Ship of Fools: membership and attendance

Thread: membership and attendance Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023387

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

Just recently at church, membership criteria has been a bit of a hot topic, with some folk unable to take up membership because they can’t commit to the criteria, which besides the doctinal stuff, are focused on attendance at meetings. It’s a difficult one because we want to help and encourage each other and see each other regularly, but the way I see it, attendance comes from wanting to go because we love being together, not going because the leadership want you to go. Why do church leaders get so wound up about this? The leaders at our church are always preaching grace, not works, but the attendance policy for membership appears to fly in the face of this.

[Title spello corrected]

[ 23. August 2012, 09:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Why do church leaders get so wound up about this?

Because if you're not there you can't chip in when the collection plate is passed round.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

Personally, and as a non-leader, i find it encouraging when people do attend regularly. It seems to demonstrate a level of commitment to one another. Difficult to achieve a sense of unity or bonding together when people take an "if I've nothing better to do" approch.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

'scuse double post. That said, we have one member who hasn't attended church in over ten years due to health issues. He is still regarded as a a member, even though many of us have never even met him but he features regularly in prayers and is visited regularly too. I think this is because when he was well, he did attend regularly, so has achieved a close connection with the church and his contempories, which even protracted absence has not broken.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The RCC has pretty stiff requirements about attendance too, but doesn't expect anyone to sign on the dotted line up front; it's made very clear however that attendance at Mass is obligatory.

I'm sure that Stoker's church can make a good case for attendance at meetings from scripture, as can the RCC but the RCC has a worldwide network, so that if you go on holiday or spend a weekend with friends or family, you can still fulfil your obligation. I clearly remember my ever-faithful Aunt getting up at 7 am on a holiday to attend Mass.

Maybe Stoker's church is one that doesn't want its members to have a life outside the church? Why anyone would want to be a member of such a body is a mystery to me.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Why do church leaders get so wound up about this?
Because if you're not there you can't chip in when the collection plate is passed round.

Not exclusively. Church shouldn't be a spectator sport. If you are unwilling to support it with your time, attendance, gifts, and commitment, don't join. For most denominations, the local church is charged a fee per member by the larger organization. If you're just going to be dead wood, all you are is a cost to the organization. If you find the Church to be a vital part of your faith life, then show some sign of that life.

Yes, if you are disabled or have some other serous reason to be unable to attend, it is perfectly appropriate to continue to be a member without being in attendance (although the church itself should be doing everything it can to include you in the body of Christ in whatever way is possible.) But, if you aren't physically paralyzed, don't foist your spiritual paralysis off on the Church.

--Tom Clune

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The RCC has pretty stiff requirements about attendance too, but doesn't expect anyone to sign on the dotted line up front; it's made very clear however that attendance at Mass is obligatory.

Attendance at mass is obligatory, but this can be fulfilled at any Roman Catholic parish, cathedral, religious community or chaplaincy in the world — anywhere, in fact, where a group of Catholics including a priest are gathered together. Since there are hundreds of thousands of these, this requirement is of a different order than one requiring someone to be in a specific location Sunday by Sunday. Do these Christian communities really believe that their hold on the truth is so tight that no other group of Christians in the world counts?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

As for the collection plate reference: Some people prefer to write a check once each month or once each quarter rather than once a week, and some prefer to set up automatic transfers.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Stoker, I'd be interested to hear about the criteria expected to be met before someone can become a member of your church?

For a couple of years I once attended a Baptist church, where I applied for membership and met the criteria there via being interviewed and approved by a deacon.

But apart from that church membership seems to be a kind of vague woolly thing that varies almost from church to church. Eg, in the Anglican Church if you tried to label the electoral roll members as 'members' you'd have to face the fact that lots of them don't attend. Even some of whom who contribute. If the criteria was financial, many electoral roll members wouldn't qualify, and loads of non-electoral roll members would etc etc!

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

So what about when a church member doesn't attend all the way through the bowling season because that comes before any (even non-sunday) church input?

I am all for church folk being fully active in other community groups, and some folk have to balance work shifts and are not able to be at church every week. The twice a week every week pattern of church attendance is long gone - but there is still a frustration at the 'club' view of church.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
The twice a week every week pattern of church attendance is long gone - but there is still a frustration at the 'club' view of church.

Maybe instead of being a "club" view, it is the view that the Church is the gathered body of Christ.

--Tom Clune

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Stoker

It's difficult to anyone outside your denomination to advise you, because different denominations have different concepts of membership, and different criteria for entering into membership. It's no good anyone advising you to relax your membership criteria, because that's not your decision to make, is it?

Perhaps it's worth remembering that in the past, nonconformist churches often had more 'adherents' than members. New members are drawn from the pool of adherents, but the number of adherents needs to be replenished, because otherwise there will be no way of maintaining a constant flow of new members. Perhaps the way to get everyone on the same page is not to badger the adherents to become members, but to include them in the business of attracting new adherents to take their place. Maybe they don't yet feel any ownership of your church. It sounds a bit like 'them and us', which doesn't create unity.

Membership is only a means to an end. What end do you have in store for them? What's the vision you want them to buy into? They might like turning up occasionally, but unless they see a vision they can own for themselves, membership might just seem like signing away their freedom - not to Jesus, but to a bunch of people who want to boss them around!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

Yes, if you are disabled or have some other serous reason to be unable to attend, it is perfectly appropriate to continue to be a member without being in attendance (although the church itself should be doing everything it can to include you in the body of Christ in whatever way is possible.) But, if you aren't physically paralyzed, don't foist your spiritual paralysis off on the Church.

--Tom Clune

I tend to object.

Spiritual paralysis is precisely where my family and I are right now. Not attending much, not praying, various accompanying emotions. If we followed your idea, we would quit entirely. I take the comment in the vein of 'judge not lest ye be judged', and would take it rather unkindly if an attendance monitor, casual or formal, asserted anything. And I'm not about to tell all so as to justify myself to any member. Some of us are sensitive enough to nuances of communication that we'd probably detect the subtle rejection such attitudes may promote. I don't believe that any members of a church actually 'own' it, and I don't believe it is up to them to decide such things.

I may be extending beyond what you intended with your statements but it did certainly set me to fuming.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

One year I met a woman who was a member of the church I attended -- she said she showed up once a month at most and gave nothing (disinterest, not health or job). I was there at least 4 times a week including teaching a class and not a member because I had been misinformed that "showing up makes you automatically a member." (Turns out that was the policy until about the week before I arrived.)

Ever since I've puzzled "what does membership mean, if an inactive person is considered a member while an active and contributing person is not?"

But there does need to be some way to know who has voting rights on matters the congregation votes on so one faction can't bring extraneous friends to the church just for the vote.

(Voting rights could be determined based on active involvement instead of on affirming the statement of faith in front of the congregation, but a fixed list in the office is easier to keep track of than the fluctuating participation of people through seasons of the year and of life and deciding what counts as being active.)

SOME people say churches with strict membership rules attract more numbers of active members than do churches with only blurry distinctions between members and non-members.

Know the effects of various membership requirements, do some research. Don't make wild assumptions like "If we make people sign a statement of faith and attend weekly they'll all be more committed and give more time and money and grow spiritually." Some yes, some will move or drop out.

If the goal is "we want a church of only people who agree to this statement and attend at least weekly, no casual hangers-on who agree with only part of what we teach" make sure the group is happy with the possibility they may see a much smaller church. Or smaller until more of the people looking for that specific concept of church find yours. Nothing wrong with smaller and more focused, may be a lot right with it, just don't let that effect be a surprise!

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I have often thought that "membership" is a misleading word to apply to church involvement. It implies "us and them" and "in and out" judgementalism. The church I grew up in embraced the concept of "commitment" (it was an Anglican church, so no special privileges for the committed folk, but they were the group who formed the hub of the church community, with others who liked to come along occasionally being just as welcome at any meeting but less... well... committed.) It was to do with the community knowing what to expect from one another with regard to financial contribution, time and general support.

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Stoker, I'd be interested to hear about the criteria expected to be met before someone can become a member of your church?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The RCC has pretty stiff requirements about attendance too, but doesn't expect anyone to sign on the dotted line up front; it's made very clear however that attendance at Mass is obligatory.

Penalties for not showing up are however - in general - in the hands of God. There's very little control of this by anyone in the RCC, in my experience. Also, all manner of reasonable excuses (feeling sick, having to mind the kids, important business that can't be put off, being on the road, ...) are allowed for not attending. It's more the other way around: if you show up regularly, people will start to note you (as unusually committed) and you may be asked to volunteer some of your time eventually (if you insist on showing your face frequently for many months, usually years).

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Stoker, I'd be interested to hear about the criteria expected to be met before someone can become a member of your church?

For a couple of years I once attended a Baptist church, where I applied for membership and met the criteria there via being interviewed and approved by a deacon.

But apart from that church membership seems to be a kind of vague woolly thing that varies almost from church to church. Eg, in the Anglican Church if you tried to label the electoral roll members as 'members' you'd have to face the fact that lots of them don't attend. Even some of whom who contribute. If the criteria was financial, many electoral roll members wouldn't qualify, and loads of non-electoral roll members would etc etc!

Here in Connecticut, the criteria seem to be: 1) are you baptized? 2) have you notified your parish of your intent to transfer membership to the parish? Congratulations, you're a member.

There may be some congregations or dioceses that require confirmation, but in the United States at least confirmation is viewed more and more as an optional process kind of like a bar mitzvah where a kid who was baptized as an infant sits down and learns the basic doctrine of the Church and then gets the bishop to lay on hands. I was a "member" of a church I hadn't visited in a far away town for ten years, despite the fact that I had not been to church, had in fact converted to another religion, and had not contributed a dime.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:

1. Agree with statement of faith.
2. Commit to give (time, gifts, money)
3. Commit to Sunday services, weekly bible studies and monthly prayer meeting.

It's noted when you're not there.
It's pushing people away. [/QB][/QUOTE]

It seems controlling and vaguely cultish to me. I attend church every Sunday but I'd feel icky if I someone were keeping a roll-call on me and told me that if I wanted to stay in good standing I had to be there every week.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Just recently at church, membership criteria has been a bit of a hot topic, with some folk unable to take up membership because they can’t commit to the criteria, which besides the doctinal stuff, are focused on attendance at meetings. It’s a difficult one because we want to help and encourage each other and see each other regularly, but the way I see it, attendance comes from wanting to go because we love being together, not going because the leadership want you to go. Why do church leaders get so wound up about this? The leaders at our church are always preaching grace, not works, but the attendance policy for membership appears to fly in the face of this.

There's a fine line between imposition and invitation. I agree with you that those who attend should want to be there. If they attend because they must, their hearts won't be in it. Plus there's a cussedness factor which comes into play for people like me, who don't like to be told what to do even if I want to do it.

On the other hand, a culture of encouragement to do as well as to sit must be fostered.

Posted by enpart (# 17272) on :

A few years ago I noticed that there were names on the membership list who had not been to church for ten years or more. Some of them turned out to be old members who were not able to attend any more, but a lot of the names had been left there solely for the purpose of making the church look good on the visitation returns. I contacted all of the ones I could find and removed all those who did not expressly ask to stay on. Many of them asked to stay on as ‘friends’ – ironically, having released them from any sense of obligation or guilt at not attending for years, some of the ‘new’ friends have started coming to services again. We now have a members list that reflects the true regular attendance, and a friends list that has doubled in size overnight.

The only criteria for new members is that if a person attends regularly for six months they are invited to join. They can then vote at meetings if they want to but there’s no requirement to attend them.

Our experience is that regular attendance comes first from a feeling of community, not necessarily from a duty to church leaders or obligation to a piece of paper. I‘ve handed out new electoral roll forms on several occasions but hardly anyone bothers to bring them back. There was a suggestion a while ago to go digital with the thing but that fizzled out from sheer boredom. I got more demand for the certificates that we gave out at a pet service this summer.

There is now a policy from our Diocesan leaders of ‘belonging before believing’
We don’t make anybody sign anything in particular.....we have a ceremonial cup of tea and a bit of cake. If we presented any prospective new member (or old) with Stoker’s 1 2 3 they’d think we were a bunch of control freaks.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Just sounds pretty much the 'norm', Mockingale, for particular strands of independent Protestantism - whether conservative evangelical,charismatic or even simply congregational in some way. It needn't be cultic, but it could stretch that way if it wasn't careful.

In such circumstances it just depends on how 'tightly' these strictures are applied. In my experience leaders tend to tighten the ties that bind every now and then to reassure themselves that they've got committed people on board.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by enpart:
There is now a policy from our Diocesan leaders of ‘belonging before believing’
We don’t make anybody sign anything in particular.....we have a ceremonial cup of tea and a bit of cake.

My church treats membership in a similar way - if you're part of a midweek small group (our version of 'belonging') then you're considered to be a member of the church. We don't expect people to believe or do certain things, just to be committed to a house group. By and large, someone who is 'belonging' in this way but unsure about the 'believing' part will gradually come to a decision about the latter, but we don't have a formal declaration of belief or anything like that.

Mostly, I very much like this way of doing things although there is the danger that people are never really confronted with the sense of decision that following Jesus entails. Without a formal declaration of membership or catechism-type system, I think it's possible for people to merrily belong for a long time without having to consciously choose to aim for God's way...

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I have often thought that "membership" is a misleading word to apply to church involvement. It implies "us and them" and "in and out" judgementalism.

I totally agree with you angelfish: 'membership' is a term I use for joing the local library, or a club, etc. In Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, and other mainline Protestant denominations one becomes part of the Church Universal through the Sacrament of Baptism. As Baptism does not guarantee salvation in and of itself,once one reaches an age of understanding and independence, how one participates and to what level is indicative of their faith and committment.

Anglican Communion practice (as distinct from just CoE practice) regarding voting rights varies from country to country. Here in Australia (and I hazard a guess elesewhere as well) while we have parish churches based on localities, we are not the etsablished church and therefore people have no 'rights' regarding baptism, burial and marriage in the church, etc. This can and has been abused in this Diocese, hence why those of us who have a more open policy are often approached when they have been denied elsewhere. The requirements for voting at Annual Vestry Meetings is that a person has not voted in any other parish, that s/he has is over 18 and that they have taken communion in the past 3 months. Association and linking with a particular parish is more relevant than living in formal parish boundaries.

I also agree with angelfish's understanding that prescriptive 'terms of membership' can be viewed as highly judgemental and exclusionary. How easily could it be seen and felt by others that, "If you are not with us, you are against us!" Given the Diocese where I live and move, that is often the sentiment given by local and diocesan structures.

What if one views one of the statements of faith to be unclearly phrased, or that the phrasing whicvh was once understood clearly is now onscured by changes in the mean and implications of words? What if ones time committments outside of the community have changed radically and therefore precludes one from making that committment?

As I ponder and pray in the stillness, I dream as a dreamer of dreams. A steepled church stands before me -- a church with open doors. Within it I see the preacher stand; hear his voice in earnest call. But 'tis the throng that flows through the street outside that holds my anxious gaze.Open wide the doors of the church to bring the throng inside! Let no one deny for all are welcomed in the household of God.
Aimee Semple McPherson

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Stoker, I'd be interested to hear about the criteria expected to be met before someone can become a member of your church?

1. Agree with statement of faith.
2. Commit to give (time, gifts, money)
3. Commit to Sunday services, weekly bible studies and monthly prayer meeting.

It's noted when you're not there.
It's pushing people away.

To be honest, the British Methodist Church probably say similar things about the meaning of membership, e.g. mentioning the importance of 'entering into the full life of the fellowship of the church', etc. The difference is that there's very little attempt to enforce them. These words exist as something to strive towards, quietly, but not something to make a fuss about; except that every now and then there's a sermon about how people ought to give more money and/or time to the church, and in the office there may be grumbles about how the jobs that need doing and attendance at prayer groups, etc. always involve the same people. Nothing changes significantly, however. Conflict is avoided.

As Belle Ringer says, you need to know what kind of church you want. Not every church can run along CofE lines. If the success of the church depends solely on the congregation, with no subsidy or advice from outside, then it's inevitable that a stricter policy will have to be in place. Group cohesion is much more important.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Stoker, I'd be interested to hear about the criteria expected to be met before someone can become a member of your church?

1. Agree with statement of faith.
2. Commit to give (time, gifts, money)
3. Commit to Sunday services, weekly bible studies and monthly prayer meeting.

It's noted when you're not there.
It's pushing people away.

Thanks for that. It seems reasonable, on one hand. But church communities, in my view, just don't naturally operate as groups of 'members' in that way. There has to be space for the fringe, the folks who don't 'subscribe' and those who for different reasons can't or don't want to follow the herd, logical and correct as that may seem.

So I can see why it might be pushing people away.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
Why do church leaders get so wound up about this?
Because if you're not there you can't chip in when the collection plate is passed round.
Not exclusively. Church shouldn't be a spectator sport. If you are unwilling to support it with your time, attendance, gifts, and commitment, don't join.

My post was about why church leaders get so worked up about people not attending, not the reasons people in the pews may have for doing/not doing so.

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

On a slight tangent from the OP but still related, what experiences do shipmates have of bailing out, leaving a church even when you have some good friends and history there but feel you can't carry on (maybe for some of the issues in the OP)?

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Stoker, I'd be interested to hear about the criteria expected to be met before someone can become a member of your church?

1. Agree with statement of faith.
2. Commit to give (time, gifts, money)
3. Commit to Sunday services, weekly bible studies and monthly prayer meeting.

My church has similar criteria to this. Of course not everyone can come every single week, that's self evident. But if you don't want to make commitment 3 - to come to meet with others whenever you can, why be bothered about not being able to be a church member? Do people have something to lose my remaining a non-member and coming along when they want to? Or can the church not be clear that a "regular" attendance doesn't mean every single week without fail?

The reasons most churches have a membership system is so that it's clear who the congregation are for the purposes of congregational government. My problem with the model South Coast Kevin suggests is that IME (and I'm sure this is not true in his church) the reason that no one needs to become a member is because the church is run by some leaders who aren't formally accountable to anyone. It only takes for the sh*t to hit the fan for the "members" to discover that the leaders can do whatever they want, and all the people who are emotionally invested in the church have no power to stop anything. Membership, in our church at least, is a means to stop that happening.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
On a slight tangent from the OP but still related, what experiences do shipmates have of bailing out, leaving a church even when you have some good friends and history there but feel you can't carry on (maybe for some of the issues in the OP)?

I have a certain amount of experience in different contexts, whether moving from one church to another or leaving the church altogether. But I'm still getting my head around that one, so I'm more likely to be able to talk about it coherently in a month or two.

Was there something specific you wanted to ask/discuss?

[ETA: Question]

[ 23. August 2012, 11:46: Message edited by: The Great Gumby ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The reasons most churches have a membership system is so that it's clear who the congregation are for the purposes of congregational government. My problem with the model South Coast Kevin suggests is that IME (and I'm sure this is not true in his church) the reason that no one needs to become a member is because the church is run by some leaders who aren't formally accountable to anyone.

I think it's partially true in my church, to be honest. We have a leadership team of (I think) seven people but there's no formal way for everyone else to influence the leaders or hold them to account. Having said that, there is a cross-church oversight system, so the leaders of one church will be mentored and guided by those from another church.

I suppose the rest of us do have some say, in that we can reduce our financial giving and general commitment to what the church is doing and, ultimately, leave the church entirely. But I can certainly see the benefits of congregational governance based on a formal membership system.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The reasons most churches have a membership system is so that it's clear who the congregation are for the purposes of congregational government.

Yes, I think this is extremely important. It also works the other way - if the church is governed by a constitution which allows "members" to vote, then it's really best if there is some sort of attendance criterion for membership. Otherwise, there is a possibility of members who never attend and aren't committed to the organisation turning up to vote and throw their weight around at the AGM and voting out changes that the people who DO attend really want. I've never actually seen this in a church but I've seen it happen a number of times in other voluntary organisations.

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

Leprechaun et al – thanks.
I’m totally with your comments about membership and I ascent to the biblical and common wisdom principles of having a formal membership. This then logically requires a set of criteria to mark out members or non members.

You’ve hit the money with indentifying point 3 as the contentious one. The problem is that it’s an absolutely non negotiable inflexible rule. The leadership keep a surreptitious attendance register and you have to justify why you don’t attend twice a week and once a month (and it needs to be a good reason, and please try not to take holidays during school term time, it's so inconvienient).
My analogy would be that a church leader should be ‘on the field’ with his team, leading the church, bringing them with him. Ours is more like an old school P.E teacher yelling from the sidelines........

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
On a slight tangent from the OP but still related, what experiences do shipmates have of bailing out, leaving a church even when you have some good friends and history there but feel you can't carry on (maybe for some of the issues in the OP)?
I have a certain amount of experience in different contexts, whether moving from one church to another or leaving the church altogether. But I'm still getting my head around that one, so I'm more likely to be able to talk about it coherently in a month or two.

Was there something specific you wanted to ask/discuss?

[ETA: Question]

It’s basically discouraging my family, the focus on external stuff. The leader dosen’t listen because he’s very good at understanding the Bible, so he thinks that makes him very good at understanding everything else. I suppose because he’s used to having all the answers to understand the Bible, and being in a position where he tells others, it spills over so that he thinks he has all the answers for the congregation. He works all the hours God gives, so he expects others to do the same and basically won’t budge on just about anything.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:

You’ve hit the money with indentifying point 3 as the contentious one. The problem is that it’s an absolutely non negotiable inflexible rule. The leadership keep a surreptitious attendance register and you have to justify why you don’t attend twice a week and once a month (and it needs to be a good reason, and please try not to take holidays during school term time, it's so inconvienient).
My analogy would be that a church leader should be ‘on the field’ with his team, leading the church, bringing them with him. Ours is more like an old school P.E teacher yelling from the sidelines........

Have you discussed with the leader? Having been on the church leadership of a fairly intentional congregational church, I think I was perceived as you described, when it was, in fact, my too clumsy way of being concerned for people's wellbeing. Has the thing about, for example, holidays been publically said, or is it just a feeling you get? Is there a real register taken each week, or is it the church leaders noting who isn't there and following them up? Are there really people who are actually in reality church members who are being put off formally joining because of the requirement or is it just a bit of moaning?

I guess I'm asking - could this be misguided concern? In which case the leader probably just needs telling that it isn't helping. (This might also be a good point to discuss his workaholism!)

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:

You’ve hit the money with indentifying point 3 as the contentious one. The problem is that it’s an absolutely non negotiable inflexible rule. The leadership keep a surreptitious attendance register and you have to justify why you don’t attend twice a week and once a month (and it needs to be a good reason, and please try not to take holidays during school term time, it's so inconvienient).
My analogy would be that a church leader should be ‘on the field’ with his team, leading the church, bringing them with him. Ours is more like an old school P.E teacher yelling from the sidelines........
Have you discussed with the leader? Having been on the church leadership of a fairly intentional congregational church, I think I was perceived as you described, when it was, in fact, my too clumsy way of being concerned for people's wellbeing. Has the thing about, for example, holidays been publically said, or is it just a feeling you get? Is there a real register taken each week, or is it the church leaders noting who isn't there and following them up? Are there really people who are actually in reality church members who are being put off formally joining because of the requirement or is it just a bit of moaning?

I guess I'm asking - could this be misguided concern? In which case the leader probably just needs telling that it isn't helping. (This might also be a good point to discuss his workaholism!)

It's not really misguided concern, it's all factual. I have seen the register and been asked not to mention it, it's not workaholism - it's working for Jesus and there's only 2 ways to do things, my way or the wrong way...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
It's not really misguided concern, it's all factual. I have seen the register and been asked not to mention it, it's not workaholism - it's working for Jesus and there's only 2 ways to do things, my way or the wrong way...

It's a cliche, but does that mean His way is the wrong way?

People have different callings and ministries. I dam sceptical of anyone who tells me I have a ministry, whether it be for healing, washing the dishes or attending international conferences. That, to my mind, makes these sign-on-the-dotted-line membership declarations untrustworthy as they pigeonhole people. If a church didn't want me as God made me, I don't think I could attend that church.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

The reasons most churches have a membership system is so that it's clear who the congregation are for the purposes of congregational government.

We Anglicans often get accused (rightly) of acting as if we are the Church and everyone else is an aberration. But you can't say that 'most' churches have a membership system because that only applies, in the main, to evangelical or other protestant bodies that seek to define who belongs (for valid reasons, often enough; don't get me wrong) as opposed to traditional 'catholic' (in the broad sense) churches for whom baptism is the only real criterion. The C of E has an 'electoral roll' for those qualified to vote for church officers etc, but that is not the same as 'membership'.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
It's not really misguided concern, it's all factual. I have seen the register and been asked not to mention it, it's not workaholism - it's working for Jesus and there's only 2 ways to do things, my way or the wrong way...

In that case I would agree that this is a misuse of the concept of church membership. [Frown]

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

The reasons most churches have a membership system is so that it's clear who the congregation are for the purposes of congregational government.
We Anglicans often get accused (rightly) of acting as if we are the Church and everyone else is an aberration. But you can't say that 'most' churches have a membership system because that only applies, in the main, to evangelical or other protestant bodies that seek to define who belongs (for valid reasons, often enough; don't get me wrong) as opposed to traditional 'catholic' (in the broad sense) churches for whom baptism is the only real criterion. The C of E has an 'electoral roll' for those qualified to vote for church officers etc, but that is not the same as 'membership'.

Yes, my bad. Poor grammar. It should have read "The reasons that most churches that have a membership system have such a system is so that...etc." I did not mean at all to impugn other systems of church government!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Explanation understood and accepted! Sorry if my reaction seemed snarky, but ISTM the concept of 'membership' seems to be creeping into the C of E and again ISTM an alien concept to our tradition. I can perfectly well understand that other churches with a different history have different needs.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
On a slight tangent from the OP but still related, what experiences do shipmates have of bailing out, leaving a church even when you have some good friends and history there but feel you can't carry on (maybe for some of the issues in the OP)?
I have a certain amount of experience in different contexts, whether moving from one church to another or leaving the church altogether. But I'm still getting my head around that one, so I'm more likely to be able to talk about it coherently in a month or two.

Was there something specific you wanted to ask/discuss?

[ETA: Question]
It’s basically discouraging my family, the focus on external stuff. The leader dosen’t listen because he’s very good at understanding the Bible, so he thinks that makes him very good at understanding everything else. I suppose because he’s used to having all the answers to understand the Bible, and being in a position where he tells others, it spills over so that he thinks he has all the answers for the congregation. He works all the hours God gives, so he expects others to do the same and basically won’t budge on just about anything.

I'm still not entirely clear. I'm assuming that the question is around moving from one church to another, but are you set on leaving the church but not sure how to do it? Are you unsure whether to go elsewhere over this? Are you just wanting to reassure yourself that whatever happens, life will go on?

It's good that you're worried about what to do, and the possible wrench of leaving friends behind, as it suggests that you're not just running off at the first minor irritation. Given that, I think you'll know deep down if you need to move on, both for your sake and for the church's. You don't need to lose your friends, and you'll probably make even more wherever you end up.

Given why this has all come about, would you feel comfortable with taking the odd Sunday off to check out some different places before you leave? It would make the process much easier, and you may even find that the grass isn't greener on the other side. I realise it might not be easy, but I think it's important to know where you're heading.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Our church used to have a fairly standard Lutheran definition of church membership: must have been baptized with a Triune formula; must have been confirmed; must attend services/communicate X times per year.

Problem is, in today's rather fluid religious atmosphere, that type of thing doesn't work anymore; and we found ourselves with a church full of new, faithful worshippers who nonetheless fell through the formal "membership" cracks in one way or another . At best it made people who were de facto members in any meaningful sense second-class citizens in their own chosen place of worship; at worst it turned people away/alienated extended family members when some wayward branch of the clan failed to meet all the criteria and got kicked off the membership rolls.

So we have drastically minimalized our membership "requirements." What we tell new people is that if they worship/communicate with us once a year and contribute at least one dollar per year to the benefit of the congregation, they're "in"; that's good enough for us. (And in our experience people motivated enough to inquire about membership at our shack attend/give much more than the minimum.)

Because membership boils down to bookkeeping. We keep membership stats because that's what denominations do.

The issue of inviting people into deeper levels of commitment in the life of our local congregation is not a "membership" issue; it's a pastoral care issue, another thing entirely. Our pastor is pretty diligent in staying connected to households who've chosen to affiliate with us, and we also use our communication tools -- our online presences, our newsletters, etc. -- to keep extending the invitation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I suppose the rest of us do have some say, in that we can reduce our financial giving and general commitment to what the church is doing and, ultimately, leave the church entirely. But I can certainly see the benefits of congregational governance based on a formal membership system.

Maybe you didn't mean it like this, but it comes across as though the layman in your church only has a negative influence on proceedings: he can withhold his money or his presence, but there's little he can do positively about what happens in the church. Isn't this a recipe for passivity? But I'm sure your congregation isn't passive, so how do church members overcome this appearance of disenfranchisement?

I'm not picking on your church - I'm sure that lots of churches have this kind of culture. I was once surprised to be told that my own denomination was 'democratic', because that's not how it felt to me! It's all relative, I suppose.

[ 23. August 2012, 15:53: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I have seen the register and been asked not to mention it, it's not workaholism - it's working for Jesus and there's only 2 ways to do things, my way or the wrong way...

Not knowing where you are on your faith journey, how it meshes (or not) with where your church is, this thought may be relevant or utterly not -- but,

why care whether someone is tracking your attendance at church?

If I miss a Sunday -- or a month of Sundays, or a month of any contact with the church, and they demand a reason, I shrug and say "I'm fine, that you for caring about my welbeing." If they press for a reason acceptable to them I say "it's between me and God." (Add "and my spiritual adviser" if appropriate. My pastor is NEVER also my spiritual adviser).

I have had jobs that require Sunday morning work; hobbies like being in community theater that keep me up so late Saturday night what I need Sunday morning is sleep; periods when I need time apart from the busyness of church programs and their focus on things other than the specific things God wants me focusing on for a while; and yes times when visiting other churches -- or taking a long walk to talk to God -- were the most appropriate use of that time slot.

If *they* decide *you* are not a "member" because you don't meet their standards, so what? Does it make any practical difference in your worship or your relationships with others in the congregation? Is there a specific calling on your life that can be met only in this one church so that you have to kowtow to whatever they demand? (That can happen, but I suspect it's rare.)

As to leaving church -- I have rarely done so except due to a move to a different city (which I have done quite often), but some friends do it every 4 or 5 years. Watching them, what I see is the key to ongoing friendships is to build relationships that are not solely church-focused.

If you visit each others homes, go to movies together, etc, those friendships can survive change of churches. If the word "friend" means "someone I see in church meetings but have no topics or interests in common with other than this church," that friendship will not survive change of churches.

If you are thinking of a change of church and want to keep some of the friendships, invite people over for a Bar-B-Q or a day trip sightseeing and talk about things other than church. Build relationships broader than the church. (Some church people will refuse, their church is their only topic.)

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe you didn't mean it like this, but it comes across as though the layman in your church only has a negative influence on proceedings: he can withhold his money or his presence, but there's little he can do positively about what happens in the church. Isn't this a recipe for passivity? But I'm sure your congregation isn't passive, so how do church members overcome this appearance of disenfranchisement?

Hmm yes, my comment was rather negative [Hot and Hormonal]

. There's a point behind my comment, but firstly I should say the my church's leadership are great in that they strongly encourage church members to run with ideas they've had. The leaders very much see their role as enabling and facilitating everyone in our church to fulfil their gifts and calling; not to generate all the ideas and manage everything themselves.

My slight complaint is that the informal style of influencing can lead to people who aren't in the circle of friends of any of the leaders going a bit unnoticed, unless they really put themselves forward and get themselves noticed. That's my impression, anyhow. Maybe I just need to be a bit more proactive...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's an interesting observation, South Coast Kevin. My own observation is that there is always an 'in-crowd' and this applies as much to Anglican and other historic Churches as it does to new churches and non-conformist ones. The mileage varies, of course. My suspicion would be that there is a level of control-freakery at work both in extremely High and extremely 'low' churches ... but that there is a continuum along which we may find ourselves more or less comfortable. And the comfort-zone element may depend on the extent to which the leadership or leadership and wider inner circle decisions accord with our own views and presuppositions ...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
For most denominations, the local church is charged a fee per member by the larger organization. If you're just going to be dead wood, all you are is a cost to the organization.

Anyone who attends once a quarter should be told to leave completely? Someone is showing some little spark of interest and instead of looking for ways to nurture it the church should cut them off?

Or should denominations change their dues system so marginal people aren't seen as a burden to be chased away? Where I live, the Methodist church no longer uses head count, dues is based solely on the size of the congregation's budget. This makes the very poor person who cannot give -- or the occasional attender -- no longer a "burden."

I can understand wanting a group of highly committed people for mutual spiritual growth reasons, but the reasons for deciding some aren't a good fit should not be based on money!

I run the "membership" list for a community writers group (no dues, just an email list reminding of the next meeting). Recently I emailed several who have not showed up for several *years* and asked for an affirmative response if they want to be kept on the monthly reminder list. To my surprise, every one of them emailed back "keep me on the list"! Wow; and I had wondered if the monthly reminders went to the spam file.

I don't understand what it means to people to be a member of something they have been totally inactive in for 3 or 4 or 5 years, but apparently it does mean something. Maybe that slim connection of knowing "I am a member" improves their life in some way, inspires them to attitudes or behaviors, has positive effects even though they never walk in the door?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I think it's preposterous to kick people off church rolls for not living up to some idealistic neo-monastic degree of church commitment (which, in my observation as someone in a tradition that doesn't do this, always seems to involve keeping people busy inside church buildings or in insular little "home groups" and activities all week long).

"Firing" members for not doing enough to promote a church's financial or missional bottom line is thinking like a business -- not like the called, gathered people of God. The only "business" we're in is supposed to be invitation, inclusion and support. And the idea that every individual's worth as a worker in the Lord's vineyard is quantifiable by some busybody wonks in his/her church, based on his/her physical presence in a church activities is...well, not a spiritual neighborhood in which I care to live.

[ 23. August 2012, 20:22: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

What Lutheranchik said - so much more eloquently than I could.
As far as I am concerned the reason to encourage people to attend church every week, is because it is a duty we owe to God. We do also do it for ourselves as it is harder to grow and develop as a Christian without a living worshipping community.
It is not a duty we owe our church leaders, or our fellow church members, it is something that we do for God.–
Although yes, there may be an element that if we want the church to be there we may have to contribute in some way to it’s maintenance and upkeep – and I’m not just talking finance and buildings, but it’s about community and ministry and mission, and each to his own abilities, we cannot proscribe what people do, it is between them and God.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

In our weird mission situation we've had problems with the whole membership concept because the nonChristians we reach out to have a fixed idea that we receive a financial "bounty" for each person we get to sign on the bottom line. As if! So we've never pushed the membership thing.

There also seems to be a tendency to devalue baptism when we bring church membership up. That might be just because they're such new Christians that they don't know what is important and what is not. We saw the same kind of thing going on when we briefly included the hand-a-lit-candle-to-the-baptizee ritual in baptism--we had to drop that bit of fluffery because people were going "oooh" over the candle and totally ignoring the water and the Word.

At present we seem to have several kinds of membership. There's the "attend regularly but not baptized (yet)" type; the baptized; the communicant; those eligible for leadership roles (basically old and smart enough to function and not under discipline); and the voting members (this is our host congregation's category). I am not a voting member as our host congo requires attendance at three voters' meetings and a formal request; going to v.m.s makes me sick to my stomach, so I stay away. But I can sort of see their point, as you don't want a bunch of people with otherwise-minimal connection to the church to show up en masse at a particular decision-making meeting just because it features a controversial topic--particularly one which they are likely to feel differently about than the regular attenders.

I do wish though that there was some better way to deal with denominational funding stuff than assessing congregations by head (or rewarding them with grant money, etc. by head). That just encourages churches to go for bums in the pews, often at the expense of hearts and minds. Or to drop people who shouldn't be dropped, just to lower assessment costs. [Mad]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I have depression and an anxiety disorder so sometimes if I'm having a bad day mental health wise, church is not possible. It's as impossible as it would be if I was physically paralysed. The peace is very difficult in particular - at the moment I am attending a weekday said Communion service which has about 8 regular members including the vicar and curate, and having a set amount of people I have to shake hands with and talk to makes it much easier.

Also, there are plenty of times when the outside world means regular Sunday attendance is difficult - people who work in the emergency services for instance.

Once when I was in danger of having to sleep rough in a town where I had no family members or close friends the church I considered 'my' church (Anglican) turned round and said I hadn't been attending enough for them to help! Yet the local Baptist church that I did not attend at all didn't hesitate in helping me despite not knowing me at all. So I think sometimes even churches without a formal membership arrangement can be lacking in this area.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Here's how I think of it: In every church I've ever been a part of, there's a nucleus of pastor, staff and high-commitment laypeople -- laypeople who "get" the theology and praxis of the church body in question, who participate faithfully in corporate worship and spiritual formation, who do the lion's share of the work/donate the lion's share of the money. Around this core group orbit rings of other people who identify the place as their church home, who worship there with varying degrees of frequency and participate once in awhile in extra-Sunday activities, who avail themselves of pastoral counseling and other services of the church on an occasional basis...but who simply aren't as active in an evident way as the core group.

Outside these rings are still other rings of nominal members and hangers-on who, sometimes for reasons we don't quite understand, still see us as their spiritual home even though their actual physical presence in the church/at church-sponsored activities is almost non-existent. (These are often the people who show up for what my pastor calls his impromptu garage pastoral-care sessions as he's tinkering with his car or his sculpture-welding projects.)

Some people will naturally move from far ring into the core. Other people will, from time to time, move in the opposite direction. Other people hop back and forth. Others stay in a ring and never leave it. Still others become dissatisfied with this particular iteration of the Church and move off to another congregation.

IMHO: This is perfectly fine. I don't understand the compulsion to compress all these rings of participation into the high-commitment core, nor do I understand the compulsion to get all frowny-faced and judge-y about the people who, for whatever reason, don't move into the core group.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
IMHO: This is perfectly fine. I don't understand the compulsion to compress all these rings of participation into the high-commitment core, nor do I understand the compulsion to get all frowny-faced and judge-y about the people who, for whatever reason, don't move into the core group.

I think you're right about this - we need to make it easy for people to increase their level of commitment but judging, definitely not.

A question that follows on from this which I've been thinking about recently is this: where should the leaders and staff be focusing their efforts? Should they be working hard to bring the people on the edge in towards the middle, or should they instead put more effort in to nurturing the people who are already committed?

The idea I've read is that leaders, vicars etc. should focus on those who are already committed and actively following Jesus, so they in turn can support others to do the same. Then, the thinking goes, you get multiplication rather than addition (you could read this for more detail). Have others come across this idea and what do you think about it?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The biggest danger for a congregation is when they put all their resources into recruiting to the central core and stop seeking to develop the outer rings. It produces an area where nobody is around the church and makes it very hard to pull more people in.

Jengie

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:

IMHO: This is perfectly fine. I don't understand the compulsion to compress all these rings of participation into the high-commitment core, nor do I understand the compulsion to get all frowny-faced and judge-y about the people who, for whatever reason, don't move into the core group.

Well, you're being rather pejorative here. The issue is that there are those of us in a tradition which teaches that it's good for you as a Christian to be committed to other Christians - in fact pretty essential to personal spiritual growth.

Stoker's church seem to have confused that with attendance at meetings, which is a shame. But surely the door needs to be open with the eternally fringey folk to gently ask and encourage into deeper love for the saints; to help them grow and for the church to do its God-given job together.

I do hear what you're saying Lutheranchik, but there's an equal and opposite risk that our rampant individualism filters out the call to communal living that pastors do have to make to their whole congregations as part of their call to grow in all areas of spirituality. You are not only responsible for you, we are, in a sense, responsible for each other.

[ 24. August 2012, 08:06: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
IMHO: This is perfectly fine. I don't understand the compulsion to compress all these rings of participation into the high-commitment core, nor do I understand the compulsion to get all frowny-faced and judge-y about the people who, for whatever reason, don't move into the core group.
I think you're right about this - we need to make it easy for people to increase their level of commitment but judging, definitely not.

A question that follows on from this which I've been thinking about recently is this: where should the leaders and staff be focusing their efforts? Should they be working hard to bring the people on the edge in towards the middle, or should they instead put more effort in to nurturing the people who are already committed?

The idea I've read is that leaders, vicars etc. should focus on those who are already committed and actively following Jesus, so they in turn can support others to do the same. Then, the thinking goes, you get multiplication rather than addition (you could read this for more detail). Have others come across this idea and what do you think about it?

This is a big idea in a book called 'The Trellis and The Vine', which is a popular book in my church circles - how to have a good enough church support structure (Trellis) to support the real work of the Church - people (The Vine). The principle of leaders training and nurturing people is very Biblical and very wise. It fits in with the 'All member ministry' model of New Testament church. How else do we grow future Church leaders?

I am also quite shocked that I almost totally agree with Lutheran Chik's previous post! The only exception being that I think the Bible is quite clear that people should grow in Christ as part of their sanctification, so we should encourage people to move away from the fringes (but we shouldn’t use a big stick of judgement to do so).

[ 24. August 2012, 11:02: Message edited by: Stoker ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I agree that it's important to nurture the committed core of a faith community. It can be disheartening to be in the spot and perceive that all the congregation's energy is invested outward. It can make for a congregation that's theologically/practically a mile wide and an inch deep. I think, though, that that's a product of the mindset that "The cream always rises to the top" -- that the high-commitment folks draw upon their own resources and can take care of themselves spiritually. (And isn't that the popular notion of pastors/priests as well.)

On the other hand...my desire to "dig deeper" is what got me involved in my synod's lay ministry program, my affiliation with an international group of women involved in ordained/religious/lay ministry -- maybe those good things wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been compelled to go outside my own congregation for support.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I think the Bible is quite clear that people should grow in Christ as part of their sanctification, so we should encourage people to move away from the fringes (but we shouldn’t use a big stick of judgement to do so).

But is "grow in Christ as part of their sanctification" necessarily tied to "move away from the fringes to the center at an institutional church"?

We've had discussions about the tendency of churches to be difficult places for people who don't function well in large group activities. Getting active in the core can be a huge strain on some people, even while for others it's refreshing and fulfilling and growth-producing.

There's also the issue of survival consuming so much time there is little room left for church activities. If it takes 1.5 jobs to pay a mortgage, or if someone has a job plus classes or kids, they are working nights and weekends as well as days, there is no free time to be active in church.

And some people have callings that are not institutional church activities -- they are not core people in church because they are core people in other kinds of service/growth activities. They are the active core at the Animal Shelter, the Battered Women's Shelter, the Adult Literacy Program, the Citizens on Patrol, or have a full time job plus are called to study and write, or to be on stage with community theater, or to tutor neighbor children, or personally befriend a homeless woman or a highly disabled person.

Lots of spiritual growth opportunities lie wholly outside the church institution's structure and activities.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
This is a big idea in a book called 'The Trellis and The Vine', which is a popular book in my church circles - how to have a good enough church support structure (Trellis) to support the real work of the Church - people (The Vine). The principle of leaders training and nurturing people is very Biblical and very wise. It fits in with the 'All member ministry' model of New Testament church. How else do we grow future Church leaders?

How else indeed! I've not heard of that book but I like the metaphor. Although...

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Lots of spiritual growth opportunities lie wholly outside the church institution's structure and activities.

I think this is right, too, and I appreciate the reminder. I certainly agree that closer discipleship of Jesus does not necessarily mean more time spent doing things badged up as church activities. For some people, it may well mean less time spent doing such activities...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0