In, Out or Don’t Even Count: Thoughts on Church Membership

DISCLAIMER: This posting only represents my own thoughts on this subject. It is being written in part to express my thoughts and see what others in my own congregation think on this matter. As such it does not represent anything others in leadership in our congregation might think, much less any 'official' pronouncements in the subject. At the same time, it is definitely also not meant as an attack on any current current church position or on anyone else in leadership in our congregation, as I am also, as a Deacon, one of the leadership in our congregation. Of course, as I suggest below, this subject might also resonate for readers besides those of our own locale. So, stay cool and read on!

************

I don’t know about your congregation or denomination, but in our local setting, church membership seems to be losing significance without so much as a discussion about what’s going on. That concerns some of us. Some of us are not even aware that there is a potential issue here. Others may be just fine with things going in the direction they are. Perhaps some want things to go that way.

I. Origins and History

For the last couple of millennia of the pre-Christian era, it would appear that belonging to the People of God was largely a matter of being a member of the Jewish community, which in time became a nation. To be sure, there were individuals outside of this tradition who would appear to have held to a monotheistic faith in some degree similar to what we profess. Then there were those who converted to Judaism.

In the early years of the Christian era, membership in the Family of God was taken quite seriously. As I have written elsewhere, it was not long after the apostolic era that potential disciples were schooled for anywhere from 1 to 3 years before the word even baptized and admitted to membership in The Church. When the Catholic church and others of like tradition began the practice of infant baptism, anyone who had received such a sacrament was considered to be a member of The Church for life, unless perhaps they committed such a grave sin that the church excommunicated them. From the Middle Ages in Europe until the time of the Reformation there, being a member of the church was pretty much the same as being a member of the state, at its peak of union of church and state, known as the Holy Roman Empire.

When various groups broke away from the Catholic Church during the time of the Reformation, there was a return to adult baptism as a sign once again of admission to the Church. That has pretty much been the practice in the Protestant churches since. There has been a tendency on the part of some branches here to baptize at much younger ages, particularly over the last century or so. However, many, particularly in our Anabaptist tradition until even more recently, pretty much stuck to baptism when he being applied to those considered adults. Anabaptist have by and large accepted an age of accountability at 12-years-of age are so, but baptism, and therefore admission into the church as members, was still generally delayed until 4 to 6 years later or more.

II. The Contemporary Period

There have been some branches of the church, notably perhaps The Alliance Church or the Evangelical Free Church and a number of non-denominational churches, possibly some of the Pentecostal or charismatic tradition, who do not really speak of church membership in a formal sense. This tendency seems to be encroaching into some of our Mennonite congregations, including perhaps our very own local. I suspect some might see this as removing a barrier that might make some feel more welcome in a church than others. Others might see it as an obstacle limiting capable individuals' ability to serve certain functions or role in the church.

III. The Possible Problems

I use the term, ' the possible problem,' because, as I said, some may not see this as a problem. Indeed, if we all agreed on a certain course of action in one direction or another, it need not be a problem either. However, for some of this the seemingly unspoken shift in this direction without any consultation with the membership presents a problem for several reasons.

1.     The first reason for some of us in Anabaptist congregations would be that we consider ourselves to follow a congregational model of decision-making, as opposed to a top-down or hierarchical model of authority.

2.     Secondly, for a number of years, in our congregations, joining a church was a serious commitment that one made as a covenant with the congregation one was becoming a member of, usually concurrent with baptism. In other cases, this involves an individual already baptized and a member of one congregation joining another because of geographic or other move. Some would be concerned that this drift away from a time of formal commitment to membership leads to a certain lack of ownership and responsibility as part of a congregation.

3.     The third reason that some of us have concerns with the lack of formal membership is that in the past, only members could have a say or vote in terms of decision-making. Without that, it is open to everyone, whether they have been members for years or just walked in the door of the most recent meeting where discussions of this nature are being held. On the one hand, one can see that individuals of the last nature would quite possibly not have much clue of what was going on. On the other hand, they might feel they can express themselves on something that they really make know very little about. Such contributions might not really help the cause. This can refer to discussions of issues ranging from a quite minor nature to major situations such as the decision on hiring a pastor.

4.     The fourth reason that concerns come up with this gradual change to what is essentially acceptance of non-membership status within the congregation, has to do with function, with holding of office. When membership was formal, there were a number of positions, particularly of a more responsible nature, such as being a member of the church council or board, being an elder or pastor, that were not open to those who were not members.

Given that our congregation still professes to follow the 'priesthood of all believers,’ community or congregational method of discernment and decision-making, I think it is incumbent upon our leadership to facilitate a discussion of whether we are actually making changes are not. That way we can discuss the rationale for proceeding in one way or staying with tradition and look at the ramifications of either choice. Otherwise, we are continuing on a path that is not clear and that can only lead to further unhappiness with leadership.