Off the Agenda: Conversations for Building Church Leaders

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the thoughts here, bro. Helpful stuff to consider.

At first glance, I think perhaps the difference we're expressing might be attributable to "where you draw the line." On the one hand, you might sound to some as "soft" on church membership. But it sounds like what you're doing with the "Life in Christ" class and 'volunteer staff' approach is essentially what one would hope every church is trying to do with its members. Every member of the church should be a part of "those loving, serving, and carying for their community." That's what I was trying to argue, in part, in my post. I think we're in substantive agreement there.

Hey, I much appreciated your critique of membership practices and cultures in a lot of churches. There are some unhealthy ways in which people sometimes think about church membership, and many of those ways have contributed to making membership a meaningless construct. So, there are things to be careful about here. But we don't need to throw the baby out with the bath, or to even create new language for describing what the New Testament calls us to be as a community--a church with members. We simply need to make membership meaningful in the right ways.

I suppose where our perspectives might differ most would perhaps be in our basic understanding of what the church is. One critique you have of formal membershp (perhaps 'identifiable membership' is better) would be that it creates a situation with those who are in and those who are out. Okay, that could be done in a lot of nasty and unhealthy way. But the Savior Himself draws that line of in or out of the kingdom, in or out of the church, in or out of Himself, in or out of heaven. We can't erase that line if He draws it. And understood properly, that line is essential for doing the work of missions, evangelism, and so on. You can't effectively preach the gospel unless you help people understand whether they are in or out of the Savior's saving love. Moreover, that line requires belief before belonging, precisely the opposite approach you're describing (unless, again, what you're calling your 'volunteer staff' is what you really and functionally regard as 'the church').

On an essential level, the church must always remain "the called out ones," a visibly distinct community of holy priests unto the Lord. Hopefully, we'll always have non-Christians and non-members among us. And, I should hope they'll always be welcome in our gatherings. Every Sunday morning at First Baptist Grand Cayman, we gather people from some 30 nationalities/ethnicities. We taste heaven from Sunday to Sunday as well--but not at the expense of clearly demarcating the church from the world. Meaningful, biblical memberships practices don't have to be sacrificed in order for the church to be thriving community of redeemed people loving each other and advancing the kingdom. I'd argue meaningful membership is necessary to that vision.

If in our membership practice we blur or erase the line between the regenerate people of God and the world, we're no longer talking about a "church" as the Bible defines it.

Interesting exchanges. I fall more in agreement with Thabiti.

I do want to ask a question of Eric though. What do you tell those non-Christians who current belong to the congregation during the Lord's Supper?

Thanks.

This has been an intriguing exchange. I enjoyed Eric's contribution. And I found Thabiti's term "identifiable membership" to be extremely helpful. It puts the emphasis on the desired outcome rather than the mechanism. Hopefully I'm not reading too much into this, but this seems to show an intentional focus on the principle of an identifiable membership without defining the normative form for all churches to accomplish this (e.g. a formal membership process). For me, this clarifies and adds to the strength of Thabiti's excellent original article.

I also share Thabiti's concern regarding the idea of belonging to the church before one believes. Maybe Eric could give us a better picture of what he means by this. I'm all for making everyone feel comfortable and welcome, and even allowing them to participate to a certain extent. But the Bible is very clear about what makes us part of the church. We don't want to be arrogant about who's in and who's not, but an unbelieving member of the body is a contradiction. And if we make someone feel as if they are part of our body before they are actually part of the body, we are doing them a disservice.

It seems that part of what's missing from this discussion is how we're defining the term "church". We use the term "church" to describe the local church, the local gathering of a group of believers in one place, and we use the term "church" to describe the universal church, the body of Christ, the communion of saints, the reality that all who believe in Christ are joined to him and thereby to all other believers.

Here's another important distinction. We use the term "church" to refer to the visible church, the people we can see with our eyes who claim to be Christians, as well as using the term "church" to describe the invisible church, what God sees as he looks into the heart, all those who truly have faith in Christ whether or not we as humans can see evidence of that faith.

So, to Thabiti's point, of belief before belonging. You're absolutely correct if you're saying you can't belong to the universal church or the invisible church until you believe. That's the line God draws. But you can gather with a group of local Christians. You can be present visibly. You can develop friendships and a sense of community with Christians. In that sense you can "belong" to a "church" before you believe. But that kind of belonging is not the same as true, saving faith, or a belonging to the true, invisible church, the body of Christ.

Indeed, there were many in the crowds that followed after Jesus who did not believe. They wanted to be fed. They wanted to see some flashy miracles. They wanted to hear some thought-provoking ideas. All this without belief. And many of them turned away when he didn't meet their expectations. And yet, some of those who followed in the crowd, who we could say belonged to that community, did come to faith and become part of the body of Christ.

Someone once used a ranching analogy to help explain church membership. There are two ways to contain a herd. You can do it by attraction. You put in a well, or a feeding trough, and the cattle are drawn close to that provision. The core and center of the herd is pretty well defined, but the outside edge is a little fuzzy. You can't quite tell where the herd stops, and which cattle have wandered so far off that they're not part of the herd anymore. The second approach is to build a fence around them. In so doing, you have a hard, fast line that determines who is in and who is out. But the center is harder to find. It's a little fuzzy. They are sure who is in and out, but they're not as sure what benefit there is in being in.

Church membership can be like that. If we make membership on our roles the defining characteristic of what it means to be church, then we're sure who is in and who is out. But we're not as sure why we're in #to follow Christ#. If we define church as an attraction to Christ, the center is much more clear, and people are continually being drawn closer and closer to him. But we're not quite sure about the fringe, who's in and who's out.

Church membership does have its benefits, and is useful. But it's dangerous to let that become the sole definition of what church is, rather than understanding it as the attraction to Christ. God will indeed draw a hard and fast line between those in and those out. But that's a line for God to decide. And we do a disservice to him and to our people when we make that line synonymous with church membership.

Thanks for the discussion!

Phil did a great job describing what I meant about allowing people to belong before they believe. Of course, there is a line of faith one needs to cross to belong to the Body of Christ, but too often we draw the line in front of the doors of our church buidling, at the edge of our Sunday gatherings, in front of our small groups, or in front of our own homes.

At Mosaic, we strive to be incredibly inclusive no matter where a person may be on their spiritual journey. We are incredibly exclusive when it comes to overseeing the lives of others (our volunteer staff). Our approach may not work for every church, and Thabiti's approach can certainly be done in a way that avoids the pitfalls I mentioned.

The only places someone who has not crossed the line of faith do not participate would include baptism, the Lord's Supper, overseeing the lives of others, and we discourage them from feeling the need to give financially. Most people I know who do not follow Jesus aren't intersted in participating in these four arenas anyway.

I have a longer study from a recent doctoral project about this idea of belonging before believing. If you would like a copy, email me at eric@mosaic.org with "Belonging Before Believing from the Bible" as the subject.

Hope that helps!

I like the idea of belonging before believing. "Membership" should imply a deeper commitment, and actually, the problem might not be making the commitment so much as actually expecting the people who make the promises to honor them and calling them into account when they don't . I'm United Methodist and our Book of Discipline actually tasks the leadership with follow-up on members that don't follow through on their promises. But when was the last time we actually did this?

The URL above links to some older writing I did on this topic for our church newsletter. Scroll down the list and look at the article "Are We Honoring Our Commitments" from August 2005.

Howdy all...
I'm still chewing on this article myself, but it sure does strike home with our discussions this week.

Keith

I'm still digesting this article, but it sure seems relevant to us today!

I have enjoyed reading all the comments concerning church membership. It is a continuing challenge and one that i struggle with as a pastor. The church has become an organization rather than an organism. The great commission is to make disciples - we have made denominations; to build up the church-the body of Christ - we have built buildings and budgets. To many, church has become like everything lse in this life: just another option to take or leave. The interesting point is that while a national average of 39% attend regularly, 100% want their name on the church roll!

This is a great conversation on the subject of membership. I'm feeling Eric's pain and believe that his church is on the right path in eliminating the three tiered approach of most churches. We all have visitors, frequent attenders and even seekers, what ever that means, who need the love of Christ in the local church. Then there are those 20% who are committed members that love the Lord and want to use their time, talent and treasure to honor Him. The problem is that pesky 80% who reside in the lukewarm middle after "joining" the local church. Some are believers so conformed to the world that they seemingly need a pillar of fire to become motivated while others in this third group have managed to fool the elders, membership comittee or pastors who don't want to deny anyone the feeling of being a part of Christ's body. Mosaic Church seems to have a solution if indeed their volunteer staff is actually their church, as defined in the NT. I think it is better for those not that committed to beleive they are a part of something as long as they eventually see that it is clearly less than what Jesus expects of His disciples.

Am I on the right track with my comments?

The discussion is instructive. It seems to me that some teaching is rooted in what the Scripture teaches, while others are rooted in experiences, especially, what are defined as 'painful.' or 'caring.'

Without an agreement on an authority source, these discussions are more like a washing machine, lots of agitation, but going nowhere.

I am enjoying this discussion as well. My only question is when is there just "family" time? When and where do believer's have a safe place to just be with other believer's not have to minister, or work at being Christ followers and just be. We have been involved in more "open" churches and it's great but I've always felt disconnected and worn out. I need some just family time. I know that's probably going to be slammed as selfish but it's real.

Good discussion and comments. Some of our discussion around membership has been on how the term is understood today. Most places where you become a member (the gym or club) membership gives you personal benefits, discounts etc., in the church membership means serving and giving of yourself. Is there another term that better describes the meaning of church membership?

Belonging before Beleiving

"Church Membership"

The Church is the general assembly - "The whole body of true believers," whether on earth or in paradise. Of the first - born - The first - born of Israel were enrolled by Moses; but these are enrolled in heaven, as citizens there. It is observable, that in this beautiful gradation, these first - born are placed nearer to God than the angels. See James 1:18.

And to God the Judge of all - Propitious to you, adverse to your enemies. And to the spirits - The separate souls. Of just men - It seems to mean, of New Testament believers. The number of these, being not yet large, is mentioned distinct from the innumerable company of just men whom their Judge hath acquitted.

These are now made perfect in an higher sense than any who are still alive. Accordingly, Paul, while yet on earth, denies that he was thus made perfect, Philippians 3:12.

In 1 Corinthians 5:11 -13, Paul's explains :

5:11 "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." -Paul is saying; Who is named a brother - That is, a Christian; especially if a member of the same congregation. Rapacious - Guilty of oppression, extortion, or any open injustice. No, not to eat with him - Which is the lowest degree of familiarity.

5:12 "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" -What Paul is saying here is; I speak of Christians only. For what have I to do to judge heathens? But ye, as well as I, judge those of your own community.

5:13 "God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you." -Paul's point; They that are without God, he #God# will judge - The passing of sentence on these, he #God# hath reserved to himself. And ye #true believers# will take away that wicked person from your congregation, for they do not believe.

Thus, "membership has its privileges" in God's most Holy house. A non-beleiver shouldn't be serving in a membership role. Matthew 6:33 clearly states, "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." The non-beleiver is to, Seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Singly they must aim at this first, that God, will reign in their heart and fill it with the righteousness above described. And indeed, whosoever seek Him first, will seek Him only!!!

Eric,

Really enjoyed the article. I think a lot of this is just wording. The bottom line is that God wants us all modeling Christ likeness, and our lives should make the difference for those around us. I think as long as there are clear lines that being a member of the local church doesn�t make you a member of the body of Christ, then it really doesn�t matter what you call those that attend your church for whatever reason. Additionally there are fringe benefits that come from being a part of the body of Christ including:

Baptism
Communion
Accountability
And so on�..

There are also some costs, and that is why we are having this discussion. A lot of people don�t know or don�t care to take on the costs. As the Director of Membership of a large church, I sometimes struggle as a member of the Body of Christ with my calling and responsibilities, so I can empathize with those that don�t know any better and welcome them to the church to learn and see what we Christ followers do at church.

My question is, do we cater the service to non-believers or do we focus on worshipping God? The church is more than an event so I know this is a general question, but what is your thought?

There are some practical elements to consider, too. As a Baptist we have 'members' be a part of decision-making (with respect to staff, vision, etc...) Can / should someone who is not saved and therefore does not / cannot fully understand spiritual things help shape those things? If a church is essentially staff or elder-led, that issue disappears.
I mention these things to highlight how much of the 'member' conversation is context specific, and how many other dynamics are at play.
Many helpful comments above. Thanks for the discussion.

Good discussion all, and the best part is to see it conducted in a loving and irenic manner!

Well said Phil, in particular, and I agree with many that some of this is semantics - what do mean when you say the word 'church'? Clearly Eric's meaning is the larger community of Mosaic including non-Christ followers. From that perspective, there is a difference between saying "Hello church" and "Welcome to church" when you are on the platform.

As always, only God knows who is in his family and who is not, and what is in our hearts. And I believe that God is more concerned with out ability to love people than how we define church membership - if your definition helps you love and disciple people more effectively, then I believe that God will be for it.

And I think that both Thabiti and Eric would argue that their respective definitions help them to do that, in their communities. More power to them both.

Perhaps we should also keep in mind that we, being local churches, are not the final arbiters of who is or is not included in the universal Church. That determination is between individuals and God. We can only judge by the externals, and that is always a dangerous game (see Matt 7:2).

In my denomination, the Churches of Christ in Australia, we take people at their word: all are invited to participate in baptism or communion, if that is their desire. If they do so in a wrong spirit, then the Spirit will do the judging.

There is no question that local churches should promote, by teaching and example, a much higher standard of discipleship than is often the case in contemporary churches, but it just simply is not our place to decide, by whatever means, who is in the "body of Christ" and who is not ... unless, of course, your interpretation of Matt 16:15-19 ("whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven") extends to the issue of salvation, in opposition to Rom 10:9 ("if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved").

Having written all of this, I do struggle to know what to do about decision-making in my church. At present, anyone who is baptised and wants to be a member is a member and can participate in decision-making, to everyone's detriment. As a consequence, I am more sympathetic to Eric and Mosaic's approach. Now, how to convince my church ...