Our wonderful new treasurer wants to talk soon about "membership" - as in financial contributions made by official church members versus financial contributions made by non-members. Yes, it's all money. But there are administrative differences. Is that necessary?Our staff (volunteer and paid ministers/coordinators/honchos) met for half-price burgers last night and the issue of "membership" came up again. What to do about people who want to make a commitment and not "join"? What if "membership" feels like "old church" to them? They want spiritual community, but having their names on rolls doesn't mean anything.
So . . . is membership about paying dues (versus radical sharing) and attendance (as if showing up is all we ask) and fulfilling a duty (as opposed to being called) and making a commitment to an institution (versus making a commitment to follow Christ)?
I have a feeling that this will be one of the key issues of my own denomination - the PCUSA - as we focus on transforming people - and the church in general in the coming years. "Membership" as a classification and requirement is different in the 21st Century. I've written about this before. And I've not come up with profound answers but I know what I don't want.
What we don't want IMHO:
Levels of commitment that sound like a 21st Century version of Interior Castle. The closer we get to God, the closer we are to some kind of "inner circle" or inner sanctum or holy of holies. We'd have our nominal members, our gold star members, whatever. Yuck.
Membership that feels like a club, as if merely having one's name on the rolls means anything. Matching polo shirts can't be far behind.
Total anarchy. I'd like the leaders of our spiritual community to make a commitment to God, yes, but also to make a commitment to the community itself in terms of caring for each other, equipping each other, etc.
Members in the PCUSA are entitled to vote in meetings and hold office but that's not a great incentive it seems. In our congregation we have at least two officers in our Presbyterian Women's organization who are not members of our particular congregation. We have volunteer staffers who are not members. We got permission to elect a clerk of session who is not a member; she's an affiliate member but this means she can't vote in meetings. All these people are gifted and called to serve, and they are a blessing to our community.
So what does membership mean? Any thoughts?
Photo of 1921 membership book of Mt. Bethel United Methodist Church, Cobb County, GA.
Posts
8 comments:
Membership in a church is such an interesting thing. I didn't know until about 3 or 4 years ago that there is a certain amount of money the church expects from their on rolls members every year (almost like membership dues). I had always assumed throughout my life that joining a church was more of a symbol of public commitment to join with that group in fellowship to follow Christ. A place to bring people together and allow them to find common mission calls, goals, and a place to worship.
In other news...Crystal City Sports Pub apparently is the USC Alumni meeting place for game days, and isn't very friendly towards somewhat rowdy Ohio State fans cheering against them. Good times and fond memories =)
Over the past year we've been doing the tedious work of "cleaning up the books" (I say way but it has been our faithful and superb church secretary) and to my surprise the push back has been across generational lines.
the builder couple who found each other after a total of 3 divorces and 1 death and whose relationship is beyond marriage don't want a membership card.
the boomer whose tie to the church of her youth is so strong she wishes to be a member there forever whether or not she ever attends again.
the young family who as far as they know have never been members anywhere (though in our polity they have been) figure, why start now?
I hope the book you mentioned a while back is about this issue, because I really appreciate your thoughts.
Beyond that, in the UCC, membership determines how much money a church gives to the national setting. Oh, there are additional offerings for One Great Hour of Sharing or Neighbors in Need, and special offerings after disasters. But our denomination would not exist without the per capita dues. It's easy to say we're moving into post-denominational times, but I would like to know where the screening of candidates for ordination and for employment will take place otherwise? I'm not saying membership is the answer, just that we need a new way to assess how we support our denominations, and perhaps a better understanding of why they are important to us. This will be even harder for my folks than yours, I suspect, since our polity is based on local autonomy.
We're just starting to grapple with these issues at Common Table. We don't need to worry about screening for ordinations and staff positions (to the extent that we do those things, it's done relationally: we're 30 people) and we don't need to worry about supporting or valuing a denomination (we're post- or omni-denominational: we value all the streams of Christian tradition, but we don't affiliate with one or support it financially).
But, we've found - there's this thing about money. If you have absolutely no idea how much to expect in a given month, it's awfully hard to plan a budget.
So we've just recently decided to ask folks who want to enter into a covenant relationship with the community to commit (to our "money monkey" - the guys who receives the checks - no-one else needs to know) to *some* amount of regular monthly giving, even if it's $5, just so we can plan a basic operating budget with a known, sustainable income. Everything we receive over and above that budget - from covenant folks or anyone else - will go to relational giving to our wider communities (i.e., missional stuff beyond our basic operating budget). And folks will be asked to let the money monkey know if their giving needs to change, so we can re-plan the operating budget.
This is a big change for us: we've never had *any* real concept of membership. The closest we've had is membership in our "core" e-mail list, and that's been pretty darn informal. We've always talked proudly of the concept of "orbits" - some folks are in a "Mercury" orbit around the heart of our community, others are more like "Pluto" - and it's all good.
The other thing we're talking about asking "covenant" folks to to is participate in one of the teams that plans and coordinates our weekend gatherings. We recently decided that we would have several teams, each responsible for one weekend gathering per month: our monthly "service-worships" (congregation-wide relational service projects), and three or four different kinds of worship services (to be held three Sundays per month, as we currently do). At the moment, the "kinds" of worship services we're discussing are: "Creatively Designed", "Musical", "All-ages", and "Really Simple".
So that's how we're beginning to edge closer to a concept like "membership": asking folks to covenant to participate in the community in two ways: a monthly giving commitment for the operating budget (no matter how small), and a commitment to participate in one of the teams that plan our weekend gatherings (worship services and service-worships).
It feels a little scary, venturing into this territory, but it's somewhere we're going with prayer and much congregational conversation (that's how we roll), and it feels right. We think. For now. :-)
I'm interested/not surprised that membership is often about money. Our congregation -- long ago -- did not receive "pledges." They were called "faith promises" which means they were . . . essentially pledges with a slightly better name.
Membership in the PCUSA is about per capita funds to support the presbytery and beyond. We've even had some "non-members" pay the annual apportionment to the denomination as if they were indeed "on the rolls." They are clearly committed - even to the continuation of the Greater Church.
What we need, perhaps, if for someone to be a genius and figure out how we can be a community of faith together than can make plans financially (i.e. what Croghan said) which reflects where we are or where we want to go spiritually.
It takes money to do (most) ministry. People need food, shelter, medicine. Communication requires money (to pay for phones, computers, snail mail stamps). If we want to be staffed by people dedicated to serve the community all the time, we need to pay them so they can eat, pay their own bills, etc. Equipping people takes money (to pay the equippers so they also get to eat and pay their bills, or to buy books, etc.)
Money is not a bad thing, clearly. Could we say that membership is "at the least about money, but more than about money"?
We too have a lot of folks who are here for a while, are active, but don't want to join, and so sometimes it feels like they don't "count." With the Session this year we have focused on "Participation, Community, and Leadership." If people participate, and are becoming part of the community, and are taking leadership-- who cares if they are members or not? And if they aren't participating, are not a part of the community, and not leading in any way, who cares if they are members or not? So our mantra for the year has been-- What can we do to invite people to participate, feel a part of the community, and stretch as leaders?
Yeah, Jan - and yeah, Jeff, and others - I do think that any useful concept of "membership" ought to be about more than money (although money does seem to be an inescapable facet of the topic).
It ought to be about participation. (Hence our emphasis at CT on "covenant" folk participating in planning/coordinating teams.) Having one's name on a roll (sesame or kaiser?) doesn't seem very meaningful to me, even if it's linked to giving and/or "attendance" (as if the church were an elementary school class or something).
But "Participation, Community, and Leadership" - being an active, participating disciple in God's mission in a specific community - that sounds like a meaningful idea of "membership" to me.
Historically, I think membership was a counter-cultural idea arising from late medieval Europe in which just about everyone was "christened" as an infant. The reformers saw "membership" as a move beyond mere cultural inertia toward a personal, vibrant faith. As the centuries wore on, this idea gradually became more and more instituionalized until, once again, it's more of a cultural/institutional construct than a reflection of living faith.
Post a Comment