketing ploy of the Church Growth Movement), and to our own spiritual detriment, we have accepted that success in the Lord’s work can be measured in greater numbers. As we have looked at the concept of church membership and considered the evidence, we must admit that there is no Biblical support for it – it is merely a practical method for controlling the empires that we tend to build. We may admit to the error of the mega-church philosophy, but are we prepared to acknowledge that the churches of today (even those of a Fundamental persuasion) have succumbed to the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing we are to hate (Revelation 2:6)? If we would establish elders (plural) according to the standards of Scripture, God would honor this and ensure that their authority was effective, but never autocratic (1 Peter 5:1-5). Unless God’s Word is used to evaluate our “church” situation, we may be guilty of identifying the small dry stalk in the eye of a perceived offender, even while we overlook the log (large enough to support the roof of a building) that is in our own eye (Matthew 7:3-5).57
Our focus today on numerical growth and membership, stems from building kingdoms that consume modern church leaders, and that require a minimum number of people to sustain them. It is no longer a matter of searching the Scriptures and being obedient to the commands of the Lord; we have programs to support, staff to pay, and property to maintain. This cannot be done through the “two or three gathered” in the name of Jesus; this requires a sizeable, committed group who are prepared to invest their time and money in order to maintain the empire that has been constructed. However, Acts 2:47 says: “And the Lord added to the church (ekklesia) daily such as should be saved.” It is the Lord Who is building His ekklesia – we must not lose sight of this foundational principle.
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby …” (1 Peter 2:2). There, in a nutshell, is the formula for spiritual success. The difficulty today is that there is so little longing for the Word of God; we live in a generation that lusts after the pleasures of life with all of their being, and the average, modern churchgoer is no different. It is a rare occasion, indeed, to find anyone who has a passion for the pure teachings of God’s Word, and who is willing to follow the dictates of the Scriptures. Is it any wonder that there is so little spiritual maturity within the Evangelical community? Yes, we are to grow – but it is to be a spiritual growth in the Lord, not an obsession with bodies in a building, or names on a list. As we considered the metaphor of the Body, we saw that we are to “grow up into [Christ] in all things” (Ephesians 4:15); spiritual maturity and increased holiness must be our desire.
This provides a good basis for our next area of study: the government of the ekklesia.
1 Strong’s Online; Friberg Lexicon.
2 Josephus, War of the Jews, 5.5.4; http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-5.htm
3 https://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html
4 James W. Crumpton, “New Testament Church Discipline,” http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ntdiscipline/ntdiscipline02.htm
5 Vine’s “go.”
6 Strong’s Online.
7 Friberg Lexicon.
8 When Jesus responded to the lawyer in Matthew 22:37-40, He identified His declared two commandments as the summarizing support for the Law of God (the Ten Commandments), the Law of Moses and the words of the prophets.
9 Vine’s “send.”
10 David Cloud, “Reviving a Church that is Lukewarm Toward Evangelism,” http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/reviving-a-church-lukewarm.html
11 Ibid.
12 Stephanus 1550 NT.
13 Ibid.
14 https://www.christianbook.com; both checked in 2021.
15 http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/orrel20.html
16 Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 1980, p. 7.
17 Ibid., p. 101, 116.
18 Ibid., p. 3.
19 C. Peter Wagner, Leading Your Church to Growth, 1984, p. 21.
20 McGavran, p. 215.
21 See the separate study, Biblical Separation; https://www.thenarrowtruth.com/biblical-separation.html
22 David Cloud, “New Evangelicalism – Its History,” http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fundamen1.htm
23 Promote reconciliation, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, Educate the next generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.E.A.C.E._Plan
24 http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,511167,00.html
25 http://acommonword.com/
26 http://rissc.jo/docs/Common_word.pdf ; specifically included were Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury), Mark Hanson (bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), David Coffey (president of the Baptist World Alliance), and Samuel Kobia (president of the World Council of Churches).
27 http://acommonword.com/lib/downloads/fullpageadbold18.pdf
28 Joel Richardson, The Islamic AntiChrist, p. 151.
29 Strong’s Online.
30 David Cloud, “Church Membership,” http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/church-membership.html
31 Ibid.
32 Each is quoted from Cloud’s article, “Church Membership.”
33 Cloud, “Membership.”
34 Ibid.
35 The Greek word angelos is most often translated as angel, but is also used to describe John the Baptist (Matthew 11:10), the disciples of John the Baptist who went to inquire of Jesus whether He was the One (Luke 7:24), the thorn in the flesh of Paul (2 Corinthians 12:7), and the spies sent to Jericho (James 2:25); so the concept of “one who is sent” comes through. Jesus must have had a particular messenger for each of these assemblies, for they are the seven stars in His right hand; who they are, we are not told.
36 Cloud, “Membership.”
37 Cloud does not hold to the KJV being an inspired translation, but “an accurate, lovely, and God-superintended translation of the divinely-inspired Scripture,” which clearly means that he will not check the original Greek or Hebrew to affirm their choice of words. From my studies, I believe that is an oversight that leads to many erroneous conclusions, as we see here. I, too, believe that the KJV is the superior translation today, but that is not because the translators were so wonderful, but because their translation work was not influenced by the higher critics that came later. I fear that the guidelines that King James I gave to the translators impacted their work more than men like Cloud acknowledge; hence, they turn a blind eye to the translational errors within the KJV to the detriment of their followers.
38 Strong’s Online; Stephanus 1550 NT; the translators have really confused the matter by using the word candle.
39 Cloud, “Membership.”
40 Strong’s Online.
41 Ibid.
42 The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Pastor,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11537b.htm
43 Cloud, “Membership.”
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 https://carm.org/open-theism/what-is-open-theism/
49 Liddell-Scott Lexicon.
50 Strong’s Online.
51 Bud Talbert, “The Pastor and His People,” Part 1, The Whetstone, May-June 2003.
52 These were put forward by Iranæus in his “Against Heresies,” Chapter 26.
53 Strong’s Online; http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/nicoltn.html
54 Strong’s Online.
55 Cloud, “Membership.”
56 Ibid.
57 Vine’s “mote.”
2 Josephus, War of the Jews, 5.5.4; http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-5.htm
3 https://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html
4 James W. Crumpton, “New Testament Church Discipline,” http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ntdiscipline/ntdiscipline02.htm
5 Vine’s “go.”
6 Strong’s Online.
7 Friberg Lexicon.
8 When Jesus responded to the lawyer in Matthew 22:37-40, He identified His declared two commandments as the summarizing support for the Law of God (the Ten Commandments), the Law of Moses and the words of the prophets.
9 Vine’s “send.”
10 David Cloud, “Reviving a Church that is Lukewarm Toward Evangelism,” http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/reviving-a-church-lukewarm.html
11 Ibid.
12 Stephanus 1550 NT.
13 Ibid.
14 https://www.christianbook.com; both checked in 2021.
15 http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/orrel20.html
16 Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 1980, p. 7.
17 Ibid., p. 101, 116.
18 Ibid., p. 3.
19 C. Peter Wagner, Leading Your Church to Growth, 1984, p. 21.
20 McGavran, p. 215.
21 See the separate study, Biblical Separation; https://www.thenarrowtruth.com/biblical-separation.html
22 David Cloud, “New Evangelicalism – Its History,” http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fundamen1.htm
23 Promote reconciliation, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, Educate the next generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.E.A.C.E._Plan
24 http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,511167,00.html
25 http://acommonword.com/
26 http://rissc.jo/docs/Common_word.pdf ; specifically included were Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury), Mark Hanson (bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), David Coffey (president of the Baptist World Alliance), and Samuel Kobia (president of the World Council of Churches).
27 http://acommonword.com/lib/downloads/fullpageadbold18.pdf
28 Joel Richardson, The Islamic AntiChrist, p. 151.
29 Strong’s Online.
30 David Cloud, “Church Membership,” http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/church-membership.html
31 Ibid.
32 Each is quoted from Cloud’s article, “Church Membership.”
33 Cloud, “Membership.”
34 Ibid.
35 The Greek word angelos is most often translated as angel, but is also used to describe John the Baptist (Matthew 11:10), the disciples of John the Baptist who went to inquire of Jesus whether He was the One (Luke 7:24), the thorn in the flesh of Paul (2 Corinthians 12:7), and the spies sent to Jericho (James 2:25); so the concept of “one who is sent” comes through. Jesus must have had a particular messenger for each of these assemblies, for they are the seven stars in His right hand; who they are, we are not told.
36 Cloud, “Membership.”
37 Cloud does not hold to the KJV being an inspired translation, but “an accurate, lovely, and God-superintended translation of the divinely-inspired Scripture,” which clearly means that he will not check the original Greek or Hebrew to affirm their choice of words. From my studies, I believe that is an oversight that leads to many erroneous conclusions, as we see here. I, too, believe that the KJV is the superior translation today, but that is not because the translators were so wonderful, but because their translation work was not influenced by the higher critics that came later. I fear that the guidelines that King James I gave to the translators impacted their work more than men like Cloud acknowledge; hence, they turn a blind eye to the translational errors within the KJV to the detriment of their followers.
38 Strong’s Online; Stephanus 1550 NT; the translators have really confused the matter by using the word candle.
39 Cloud, “Membership.”
40 Strong’s Online.
41 Ibid.
42 The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Pastor,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11537b.htm
43 Cloud, “Membership.”
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 https://carm.org/open-theism/what-is-open-theism/
49 Liddell-Scott Lexicon.
50 Strong’s Online.
51 Bud Talbert, “The Pastor and His People,” Part 1, The Whetstone, May-June 2003.
52 These were put forward by Iranæus in his “Against Heresies,” Chapter 26.
53 Strong’s Online; http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/nicoltn.html
54 Strong’s Online.
55 Cloud, “Membership.”
56 Ibid.
57 Vine’s “mote.”