“Some religious bodies have multiple categories of membership, some talk about ‘membership’ but don’t really define what a ‘member’ is, some denominations offer no official membership even as their local churches do, and each group defines ‘membership’ differently…It’s no wonder so many people are confused.”
Ron Sellers, Grey Matter Research & Consulting
Cathedral in Europe
(Taken by Deb)
Are you confused about church membership? A recent study conducted by Grey Matter Research & Consulting indicates that confusion abounds in Christendom regarding this topic. Interestingly (to me), the research was given the following label:
Study shows widespread confusion and ignorance on the subject of official membership in a place of worship
The report begins as follows:
"(Original release date: August 29, 2012) A new study from Grey Matter Research (Phoenix, Arizona) shows widespread confusion and ignorance regarding official membership in churches and other local places of worship.
The research was conducted among 441 American adults who attend a local church or place of worship once a month or more. The study asked people whether their place of worship offers “any kind of official membership in the organization, or not.” Among all worship-goers, 48% say such official membership is offered, 33% believe it is not, and 19% are not sure.
While some denominations and individual congregations have no official form of membership, most of the largest religious bodies do. All of the ten largest denominations in the U.S. (as measured by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies) measure some form of official membership: Roman Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, United Methodist Church, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Assemblies of God, Presbyterian Church U.S.A., Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Episcopal Church, and National Baptist Convention USA.
Even so, among people who attend one of these top ten denominations, just 44% say their church offers official membership, while 39% believe it does not, and 17% are unsure."
According to the Grey Matter report: "The sample of 441 adults is accurate to within ±4.6 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level with a 50 percent response distribution. The study was conducted in all 50 states using a demographically representative sample from an online research panel."
I found the statistics at the end of the report quite interesting. They were broken down into two categories:
– Perceptions of whether their church or place of worship offers any kind of official membership…
– Whether they personally have official membership in their church or place of worship…
With regard to the first category (perceptions of whether their church offers official membership) 48% said yes, 33% said no, and 19% were not sure. Protestants were more likely to know whether their church offered official membership than Roman Catholics, and the under 35 category and over 65 group were more likely to know that their church offers membership. A whopping 72% of those with "evangelical beliefs" knew whether their church offered official membership.
Sellers also suggested that many religious groups apparently aren’t doing enough to make membership relevant to people, or to communicate how it is relevant. “Denominational and local church websites often talk about the benefits or importance of membership, but apparently many people just aren’t seeing it as a necessary step in their own spiritual life. Religious groups need to understand why this is, and what can be communicated to people to help explain the relevance of membership.”
The results reported under the second category (whether they personally have official membership in their church) were also fascinating. Of all the worshippers surveyed, 37% were members of the church they attend, 11% responded no/not sure, and 52% indicated that no membership is offered. Roman Catholics were the least likely to have official membership where they worship with 67% of Roman Catholics indicating that no membership was offered. Of those who identified as Protestant, 42% had official membership in their church while 44% indicated that official membership was not offered. Again, those with evangelical beliefs had the highest percentage of those with official church membership, coming in at 61%.
The report concludes with Ron Sellers, president of Grey Matter Research, making these observations:
– Many denominations measure their size by official membership, which may not be accurate. Sellers is quoted as follows:
"Even when we look just at the largest Protestant denominations that offer membership, about a third who attend are unaware membership is even an option, and about four out of ten people attending those churches claim not to be members. The question has to be asked – how relevant are membership statistics as a measure of denominational size or reach in today’s world?”
– According to the survey results, many religious groups do not appear to be making membership relevant. In the report Sellers remarks:
“Denominational and local church websites often talk about the benefits or importance of membership, but apparently many people just aren’t seeing it as a necessary step in their own spiritual life. Religious groups need to understand why this is, and what can be communicated to people to help explain the relevance of membership.”
– Membership is seen as "complex and confusing" based on analysis of communications from the various churches. Ron Sellers concludes:
“Some religious bodies have multiple categories of membership, some talk about ‘membership’ but don’t really define what a ‘member’ is, some denominations offer no official membership even as their local churches do, and each group defines ‘membership’ differently. It’s no wonder so many people are confused.”
Here are several questions I have regarding this survey:
– Who commissioned this research?
– Who plans to use it?
– The report states: "Grey Matter has extensive experience in research related to faith and spirituality." Is the faith community an important source of revenue for this research/consulting firm?
In our upcoming post I will segue into Membership Covenants and attempt to connect their increased use to the results of this survey.
Lydia's Corner: Exodus 8:1-9:35 Matthew 19:13-30 Psalm 24:1-10 Proverbs 6:1-5
1. I had no idea I belonged to the 8th largest denomination in the country and that we were bigger than the Episcopal Church.
2. If it wasn’t so late, I would find that thing I read in a Neo-Calvinist book about church membership being like marriage. I will post it here in the comments tomorrow if I find it where I think it is. It might help you with your article on church covenants/vows.
3. Many people don’t even know membership is an option? Interesting. That would totally blow the minds of the most Christians I know.
Is some of the confusion over what is meant by membership? Because I know that here to vote in the yearly vestry meeting (Anglican Church term, electing parish council and others who I guess function as elders or something? All the different names used in different churches confuse me) you’re meant to be a baptised and confirmed member of the Anglican Church, but all you really need to do is sign your name on the sheet before the meeting. Before discovering Christian blogs like this and RHE early this year I didn’t know there were churches that had a proper ‘membership’ (as in signing a contract or the like) process. So I guess it doesn’t surprise me that many people are unsure about their own churches processes.
Pam – I think the whole “membership contract” (or “covenant”) is being heavily promoted by neo-Cals and others who want to control people. (Sorry; I know that’s a bit of a broad-brush statement…)
If you look at churches that actively baptize infants, well – the whole concept of “membership” is quite different and, imo, much healthier, for the most part. (Am a Lutheran and was baptized as an infant, confirmed in my teens.) There aren’t any “sign on the dotted line”-type documents of any kind. If you’re baptized, you’re part of the body of Christ, just like that.
Makes the whole “membership” thing a lot easier, i think – and nobody’s demanding that you sign a list of requirements.
I think some things become unclear when churches don’t use the ancient creeds as foundations for doctrine/doctrinal statements.
or – as Pam is saying – there are problems here with semantics.
What is meant by “membership” in the liturgical churches is often quite different than what is meant by “membership” in many other churches (mainly low-church/evangelical/pentecostal/charismatic churches).
@numo
Except these setups tend to never remove people from their rolls. Except maybe if they hear of a death. Move to Moscow and joined the local Mormon Church? They never know about it and keep you on the rolls.
Many of these research organizations do this type of thing on spec. Or speculation. They pick an area where they think they can produce a detailed report that many institutions/companies will want. Release the highlights to the press. Then charge for the full report. Typically 100s or 1000s of pages with detailed stats. $5K, $50K, or more depending on the report and market. And a signed agreement that you can’t share these details with ANYONE. 🙂
Anyway this is how it happens in the business world. Want to know the market penetration of iPods on Montana amongst 20 to 30 year olds vs. other media players. Or how many small businesses in Brooklyn pay $100 a month or more to process credit cards? For a price someone likely has such a report.
Lynn,
Thanks for that explanation about research organizations. What you shared makes a lot of sense to me.
I didn’t mention in the post that Grey Matter “Research and Consulting” used to be called “Ellison Research” until 2008 when there was an ownership change.
Can membership classes be used to weed out the people that the Church would not really want because they might be a “troublemaker” as part of their membership since they disagree with anything that the church might say is their view?
Mot – some churches do use the “membership” classes to weed people out. I can confirm that CJ Mahaney and his gang at SGM use “membership” class to do exactly that. At the end of the class, you have to have an interview with a pastor and then be approved for membership by the pastor. If the pastor doesn’t approve, you can’t be a member.
It’s like trying to get on the inside with the cool group at school! And just like trying to join the cool group at school, it’s really not worth it.
The denomination that I grew up in (First Christian) considers you a member if you are baptized in the church. If you join the church as an already-baptized Christian, usually “placing membership” means that you recite a statement of faith in Christ before the church congregation and express your desire to be a member. That’s really it. However, membership is not something that is really talked about much after that (at least, not in the First Christian churches that I’ve been part of) and it’s certainly not something that is pressured on anyone. It’s usually voluntarily undertaken by the person who decides they have found their church home. In the churches I was at, people would rather have you fellowship with them consistently and NOT be a member than push the membership idea and make you uncomfortable enough to leave!
By the way Dee, Deb….I am absolutely drooling over the promised post about Mark Driscoll that you plan to undertake this week. He is one of my favorite topics 🙂 Just letting you know….you have me on tenterhooks over here! 😉
In the Methodist Church, becoming a member is simply a matter of standing in front of the congregation as part of a worship service and answering a few formal questions declaring your intent to become a member, much like a confirmation. Some churches have a new member class or classes others don’t. Once you become a member you’re entitled to vote on matters that are brought to the congregation, usually financial matters like the annual budget including the minister’s salary and major projects like additions to the church, etc.
The church is assessed apportionments to be paid to the Conference based on the number of members in the church, which can become a big deal if you have a number of members who don’t attend anymore. There’s a process for deleting members from the roll, but that gets politically sensitive since removing someone from the roll can get ugly if not handled properly. Because of this, most churches will get in touch with inactive members and ask if they would like to be removed first and do it only with their consent. Most times it’s OK with them because they’ve moved, joined another church, etc. so it’s a pretty easy matter.
sad observer,
Look for Dee’s post sometime next week. I have two more topics to discuss before she takes on MD’s controversial approach to tackling (or “unpacking”) Esther. 🙂
A friend of mine has been reading: Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul. She called me flipping out about the content of the book and what she is reading all over the Reformed blogosphere about membership covenants, attendance, church discipline, etc, etc. Lots of quotes by Puritan leaders from the Mass Bay Colony. She said it is almost identical to what she is seeing said and exercised by much of the YRR/NC Movement. It is all about controlling people.
I started reading the book 2 days ago and hate to put it down, it is that good. It will really open your eyes to where much of the thinking and practices we are seeing today are coming from. These guys are going to old dead church state Puritans and emulating them. Scary stuff.
I’ve always felt the promotion of membership was to gain financial commitments from attendees since the paperwork almost always asks how much money you are going to give. But membership for the most part is either a sense of false pride or a way to manipulate and control. I can understand this helps plan the yearly budget. But I have once heard one particular church leader threaten to publicly post members’ names who were behind on their giving. Also, his group leaders were instructed to call members at their homes and ask them about their lack of giving. But none of the above is ever mentioned when they talk about membership to their church. It’s always, “membership will give you a strong sense of community and belonging”. Well, who doesn’t want to belong!
I’ve not seen anyone ignored because they weren’t a member, but it is used to make one feel they are missing something until they “sign up”. Of course, there is always some scripture to back the idea of membership, and they will go on and on about how it is referred to in the Bible, which is always obscure. And they don’t really say church membership either. Rather membership is a covenant you make with God. But it is has little to do with God at all. It has everything to do with your submitting to that leadership’s direction and sometimes abuse if they perceive that your not following the status quo.
Being a member is a church’s way of making some people feel they are more special than those who haven’t “signed” up yet. I am not totally against the idea of membership. Taking classes could help a church goer understand that church’s beliefs and how it is structured, what leadership looks like and the good that kind of accountability can bring….all very healthy if it is not abused.
But I have felt at times that I was a second class church attendee because I wasn’t an official member, and I have seen abuses with those who were members. That’s why I am very reluctant to sign up. But unless you do sign up you can’t be in any position to help others, at least in ways that are church sanctioned. I visited a church once to help them with a specific ministry they had over a two month period. I had been invited to do so. When I offered to do this again a few months later, the associate pastor called me into his office and said he appreciated my leadership, but if I was to continue with their program I needed to leave my home church and become a member of their church, and if I was unwilling, I should leave. I also found that those who were members there acted like they had “arrived” and were rather special Christians.
Bad enough when churches make you submit to the church leadership in order to become members, but some churches add insult to injury by essentially having different ‘classes’ of membership, often based on the amount one tithes, for example, you can’t be a deacon unless you tithe x%, etc. So now you not only have a member/nonmember distinction, you have a membership distinction, the not-so-subtle lesson being that some members are ‘better’ than others, i.e. usually those with more money. Here’s a provocative column I read the other day about tithing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dantonio/mitt-romney-and-the-tithing-gimmick_b_1877447.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
The history of membership predates the reformation. The church was the keeper of birth and death records, and every child born (other than Jews and Muslims) was baptized and considered a “member” of the church. The church had the “keys to heaven” and one had to be a member in good standing (observing the sacraments — that which makes sacred or holy) to enter heaven.
The Reformation churches followed essentially the same rules, keeping birth and death records in the towns they controlled, baptizing infants into the church, and requiring good standing (observance of the sacraments) to get into heaven.
Then came the Baptists and other “non-sacramental” churches. The Baptists wanted a “regenerate” membership, and thus did not allow one into the church until one made their own confession of Christ (hence, after an “age of accountability”, originally 18 or 21) followed by baptism, generally treated as submission to the example of Christ and the rule of the church. Those not members were considered outside of the faith.
Over the years, there has come about a wide variety of membership practices, including either explicit or implied acceptance of a covenant, commitment to tithe , and submission to the supervision of the church, the elders, or the pastor.
All churches have a problem with absent members. There is a need to avoid dismissing the disabled and elderly who cannot come to services (the church might be in the will!), while those who have moved, died, or are attending a different church are a different matter. Some estimate that about 1/2 of the claimed SBC membership of 14 million are those who are in a different church, location or dead.
My overall impression is that this Grey Matter group is manufacturing this to be an issue. Wording everything in such a way as to make it sound like they have discerned a serious problem in christian society that affects us all. We are to be gravely concerned.
In actual fact, this is not an issue at all (except maybe for professional christians whose trade requires people in order to be practiced and income generating).
Take this, for example:
“…the importance of membership, but apparently many people just aren’t seeing it as a necessary step in their own spiritual life.”
Grandiose over-spiritualizing of “church membership”. Phrasing it as if it’s a given, an inherent truth that all recognize, that church membership is what it means to be after God’s own heart. Pray the sinner’s prayer, get baptized, become an official church member — all 3 steps required in order to have your name written in the lamb’s book of life in fountain pen with a flourish as opposed to tentatively jotted in pencil.
(the next step will be to make this a sin issue)
OH, this is manipulative. I’m getting angrier by the minute here. Scheming. Preying on people’s desire to follow God and manufacturing fear and concern on behalf of institutional self-interest.
Yes, this research and report were paid for in one form or another. It wreaks of bias.
I never conformed to the church membership thing. What I’ve listened to from other preachers is that if you are not a member of a church, then you are in rebellion. The Calvanists and others will say that church membership is in the Bible. Doesn’t God say not to add to his word.
I don’t know who commissioned the study or its purpose.
Humans are humans. Any system membership system devised, whether hyper formal – cradle to grave registration, informal – show up and be counted, or “pure” – only sincere, regenerate members who make a commitment, is going to be subject to abuse – by those supposedly running the church and those attending.
Those attending, no matter what the membership requirements are, will be made up of the super sincere and devoted to the people who are their by habit, to the compelled.
Those supposedly in charge, can use abuse any set of standards to meet their purposes.
Membership, in my opinion, is just an aspect of discipleship. If you believe, you are in Christ, whether you attend or are a member of a church.
But being a member evidences a level of commitment that is supposed to aid the discipleship of the member and others who attend the church.
In our area, the trend is away from emphasizing membership. People attend and move their attendance when the desire. Probably the largest churches in our area have no emphasis on membership.
We started a church 20 years ago. We have a membership class so people can hear in an extended setting what our beliefs are and what are emphases are. We do that so that they can find out as much about us as possible before they join. We have a very simple and short covenant that they sign. It is not along the lines of some of what we are seeing nowadays, nor is it used for discipline purposes. The only time it has been mentioned is when a couple is divorcing and neither of them wants to leave the church. We usually encourage one, if they desire, to stay. If there are kids, it’s usually the custodial parent. But we leave that up to them. We have only had a problem in this area one time because by the time it gets to the pastor and elders, the couple has pretty much decided what they are going to do. The one time it did not work out, we pointed out that it would be impossible for both of them to remain in the church and be living consistenly with the covenant, since they could not live out the covenant with the spouse they were divorcing.
Again, I can see advantages and disadvantages to just about any membership arrangement.
The key is for the church to help people who are members in the church. If they are not attending, someone needs to check on them and find out why. If they don’t agree with the church’s mission or beliefs, they should probably find a church with which they agree. Or if they no longer believe, they should probably dispense with membership and attend if they want to.
Regardless of whether a church has membership and regardless of what the membership requirements might be, or how the requirements operate, it is not good discipleship to just let people drift in and out of a congregation with no attempt at active efforts to help disciple them. We should take an interest in what happens to people and their discipleship, rather than treating them as spectators who might attend one week, and be gone the next.
I thought a membership of a certain percentage was required by the IRS as a requirement for a tax-exempt status. Anyone know?
No. It is not required. Churches generally first get a non-profit or not-for-profit status from their state government, and some then apply for 501c3 status with the IRS, but that is not a requirement!!! The IRS requirements are an organizational document that guarantees that any property left at winding up of the affairs of the organization must be donated to a charitable purpose and not wind up in a person’s pocket, plus usually some unpaid board or gorup that oversees the finances. But that is more often observed in the breach than the compliance. Also, the organization is limited as to political activity in exchange for being tax-exempt and having the donations be tax deductible to the donors.
I have also found that many non-members are no different than “members”. Non-members give money, are active in church programs, are responsive to being “discipled” since discipleship is growing in one’s relationship with Christ. They do everything that the member does. (but I should also say that not all “church members” give or participate sacrificially like non-members do). But the non-members are still made to feel they really aren’t in the church until they are official members. I have seen this membership club mentality…specifically in a large PCUSA Presbyterian church (4500 members). People brag they they are members….because they took the classes, and stood in front of the church and answered some questions in unison. they are on the church rolls….but I feel most are not on the most important roll there is ….the lamb’s book of life.
elastigirl said~~
“(the next step will be to make this a sin issue)”
It is already is being taught it’s a sin issue. In one sermon I listened to recently, the pastor (a rather famous one) quoted a paragraph from someone named Benjamin Merkle (I am assuming it is the Merkle from Southeastern Seminary but there is another Merkle at Doug Wilson’s NSA- this pastor did not specify). Part of the quote, of which this pastor spoke appovingly:
“An unwillingness to join a local church is tantamount to saying we are not interested in divine accountability in our lives.”
Quite the claim. The divine accountability comes through the local church?
And one more part-
“Many Christians today want to date the church, making no formal commitment. The biblical picture of our relationship with Christ, however, is not dating, but marriage. Therefore, it’s appropriate that we have a formal commitment to Christ’s visible church.”
I think that is a logic fail. You mean formal like spiritually marry each other? Could we ever get a divorce?
No further explanation from the pastor, no “unpacking” of the statements- just- Benjamin Merkle said it, I promote it, so believe it and do it. If you don’t you are a rebel against biblical/gospel divine accountability.
Mike said~~
“But I have felt at times that I was a second class church attendee because I wasn’t an official member,”
This pastor also gave those who attend (and perhaps even give $$) but are not members a title- Regular Attending Non-Members, forever to be known as RANMs. I don’t appreciate the class distinction. I wonder if those sitting there listening did.
Maybe it’s just my particular experience, but I never thought the idea of membership in a church was a big deal. It was something which existed, but most people didn’t think about it that much. Wherever you found yourself most often on Sunday morning, was probably the place you eventually placed membership.
Maybe that was just me and my particular upbringing, though.
I can see how it’s a necessary topic to address, though, if certain denominations are using it as a control factor.
sad observer:
There are still Southern Baptist churches were you can join the church without going through a membership class but it seems more and more Southern Baptist churches have membership classes to weed out the ones not willing to be in lock step with the pastor’s views and policies.
This membership class does as much to disqualify you for church membership as it does to qualify you.
I have a close relative who went to a rather large church for a few weeks and decided to go to the “New member’s class” to check out what was required. He and his wife were seated, listening, when a question was asked by someone, “What is required of us to join?” The answer came….”Three items are needed…
One is your name and address..
Two is your testimony of conversion..
Third is your W2 Form.”
In keeping with the mother who was told by her daughter,,,”Mom, you’re so positive..you’d say something good about the devil.” Her Mom thought….and answered…
“Well, you’d have to say he’s a persistent fellow.”….
I say…”Well, you’d have to say they did have thought of conversion just ahead of how much money they make.” LOL
OK, thanks, Attorney!
Deb,
I’m glad you posted this. Membership is actually quite an easy thing. Simply look up every passage in the NT that has to do with members/membership and you will see that every Christian is already a member of the church they attend simply by being a Christian! Many churches have to muddy the waters with their own man-made membership ideas and covenants that, essentially, keep Christians out or make it difficult for them.
I have had some history with this topic, and it is very near to my heart. I have written an ongoing series on my blog about church membership (now at 34 parts, and soon to be 35 once I link to your post!) and the link is below. Feel free to read and comment. Looking forward to your post on church covenants.
http://fromthepew.blogspot.com/search/label/Re-Thinking%20Church%20Membership
Question — I can see how church leaders can abuse church membership. Concerning laity, aside from using membership as a status symbol, how can the members themselves abuse church membership? (too tired to use my imagination, so thought I'd ask)
I think involvement in a local church in some form is one of the marks of the Christian life. However I am not sure that this includes Membership with a capital M, and I do remember being concerned about the view of membership taken by one Neo-Reformed writer in his book.
Diane, didn’t this “dating the church” thing come from Josh Harris?
I have known (and known of) people who were gravitating toward Puritan authors and ideas since the late 1980s… so the fact that the YRR crowd exists is sort of a non-issue for me.
I am only surprised that it took so long for them to gain media attention (as well as supposed “spokes-preachers”).
” I had no idea I belonged to the 8th largest denomination in the country and that we were bigger than the Episcopal Church.”
The Episcopal Church has been shrinking for years. TEC’s own statistics from 2010 showed a 10-year decline of 16% in active membership and 23% in average Sunday attendance.
I’m a member of a church which left TEC in 2006 and is now affiliated with the Anglican Church of North America. Candidates for membership in my church aren’t required to sign a membership covenant, but they are required to take a membership class and to be presented before a bishop for confirmation, reception or reaffirmation of faith.
@ Kolya~~
Yes, he certainly promoted it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPn1DPUSvZc
Sad Observer,
Mme too about the Driscoll subject. I live over hear near Driscoll Land, many have left my church through their advertisements, even our music minister got wisked up by them when we had a leadership turn over.
I can't escape the FB postings inviting everyone to their upcoming Esther series. Even my niece and nephew attend a Driscoll satellite and that one held what they called a Feast party representing the Xerxes feast that opens the book of Esther. They advertise so much to the public around here, my daughter has friends that are starting to go, too. She and I are doing what we can to educate our friends and family, but no one else wants to make any waves against this crowd sucking up our young people and young families that are too busy to do their own Bible study.
Regarding membership, from the way I read the form for Mars Hill, it looks like when you sign that you have to actually state the dollar amount that you will tithe to the church annually. If that's true, that would explain to me why they can satellite out so rapidly. Does anyone else know for sure if that is true, I don't want to directly question my Mars Hill FB acquaintances because I am trying not to have them defriend me. I learn a lot by their posts.
But the good news is that Josh Harris said below in his video to pastors entitled, “Don’t Chase The Latest Thing” that we can disregard books (even his) and simply look to scripture. 🙂
http://www.joshharris.com/2012/09/dont_chase_the_latest_thing.php
Bad enough when churches make you submit to the church leadership in order to become members, but some churches add insult to injury by essentially having different ‘classes’ of membership, often based on the amount one tithes, for example, you can’t be a deacon unless you tithe x%, etc. — Jeff
Not far from that to being able to buy a deaconship with a big enough tithe. Can you say “Simony”?
And I have heard horror stories of small churches with big tithers who consider the church “MY” church and the pastor “MY” pastor, bought and paid for.
When you start talking about a bigger than a breadbox house you have to deal with things like power companies, insurance (property and liability) policies, legal filings for taxes and such and thus up springs a requirement to actually define who’s a part of this thing you call a church and which of these people can sign documents as required by law and just doing business.
The RCC deals with this by putting the clergy in charge and the members having no practical say in any of the business of running the church. Us protestants, on the other hand, when we reject a separate clergy have to get into the weeds of membership to make this work.
Why would any adult make his or her w-2 available to a church official? I just do not get it.
Deb and Dee,
Gosh, I just realized that I don't know what it takes to be an "official" member of TWW e-church! Do I have to make a "donation" to get a membership letter or is that fact that my name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life good enough? 🙂
On a serious note, on my journey of learning about hyper-authoritarian churches, I briefly joined a church that turned out to be SGM in everything but name. Thanks to being educated by TWW, I began seeing the red flags and gradually stopped attending. When I wanted to take my name off the membership role, I was told that I had to have the “approval” of the church “to leave”, i.e., the church had to vote to allow me to leave at their next business meeting. (Funny, no one said anything about this “rule” before I joined.) I had already stopped attending at that point and no one had even missed me enough to cal,l so I don’t know what they could have done if they didn’t agree to my leaving.
Nevertheless, to avoid problems down the road, I took the advice of TWW and kept my mouth shut and gracefully bowed out due to “disagreements in theology”, a reason that was acceptable to the church. Due to this and other experiences, I’m not likely to ever want to join a church but, if I do, I will be asking A LOT of questions first.
Most people at our church assumed we were members. Gradually as they have learned that we won’t sign a card we have been merely attenders and tithers. Recently again my husband was asked to be on the missionary committee by one of our friends on it. When they found out he wasn’t a card carrying member they rescinded the invite. I understand. I am not so against signing an agreement card of some sort while volunteering on a certain committee but most overall membership agreements we find to be unscripturally defended. My husband has always thought it was a form of control. I was always willing to compromise in order to have a voice in the church, but lately I am really glad I never signed just because my husband wouldn’t. We did attend a membership class once when we got a new pastor, my husband had our cards in his Bible, while walking to the car, a wind blew suddenly and the cards flew away. He thought that was a sign, lol.
Patti,
Love the last line of your comment! 🙂
Hi everyone,
I have been enjoying the commentary as I have been working on today’s post. Great insights about church membership!
Abigail said:
“Gosh, I just realized that I don’t know what it takes to be an “official” member of TWW e-church! Do I have to make a “donation” to get a membership letter or is that fact that my name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life good enough? ”
I love this! 🙂
Could someone educate this Brit as to what a W-2 form is? Is that like your tax form or something?
Patti,
With regard to your question about supporting Mars Hill financially, here’s what I found in the Membership Covenant
“I will steward the resources God has given me, including my time, talents, and treasure (Prov. 3:9-10; Rom. 12:1-2; Gal. 5:22-26; Eph. 4:1-16; 5:15-18). This includes regular financial giving, service, and participation in community that is sacrificial, cheerful, and voluntary (Rom. 12:1-8; 2 Cor. 8-9; 12:7-31; 1 Peter 4:10-11).”
Not sure how this is actually carried out.
Abigail, I read your post at the E-Church service and am rejoicing with you about the blessing Wade’s sermon brought you. I have found his teachings from the Word equally liberating!
Victorious and Abigail,
Ditto!
Kolya,
Yes, a W-2 form is a tax statement from your employer stating your annual income, and things withheld like taxes. It has to be attached to Federal and state income tax returns when they are filed.
I was baptized and confirmed in TEC. I never “unjoined” myself, but I’ve been a member of an independent church for twenty years. Does that make me a church bigamist? I’m serious. I’m considering leaving my church and returning to Anglicanism, so if I need to do something to fix this I’d sure like to know.
Thanks Deb. Yes, that does seem a bit intrusive. After all doesn’t it take away from the idea of voluntary giving?
@ Anon 1:
When you’re done with that book about Roger Williams, read Visible Saints by Edmund Morgan. Morgan is one of the foremost historians of New England history (he’s about 98 now). (Interestingly he described himself as a “Calvinist atheist.”) The book talks extensively about what you had to do to become a member of the Puritan church, and how their rules were so narrow that their churches were starting run out of members by the 1660s, thus necessitating the Halfway Covenant (which created two levels of membership, communing and non-communing).
@ Diane:
Yes! The church membership as marriage thing! This was briefly brought up at my old PCA church – though they compared not joining to shacking up (instead of dating), which makes it sound substantially more sinful not to join. I totally forgot that I said I would the excerpts from the book it came from, and now I have to make a pan of fudge…
@ Patti:
A “feast party”? Oh barf. Sounds like he’s gonna go all the way with this one. What’s he gonna have his congregants do to commemorate the “bachelorette” contest in Esther 2? Will we be seeing an uptick in births at Mars Hill nine months after he preaches that sermon?
A “feast party”? Oh barf. Sounds like he’s gonna go all the way with this one. What’s he gonna have his congregants do to commemorate the “bachelorette” contest in Esther 2? — Hester
Never mind the Medo-Persian Bachelorette contest, I want to see who gets to be Vashti, i.e. strip down to the buff and parade before the congregation and elders (and MD) after the serious drinking starts.
(Interestingly he described himself as a “Calvinist atheist.”) — Hester
Well, Philip “Golden Compass” Pullman describes himself as a “Church of England Atheist”… You can take the boy out of the Baptists, but you can’t take the Baptist completely out of the boy.
Yes, a W-2 form is a tax statement from your employer stating your annual income, and things withheld like taxes. It has to be attached to Federal and state income tax returns when they are filed. — Deb
And for a church to demand your W-2 as a condition for membership is VERY suspicious.
LOL re Philip Pullman, some of the old CofE liberals were almost atheists anyway.
Speaking as a CofE man myself….
“And for a church to demand your W-2 as a condition for membership is VERY suspicious.”
That’s putting it mildly. One’s income is none of the church’s business.
Another thought: Would this mean that somebody who’s unemployed and can’t produce a W-2 or 1099 is therefore ineligible for membership at a church requiring such documents? Simply bizarre.
If a membership leader asked me for my W-2, I would be immediately heading for the door.
For Catholics who were polled, this is a semantics problem. “Membership” in the universal Roman Catholic Church is by baptism and/or confirmation (an adult convert already baptized in another Christian church becomes a member by being confirmed only). In terms of belonging to your local parish, the word “membership” is not used. Rather, people are asked to “register” in their parish. Ask Catholics in a poll if they are registered in their parish or have been encouraged to register and the result would be different. All it entails is filling out a form with your names, address, date (or approximate date) of baptism for each member of the household, checking yes/no if each has been confirmed and if you were married in the church.
@ HUG:
I probably should have explained the phrase “Calvinist atheist” a little more. To my knowledge, it doesn’t reference what religion/denomination he was raised as, but reflects a conclusion he came to after a trip to Germany in late 30s, during which Hitler and his bodyguard walked right past Morgan and his friend. Here’s a link to the story as told by Morgan (scroll down a little to the section labeled “Personal Anecdote”). (Morgan’s mentor, Perry Miller, briefly referenced in the story, is also an excellent source for Puritan/early American history.)
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/24049.html
Isn’t a person’s social security number on a W-2 also?
A person should never give that kind of information to a church or any organization.
But I don’t know why a church would want the responsibilty of having its members’ social secuirty numbers. Sounds like a lot of potential liability if the records were stolen etc.
If someone tried to give our church their W-2, I would make sure we did not take it.
All right – finally, as promised, here is the excerpt from the book where I first heard the church membership = marriage idea. The book is The Communion of Saints by Philip Graham Ryken. (Two of the blurbs on the back are from J. Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever.)
“Some Christians become actively involved in a local church without ever becoming members. It is good to become involved, but involvement without formal membership is like living together without getting married. To some people this seems like a good way to test the waters. They argue, ‘How can we know for sure if we are right for one another unless we live together for a little while? If things don’t work out, then we can split up without a divorce.’ In addition to violating God’s will for courtship and marriage, that approach is a well-known recipe for separation. Two people who only live together want the benefits of marriage without its safeguards. As a result, they lack the one thing that is crucial to a successful marriage (or to genuine sexual intimacy, for that matter): an unbreakable commitment to a mutual, inviolable covenant before God.
The same might be said of regular attenders who never join the church. They lack an unbreakable commitment to the church and its ministry. Nonmembers, however active they may be in the life of the church, are outside the covenant relationship with the body of Christ that God requires. They reserve the right to pick and choose their doctrine, lifestyle and ministry. In effect they become their own elders, denying the authority of the church to carry out its mandate of gathering and perfecting the saints. To put this in theological terms, they separate union with Christ, the head of the church, from union with his body. As a result, they confuse themselves and others – outside as well as inside the church – about what it means to be a Christian. This is a costly mistake to make because membership has its privileges. Martyn Lloyd-Jones went so far as to describe church membership as ‘the biggest honor which can come a man’s way in this world.’ There is no union with Christ apart from the communion of the saints. Nor can the saints have true communion without belonging to one another by belonging to Christ in his church. The communion of saints is for members only.”
(Info on Ryken from back of book: “Philip Graham Ryken (M.Div., Westminster Theological Seminary; D.Phil., University of Oxford) is senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. He is author of Is Jesus the Only Way? and When You Pray: Making the Lord’s Prayer Your Own.)
My thoughts on the above quote:
1. “They lack an unbreakable commitment to the church and its ministry.”
Are we still required to have an “unbreakable commitment” even if the church has completely run itself off the rails into outright heresy? Or is this the equivalent of the “we grew apart” excuse for divorce and we’re STILL not allowed to leave? And of course, what he’s not telling you here is that Mark Dever (who wrote a blurb for the back of the book) will CHASE YOU DOWN if you leave without his permission. You know, more like a runaway slave than a spouse.
2. “They reserve the right to pick and choose their doctrine, lifestyle and ministry.”
Well, color me Baptist (which I most certainly am not), but you could at least TRY to acknowledge soul liberty and the rights of conscience. This makes it sound like all members, immediately upon joining, must change their beliefs to conform to those of the pastor and elders, and allow the church to dictate to them what they can and cannot do in their personal lives. Which, you know, would be totally Puritan of them. But let’s not go there.
3. “It is good to become involved, but involvement without formal membership is like living together without getting married.”
So when I join Church X, I’m “marrying” that church. Okay, let’s go there for a minute. If I leave Church X and join Church Y, do I need a “certificate of divorce”? If I visit Church Z while I’m a member of Church X, am I committing “adultery”? And how exactly does one “fornicate” before “marrying” a certain church? By visiting multiple churches before making a decision? The only logical conclusion from that is that we are allowed to only visit one church one time or else we are “fornicators.”
This metaphor is so stupid it defies description.
@ HUG:
“Never mind the Medo-Persian Bachelorette contest, I want to see who gets to be Vashti, i.e. strip down to the buff and parade before the congregation and elders (and MD) after the serious drinking starts.”
And who gets to be Haman and get hanged at the end of the sermon series? (Hanging being the Esther-friendly version of “going Old Testament.”) Will Mars Hill be building a 75-foot-tall gallows in the parking lot just for the occasion?
Hester,
Thanks for sharing that excerpt from Philip Ryken’s book. He left his church in the last year or two to assume the presidency of Wheaton College.
Someone on a Gospel Coalition blog used the marriage analogy to explain church membership. Now I know where it may have originated.
HUG, it reminds me of Grant Morrison saying that no matter how many drugs he’s taken or magic things he’s done there’s some part of him that’s always going to be an uptight Presbyterian. 🙂
Patti, signing the member contract is frequently done side-by-side with an annual giving pledge. That way they can budget for the upcoming year.
Hester, thank you for sharing this. I find it rather alarming. In a strange way it is more Catholic than Catholicism!
I also find it ironic that the neo-Reformed who so much espouse Protestantism should then deny one of Protestantism’s main tenets, which is liberty of conscience.
“Reserve their right to pick their own doctrine, lifestyle and ministry”.
Yes, and why not? As long as a person adheres to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, Rom 14 gives authority to disagree on secondaries. As long as a person isn’t living in sin, why shouldn’t they choose their own lifestyle? As for ministry, unless a person is completely bone-headed with the skin of a rhinoceros, surely it ought to become apparent to them if their chosen ministry is not appropriate or right for them? Really this sentence reveals what I feel is an ugly authoritarianism.
Given some of Mark Devers’ other leanings in this direction and what I understand to be some of his statements, I find his endorsement of this book a warning signal.
It’s all about the money
@ Deb:
“[Ryken] left his church in the last year or two to assume the presidency of Wheaton College.”
?!?!?!?!?! How can that be possible?! There’s such hardline, scary implications in what I quoted, esp. this last part:
“There is no union with Christ apart from the communion of the saints. Nor can the saints have true communion without belonging to one another by belonging to Christ in his church. The communion of saints is for members only.”
So I can’t TRULY commune with other Christians on any “real” level unless I am a member of a church (which is a much slipperier concept Biblically/historically than Ryken wants to admit)? This could also be used to say that you can only “truly” commune with the saints IN YOUR OWN CHURCH. And members only? We’re made members of Christ’s body by grace through faith, not by signing a piece of paper and agreeing to tithe X amount.
@ Kolya:
“As for ministry, unless a person is completely bone-headed with the skin of a rhinoceros, surely it ought to become apparent to them if their chosen ministry is not appropriate or right for them? Really this sentence reveals what I feel is an ugly authoritarianism.”
Yes. It sounds like the elders set up some kind of ministry “placement program” where your gifts are “objectively” analyzed and, based on the outcome, you are funneled into the “right” ministry, whether you want to be there or not. (Interestingly enough, Ryken also included a “spiritual gifts assessment” quiz-type thing in an earlier chapter.)
If I were ever given a ‘membership contract’ that asked me to specify a dollar or percentage amount of giving each year, I’d write in that spot that no way in hell am I telling them that information, as it is my prerogative and between myself and God. I’d also remind them that James chapter 2 forbids favouritism and bias based on someone’s riches (and I’d say the amount of giving fits under that umbrella too), and that Jesus on a number of occasions condemns showy and overt giving, and as such, it is not the business of any church to have written records of how much its various members pledge to give, as if that is some sign of each individual’s piety.
I might run out of room trying to fit all that into the likely very small space to write how much I pledge to give, so I’d probably have to write it down and around the page!
Hmm… wow, membership.
First, Hester, the last church I was a member of carried this concept out in practice without ever preaching this way. I felt guilty – exactly like I was being ‘unfaithful’ – if I visited another church, even if it was at a time when out ‘church’ was not meeting….
The first church I was a member of (and I never cancelled my membership, hmmm…) allowed you to become a formal, card-carrying member at the age of 16….and it was kind of expected. The only real benefit was that you were allowed to vote. And I didn’t realize that the A of G was in the top ten….my how far they’ve come [/sarcasm]. The thing that sticks out most to me, though, when I signed that membership card at 16 was that it said I was agreeing to not go to bowling alleys or movies. I told my mom I couldn’t sign that because I did do both things. She smiled and said they didn’t really expect you to DO that, it was just still on the card….that made my uneasy. But I signed….
Then, I walked away in disgust at the hardball political games that were played. My last act as an active member of that church was to attend a ‘business meeting’ where they were voting for who could be on the board. There had already been an ugly split and my family had been some of the casualties. My parents had moved to another town and I had stayed to live with my grandparent to finish high school. I attended this meeting with the sole purpose of preventing the pastor from railroading a good man off the board. I succeeded, left and never went back…
I didn’t join another church for 20 years. This one preached hard about the spiritual benefits of church membership and that not joining and ‘plugging in’ and ‘assembling properly’ meant you were in rebellion to God. There were no practical benefits to membership, however (unless you bought into the bragging rights thing), because there was no voting in this church. The pastor was the president and the boss and, to quote what he said to me once when I mildly challenged him, “This church and everything in it is mine and I will do with it whatever I want.”
I could go on about the subtle (and not so subtle) mind games and manipulations he and the other leaders engaged in, (like having a ‘giving service’ where everyone brings the offering up and hands it to the pastor and he tells everyone how much you gave…) but I am tired and don’t have the energy for it tonight. Maybe another time….
One thing I am fairly sure of….I will not be a formal member of an organized church again.
@ Jeannette:
“There were no practical benefits to membership, however (unless you bought into the bragging rights thing), because there was no voting in this church.”
My old PCA church (where I first heard the membership = marriage thing) did the exact opposite. Almost everything you could do in the church (which, granted, wasn’t much – it was only 30-40 people) was dependent on membership. Anytime I would ask to help out beyond a certain point, I would get “well, membership has its privileges.” (They had “membership vows.”) Why anybody would limit another believer who wants to serve in the body of Christ, all because of a silly piece of paper, is beyond me.
Wow Hester, I never knew that someone ‘important’ actually compared church membership to a marriage in a preachingly positive way. I thought that was a negative thought my husband and I had about it what it seemed like. In fact that’s the only reason I didn’t sign when he didn’t want to. We have an egalitarian marriage so I felt free to sign if I wanted but I felt that I would be putting the manmade religion before him.
Maybe people on fixed incomes don’t mind promising a certain amount but we never do those faith promise things sone churches like ours do either. We are contractors. It’s feast or famine, if we be blessed, then we be blessing.
Hi Patti, I can relate to that! Although to be fair our own church doesn’t intrude on how much people give nor force them to covenant to regularly tithing. The only thing they suggest is that if people do record a certain amount given then tax can be claimed back on it, which is sensible and still doesn’t commit you.
Kolya, same with my church, to be fair. But another reason I didn’t sign once when I thought I might was that I disagreed with the pastor on a point. I was talking to him about problems with our youth pastor at the time. I asked him if he thought that my children’s pastor is a spiritual authority of sorts over myself as my pastor considered himself a spiritual authority over me. He answered, yes, as a delicate of his, yes. I strongly disagree. I don’t know if that is a thought across the AG denomination, they are pretty liberal about allowing differences of opinions among their pastors. I did just read one of their position papers on membership, and I just don’t agree with their ‘scriptural’ defense for the importance of covenanting with a local church. group.http://ag.org/top/church_workers/chuadm_mem_membership.cfm
Look at point 9, Wayde Goodall actually says we submit to each other first and then to Christ, I never read THAT one before. I wish it was dated, it sure seems like the churches are grasping at straws now that people are questioning them more.
The pastor was the president and the boss and, to quote what he said to me once when I mildly challenged him, “This church and everything in it is mine and I will do with it whatever I want.” — Jeanette Altes
Is that anything like “I will exalt MY Throne above that of the Most High”? If so, remember the source of the original.
Headless U, they are gods in their own minds. All narcissists think so.
It really makes one wonder if God truly called these pastors. They have not a clue about servant-leadership.
Mot
They call themselves “servant” leaders. They use their shepherd crook to beat you over the head as they serve you up to serve them so they have time to be servants.
Pingback: Linkathon 9/19 » Phoenix Preacher | Phoenix Preacher
Ah. I didn’t know that the Bible was so confusing about church membership. 😉
To clarify my comment: http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-19.htm and check out the context for how one becomes part of the Body of Christ.