We’ve seen that the arguments that ASSSCs (Anti-Social Sunday Sleep-In Christians) put forward that church is moot as long as you are in Christ is typically flawed, because we are part the church as soon as we accept Him into our lives. The heavier theological questions stems from the USAECs (Ultra-Spiritual Anti-Establishment Christians). Their basic premise is that the Bible does not state one needs to be a church member.

I actually don’t have much argument on that, just google ‘Church Membership’ and you’ll see a million sites to talk about it. For me, it’s really simple. If I love God, I belong to the church. I also identify with a local church, in this case GTPJ. Do I love GTPJ? Yes, of course. The people there, the ministers, the cell, my friends: they have given me so much, that I’m just thankful to be identified with a group like GT. You say, oh, he’s from GT? Yeah! You got that right! In fact, in my younger days, I was so loyal to the church that we would get into fights in our football/basketball games with other churches. That’s irrational loyalty! (And kiasu-ness of course, I admit).  I don’t advocate beating up the pastor from another church down the street but you know, we were young punks back then.

Why are we so ready to fill up forms to become members of Isetans, Jaya Jusco, Frequent flyers etc, but balk at church membership? USAECs, the Bible doesn’t mention about joining Isetan membership, or Tropicana Golf membership, what are we to do? The point is this: Are we simply opposed to church membership because it is a CHURCH and adds no material value to our lives the way an Isetan, Golf, Frequent Flyer membership does? Or if you are a Manchester United fan, if joining Manchester Fan Club is FREE and gives you 10% off your mamak when you watch a Manchester match, would you do it? I know I won’t, because Juventus rules forever and ever, but sure, if you are one of those United supporters, I’m sure you’d jump at that!

The argument is not whether it’s mandated by God or not (we can argue till the cows come home). The argument is: Why Not? Why the commitment phobia? Why the crisis in commitment? Do you think that the pastors will randomly select a name from the memberlist for a drug test? Or just simply seeing your name on a list makes you nervous? Why do we shy away from identifying ourselves with a local church?

Being a GT member should be something to be proud of. I am proud to represent GT when I go for conferences. I don’t grin uncomfortably and say, “Umm, yeah, I attend GT. No, ummm, not a member, but yeah, an attendee. Regular attendee.” When you fill out conference forms, under ‘Membership’, do you put “Universal Church”, or “I disagree with this discrimiative statement”, or simply, “I am an USAEC”? I am a GT member! I love God, the fellowship of his people, my church leaders, my zone pastors, my zone leaders, my cell members!

If GTPJ emphasizes on formal church membership, then I’m game. Whether the church needs it for number crunching, ministerial resource management, cell leadership, ministry, exacting church discipline, propagting church agape funds, missions ministry etc: what is the big issue? What is our LOSS? Are we paying money to be members? Come on. Seriously. I’ll be an embarassment to my own conscience if I argue I disagree with church membership but still pay RM105.00 for my monthly golf membership.

I love my church. Why would I put them in a position of awkwardness, in which the leaders go: “Umm, well, so-and-so shows great commitment in going missions and he is struggling a little with money, let’s give him a subsidy for missions?” “No, he’s not a member.” “What? Man, that’s uncomfortable. Let’s tweak our rules a bit then here and there.” “NO, we shouldn’t.” “Maybe we should?” “Hmmmm.”

Or the matter of serving in a ministry regularly and not being a member. What if there was an agreement within the leadership to have members of the church only minister? Where is the accountability? Now the church would need to give allowance and exceptions. Stop that. USAECs, instead of spouting out the absence of God’s mandate in formal church membership, should view the argument from the church perspective. If you, as an attendee of such and such local church, can help the church alleviate any ambiguity, and submit to its view of having members, whatever the reasons, and if you, as a mega rational USAEC, cannot find one major disadvantage of being a member of the church you love and that loves you: WHY NOT MEMBERSHIP?

If USAECs still insists on Bible Scriptures, what about:

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves” (Hebrews 13:17)

I know this is not a great theological argument, like I said, you can read that off the net, just google church “Formal Membership”. But sometimes, I just think it’s quite ludicrous how one can be so opposed to church membership and not think twice to be a member of Orange Julius Ice Cream Club to get that 10% off Dairy Queen Milk Shakes.

Do we love our church as much as those Milk Shakes?

I once knew a guy back in uni who refused to attend a church, stating that it was a man made institution and that God already resided in him. He simply stated it was enough for him to commune with God alone in his apartment on Sundays (possibly in deep prayer, interspersed by snores), without committing to a church. We will call this the Anti-Social-Sunday-Sleep-in Christian or ASSSC for short.

On the other hand, we have a second group of fellows, Christians who would happily attend a church, worship there, have church friends, join cell activities etc, but refuse to be a member of the church. When asked, they suddenly become ultra holy and declare, at their sternest voice: “It does not say anywhere in the Bible that we need to be members of the church.” We can call this group the Ultra-Spiritual-Anti-Establishment Christians or USAECs for short.

Should we belong to a church?

It’s a strange phenomenon, that we (myself included) like to point out our holiness in accordance to the Bible when it suits our fancy. It’s like the argument: “The Bible never said we can’t drink.” Actually, the Bible doesn’t say a whole lot of stuff. Like what we should wear everyday. Wouldn’t it be great if the Bible had that and we don’t need to make these silly decisions like what colour to wear today? What kind of Bible is this that doesn’t tell us these simple things??!? It doesn’t tell us what we can or cannot drink either. I can consume petrol if I wanted, but that would really be stupid, wouldn’t it?

But seriously, let’s make it clear. The Bible doesn’t say Christians need to be members of the church or they will go to hell. In fact, it doesn’t have anything to do with your salvation. The church, pastors, ministers DO NOT SAVE. There’s no saving power there. Only Christ saves.Technically, a Christian might not go to a church building due to reasons like physical health, but his salvation is still secured.
However, in many scriptures, the church itself is referred to not as a physical building, but the believers. That’s what a church is. It’s not Glad Tidings the building, it’s Glad Tidings the People. The believers. 1 Peter 2:5:

“you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

Alun Davies (who spoke at our camp) made an interesting observation that the word ‘church‘, the english word has its origin from a Celtic word, kirk, which in turns comes from a greek word meaning Lord’s house. Unfortunately, kirk’s meaning is the physical building as opposed to the greek’s view of the ‘Lord’s house’. So from kirk, comes ‘church’, and until today we view it as a BUILDING. (I like all these scholaristic analyses, they make articles look very professional). However, the New Testament does not reference a building when it talks about church. It talks about the gathering of people. In the New Testament sense, we can’t ‘go to church’ because we ARE the church. We are part of the ecclesia, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ. The building’s function is to house the church, which is us.

Back to the story of my friend who argues he can be a Christian without belonging to a Church, the New Testament makes no provision for that, because it simply does not make any sense. It’s not a building or a place, but rather, a spiritual house, a spiritual state of belonging into God’s family. If you are part of the body of Christ, then you are part of the church. Paul talks about different parts of the body functioning differently with different gifts. The New testament idea is this: If you are a Christian and love the Lord, you would want to be part of the bride of Christ. You would relish in belonging with the body, of functioning and fulfilling your role there, to serve God with fellow members, to be a living stone in the spiritual house. The Bible doesn’t talk at length about how belonging in a church will be beneficial to members, like carparks, rights to vote, having subsidy for church camps and such because there weren’t many USAECs or ASSSCs back then. People were a lot simpler, and God uses the simple to make fools of the wise.

So we have arguments these days that Christians are against the establishment of a structured membership of a church; that these are formal ceremonies and not needed etc. These Christians continue to declare their salvation without declaring their allegiance to the church. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You are birthed into a spiritual body. You are the church. You are already part of the church, if you are truly saved. In that way, we are participating in God’s plan for the church, for the body, for the bride of Christ in the earth today. It’s not about an individual, and I think that’s why many people balk at it. They still want to retain one feet in the world they have left, and another in the church. I call it the Calamity of Commitment.

If we can only see beyond our individual views. Being part of the church is being part of God’s movement that is beyond our borders, across countries, all over the world. If the church wasn’t important, then more than half the New Testament is irrelevant. Then Peter is a useless rock, because there’s no church to be built on it, and the gates of Hell has indeed triumphed. But thank God for His plans that are far outreaching than our tiny world view, because He is using the church to fulfill His plans in this world.

So to the ASSCs, it’s pretty straightforward. You are already part of a church. Being a Christian without being in a church is a concept completely alien to the New Testament. If we think we’re being very smart alecky about it, the New testament ministers would just look at us as if we have grown wings and don tutus and take off into the sunset. It’s unheard of! If you refuse to attend church, you’re simply refusing to go to the building. If you refuse to minister and care for the body or be a functional member of the body; then you are a brick in the middle of nowhere, and a brick without a building is a useless brick. It’s opposed to what God has called us to be. So eventually we will lose our usefulness, we will lose our meaning and we’ll continue to meander through life thinking we have it all figured out, when actually we are more confused about God’s purpose than anyone else.

What about the ultra spiritual USAECs? They ‘belong’ to a church, they ‘go’ to church, and in some cases even serve as ministers in the church. Yet, their spikes shoot up in indignation when prompted to be ‘members’. They flat out refuse and challenge the leaders to point to scriptural evidence on official church membership as God’s plan.

Part 2 coming up!