How does your Methodist church handle membership?

[chaoschristian]

When we lived in Virignia we belonged to a UMC church that went through a long and at times painful process of re-examining how membership was handled.

In the end end we had in hand the following:

A committment to give life to the concept of membership as described in the book of discipline.

A committment to establish accountability around the committment to membership.

A Partnership Covenant, that spelled out the requisite conditions and expectations of membership.

A means through which those who desired Partnership (we ended up dropping the term membership altogether in our language) could explore the idea and discern whether or not this was a committment they really wanted to make.

We set the bar high in terms of tithing, attendance, spiritual growth and leadership committments.

So, I'm wondering, how does your church handle membership? And how do you feel about membership? Are you satisfied, why? Are you dissatisfied, why?

Be a blessing,

chaoschristian

[ClementofRome]

In all honesty, I have mixed feelings about "membership." By default, as a Christian, I am a 'member' of the body of Christ, His Church. I understand why church "membership" may be important as you would not want someone who appears from nowhere voting on an important issue that may be before the church or the church council....however, we attended regularly our current church for over 2 years before we became "members." I taught SS for over a year before I became a "member." Honestly, we were full and active participants and the only reason I can give for having "joined" the church is that I was asked to serve on church council....I had to be a member to do so.

There was no such thing as "membership" in the earliest church. You believed, you were baptized, you were joined to Christ. I like the simplicity of that.

[Artos]

In the Methodist setting, baptism doesnt make you a member of the Methodist Church. It just incorporates you into the wider Body of Christ. Confirmation or reception into membership makes you a member. When joining a Methodist church, you promise to support it by your PRAYERS, PRESENCE, GIFTS and SERVICE.

PRAYERS: Hard to figure out if the individual is doing his share of praying or not. One possibility is to put everyone in cell groups and thus in a prayer chain link. When there's some major crisis (eg someone is very sick), they would be in the prayer chain link....via texting/sms-ing (using handphone to pass the message). Those who do the 24/7 prayer can ask members to 'tithe' their time in the prayer room.

PRESENCE: attendance at service. If one is not physically present, one is not keeping this vow

GIFTS: Tithing plus offerings...this the pledge treasurer can verify if someone is faithful or not...

SERVICE: serving in some capacity in the local church.

This would be the general terms of membership.
Once in a few years, we evaluate the above to see if some members are not fulfilling even one of those (a bit hard to figure out the prayer commitment though). Then we write to them to say : Do you want to renew your commitment? If not, we will remove your name from our membership.

[chaoschristian]

I too struggle with the concept of formal 'membership' as a concept within the church. I know that one of the main issues is that a congregation would not want just anyone walking in during stated meetings (or whatever) and voting on important issues when that person doesn't really have any stake in the issues being voted on. A completely open system would be vulnerable to abuse along those lines, I suppose.

However, I think that argument has two flaws. First(and let's see if I can articulate this effectively) it is both a cause and a sympton of the 'mine, mine, mine' attitude I see in the local church. And what I mean by that is I think local congregations have a strong tendency to see it as 'their' church, 'their' building, 'their' budget, etc. When really, its not. It all belongs to God, and belonged to Him even before any of us set a foot in the door. I say it is a cause because I think formal membership helps promote an attitude of entitlement, and I say it is a symptom because I see it as a result of an attitude of entitlement as well. Second, and this is related to the first, it shows a lack of trust in God. Sure, people with bad intentions could show up at the stated meeting and wreck the effort to fund the orphanage, but along those lines everybody at the stated meeting could be trampled by a herd of wild elephants. Both events could happen, but what is the likelyhood. And so what if it does happen? Are we so insecure in our efforts that we can't allow ourselves to entrust it all to God to work out for the best?

I don't know. I certainly don't have any answers to this, just lots of questions. Which is why I started the thread in the first place.

[chaoschristian]

Our former church also kept detailed records on the activities of all those who signed the Partnership Covenant. And I think that is a good thing, since the covenant explicitly stated that there would be accountability involved. And that accountability is seen accuring on three levels: between the person and God and whether or not that person was living in a spirit of integrity; between the administration and the covenant signer, so that each one of us could look at hard data on exactly where we stood (offering, attandance, taking classes, serving in mission and ministry); and finally between that person and his small group (since part of the covenant states that being in a small group is required), the small group providing the nurturing, guidance and prayer.

Now, we haven't been there for some time, and we no longer as involved as we once were, so I don't know how any of this has worked out. But in terms of giving the terms of membership as described in the Book of Discipline, it seemed like a good system.

[Fish and Bread]

It occurs to me that there are probably roughly three main groups of Christians out there:

1. The ones who are firmly committed to spending money, time, and prayer on a congregation, as well as attending weekly services and bible studies and such.

2. The ones attend most weekly services and give or attend additional functions simply as they are able due to time, financial constraints, or personal preference.

3. The "Christmas and Easter" Christians who attend church on major holidays and when they have a guilty conscience or need pastoral care.

When we raise membership requirements, we may cause more people from group two to join group one, but we lose large swaths of groups two and almost all of group three. We have a God who loves and accepts everyone as his children. As the Church, should we do any less? If someone is unable to tithe or even does not want to tithe, who are we to judge? I really really hate that so many congregations are so concerned about money nowadays. It's crass and it excludes people from church unnecessarily.

[ClementofRome]

On the other hand.....money is necessary to fund the programs that we (many) enjoy! I do not want to high-jack this "membership" thread to discuss the where and whatnots of stewardship, but there is a relationship. If certain amounts of money are not given, how does one pay for the buildings/electricity/heat/etc? Not to mention pastors salaries and other staff, etc.

I do like the prayers, presence, gifts and service application of UMC membership. I do not give 10% of pre-tax income, yet I my wife and I still account for approx. 10% of the annual operating budget (we are a very small church). I believe that giving money is not only important, but critical. We want the church to be there for us when we have needs, yet are often reluctant to give freely. It may be that membership properly encourages giving? I don't know.

[Fish and Bread]

On the other hand.....money is necessary to fund the programs that we (many) enjoy! I do not want to high-jack this "membership" thread to discuss the where and whatnots of stewardship, but there is a relationship. If certain amounts of money are not given, how does one pay for the buildings/electricity/heat/etc? Not to mention pastors salaries and other staff, etc.

I do like the prayers, presence, gifts and service application of UMC membership. I do not give 10% of pre-tax income, yet I my wife and I still account for approx. 10% of the annual operating budget (we are a very small church). I believe that giving money is not only important, but critical. We want the church to be there for us when we have needs, yet are often reluctant to give freely. It may be that membership properly encourages giving? I don't know.

It is true that stewartship is important to the life of a congregation. However, the problem with an excessive emphasis on such is that it keeps people out of church. There are folks who can't make ends meet and can only afford to drop a buck in the collection plate each week. There are also people who are unemployed and can't even give a buck. In such a situation, would you feel welcome if you were getting letters and having people demand that you give 10% or not be welcome as a member? Membership in a church shouldn't be like a subscription to a service that you buy, it should be freely given to all who seek it, as is the grace of the God that churches preach.

Very simply, to my way of thinking, if a church can not do a lot of programs with the contributions it gets, than it shouldn't do a lot of programs. If it can't exist on the contributions it gets without high-pressure tactics which exclude people, it shouldn't exist. The people have a desire and afford to give should give, those who can't or don't shouldn't, and the chips can fall where they may. I think a simple yearly letter offering guidelines for contributions and letting people know how much money the congregation needs to stay alive should suffice, along with maybe the clergyperson taking a few seconds at a service to request that people read said letter. High-pressure pledge drives and monetary requirements for membership are offensive to me. If one needs a pledge drive to stay afloat, one either has too many programs given the size of the congregation, or a congregation should be merged with another one.

It's a little bit like politics. If you have to sell out your ideals to preserve your country, why bother to preserve your country in the first place? Likewise, if you have to sell out your ideals to preserve your church, why bother to preserve your church in the first place?

[ClementofRome]

Fish and Bread, I agree that lack of ability to give should never be a barrier to full participation in the church. Also, I agree that pressure tactics (letters?) should never be used. The pastor should NEVER know who is giving what! The only one who should know is the treasurer (for obvious reasons) and this person should be held to a strict degree of confidentiality.

On the other hand, I do think that the body should be reminded from time to time that infrastructure is not free. :)

[chaoschristian]

It occurs to me that there are probably roughly three main groups of Christians out there:

1. The ones who are firmly committed to spending money, time, and prayer on a congregation, as well as attending weekly services and bible studies and such.

2. The ones attend most weekly services and give or attend additional functions simply as they are able due to time, financial constraints, or personal preference.

3. The "Christmas and Easter" Christians who attend church on major holidays and when they have a guilty conscience or need pastoral care.

When we raise membership requirements, we may cause more people from group two to join group one, but we lose large swaths of groups two and almost all of group three. We have a God who loves and accepts everyone as his children. As the Church, should we do any less? If someone is unable to tithe or even does not want to tithe, who are we to judge? I really really hate that so many congregations are so concerned about money nowadays. It's crass and it excludes people from church unnecessarily.

Crowd. Congregation. Core. At least that's how I think of it.

The question is, how do you move people from the crowd, through the congregation and into the core? And how do you express and practice the concept that there is genuine value to being a part of the core that cannot be had if you remain a part of the crowd? And is any of this spiritually valid?

[chaoschristian]

Well, in that spiritually guided financial stewardship is an essential part of spiritual growth (at least in my opinion) then any talk of such in this thread is on target as far as I am concerned.

I disagree that we need to shy away from talking about stewardship or reserving for a once a year stewardship campaign or letter. I also disagree that the pastor should be kept in the dark about who is giving what, and I' show you why.

First, I think it is important to recognize that humanity is charged with the stewardship of God's Creation. As Christian, in particular, we are charged to exercise a level of discipline within and among ourselves through our character, attitude and actions that will lead others to others to salvation and through salvation to higher levels of stewardship.

Stewardship, whether financial, spiritual, emotional, etc, is part of the on-going daily struggle of being a Christian. Where the rubber meets the road it is a matter of how we make our decisions from day to day. A church that does not recognize this struggle and equip the members of its body to confront it, is, IMHO, missing a good deal of what Christianity is about.

That said, I don't believe there is any one way to do this. Each local congregation is going to have to discern for itself what structures will best help people to state the question, be with the question and then respond to the question of stewardship in all of its facets. I do know that one major element of this is accountability - accountability not just on a personal level, but on systemic level as well. Without real accountability, whatever you do to address stewardship will in the end be valueless.

Accountability happens best, I think, when it is happening on the personal level (betweeb the Christian and God), and on the inter-personal level (within a small group setting), and on a hierarchical level (between the leadership of the church and the core) It really has to happen on all three levels simultaneously.

If a pastor doesn't know where his core stands in terms of its collective and individual stewardship (financial and otherwise) then that pastor is seriously handicapped in terms of his leadership ability. You are denying him information that is necessary for him to gauge whether or not his core is on track for the course that he has set. And you are underminig his ability to fulfill his pastoral obligations when he confronts the core (or an individual member of the corp) with its behavior. A major duty of the pastor is to be both an examplar of accountability and one of the primary enforcers of accountability (particularly and especially with his core.) If you handicap him in this regard, then I think you are seriously jeapordizing the leadership of the church.

[ClementofRome]

I understand what you are saying chaoschristian. However, I believe that we have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the role of a pastor. My father was a UMC pastor for 41 years and never once knew what any member gave annually. His ministry was succesful, to say the least. I do not believe that he was handicapped in any way by not knowing individual giving. Of course he knew corporate giving, but that is not what we are talking about.

How is a minister/pastor handicapped by not knowing individual giving habits? Is it to make sure that the "core" is giving pre-tax 10%?

[chaoschristian]

To ensure that a member of the core is fulfilling his committment as a core member.

A core member in my model is not just a member, he is a leader of the congregation. A visible, tangible leader who is in essence asking others to follow him on this particular path. The pastor is the leader of leaders. He is directly responsible to see that his leadership is indeed owning up to their responsibilities.

Core members are responsible to the pastor in their roles as co-leaders of the local congregation, just as the pastor is responsible to God for his role as a co-leader of The Church.

There is a high degree of transparency associated with this model.

[kittystrawberry]

I don't know. I was seven when I joined the methodist church. That was the first church I joined when I came to the USA. You don't have to fill out any form or anything, I don't think so. It is like after you introduce yourself to the church during service and let them know if you are joining, you are a member.

[Rathvon350]

My situation is much like kittystrawberry's. My church asks that you make a pubic profession of faith in church. Then you are a member. Granted I go to a small (yet growing dramatically) country church. We are less Methodist than some, some of my friends and I have given it a new denominational category, "Bapthedist". We seek to follow the will of God more than the Book of Discipline, I'm positive we are not unique in this. This is not to say that the Discipline is not followed but when it comes between the Discipline and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit wins out. I actually became a member when someone else was doing it, our preacher simply asked if there was anyone else would like to join. All that is required is that we believe in Christ, basically the Apostles Creed.

By contrast, I was once a member of a Lutheran Church and was required to go through a class on Lutheran doctrine, etc. This was very benefical in that I was provided with important information about the denomination I was going to be a part of. It was basically a confirmation class for adults who were already part of the Body of Christ, just not Lutheran.

Both versions seem to be equally viable. There are pros and cons to both. Now, making sure that there are not people who are going to throw the proverbial "wrench in the works" of meetings is important. However, in the Methodist Church we have a wonderful system of commitees, for better or worse. This does help cut down on people hijacking agendas and causing problems in church business. The more I become involved in the workings of the church the more I am pleased with the system of the UMC. All Hail Wesley!!... oh wait...

[ClementofRome]

To ensure that a member of the core is fulfilling his committment as a core member.

A core member in my model is not just a member, he is a leader of the congregation. A visible, tangible leader who is in essence asking others to follow him on this particular path. The pastor is the leader of leaders. He is directly responsible to see that his leadership is indeed owning up to their responsibilities.

Core members are responsible to the pastor in their roles as co-leaders of the local congregation, just as the pastor is responsible to God for his role as a co-leader of The Church.

There is a high degree of transparency associated with this model.

Thanks for that clarification. However, a question: Let's say I am a "core" member who is busting my chops to give 5%, but I teach Adult SS, serve as Chair of the Administrative Board, participate in the Choir and an there almost every time the door is open......should the Pastor be busting my chops to get my giving up another 5% so that I can be a model of OT "tithing" when the issue of percentages is never broached in the NT?

Just thinking out loud.

[contriteheart]

I think in our local church membership must be quite loosely governed. When we joined, the only thing we were asked to do was to walk down front, shake the pastor's hand, turn in a card that we filled out, and make the standard Methodist commitment (prayers, presence, gifts, and service).

It was kind of funny to me, because when we joined, we were coming from a non-denom church. The pastor knew this because of the card we filled out. The card never asked if we had been baptised, but he said in front of the congregation "We accept your baptism." What if we hadn't been baptised? He wouldn't have known either way. What was also funny about this was that I was raised Methodist, and was baptised in the Methodist church as an infant. So unbeknownst to the pastor, he was basically saying that the Methodist church would accept its own Methodist baptism as valid.

Anyway, we do have a four week class for new members which is not mandatory. When we joined, they also sent us a whole packet of information asking about how much we would commit to giving, how we wanted to serve, etc.

We will be faithful to fulfill our commitment, but I wonder what would happen if we didn't. Being new to this church, I just don't know yet how they police or don't police adherance to the membership commitment.

Your sister in Christ,
Grace