Membership: Based on a True Story
Mike, thanks for the interview with Steve Timmis. Steve, thanks for the gracious and thought-provoking contributions.
I'm still nibbling on the comments about preaching. But I wanted to toss out a couple words about membership. Since coming to FBC, I've had conversation with tons of people about church membership. Sometimes I'm explaining or defending the concept, other times I'm answering questions, and still other times I'm trying to connect the concept to relevant other issues like baptism and the Lord's supper.
As I think about Tim's approach, I'd have to say it only works in a small setting. Mike, I think your comment/observation about setting is critical and not secondary at all. You can't address membership by a "whoever comes consistently" approach in a large setting because you can't know who is coming consistently and you can't even know who is or isn't a Christian unless there is some process for examination.
Let me give three anecdotes from conversations I've had since coming to FBC. The names are changed to protect the innocent.
Mary
Pastor T: So, Mary... it's been great having you around. You're such an encouragement at our services and Bible study. Can I ask you a question? Why haven't you joined the church?
Mary: What? I've been a member of the church for 15 years!
Pastor T: Seriously? We've looked at the records going back to when they were kept by hand. We searched twice and can't find any mention of your joining. And, sadly, though I've come to know you a bit, others really don't. How do you think that happened?
Mary: I don't know. But I've been here for 15 years. And I want everyone to know that I love and am committed to this church.
This was an actual conversation. I think it fits the markers that Steve laid out for their concept of "church belonging." But given our context, a couple hundred on Sunday mornings, Mary was more likely to slip through the cracks than receive the kind of necessary and admirable discipling that Timmis is rightly calling us to. Without a process for making her known, considering her profession, and affirming mutual commitment between the whole and the individual, the ability to disciple is seriously diminished. In fact, Mary had never been baptized as a professing believer. There can't be effective disciple-making and "church belonging" if the person isn't known to the church.
Eric
Pastor T: So, Eric... we've been updating the membership directory over the past couple months, trying to add updated photos of all the members. I see you've not taken a picture. Why not? You're a member.
Eric: What? I'm not a member here. I've been coming here for years, was even baptized here, but I'm not a member.
Pastor T: How did you get to be included in the membership?
Eric: I don't know. But could you please remove me from the membership list? There are some things I need to work through before joining any church.
Here the problem was including a regular attender who didn't want to be included. I'm afraid that in a church of any size, there are always some number of such folks. They may be Christians, but that doesn't mean they want to join. The reasons vary: (a) don't understand the importance of membership; (b) been hurt by previous churches; (c) avoiding accountability or submission to leadership, and so on. But it would be a mistake to just assume that such folks want to be "members" or be a part of "church belonging" just because they've shown up over a period of time. Their regular attendance may communicate little more than lifelong habit because they grew up in a religious fami.
Azariah
Pastor T: Hello, is this Azariah? Good to finally connect with you. I've been hoping to catch up with all the members of the church, to get to know them as I settle into the pastorate here.
Azariah: Good to hear from you. I'm glad you called and I've been appreciating your sermons (as I said earlier, these are fictionalized accounts!). Actually, I've been meaning to talk with you about something you keep saying in your sermons.
Pastor T: Oh yeah. What's that?
Azariah: It's the constant reference you keep making to the crucifixion and the necessity of trusting in Jesus alone. Why do you keep saying that? That's a terribly outdated mode of thinking. Personally, I don't think a person must believe on Jesus. A good Muslim or a faithful Hindu is as close to God as many Christians I know. And personally, I dabble in a lot of different religious ideas. I don't think Christianity or Jesus has a monopoly on spiritual truth.
Pastor T: So, would you describe yourself as a Christian? What do you think it means to be a Christian?
Azariah: No, not really. I'm not really sure what it means to be a Christian; attend a church and live a good life I reckon. But anyway, we're all on a journey. And everybody has to find their own path. When I joined the church a few years back it was mainly because I felt comfortable here and found encouragement and strength. I didn't sign on to all this 'Jesus is the only way' stuff.
Well, no membership practice is perfect. So a formal practice isn't the cure all for the church's woes. Sometimes even non-Christians make their way into the membership. But that's the exception rather than the rule when a good membership culture and practice is in place. It's closer to the rule when "church belonging" is equated to "whoever consistently attends."
At the end of the day, I'm wondering how the churches Steve describes keep the distinction between the church and the world, and to what extent they intend to limit "church belonging" to regenerate members. The approach only seems to work in small settings where everybody knows your name... and they're always glad you came. No, wait, that's Cheers. But you get my point.
Hi Thabiti. Thanks for the engagement. Here's a problem I have. It might sound a little prosaic but I think it's an important question. If church membership as you describe it is so important, why isn't it in the New Testament? Circumcision was the door into the old covenant community and baptism is the door into the new covenant community. I'm not sure why we need to add to something the Lord has already given us. In the end it comes down to this question of what we regard as givens. For me, it is a given that if the church is too large for the leadership to know everyone then it is too large. I realise this is a controversial point, but I can't see a way around it. As I said in some of my answers, how that church/gospel community then structure its life in relation to other such gospel communities is entirely up to them, but it's at that grass roots level that discipling and pastoring goes on because it's at this grass roots level that church actually happens. As I said, formal membership allows people the opportunity to opt out by choosing to not opt in. In the situation I describe no one can opt out; everyone of us is a beneficiary of the gospelling project - whether we want it or not! I'm sure this isn't the final word but it at least keeps the conversation chugging along! Enjoy grace.
Posted by: Steve Timmis | Jan 23, 2009 12:02:01 PM
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the engagement. A couple of responses.
1. In response to: "In the end it comes down to this question of what we regard as givens. For me, it is a given that if the church is too large for the leadership to know everyone then it is too large. I realise this is a controversial point, but I can't see a way around it."
I don't find any controversy in that at all. Allowing that two people may differ on defining "large" or that any group of elders may do a better or worse job with any group size, I think that principle is absolutely correct. If you can't shepherd them all, you need to plant, encourage people in other directions, etc. etc. No controversy there for me, bro.
2. You write: "Here's a problem I have. It might sound a little prosaic but I think it's an important question. If church membership as you describe it is so important, why isn't it in the New Testament? Circumcision was the door into the old covenant community and baptism is the door into the new covenant community. I'm not sure why we need to add to something the Lord has already given us."
I think church membership is in the NT. I think you admit as much when you say that circumcision and baptism serve, in part, as visible markers for who is "in" the community and who is "outside" the community. I think you've simply called membership another name ("church belonging") and opted for a different way of recognizing it (whoever comes consistently). I suspect you do more than just recognize who comes consistently (i.e., I trust you have in mind professing Christians, baptism, and some level of living that conforms to the confession of faith). So, we can't escape the practice of membership, only make it more or less loose, more or less clear in clarifying who is in and who is out. The fact that you're wanting to strengthen a community in a gospel-centered life is evidence that you hold to an "in" the community and "outside" the community; you're just not calling it church membership. If we really abandoned church membership (the reality itself, not what we call it), we'd be abandoning the church (the ecclessia, the called out ones).
I don't think we're adding anything to the NT or God's word, but recognizing what's there at least implicitly and more explicitly in things like baptism and communion. We would all hold to the Trinity, even though we don't find the word itself in the Scripture. But the concept is on nearly every page of the NT. So it is, I would argue, with church membership. You're wrestling to bring clarity, life, health and strength to what God has done in Christ, that is, create a new people for Himself. "Membership" is simply another way of identifying that new people. Practices vary, but we have to be clear about who the people are, and the Bible calls for that clearly in passages like those you cite (John 13:34-35; and passages like 1 Cor. 5-6).
3. you wrote: "As I said, formal membership allows people the opportunity to opt out by choosing to not opt in. In the situation I describe no one can opt out; everyone of us is a beneficiary of the gospelling project - whether we want it or not!"
Hmmm.... I'd need to read or hear more about why you think this is true. On the face of it, I don't think either is a logical necessity.
I love the way you sign off your notes, "Enjoy grace." I'm putting you on notice that I'll be stealing that! Starting now :-) Enjoy grace.
Your brother,
T-
Posted by: Thabiti | Jan 23, 2009 2:33:54 PM
If there is no formal membership, what is done with the matter of a disgruntled former "member" suing the church or its leaders personally for being subjected to church discipline they thought was unfair? What is at risk? Is it different in different legal climates/societies? What responsibility does a local church have for all this?
I'm thinking of some of the guidelines recommended by Peacemakers under the heading of "Relational Commitments" and "Informed Consent" in their definition of membership. (See http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.aqKFLTOBIpH/b.963859/k.A6D7/Risk_Management.htm )
Posted by: Dan | Jan 24, 2009 3:31:20 PM