Tom Ascol has served as a Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, FL since 1986. Prior to moving to Florida he served as pastor and associate pastor of churches in Texas. He has a BS degree in sociology from Texas A&M University (1979) and has also earned the MDiv and PhD degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas. He has served as an adjunct professor of theology for various colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary, the Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, African Christian University, Copperbelt Ministerial College, and Reformed Baptist Seminary. He has also served as Visiting Professor at the Nicole Institute for Baptist Studies at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida.
Tom serves as the President of Founders Ministries and The Institute of Public Theology. He has edited the Founders Journal, a quarterly theological publication of Founders Ministries, and has written hundreds of articles for various journals and magazines. He has been a regular contributor to TableTalk, the monthly magazine of Ligonier Ministries. He has also edited and contributed to several books, including Dear Timothy: Letters on Pastoral Ministry, The Truth and Grace Memory Books for children and  Recovering the Gospel and Reformation of Churches. He is also the author of From the Protestant Reformation to the Southern Baptist Convention, Traditional Theology and the SBC and Strong and Courageous.
Tom regularly preaches and lectures at various conferences throughout the United States and other countries. In addition he regularly contributes articles to the Founders website and hosts a weekly podcast called The Sword & The Trowel. He and his wife Donna have six children along with four sons-in-law and a daughter-in-law. They have sixteen grandchildren.

Recently, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), published its Light Magazine 2022 Winter issue, Pursuing a Culture of Life. One of the articles was by SBC President, Bart Barber, entitled, “Working Toward the End of Abortion: A Pro-Life Response to Abolitionism’s Critiques.”

But the title of Barber’s piece is a bit of a misnomer. Instead of responding to critiques, the bulk of his article is spent making false claims about the abolitionist position, false claims about the law and our legal system, and even false claims about the general Pro-Life movement’s positions.

Here, we will examine a few of Barber’s most egregious claims.

Life of the Mother

Barber leads off with a “question of contention” on the issue of life-threatening danger to the mother. Yet, in spite of what Barber implies, most abolitionists agree that laws should allow doctors to save the life of the mother in a life-threatening situation, after doing everything they can to save both, even if an unintended yet unavoidable result is the death of the baby. Every single abolition bill has allowed for this either under existing law or, more often, by including an explicit provision.

Barber should be very well aware of this, but he nevertheless leads off his attacks with this erroneous claim, probably because it sounds so frightening. Yet his own “evidence” for this claim demonstrates its absurdity.

He begins by spending two paragraphs attacking a 2019 Ohio bill, House Bill 413. Barber claims that the bill “presume[s] to mandate medical procedures that do not exist in the present state of medical technology,” and he tries to use it to argue that abolitionists write bad bills.

But here’s the thing: abolitionists did not write that bill. Even more importantly, that bill has never been claimed as an abolition bill. In 2019, prior to Dobbs, a bill was not considered to be an abolition bill unless it explicitly nullified Roe v. Wade, which the Ohio bill did not. As a result, trying to ascribe that bill to the “abortion abolition movement” is extremely disingenuous.

Although that should be enough to demonstrate the lack of good faith argument, Barber digs the hole deeper. He claims the Ohio bill “presumes to mandate” a medical procedure that does not yet exist, but then he leaves out an important part of the bill. He cites line 5377 of the bill but omits two important words from that same line. There, the bill only lists attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy as an option “if applicable,” that is, if and when such a procedure were to be medically feasible. But Barber chops off the “if applicable” part.

This is interesting because, right after his attack on the bill, Barber himself says that such a procedure “would be a welcome and life-changing technology should it be developed, and we should pray for the day when it becomes viable.” Yet then he attacks a legal provision that tries to account for the procedure ever becoming viable. By not mentioning the “if applicable” part of the provision, Barber makes this part of the bill sound scary and out of touch instead of being something that accounts for the possible development of the very procedure he says we should pray for.

Later, Barber tries to use a 2022 Louisiana bill, House Bill 813, as evidence for his false claims. Barber says, “If abolitionists had succeeded in passing [HB 813] as they had written it, the definition of abortion in Louisiana would have included procedures to take the life of ectopic babies.” But that is completely false. While Barber does get it right (this time) that HB 813 actually was written and supported by the abolitionist movement, he gets pretty much everything else about it wrong.

Barber appears to believe that the bill’s removal of language regarding “implantation” in favor of “fertilization” in the Louisiana definition of “person” would have somehow criminalized the act of removing an ectopic pregnancy threatening the mother’s life.

Yet the whole reason an ectopic pregnancy threatens the mother’s life is because the unborn child has implanted somewhere other than the uterus. As the article Barber quotes says, “In an ectopic pregnancy, the egg [i.e. embryo] implants outside the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube” (emphasis added).

The existing Louisiana law defining “person” did not specify where implantation had occurred. So even under existing Louisiana law, an embryo implanted in a fallopian tube is just as much a “person” protected by law as an embryo implanted in a uterus. Since HB 813 would not have changed that at all, arguing that the bill would have somehow criminalized dealing with an ectopic pregnancy is ludicrous.

Even if Barber believes the bill could have been more clear on that point, the proper solution would have been for the bill to be amended to add further clarification. But instead of making suggestions or attempts to improve the Louisiana bill, the leadership of the ERLC joined efforts to kill the bill, in which they succeeded.

Culpability of Abortive Mothers

Barber spends the next three sections of his article discussing whether women who get abortions are victims and whether they should be subject to legal consequences if they have been a willing participant in the death of their own preborn child.

The standard line of the Pro-Life establishment has been that no woman should ever be subject to laws against prenatal homicide because all women are victims, and Barber begins by arguing as much.

Tom Ascol has previously written a helpful response to this kind of claim:  “Are women who seek abortions victims? Of course, in the sense that every human being is a victim of sin and its consequences. Beyond that there is no doubt that some women are coerced and manipulated into abortion due to being trafficked or otherwise abused. As the Bible requires in making any judgment, all the relevant facts must be taken into account. But these realities do not mean that as a class all women who procure abortions are victims in some special sense, or on par with the babies that are intentionally killed by the procedure.”

In other words, in the legal sense, some abortive women are victims, and some are not.

Yet Barber begins his arguments by echoing the mantra of the Pro-Life establishment, that all abortive women are victims even in a legal sense because they are pressured into abortions by men, their families, social stigma, and the abortion industry.

Perhaps one of the chief reasons many women in our country believe there is nothing wrong with aborting a child is that even the bills pushed by the Pro-Life movement have taught them this.

The law is a tutor. When a Pro-Life bill says that the abortive mother has done nothing legally wrong, they believe it. Sadly, the Pro-Life establishment has been complicit in perpetuating this grave misunderstanding. The abolition bills Barber opposes are actually the solution.

First, once they went into effect, abolition bills of equal protection would immediately teach everyone that a human being from fertilization to birth is just as much a human being as one after birth.

Secondly, unlike the Pro-Life bills Barber supports, abolition bills would actually deal with the pressure placed upon women by their boyfriends, parents, and the abortion industry.

When was the last time someone seriously tried to talk you into or pressure you into murdering a born person? It has probably never happened to you. Why not? Because it is illegal! And if you were to go through with it, the person who talked you into it would be a party to your crime.

Yet because abortion is not currently treated as homicide in any state, guess what is not illegal. That’s right. Because Pro-Life legislation says it is legal for a mother to get an abortion, that also makes it legal to encourage her to do it. And up to threatening her life or limb, it even makes it legal to pressure her into it.

This is why, even in Barber’s home state of Texas, some previous abortion clinics are still open so, among other things, they can teach and encourage women how to abort their children. Legally.

Meanwhile, at the same time Barber says women who consent to abortion should not be legally culpable, he says that they are morally and spiritually culpable. This is a major disconnect and inconsistency. While of course not all sins are or should be crimes, abortion is the knowing and willing shedding of blood of innocent human beings. Providing justice for such a crime is the very first duty God gave to civil government when He instituted it in Genesis 9 after the world had been filled with violence before the Flood.

Barber apparently has no problem with homicide laws protecting his life. For some reason, he seems okay with considering people to be morally, spiritually, and criminally culpable for killing another human being after birth. Yet he believes the mother who kills her own child before birth somehow is morally and spiritually culpable but is never culpable before the law.

Huh?

Barber himself tries to wrestle through his own obvious inconsistency: “But didn’t this essay just declare the woman to be morally and spiritually culpable in abortion? If so, why should abortion laws not hold them legally culpable? Surely there is some prosecutable role that the woman plays? Is she guilty of murder-for-hire?”

Barber answers his own question with, “It depends.” At this point, Barber seems to unknowingly stray from the “mainstream Pro-Life view” and toward abolition by indicating he may be okay with prosecuting some women (the ones who are not victims?). He then goes on to make some confusing and erroneous statements about how criminal laws work:

“But what about that “Shout Your Abortion” activist? Is there no legal recourse for differentiating between her and a frightened teenager or a victim of sex-trafficking? I think it is unnecessary to single out women for prosecution in laws banning abortion because most states already have criminal conspiracy laws on the books. If performing an abortion is a crime, and if the abortionist is held guilty by the law, it is likely possible under existing law to prosecute any obviously and egregiously culpable woman for criminal solicitation or criminal conspiracy.”

First, saying “it depends” and “prosecute some women” is contrary to the position of almost every single organization in the Pro-Life movement Barber claims to be representing, including the ERLC. Under bills pushed by the Pro-Life establishment, it does not “depend.” Every single woman who aborts her own child gets a free pass, regardless of how clear her intent or how heinous the circumstances.

Since Barber seems lost here, let’s remember: abolitionists are the ones who say “it depends” and “prosecute some women.” Abolitionists are the ones who say to let the justice system consider each situation on a case-by-case basis. Allowing the justice system to “differentiate among the Shout Your Abortion activist, a frightened teenager, or a victim of sex-trafficking,” is the abolitionist position. The Pro-Life establishment position Barber says he supports is the one that says none of them should be penalized for killing their own because they are all legal victims.

At the same time he seems to misunderstand these positions, Barber also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law and the legal system. The bills passed by the Pro-Life movement for decades have explicitly stated that no woman may ever be prosecuted for aborting her own child. So not even the “Shout Your Abortion” women can be held legally accountable for murdering their children. As a result, contrary to what Barber claims, they cannot be prosecuted for criminal solicitation or conspiracy either. That is not how the law works.

Pro-Life Law

Some of you may be questioning the claims made here about Pro-Life bills. Please look at the laws for yourself. Here are a few examples of these kinds of legal provisions from Barber’s home state:

“This [homicide] chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is…conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child.” Tex. Penal Code § 19.06.

In other words, you cannot charge a mother with homicide of her own child, whether she solicits or conspires with someone else to do it or not.

Here is similar language from the 2021 Texas Heartbeat Act:

“[The Texas Heartbeat Act] may not be construed to authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.206(b).

And here is more language from the 2021 Texas Human Life Protection Act (i.e. the “Trigger Bill”):

“[The Texas Human Life Protection Act] may not be construed to authorize the imposition of criminal, civil, or administrative liability or penalties on a pregnant female on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.003.

All of these laws were introduced by Pro-Life politicians, enacted by Pro-Life majorities, and signed by Pro-Life governors. And laws like this are not just in Texas. This is the way Pro-Life bills are written around the country because Pro-Life organizations like the ERLC oppose any abortive mother ever being legally accountable for murdering her own child.

Burden of Proof

Barber goes on to talk about how the burden of proof should not be on the woman (as if anyone had been arguing otherwise): “Let abortion abolitionists seek to prosecute women under these existing laws if they must [not possible, as discussed above], and if they cannot meet the requisite burden of proof, then it is in no way necessary or just to take the burden of proof away from these activists and place it upon the woman instead.”

Yet again, Barber displays his unfamiliarity with basic concepts of criminal law and tries to make it sound like abolitionists would require mothers to prove their own innocence, but that is completely false.

In our American system of justice, every criminal defendant is presumed innocent, and the burden of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is always on the government. If that is what Barber says he wants, fantastic! That is exactly the way it would work under every abolition bill of equal protection because that’s exactly how it works when someone is accused of homicide of a born person.

Medication Abortions

Another glaring issue throughout Barber’s article is that he repeatedly ignores the existence of medication abortions.

At one point, Barber says, “What is the murder weapon? It’s a set of surgical tools, right? Who operated the murder weapon? The abortionist did. The abortionist is the murderer, and any law banning abortion should identify the abortionist uniquely as such.”

Ignoring the whole murder-for-hire issue for the moment, what about the abortions where there is no abortionist wielding surgical tools? Even before Dobbs, the majority of all abortions were medication abortions. The mother takes the pills herself.

Mr. Barber, welcome to 2023, where Pro-Life bills regulating surgical methods have simply redirected the demands of the abortion market toward earlier and easier methods. How do we stop that? Should we criminalize the pills, which also have positive uses? Would outlawing guns stop murders of born people?

Instead,the proper way to deal with prenatal homicide is not to try to imagine every possible tool, chemical, and method someone may use to kill a preborn baby and then try to outlaw it. That would be impossible. The right way to deal with prenatal homicide is the same way we deal with postnatal homicide: to prohibit the act of causing the death of another person if done with criminal intent. And do not give anyone a license to kill. Make the prohibition apply to everyone.

Conclusion

Barber winds down his article by defending his own state representative, Jeff Leach, as well as Oklahoma senators Greg Treat and Jason Smalley, because Barber alleges they were criticized by abolitionists merely because these legislators “prefer the pro-life approach over the abortion abolition approach.”

The irony of this is that, just a few paragraphs earlier, Barber said this: “The abortion abolition movement has, so far, been unable to pass legislation even in the most pro-life states in the Union.”

This is a self-own, because what Barber fails to mention is the primary reason why the abolitionist movement has, so far, been unable to pass legislation in the most Pro-Life states in the union. You see, Leach, Treat, Smalley, and other Pro-Life politicians do not merely “prefer the pro-life approach over the abortion abolition approach.” Rather, they are the ones who are killing the abolitionist bills. And they are doing so at the urging of Pro-Life organizations like the ERLC and Pro-Life leaders like Bart Barber.

Perhaps the culture in many states would start believing a fetus is a person if we all started acting like it. Perhaps we should all agree to support bills that try to protect their lives with the same laws protecting the lives of all other human beings. And perhaps we could truly abolish abortion and pass those bills and if the Pro-Life movement and its leaders like Bart Barber would stop killing them.

Regardless, we will continue to strive to do God’s will God’s ways by seeking to love our preborn neighbors as ourselves by protecting their lives with the same laws that protect ours.

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.