Several years ago a fellow pastor who served with me at Grace Baptist Church told me how he came to study the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints as a new believer. Shortly after he was converted he became involved in his church’s evangelism efforts, eager to be a part of the work of making disciples.
Employing the methods that he had been taught, he noticed that a large percentage of the people who made professions of faith seemed to have no interest in the things of the Lord. Even most of those who agreed to be baptized drifted away from participation in church life after a few months.
When my friend asked his pastor about this phenomenon the answer that he received startled him. “Some Christians start backsliding as soon as they are converted.”
I was reminded of his story recently when I came across comments David Miller made years ago while preaching from Acts 2:42. That verse says, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (KJV).
In his sermon, David explained what the phrase, “continued steadfastly,” meant for those new converts:
I don’t have any background in the biblical languages, and I’m not a scholar, but I do have a homespun definition of what that phrase means. I believe it means they did not backslide right off. They didn’t join the church one Sunday morning during the heat of the revival service and have company come in that afternoon and not be able to make it out to the evening worship service. You’ve encountered the person who comes to church one Sunday and, the next Sunday, they had to go out of town in their new car ten miles to visit with Granny out in the country and she needed help with the noon meal and they couldn’t attend church out there. You know the ones. They stay visiting much longer than they intended and by the time they got home late that Sunday afternoon, about 2:30, they were so worn and weary, they couldn’t make it back to the worship service that evening. And the following Wednesday, they had so looked forward to the mid-week Bible study and prayer time, but the little ten-year-old boy came home with a high temperature of 98.7 and they didn’t think he ought to be out in the night air. Brother, unlike these people, the folks converted in Acts just didn’t backslide right off.
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) dedicates a whole chapter to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It affirms the biblical truth that those whom God saves, He keeps, not merely out of hell and for heaven, but He keeps them in the way of faith. He keeps them repenting, believing, and following Christ.
As the first paragraph of that chapter states,
Those God has accepted in the Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect can neither totally nor finally fall from a state of grace. They will certainly persevere in grace to the end and be eternally saved, because the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable. Therefore, he still brings about and nourishes in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit that lead to immortality. Even though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet these things will never be able to move the elect from the foundation and rock to which they are anchored by faith. The felt sight of the light and love of God may be clouded and obscured from them for a time through their unbelief and the temptations of Satan. Yet God is still the same; they will certainly be kept by the power of God for salvation, where they will enjoy their purchased possession. For they are engraved on the palms of his hands, and their names have been written in the book of life from all eternity.
This does not mean that Christians cannot or will not fall into seasons of spiritual lethargy and even temporary apostasy. Rather, it is the nature of eternal salvation so to work in believers’ lives that they will not successfully remain in a pattern of blatant rebellion to the ways of the Lord Jesus who purchased them.
Again, as the confession puts it,
They may fall into grievous sins and continue in them for a time, due to the temptation of Satan and the world, the strength of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation. In so doing, they incur God’s displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit; their graces and comforts become impaired; their hearts are hardened and their consciences wounded; they hurt and scandalize others and bring temporary judgments on themselves. Nevertheless, they will renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
Christians don’t back slide “right off.” Neither do they backslide forever. As Jesus said,
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one (John 10:27-30).
The grace that saves a person also sanctifies that person. The grace that regenerates also preserves. So, too, the faith that unites a person to Christ also perseveres in trusting and following Christ.

Tweet Share

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.— Romans 14:4 —
On the backside of a Sharp Top Mountain in Southwest Virginia lies the wreckage of World War II vintage air craft. On a training mission in February 1943, five airmen lost their lives as they flew a “low-level nighttime navigational” mission, a mission that ended with tragedy and the debris of a B-25 littered throughout the wooded hillside.
Today, if you leave the trail on Sharp Top and look for the fuselage, engine, wings, and other parts of the crash site, you will find a plaque memorializing the event. On an otherwise unmarked hillside, this memorial is the only sign explaining the mangled metal left standing in the woods. Yet my point in bringing up this piece of atlas obscura is not to focus on the plane crash, but to liken it to the state of our religious liberty today. Today, we can find scattered pieces of religious freedom in our country, but by and large most Christians do not know how they got there, how to assemble them, or how to make them fly. For instance, the recent TGC article undermining the sincerely held beliefs of Christians is a prime example.
In that article, Christian lawyer, John Melcon, explains “Why Your Employer Can Deny Your ‘Religious’ Vaccine Exemption.” In the article, he explained the way “religious exemption laws” work and cited three bad arguments for seeking a religious exemption: (1) personal autonomy, (2) my body is my temple, and (3) abortion complicity. In his estimation, the abortion argument “is perhaps the strongest case,” but by comparison to the welcome use of other drugs (e.g., “Tylenol, Claritin, or their favorite anti-aging skin cream“), he insists that this argument is most likely an example of great inconsistency. (N.B. For a quick response to the Tylenol retort, see this Liberty Counsel post).
In his other two arguments, however, the claim is not inconsistency, but denying that personal autonomy or bodily choice is a truly religious reason for seeking a religious exemption. For Melcon, this leads him to reserve religious exemptions for later, greater threats to the Christian faith. It is this argument that I want to address. Instead of addressing his three examples, which are presented with a striking likeness to someone headed for the Emerald City, I want to consider whether waiting for some later crisis is the best strategy. Even more, I will argue that the increasing statism of our country is coupled with a religious fervor that does not call for patient endurance, but bold witness to the truth.
This Really Is a Religious Liberty Issue
As I have written recently, the presidential mandate for Covid vaccines is one motivated by religious interests. With a religious belief in science, those in power are using the force of the state, the threat of job loss, and the fear of disenfranchisement to coerce public and private employer and employees to get the vaccine. Instead of convincing the public of the vaccines beneficial effects, the state is taking a page from Nike’s playbook coercing people to “just do it.” And sadly, Christians thought leaders are playing right along.
Last week, John Piper made the argument that Christian freedom should lead those who are fearful of getting the vaccine to get the vaccine. But ironically, that fear focused not on the anxiety caused by the adverse effects of the vaccine, or the medical concerns, or the uncertain side effects or long terms effects. The fear focused on those who feel pressured to not get the vaccine. But what group of people is putting fear into the heart of Christians not to get the vaccine? I am sure there could be some, but those individuals do not have the force of the federal government behind them.
In this case, I think Piper is misreading the field. The pressure mounting upon Christians is going in the other directions. And Piper’s article is only, if unintentionally, contributing to that pressure. Still, his article is benign compared to that of John Melcon who calls to question the arguments some are putting forward in an attempt to seek a religious exemption.  Indeed, Melcon’s article is one of many Christian hit pieces putting pressure (read: binding consciences ) on those who conscience is bound to not get the vaccine. With sophisticated legal speech, Melcon gives cover for employers and the powers that tax them, as it persuades Christians that it is fool’s errand to seek a religious exemption. But is it? Is it really out of bounds to seek a religious exemption for the Covid mandate? And should we strategize to hold off on seeking a religious exemption now, in order to seek it later?
I wouldn’t be writing this article, unless I disagreed. And I am not the only one. In a short string of tweets, lawyer, professor, and ERLC legal fellow Sam Webb had a few things to say in response to Melcon’s article. Stripping out the Twitter formatting, here’s what he said in response:
Article XVI of the New Hampshire Confession—a Baptist confession used 150+ years—states: “We believe that civil government is of divine appointment, for the interests and good order of human society, and that magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored, and obeyed, except only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only Lord of the conscience, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.”
If a Christian who holds no settled convictions against this Confession … cannot in good conscience—or, put differently, in good faith—submit to a government-mandated, employer-enforced vaccination because that Christian believes such mandate, action, or vaccination is “opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ”for any number of reasons, then such objection is, in fact, a sincerely held religious belief and an exemption is warranted.
To cause such Christian to act contrary to conscience—even if ill-formed conscience!—is to claim lordship over the conscience which is further violation of that Christian’s sincerely held religious belief that “Jesus Christ…is the only Lord of the conscience.” Even more, what cannot be done in good faith is sin (Rom. 14:23) and so to force vaccination against conscience is to cause sin.
Let’s end the crusade of binding the consciences of brothers and sisters in Christ on disputable matters and let’s love our neighbor by advocating for the freedom of conscience—even if we disagree with the exercise of such conscience.
This is the exactly right! As I have counseled and signed off on multiple religious exemptions, I have not necessarily agreed with every one of the arguments being made, but I have, after listening to the formulation of the believer’s argument, perceived what their sincerely held, biblically-informed belief is. And because of that recognition of sincerely held beliefs, I have supported those Christians who have put their livelihoods in jeopardy in order to follow their Lord. I have urged them to count the cost, but I have not tried to shame them or bind their conscience. This, after all, is what Romans 14:4 calls us to do, and this is what John Melcon has failed to do.
Let’s end the crusade of binding the consciences of brothers and sisters in Christ on disputable matters and let’s love our neighbor by advocating for the freedom of conscience—even if we disagree with the exercise of such conscience.
With no appreciation for how Romans 14 works or any concern that he might be binding his brother’s conscience, Melcon’s argument results in a pressuring Christians to drop their sincerely held beliefs, because after all, it hurts the rest of us. Unfortunately, this is the same logic that governments are rolling out in this country and across the world (think Australia): “You need to think of the collective good and stop resisting on personal grounds. After all, there is no religious reason not to get the vaccine. It’s just medicine.”
For those who are most sensitive to the issues of religious liberty, however, all coercive arguments will fail. And should fail. As Lutheran writer Matthew Cochrane has observed, “Our government has forgone convincing us and has instead resorted to bullying, censorship, abuse, and coercion. But threats and propaganda do not absolve us of the God-given responsibility to make our best judgment based on the information available to us—even the information government bureaucrats, Big Tech, and corporate interests hide because it casts reasonable doubt on the vaccines.” And unfortunately, many Christian leaders are not far behind them in their tactics or persuasion. And this, I believe, is because they don’t see the bigger picture.
The Bigger Picture: Our Secular State Is Not Irreligious  
What’s the bigger picture? Namely, the way that the vaccine mandate—not the vaccine qua vaccine, i.e., the vaccine as a medical prophylactic—is a religious sacrament and a by-product of America’s growing statism.
For the last decade, Charles Taylor’s magnum opus, A Secular Age, has been a constant reference for understanding the “immanent frame” of our world. The Gospel Coalition even published a book in Taylor’s honor, and for good reason. Taylor, in his terminology, has explained how the secular world has lost its sense of divine transcendence and God’s place in our world. Accordingly, the modern secularism has made it is easier to disbelieve than to believe. Whereas Christendom explained the world in spiritual terms and religious practices, the five hundred year project which resulted in today’s secularism has left a vacuum where God once stood.
Christians know that God is not absent. As Francis Schaeffer put it, he is there and he is not silent, but in today’s naked public square, arguments for God are not permitted and this partially explains why religious exemptions are not appreciated. It was a different day when the language of the first amendment was penned. At that point, religion still possessed honor as a civic good. Today, however, religion, and especially Christianity, is seen as a nuisance and a source of bad behavior. This is why the Equality Act and SOGI policies are on a collision course with Christianity. Sexual liberty has become the new religion and that means that religious protections are now being transferred from people of faith to their secular offspring.
If we are to enjoy any religious liberty going forward, we cannot take a strategy that waits for worse cases to arise.
This is also why Melcon makes the case the way he does. He thinks that by playing our religious exemption card later in the game we will be better off. But what he doesn’t consider—in addition to binding consciences—is the fact that the government is not a religiously neutral or interested in well-timed religious liberty. Rather, it is actively carrying out a religious crusade, albeit one that speaks with scientific and not sacred speech. This is the point that needs to accompany Taylor’s observations. Our world has not only adopted a secular worldview, but in the absence of Christianity, and its secular offspring (i.e., civil religion), secular individuals have deified the state to celebrate and support their hedonistic desires. As Zygmunt Bauman has noted in his book Liquid Life, modernity is not only “presented as a time of secularization (‘everything sacred was profaned,’ as young Marx and Engels memorably put it) and disenchantment.” It is also a time where the enlarging state has adopted and enforced religious values. He continues,
What is less often mentioned, however, though it should be, is that modernity also deified and enchanted the “nation,” the new authority—and so by proxy the man-made institutions that claimed to speak and act in its name. “The sacred” was not so much disavowed as made the target of an “unfriendly takeover”: moved under different management and put in the service of the emergent nation-state. (Bauman, Liquid Life, 44; cited in Peter Leithart, 1 and 2 Kings, 64)
This is what most of our Christian leaders have not sufficiently appreciated. With the election of Joseph Biden, we have seen an unending array of executive orders and economic decisions that have further tied the citizens to the state (think: government bailouts) and forced the state on the citizens (think: all the policies of the CDC). Topping the list of government intrusions is the vaccine mandate. And because this mandate have come with all the trappings of a religion, we now have a state that is forcing its religion on its citizens.
No Religious Liberty Without Liberty of Conscience
If you don’t see how the secular state is instantiating its religious point of view, I encourage to open your eyes. Again, I have outlined this point in a previous article. For now, let me simply connect the dots from religious liberty to liberty of conscience.
Returning to the wreckage on Sharp Top Mountain, we should consider that it would be impossible to know what it was or why it was there without a memorial explaining the crash. Such is the case with religious liberty as well. Many can see the fuselage, the wings, and the engines of religious liberty scattered throughout our country. But very few can put all the pieces together and understand how it works and how it got here.
How many who have read the Bill of Rights, if they have read the Bill of Rights, know what it took for James Madison and the Founding Fathers to make a place for religious liberty? How many critique a religious exemption understand the connection to Romans 14? Evidence for our inability to understand Romans 14 has been seen for the last year. Too many evangelicals have interpreted Romans 13 as a divine imperative to do whatever the government tells you, without considering first who gives the government their authority. Then, interpretations of Romans 14 continue in confusion, because Christians are not trying to protect their brothers freedom. In Melcon’s case, he is (unintentionally) siding with the state to bind other’s freedom. And why? Because now is not the time to raise religious concerns.
All in all, we have lived off the rations of religious liberty for nearly two and half centuries, and it is time to relearn how all the pieces got there and how to reassemble them so that that religious liberty might fly again. Unfortunately, arguments like the one offered by John Melcon and John Piper and countless other Johns demonstrate that even the most lucid among us still don’t quite know how this thing flies.
If we are to enjoy any religious liberty going forward, we cannot take a strategy that waits for worse cases to arise. Rather, we need to reintroduce, rewaken, and reinforce the arguments for religious liberty. This must be done in the public square and in countless conversations with Christians and their neighbors. In fact, this is one of the growing benefits of the religious exemptions. In our local church alone, I can report countless opportunities Christians have taken to share the gospel and their religious convictions about the vaccine.
And you know what? It has had effect, not just on other Christians, but on atheists, and agnostics who have seen the merit of personal liberty of conscience and the demerit of forcing people to get a vaccine against their will. This is what it will take for religious liberty to gain a hearing in public, as well as Christians being willing to suffer for their beliefs. This is what turned James Madison’s heart, when he saw the six Baptist pastors jailed for their faith. And this is likely what will turn other hearts today, witnessing people willing to suffer for the sake of conscience.
Yet, such conversations and suffering will not come if we continue to bind the consciences of other Christians. And this is the other place we need to talk about religious liberty: in the church.
In the church, we need to encourage Christians to form their consciences around God’s Word. But we must also permit Christians to form their consciences differently. When we fail to do that, however, we fail to follow Romans 14, and we further fracture the witness of the church, not to mention hurting individual members who are trying their best to follow God with all their heart.
We must make biblical arguments on the subject, learning afresh how Christians have resisted tyranny, so that we can recognize and resist tyranny in the present.
In such cases, the path of another might not be your path, but it is the path that some servants of the Lord have taken and will take. And in that time, we should as Sam Webb put it, “end the crusade of binding the consciences of brothers and sisters in Christ on disputable matters and let’s love our neighbor by advocating for the freedom of conscience—even if we disagree with the exercise of such conscience.”
This is what Melcon’s argument does not do. It may understand the legal ramifications of religious exemptions and it purports to know what will happen if people seek them. But it does not demonstrate an appreciation for liberty of conscience itself. And the point I am making is that if we are going to see religious liberty in public, it will require the church in America to grow up in its understanding of liberty of conscience among its own members. This means pastors teaching on the subject, Christians standing firm for the truth, and other Christians—whether they share the same conviction about Covid vaccines or not—supporting others who are willing to suffer for their beliefs. Indeed, there have been many Christians in church history who have held different beliefs on different Christians practices. But one thing that has benefitted the Church in America has been the freedom to exercise their religion without the coercion of the state.
Today, with the state taking on its own religious practices, we are not in a place where we can wait for a better time to exercise what remains of our religious liberty. No, teaching the church and our neighbors how to recognize the scraps of religious liberty is where we must begin. We must make biblical arguments on the subject, learning afresh how Christians have resisted tyranny, so that we can recognize and resist tyranny in the present. Indeed, now is the time for us to connect religious liberty with liberty of conscience, and to stop making arguments that aid the state by leading Christians to sin as they ignore their consciences.
If we fail to do that now, we will have little hope of standing later. And for that reason, for those who are standing up and submitting religious exemptions, we need to pray for them and promise them that we will hold them up as they follow their Lord and our Lord—whether or not they are doing it in the same ways that we would. Such is the way of liberty of conscience and the way Christians need to truly affirm the faith of their brothers and sisters.
Soli Deo Gloria.

Tweet Share

Many Christians see great value in reading the Bible and learning theological truths and in individual benevolences and good works. Many of the same, however, pause when the subject of church membership is brought up. There are duties, right responses to the Gospel Jesus has given, surely, but has Christ required believers to be covenanted to a single, local gathering of believers? The Covid-19 pandemic (and more importantly the secular culture, the state, and even the churches’ responses to it) has only highlighted the relevance of this question. Does God really expect believers to be involved in a local church? With all the advances in audio-visual technology, is it really necessary? Scripture has much to say on the importance of church membership; it is one of the responsibilities that God expects His people humbly to obey. And it involves commitments beyond those given a few hours on a Sunday. In this brief survey, we will consider first, the reality of church membership as a Christian duty; and secondly, what duties church membership entails.[1]

The Necessity of Church Membership

Church membership is a duty that comes with being chosen as a people for God’s possession and being adopted as sons by Him (1 Pet. 2:9; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). Jesus bears all authority in heaven and on earth, and He sent out His apostles to make disciples and appoint elders in every city (Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Tim. 1:5). Those disciples are to gather themselves together to worship the Triune God, to serve one another, and to observe the commandments of Christ. The Puritan minister Thomas Boston observed, “There is a certain connection between privilege bestowed on a man, and duty required of him. If one be admitted to the privilege of any society, he must with the honour receive the burden of duty belonging to it…if we are members of a holy society whereof Christ is the head, we must be holy as he is.”[2]

This is consistent with Jesus’ teaching His followers to prepare themselves for His return in glory, in the parables of both the wise and foolish virgins of the bridegroom, and the slave awaiting the master’s return. In the former, per Matthew 25:1-13, since they are to participate in a great marriage feast (cf. Rev. 19:9), the virgins must prepare themselves for the bridegroom’s arrival. Those virgins who are negligent about their work are barred from entering the wedding feast (25:11-12); Jesus’ conclusion, therefore, is “Be on alert” (v. 13). This is not a suggestion but rather a warning against false hope and self-delusion that sometimes accompanies superficial expressions of faith. The same is articulated in comparing the Church to servants of the master entrusted with responsibilities. “And the slave that knew His master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will [Gk. mē poiēsas pros to thelēma autou] will receive many lashes” (Lk. 12:47). Those who profess faith in Christ but refuse to be about His business on earth will be unfit for conducting it in the life to come.

But at this point someone might remark, “Is church membership part of this ‘preparedness’; is it a necessary responsibility for a Christian? After all, Scripture gives no direct command for Christians to join a church.” While that might be true, per se, Hebrews 10:24-25 provides a clear exhortation: “And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another.” The writer assumes that the holding fast of our confession (v. 23) and the stimulation and encouraging of one another to righteousness is done within the context of assembling ourselves together regularly. Additionally, the necessity of church membership comes implicitly through the various expectations, commands, and illustrations given by the apostles in Scripture.

The Duty of Church Members Toward God

Our duty as the body of Christ toward God comes from Paul’s urging of believers to present their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable, to God (Rom. 12:1). Paul does not see this command as too great a thing to ask for; rather, he defines it as “your spiritual service of worship,” something appropriate to the reality of a believer’s being created anew according to the likeness of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). But this new creation in Christ is not left to his own devices; he is bonded with others who have received the same grace. Church membership follows from our being living stones, built up together as the temple of the living God. The Apostle Peter stresses this in 1 Peter 2:5: “you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” The Apostle Paul maintains the same idea in the letters to the Corinthian and Ephesian churches. The local church is the “temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Cor. 3:16), being grown into a dwelling place for God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:22). This dwelling place of God is a temple in which spiritual worship is to be conducted (Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5). Influenced by these letters, the Apostolic Father, Ignatius of Antioch concurs, “[since you are stones of a temple] you are all participants together in a shared worship.”[3]

Man is created in the image of God, and this imago dei implies that man must worship the God whose glory and image he reflects. It is a truism that all men are by nature religious, ascribing worship to something, whether the one true God or a menagerie of false gods. The Apostle Paul observes this in Romans 1:21-23, that even those who do not acknowledge God nevertheless substitute [Gk. allassō] the glory of God with that of either man himself or created things, worshipping them in the process (v. 25). As a result, worship is not something optional; it is not a matter of whether we will worship, but of what (or Who) we will worship.[4]

Consequently, what Christians as a church owe to God based on His commandment (Ex. 20:8-11; Heb. 4:9-11) is the gathering of the local assembly at regular intervals to worship corporately together. Conducted within that worship are the things instructed by Christ and His apostles: observance of the ordinances (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), the proclamation of the Word of God in preaching, corporate prayer and confession of sin, and the public reading of the Word.[5] These means of grace are given for our sanctification and Christlike growth; many of the means, especially the ordinances, cannot properly be done apart from the gathering of a local church. In all this, Christians ought to be circumspect in their faithfulness to the doctrines God has taught in Scripture. Thus, Scripture must be our “final word” in evaluating all teaching and instruction. [6]

The Duty of Church Members to Their Pastor(s)

In considering the duties of a church toward their pastors, the question may be asked whether there are duties unique toward pastors that do not apply to every believer. In answer, John L. Dagg observes, “The ministers of Christ [are] separate from ordinary Christians” because these men “have been called to special service in the Lord’s cause.”[7]This office comes with necessary spiritual gifts. Dagg writes further, “[ministerial gifts] are not given to confer a privilege merely, but they are a solemn call to duty – a call demanding the service of the whole life.”[8] Incumbent upon that duty of pastors is to care for their people. When the Apostle Paul instructs the Ephesian elders, he commands, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). This instruction, when combined with that of the apostles to appoint deacons to administer the physical needs of the church, thereby freeing the elders to the Word and to prayer (Acts 6:1-7), necessarily implies a local gathering of known people to be governed and cared for.

Since pastors have this responsibility, church members therefore have responsibilities toward them in turn. Chief among these is the duty of submitting to and obeying the elders’ rule. This obedience is not primarily for the exalting of pastors (since they are their bondservants for the sake of Christ, 2 Cor. 4:5), but for the good of church members. Without such submission, it “would be unprofitable for you” (Heb. 13:17). This submission includes counseling and, in extreme cases, biblical church discipline by the elders and the church. A believer may be redeemed from a backslidden way through a Christlike love that refuses to allow him to continue in unrepentant sin with impunity.[9] Incidentally, church discipline – part of the duty of the church to the pastors as well as to one another – outlined in these passages is another proof of the necessity of church membership, for how can a “majority” (2 Cor. 2:6) discipline and restore a delinquent member if there is not a faithful, active body of believers “on the rolls”? 

Just as profitable, for pastor and congregant alike, is the need for persistent prayer and encouragement on the pastor’s behalf. The Puritan John Owen remarks, “the great need of the pastor for prayer is not for his own good, but for the saints’ good…help the one who carries the burden, Eph. 6:18-20; Phil. 2:17; Col. 1:24.”[10] Owen’s observation reinforces the organic relationship between the pastors and laypeople as the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12 ff.).

Furthermore, pastors should be sustained in their earthly needs by the church. This is something, of course, that must be left “to voluntary contribution, and the dictates of individual liberty,”[11] but it remains a duty nevertheless. Financially supporting a pastor and his family is not a charitable donation[12] – it is what he is owed as a worker of Christ and His kingdom. Paul, appealing to the Old Testament civic law, applies its general moral character in reference to supporting elders: “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim. 5:18). What a poor example of submission to Christ by believers who purposely neglect the minister who pours out his life in service for our good (Phil. 2:17).

The Duty of Church Members toward Each Other

Christians have a duty toward members of the same congregation. The New Testament consists primarily of letters addressed to individual churches whether in cities or in regions of the Roman Empire, or to the church generically. These individual Christians, as established on the pattern of the first church in Jerusalem, possessed a “fellowship” (Gk. koinōnia) with each other just as they had with God through Christ and the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:42, 1 John 1:3, and 2 Cor. 13:14). Within those epistles are numerous references to “one another,” and from these we can discern many of the responsibilities expected of believers corporately. All of the duties are summed up under Peter’s instruction[13] in 1 Peter 1:22-23, 

“Since you in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again, not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is through the living and enduring word of God” (emphasis added).

It is because believers are born again of God that they are to behave this way toward each other. Believers are woven together into a new people, one new man (Eph. 2:15b), and their attitudes to each other are a manifestation of that newness of life wrought in them by Christ through the Spirit; “we share our mutual woes, our mutual burdens bear.”[14]Love is the sum of all Christian duty (Matt 7:12; James 2:8), and from this broad category of love, we can discern in the Scriptures that believers must:

Serve one another with humility and submit to each other (1 Pet. 4:10; 5:5; Eph. 5:21; Phil. 2:3).

Encourage each other with the truths of the Gospel (Heb. 3:13; 1 Thess. 5:11).

Strive to be of one mind, through teaching and admonishment, as well as forgiveness of sins (Rom. 12:16; Col. 3:16; Rom. 15:14; Eph. 4:32).

Support widows and orphans in the church’s care (1 Tim. 5:3-16; James 1:27).

Bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2; Rom. 15:1).[15]

Even harsher measures, such as admonishment and church discipline, are exercised under the rubric of love and concern. John Calvin comments, “We must not indulge or overlook the sins by which our brethren are pressed down, but relieve them, – which can only be done by mild and friendly correction.”[16]

This list is not exhaustive, of course, for every duty given in Scripture has application to circumstances that must be considered. But the New Testament clearly emphasizes the corporate participation of individual Christians in a local church. It is through living out and applying the principles of these “one another” passages that we comfort and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11).[17] Many of the duties even toward God and pastors described earlier – doctrinal fidelity, financial support, attendance – are intertwined with responsibilities toward fellow church members. If believers do not teach, encourage, correct, and rebuke one another, how shall doctrinal purity be maintained? If I do not attend church regularly,[18] how will I be blessed through the gifts of others, or bless them with my own gifts? If a church member does not faithfully give, how will Gospel work be supported, or the widows and orphans, or the ministers? 

The Duties of Church Members to the World

The last duty we will highlight is the one that believers in a church have to the world. Since the church is the light of the world (Matt. 5:16), believers must display their brightness for all men to see. The duties involved in this are comparatively simple. The foremost duty of believers as a church is to cooperate in the evangelization of the world around them. As inheritors of the commission of Christ to His Apostles (Matt. 28:19-20), we are to go and make disciples for Jesus. Therefore, churches should encourage an evangelistic and apologetic spirit and cultivate habits to the same, so that the members may always be ready to give an account or defense for the hope within them (1 Pet. 3:15).

Moreover, churches should be Christlike in their deportment, serving as good examples of their Lord. This is in keeping with the teaching of Christ that believers are salt and light, and that those characteristics should be manifested to all. Connected with this purpose of being ambassadors for Christ, Christians must live as good subjects and citizens of earthly authorities and dominions, striving to be at peace with all men. They do this, not because such earthly authorities have ultimate authority, but out of obedience to Christ as King of kings (Rom. 13:1, 14). Through these duties, God utilizes his representatives to be instruments of salvation and judgment to the world (1 Pet. 2:11; Matt. 5:16).

It is in this missional living in the world, where the Gospel is hated and those following the Christ are hated for His sake (John 15:18-19), that the imperative of church membership is clearly seen. The temptations of sin and the cares of the world pull at the heart of the Christian believer, and the remedy is the encouragement and staying hand of those brothers and sisters who strive along the same pilgrim path. Our united worship of God, our remembering the work of the Savior for us that was completed, our bearing with each other, is what “ignites our hearts” anew week by week when the burdens of the world would have otherwise “cooled our hearts to stone.”[19] The hope of Christian fellowship “revives our courage by the way”!

The duties of church membership, far from being extreme or unimportant, are in truth nothing less than the substance of our reasonable service to God. It is how we manifest the grace of God wrought in us; it is how we live properly amid like-minded believers and in the world hostile to the lordship of Christ. No high-quality recording or flawlessly edited video can replace interaction with people who know our needs and even our weaknesses and can apply the means of grace to us. Rather than striving to pursue Christlikeness apart from the church, we should relish in the truth that God has united us in Christ the Savior and seek out persistently the comfort and grace of Christian fellowship. We should delight in the ties that “bind our hearts in Christian love.”

[1] Two excellent resources on the duty of church membership can be found in John Angell James’ The Church Member’s Guide (reprint, Solid Ground Christian Books, 2003), and Earl Blackburn’s Jesus Loves the Church and So Should You (Solid Ground Christian Books, 2010). Both have been immensely helpful in the process of writing this article.

[2] Thomas Boston, Complete Works, Vol. 3 (Richard Owen Roberts, 1980), 612-613.

[3] Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 9:2 in The Apostolic Fathers (ed. Michael W. Holmes, Baker, 2007), 191.

[4] Consequently, the Second London Confession (chapter 22, paragraph 1) declares: “The light of nature shows that there is a God who has dominion and sovereignty over all…He is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, invoked, trusted, and served by men with all their heart and soul and strength.” A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 Rewritten in Modern English (Carey Publications, 2010), 50.

[5] Details concerning the rationale and content of public worship can be observed in chapter 22 of the Second London Confession (“Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day”); a helpful discussion of the public and private means of grace can be found in Blackburn’s Jesus Loves the Church, 89-100.

[6] The validity of the “regulative principle of worship” is relevant to mention at this point; God alone determines what is acceptable worship offered to Him. For sound resources on worship and the regulative principle specifically, see Thomas J. Nettles, Praise Is His Gracious Choice (Founders Press, 2021), and Ernie Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen, Worship: The Regulative Principle and the Biblical Principle of Accommodation, revised ed. (Founders Press, 2022).

[7] John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (reprint, Gano Books, 1982), 241.

[8] Ibid., 243.

[9] Compare 1 Cor. 5:1-5, 12-13 with 2 Cor. 2:6-11.

[10] John Owen, Duties of Christian Fellowship (reprint, Banner of Truth, 2020), 21. This modernized version of his treatise, Eshcol: A Cluster of the Fruit of Canaan, can be read in its original form in the Works of John Owen, Vol. 13 (Banner of Truth, 1983), 51-87.

[11] James, Church Member’s Guide, 65.

[12] Ibid, 66.

[13] This can also be observed in Paul and John’s letters, specifically Rom. 12:10, Gal. 5:13, 1 Thess. 4:9, 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 John 3:11, 4:7, 12; 2 John 5.

[14] The Second London Confession (chapter 27, paragraph 2) observes: “Saints by profession are obligated to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in worshipping God and in performing spiritual services that promote their mutual edification…[and] aid each other in material things according to their various abilities and needs.” Confessing the Faith: The 1689 Baptist Confession for the 21st Century (Founders Press, 2013), 54.

[15] A helpful tool for the duties of church members toward each other is found in John Flavel’s A Two-Column Table of the Sin and Duties Attaching to Church Membership, in volume 6 of his Works (Banner of Truth, 1986), pgs. 586-89. Another helpful description is in James’ Church Member’s Guide, pgs 67-98.

[16] Commentary on Galatians 6:1, Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol. 21 (Baker Books, 1981), 173.

[17] From these verses the Second London Confession states: “Since [saints] are united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces and are obligated to carry out these duties, both public and private, in an orderly way to promote their mutual good, both in the inner and outer aspects of their lives.” Confessing the Faith, 53-4.

[18] This is assuming, of course, that a church member carries no physical limitations that would prevent him from regular attendance.

[19] I first heard this illustration as a young man from Dr. Cary Kimbrell, currently Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Laurel, Mississippi, at a Regional Founders Conference in Shreveport, Louisiana in the early 2000s, and from it I have always been impressed with the necessity of church membership and attendance for soul prosperity.