Thread: Membership Covenants, helpful, harmless or a bad thing? 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=029621
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
The church I am part of is considering introducing a covenant which members of the church would be expected to sign up to.
I not heard of church membership covenants until recently, the idea seems to be to formally commit in principle (although not in specifics) to giving time and money to the church, praying regularly, pursuing personal holiness, being loving to other members and wider community and being a witness.
I don't have a problem with any of these individual things as being good in themselves but do feel very uneasy about being asked to covenant to do these things, principally because I see no biblical mandate for it at all, and I think it introduces a danger of legalism (no matter how fluffy the wording of the covenant).
What do others think? Has anyone here signed up to such a thing.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
May I ask what sort of church yours is?
Something like this - with more or less rigour - has marked out much of British Nonconformist life (Baptist, Congregational, Methodist) for centuries - for instance statements such as this and this are common. This reflects their understanding of church as being a "covenanted community of believers".
"New Churches" though will often have a much more rigorous set of obligations.
[ 06. January 2016, 19:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Run away.
One of the most enduring observations in Andrew Walker's benchmark work on new churches, Restoring the Kingdom, highlights the unhealthiness of churches without a fringe membership. I thought that was insightful at the time and during my time in the new church movement, never went all out for this kind of commitment.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The Salvation Army has both ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We have a Soldier's Covenant which is publicly signed when a soldier is sworn-in in a service.
But we also have adherent membership where people who might have the most developed faith to people with the most rudimentary faith, can belong and take an active part in Salvation Army worship and ministry without subscribing to all the doctrines or even the moral lifestyle requirements of soldiership.
I know of an adherent member of TSA who is a former minister in the reformed Church and now calls himself a Salvationist even though he remains a Calvinist and rejects the Army's Arminian/Wesleyan view of grace.
Therefore it shows that a church can have the strictest covenants and a fringe membership. In reality many adherents are right at the heart of all we do and are and we couldn't function as a church without them.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Je suis Marxiste, tendence Groucho: Je ne me soucie pas appartenir à un club qui veut de moi en tant que member.
(I am a Marxist, Groucho tendency: I do not care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.)
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
When I became a member of the Church of Scotland I undertook to devote a fitting proportion of my time, talents and money to the church. I don't think I signed anything, but I do have a certificate somewhere stating this. I will have to dig out my membership certificate and check.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
One of the most enduring observations in Andrew Walker's benchmark work on new churches, Restoring the Kingdom, highlights the unhealthiness of churches without a fringe membership. I thought that was insightful at the time and during my time in the new church movement, never went all out for this kind of commitment.
I've read that Pentecostal and Baptist churches in the UK often have a high rate of attenders not in membership, whereas historical churches such as the Methodists often have very few non-members in attendance, and indeed, may have a membership larger than the number of people who regularly turn up for worship.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Church covenants are common in Baptist churches in the U.S. This one, which dates back to the 1800s, seems to be frequently used, or to form the basis of an particular church's Covenant.
quote:
Having been led, as we believe by the Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and, on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we do now in the presence of God, and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ.
We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit to walk together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this church, in knowledge, holiness, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines; to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the gospel through all nations.
We also engage to maintain family and secret devotions; to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings; faithful in our engagements, and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all tattling, backbiting, and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale of, and use of, intoxicating drinks as a beverage; to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our Savior.
We further engage to watch over one another in brotherly love, to remember one another in prayer; to aid one another in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling and Christian courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation and mindful of the rules of our Savior to secure it without delay.
We moreover engage that when we remove from this place we will, as soon as possible, unite with some other church were we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God's Word.
Typically, all members of the church are expected to sign the Covenant.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Green Mario, does your covenant say anything about submitting to the local leadership?
SvitlanaV2, in New Churches in my experience there is a not-so-implicit push to become a member if you are a Christian.
On the other hand, for a short while I was part of a baptist-type church in darkest France in which people could cease to be members but otherwise continue to attend the church in much the same capacity as before.
Membership of the small church was embodied by a kind of building-block edifice of house bricks with people's names on. Since the church was small and people kept being thrown out, rather than remove the offending brick the name was turned round so it didn't show. It was a bit surreal, and I think I lasted about three months.
[ 07. January 2016, 05:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
It's a baptist church. No mention of submission to elders or leaders. I think it's aim is to tackle a perceived lack of engagement from "church members in terms of attending church events and giving of money and time.
Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on
:
I think the idea of covenanting bothers me rather than the idea of membership having expectations - suggests something permanent that limits future choices, (like marriage) with serious spiritual implications if you don't do what you covenant to do.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
It's a baptist church. No mention of submission to elders or leaders. I think it's aim is to tackle a perceived lack of engagement from "church members in terms of attending church events and giving of money and time.
A covenant won't acheive that - introducing on with that aim will probably have the reverse effect.
There's two sides to this - first the danger of legalism (rules for holy living) and secondly the matter of license (I can do what I like). There's soem kind of middle ground that discusses expectations based on whatever scriptural principles you might choose and whch allows for individual freedom with "corporate" responsibility (ie my own way of expressing and exploring my faith isn't helpful if it adversly affects the journey of others).
Lots of churches dont have written covenants but every church that shares communion practices or expresses covenant.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I think it depends on the heavy-handedness of those seeking to oversea allegiance of the congregation.
I once attended a Methodist covenant service and thought it was quite helpful and thoughtful.
I have also experienced a situation where such a commitment led to micro-involvement in the spiritual lives of others.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
I think the idea of covenanting bothers me rather than the idea of membership having expectations - suggests something permanent that limits future choices, (like marriage) with serious spiritual implications if you don't do what you covenant to do.
Indeed. Introducing one in this way is a recipe for spiritual abuse in my view, and indeed likely to have the opposite effect to that intended.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've read that Pentecostal and Baptist churches in the UK often have a high rate of attenders not in membership, whereas historical churches such as the Methodists often have very few non-members in attendance, and indeed, may have a membership larger than the number of people who regularly turn up for worship.
True, and just look at membership vs. attendance figures in (for instance) the Church of Scotland. But even in Baptist etc. churches there are members whose attendance and commitment seems to be weaker than other folk who aren't official members.
From a legal point of view, only members may be appointed to certain roles (eg Trustees/Deacons/Elders), and some churches may require in their internal rules that certain tasks be performed by members.
[ 07. January 2016, 08:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Like Eutychus, I have been involved in the past with groups that put a big emphasis on 'covenant relationships' between church members ... and yes, this did lead to spiritual abuse ...
I remember discussing it with one of the leaders towards the end of my time there and enlikening it to an incident that happened to me as a small boy.
We'd wandered a little further from our own 'territory' - a patch of waste ground where we habitually played - and ended up on someone else's. A bunch of bigger boys cornered us and their ring-leader told us that we couldn't go home because they'd erected a 'force-field' around us ...
So we sat there for what seemed like an inordinate amount of time ... but which was probably only a matter of minutes (time runs slowly when you're a kid) ... wondering what to do.
Eventually, my brother and I summoned the courage to run 'at' the putative force-field in an effort to break-out. Of course, when we reached the apparent 'force-field' (this was the late '60s and there were sci-fi things on t'telly) we found ourselves 'bursting' straight through it 0 although of course it was never actually there in the first place ...
I have no problem with the kind of membership 'covenants' or agreements that mainstream non-conformist churches - such as Baptists - and Methodists enter into ... but these things can be ratcheted up to a form of mind-control - as with the putative 'force-field'.
All manner of ills and misfortunes were threatened or even prophesied against those who had the gall to 'break covenant' ... it was seen as a heavy-duty thing - and I'm sure it kept many people tied into such fellowships who could have - and should have - moved on to less strait-jacketed churches long before.
In fairness, the 'covenant' thing softened and modified over time - it lost it's initial tightness and severity ... but even so, a lot of damage was done.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
I think the idea of covenanting bothers me rather than the idea of membership having expectations - suggests something permanent that limits future choices, (like marriage) with serious spiritual implications if you don't do what you covenant to do.
Indeed. Introducing one in this way is a recipe for spiritual abuse in my view, and indeed likely to have the opposite effect to that intended.
Perhaps so; but remember that "covenant" in a Baptist - or, more strictly - congregationalist - scenario is not (or should not be) about "submitting" to leaders. It is much more to do with mutual accountability within the church community; indeed, leaders are accountable to the members.
I wonder if some of the misgivings being expressed here are due to (a) concern at stories of the heavy-handed situations mentioned by Gamaliel and/or (b) a feeling that "my faith and lifestyle are personal and other people in the church have no right to make any judgements or criticisms of me"?
[ 07. January 2016, 08:26: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
Many Neo-Calvinist churches in the U.S. are requiring membership Covenants that require submission to leadership and "church discipline" where what can be disciplined is not defined. Some examples I've read about included questioning the pastor on theology., asking about the budget or ignoring a pastor's advice. These are legally binding documents and I for one would run from any church that required one.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
What can be disciplined is not defined. Some examples I've read about included questioning the pastor on theology., asking about the budget or ignoring a pastor's advice. These are legally binding documents.
Now that I most certainly do not like!
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
And there you see my point!
The key word in my previous post was "introduced". It's one thing having a historic practice, it's another to bring one in as an attempt to combat declining commitment.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
The irony with much of this, of course, is that such Neo-Calvinists (and the earlier UK restorationists) would be the first to criticise the 'priest-craft' and apparent authoritarianism of some of the historic Churches - yet they have themselves constructed systems which are far more restrictive in practice.
I've seen RC and Orthodox 'lay-people' challenge clergy - even bishops - in a way that would boggle minds and raise eyebrows in most Protestant settings that would pride themselves on their 'priesthood of all believers' stance ...
As in all these things, there's a balance and the kind of membership agreements ('covenant' is perhaps a loaded term?) or 'contracts' that UK Baptists and Methodists espouse cause me no concern at all - there are checks and balances in all these groups.
The kind of 'covenants' that some of the newer outfits espouse - whether neo-Calvinist or charismatic - on the other hand cause me a great deal of concern - for a whole raft of reasons. They are a recipe for disaster.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I don't know this guy. But he seems to have some pertinent comments on Membership Covenants, "Shepherding", Celebrity Pastors and Being Open to New Ideas.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't know this guy. But he seems to have some pertinent comments on Membership Covenants, "Shepherding", Celebrity Pastors and Being Open to New Ideas.
Eagle also comments on a site called WartburgWatch, which has several articles on covenant memberships. Very enlightening.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I cross-posted with Eutychus - and completely agree with his point ...
Introducing a 'covenant' to combat apparent declining commitment strikes me as counter-productive. There may be all sorts of reasons for the apparent decline ... changing work patterns, changing social patterns, an over-realised expectation on the part of the leadership (who may not be aware of people's family or work commitments) - and much else besides.
As soon as the leaders up the ante on this one they are introducing something potentially divisive ... for one thing, a gulf between those who happily sign up for the 'covenant' and those who don't or who have qualms about doing so.
'Hmmm ... Joe Bloggs is reluctant to sign ... that must mean that his commitment to the church is waning ...'
It could be the thin end of a very large wedge.
Without wishing to scare-monger, I can remember hearing about a reasonably well-known second-generation UK 'new church' leader holding a leadership conference where he 'modelled' or put forward a way of dealing with congregational dissent by having stooges or 'plants' - effectively spies - planted in every house-group who would report back to the leadership on anyone who spoke out of turn or said anything potentially 'off message'.
In the context of sharing concerns and prayer, these 'plants' would obtain details of misdemeanours, confessed sin or whatever else they could get held of relating to those individuals. Armed with this information, the lead pastor would then confront the individual and threaten to expose them with these details in front of the congregation in order to shame them ...
They'd be given an ultimatum and be asked to leave unless they conformed ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
This leader - no names, no pack-drill - gave an instance of this from his own experience and it was greeted with laughter, cheers and applause by some of the other leaders present.
My informant, a church leader himself, was absolutely stunned. He wrote to the chap advocating such an approach outlining why he felt it was completely and utterly reprehensible and telling him that he would never attend any of his leadership conferences or events ever again.
Ok - that's an extreme example ... but I'm afraid these kind of sharp practices have become de-rigeur in some quarters ...
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Do you think that leaders introduce such Covenants because they feel that modern-day Christians tend to treat faith (and Church) as an optional and discretionary "leisure activity" and need to be shocked into realising that it means much more than that? Or is it all to do with maintaining positions of power and authority?
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Do you think that leaders introduce such Covenants because they feel that modern-day Christians tend to treat faith (and Church) as an optional and discretionary "leisure activity" and need to be shocked into realising that it means much more than that? Or is it all to do with maintaining positions of power and authority?
Some church leaders believe they need to exert "authority" over their congregation to be doing their job. Some believe it will stimulate commitment. I was a part of a para church organization that utilized covenants to do both. Abuse became rampant. Some churches use them to delineate dedicated members from observing pew sitters.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Do you think that leaders introduce such Covenants because they feel that modern-day Christians tend to treat faith (and Church) as an optional and discretionary "leisure activity" and need to be shocked into realising that it means much more than that? Or is it all to do with maintaining positions of power and authority?
Both.
While I think this type of church is a safe haven for conscious abusers, I think many more leaders are deceived and/or self-deceived into exercising power.
If you're convinced that being part of a vibrant church community (and assume, logically enough, that your particular flavour is the best one) is essential to a healthy Christian faith (which on the face of it doesn't sound so evil) then it's a short step to trying to coerce people to stay even for the noblest of reasons.
This applies to Gamaliel's example above. Some quarters of the church movement I used to be part of were hot on "discipleship" relations. Individuals, especially leaders, were encouraged to open up to leaders (and actively discouraged from sharing the content of the conversation with their spouse). The result was that the senior leadership held all sorts of dirt on those lower down which could be used against them if they fell out of favour. As I often point out, it mirrors the plot of The Firm pretty exactly. But the practice could be instilled using (misplaced) higher motives as leverage.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't know this guy. But he seems to have some pertinent comments on Membership Covenants, "Shepherding", Celebrity Pastors and Being Open to New Ideas.
In NA Baptist circles a lot of the push for covenants originates with people like Mark Dever. In my opinion, even if the initial impulses sound laudable, the end result is anything but and can lead to very controlling situations.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
This little article has just appeared on the BUGB website. It seems to express a rather different concept of Covenant.
This is their way of life (I think clicking on links will give greater detail, but I haven't looked at that).
[ 07. January 2016, 11:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The word in there that makes me twitch is "accountability".
In my experience that usually means that some people are more accountable to some others than the latter are to the former; it's never really mutual.
I'm also sceptical about newly-founded communities.
One of the well-thumbed books on my shelves is Love is our Home, the story of the Post Green Community that emerged in the early days of the charismatic renewal in the UK (the full text is actually available online here). The book concludes with the founding covenant of the community - which has long since dissolved, at least in the initially envisaged form.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This is their way of life (I think clicking on links will give greater detail, but I haven't looked at that).
New Celtic? <twitch> <twitch> ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The result was that the senior leadership held all sorts of dirt on those lower down which could be used against them if they fell out of favour. As I often point out, it mirrors the plot of The Firm pretty exactly. But the practice could be instilled using (misplaced) higher motives as leverage.
Yikes But what about peer-to-peer accountability / discipleship, where (at least in theory) there's no mismatch of power or knowledge of 'dirt'? Have you (or anyone else) had experience of this kind of arrangement?
I ask because, while sharing folks' revulsion at the abusive practices described above, I think accountability to one another is an important aspect of Christian community and should be encouraged by church leaders.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I'd be interested to read shipmates' opinions about The Salvation Army's soldiers' covenant, as linked to above.
It may interest you to know that this was rewritten in the 1990s (the doctrines of course remaining intact) and a particular phrase removed: "I shall obey the lawful commands of my officers (ministers)"
Also, it used to be entitled the 'Articles of War' in order to reflect the military metaphor that we use. I guess much of the discipline exerted upon our members was a reflection of the chaotic lifestyles many of them previously 'enjoyed' prior to conversion, and also the militarised culture of the mid 19th and early 20th centuries.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
One of the most enduring observations in Andrew Walker's benchmark work on new churches, Restoring the Kingdom, highlights the unhealthiness of churches without a fringe membership. I thought that was insightful at the time and during my time in the new church movement, never went all out for this kind of commitment.
I've read that Pentecostal and Baptist churches in the UK often have a high rate of attenders not in membership, whereas historical churches such as the Methodists often have very few non-members in attendance, and indeed, may have a membership larger than the number of people who regularly turn up for worship.
Svitlana
Please Baptists have a greater heritage than Methodist so what do you mean by historical churches?
Covenants are, as Baptist Trainfan says, almost standard practice in Orthodox Dissent* in England. These churches usually had a very broad fringe who were not in membership and did not take communion.
The doctorate by Darrell Jackson "The Discourse of 'Belonging' and Baptist Church Membership in Contemporary Britain: Historical, Theological and Demotic elements of a Post-Foundational Theological Proposal" (Th.D)-- University of Birmingham, 2009 looks into this in depth. No, I have not read it but I have sat through a seminar on it.
It was incidental to my own research bordered on this as did that of another shipmate. This links very strongly with Covenant Theology.
Jengie
*phrase coined by Bernard Lord Manning and yes he was not including Methodists.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think accountability to one another is an important aspect of Christian community and should be encouraged by church leaders.
First off, I challenge you to find the word "accountability" in the Bible. Then try and find a translation of it into, say, French, and ask yourself whether it's not more of a management concept than a biblical one.
Secondly, what I take exception to in the above quote is the "encouraged by church leaders" bit. Realistically, I can't parse that any way other than the church leader saying "you need to be accountable to them" (or quite possibly "me").
To me, that is against the essence of the New Covenant when it says (Jer 31:34), provocatively for all those of us who lead or teach, quote:
They will not need to teach their neighbor anymore. And they will not need to teach one another anymore. They will not need to say, ‘Know the Lord.’ That’s because everyone will know me.
Inasmuch as I recognise the need for what you're calling accountability, I think it should be an individual's decision to confide in another, not a requirement imposed on them.
When it's structured that way round, the onus is on the confidee to earn the trust to be confided in, not expect it - which to my mind is a lot healthier.
One key reason for this is that we all have different levels of disclosure, and manipulative people can elicit a lot more disclosure than they provide.
I recall a leaders' gathering at which the top guy made a show, during a prayer, of "confessing" to some unseemly conduct. In actual fact, when I thought about it, he had "confessed" to being tempted, but not to actually doing anything, and no details were forthcoming. But his apparent display of "accountability" brought forth all sorts of admiration of his "openness" and urges to do likewise, and lots of little confessing huddles in the room - without him having disclosed anything at all.
[ 07. January 2016, 11:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Green Mario:
I not heard of church membership covenants until recently, the idea seems to be to formally commit in principle (although not in specifics) to giving time and money to the church, praying regularly, pursuing personal holiness, being loving to other members and wider community and being a witness.
What do others think? Has anyone here signed up to such a thing.
Something like this was introduced with great fan fare and planning at a local Methodist church a few years ago. It lost the church quite a few members, particularly as time revealed that the most important words were "giving" and "money," and all else was just camouflage so it wouldn't look like the pastor was asking people to sign their pledges under group pressure.
I think these covenants might work better in small prayer groups with the money part completely left out.
For me, I accept promptings and criticisms best if given from the pulpit to the congregation in general. If any specific fellow Christian started telling me I was falling short in some area, I'm sure my mind would quickly go to, "But you your own self have this splinter in you eye."
Perhaps it's not for us immature, defensive types.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
In the context of accountability, submission, covenant, discipline, etc, etc, what do we think of these verses:
quote:
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Acts 2 v 42
quote:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
1 Timothy 2 v 12
With the emphasis, please, on "I do not permit...", not the second bit (no dead horses allowed)
quote:
Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you.
1 Thessalonians 5 v 12
Not chosen as proof texts, but quoted to ask whether these suggest those very things - accountability, submission, covenant, discipline, etc. If not, what do they suggest?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
First off, I challenge you to find the word "accountability" in the Bible. Then try and find a translation of it into, say, French, and ask yourself whether it's not more of a management concept than a biblical one.
Chiefly, I'm thinking of 'confess your sins to one another' but a quick search reminds me of 'let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds' and the 'we are one body' passages in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12. IMO the phrase 'mutual accountability' is a fair summary of what these passages are getting at...
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Secondly, what I take exception to in the above quote is the "encouraged by church leaders" bit. Realistically, I can't parse that any way other than the church leader saying "you need to be accountable to them" (or quite possibly "me").
...Inasmuch as I recognise the need for what you're calling accountability, I think it should be an individual's decision to confide in another, not a requirement imposed on them.
I genuinely meant 'encouraged' rather than 'required', but I realise the distinction can be blurred. However, just as regular and frequent Bible reading (to take one spiritual practice / discipline as an example) can be encouraged in a church without actually being compulsory, I'd have thought the same can be true of mutual accountability pairs / triplets / groups (however you decide to go about it).
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
But plenty of churches manage fine without this stuff. So why is it necessary? I'm not saying it's *bad* but I don't see why it's necessary.
It seems to jar somewhat with the Protestant notion of one's spiritual life being between oneself and God, and not anyone else's business. That's the whole point behind saying confession to a priest is wrong/unnecessary, no? So why is confessing to a priest wrong but not confessing to an elder or another lay person?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Being mighty sceptical, may I ask if there is any monetary aspect. If not in the covenant, do you get hit up for cash?
On American baptists, who seem over represented as TV program hosts, I hadn't realized the covenant aspect. It makes their stark in and out group mentality, and damnation emphasis more understandable.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Eutychus, in secular discourse "accountabilty" is almost always used to mean the calling to account of those in positions of authority, and I suspect this is also the sense use in such covenants. I think those who have been subject to clergy/leadership abuse would be only too happy to have some sort of accountability process in place.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
But plenty of churches manage fine without this stuff. So why is it necessary? I'm not saying it's *bad* but I don't see why it's necessary.
It seems to jar somewhat with the Protestant notion of one's spiritual life being between oneself and God, and not anyone else's business. That's the whole point behind saying confession to a priest is wrong/unnecessary, no? So why is confessing to a priest wrong but not confessing to an elder or another lay person?
It's not the confessing to a priest that is wrong, it's the idea of absolution that is treated with scepticism, and the idea that in order to repent one must confess to an intermediary.
In early Methodism and into The salvation Army we have a mercy seat at the front where people are invited to publicly kneel during worship in order to pray, to repent, to confess. And very often someone will kneel and pray with that person - but the pray is a matter between them and God - the 'counsellor' doesn't absolve the person's son; that is the Holy Spirit's work alone.,
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
The problem is "accountability" flows one way with these covenants. It's a top down deal. There should be no need for a legal document to join a church. I can't believe this concept is accepted - it didn't start out this way. Our Christianity is worthless if we need a legal document to live it out.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
That still doesn't explain why all of this is necessary. Church members should feel like they can talk to other church members/leaders without coercion or having to sign a declaration, and should want to give money out of their own free will. If church members need a covenant to make them do those things, perhaps the church isn't much good anyway.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'd be interested to read shipmates' opinions about The Salvation Army's soldiers' covenant, as linked to above.
It may interest you to know that this was rewritten in the 1990s (the doctrines of course remaining intact) and a particular phrase removed: "I shall obey the lawful commands of my officers (ministers)"
Also, it used to be entitled the 'Articles of War' in order to reflect the military metaphor that we use. I guess much of the discipline exerted upon our members was a reflection of the chaotic lifestyles many of them previously 'enjoyed' prior to conversion, and also the militarised culture of the mid 19th and early 20th centuries.
I have no problem with signing a declaration of beliefs, but I do object to having to sign a loyalty clause. How is loyalty defined? What are steps taken if one is perceived as disloyal?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
On American baptists, who seem over represented as TV program hosts, I hadn't realized the covenant aspect. It makes their stark in and out group mentality, and damnation emphasis more understandable.
In my experience, at least, the covenants traditionally used by American Baptist congregations do not have the same kind of coercive effect that many are describing here. I've never heard of anyone being disciplined for "violating" such a covenant, though I guess it may have happened.
From what I have seen, it is most often the case that the covenant was adopted by charter members when the congregation was formed, or was adopted so long ago that no one remembers the congregation without it. It is discussed mainly when new members join, because new members will be asked to sign it. It doesn't really establish who is in and who is out. Rather, it functions essentially as the congregation's charter. To the extent it is used otherwise, it is mainly as a statement of what the congregation as a whole aspires to, not what individuals are bound by.
As for the "in and out group mentality" and emphasis on damnation of American Baptists, both may be over-represented in the same way as the TV program hosts you mention are. Having lived my entire life surrounded by lots of Baptists—mostly of the Southern Baptist variety—I've encountered those attitudes in real life with much less frequency than I've encountered them on TV.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
But plenty of churches manage fine without this stuff. So why is it necessary? I'm not saying it's *bad* but I don't see why it's necessary.
Echoes my view of liturgy exactly!
More seriously, it's the formality of a signed agreement that makes me uncomfortable. I don't see anything wrong with a church encouraging holiness, encouraging giving, etc. But to make someone sign a formal commitment strikes me as a bit controlling and rather legalistic to boot.
My church (which I know Eutychus has some familiarity with) grew from the British New Church Movement and does make such encouragements, but there's nothing so formal. There's enough scope for differing views that one isn't even asked to sign any creed or other statement of belief in order to be a member; you're a member if you consider yourself to be one.
If a church is particularly hierarchical, the danger is that you have someone at the top who is accountable to no one or you have an eldership/episcopate who are only mutually accountable to one another, even if they nominally state that they are accountable to Christ.
There's potential for good in a signed commitment, but it's not for everyone and I'd probably walk out if it became either compulsory or expected. The other question to ask is, "what is the church currently lacking that would be improved by this covenant?" If there's no answer to that question, then it almost certainly is necessary. If there is an answer, then a reasonable follow up might be "what other things could the church do that would have the same/similar outcome that might be less offputting and doesn't bring the risk of spiritual abuse?"
A half-decent reference for this is Rob McAlpine's Post-Charismatic, which goes into some detail on spiritual abuses in the pentecostal and charismatic movements, though as he's from the Vineyard church, they get rather whitewashed in the analysis.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The problem is "accountability" flows one way with these covenants. It's a top down deal. There should be no need for a legal document to join a church. I can't believe this concept is accepted - it didn't start out this way. Our Christianity is worthless if we need a legal document to live it out.
Legal? As in required and upheld by law?
Have I missed something? Who is suggesting such a thing?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
That still doesn't explain why all of this is necessary. Church members should feel like they can talk to other church members/leaders without coercion or having to sign a declaration, and should want to give money out of their own free will. If church members need a covenant to make them do those things, perhaps the church isn't much good anyway.
IMO accountability pairs / groups might be a good way of encouraging and enabling people in a church to talk with one another.
If people are already confessing their sins with each other and encouraging one another to greater good deeds, then there might be no need for the promotion of accountability groups.
I'm not at all sure about Membership Covenants so I'll keep out of that one for now!
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In the context of accountability, submission, covenant, discipline, etc, etc, what do we think of these verses:
quote:
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Acts 2 v 42
quote:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
1 Timothy 2 v 12
With the emphasis, please, on "I do not permit...", not the second bit (no dead horses allowed)
quote:
Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you.
1 Thessalonians 5 v 12
Not chosen as proof texts, but quoted to ask whether these suggest those very things - accountability, submission, covenant, discipline, etc. If not, what do they suggest?
I read those and see a group that studies together, fellowships together, prays together, and encourages one another's efforts with praise.
I see nothing there that allows criticism of others, submission, discipline or accountability.
Only excepting the order to women, which doesn't seem to be a person to person thing, but just one of Paul's directives to all churches in general like his 'women cover your heads' thing. It's one thing to listen to the Pope and another to have the church lady next to you tell you that you should come to more evening events or volunteer for more nursery duty or make your 47 year old son join the baseball team. This sort of covenant encourages nosiness and criticism from the all the wrong people.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
To be clear, The Salvation Army's Soldier's Covenant is not merely a membership covenant. It isn't required for membership, but it is rather more missional than that - it's "Membership Plus". to be a Salvation Army soldier is to be an evangelist, a worker, a 'missioner'. It's to offer for service and ministry - therefore, the covenant is greater than an adherent member would sign. It requires more commitment than just being a member of the fellowship.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It's one thing to listen to the Pope and another to have the church lady next to you tell you that you should come to more evening events or volunteer for more nursery duty or make your 47 year old son join the baseball team. This sort of covenant encourages nosiness and criticism from the all the wrong people.
Ooh, it sounds like you speak from unpleasant experience there! My view is that if there is indeed covenant to the leadership of the church (devotion to the Apostles' teaching, etc) then rather than allowing some woman in the congregation to say those things, it actually removes from her any right to say it and places it upon recognised and commissioned leadership.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
That still doesn't explain why all of this is necessary. Church members should feel like they can talk to other church members/leaders without coercion or having to sign a declaration, and should want to give money out of their own free will. If church members need a covenant to make them do those things, perhaps the church isn't much good anyway.
IMO accountability pairs / groups might be a good way of encouraging and enabling people in a church to talk with one another.
If people are already confessing their sins with each other and encouraging one another to greater good deeds, then there might be no need for the promotion of accountability groups.
I'm not at all sure about Membership Covenants so I'll keep out of that one for now!
I've never been part of a church where accountability pairs/groups were the norm. You had home groups and sometimes people had a Bible study buddy they regularly got together and studied with, but it was self-appointed. Why are they necessary? It is frankly nobody else's business what my sins are and what my good deeds are - that is between me and God alone, ultimately. People being friends with each other is surely more natural than having to be some kind of busybody accountability partner. Spiritual directors are one thing, the human equivalent of web filters are quite another.
I can't be alone in thinking how very un-English this sounds, surely?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Yes, I agree. We should be accountable to leaders not to each other (as far as discipline is concerned).
We support one another, love one another, pray for one another.
But we are accountable to leaders.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
To go back to some verses, what about:
Jesus' statement in Matthew 18: "‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses";
or Paul's in Galatians 6: "My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfil the law of Christ";
or in James 5: " Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. ... My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is brought back by another, you should know that whoever brings back a sinner from wandering will save the sinner’s soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins".
I don't like "proof-texting" but these do seem to suggest some kind of informal accountability and correction exercised within a fellowship, but not with any group of people feeling that they are superior to any other.
[ 07. January 2016, 13:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
And what place for Apostleship (in the early church) and leadership? For oversees/bishops and elders?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've never done the sacramental confession thing, but from what I know of it - as practiced among the Orthodox and the Anglicans - I can't speak for the RCS - in those traditions it is God who gives the absolution - not the priest.
The priest may pronounce it - but it's not seen as if they have some special power to forgive sins as it were ...
The origin of sacramental auricular confession goes back, I'm told, to the days when people were excommunicated or disfellowshipped for various reasons - and welcomed back after a period of repentance.
Originally, a form of confession or admission of sins was made to the whole congregation -- which could prove embarrassing in the case of certain sins ... so what happened was that the repentant person would confess to the priest/presbyter who acted on behalf of the whole congregation as it were ...
So it was introduced to spare the blushes of the penitent ...
Jengie Jon will be able to tell us more, but I understand that in some Scottish churches in the 19th century it became de-rigeur for people to repent and confess their sins publicly in front of the whole congregation ... with potentially embarrassing or abusive results.
Of course, confession boxes and private one-to-one confession times with priests also provide pitfalls and can be abused ...
But the idea that something 'magic' happens during confession isn't what sacramental confession is all about in the more sacramental traditions ... even if it is popularly understood that way in some quarters.
Tangent over.
Meanwhile, I don't doubt that most of the covenantal arrangements in Baptist and other non-conformist settings are well-meaning and can indeed be helpful ... particularly if they flow quite naturally from the kind of covenantal theology that Jengie Jon has mentioned.
The problems start, I'd suggest, when that kind of 'historic' covenantal dimension is either lacking or has been morphed beyond recognition into some kind of half-baked 'new' or 'restorationist' way of doing things ... in which case some of the depth and nuance of the original theology is lost.
I was pulled up on another thread for saying 'context is everything' - but in issues like this, I believe it is ...
Consequently, I have little personal problem with the kind of covenantal arrangements that Jengie Jon is talking about - even though I might not want to engage with them myself on a personal level ...
Why? Well, age and venerability isn't everything but in these instances there's been time for the concepts to bed in, to be tested and to be worked out in practice ...
Whereas in some of the 'newer' outfits these things are developed on the fly and on the hoof and it's almost as if they're made up as people are going along ...
Sure, each and any and every church practice developed in that sort of way ... but I'm more comfortable with something that has developed over time than something Pastor Straining At The Leash has developed on the back of an envelope or on a Starbuck's coffee mat sometime over the last fortnight ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
As for the verses Mudfrog cites ... I don't see how these necessarily imply some kind of mutual accountability thing ... they can be, and are, read and interpreted differently within the more sacerdotal or sacramental churches.
Which is why I keep saying that whoever we are and wherever we worship we all read the NT through the lens of our own particular tradition.
An RC reading those verses would understand them in the context of a sacerdotal system ...
A Baptist would understand them differently ...
Context is everything.
There are pros and cons on all sides ... but these days if you invited me to be part of some kind of 'accountability group' in a church congregation or to sign some kind of covenantal declaration I would politely decline.
Whereas I wouldn't have that much of a problem going to a spiritual-director or a 'father-confessor' even under the right circumstances ...
It's all down to context ...
I wouldn't begrudge a non-conformist church its membership covenant or the Salvation Army it's marching-orders as it were, or South Coast Kevin's prayer-triplets or house-groups ... they are fine and suitable for their respective contexts.
But that doesn't mean I'd be in a hurry to sign up for them myself.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Isn't promising to uphold the church with time talent money and prayer a common part of joining a church? Not usually a signed piece of paper but not that long ago some churches kept track of who attended and took communion.
It's not unusual to draw a distinction between members and not. If nothing else - how do you decide whose names go in the directory? But I get intrigued what difference does it make whether someone is a member or not. In some churches, non members can do anything members can - sing in choir, lead a Bible study, attend a church retreat, only not be on the governing board. In other churches non members may not participate in any way except sit in a pew. And of course all sorts of variations in between.
What does membership mean functionally? That might influence how people view a demand to sign a piece of paper that won't really affect them. Does anyone give money or show up for Bible study merely because they signed a piece of paper promising to support this specific church? Maybe some do but a person semi inactive by preference or time constraints won't likely be more active just because they signed some membership form.
[ 07. January 2016, 14:12: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And what place for Apostleship (in the early church) and leadership? For oversees/bishops and elders?
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be leaders in the Church - but they should be "first among equals" rather than dictators beyond reproach and disagreement. (Remember that I'm coming from a background which sees a leader as gifted, but not ontologically changed, by God; and from a church tradition which elects its leaders annually for set terms. Hence someone can have formal authority for a time, and then return to being just an "ordinary member").
[ 07. January 2016, 14:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The problem is "accountability" flows one way with these covenants. It's a top down deal. There should be no need for a legal document to join a church. I can't believe this concept is accepted - it didn't start out this way. Our Christianity is worthless if we need a legal document to live it out.
Legal? As in required and upheld by law?
Have I missed something? Who is suggesting such a thing?
There have been legal issues arising from church discipline proceedings and the covenants have been used by churches and they have been upheld by courts of law as valid contracts. In one case of sexual abuse by a pastor the victim was forced into arbitration rather than the civil court system because of the covenant. Also, disciplinary actions have been upheld by the courts when they have made it their in a few cases. The covenants in some churches are to protect the church - not the member. Mark Dever's church is one that uses some of the wordings I referenced above.
Edited to add, the church usually gets to select the arbiter and the deck is stacked in their favor
[ 07. January 2016, 14:13: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I understand that in some Scottish churches in the 19th century it became de-rigeur for people to repent and confess their sins publicly in front of the whole congregation ... with potentially embarrassing or abusive results.
There is a horrifying scene like that in the chapel of Richard Llewellyn's "How Green Was My Valley". It puts the author off Christianity for life.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And what place for Apostleship (in the early church) and leadership? For oversees/bishops and elders?
Bishops, priests (presbyters) and deacons?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The older I get, the more convinced I am that all churches have bishops - even if they don't call them that or they don't carry stylised shepherds' crooks and wear pointy hats.
Likewise, all churches have the equivalent of priests/presbyters and deacons ... whatever they happen to call them.
I don't get into the thing as to whether this, that or the other 'order' is valid or otherwise ... perhaps I'm a fence-sitter on that one, I don't know ...
But taken in their respective contexts, it strikes me that all churches operate in that kind of way ... whether they recognise it themselves or not.
In one way - and I suspect Mudfrog might agree with this - the Salvation Army's military rank type model is closer to the traditional episcopal/clerical systems of the more sacramental churches than it is to the buddy-buddy (or apparent buddy-buddy) systems that exist in some Free Churches or new churches ...
I once visited a synagogue and was struck by how the Rabbi was more like a Baptist minister than an RC, Orthodox or Anglican priest ... but in other ways the way things were done had a more 'high church' feel than a 'non-conformist' one ...
It seemed to marry or mirror elements of both ...
There's a balance somewhere ...
The kind of mutual accountability, everyone looking out for everyone else thing is fine as far as it goes ... but it can topple over into something rather claustrophobic or even abusive.
Conversely, the more formal, sacramental way of doing things can lead to a somewhat cold, impersonal, ritualised approach (in the wrong way - not that I'm opposed to ritual per se - far from it) ...
I've heard it said of many RC priests, for instance, that they don't really know that many of their regular communicants ...
On a good day and with the wind in the right direction, I'll even concede that there are people around with potentially an 'apostolic' ministry ... although I don't advocate or understand that in the terms in which these things were framed in my restorationist house-churchy days.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd forgotten 'How Green Was My Valley', I've been meaning to re-read it for some time ...
Thanks for the reminder ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm more comfortable with something that has developed over time than something Pastor Straining At The Leash has developed on the back of an envelope or on a Starbuck's coffee mat sometime over the last fortnight ...
You're quite right: it's an outrage. He (and it probably is a "he") should have gone to Nero's, the coffee there's much better. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Anyway, these are consciously modern Pastors: he would have used a Smartphone or Tablet.
[ 07. January 2016, 14:20: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
There have been legal issues arising from church discipline proceedings and the covenants have been used by churches and they have been upheld by courts of law as valid contracts.
The flip side of this is the tendency of people (especially in NA) to sue means that there have been a couple of cases where people have sued a church because of removal from membership over some sin/failing.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In one way - and I suspect Mudfrog might agree with this - the Salvation Army's military rank type model is closer to the traditional episcopal/clerical systems of the more sacramental churches than it is to the buddy-buddy (or apparent buddy-buddy) systems that exist in some Free Churches or new churches ...
Very much so!
We vare an episcoipal church.
I am a Commanding Officer - 'priest'
My local leader is my Divisional Commander - 'bishop'
Our national leader is the Territorial Commander - 'Archbishop'
Our international leader is the General = 'Pope'
Though, thinking about it, the International leader is probably more the Archbishop of Canterbury to the other countries national Archbishops.
Interestingly, William Booth our Founder, being a Methodist, was au fait with the Conference leadership of Methodism, but as leader of The Salvation Army he himself became the conference and led as an autocrat.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, that's an interesting point, Mudfrog ... although of course General Booth was heavily influenced by John Wesley who was jokingly known as 'Pope John' during his lifetime ...
One of the many things I admire about the Salvation Army is that it openly owns up to its hierarchical structure ... whereas some Free or 'new church' style churches are just - if not more - hierarchical whilst pretending or kidding themselves that everything is on a level and everyone's buddy-buddy and simply all friends together ...
The Baptists here might wish to comment on that ... although I'm not tarring them with this particular brush ... it's something that's more apparent in some of the 'newer' outfits.
The leaders there will scoff and bluster about mouldy old hierarchies and so on when they are every bit - if not more hierarchical - and often way, way, way more authoritarian than anything one might encounter in the old sacramental/sacerdotal settings.
It's rather like these people who say that the don't see the point of liturgy - when their own church will have some form of unwritten liturgy or service structure without them even realising they've got one ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Of course, like other things within TSA, our hierarchy may be similar in structure to the episcopal church, but it is not for sacramental reasons: we have no apostolic succession in the strict sense (though only a commissioner can commission new officers) We have no laying on of hands in our commissionings and ordination is recognised rather than conferred by a man.
Our hierarchy is useful for mission purposes and effective decision making and deployment. We obey our leaders and go where we are appointed.
You might learn, with envy, that there are no committees allowed in The Salvation Army. We never vote on anything!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure - I understand that ...
As far as the committee thing goes ... I'm afraid I've not got involved with any PCC type activity or house-groups or anything like that at our local parish church ... but, for my sins, I chair a local arts group and am a town councillor so have more than my share of committees and so on in those contexts ...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
As far as aspects like fellowship, discipleship, mutual encouragement and so on goes, it seems to me that these elements tend to grow/adapt according to need and context.
In medieval Catholic Europe some sections of society (male tradespeople) were catered for by Guilds and Confraternities ... and these still exist in places like Italy.
In post-Reformation Protestant Europe, groups like the Freemasons and Oddfellows and so on developed to fill the void left by the old medieval Confraternities ... although not in a directly church-based context and sometimes in tension with that ...
The Wesleyan class-meetings developed in the context of industrialisation ... the contemporary house-group in the context of the nuclear family and suburban mobility ... and the break-down of 'natural' communities such as those found in mill or mine ...
Studenty-style groups develop and flourish in university cities ...
And so on and so forth ...
Whether any of those is a direct descendent of an apparent New Testament pattern is a moot point ...
Does it have to be?
Or is it simply a case of the principle of the thing, however it's expressed?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Some Free or 'new church' style churches are just - if not more - hierarchical whilst pretending or kidding themselves that everything is on a level and everyone's buddy-buddy and simply all friends together ...
The Baptists here might wish to comment on that ...
And up one pops!
About 30+ years ago there was a strong move within Baptist churches to "let the leaders lead". In part this was due to the theological influence of the Charismatic movement, in part it was die to the fact of decision-making so often getting bogged down within the Congregationalist set-up - the classic "three Church Meetings to decide the colour of the new kitchen towels" syndrome.
At best it did allow leaders to think and plan strategically, and to stop church decisions and changes being "held to ransom" by one or two recalcitrant members.
At worst it gave the leaders complete and unaccountable authority over the congregation, brooking no questions or disagreement.
I think the model does work assuming (i) the leaders remember that they are servants rather than autocrats and consciously refuse to act in any ways which smack of "powerplay"; (ii) the church members are very much involved in deciding the "strategic" issues together but are confident enough not to question every tiny detail of church life.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Run away.....
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Doesn't say anything about anyone committing to anybody else about what they were doing. quote:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Is a present continous, I'm told (I'm not permitting) and relates, like so so so much of so-called church discipline in the NT, to the gathered community, not to individuals' daily lives. quote:
Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you.
That says nothing about telling them what I had for breakfast.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
This has so far been an interesting thread. I get the impression that two different phenomena exist, that look the same but are culturally and in effect different.
1. The sort of thing Baptist Trainfan and others describe, where something called a covenant describes the relationship that sets up and underpins the congregation, the members' commitment to the fellowship, and the principles under which they will work together. This is something largely specific to Old Dissent. It goes back to its beginnings and is part of the ethos of Old Dissent, Independency and the fall out from the Restoration.
This is really about what makes the congregation into the local church. It's also very much a way of doing things that is intentionally different from how the Established Church, with its patrons and deaneries does things.
2. The sort of thing Niteowl and others describe. Those that wish to belong to the elect are told that they can't unless they sign on the dotted line and agree to do and pay what they are told. This isn't really about what makes the congregation. Whatever language it uses, it's really about the leader's authority over the souls of his or her (usually his) followers. It may borrow its language from 1. It may even claim that it has grown out of the same historical roots as 1. But it looks more as though it is about control than about the way people work together.
Is that a fair summary?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Eutychus, in secular discourse "accountabilty" is almost always used to mean the calling to account of those in positions of authority, and I suspect this is also the sense use in such covenants. I think those who have been subject to clergy/leadership abuse would be only too happy to have some sort of accountability process in place.
In my New Church experience it meant precisely the opposite: as Niteowl said, it was one way only, and that way was upward.
SCK, the issue for me as a member is who initiates the accountability. I should be able, as a member, to voluntarily choose to make myself accountable, not be enjoined to do so. As a leader, I agree with Jolly Jape's sentiment that leaders should be accountable first and foremost to those they serve.
(However, what we mean here by "accountability" for leaders is not quite the same; it means giving an account of their actions in their position of responsibility, not confessing their sins or temptations or suchlike).
Indeed, this is my litmus test of an institutionally abusive church structure: do the leaders feel more accountable to "those above them", or to those they lead? As I came to realise, the movement I was in consistently failed this test.
[ 07. January 2016, 15:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is that a fair summary?
I think so, yes. You get the point that Old Dissent has Covenant at the very heart of its "esse" and that it should have nothing to do with leaders throwing their weight around.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Without wishing to scare-monger, I can remember hearing about a reasonably well-known second-generation UK 'new church' leader holding a leadership conference where he 'modelled' or put forward a way of dealing with congregational dissent by having stooges or 'plants' - effectively spies - planted in every house-group who would report back to the leadership on anyone who spoke out of turn or said anything potentially 'off message'.
In the context of sharing concerns and prayer, these 'plants' would obtain details of misdemeanours, confessed sin or whatever else they could get held of relating to those individuals. Armed with this information, the lead pastor would then confront the individual and threaten to expose them with these details in front of the congregation in order to shame them ...
They'd be given an ultimatum and be asked to leave unless they conformed ...
That's been around for a while - way back in the late 1990's the Minister of the Baptist Church I then attended used to get his children to listen into conversations in the church hall (esp his eldest daughter). Trouble was they weren't very good at it and were soon rumbled.
Imagine said Pastor confronting EM (myself) about going to the pub with a few other men from church (said pastor was and is hardline TT). He came up with dates and times and people that reflected the overheard conversation - he was going to take the detail to the church to remove me from leadership s this behaviour wasn't consistent with being a leader. I agreed with him that it would be right to do so.
He seemed strangely uneasy that I agreed with him (I expect most people cried, pleaded or whatever). I asked him to withdraw the accusation and to tell me who'd made it: he said it was pastorally sensitive so he couldn't. I replied that was fine but expected to be confronted by my accuser in the church meeting. This rather threw him and he hummed and ahhd and said we could perhaps deal with it best all round if I resigned without the humiliation of a meeting. I then revelaed the whole thing was a set up and that i had hard and fast alibi as I was 100 miles away when it supposedly happened. He soon left the church but has repeated it in the 5 churches he's been in across 3 continents in the 15 years since
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've got a theological response for that one, ExclamationMark.
You should have told him to mind his own business and to piss right off out of it.
If he was in a context where teetotalusm was a 'given' then fine - otherwise - in love - he should have been told to keep his big fat nose out and to repent of training his daughters to snitch on people ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On the ontological change in the priesthood thing ... isn't that just an RC issue?
There might be a few RC wannabe types in the stratospheric upper reaches of Anglo-Catholicism who'd hold to such a view - but beyondvthat it's only a concept that - as far as I know - appliesacross the Tiber.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Without wishing to scare-monger, I can remember hearing about a reasonably well-known second-generation UK 'new church' leader holding a leadership conference where he 'modelled' or put forward a way of dealing with congregational dissent by having stooges or 'plants' - effectively spies - planted in every house-group who would report back to the leadership on anyone who spoke out of turn or said anything potentially 'off message'.
I've heard this happening in the training given to putative 'home group' leaders in a couple of third wave movements. The spin was 'dealing with difficult members' but it essentially amounted to the above - they were also very keen on formal church membership, including a signed covenant.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the ontological change in the priesthood thing ... isn't that just an RC issue?
There might be a few RC wannabe types in the stratospheric upper reaches of Anglo-Catholicism who'd hold to such a view - but beyondvthat it's only a concept that - as far as I know - appliesacross the Tiber.
Either I am significantly closer to the stratosphere then I thought I was, or it is more prevalent amongst Anglo-Catholics than that. I'd certainly go with it, and I don't think it would be that unusual amongst those around me on the candle.
Though very much in a quiet understated way. As in, 'yes, always a priest - but why would we need to talk about it?'
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Anyone expecting me to sign such a thing can, to quote Gamaliel, piss right off out of it.
They strike me as being about institutional control, rather than anything which is connected to the unconditional love of God.
The church is the body of Christ, and as such an assembly of God's beloved, as of course is the world. If we are God's beloved children, what is the point of this kind of nonsense?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the ontological change in the priesthood thing ... isn't that just an RC issue?
There might be a few RC wannabe types in the stratospheric upper reaches of Anglo-Catholicism who'd hold to such a view - but beyondvthat it's only a concept that - as far as I know - appliesacross the Tiber.
Either I am significantly closer to the stratosphere then I thought I was, or it is more prevalent amongst Anglo-Catholics than that. I'd certainly go with it, and I don't think it would be that unusual amongst those around me on the candle.
Though very much in a quiet understated way. As in, 'yes, always a priest - but why would we need to talk about it?'
It is THE anglo-catholic position - not just the very 'high' ones.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
Really, it's a question of what the covenant requires.
We sign a form giving address for a contact database as a matter of communal trust, and if someone wishes to leave their address is simply removed from the contact database - and can be placed on it again should they wish to return. Attendance at meetings requires that this form has been signed, so there are no fringe members.
There are other things that could possibly be placed in a signed covenant, but are simply enforced at meetings. We assume that someone coming to meetings wishes to participate fully in the meeting, so they do their best to arrive on time, are quiet and respectful of order, only speak when invited, if speaking only speak about positive matters related to their experience practicing prayer, and do not cross their arms or legs. All these are important for cultivating the correct atmosphere at meetings, and are also an issue of respect for everyone else at the meeting.
What surprises me is that given the simplicity of these rules, how many people either just fail to remember them or occasionally even get the hump and leave because they think that they constitute a major restriction on their personal right to self-expression. Any covenant more demanding - frankly, it's begging to be broken.
Beyond that, I don't see how God requires us to sign pieces of paper to agree to certain codes of conduct. My understanding is that it's the will that is important and the expression of love far more than the obeying of rules because of some legalised requirement.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I own up to a slight sense of unease over the tension here between the kind of vows or requirements made for membership of religious orders - and those that 'gathered' or voluntarist congregational-style church communities might make or require of their members.
For some reason, I have less of an issue with a novice taking some kind of vows or 'signing-up' to a code of practice or rule of life ... than I do with a congregation being expected to sign-up for something (however mild) en masse.
I don't know why this should be, because my experience of membership requirements and responsibilities within a Baptist context - I was a member of a Baptist church for six years after our departure from the restorationist/new church scene - was entirely positive.
Indeed, before I was formally a member I was allowed to sit in on a church meeting after a 'preaching with a view' visit by a prospective minister (we were a new-ish church-plant and had no minister at that time). We asked questions and 'interviewed' the prospective minister (and his wife) in Baptist fashion and then he was asked to leave while we considered whether to invite him in as minister.
I was impressed by the quality of the discussion. When it came to the vote, I wasn't sure was I supposed to express any opinion, not being a member at that stage.
The vote was unanimously in favour - which didn't surprise me at all, the minister was clearly the best 'fit' possible.
I was asked why I hadn't raised my hand and whether I had any objections.
'If you're asking me why I didn't vote, it was because I wasn't sure I was allowed to, not being a member,' I replied. 'But if you're asking my opinion about the candidate then my response would be an unequivocal and resounding "yes" to inviting him to be your minister. There's no doubt in my mind that he is the right one.'
It was a heartening experience all ways round, particularly in contrast to the way I'd seen pastoral appointments made in the new churches.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying that I don't have a problem in principle with congregational 'covenants' and the like ... but I remain uneasy about them if they start to up the ante on specific expectations - such as how much people are going to give financially, or how many meetings they should attend or whatever else it might happen to be.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
That was an interesting experience. I think most Open Baptist churches would be happy for you to attend Church Meetings (unless it was very exceptionally called for a discrete and confidential purpose); most of those would be most happy for you to join in the discussion. Legally there could be issues in actually allowing you to vote.
Incidentally, my experience in candidating as a minister (three times) has always been of having an informal congregational meeting with the opportunity to ask questions, but with the formal decision-making meeting held a few days later after people have had a chance to think things through. That means the candidate is in "limbo" waiting for the phone to ring!
(Actually the process can be more complex than that.
1. Prospective minister and church are put in contact via Regional Ministers.
2. Candidate meets with Deacons/Vacancy Committee.
3. Said committee then decides whether they want to ask the candidate to come and "preach with a view to a view".
4. Service takes place, congregation and candidate have a chance to suss each other out. At this point the congregation may not know if this is a potential future minister - though they may well have guessed!
5. Vacancy committee meets and makes a recommendation to Church Meeting that they take this candidate further. Church meeting then issues a formal invitation to "preach with a view".
6. Minister comes, conducts worship with question-and-answer session to follow.
7. Special Church Meeting is held and issues (or not) a "call". Minister accepts or declines.
It ain't always like that ... but it is certainly much more "democratic" than the typical "New Church" model. Only problem is that a "safe" candidate may be more likely to be chosen than a "visionary" with the potential to make radical changes).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I have heard it said that the true sign of when a couple is living together is when they share a washing machine load.
In similar vein, I think the real membership list of our church consists of those people who are not only on the cleaning rota but also actually show up and do it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Some of the discussion on this thread has led me top consider again whether The Salvation Army isn't simply a church, parallel to others, but is actually a vow-taking, evangelical serving-Order of the Church. We're not necessarily just a network of worshipping congregations but more branches of a distinct Order that has many people under specific vows, but which also acts as a local congregation for them and others who, without taking vows, are part of that community.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have heard it said that the true sign of when a couple is living together is when they share a washing machine load.
In similar vein, I think the real membership list of our church consists of those people who are not only on the cleaning rota but also actually show up and do it.
An interesting recent article on church membership by a Baptist leader for whom I have a lot of respect.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It was a particularly laid-back Baptist church, Baptist Trainfan.
Believe you me, I could tell you a few stories of complicated shenanigans among the Baptists of my native South Wales. The incident I recounted was in the North of England, not South Wales.
In response to Mudfrog's observation about the Salvation Army ... yes, that makes sense to me too - although it all depends on how we understand 'church' of course ... there'd be a number of very full-on sacramental types (or even Big R Reformed types) who mightn't recognise the SA as a church at all in a strictly ecclesiological sense ...
Whatever the case, I think all the various observations here - Eutychus's about those prepared to turn up and do the washing up - Baptist Trainfan's on Baptist ecclesiology, Mudfrog's on the notion of an 'order' which doubles as a congregation (a both/and arrangement ) - illustrate that there tends to be a notion of 'concentric circles' in most church traditions.
Some people are nearer the 'centre' than others - and there different Saturn-like rings radiating out from the core.
In my experience, you even find this - albeit expressed differently - in some of the more sacramental settings. You'll hear the RCs and Orthodox, for instance, making a distinction between the 'faithful' and those who simply turn up at Christmas and Easter or for weddings, christenings and funerals ...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
One of the most enduring observations in Andrew Walker's benchmark work on new churches, Restoring the Kingdom, highlights the unhealthiness of churches without a fringe membership. I thought that was insightful at the time and during my time in the new church movement, never went all out for this kind of commitment.
I've read that Pentecostal and Baptist churches in the UK often have a high rate of attenders not in membership, whereas historical churches such as the Methodists often have very few non-members in attendance, and indeed, may have a membership larger than the number of people who regularly turn up for worship.
Svitlana
Please Baptists have a greater heritage than Methodist so what do you mean by historical churches?
[...]
You are quite right about the Baptists. I could have expressed myself better, but if you look closely at what I wrote you'll see that I didn't actually exclude Baptists from being 'historical', simply from historical churches with a different experience.
My point was that, from what I've read and seen, the Pentecostals and Baptists have more non-members in attendance; I wasn't making a comment as to the nature or value of the Baptist Covenant.
Be assured that I'm not promoting Methodism as anything beyond and above other churches. The Baptists (and Pentecostals) are in a healthier condition and are likely to have a much better future. By comparison the problems of the British Methodist Church are many, but it represents my church background and my point of reference nevertheless.
(FWIW, since you mentioned academics, many years ago I wrote some essays on British and French evangelicalism for an MA I was doing, although my focus was fairly narrow, and the details would be out of date now. More recently, I was a research student at the University of Birmingham during the time of Darrell Jackson, but I was in a different department. I would have been interested in his research had I known about it at the time.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I have looked briefly at Darrell's paper - there's a lot of it! But it's clear that, in recent years, there has been a marked increase in Baptist churches of "attenders" alongside a definite decline in "formal members"; that, in many churches, both attenders and members feel an equal sense of belonging; and that many people believe that "relationships" are a more important gauge of "belongingness" than any formal processes. He also makes it clear that the concept of Covenant, strong in early Dissenting life, has waxed and waned in the denomination's discourse several times.
I don't know what this might mean in terms of any "signing-up" to doctrinal positions, commitment to financial support or assuming Church roles such as Trusteeship. Either Darrell doesn't mention this aspect or else I simply haven't got that far!
[ 09. January 2016, 13:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
I work for a congregational free church.
The very reason that I would encourage people to become a church member, which does include a membership covenant, is so that, if they are actually relationally part of the church, they are included in the body that holds the leaders to account. If someone is committed enough to the church that they are there all the time, and the governance is congregational, it's simply right that they are involved in that; via regular church meetings.
At the same time, there is also the introduction of upward accountability. If someone's not a member and disappears, I'd probably give them a couple of phone calls and leave it. If someone's a member, I'd try much harder to work out what's gone on.
I do think there is an Anglican/Free Church divide here. The nature of Anglicanism is that the church is part of a denomination that holds the cards for what happens in the church. As such, who is a formal member or not doesn't actually matter that much: it can simply be organic. If the power to make decisions is vested in the congregation, it does matter who is part of the congregation, and it seems fair to limit that to those who have some sort of commitment. As such, I'm much more positive about the Dever model than other contributors!
Finally, like any system it's open to abuse. It's a huge temptation to use someone's membership commitment as a stick to beat them with when they don't do what "they promised to do." It can happen, it's wrong, and is a huge malfunction of the system. Huge malfunctions can happen in episcopal and presbyterian contexts too - people are sinful in every denomination.
ETA: Introducing a covenant to increase commitment is a crazy idea. It won't work, and you should only make a change like this out of a conviction that it is the right thing to do. People make the covenant as a recognition that is the relationship with the church - it can't be used to bring that relationship about IME.
[ 12. January 2016, 18:54: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Gamaliel - from a slightly more insider view re religious communities, I'd say the difference is that you can't live on the fringes of a religious community in the same way people can be on the fringes of a church. Even oblates etc make formal commitments of some kind. Ultimately a religious community involves living together full-time, which involves more commitment than a church congregation needs by its nature, in the same way it does for flatmates or boarding school or marriage or whatever. After all, there isn't a vast difference between monastic vows and marriage vows - in the context it makes perfect sense. With churches that are fully autonomous without any kind of bishop or denominational governing body or whatever, it does make rather more sense to have some kind of formal membership statement and I don't think it would necessarily have to be done in a dodgy way. I think on the whole more hierarchical church structures work better with the inevitable flaws of human nature.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think on the whole more hierarchical church structures work better with the inevitable flaws of human nature.
It is the flaws of human nature that make me nervous of hierarchical structures.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I think on the whole more hierarchical church structures work better with the inevitable flaws of human nature.
It is the flaws of human nature that make me nervous of hierarchical structures.
A true nonconformist! I think you have to look at the risks of power falling into the wrong hands. That involves looking critically at constitutions and hierarchical structures and asking a few questions, such as.
1. What kinds of feedback or complaints procedures exist in theory?
2. How easy is to to use these in practice?
3. What are the remedies available to a member or members in dealing with abuse of power, or incompetent handling of responsibilities?
4. Is there an established means of conflict resolution and if so who is responsible for administering it?
etc.
Often, folks claim that the ethos in their church is, truly, servant leadership and that is the real protection. And indeed it may be all that is really needed if that is true. But it's worth checking out.
Servant leaders are generally very happy to have checks and balances in place. It's evidence of their genuine accountability. But the control freak types and those with absolute confidence in their personal "hot line to God" tend to be much more sceptical about the need for all that stuff.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I have looked briefly at Darrell's paper - there's a lot of it! But it's clear that, in recent years, there has been a marked increase in Baptist churches of "attenders" alongside a definite decline in "formal members"; that, in many churches, both attenders and members feel an equal sense of belonging; and that many people believe that "relationships" are a more important gauge of "belongingness" than any formal processes. He also makes it clear that the concept of Covenant, strong in early Dissenting life, has waxed and waned in the denomination's discourse several times.
Have you got a bit further in now? I'd be interested to know if the thesis has anything to say specifically about 'relationships' and 'belongingness' in multicultural urban churches.
Regarding the Methodists, I remember attending Methodist Covenant Sunday services and having to make a set of rather solemn promises. But if you go to the website, it makes everything seem very positive and upbeat. I wonder if this sort of approach is shared by other denominations nowadays.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0