You know those couples that find a way to get into arguments about things of little consequence? You listen to them fight and the whole time thinking "who cares"? Well I am part of an institution that loves these fights.
The latest instance of this is over church membership. There is an amendment to the Methodist "constitution" that would allow anyone to be a member of the Methodist church (of course,the issue is not this black and white but that is not the point).
Here is why I am thinking "who cares" through this whole thing. Membership in the UMC means absolutely nothing! Seriously. I attend a church with over 7,000 on the membership roles. This number would be lower if the UMC didn't make it so dadgum difficult to take people off the membership roles (you basically have to be dead or asked to be taken off, there is almost no other way without the church jumping through some significant hoops). So, we have over 7,000 on our membership roles but only about 3,700 in attendance despite the fact that part of the membership vows are to be in attendance. Also, the amount of people regularly giving to the church falls well below the 7,000 despite the fact that supporting the church with gifts is part of the membership vows (and for those of you that define this as serving in the church, the level of involvement there is not 7,000 either). I can't know for sure but I am guessing that we don't have 7,000 regularly praying for our church, again despite the fact that it is part of the membership vows. VOWS, you know those things you say at your wedding. Should carry more weight than they do. I am not a legalist, but what does membership mean? I stand on my case that it means nothing.
On the other hand, we have "non-members" that I know are fulfilling the membership vows. Some might ask, "Well, why don't they just join then?" And I would ask, "Why should they if it doesn't mean anything to anyone else?"
So, my question is, "Why are we fighting this battle?" Why aren't we spending our time asking ourselves, "Why isn't our membership living up to their vows?" and "How can we challenge and help our membership to do so?"
And, instead of spending so much time making it easier for people to get on our membership rolls, why don't we spend some time making it easier for churches to take people off membership rolls? That would at least give those rolls a shot at integrity and meaning.
4 comments:
I know several denominations function without any structure of "membership" and seem to get on just fine. St. Pat's in Lexington is quite popular with some seminarians and it doesn't have any membership, but rather they have "practices of affiliation" (http://pvmatthews.squarespace.com/how-to-affiliate/).
To play devil's advocate a little, because the UMC allows laity to participate in Church government I can see why there would be a concern over laity that is officially connected to the Church. Maybe that is not the reason that membership policy persists, but it is one reason why I can understand its necessity. Of course, on the other hand, if there were no membership one would think that local congregations would have the wherewithal to pick lay leaders that are active in the church to represent the congregation in government.
This is definitely something that could stand an overhaul, but it is a complex and multifaceted topic. I remember my own journey to membership at Asbury church, and coming from a tradition where membership is very easy I appreciated the concern that the church took to ensure that my beliefs weren't heterodox!
i agree. who cares.
i'd only say that people meet the expectations placed on them. people engage church in ways the environment we create shows them. maybe not in how we preach, but in how we live together. (or not together at all.) What is membership really if it's not communal? IS it any different that a Sam's club membership?
A personal and private commitment to a personal and private God, in a personal and private church, with personal and private membership means that i go to church with strangers, hear a message from a stranger, and leave as a stranger trying to do what the stranger in the funny robe told me to do. You might understand how they might reconsider do it, or taking seriously a communal committment to the other strangers.
Of course all this is encourage, not in how we preach, but in the environment leadership creates.
I will say that I have no idea what Stephen C was saying. What is this laity you speak of Stephen and where is that in the bible?
That would be the parts of the Bible that distinguish Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and everyone else. A good place to look would be in Acts where the author distinguishes the Apostles, the Hellenist administrators, and the general Church body. 1 Timothy also has some things to say about Bishops and Deacons and the role that they play within the Church.
For extrabiblical resources, perhaps the Didache could shed even further light on early Church Clergy and Laity. The distinction between Clergy and Laity in the Church has existed since the first century.
wondering if there will ever be another post from Todd here......
Post a Comment