I can see where this would be tricky. Might have a look at the church by-laws, constitution, etc to see what it says before doing anything else. Some churches have a set "no attendance in last ..., no vote" rule/policy already in place.

That being said, I'd probably consider someone who supports the church financially, does not attend because of a disability, and keeps up with what's going on as potentially able to vote.

#2 - Sorry, no tithing, no attendance - no vote. (Especially so in the case of someone who's grown cynical like that.)

#3 - I'd probably lean towards the "no vote" category here, but more because there's an ability to come, but no desire.

#4 - Once again - depends on how they keep up and keep involved.

Of course, for all of the above, I'm wondering what it is that they would want to vote about as none of them come to any of the meetings where a vote could be taken. Is there a system in place for absentee ballots? If so, I'd wonder about that in a good number of cases as most churches I've attended have "members" who show up only for Christmas and Easter, if that often. Of course, if there's a contentious item on the business meeting agenda, they can sometimes come out of the woodwork there as well.

I'd probably look at the laws/policies first, then make some hard rules, taking the above into account, and go from there. I can see where this might lead to problems overall. Personally, I think that someone who doesn't really know what's actually going on with the local church body probably shouldn't vote.

One idea that may be helpful is to not have "business meetings" but rather meetings where we seek to agree with God's Will. If not everyone is in unity, then one of the following is true:
One group is not following God's will
Another group is not following God's will
No group is following God's will.

That could even help cut down on some of the problems if people really see this as about discerning God's will and following it rather than putting forth a personal agenda. (Help, I said. Only help. *sigh*)

Definitely thought-provoking. I'm interested to see what others have to say.

I've got a follow up question for these scenarios: How does each one understand the gospel. That may be missing information in what has been presented that may be helpful. #1 and #2 seem to have little reference to this, although maybe more so in
#1. But #2 and #3 both seem to suggest a deficient understanding of the gospel. In spite of poor health it is still our duty to call #2 to repentance and to instruct #3 more clearly in understanding what the gospel is. I'm probably naive and lacking in the wisdom of experience, I would think that we deal with old ladies the same way we deal with other adults. If they give credible evidence of being believers I would suggest they should still be able to vote. But if they are unrepentant, there is a bigger issue that voting involved and we should treat it with seriousness--knowing that heaven and hell are the stakes.

Let me preface my comments by stating that I am by no means an expert at this, but keeping in mind our obligation to extoll grace as well as honor God, this is how I would treat each situation:

1. If the woman never comes to church because she is old and unable, then I would just leave her as an active member. There is a good chance she will not vote since she doesn't leave her house. Honor what she has done for the church over the years and leave her on. Removing her from the rolls would not be a smart pastoral move, nor is it a hill on which to die.

2. I would still leave his woman on the rolls as well. I doubt she would have much influence over other church members and therefore should not cause much of a problem.

3. Her inability to not clearly articulate her testimony could be because she is not saved or because she has sat under poor Bible teaching all of her life. Again, I would be very reticent to kick older members out of the church. Unless they are heretical, kicking an older member out is hardly ever the right decision for many reasons.

4. Just keep this person on the rolls until the Lord takes them.

My advice would be to "clean up" those on the rolls who either have left town, died, have consented to letting the church take them off or are AWOL.

The common thread in these examples seems to be older members. God will take care of these people in due time. I see no reason to take someone's membership rights away for the above reasons. Whatever policy your church has in place now, these older people should be loved and grand-fathered in...unless in such an extreme situation that church discipline should be enacted.

Old age, lonliness and perceived uselessness can be the cause of many negative attitudes of older widows in the church. Exacerbating those feelings by excommunicating those people would seem to be pointless at best and terribly hurtful and destructive at worst. As a fairly young (40) pastor of an aging congregation with many homebound widows, I find it more advantageous to include them in every way possible. Most of the time that is through lunches our ladies deliver once a month. Phone calls, deacon and pastoral visits, newsletter deliveries and sermon CDs also give them a sense of still being part of the body. Granted, it is a difficult and time consuming ministry, but remember, Christ's righteousness covers the cantakerous old lady's sin exactly the same as mine.

Two more things and then I'll go:
1. Showing love and patience with those people will provide you with opportunities to minister that you would have never otherwise been afforded. Ministering to their family members during inevitable hospital stays and eventual funerals is difficult but indespensible for reaching the unreached.
2. In the most difficult times of dealing with the most obstinate, stubborn, gossipy, cranky, disruptive old person, be patient--you will outlive them. The Kingdom will reap far more reward from your patient humility, grace and unrequited kindness than it ever would from a temporarily gratifying role-purging.

Jim

This is an issue that I am currently contemplating. I have been in churches the past ten years that have had elders. We have just been called to a churhc in Northern California that have many members who are in this situation and some that are attending other churches.

My thoughts are to revise the 'purpose' of membership and to teach a series on healthy churches in January.

As that completes I am going to request that the church council creates a 'standard' by which active membership is defined. We currently require a membership class, personal testimony and church vote for membership after a meeting with the church leadership.

Once this criteria is set, we will reach each person who falls outside these to let them know of the changes. For those who are unable to attend or be active, we will have a secondary care system for their needs an spiritual accountability.

Once that is completed, then there will be a level standard for all members, no matter how they are affected physically.

In situations where members are NOT actively interested, I am proposing an 'inactive' membership status just as we have a 'petitioning' membership status currently.

Once inactive for six months, you would have to fulfill membership requirements again in order to be an active, voting member.

A friend of mine had a situation where a man called a meeting, called many inactive members and voted him out of the pastorate. It was devastating.

Just my thoughts. Thanks.

James Tippins

"A friend of mine had a situation where a man called a meeting, called many inactive members and voted him out of the pastorate. It was devastating."

Unfortunately, with the way that congregational churches are structured, what happened to your friend is a possibility, albeit a rare one. It's always wise to understand a church's bylaws. For instance, at my church, we recently just went through a bylaw structural change. It amazed me that the old bylaws stated that any thing voted on only required a simply majority vote to be passed. The new bylaw committee changed it to 2/3 vote.

Of course at the by-law committee meeting, we had 30 or so "inactive" members present. Knowing that this was possible, the pastoral staff and deacons contacted many members and were able to secure the by-law changes through voting.

Unfortunately, it always doesn't work out that way. Still, going through rolls and cleaning them up is a very delicate situation... especially for new pastors.

I pastored a small Baptist church in Fort Worth for 15 years. When I came to the church its membership was over 600 with about 70 in attendance on any given Sunday. Church record keeping had been poor for many years so we could not even contact many people who were no longer attending. I enlisted the older ladies SS class to go through the rolls and remove those they knew had moved on and to form a list of others who still lived in the area but had not joined other churches. We sent out letters, made some visits and eventually whittled the roll down to under 100. We did keep on the rolls many who sounded just like the 4 cases you presented.
The bottom line was that with a congregational polity I could only lead the church so far into cleaning up the rolls, and when I reached their limit they let me know. I did not push any further.
In fact, I never had a problem from an "inactive" member...It was some of the ones who came faithfully who caused me all the grief!

I'm not a pastor (obviously, since I'm Baptist and female), but it does seem like there is a missing perspective here. If you have homebound seniors, or homebound members of any age, perhaps the church (body of Christ) should go to them. In fact, strike that "perhaps"--the church should go to them. I was very touched to hear my great-grandmother's pastor, during her funeral service, tell about the last time Grandma took communion -- when the pastor brought the elements to the nursing home for her, something that happened regularly in keeping with the congregation's schedule for celebrating the Lord's supper. Those who can attend and won't or who reject home visits are one thing, but home bound folks or nursing home residents should still be welcomed to participate in the life of the church; it just means the church has to go to them, rather than the other way around.

James Tippins? Would you happen to hail from Myrtle Beach?
Greg Bailey