Protect the Flock by Excluding Visitors
By Elders are called to protect the church from people who would do them spiritual harm (wolves among the sheep). One of the ways we try to do that in our church is by not allowing people to get very involved in the life of the congregation until they are members.
So in our church, non-members are welcome to attend and participate in the public services of the church. We are happy to have them in our Sunday morning gathering, our Sunday evening gathering, and our fellowship meals.
But we don't let people attend small groups or serve among the children or lead music until they are members. In order to join the church, a person must be examined by the elders and approved by the congregation. Once a person has been through that process, we feel reasonably comfortable that they are safe (that is to say, not a wolf).
But until the point, we don't want to encourage people in the church to look to that person as a leader by putting them up in front of the congregation to lead singing. We don't want them teaching the children of the church. We don't want people to completely let their guard down and trust them in the way we ask members to trust each other in small groups.
People who are "regular attenders" but who haven't joined the church sometimes feel like our policy is exclusive. But ultimately my responsibility is to the flock over which the Spirit has made me an overseer. And besides, they are welcome to pursue church membership at any time.
And if you're looking for an awesome sermon on church membership, Jonathan Leeman preached one at my favorite church yesterday.
Michael McKinley's Posts
Comments | RSS Subscribe
How do you address a guest who attempts to visit a small group setting?
We tell them that small groups are reserved for people who have gone through the church membership process. And then we encourage them to join the church.
I understand "non-members" not serving among children or leading music. But not allowing them to attend a small group meeting?? Come on!
If small groups are part of your church ministry, then potential members/interested attenders should be able to do their due diligence in checking out that part of the ministry to determine if in fact they do want to join...just as they are able to check out other parts of the ministry (nursery, childrens church...if there is one, prayer meetings, etc.).
Attending a small group, for me, would be part of my "pursuing church membership." How am I to know what goes on in a small group if I don't attend one? What happens if I "join" and then go to small group and come to find that there's very little spiritual value of going to one?
I guess I wouldn't encourage people to join a church just because of the quality of the small groups. But I am not 100% opposed to visitors attending to see what they are like. My main point is that visitors shouldn't casually attend a small group where Christians are being encouraged to be vulnerable and counsel each other. How you apply that principle takes wisdom.
I agree on most of the points. But it seems to me a church that has closed small groups would not be very welcoming. Small groups also can be an opportunity to invite people to visit who may hesitate to initially visit the church. I do understand your point about fostering trust in those groups. Perhaps the solution is to have different types of small groups. Some that are open and some that are closed.
I love 9Marks, but this policy is ridiculous, damaging and unbiblical.
The Biblical assumption is that you find wolves as they emerge from the flock. I would understand a local church making a local decision concerning an individual, especially if that individual brought a reputation with them. We all can think of folks we might bar from membership because of their track record and history, but there is zero Biblical indication that an interview process is AT ALL what the Apostles had in mind. How can you possibly determine if someone is a wolf before you've fellowshipped with them for a period of time?
In fact I would go so far to say that if your small group leaders cannot handle the responsibility of correcting and refuting and guarding, you need find new small group leaders, or you need to train them better.
It's not that small groups are completely open and everything is peace, love and tie-dye, but at the same time I do believe it is the testimony of Scripture that we assume innocence, thereby setting the framework for teachable moments and discipleship, even if those teachable moments come at some cost. The Apostle Paul tells us to be vigilant, not closed.
~a
Andrew, I'm curious you make a heavy charge- "damaging and unbiblical" but offer no evidence of why you believe this. Where in the Bible does it say that a church's small groups (for fellowship and accountability) ought to include those who have no identified with the church in membership? I'm not trying to be ugly but genuinely asking for your case from Scripture.
Actually, the Bible doesn't talk about "church small groups" at all....The churches in biblical days probably didn't look precisely like our churches today, and Scripture certainly doesn't give us a detailed picture of what they should look like in terms of detailed organization (beyond the guidelines for elders and other leaders). So, how would we see a biblical argument either way for who should or shouldn't be admitted into a particular type of group within a church?
Probably the most relevant passage that I can think of is the warning, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers..." (2 Cor. 6:15). So, then we have to determine, "Is joining a class the same thing as being 'yoked' together with the other members of the class?", and "What if a visitor professes to be a believer, but we don't really know them yet...should we be 'yoked' together with them anyway?" Either way a church chooses to handle these questions, wisdom and discernment should definitely be used in the decision-making process!
Hey JeremyB,
Yeah, I know, it's a heavy charge. I'm sorry if I come off as harsh. I didn't include Biblical support for this claim in my first post because I figured the verses I would point to would be pretty much "Duh!" verses. My bad.
Here's the thing though, if you try to read the book of Acts through the lens of the principle that is being suggested by this article it (the principle being suggested, not the book of Acts) will completely fall apart. The early church was too busy preaching the Gospel and discipling new believers to front load community participation with a rigorous membership process. That's why they needed small groups! It was an authentic need based on their success at converting and welcoming new people into the community! We don't generally use small groups for the same reason. Our churches are not bursting at the seams with new converts to the extent that we have a constant need for people meeting house to house and so forth. Because of this grace from God given to the early church most inclusion into the community of faith in the NT tends toward the informal, not the formal. And the NT emphasis is actually on inclusion, rather than exclusion.
Jesus said as much in Matthew 25:
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’
Jesus demonstrates this open, welcoming, inclusive attitude all through the Gospels. Read Luke 15:1-10, but especially verses 1 and 2. It didn't matter who you were, Jesus demonstrated this principle by sitting with whomever wanted to sit with him. He excluded no one except on a few particular occasions when he needed to teach the 12 something in particular, and then he also spent time alone with the 3. But again, this was not in violation of Biblical principle, it was simply based on needing to have appropriate conversation and time alone with appropriate people.
The important questions to ask here are, Why these actions? What’s so special about them besides just ‘being nice’ or showing compassion? Is that the point? Be nice to people? Jesus suggests these particular actions because these are the kinds of actions that family members take toward one another; visiting in prison, welcoming one another in, feeding, clothing, etc. Jesus is laying out an ethic that is to mark the Christian. This emphasis is actually carried over from the OT, where the people of Israel were to be open to strangers and sojourners.
Leviticus 19:33-34:
When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
God is speaking to the nation of Israel here, giving them a command. Well, nothing has changed. The Church is God’s holy nation now, but he hasn’t changed His ethic. The assumption for Israel was that they should treat strangers just like they treat citizens, there is to be no difference. As long as they live according to God’s law, they should be included into the community. The reason being that they know what it is like to be a foreigner in a strange land. "Hey, you know how you were treated in Egypt. I want you to exhibit the exact opposite traits."
The book of Hebrews echoes this sentiment as well: “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.” Think of the two men on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, or Abraham and Sarah or Lot or Manoah.
I could cite other texts as well. There are times when God gets angry with Israel for NOT abiding by this ethic. The overwhelming Biblical evidence is for inclusion, not exclusion. Processes of membership are valid, I believe in them, but not if they are in direct opposition to the principle/ethic God has clearly laid out in Scripture. We have a command on the books to be welcoming, treating strangers like family. We have no command to create a formal membership process. I’m sure 9Marks still teaches tithing, why are they not teaching inclusive community?
There absolutely are certain things strangers should not be allowed to do in the community. If they start leading, they must be told to stop. Leadership is for people who have proven themselves over time and have committed themselves to the church in particular ways. Not for people who showed up three weeks ago and decided this would be a good place to steal sheep from. Church leadership must always be vigilant. This is Biblical. But you cannot show me any text in the Bible which encourages the people of God to be exclusive toward strangers as a general rule. There just aren’t any, the overwhelming Biblical support is for inclusiveness. You deal with wolves once you know they’re a wolf. Go ahead shoot'em, but you don’t assume everyone’s a wolf. The assumption should be that people who are beginning to interact with your community are doing so because God the Holy Spirit is drawing them, we should treat them as such. "Let all guests who arrive be received like Christ." (Rule of St. Benedict)
Put it this way, if I had to go through an interview process, commit to regular financial contributions and agree to submit to the leadership (basic membership commitments) BEFORE being allowed to attend a small group, I’d run in the opposite direction as fast as I could. I’d honestly think I was dealing with a cult.
Anyway, that's enough for now. Biblically, exclusivity has no legs to stand on. The principle of inclusivity is simply too strong and clear.
Please don't get me wrong. I love the brothers at 9Marks. I learn so much and am aided in thinking through so many issues because of this ministry. I just think this position is junk. And I can be a blunt jerk. ;O) My apologies.
~a
There is a lot of exclusivity in the New Testament as well as the Old. Exclusivity is massive for the purity of the church and the Gospel. To the statement that "Exclusivity has not legs to stand on" simply is misleading. You need to be a little more specific because is sounds like ecumenism more than anything else. Plus you need to read the post by Anne to help you understand that CHBC is actually not practicing the exclusivity you are so strongly condemning. A little grace and maybe a little more research into CHBC's overall policy might be suggested before you start waxing elephants ... I mean waxing eloquence in your condemnation of what is actually a good policy. Membership protects and facilitates the purity of the church. Bottom line, is that people should be encouraged to membership if they are believers. What's the point of attending a church you don't feel comfortable being fully committed to?
If you looked a little further into how this is being practiced and if you looked a little further into what CHBC IS doing to assimilate people into the church, my guess is that you will no longer see the policy as "junk."
PTim,
It is interesting that you don't actually engage in anything Andrew said. What he is talking about is not "ecumenism", it is simply making a case from Scripture. As for your statements, like this one...
"Membership protects and facilitates the purity of the church. Bottom line, is that people should be encouraged to membership if they are believers."
That is fine and dandy except that "membership" understood as a formal process of acceptance by one local church to the exclusion of the rest of the Body is not found anywhere in Scripture.
Bottom line, if the "members" of a small group are not equipped to deal with "wolves" in a small group, that means the elders of CHBC are not carrying out the task they are called to in Ephesians 4.
I agree with exclusion from small groups. If I understand Capitol Hill's "program" we're not talking about Sunday School here. The life-investing fellowship shared in these groups are a blessing of membership; a way of saying 'this is a bond not experienced or enjoyed in the world but is unique to Christ's body'. If a small group was mixed with strangers or people just shopping for a church how could trust be established in sharing one's life with others? How could true Biblical fellowship be cultivated? Great point CHBC!
I have to agree with previous comments that excluding "newbies" from small groups is more harmful than good. In fact, a small group study environment may be a better place to learn more about a potential member, since they are more likely to show their true colors among a smaller group doing deeper study than sitting in the pews among the general congregation on a Sunday morning.
That being said, if a potential new member is allowed to try out a small group study, it is very important for the small group leader to control the conversation. Strong-willed "wolves" can enter a small group and cause all sorts of doubt and confusion if they are allowed to take the floor and present their heresies unchecked. The small group leader should invite and answer questions, but the new person needs to be more listener than lecturer.
As others have mentioned, church membership is a two-way relationship, and we need to be inviting rather than excluding--keeping always in mind that, as Michael mentioned, new folks should not be put in positions of leading the flock in any way. Leading ministry is for the spiritually mature, those who have taken been "thoroughly equipped" and gifted by the Spirit, not for anyone with a strong will and self-confirmed opinions on doctrine and orthodoxy.
Let caution be our byword as we welcome and seek to affirm new members in our church.
I completely understand the heart of this message and it is circumstantially timely. so thank you! I think the line is being draw a bit too deeply though. I think there is a place for uninitiated visitors to come for a time of exploration to a well lead group in order to experience healthy body life, see what the process of relational discipleship looks like and to hear the gospel in a lived out sort of way. I can't imagine in the early church there being a carte blanche exclusion from home church groups. I would think that the determination of exclusion should be individually considered, prayed about and discussed among leaders and only implemented if the person is continuing in some willful unrepentance that has been addressed, is unteachable, divisive etc. But someone who is exploring, in great need of a touch of God in community, bring em on. Don't exclude...that is the wrong message and ineffective in the gospel witness.
Why not take the even more biblical step and remove the imprimatur of church authority from small group gatherings?
Perhaps a little clarification of terms might be helpful.
When the original article says "small groups" is it referring to something like Sunday school classes that meet on Sunday mornings before the main worship service? Or is it referring to something more along the lines of accountability groups consisting of only a handful of people?
It seems reasonable to allow visitors to attend Sunday school classes on one hand, while urging them to become members before they try to join a small group on the other hand.
a wolf in sheep's clothing is already attending a small group and
if i cant protect my small group from a wolf i shouldnt be a Shepard to one
but i would love to have unbelievers attend to see the light of the Gospel- Jesus Christ the son of God
Robert,
I agree that small group leaders may be able to help spot a "wolf". But the fact is that the Bible says it's the job of an elder. I don't have the right to hand that off to others.
So I don't understand a small group leader to be a shepherd (unless that person also serves as an elder).
And I am fully in favor of evangelistic small groups as well.
Michael, thanks for sharing your perspective of small group ministry and how your church chooses to implement small groups.
Do you see "shepherding" as a work of the ministry (Ephesians 4:12)? Also, how do elders at your church provide ongoing shepherding to the members? What does that look like in a very practical sense? I'm kind of also wondering what the ratio of elders to members is?
Thanks for the conversation man! And Go Eagles :)...We can at least agree on that.
Mike,
Perhaps you could help readers by explaining what you see the small group to be - a casual get together, or part of a definite discipleship process for members?
Also, you could point out that members are nowhere prohibited from exercising [and in fact may be encouraged to exercise] hospitality or personal Bible study with non members or non believers.
Michael
Hi Michael,
When I speak of small groups, I mean meetings during the week where church members share what's going on in their lives and pray for each other. And of course, members are expected to be exercising hospitality towards visitors and unbelievers. Thanks for the clarifying questions.
Hi Michael, great post. love the discussion that is ensuing.
I don't understand your point here though:
"members are expected to be exercising hospitality towards visitors and unbelievers"
EXCEPT during officially sanctioned church small group meetings?
Sorry, I think our respective cultural languages may be grating against one another here. This principle seems very self-defeating to me. Here is what I am understanding:
"Be welcoming, be hospitable, but not on Tuesday nights because that's when your small group meets and we wouldn't want a new person to experience the kind of warmth and intimacy that they've been looking for for years by crashing your party."Huh?! Sorry, I just think the values are totally misplaced. Help me to understand, please.
Hi Andrew,
I guess I have a category for there being a time when it's OK not to have visitors around.
For example, when I go on a date with my wife, no one else is invited.
If I'm meeting with a close friend for honest accountability, I don't think we'd want a stranger around.
Same principle, I think. We can be open and hospitable and evangelistic and yet still mark some things off for deeper transparency.
Warmly,
m
It sounds to me that a good deal of thought has been put into this policy. From my own perspective, small groups in whatever focus they may have will typically develop into a "circle of trust", if healthy. I understand that some groups containing all church members may still not encourage the vulnerability we all desire, but by front-loading basic doctrinal reinforcement into the membership process, it at least sets a level of expectation of what small group participation will entail, and it conveys special benefits for those who have consciously chosen to be church members. My own church doesn't follow this pattern, but I see it as mostly quite appealing.
Man, y'all are right, this is bad advice. It's almost like he's saying shepherds should put there flock before the uncommitted visitors. The last thing we would want would be to build up a God loving, God seeking church family that sways away from the seeker friendly movement. I mean, what's next? Are they going to try to take away our
Message bibles and Osteen tracks?
Hi mr. McKinley,
when you speak of what the bible says of the duties of elders,
what do you read about "membership" to a church?
I can't see that it would be biblical to have memberships beside beeing baptized into the body of Christ.
As I understand it beeing no member means beeing not saved (yet) and an unsaved person of course never should lead anything or taking positions in the congregations.
But if you make a difference between meber christians and not meber-christians you - in my opinion - seperate the flock unbiblically.
(Please notice: English is not my mothers language) ;)
meber= meMber ;)
I feel that Jesus has shown us a pattern already in Scripture-the original small group was made up of 12 disciples....one of which was Judas.
Besides, sometimes wolves in sheep's clothing can pass themselves off quite easily as sheep-while honest seekers can seem "too wolflike." Mature leaders can and should be able to handle this. Myself, I would be concerned about a drift into cultishness with a church with that policy.
OTOH, I totally agree that children's ministries and worship ministries should be made up of members. But again, vigilance should not cease simply because one is a member!
It's probably a stretch to compare the disciples to a modern day small group meeting.
As a former member of CHBC (we just moved away in August and it was very sad to leave), I should note - for everyone's education - that CHBC regularly hosts "seeker-friendly"-type small groups for those who are new to Christ and/or new to the church. These provide an opportunity for those interested in the Gospel to hear it preached well AND to get to know a number of the members of the church. For a time when I was there, CHBC also had a rotating Thursday-night dinner at member's houses for those who were interested in the Gospel. Non-members can also attend Sunday morning discipleship classes, Wednesday-night Bible study, and are free to get to know all other believers on their own time (of course) - so these are all good opportunities for them to get involved in the church.
Also, for those who might worry about exclusion, I would try to explain the incredible emphasis on hospitality at CHBC. When my husband and I first started attending (we did not join for about a year after we attended), we were welcomed by the congregation and taken out to lunch/coffee by several different members (both new and old ones) - not just once, but many times. Because of this, we immediately felt included in the congregation although we could not participate in formal small groups. The hospitality of the members at CHBC was a real blessing - individuals really took it upon themselves to get to know the new people, and I praise God for this! Once we became members, we tried to do the same, since it really is an important part of being the community there.
I've written enough, but I hope that this provides some more detailed perspective on how this particular church is working out the issue of membership privileges.
First off, I thank God for 9 Marks. Second, I have a question regarding the reason for the policy discussed (that is, wolf spotting). In your opinion, is a wolf simply someone who denies at least one core doctrine of Scripture (one or more of the solas, deity of Christ, etc.) or can they just be a divisive person, one in constant contention with leadership/pastor over polity (like a Diotrephes)?
First off, I thank God for 9 Marks. Second, I would love to see an article with your thoughts on "wolf identification" - do they just deny core doctrines or are they also just simply divisive in general?
Sorry about he double post - thought I lost the first one.
Hi Michael,
BlogFront.org is committed to uphold the quality standards of blogging. We strive to maintain and promote only the most credible blogs in their respective fields.
Spam blogs or "splogs" has been a problem for some time now and people are getting confused about which blog to trust.
We would like to thank you for maintaining such a reputable blog. We know that it takes time, effort and commitment to keep such a blog and as such, we have added your blog as one of the top Church Blogs.
You can see your blog listed here: http://blogfront.org/church/6
You can also claim your BlogFront Top Blogs badge at http://blogfront.org/badges/church
Thank you for keeping your blog credible. Let's keep the blog revolution alive!
Maria Blanchard
BlogFront.org
Blog Revolucion
I feel like the point of Jesus' comments about wolves and sheep is that there are people who are "in" or who say "Lord, Lord" who are actually not part of the flock. This translates to members of the local church who are on the rolls but who are not saved. I don't think wolves in sheep's clothing has anything to do with seekers or unbelievers. So, I agree that the elders need to examine new members and the congregation needs to approve them but there is no doubt that some who are members are or will become wolves. That's where church discipline comes in.
I also agree that non-members shouldn't provide leadership in the areas specified in your post (children's ministry, music, etc.) So, I guess I'm just disagreeing with your terminology. I wouldn't call an unbeliever a wolf in sheep's clothing. There is a distinction between sheep and goats in the New Testament but I see the wolf as one who claims to be a Christian but is divisive, destructive, or harmful to the flock and must be disciplined or not associated with until repentance and reconciliation occurs.
Michael McKinley acts as if he and the elders of his church walk on water to get to church. You state, "Once a person has been through that process, we feel reasonably comfortable that they are safe". What is the process? Polygraph? Proof of circumcision? If she floats she must be a witch? Where in the Bible does it state that a human has the ability to judge others??? Or do you believe that, "the Spirit has made me an overseer" gives you the power of God? I leave that power where it belongs [Romans 8:28-30]. And what is safe? Is your church so delicate that if I were to read the "wrong" chapter of the Bible to members that everything would fall apart?
What better way to strengthen your faith than by explaining and defending your doctrine to others within a small group. What better way to show the love of the Church than in a small group vs. what can be a very intimidating crowd during services?
Even though I can't carry a tune in a wheelbarrow, what is the difference of me stating that I was a guest who felt moved to worship in song and a member worshiping in the exact same song?
This comment will probably be removed and I'll be labeled a "wolf". You will notice that I do not have any answers, just questions. Anyone who says: "The Bible clearly states…" or "It is MY responsibility to protect the flock from…" has it wrong and had better look at themselves and ask if their ego getting in the way. In my studies I have discovered that while the Bible has given me some good answers, it has more importantly given me better questions.
With all due respect to you, Bob, your tone and demeanor are not very helpful here. You are making very disparaging remarks about a man I assume you do not know personally who has evidently been set as pastor over a congregation of Christ (Eph. 4:11). He's not spitting out heresy or (that we know) engaged in unrepentant sin, so I think a little more respect is called for.
First, let's notice that your comment wasn't removed for being a "wolf." (I tend to notice lots of would-be martyrs on Internet boards claiming they will be persecuted and removed. But let's own up that you weren't.) Notice that the article never even HINTS that people with good, striving questions are wolves.)
Why are you so concerned about a church membership process? Is it unbiblical to "recognize [true and false believers] from their fruit" (Mat. 7:16)? Of course not. Remember Paul's words to the elders in Ephesus:
"Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears." (Acts 20:28-31, ESV)
There Paul explicitly tells (i.e., "clearly states") the elders (=overseers = pastors) to "pay careful attention ... to the flock". After all, God himself MADE them overseers of the church! And the reason was "to care for the church." So what does a shepherd who cares for his flock do when there is a danger of fierce, hungry wolves entering the pen?
That might not look the same in every context--either the threat or the precautions and remedies. Perhaps in a different context, a different church has "small groups" that have a different mediate purpose or a different strategies. Perhaps the threats lie elsewhere. It's possible. I think you certainly ought to give this pastor the benefit of the doubt for the context of his church--if nothing else.
Thanks be to God that the Bible has given you both answers and great questions! But I would challenge you that some of YOUR answers are not biblical. Specifically, you claim that "anyone(!!!) who says ... 'it is MY responsibility to protect the flock from...' has it wrong..." That is a very bold claim that flies in the face of Acts and several other passages in the New Testament--a claim that you cannot substantiate on Scripture. So while I applaud your questioning, make sure that when you do find answers they are based on the Bible and not your personal prejudices.
Post new comment