Protect the Flock by Excluding Visitors?

Micheal Mckinley writes at the 9marks blog:

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.

I love much of what is produced by 9marks but this piece is a bit concerning to me.

This phrase seems problematic:  "Once a person has been through that process, we feel reasonably comfortable that they are safe (that is to say, not a wolf)."  Can we ever really be sure?  Does this imply that adhering to a written statement of faith and overall philosophy of church "protects" the flock?  I can tell you many stories of men and women who gave all the right membership class answers and completely turned out to be quite lost in sin and/or error.  Though not a bad thing to do, signing a covenant of fellowship might be a false assurance of protection.

I can also tell you many stories of people involved in the intimate life of the church at many different levels (small groups and music participation come to mind) where this participation was the exact catalyst that God used to save them.

Not exclusively, but oftentimes, small groups are the best place for non-believers to see the life of the church lived out.  It is the place where our love for each other can be most tangibly observed.  To exclude them from that would be a great disservice to believers and unbelievers alike.

Protection of the flock comes not in structures that exclude people who don't sign the covenant of membership but comes through strong relationships with leadership.  Just like in my immediate family, I am not concerned about having an unbeliever (a non-family member if you will) at our home for dinner because I know my children view me as their primary influence and if anything is said that I don't agree with I will either correct it on the spot or wait until later.  My children are "secure" and "safe" because of their real life connection to me not because they have verbally assented to a set of rules for our family.

Same with our small groups.  If we have good leaders we'll be able to deal with unbelievers in our groups because our people will be secure in their relationship with the leaders.  The leaders will protect their group in the same way that I would protect my own children.  If error comes up, it is dealt with.

Now there is nuance here that should be named.  We should make the distinction between someone who professes Christ but is not a member and one who is a professed unbeliever but interested in learning more.  If it is the person who professes Christ but is not a member, then you are much more likely to get the nut job who wants to import their agenda or wacky theological hobby horse into the life of the church or small group.  A membership class might (or might not) weed this out.  In this case I would certainly understand wanting to only have members be in small groups.  But to exclude all unbelievers who are curious about Christianity from small groups seems to be overly rigid and unwise for a few reasons.

First, we are spring-loaded create Christian cul-de-sacs.  We love our comfort and "safety".  Most of us, myself included, are not as serious about God's mission for discipleship as we should be.  Excluding unbelievers from small groups seems to feed this instinct.  We have to structure missional intentionality in our lives or it won't get done.  Having small groups be welcoming to unbelievers helps promote an evangelistic mindset in our people.  

Second, we don't exactly have unbelievers breaking down our small group doors.  At our church, we have found that most unbelievers are probably intimidated by attending a small group if the are completely unexposed to anything Christian.  But if they do come it can be an amazing view into God's kingdom.  We should not remove this opportunity from them.

Michael writes, "But ultimately my responsibility is to the flock over which the Spirit has made me an overseer."  I whole-heartedly agree but I would add that barring unbelievers from a small group might be directly working against this quoted desire.  Giving our people structure in their lives to live out mission together in front of unbelievers might be exactly what they need and what the unbeliever needs.  This implies wise leadership from our small group leaders (which is why we put so much emphasis on leadership development at The Vine) but when done well might be a beautiful window into the church actually doing what we are called to.  I fear that the policy above might subtly work against it.