I had a conversation with someone from our church last night who was floating the idea of a "graduated membership" in the church. His main concern is to have a membership which is open to all irrespective of commitment to Jesus or the basic doctrinal standards of the church.
He sees this as a way to have folks folded into the community, to be a part without feeling like they are on the outside looking in, a way to signal to the world that we are a truly welcoming community, happy to have "whosoever will." The "graduated" part does set up an additional "hurdle" for serving in certain capacities (for taking communion, depending on the congregation), etc.
While his proposal was initially shocking to me, it did make me stop and think. In dealing with homosexuality, for example, churches will sometimes call themselves "welcoming but not affirming." Ok, then what does the "welcoming" part look like, and would anyone ever know it?
My first theological reaction was something like: "No, church membership is a human representation of the spiritual reality that someone is a member of the Church, which is the body of Christ--i.e., a Christian." But then there was a counter voice in my head as well: "Jesus comes not just to redefine a religious group, but all humanity; he is the sacrifice of atonement for our sins, and not ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
So is there something theologically sound in an open and/or graduated church membership? Does this idea freak you out? Does it sound good? Heretical? I know, I know, half of you are thinking, "That's what you get for having church membership in the first place..."
24 comments:
I do know that in the early church the service was done in two parts. In the first part everyone could attend, and the second part (where communion was served) everyone that wasn't baptized had to leave. It was this kind of secrecy that gave rise to just what these Christians were doing behind closed doors, saying something about eating someone's body and drinking their blood... ;-)
I also wonder how close your suggestion is to the Middle Ages, with its big distinction between clergy and laity. There were those called to the religious life, and then those who just got a taste, for whom the religious prayed and interceded.
Anyway - the first example seems closer to what you are suggesting. On the one hand, I like the idea of making initiation into the faith something substantial - a serious task that takes time - where in the meantime they could still participate despite the fact that they aren't in yet. I also like the idea of some way for the Church to intercede for and bless those on the outside. I just wonder, particularly in today's climate, whether anyone on the outside themselves would want such a thing. Can anyone speak from their experience?
The guy I was talking to actually fit into that category: not someone who wants to call Jesus "lord and savior," but someone who does a lot of good stuff in, around, and with the church.
what does having "membership" even do to serve the church? (yeah, i think i fall into the "That's what you get for having church membership in the first place..." half that you referred to)
maybe it's my perspective as a campus minister, but it seems that the standards many churches set for membership serve only to alienate rather than include. Shouldn't any sense of "membership" be larger than an individual church (i.e. the body of Christ). If that is the case i'm hard pressed to find great support for an idea of "graduated church membership", esp. biblical support.
Maybe someone could try to convince me? (or at least explain the argument for church membership)
Church membership is a tangible way of knowing who the church actually consists of... it's a way of keeping up with people and keeping them accountable to each other and keeping them from getting lost
i think it says a lot about the American church that someone who doesn't subscribe to the beliefs of the Christian church would want to be a member. this would have been unthinkable in the early church when people were dying for even being associated with christians. we have something confused here if you want to be a member just because you "like to do good things for the community." Those good things for the community that the church should be doing is telling them that Jesus died for them... something that is wildly unpopular and unnerving if you don't believe it.
In response to: "Church membership is a tangible way of knowing who the church actually consists of... it's a way of keeping up with people and keeping them accountable to each other and keeping them from getting lost"
I figured someone would give an answer following this line of reasoning. I find it to be unsatisfying and not quite sufficient. (I'm not trying to sound belligerent, but just really thinking about how this affects the church.) As I strive with my students to create a community on the college campus we don't need "membership" to do those things you describe. A sense of belonging comes from acceptance into the community and those who are committed being intentional about reaching out to those who are new or just checking things out. To have an official membership process would only serve to make the community seem exclusive and discourage people from just checking things out or taking the initial steps that might lead to a deeper commitment to the community. Is "membership" in church necessary only because we do such a poor job of being intentional with people and following up in relationships? Besides the fact that I find in many cases official church membership doesn't really mean anything in terms of who is significantly committed to the community. Is there any biblical support for the idea of "church membership" or is it just a human invention?
jason -
I think there is always going to be a disparity between the way we wish the church would run and the way it in fact, does run. There will always be the ideal that runs amuck in the practical. But let's not be too hasty to judge.
The membership process is for a church, not a parachurch. On campus ministries are meant to get students plugged into the church. And one main difference between these two things is that the "parachurch" consists of students in one location in the same stage of their lives. The community church on the other hand consists of different generations and it is a lot more spread out. The membership process probably is a result of not being able to followup and do those thins... but it's a way to correct that and we should be happy that steps were taken to do that.
Also, it's a way of keeping order in the church. The parachurch for instance does not vote on how to spend thousands (or in some churches millions) of dollars or make huge decisions that affect generations of lives. It's bigger and it needs a better way to keep up with everyone... it's a logistical issue.
It's also a way for someone to say "yes i want to be associated with this and be committed." Churches should (whether they actually do or not) expect a great deal more from their members than their visitors. And if someone remains a visitor for years then that person as well as the rest of the church should be seriously evaluating why they wouldn't want to fully commit themselves to the church.
I'm not sure that a membership process is the best way to correct our shortcomings in following up with people in the community. Perhaps a more robust view of discipleship (which seems to be lacking in many communities) would help change this. While it is true that parachurch ministry tends to me more focused on a particular sub-group and that one goal of collegiate ministries is to prepare and train leaders for the church, there still remains the fact that we are creating a community on campus (a smaller picture of what the church does or should do for the greater community). For this reason I am hesitant to disregard comparisons between parachurch and church ministries - I think there is much that both can learn from each other.
You make a good point about polity and decisions that churches need to make in terms of money, etc., but I wonder if maybe there are other ways to handle those things?
Also, I definitely agree that churches and individuals should evaluate the level of commitment they are giving the community, esp. if they have become a member. I wonder if it would help to call "membership" something other than "membership", which implies exclusion.
hey, i'm not sure it would help to not call it membership... calling something by a different name can promote confusion and deceitfulness.
Membership can be seen as both inclusive and exclusive. I think the key here is that membership is welcome to all who would ascribe the beliefs of the church. People don't view the church as exclusive because we have "membership," they view it that way because of the way they are treated when they come to a church event. If you feel excluded and you don't want to be, then join the church.
Also, i think you and the readers would be interested in reading a blog about parachurches that i read the other day. http://sheworships.blogspot.com/2007/04/i-want-to-kill-parachurch.html
check it out. could open a whole new can of worms to argue about.
But it's important to remember that parachurches werent established to be separate from the church, but instead to meet a need that the churches seemed to be failing at... reaching college students with the gospel and making sure they stay connected to the community church.
Also if you have better suggestions for how to run a church without membership, lemme know, cause I can't think of one.
Hey, J.P.,
I'm going to respond to the second half of your last post first. I totally agree that parachurches were not established to be separate from the church and that part of their success is due to the failings of the local church in that area. I read the blog that you linked to and while I think she makes some good points, I don't think enough weight is given to the fact that parachurches have and will continue to transform and shape the church for the better.
She says, “One of the biggest problems plaguing college ministry today is that college students have no idea what the church is, or what their role in the church should even look like.”
My beef with this statement is that the problem she identifies is much larger than college ministry. It is a problem that plagues the church as a whole (esp. in the West). I can't really speak to other parachurch organizations, but I know that InterVarsity is committed to fostering relationships with the church. Our goal in the leadership development that we do with students is to help them go into the church after they graduate better equipped to serve . . . not be a drain on the church. And I feel that in my experience this is largely what happens. I'm sure there are those who are just looking for what they can get out of church, but I'm not sure I would blame that on the parachurch. It's more likely a product of "consumer" Christianity which is a problem far larger than any parachurch group. So in many ways, I feel that the parachurch is helping to foster healthy views of community which translate into a more healthy view of the local church and what involvement in that should look like.
Many churches, though, don’t make space for college students to participate. It’s difficult to be significantly committed to a community that you may only be a part of for a few years and the church knows that . . . which is probably why so few have taken any great steps towards thinking of how to engage the campus. Something I found frustrating in the blog is that when college students do come to the church they want more than just opportunities to baby-sit and work in the nursery so that the parents can go to their Sunday school. Students want to be involved in a real way and I think many churches are failing to make space for that to happen – they’re not kids, but they’re not adults – so they just chuck ‘em in to help with the youth group or baby-sit some. That’s not what I was looking for, and not what most of the students I talk to want when they go to church. They want to be included in the community in a real way and many churches just haven’t figured out how to do that yet.
Just to pick up on a comment from J Pappa: "we have something confused here if you want to be a member just because you "like to do good things for the community." Those good things for the community that the church should be doing is telling them that Jesus died for them..."
This is a seriously truncated view of what the church is supposed to be doing. To over simplify, in the early twentieth century the church split between the evangelicals who were "word only" people and liberals who were "deed only" people. But both are distortions of the gospel.
We are to take both word and deed to the world, doing the good deeds in the community because we believe the words are true. If the early church had been "word-only" it would not have spread. It's words plus deeds that give our words credibility and our deeds their proper interpretation.
Hey Daniel,
I didnt mean to imply that we shouldn't be doing good works... but I don't think they should go un-accompanied by the gospel. Otherwise we are treating symptoms, not the illness. And if people are wanting to join the church just to do good things, then we seem to be lacking the whole "gospel" message... good works should not overpower the gospel, they should accompany it.
Jenn
i think what Daniel is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, Daniel) is that there really isn't a distinction between works and words in the gospel. So to talk about the two as if they're separate from one another is a misrepresentation of what the message is. Thus the works do more than accompany the "gospel message", rather they are an integral part of it.
That's a really good point, Daniel. Thanks for the post.
umm I think we may be saying the same thing but with different words
I believe like it says in James 2 that faith without works is "dead" but I'm also trying to say that our lives shouldn't merely be doing "good" things, but should carry the message of the Gospel.. which is that Christ died for our sins so that we would repent and turn to Him. It's a fine line, but i do think there is a clear distinction and I do think the Bible addresses these two things separately but directly, specifically in Romans 10 and James 2.
J.P.: Where does that leave Jesus' ministry of healing and teaching before he had died for our sins? Is it wrong to say that he was preaching the gospel?
Daniel, Jesus's miracles and teachings point to himself and his authority as God and his ability to save the world. So yes, I would say that Jesus was preaching the Gospel.
Matthew 20:28 "just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Jesus not only healed and taught, he preached that he was God and the way to heaven.
j.p. - I think the reason the bible addresses works and words separately is precisely because different groups within the early church began to separate the two. So it was crucial for Paul (and others) to address each individually depending on the context of the particular church. But ultimately the purpose was to bring the people back to an understanding that saw the two pieces as inextricably interwoven.
I also think that Jesus' preaching and teaching were more than just him being God and the way to heaven. He also says that he came so that we may have life and have it to the full - a notion that indicates to me that he didn't die just so we can go to heaven. I don't think you're wrong, I just think there's more to the message that Jesus preached.
agreed, good point :)... but even having life more fully means knowing Jesus in life on earth as well as in death... it's not separate from the gospel, which has been my point the whole time
Jason:
Loved your comments about follow-up/real rships at church being a big issue. In my experience, few truly think of themselves as a body in a way that encourages everyone in the community to play an active role in developing rships with newbies.
On naming (Jason and J.P.):
There is a church in Raleigh (Vintage 21) that calls people "owners" rather than "members." What do you think of that?
Jason:
I also think you thoughts on churches and college students is dead-on. At the place I'm at now, I've been asked to do a number of things to participate as a "real" member, including leading a seminar on Being a Christian in College at our Women's Day event a couple weekends ago. It's been really exciting to feel people actually expect me to contribute something, especially since as a leader on campus (w/ IV), I do know that I have good things to contribute, even if I don't always have the time to do all I might like.
Daniel (I almost called you Alex):
Love your thoughts on the Gospel. Makes me so happy every time I realize another evangelical is seeing the Gospel in a more holistic (in my mind, more accurate) way. :o)
Ashleigh:
I love the "owners" idea! If anything, it at least makes us think about what we mean when we talk about being part of a community. I like anything that shakes things up a bit and tries to break out of the traditional mold to be more relevant and meaningful.
Glad to see you're back, Alex. I think this may be the most comments from a post on your blog ever!
Also, I'm very glad to hear that your church has asked you to contribute in some significant ways! I pray that more churches will start to do the same.
Glad Alex is back? So... What? Like I'm chopped liver?
:^)
Ashleigh, have you read Embracing Grace by Scot McKnight? I think you would find it very, very encouraging.
Haven't read it, but I've heard his named tossed around a lot with all the emerging stuff. I'll have to put that on my to-read list. :o)
not chopped liver, Daniel . . . but I can finally get back to a normal life now that you've stopped posting on such provocative issues on Alex's blog - not that Alex's posts aren't thought provoking . . . ;-)
dude, i just wanted to get in on this conversation since there were so many comments... and I wanted to tell Jason that I'm deeply insulted that my blog posts don't get the love the my bro's do. Maybe I need to get him to post more often, take more time off, so that Jason has more opportunities to truly interact wtih 'provocative' issues! And to think that I was this guy's staff worker! This is the thanks that I get!
nothin' but love, Alex! nothin' but love!
Post a Comment