Who can join Christ’s church and under what conditions? This is a question that has sometimes roiled the church. In the modern period most churches, including confessional Presbyterian and Reformed (P&R) churches, have tended to take a rather different position than churches once did and, in this essay, it is to the confessional P&R churches that I want to speak, where I am arguing for the older Reformed approach to church membership.

Church Membership

The first thing we must establish is that Christ has instituted a visible, institutional church and that church membership properly exists. This is not a given for most American evangelicals. Indeed, it is a maxim among both evangelical mega-churches and micro-churches in America that the very idea of church membership is artificial.

In Matthew 16, however, our Lord Jesus gave keys to his apostles. They were in Caesarea Philipii. There he queried them about what people say about him (Matt 16:13). Then he queried them about what they say about him. He was not taking a poll before an election. He was asking them what they confess about him. Remember, the Jews were under pressure not to confess that Jesus is the Messiah. The parents of the man who was born blind refused to confess Christ because “they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue” (John 9:22; ESV; see also John 12:42).¹ So, when Peter said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16), our Lord responded, “Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven.” Peter confessed Jesus to be the Messiah by the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).

He did not stop there. He also said,

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Jesus’ response, “And I tell you,” is directly parallel to what Peter had confessed about him. Now Jesus was confessing about Peter: when he confesses Christ, he is the rock. When he denies Christ, he is Satan, which he did in the very next passage: “But he turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man’ (Matt 16:23; ESV).²

When Christ gave the keys to Peter, he was anticipating the Peter’s assumption, at Pentecost, of the office of Apostle and the existence of the visible church. This seems clear in v. 19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (ESV). Jesus did not give the keys of the kingdom to an amorphous, unstructured, coalescence of people, as both primitivist evangelicals and Protestant liberals have often imagined. He instituted a structured organization with offices, and with objective doctrinal and disciplinary norms.

This is the underlying assumption of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18–20. Christ invoked the authority given to him in order to commission not random individuals but representatives of his visible church to conduct the ministry of Word and sacrament. He sent his disciples, who were to become Apostles, to preach his Word and to administer the two sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) that he instituted. This is the work of an organized, disciplined entity.

When our Lord Jesus said, “tell it to the church” (Matt 18:17) he was invoking a very familiar image with deep roots in the Hebrew bible, the covenant community gathered at the foot of Sinai. That covenant assembly (Qahal) had membership rolls. There were signs of admission. There were norms of conduct. There was a doctrine to which members had to adhere (e.g., Deut 6:4). There was a process of exclusion. That structure did not evaporate in the New Covenant. The New Testament church is the New Covenant Qahal.

Paul’s instructions on church discipline in 1 Corinthians 5 presuppose an organization with norms and structure. We have clear narratives and instruction about offices, e.g., deacon (Acts 6:1–7; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8–13), elder (e.g., 1 Tim 3:1–7), and minister (Col 1:7; 4:7; 1 Tim 4:6). If there were offices, and there manifestly were, there was an organization in which those offices functioned.

What else is Matthew 18 describing except the process of disciplining a member? If there was no idea whatever of membership, what does it mean to “tell it to the church”? What was Paul saying when he told the Corinthians to exclude an impenitent sexually immoral person? Exclude him from what?

As I wrote some years ago,

There is positive evidence of record keeping (membership lists) in the New Covenant Church. The problem in the daily distribution of bread in Acts 6:1 assumes some sort of record keeping of eligible widows. In 1 Timothy 5:9–16 Paul speaks explicitly about a list of names of Christian widows who were eligible for financial assistance from the Church. He even lays out the qualifications to be on the list. If the Church kept such lists for financial aid, can we reasonably assume that these widows were not on a membership roll? Moreover we cannot help but notice that again Paul’s instructions regarding widows presupposes some sort of organized visible body of Christ who administered this aid to its members.

For more on this topic see the resources below.

The Approaches

In the ancient church (i.e., AD 100–600), instruction of what we call new members, which were called catechumens (those under instruction) was much more extensive than we are used to today. Philip Schaff wrote of a distinction between that part of the service which catechumens, i.e., those under instruction before profession of faith, were eligible to attend, and that part of the service open to the “faithful.”³

According to Edward Hamilton Gifford, the

period of probation and instruction varied at different times and places: according to Canon 42 of the Synod of Elvira, 305, it was to be two years: “He who has a good name, and wishes to become a Christian, must be a Catechumen two years: then he may be baptized” After this probation had been satisfactorily passed, the Catechumens were invited to give in their names as Candidates for Baptism.⁴

Other sources indicate that because our Lord instructed his disciples for three years, catechumens should also undergo three years of preparation for confession of faith and reception into membership. Catechumens were taught the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments.⁵ They certainly were not given a quick six-week (i.e., six-hour) survey of the faith and then received into communicating (Lord’s Supper) membership.

Catechetical manuals were in use by the 8th century but catechetical instruction gradually declined until the Reformation.⁶ In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Reformed churches catechized their young people and converts extensively before admitting them to the table. Anyone who has ever read Calvin’s Catechisms can see immediately how much young people were expected to know and the degree to which they were expected to assent to the teaching of the church.

It was the common practice of the Reformed churches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, for young people to memorize the Heidelberg Catechism in its entirety and to recite it before the church as part of the instructional program of the church. It is still the practice in some quarters, even if it has been largely abandoned almost everywhere else.

The Church Order of Dort (1619), which both summarizes and reflects the orders that preceded it, required that consistories appoint school teachers to teach, among other things, the catechism (art. 21) to the young people. Article 61 stipulates that only those who have made “confession of the Reformed religion” be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Article 68 required that there be a catechism sermon preached (ordinarily) every Lord’s Day afternoon for the instruction of the entire congregation.

The historic practice of the British churches did not vary much from that of the European Reformed churches. It was expected that young people would memorize the Westminster Shorter Catechism before profession of faith.

Modern P&R practice, however, has diverged from the older practice and it is to the brief case for returning to the older practice that we now turn.

Confessing With The Church

In case the reader might think that confessional membership in P&R churches is some odd view hitherto unknown, I quote at length the explanation given by Idzerd van Dellen and Martin Monsma, in their Church Order Commentary, published in 1954.⁷

Ordinarily we speak of confession or profession of faith, whereas article 61 speaks of “confession of the Reformed religion.” There is no conflict here. He who makes “confession of the Reformed religion,” acknowledges all the essentials of the gospel of salvation with application to himself. So does he who makes confession or profession of faith. but the phrase “confession of the Reformed religion” does include a little more than the expression “confession or profession of faith.” The phrase of our Church Order implies that he who makes confession of faith in our Churches must not only assent with self-appropriation to the general truth of Christianity but he must be able to declare that he believes the Reformed interpretation to be correct, biblical. Some church groups do not require assent to their particular creed as a condition for membership. Thus The Presbyterian Churches generally do require of office bearers that they agree with a specific doctrine of the church, but the ordinary members need not declare agreement. Though they should question and reject some Reformed positions, they would be entitled to membership.

It should be plain however that a church, if its members are admitted without confessing the Reformed fundamentals, cannot remain Reformed. After all the individual members, and not the clergy and eldership, constitute the Church and the confessional standards of a Church can only be Forms of Unity when the membership confesses the standards. If the members of a Church do not confess its standards to be Biblical the Church loses its power and also its raison d’etre. A Church which does not require of its members that they agree with its doctrinal tenets opens the doors to those who advocate false doctrines; heresy is bound to enter in, and eventually modernism may even predominate.

We may therefore thank God that our Churches still expect our young people—and all others that desire membership in our churches—as they make confession of faith, to agree with the specific doctrines of our Churches. Not as if there is no room for differences of opinion within the walls of our ecclesiastical city. There certainly is and should be. But regarding the great doctrine of the Church of Christ as these find clear expression in our doctrinal Standards, those that seek and receive full membership rights in our Churches should be agreed. The peace and purity of the Churches require that all members be fully agreed on all vital, major, questions of doctrine. No Church can reasonably expect to remain pure and loyal which admits to membership such as are at odds with the Church on one or more vital doctrines. And this consistent position of our Churches does not spell injustice toward any child of God. They who do not agree with us should simply seek and join the Church which they are agreed. Let one who is methodistic in doctrine join a Methodist Church. Let one who is baptistic in doctrine affiliate with a Baptist Church, etc. Our Churches have always taken the stand expressed in article 61, although we believe with all our hearts that there is a holy Catholic Church and that the Christian Church is by no means limited to the Christian Reformed denomination together with some other loyal Reformed organizations. Professor Bouwman claims that for this reason the first question of the Form for Confession of Faith speaks of the articles of the Christian faith, taught in this Christian Church, and not of the Reformed faith and the Reformed Church.⁸ We thus give expression to our unity with the entire Christian Church, especially in regard to the sacraments. We do not desire to separate ourselves from the general Christian Church, although we take a decided stand when testing those who asked to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper.

Though it is unusual to quote a text at such length, I want you, reader, to see for yourself what the understanding of Reformed church membership was only 70 years ago. Further, I agree entirely with Van Dellen and Monsma and behind them the theory and practice of the Reformed churches of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.⁹

We live after Christendom. The culture is only becoming more hostile to Christianity. We should take a note from the early church and lengthen our catechesis and raise our standards for church membership. We may not assume that catechumens have much general knowledge of the Christian faith nor may we assume that of any of our members. As we look about we see how quickly institutions seem to have slipped from their moorings, how things that might have been assumed only a few years ago may no longer be assumed. If this is true of secular life, how much more is it true in Christ’s church?

notes

1. All translations are the author’s unless otherwise indicated.

2. The Roman Catholic appeal to Matthew 16 in defense of the institution of the papacy is frankly absurd because since it also proves that he is anti-Christ. The point of Matthew 16:13–20 is not to speak to the papacy but to the establishment of the visible church.

3. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper and Row, 1931), 1.245–46.

4. Ibid., 246.

5. Edward Hamilton Gifford, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril: Introduction, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), xv–xvi.

6. Schaff, Creeds, 3.246.

7. Idzerd Van Dellen and Martin Monsma, The Church Order Commmentary: A Brief Explanation of the Church Order of the Synod of Dort (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 251–52.

8. Van Dellen and Monsma cite, Bouman, Gereformeerde Kerkrecht, II, pp. 282, 3. (Gererformeerde Kerkrecht is Dutch for Reformed Church Order).

9. Synod Nyack of the United Reformed Churches, in 2012, received as pastoral advice, which is non-binding, a report on church membership which differs slightly with the argument of this essay and with Van Dellen and Monsma.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

---

RESOURCES

• Resources For Those Discovering The Reformed Confession
• Resources On The Doctrine Of The Church (Ecclesiology)
• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• R. Scott Clark

  

  R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

  More by R. Scott Clark ›