Church members who are not active

[Mike Schutz]

In looking over our church membership roster, 40% of our members are not active (do not attend worship but are not shut-ins or away at school or the military). This includes the 6% who are officially listed as "Inactive."

What percentage of your church's membership roster is not involved in the life of the church at even a minimal level?

[Hans Deventer]

We have 178 members of which there are 5 who are officially inactive. My guess is that that number is actually more like 15, but there are also a lot of people who are definitely active but are not members.

[Mike Schutz]

but there are also a lot of people who are definitely active but are not members.

We also have quite a few folks who are very active, but not members. Some new, some who have been involved for years but who have chosen not to join.

[Dave McClung]

In looking over our church membership roster, 40% of our members are not active (do not attend worship but are not shut-ins or away at school or the military). This includes the 6% who are officially listed as "Inactive."

What percentage of your church's membership roster is not involved in the life of the church at even a minimal level?

We don't have many inactive members. That is probably because the church went through a crisis while we were at ENC and membership dropped to 13. There hasn't been enough time pass since then for people to join, then become inactive.

[Mike Schutz]

We don't have many inactive members. That is probably because the church went through a crisis while we were at ENC and membership dropped to 13. There hasn't been enough time pass since then for people to join, then become inactive.


Dave,
Did people remove their membership, or did the board clean it up? We have people here who are still on the membership roles whom I have never met, who haven't been here for at least 5 years; some who left during the two church splits that took place in the early 1990s.

[Ryan Scott]

One of my guilty pleasures at HQ was perusing the district journals as they filtered in (I know; I'm a loser), but it was always interesting to see some congregations with a long history and 5 or 6 times as many members as they had average attendance. It makes one wonder.

[Bob Evans]

should join an exercise class:basic05

[DA Weaver]

In looking over our church membership roster, 40% of our members are not active (do not attend worship but are not shut-ins or away at school or the military). This includes the 6% who are officially listed as "Inactive."

What percentage of your church's membership roster is not involved in the life of the church at even a minimal level?

I was looking at our's just last week. It appears as if we have over 50% of the congregation that should be listed as "inactive", but even so, none of those are officially "inactive"... We appear to have @ 150 individuals listed as active members, some of which haven't been to the church in the nine years I've attended there.

Now we have a new pastor, responsible for a membership of 300, with only @ 150 active, but none listed inactive. What's a person to do?

[John Kennedy]

Having grown up in a parsonage, I know what a ticklish situation this can be for the pastor. How do you contact these people and do it in a way that doesn't offend them, or relatives of friends who may still be in the church? Maybe the churches that don't believe in church membership have some sort of advantage here.

[Gord Evans]

Dear John and Mary-Jane,

It has been some time since we've had the pleasure of your presence in our Sunday morning worship services and other activities in the life of First Church. I'm wondering if you're attending services at another church these days, or whether you have been waiting for me to re-connect with you and invite you to join with us this Sunday.

If you're worshiping in another church, then it would be appropriate for you to transfer your membership there, and I would be pleased to assist you with this process.

If, however, you've simply stopped attending church for some reason, I'd be pleased to meet with you to discuss this, and to have an opportunity to welcome you back to active participation here at First Church.

Membership in the Church of Jesus Christ requires nothing save allowing Christ to enter in and become the One true God in your life, your Savior, for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith.

However, active membership at First Church requires active and regular participation in the worship and fellowship and support of this ministry and body of believers. We miss you, and would like to have you back in active participation here. I plan to call you at the end of the week unless you beat me to it. I'd love to drop by for a visit and to catch up.

Sincerely,

Pastor Zechariah
First Church of the Nazarene

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The results of the follow-up to such a letter and phone call should provide solid guidance to Pastor Zechariah concerning the continuation of, or the removal from active membership for John and Mary-Jane.

Or am I missing something?

[Mike McVey]

I'm sure it would be offensive to people who take membership as a badge no matter what. As a re-start, we had a little more liberty and could more quickly clear our roster, but I think (and I may be wrong) the process of clearing roles is supposed to take a minimum of 1 year unless someone asks specifically to be taken off the roles.

At our church, we don't really know who the membership is, but as a re-start we sent out a letter to all the known members that they have 3 months to participate or contact or their membership would be removed. Currently we have 8 active members and 78 total in membership. But unless we have any new ones join, next year will reflect 8 members.

[Anita F. Henck]

From my years as church board secretary, I recalled that there was a procedure for declaring someone inactive which is a step towards clearing rolls of non-participating members. There also was a maximum percentage that could be removed in a given year, without special permission of the district office. I couldn't find that reference. But, it's a dangerous thing that the Manual is now online. It makes it too easy to look things up! Here are excerpts that affect how to proceed with inactive membership status and clearing church rolls ...

109. Inactive Membership. A local church may designate persons as “inactive members” for the reasons stated in
109.1 and 109.2. (112.3, 133)
109.1. A member of a local church who has moved to another community and ceases to be active at his or her church of membership should be urged to attend the Church of the Nazarene there and to request a transfer of membership to that church.
109.2. When a member of a church has been absent from all religious services of the church for six successive months without a reason deemed justifiable by the church board, and attempt has been made to encourage him or her to become active when possible, that person’s membership may be declared inactive upon recommendation of the Evangelism and Church Membership Committee and action of the church board. The person shall be informed by a redemptive letter from the pastor within seven days of the action of the church board. After such action of the church board, the pastor shall write opposite the member’s name “Placed on the Inactive Membership Roll by the church board (date).” A 120-day waiting period including prayer and supplication shall follow these actions, during which an inactive member may request in writing that the church board return his or her name to the active roll of the church. The request must include a reaffirmation of the vows of membership and renewed participation in the worship activities of the local church. The church board shall respond to the request within 60 days. Full membership may be restored to such a person by recommendation of the Evangelism and Church Membership Committee and action of the church board.
109.3. Inactive members shall be included in the full membership of the local church with active members. Membership shall be reported to the district assembly in separate categories, namely (1) active and (2) inactive members.
109.4. Inactive members shall not be eligible to vote in annual or special church meetings or hold office.

and
112.3. After two years from the date when a person’s membership was declared inactive, his or her name may be
removed from the church roll by action of the church board. After such action of the church board, the pastor shall write opposite the member’s name, “Removed by the church board (date).” (109, 133)

[DA Weaver]

Having grown up in a parsonage, I know what a ticklish situation this can be for the pastor. How do you contact these people and do it in a way that doesn't offend them, or relatives of friends who may still be in the church? Maybe the churches that don't believe in church membership have some sort of advantage here.

It drives me up a wall to see members who reside in another state. I'm not referring to our specific congregation, in which we have members who reside in a tri-state area, but I'm referring to having members who live five states away and aren't college students or serving in the military.

Although I'd personally like to see our membership list updated, this is a responsibility I'll leave in the pastor's hands, as I'm sure he's much more educated on the process as I am. :basic07 I would just like to see a "membership" roster that reflects who the church really is, not who it would be if Sister Jane Doe's, great nephew's, cousin's, son's children still attended the church that they haven't been to in 35 years... :M)

[Tami Martin]

I don't know the numbers for my church. I'm one of those very active people who are not members.

I wonder what purpose is served keeping people listed as active members who haven't darkened the door in years or keeping a list of "inactive members" who not only don't attend, but are living an obviously carnal life.

[David Pettigrew]

I don't know the numbers for my church. I'm one of those very active people who are not members.

Mind sharing why not?

[Tami Martin]

Mind sharing why not?

I don't mind at all. We left a church that was SBC in name only for the first seven of the 9 years we were members there. The last two, they moved radically toward being really SBC in all the worst ways. We were also going through personal and marital struggles and ended up leaving and looking for "something else."

I had attended the local Nazarene church in my very early teen years and we visited there. I was so touched to have been remembered after so many years away. It was a good place to go and heal. My walk with the Lord had been very bad at that time and I was able to heal and grow and eventually minister. My husband went from almost having turned completely away from God to attending faithfully and ministering there as well.

The first time I knew I couldn't join the church was when the teenage son of a long-time family officially joined the church. That was the first time I'd heard any of the articles of faith.

In my younger years, I would likely have been able to just gloss over the parts I didn't really agree with and join anyways. But where God has taken me in my personal walk with Him, I can't do that. I do not believe that sanctification is a moment-in-time event that takes away my bent toward sinning. I also don't quite agree with the idea of sin, but that's not as much of a problem as article X. I believe in sanctification. I believe in the process of growing into the likeness of Christ.

I have prayed, however, that if this is the truth, God will show it to me. So far, He has not. But I don't discount His ability to do so at some other point in time. If He frees me in my heart - and my husband also - I will join this church. But not before then.

Fortunately, I love them with all my heart and plan to be there, serving God alongside them, until I die (or God moves me).

[Bob Evans]

After giving a foolish responce eariler in this thread I thought I would attempt a serious one. I believe pastors don't drop names off the roles for two basic reasons with variations and shades off the two.

#1. There is a hope that the past connection might give the pastors a chance to reconnect these people to a church if there not connected. that strikes me as a good one.

#2. It looks bad at reporting time. If all the inactive people were removed then the numbers would look bad. Pastor Report forms don't allow you to tell the story why you removed a large part of your membership.

It doesen't cost the church money to keep the inactive people on the list. It might inflate the reputation of a church to the new pastor but I think the experienced pastor will come in knowing that whatever the membership is there will be a significantly less number actually involved in ministry.

[Mike Schutz]

#1. There is a hope that the past connection might give the pastors a chance to reconnect these people to a church if there not connected. that strikes me as a good one.

#2. It looks bad at reporting time. If all the inactive people were removed then the numbers would look bad. Pastor Report forms don't allow you to tell the story why you removed a large part of your membership.


While Bob is correct in suggesting the two main reasons why church membership roles are not continually cleaned up, several comments:
* I'm not sure why all of the comments thus far about reaching out to families long departed have referred to this as being the pastor's responsibility. I agree that the pastor should be part of it, but it seems that folks who know the families in question would do a better job. Of course, in the case of my church, we have had several families leave because of me. Consensus opinion is that they are simply waiting for me to leave and for the church to return to "normal," and then they will return.
*Many of the folks on our list are in some way related to current members. The board is concerned that they will be offended if we attempt to do anything that would be perceived as "moving people out." I have reached out to these folks many times, but there is a concern that any kind of "come back or we will remove you from the membership roster" statement will give even more fuel to the "See what hypocrites the Nazarenes are - saying they love you, but then sending this kind of letter."

[Mike Schutz]

Dear John and Mary-Jane,

It has been some time since we've had the pleasure of your presence in our Sunday morning worship services and other activities in the life of First Church. I'm wondering if you're attending services at another church these days, or whether you have been waiting for me to re-connect with you and invite you to join with us this Sunday.

If you're worshiping in another church, then it would be appropriate for you to transfer your membership there, and I would be pleased to assist you with this process.

If, however, you've simply stopped attending church for some reason, I'd be pleased to meet with you to discuss this, and to have an opportunity to welcome you back to active participation here at First Church.

Membership in the Church of Jesus Christ requires nothing save allowing Christ to enter in and become the One true God in your life, your Savior, for it is by grace you have been saved, through faith.

However, active membership at First Church requires active and regular participation in the worship and fellowship and support of this ministry and body of believers. We miss you, and would like to have you back in active participation here. I plan to call you at the end of the week unless you beat me to it. I'd love to drop by for a visit and to catch up.

Sincerely,

Pastor Zechariah
First Church of the Nazarene

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The results of the follow-up to such a letter and phone call should provide solid guidance to Pastor Zechariah concerning the continuation of, or the removal from active membership for John and Mary-Jane.

Or am I missing something?

Gord, The kind of letter you have suggested, along with a paragraph detailing upcoming events, has been sent several times. Folks do not respond, and even ignore follow-up phone calls. The issue of carrying through with a change in membership status is that the board does not want to offend. Since they know these people, and, except for those who have left because of me, I do not, and since there is no benefit to the church for removing members, they are uncomfortable moving ahead.

[Bob Evans]

Is church membership a man made invention or is is something instituted by God?

[DA Weaver]

While Bob is correct in suggesting the two main reasons why church membership roles are not continually cleaned up, several comments:
* I'm not sure why all of the comments thus far about reaching out to families long departed have referred to this as being the pastor's responsibility. I agree that the pastor should be part of it, but it seems that folks who know the families in question would do a better job. Of course, in the case of my church, we have had several families leave because of me. Consensus opinion is that they are simply waiting for me to leave and for the church to return to "normal," and then they will return.
*Many of the folks on our list are in some way related to current members. The board is concerned that they will be offended if we attempt to do anything that would be perceived as "moving people out." I have reached out to these folks many times, but there is a concern that any kind of "come back or we will remove you from the membership roster" statement will give even more fuel to the "See what hypocrites the Nazarenes are - saying they love you, but then sending this kind of letter."

Mike,

I took the time to read back through the posts. Apparently I didn't come to the same conclusion as you did in others thinking it is the pastor's responsibility to reach out to the families in question. I don't know a lot of the families in our congregation that have left, but for the few that I do know, I am aware of either a) they are attending church some where else, or b) they left our congregation for a reason and more than likely will not be returning any time soon, or c) both a and b.

There are those select few that I'm associated with who I have invited to return, but have done so knowing ahead of time it more than likely wouldn't happen. Many years ago someone said to me "If SOMEONE would have just asked me to come back / stay, I would have, but no one asked." Since then, I've tried to at the very least ask those I know to stay, in hopes the Lord would change their hearts. So far though it's never worked. Perhaps one of these days it will....

Anyway, I didn't come to the same conclusion as you did regarding contacting the unofficial inactive members, and I was wondering how you came to your conclusion...

[Roy Richardson]

In looking over our church membership roster, 40% of our members are not active (do not attend worship but are not shut-ins or away at school or the military). This includes the 6% who are officially listed as "Inactive."

What percentage of your church's membership roster is not involved in the life of the church at even a minimal level?

Are you defining involved as showing up or actually doing something beyond showing up? Just curious.

[Roy Richardson]

I was looking at our's just last week. It appears as if we have over 50% of the congregation that should be listed as "inactive", but even so, none of those are officially "inactive"... We appear to have @ 150 individuals listed as active members, some of which haven't been to the church in the nine years I've attended there.

Now we have a new pastor, responsible for a membership of 300, with only @ 150 active, but none listed inactive. What's a person to do?

If he/she really wants to be able to measure anything, the dead wood needs to be removed. Then he/she will be able to accurately measure things within the congregation.

[Kevin Rector]

This is a major pet peeve on mine about our denomination. We so gladly trumpet to the world how many members we have and yet those of us who have been around for very long at all know those numbers are at best meaningless and at worst a lie.

I refuse to lie to the denomination or the world about my congregation and so one of the very first things I did when I got to my church was to clear out the rolls. We had people listed as active members that hadn't been to the church in 5-10 years. We had people listed as inactive who were dead.

So I did everything in my power to contact every one of them. Those who we could not locate that had been inactive were removed from membership. Those who we could not locate that had been listed active were changed to inactive. A few people asked us to keep them on the rolls so we kept them as inactive. Our membership went from 58 to 26 overnight and now our rolls accurately reflect for the most part those people who are at least still connected to the church in some way.

By the way, I cleared this with my DS, I told him that I could not report numbers that were dishonest and he supported my decision even though it would negate any gains in membership that the district would be reporting.

I'd like to see the reporting and membership numbers actually mean something that is reflected in reality. But I'm not holding my breath that it's going to happen.

[Ian Gentles]

In our society its man made, more like membership of a club or party. However is still carries with it responsibilities, and if folks don't want the church they should at least resign themselves.

http://iangentles.livejournal.com

[Hal Paul]

... We had people listed as inactive who were dead.

So I did everything in my power to contact every one of them...

Did any of the dead ones respond?:basic03

[Hans Deventer]

Since they know these people, and, except for those who have left because of me, I do not, and since there is no benefit to the church for removing members, they are uncomfortable moving ahead.

We have solved that! Our district budget is an amount per active member. Great tool to keep the membership list clean. :basic05

[Hal Paul]

This is a major pet peeve on mine about our denomination. We so gladly trumpet to the world how many members we have and yet those of us who have been around for very long at all know those numbers are at best meaningless and at worst a lie.

I refuse to lie to the denomination or the world about my congregation and so one of the very first things I did when I got to my church was to clear out the rolls. We had people listed as active members that hadn't been to the church in 5-10 years. We had people listed as inactive who were dead.

So I did everything in my power to contact every one of them. Those who we could not locate that had been inactive were removed from membership. Those who we could not locate that had been listed active were changed to inactive. A few people asked us to keep them on the rolls so we kept them as inactive. Our membership went from 58 to 26 overnight and now our rolls accurately reflect for the most part those people who are at least still connected to the church in some way.

By the way, I cleared this with my DS, I told him that I could not report numbers that were dishonest and he supported my decision even though it would negate any gains in membership that the district would be reporting.

I'd like to see the reporting and membership numbers actually mean something that is reflected in reality. But I'm not holding my breath that it's going to happen.

Seriously, I'm glad you went to the trouble. I've been in churches that listed active membership near 400 but rarely broke 100 in attendance on any given Sunday, and between 1/3 and 1/2 of those actually were members. The pastor at one church began the process of clearing the roles, but district guidance was to remove no more than 10% of inactive members each year. It takes a while to clear the record that way.

[David Pettigrew]

Did any of the dead ones respond?:basic03

I've been in a few churches where the dead responded all the time. I preached at once church and wanted to change the name of my sermon to "I see dead people."

[Hans Deventer]

Is church membership a man made invention or is is something instituted by God?

Bob, I think God wanted people to become members of Christ's body. There are several verses in the Scriptures that talk about this.

So when we believe, be are members of the body of Christ universal. Yet I think there was no doubt in the minds of the early church that though a part of the entire body of Christ, they were also members of the church in Jerusalem, Corinth, Antioch or where ever that local part of the body of Christ came together. I read nothing in the Scriptures of people who felt like it was enough to be, in some spiritual way, members of the church universal.

[Glenda Harvey]

Some denominations consider anyone baptized in their Church a permanent member. Very few denominations are accurate when reporting the numbers of the Church memberships. This may be why some Churches have decided to do away with Church membership.

To be honest I never officially pulled my membership from the Church I grew up in. Since I have attended predominately non-denominational Churches I have never become a member any where else although I have always taught Sunday School and been active at the Churches I attended. I have always assumed that the Church removed my name from active membership when I got married and moved out of the area. I am sure by now (It's been 28 years) my name is no longer on the Church membership rolls.

[DA Weaver]

We have solved that! Our district budget is an amount per active member. Great tool to keep the membership list clean. :basic05

I thought that was a denomination wide thing... but honestly I know nothing about district budgets... I tend to think it would be beneficial in encouraging a church to maintain their membership list.

[Bob Evans]

Budgets are based on financial giving. If extra members would increase budgets the inactive members would be gone in a heartbeat. :basic05

[DA Weaver]

Seriously, I'm glad you went to the trouble. I've been in churches that listed active membership near 400 but rarely broke 100 in attendance on any given Sunday, and between 1/3 and 1/2 of those actually were members. The pastor at one church began the process of clearing the roles, but district guidance was to remove no more than 10% of inactive members each year. It takes a while to clear the record that way.

I haven't looked into it, so I don't know... it seems to me when there's been a change of operations; say a new pastor comes in, etc... the allowable percentage to remove members should be more than 10%, but only for the first year....

[Hal Paul]

In this case it was a new pastor. Over the years, new members were added, but were not removed when they left.

[Mike McVey]

*"See what hypocrites the Nazarenes are - saying they love you, but then sending this kind of letter."

I think this is even more of a reason to clear the roles. We are being hypocrites by not being honest about our church roles. If they became members of the church, they should have read the fine print. Membership in the Church of the Nazarene can be revoked. Mike, I know this is not you, but your congregation, but it's like parents of a 100 lbs 5 year old, "I wouldn't give him so much food, but he likes it! He gets mad when I don't give him food." (Yes, there are 100 lbs 5 year olds.)

I struggle with the concept of membership, but membership at a church is not membership in the body of Christ. Membership of a church has guidelines to be followed. If anything it is the hypocrisy of those who are receiving the letter, not the church. Sorry for the rant. You know I love you.

[Mike McVey]

I am sure by now (It's been 28 years) my name is no longer on the Church membership rolls.

Don't bet on it, Glenda. We are currently clearing the rolls at our church, and there are people who have not lightened the door in over 40 years! In fact, you should call the church and find out if you are still a member... for giggles!

[Cindi Hammons]

Mike, we went through the same thing. As board secretary, it was my job to work on these rosters and to send out the series of letters suggested by the general church. Of all the letters we sent....we received ZERO responses. It was a waste of paper and postage. We also ran into the issue of not wanting to offend. We found that people really didn't care when someone from church talked to them about their membership. We also found that a significant number of the members in question were either dead, or impossible to locate. We significantly lowered our membership numbers to include active and mostly active members.

Bon chance!

[DA Weaver]

Mike, we went through the same thing. As board secretary, it was my job to work on these rosters and to send out the series of letters suggested by the general church. Of all the letters we sent....we received ZERO responses. It was a waste of paper and postage. We also ran into the issue of not wanting to offend. We found that people really didn't care when someone from church talked to them about their membership. We also found that a significant number of the members in question were either dead, or impossible to locate. We significantly lowered our membership numbers to include active and mostly active members.

Bon chance!

Cindi,

I'm curious... how long did it take to get your numbers to reflect a more accurate account of where your church was? We're in the midst of updating our Directory... you know the adress book that contains both members and non members? There are folks listed simply because their parents attend the church, and "we need to keep them there just in case someone wants to send them a Christmas card".... I say that's what one's personal address book is for... :M)

[Cindi Hammons]

The pastor at one church began the process of clearing the roles, but district guidance was to remove no more than 10% of inactive members each year. It takes a while to clear the record that way.

Several years ago there was a denomination wide initiative to clear the rosters of inactive members. There were materials and guidance given out and a "Year of freedom" to remove whatever number it took to make the numbers honest. It took us several years to complete this, and at the end of the project our numbers went from around 140 to 75. Amazingly our attendance remained unchanged!!! :)

[Cindi Hammons]

Denise,

It took us several years to do this because the church must give the inactive person a prescribed amount of time to respond and to become active again after several contacts have been made. I made up a MSExcel form to track the number and date of contacts and if there had been any response.

BTW, I agree with you regarding the church directory.

[Hal Paul]

Don't bet on it, Glenda. We are currently clearing the rolls at our church, and there are people who have not lightened the door in over 40 years! In fact, you should call the church and find out if you are still a member... for giggles!

I've thought about doing that with some of the churches I've attended in the past. Since I move alot, I've 'transferred' my membership several times. I'm not sure that I've been taken off of the rolls just because I became a member somewhere else.

One time when I joined a church, the pastor of my new church gave me a certificate that said I had joined by profession of faith. Very odd since I had given him the address and name of my previous church and pastor an should have been recognized as a new member by transfer. A couple years later I was looking at the membership roll & saw that Londa and I were both recorded as new members, by profession of faith. I'm sure that is how he reported us in his annual report. It kind of makes me wonder how many times that has happened at other places I've been a member.

[Hal Paul]

In looking over our church membership roster, 40% of our members are not active (do not attend worship but are not shut-ins or away at school or the military). This includes the 6% who are officially listed as "Inactive."

What percentage of your church's membership roster is not involved in the life of the church at even a minimal level?

I noticed mention of making exceptions for people who are away serving in the military. How long do you wait before you remove someone from the roll? The standard enlistment is 3-4 years. Officers have commitments ranging between 3 and 6 years, usually after 4+ years of college. Do you keep them on the roll for the entire duration of their military service? What if they choose to make the military a career? It seems that at some point, if they don't ask to be removed from your membership roll the church should recognize they aren't coming back. It seems pretty silly to me that the church I was a member of just before joining the Army would keep me on their roll for 20 years because I am "away in the military."

[Hans Deventer]

Budgets are based on financial giving.

Well, not on our district. It used to be that way, but we changed it, if I recall correctly, at the 1998 District Assembly. So we've been doing it for quite a while and boy does it save us a lot of those endless discussions on what would be the amount on which the budgets should be based, especially on the deductions!

[Bob Evans]

Is is giving or spending. One thing for sure I know is that its not based on active members.

[Gary Swartzlander]

Is it giving or spending. One thing for sure I know is that its not based on active members.

The budgets of our district (we are on the same district) is currently based on expenditures. A plan to base them on giving was passed at the last District Assembly and will take effect at the beginning of the next church year. Most US districts still base budgets on expenditures as far as I know, but more are changing to an income based plan.

Our district plan has some problems (we've had this discussion here, before) but in general I support income based over expenditure based.

[Kevin Rector]

The pastor at one church began the process of clearing the roles, but district guidance was to remove no more than 10% of inactive members each year. It takes a while to clear the record that way.

This whole 10% thing is absurd. It is disingenuous. We are told by our leadership that we track metrics to ascertain whether we are being "successful" in our mission. Whether membership numbers is a good metric is perhaps a different discussion. Yet if 20% of our church leaves we need to remove them from membership after a period of time. Not 10% this year and 10% the next year because if we do that we are not being honest.

The truth is freedom, lies are bondage. Our churches should not live in bondage. I think if I ever move to another church the very last thing I do before I go will be to make sure the rolls are honest for the next pastor, and when I get to the new church I'll make the rolls honest there if it hasn't already been done.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Admit I don't have a solve-all-the-problem answer. I sure wish there was a passion to see people come to faith similar to the determination to remove names of people who for an infinite number of reasons no longer attend. What happened to not wanting to present as exclusive? At some point those people embraced the Lord. What is the great advantage to removing them? If it's that part about not wanting to misrepresent - to Whom? The Lord knows who is genuine. If it's denominational leadership, get over it. Those who will misrepresent or be impressed by those who do are just going to be that way. What do you care what someone else things? Why is it so holy to take names off a roster? So-called "clearing" the rolls is no holier than "padding" the same. In both cases people are treated like things and not living beings for whom Christ died.

On the other hand, I'd be in favor of a system where every member chooses to join on an annual basis - renew their vows, reminding themselves of their commitments and responsibilities. In fact, there's nothing to prevent that from being something a local church does anyway. The church could remind people that a year previous they stood before the church and declared their intent to be an active part of the fellowship, and that it's time to recommit. Make it part of every Sunday service, or monthly, etc. . Membership could be a regular part of the worship experience. It does not hurt to observe people renewing by testimony their commitments. Some such system would ensure that at least on an annual basis the church would be reminded that some people haven't been here in several months.

When people join the church, the church makes commitments to them, too. If someone falls through the cracks, it's not only the individual who has not lived up to part of the bargain. When a church has 500 members with only a couple dozen people attending, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that removing the names of those who no longer participate is going to "fix" anything important.

Interesting that some of the same people who want to clear the rolls are the first to gripe about members being notches on a gunslingers' tool. The answer isn't to file them off. Few of those individuals talk about the virtues of paying budgets, either. I've heard this nonsense for forty years, and those that gripe the most aren't around a decade or two later. If they're ordained, however, they still want their names of the list of elders. About age fifty, they start complaining about how they can't get a fulltime ministry position, and that the denomination owes them all kinds of things.

OK, now that I've got that off my chest, 'How you guys doing?" Next time I'll tell you how I really feel.

[Mike Schutz]

Church membership is not a good way of measuring success, or mission, or anything. However, it is a measure that has been used in the past, so it serves as some kind of comparison.

It has only been 30 or so years that the denomination kept Sunday AM worship attendance numbers. Before that, Sunday school attendance was considered a more accurate measure, as in many churches more folks attended SS than worship (primarily children.)

[DA Weaver]

It has only been 30 or so years that the denomination kept Sunday AM worship attendance numbers. Before that, Sunday school attendance was considered a more accurate measure, as in many churches more folks attended SS than worship (primarily children.)

I'm curious, do you think that would be reflective of today's church? Our church appears to have more present for Sunday A.M. service than for S.S.

[Hans Deventer]

Admit I don't have a solve-all-the-problem answer. I sure wish there was a passion to see people come to faith similar to the determination to remove names of people who for an infinite number of reasons no longer attend. What happened to not wanting to present as exclusive? At some point those people embraced the Lord. What is the great advantage to removing them? If it's that part about not wanting to misrepresent - to Whom? The Lord knows who is genuine. If it's denominational leadership, get over it. Those who will misrepresent or be impressed by those who do are just going to be that way. What do you care what someone else things? Why is it so holy to take names off a roster? So-called "clearing" the rolls is no holier than "padding" the same. In both cases people are treated like things and not living beings for whom Christ died.

Ok, Dennis, let me disagree completely. First of all, even if you follow the letter of the Manual law, people aren't treated like things. That is simply not true.

And I do believe there is a link between holiness and honesty. If you don't we have an entirely different discussion on our hands. I may need to drop by a second time to talk that one over :basic03

On the other hand, I'd be in favor of a system where every member chooses to join on an annual basis - renew their vows, reminding themselves of their commitments and responsibilities. In fact, there's nothing to prevent that from being something a local church does anyway. The church could remind people that a year previous they stood before the church and declared their intent to be an active part of the fellowship, and that it's time to recommit. Make it part of every Sunday service, or monthly, etc. . Membership could be a regular part of the worship experience. It does not hurt to observe people renewing by testimony their commitments. Some such system would ensure that at least on an annual basis the church would be reminded that some people haven't been here in several months.

Now with that I whole heartedly agree. Membership to me means the commitment to serve the Lord in a specific local part of the body of Christ. There's nothing wrong and in fact a lot to be gained by having these vows renewed annually.

[Dennis M. Scott]

We have solved that! Our district budget is an amount per active member. Great tool to keep the membership list clean. :basic05

Ah, kick off the people who we don't care about so it doesn't cost us as much! Now there's holiness motive. But at least you're honest. :basic05

I suspect one of us is the kettle, and one is the pot, and we've each noticed the other is somewhat tarnished.

It would be interesting to compare the age of Mike's church and the age of yours. The pattern stateside is that older churches have much larger numbers of no longer active members than newer churches. Sociological phenomenon. How many members on average does your church board remove?

There's a Naznetter pastor whose predecessor pastored for 16 years, with a membership of nearly a thousand, and in that sixteen years the board didn't remove one single member. Even Jesus didn't have that good a record. But the system worked; that 16 year veteran was elected DS. That makes it allright, right? :w)

On this district we had a pastor who annually took in between 40 and 60 members for decades, but each year the board also removed 25 or so. When he finally died, there were some non-attending members, but not a lot. Over the years, he took in almost 2000 members, but membership never exceeded 700.

However, the whole issue will only be settled by our getting together at my place for Nazarene prayer and fellowship. You only have to name the time. :fav18

[Hans Deventer]

Ah, kick off the people who we don't care about so it doesn't cost us as much!

Wrong. We only pay for active members. Not for inactive ones.

Now there's holiness motive. But at least you're honest. :basic05

Dennis, I've been an elder in de Dutch Reformed Church. There, an elder is not a pastor, but a church board member with pastoral duties. The DRC knew 3 kinds of members: by birth, by baptism, by confession. If your parents were members, you'd automaticly be a member.

I have been at those meetings where well meaning elders got totally overwhelmed by the sheer impossibility of ever visiting their "members" in even 3 years, if they visited two each week. It killed the most serious and caring elders. I hate (and that is an understatement) that system.

I really believe in caring for people. But not in fooling ourselves and the rest of the church by calling them members if they never show up. If you "kick people of the member list" you automaticly add them the care of the evangelism committee. Unless, of course, they are active in another congregation.

I don't understand what your problem is here. I don't understand how you can defend sheer dishonesty and why you imply that a clean membership slate implies we don't care for people. This 1+1 simply doesn't make 2.

It would be interesting to compare the age of Mike's church and the age of yours. The pattern stateside is that older churches have much larger numbers of no longer active members than newer churches. Sociological phenomenon. How many members on average does your church board remove?

1 or 2 a year. Our church is 22 years old. Our district 40 years.

On this district we had a pastor who annually took in between 40 and 60 members for decades, but each year the board also removed 25 or so. When he finally died, there were some non-attending members, but not a lot. Over the years, he took in almost 2000 members, but membership never exceeded 700.

That illustrates that we have a problem with our back door.

However, the whole issue will only be settled by our getting together at my place for Nazarene prayer and fellowship. You only have to name the time. :fav18

Saturday, the 9th of Feb 2008, around dinner?

[Cindi Hammons]

Dennis,

With all due respect....WHAT? I can only speak for our church, but why should we leave people ON the roster if they are dead, or living in Timbuktu with no chance of returning? Why does that make us people who are treating others as things? Why is it wrong to remove people who haven't been to the church for 30 years and cannot be located or live far away, or are members of another church? I really don't understand your anger.

I do understand it if people are dumping members "willy-nilly" if they hadn't been seen for a year. I do understand if the church is writing them off and not attempting for restoration...but I can't imagine those here on NazNet who have written in this thread doing that.

Oh well. I don't feel the slightest bit bad about those who were removed in our justification of the membership roster. We left those on (even when they did not contact us back) who still live in the area and do not have another church. I can live with that.

BTW, come on down...the door is always open. As my dad always says, "we'll sit down and open up a keg of nails."

[Dennis M. Scott]

Cindi,
I am certain there are times when such reduction is done conscientiously. In fact, that may be the case with every situation cited here. It just mystifies me when sometimes pastors tackle eliminating people's names the first year of a pastorate like it's the most important thing on the agenda. Kinda like, "First things first." Do the stuff that's most important. That way any growth that shows up will look good on their record. That's about as two-faced as the "dishonesty" they cry about in justifying their actions. Both positions - at best - are working more toward appearances than the truth. Some people have to justify their ministry/work by negating those who've gone before them. To Whom to they think they have to justify anyway.

Hans,
February 9 it is! Fantastic!
As to the age of the local church. At least in this country, it might be a little different in another 60 years or so. For the most part, we don't deal very well with sociological phenomenon like institutional aging. To follow an analogy, it doesn't seem like we're dealing the the backdoor issue by slamming it shut behind someone. That doesn't make the real problem go away.

[William Hunter]

The longer I am in the ministry and think about stuff like this, the more convinced I become that the Church of the Nazarene needs to go to an annual renewal of membership, including the vows, thus, keeping its rolls accurate and truthful. There is nothing to be gained of any value by the denominational HQ when stating we have so many members. That sounds too muck like one-up-man-ship to me. But then, I have stated on NN before that I do not agree with the numbers we are so pressured to report. Rather, let's focus on those truly saved/sanctified, etc. and who are living lives that prove their testimony.


This is a major pet peeve on mine about our denomination. We so gladly trumpet to the world how many members we have and yet those of us who have been around for very long at all know those numbers are at best meaningless and at worst a lie.

I refuse to lie to the denomination or the world about my congregation and so one of the very first things I did when I got to my church was to clear out the rolls. We had people listed as active members that hadn't been to the church in 5-10 years. We had people listed as inactive who were dead.

So I did everything in my power to contact every one of them. Those who we could not locate that had been inactive were removed from membership. Those who we could not locate that had been listed active were changed to inactive. A few people asked us to keep them on the rolls so we kept them as inactive. Our membership went from 58 to 26 overnight and now our rolls accurately reflect for the most part those people who are at least still connected to the church in some way.

By the way, I cleared this with my DS, I told him that I could not report numbers that were dishonest and he supported my decision even though it would negate any gains in membership that the district would be reporting.

I'd like to see the reporting and membership numbers actually mean something that is reflected in reality. But I'm not holding my breath that it's going to happen.

[Cindi Hammons]

It just mystifies me when sometimes pastors tackle eliminating people's names the first year of a pastorate like it's the most important thing on the agenda.

That way any growth that shows up will look good on their record...Both positions - at best - are working more toward appearances than the truth. Some people have to justify their ministry/work by negating those who've gone before them.

Okay, I understand what you are saying. :)

[Hans Deventer]

The longer I am in the ministry and think about stuff like this, the more convinced I become that the Church of the Nazarene needs to go to an annual renewal of membership, including the vows, thus, keeping its rolls accurate and truthful.

I agree, William. I would like to work on the questions though..

There is nothing to be gained of any value by the denominational HQ when stating we have so many members. That sounds too muck like one-up-man-ship to me. But then, I have stated on NN before that I do not agree with the numbers we are so pressured to report. Rather, let's focus on those truly saved/sanctified, etc. and who are living lives that prove their testimony.

Which brings us to the subject of what the church is! Community of the saints? Would that mean you get kicked out after one sin? Hospital for sinners? If so, who's on staff and who is patient?

[William Hunter]

Since the church is to be redemptive, there must be an honest effort to bring those lives are not in agreement with the basic doctrinal standards of the church, back into the fold. Now, with an annual renewal situation, all we have to do is list the things agreed to in the membership statement that the pastor reads up front for all to hear when receiving members. If someone is not living up to those promises they make before God and the cong., then if efforts to bring them back to living up to their promises fails, then membership should be ended. That does not in any way say anything about kicking people out, but it does help us understand that membership should mean something, that it requires an accountability and responsibility on our parts. I am not talking about a meat-axe approach, but if someone refuses to live up to their promises, there should be some consequence involving their listing as an offical member of the church.





I agree, William. I would like to work on the questions though..



Which brings us to the subject of what the church is! Community of the saints? Would that mean you get kicked out after one sin? Hospital for sinners? If so, who's on staff and who is patient?

[William Hunter]

There is another slant to this. Paragraph 127 of the Manual requires our congregations to elect only those people who live up to four basic standards for church board members. These standards are not much different from the standards for church membership. There needs to be a way for church boards to take removal action of board members who are not living up to those four requirements. The board makeup is highly important. Over these 32 plus years there have been too many times I witnessed a board member knowingly not living up to these four standards of church board members, but there is no vehicle in the Manual for removing them from the board.

[Hans Deventer]

Okay, I understand what you are saying. :)

Great! Perhaps you can explain it to me?

[Dennis M. Scott]

. . . who's on staff and who is patient?

I am. That would be me. staff/patient

Part of the difficulty understanding is that many have different understandings of what membership means. If naznet has shown us anything it is that what is very clear to one person sometimes has a very clear but different meaning to someone else. All a person has to do is be the pastor following a number of different pastors to discover that membership means different things to different individuals, including pastors. We all think the Manual makes it pretty clear, but there are obviously different opinions about that clarity. Immediately there will be a cry for us the make it more clear. (Sounds like the title of a new NPH book - "100 Years of Non-clarity of What Church Membership Means".) Even in this thread have been ideas expressed differing on reasons to join or not to join. I followed on pastor who told incoming members, "It's allright speak in tongues, just as long as you don't do it at the altar in front of the church." Likely each of us could cite what we see as the most outlandish violations of what we think it should be. Maybe this would or wouldn't be a good time to quote Bresee on essentials.

It must be especially confusing to laypeople who experience a chain of different pastors.

[Pete Vecchi]

This is kind of a sore subject for me. I tend to believe that if someone purposely stays away from worship services and other church ministry for extended periods of time (say, for 1 year or more), their names should automatically be removed from membership. However, other people don't see things that way, and that's thier preroggative; we can agree to disagree.

However, our congregation's breakdown is the following:

Total Members -- 33
Number of Total officially listed as "Inactive" -- 1
Number of Total who haven't attended service for at least 1 year -- 7
Number of Total who are shut-in/semi-shut in -- 3
Number of Total that has moved but visited 1 or 2 times -- 1
Number of Total that has been member since childhood, but rarely attends -- 1
Number of Total that has said they are leaving -- 2

So, I guess that the most I should regularly hope that will be with us for morning worship is 17 of the 33 members, or 51.5%.

We generally have several people attend (many of them fairly regularly) who are not members (maybe 10 to 15 or more). Our average attendance over the past couple of months has been in the upper 20's.

[Mike McVey]

It just mystifies me when sometimes pastors tackle eliminating people's names the first year of a pastorate like it's the most important thing on the agenda. Kinda like, "First things first." Do the stuff that's most important. That way any growth that shows up will look good on their record. That's about as two-faced as the "dishonesty" they cry about in justifying their actions. Both positions - at best - are working more toward appearances than the truth. Some people have to justify their ministry/work by negating those who've gone before them. To Whom to they think they have to justify anyway.

I guess this particular post offends me. Because I have rarely seen any pastor take the necessary steps of clearing a roster. And the ones that do clear rosters are the ones that legitimately try and reach out to people for considerable periods of time. Now, I've heard many pastors say they want to clear the rosters, but it really doesn't happen that often, albeit not in my experience.

As far as the growth on record is concerned, it is very honest. Pastors are graded by numbers. It goes on our permanent record at general headquarters. Why would any pastor want their record to show untrue numbers? And for anyone to gripe that it is a stupid reason, then don't accept a paycheck from a church or Christian organization. Are these all stupid excuses? Absolutely. But they are still true.

And is clearing of the membership rolls really such an evil thing? How about pastors that ask for more money when they don't do anything? What about pastors who openly lie about attendance and budget to impress people? I find clearing the rolls is a very humbling activity, because it is an admittance that the church has failed to be church! I have met very few, actually zero, pastors who think they receive too much salary/benefits. Membership to a church is not the same as membership in the body of Christ. Love and grace should be afforded to everyone at the same measure.

[Billy Cox]

I'm glad that someone finally pointed out the church membership is not nearly as important to those who are dead, MIA, or AWOL as it is to us, the keepers of the numbers.

[Billy Cox]

One underlying (and annoying) sentiment underlying this thread is that deleting a name off of our rolls is tantamount to blotting someone's name from the Lamb's book of life.

If we just assume that dead and relocated people aren't coming back no matter how nice our form letter is, then we are left with people who either attend another church, who have given up on church altogether, or who are mad at the local church. If those people have stayed away for more than six months, they have decided to not affiliate with our fellowship. How about if we just grow up and respect their decision?

[Dennis M. Scott]

I guess this particular post offends me. Because I have rarely seen any pastor take the necessary steps of clearing a roster. And the ones that do clear rosters are the ones that legitimately try and reach out to people for considerable periods of time. Now, I've heard many pastors say they want to clear the rosters, but it really doesn't happen that often, albeit not in my experience.

As far as the growth on record is concerned, it is very honest. Pastors are graded by numbers. It goes on our permanent record at general headquarters. Why would any pastor want their record to show untrue numbers? And for anyone to gripe that it is a stupid reason, then don't accept a paycheck from a church or Christian organization. Are these all stupid excuses? Absolutely. But they are still true.

And is clearing of the membership rolls really such an evil thing? How about pastors that ask for more money when they don't do anything? What about pastors who openly lie about attendance and budget to impress people? I find clearing the rolls is a very humbling activity, because it is an admittance that the church has failed to be church! I have met very few, actually zero, pastors who think they receive too much salary/benefits. Membership to a church is not the same as membership in the body of Christ. Love and grace should be afforded to everyone at the same measure.

I really didn't want to offend you or anyone else who conscientiously deals with membership in a serious way. I am offended by others who treat names on membership lists as junk, often simply because those people don't follow or respond to their leadership. Unlike you, I have seen dozens of pastors come in and remove huge numbers of names, sometimes over a hundred members. Most of the time it happens in their first year, and then they brag for the next few years about what a tremendous percentage growth rate they have. You don't have to be very clever to know how to spin numbers.

I don't know how to say this in a way that won't sound holier than thou, but if the grades that are kept on you at headquarters are even a part of the motive for removing people's names from membership, I really hope you'll rethink that motive. You are correct that those records are kept, and I assume they are occasionally looked at. You'll have to decide how important that is for yourself. There are a few who have chosen to fulfill their ministry without particular concern for how headquarters' archives look. Quick to note that you have not previously come across as one who is overly concerned about that either. Those who know me will acknowledge that I've not especially spent a lot of energy enhancing my career path. I admit there is a philosophy that says if you don't do things right and keep your record spotless you won't be in a position to do great things for the Lord. I pretty much reject that concern - and admit that I probably won't be used of the Lord that way.

I'm sorry, but although I've read it several times, I'm not able to understand your message about not accepting paychecks from churches.

I agree with you that following manual provision for removing members is a painful and humbling experience. It is also a good one, and my gripe isn't with those churches who follow procedure. It's with those who sidestep it. A couple decades ago in a different part of the country I noticed in a district journal that one church one year had lost 56 members by death. Being a little bold, I asked the pastor what he had been preaching that brought on that kind of epidemic in his community. He said, "Well, at one board meeting we were reviewing the roster, and I asked where all those people were. Someone said, 'Pastor, for all we know they might be dead by now.' So we recorded them all as dead. It didn't even require advisory board approval." Within five years he was out of the ministry. But he had pretty good percentage growth rates for three of the five.

Believe me, I have seen so many ways to spin church numbers it has made me sick - and a little sensitive to it, as you may have noticed. But it is even more vulgar to chop off what is the only link some people have with anything spiritual at all, if it is recklessly done in the name of being "honest" with numbers. I know, there are people who will say, "I'm surprised my name was still on the rolls." There are others who say, "You know, I hadn't thought about it for years, but now that you bring it up, maybe I should be thinking about it." Mainly, however, as others have pointed out, when contacted, they just say nothing.

Finally, I'm frankly amazed to find myself taking this side of the argument, but somebody needed to take the side of the forgotten, neglected, disallusioned and cast off. They have few active representatives on Naznet and on local church boards.

[Billy Cox]

You don't have to be very clever to know how to spin numbers.


The final year that I was on staff at a Nazarene church plant, the pastor reported 100 members by profession of faith. I did a double-take when I saw that because I was there and I knew that we didn't have anywhere close to that number who consciously chose to affiliate with the Church of the Nazarene.

It was one of many things that forced me to reconsider whether evangelical christianity was not just a fraud. I have resolved for my own sake to let God sort it out.

[Mike McVey]

I really didn't want to offend you or anyone else who conscientiously deals with membership in a serious way. I am offended by others who treat names on membership lists as junk, often simply because those people don't follow or respond to their leadership. Unlike you, I have seen dozens of pastors come in and remove huge numbers of names, sometimes over a hundred members. Most of the time it happens in their first year, and then they brag for the next few years about what a tremendous percentage growth rate they have. You don't have to be very clever to know how to spin numbers.

After reading this post, I am no longer offended. I guess different experiences do change the understanding.

I don't know how to say this in a way that won't sound holier than thou, but if the grades that are kept on you at headquarters are even a part of the motive for removing people's names from membership, I really hope you'll rethink that motive. You are correct that those records are kept, and I assume they are occasionally looked at. You'll have to decide how important that is for yourself. There are a few who have chosen to fulfill their ministry without particular concern for how headquarters' archives look. Quick to note that you have not previously come across as one who is overly concerned about that either. Those who know me will acknowledge that I've not especially spent a lot of energy enhancing my career path. I admit there is a philosophy that says if you don't do things right and keep your record spotless you won't be in a position to do great things for the Lord. I pretty much reject that concern - and admit that I probably won't be used of the Lord that way.

I'm sorry, but although I've read it several times, I'm not able to understand your message about not accepting paychecks from churches.

These actually work together... at least in my thinking. I definitely have a chip on my shoulder, and I'm sorry to read that into your response. My background is several future pastors complaining about the COTN and how it is an inferior church and blah, blah, blah. I got so sick of it that I said if you don't like the rules and such don't take a paycheck. Again, I'm sorry to read my past into your life.

I agree with you that following manual provision for removing members is a painful and humbling experience. It is also a good one, and my gripe isn't with those churches who follow procedure. It's with those who sidestep it. A couple decades ago in a different part of the country I noticed in a district journal that one church one year had lost 56 members by death. Being a little bold, I asked the pastor what he had been preaching that brought on that kind of epidemic in his community. He said, "Well, at one board meeting we were reviewing the roster, and I asked where all those people were. Someone said, 'Pastor, for all we know they might be dead by now.' So we recorded them all as dead. It didn't even require advisory board approval." Within five years he was out of the ministry. But he had pretty good percentage growth rates for three of the five.

Believe me, I have seen so many ways to spin church numbers it has made me sick - and a little sensitive to it, as you may have noticed. But it is even more vulgar to chop off what is the only link some people have with anything spiritual at all, if it is recklessly done in the name of being "honest" with numbers. I know, there are people who will say, "I'm surprised my name was still on the rolls." There are others who say, "You know, I hadn't thought about it for years, but now that you bring it up, maybe I should be thinking about it." Mainly, however, as others have pointed out, when contacted, they just say nothing.

Finally, I'm frankly amazed to find myself taking this side of the argument, but somebody needed to take the side of the forgotten, neglected, disallusioned and cast off. They have few active representatives on Naznet and on local church boards.

I totally agree with your last paragraph here. Thank you for taking their side.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Rarely am I able to unoffend. I suspect it is your spirit more than my ability. I know that to some thing will seem weird, coming from me, but I want to not be a whiner. There are among our ranks some who seem bent on being miserable. Often I am tempted to help them feel that way - maybe just kidding. I want to be someone who after being around somebody else, they forget I was there and can't figure out why they feel better.

Mike, you're a leader, and one who invests in other people. You like seeing them get it and make it. I've got a challenge for you. It's something I'm working on, but haven't quite got the hang of. I really get a kick out of seeing someone in whom I have invested and believed, succeed big time and thrive. It's kinda like a parent being the proudest person at the school play. I learned some time ago, that I find that rewarding. Now that I'm a grandparent, I've discovered that I also enjoy seeing the next generation succeed. It's rewarding seeing those in whom I've made the investment in turn invest in others and see the third generation thrive. Being a spiritual grandparent is dynamic. The thing I'm working on is that I want to also get a kick out of seeing someone thrive without my having had any influence at all. I want to be happy for people whether I've had any influence or not. It's not about me, it's about others. So I challenge you: rejoice in the meaningful success of others. I'm still working on it.

[Hans Deventer]

I agree with you that following manual provision for removing members is a painful and humbling experience. It is also a good one, and my gripe isn't with those churches who follow procedure. It's with those who sidestep it.

[...]

Believe me, I have seen so many ways to spin church numbers it has made me sick - and a little sensitive to it, as you may have noticed. But it is even more vulgar to chop off what is the only link some people have with anything spiritual at all, if it is recklessly done in the name of being "honest" with numbers.

Thanks. I'm starting to understand you now. I guess I'm a little slow at it.

[Kevin Rector]

Cindi,
I am certain there are times when such reduction is done conscientiously. In fact, that may be the case with every situation cited here. It just mystifies me when sometimes pastors tackle eliminating people's names the first year of a pastorate like it's the most important thing on the agenda. Kinda like, "First things first." Do the stuff that's most important. That way any growth that shows up will look good on their record. That's about as two-faced as the "dishonesty" they cry about in justifying their actions.

I can only assume that you have me in your thoughts as you write the above words as I was the one who so passionately remarked that making the rolls honest will be one of my first tasks if I ever go to a new church.

Please understand that I view this as one part of getting to know a congregation. I'll want to know the story of each and every person on the membership role and in regular attendance. I'm not likely to ever pastor a mega church so that seems like a realistic possibility.

I don't want to clear the rolls for any reason other than being honest in my reporting. For some crazy reason being honest is important to me. It has nothing to do with looking good or making the last pastor look bad. It isn't from a lack of care for those removed (half of whom I probably won't even be able to locate if my prior experience is any indicator).

--edited to say that I wrote this before reading the rest of the thread. I do not have the background that you do, in fact I'm the only pastor I personally know of that has done a substantial roll cleaning upon arriving at a church. So if your remarks were not directed at me, please forgive me if I came off as snarky or sarcastic.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

What would a pastor do if-A naval commander and his family shipped out to Hawaii, and then retired and was piped out--and went into real estate. He and his wife desired for their names to be left on the roles of a certain church--due to the fact that they would not join in Hawaii, and then where he had already planned to settle in Montana, there was no COTN. That was in 1986. He has been retired from the Military about about 17+ years. Should their name be left on the membership roll?

What would you do if a young woman, that had moved to a nearby town, wanted "her letter" in order to join anther denomination? Would you send one, just to make her happy?
What would you do if: a family comes back to the church years later? Their names have been placed on the inactive roll years ago, but they want to rejoin, without going up front, or it being mentioned?
Dwayne pastored one church where: It had been years since the people attended the church. When they did return, but seemed to be living a life of sin, the people automatically wanted to vote for them to be the youth leader, etc? In this church, a grest number of the younger people, ran from "friend to friend", and sometimes lived them. One man planned a dance at his house, for the young people, when he was over the youth department.
We have arrived at three churches, to learn that at least one of the churches had a teacher that smoked. What should one do?
I am not trying to start a thread about smoking-right or wrong--just that they are not living up to the beliefs of the church.

Some of these things may need to be on different threads.

[Mike Schutz]

Anne, I have tried to answer the questions, based on my understanding of the situations.
What would a pastor do if-A naval commander and his family shipped out to Hawaii, and then retired and was piped out--and went into real estate. He and his wife desired for their names to be left on the roles of a certain church--due to the fact that they would not join in Hawaii, and then where he had already planned to settle in Montana, there was no COTN. That was in 1986. He has been retired from the Military about about 17+ years. Should their name be left on the membership roll?
They gave a legitimate reason for it. I would recommend that they join whichever church they are attending in Montana. But if they insist that being members of a COTN is important to them, then sure.
What would you do if a young woman, that had moved to a nearby town, wanted "her letter" in order to join anther denomination? Would you send one, just to make her happy?Of course. Why would there be a question?
What would you do if: a family comes back to the church years later? Their names have been placed on the inactive roll years ago, but they want to rejoin, without going up front, or it being mentioned? They are not "rejoining", as inactive members are still members.

[Mike McVey]

What would a pastor do if-A naval commander and his family shipped out to Hawaii, and then retired and was piped out--and went into real estate. He and his wife desired for their names to be left on the roles of a certain church--due to the fact that they would not join in Hawaii, and then where he had already planned to settle in Montana, there was no COTN. That was in 1986. He has been retired from the Military about about 17+ years. Should their name be left on the membership roll?

What would you do if a young woman, that had moved to a nearby town, wanted "her letter" in order to join anther denomination? Would you send one, just to make her happy?
What would you do if: a family comes back to the church years later? Their names have been placed on the inactive roll years ago, but they want to rejoin, without going up front, or it being mentioned?
Dwayne pastored one church where: It had been years since the people attended the church. When they did return, but seemed to be living a life of sin, the people automatically wanted to vote for them to be the youth leader, etc? In this church, a grest number of the younger people, ran from "friend to friend", and sometimes lived them. One man planned a dance at his house, for the young people, when he was over the youth department.
We have arrived at three churches, to learn that at least one of the churches had a teacher that smoked. What should one do?
I am not trying to start a thread about smoking-right or wrong--just that they are not living up to the beliefs of the church.

Some of these things may need to be on different threads.

My personal answer to all of these questions is that if their names have been removed from the rolls, then they have to rejoin the church. A military family who no longer participates and has no intention to participate in the community of faith for 21 years now should be removed. It doesn't matter if there is no Nazarene church. If the family is still sending in tithe checks and is doing other things that show they are participating in the community from afar, then they should not be removed. But I personally don't care if someone wants their name to stay on the rolls or not.

As for the girl, I have never seen in the manual where one is to receive a letter when they want to jump to another denomination. I have heard people do it, but I really have never seen this in the manual. My understanding is that it is the church to which membership is to be transferred is supposed to contact the church from which membership is being transferred from. Again, I do not think we, the church, should do thing for people to make them happy. This specific situation raises many questions for me, but if she wants to transfer, tell her that the other church need to make the contact. You can also tell her that her name is taken off the rolls, but a letter? That seems so silly to me: "Future church to which ________ wants to join. Even though ________ has been going to our church for so many years, and she was never involved, we give her membership back to her so she may serve the Lord in another church." My limited experience is that people who have already joined a new church do not need a letter and those looking to join a new church (non-Nazarene) will get in easier by profession of faith. On the other side of the issue, I don't like how easy it is for someone to switch churches of different denominations across town. A couple people want to join our church and leave their old one, but I have told them that they need to tell their former pastor why they are leaving or I will.

A family that has been put on the inactive roll does not need to rejoin the church. They just have to start coming consistently and be involved to move back into active membership -- so no stage presence necessary.

I don't understand the first half of your last paragraph as far as how it pertains to this thread. And I'm not sure if you are for or against a dance being planned (though you probably are against for mentioning it). But as far as the smokers go, I believe it is the responsibility of the pastor to confront any member (not just leaders/teachers) who is violating the membership covenant. This does not mean to incite God's judgment, but to find out what is going on with whatever. I have yet to find a way to talk to my few members about such issues without it blowing up in my face, but membership is something they stupidly chose. And FYI, be very careful if you tell a female in your church that Joyce Meyer is unhealthy theology. It affects the weekly giving :basic03

[Marsha Lynn]

Finally, I'm frankly amazed to find myself taking this side of the argument, but somebody needed to take the side of the forgotten, neglected, disallusioned and cast off. They have few active representatives on Naznet and on local church boards.

Isn't it amazing where we sometimes find ourselves landing in a NazNet discussion?

I appreciate your perspective here, Dennis. I have little input into such things and, thus, little reason to have an opinion on them. However, I can't help but lean one way or the other now and then. I would say that I am fully inconsistent on the matter and, thus, appreciate having both sides of the discussion represented here.

As the unofficial keeper of the church database (compulsive record-keeping tendencies that sometimes come in useful), I generate the Sunday School rolls each quarter. If it were entirely up to me, I would maintain three lists for each class -- active members whose attendance needs to be recorded, inactive members who have a chance of returning, people who have been associated with the church in the past and ought not to be entirely forgotten. I actually have three codes for the "SS roll" field in my database, but they don't quite match my preferred categories. They are: 1 for active member, 2 for inactive member which I don't have the authority to remove without approval, and 4 for someone I think ought to be on the list for that class but has never been officially added. (I'm not sure what happened to 3; it was lost somewhere in the evolution of the database.) Since I add the 4s on my own, I also take them off when I sense that they are no longer open to contact from the church. People who are 4s are those who attend worship but not SS, non-attending spouses of active members, new babies in inactive families, friends of active members who show up several times a year and are maybe active in non-Sunday programs.

Like I said, I put the "4"s on the "prospect" list, and I take them off. I also occasionally bug my pastor about allowing me to remove "2"s who no longer associate themselves with our church. Some of them have been on the rolls for years without attending, and contact from an ambitious new teacher who didn't know their history with the church would do more harm than good. However, for some of those, we're the only church they have. Do we want to drop them from our rolls and leave them completely disconnected with any church?

My personal compromise is to keep adding new people who attend Sunday worship to the prospect list for an appropriate SS class. And dropping those who are no longer associated with the church in any way. And not worrying too much about the official "inactive members" which I have no authority to remove.

Currently, we're averaging around 50 on Sunday mornings. There are 187 names on the SS rolls. Of the 113 "active" members, only 8 have not been to some church event during 2007. Of the 44 "inactive" SS members, 12 have been in the church in the past two years. (I just realized that one of them is now a board member at the Methodist church. Does that mean we can remove him from our rolls? Only with the pastor's approval.) The other 30 are "4"s (people I put on the rolls simply because I think they oughtta be there).

Yep, I'm all for keeping the SS and membership rolls clean. But here's the really inconsistent part. My database has a total of 826 names. You can get off the church membership list and the Sunday School rolls, but once you're in my database as more than just a name that showed up on the SS rolls, pretty much the only way to get out of it is to die and have your death reported to me. And even then I have to force myself to use the delete key. (Isn't there a possibility someone might want to know Alene's birthday so that they can send her daughter a 'thinking of you' card around that time?)

I know this discussion is about church membership, not the SS rolls. (I don't have up-to-date membership data but I know the rolls are actively pruned on a regular basis to remove non-attenders.) I guess my point is that a church can have any number of lists and maybe one of them oughtta include everyone who has any association or history with the church and for whom the church still has some responsibility, even if it is simply to remember them in prayer, but the membership list isn't necessarily the place to maintain that connection (nor even the SS rolls or church directory).

On the other hand, when my own children went to college and then moved out on their own (five states away) and didn't immediately request a membership transfer to a new church, it was a bit painful to see them go onto the "inactive" member list and then be proposed for removal from membership as though they were reprobates. If they attend a non-membership church for a year or two and then end up back in the Church of the Nazarene, will they be new members by "profession of faith"? Did it do any harm to carry a retired Nazarene elder on our membership list for 25 years after she moved to Florida and didn't transfer her membership to another Nazarene church?

Marsha

PS: As I was preparing to post this, my pastor called about an unrelated matter. The Methodist board member is no longer on our rolls. I'm even considering the idea of deleting him from my database entirely. :eek:

[Dennis M. Scott]

I can only assume that you have me in your thoughts as you write the above words as I was the one who so passionately remarked that making the rolls honest will be one of my first tasks if I ever go to a new church.

Please understand that I view this as one part of getting to know a congregation. I'll want to know the story of each and every person on the membership role and in regular attendance. I'm not likely to ever pastor a mega church so that seems like a realistic possibility.

I don't want to clear the rolls for any reason other than being honest in my reporting. For some crazy reason being honest is important to me. It has nothing to do with looking good or making the last pastor look bad. It isn't from a lack of care for those removed (half of whom I probably won't even be able to locate if my prior experience is any indicator).

--edited to say that I wrote this before reading the rest of the thread. I do not have the background that you do, in fact I'm the only pastor I personally know of that has done a substantial roll cleaning upon arriving at a church. So if your remarks were not directed at me, please forgive me if I came off as snarky or sarcastic.


Kevin,
I don't sense you being sarcastic or snarky. (ok, I admit it, I don't know what that word means.) In fact, I am grateful for your spirit. My remarks weren't directed at you or anyone on this thread, frankly. In fact, my good friend Mike Shutz I hope hasn't been offended by my hijacking his very good thread.
In my first assignment after seminary, my senior pastor and I experienced some powerful things the Lord was doing. Someone who knew us both pretty well characterized our ministry at that time as "reckless abandonment to doing the will of the Lord." I think nobody has said that about me for quite awhile. I don't make as many silly mistakes now, and perhaps (maybe) I don't offend as many people. Don't let old fogies like me stifle what God is wanting to do in and with you. May the Lord increase your lot among us.

[Dennis M. Scott]

[QUOTE=Marsha Lynn;143034] people who have been associated with the church in the past and ought not to be entirely forgotten. QUOTE]

Marsha,

Likely that's my most significant concern. We newcomers have little knowledge of those who no longer attend. They are people, and they are not valueless. I'm just concerned that we not treat them so. Let's not willy/nilly remove names without considering the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son. We can't forget them. If we can't remember them when their names are on the list, what's the likelihood we'll remember them when they're not?

[Cindi Hammons]

Marsha,

I think there can be a huge difference too with people who ask to remain on your membership roster. We have several who do not attend another church (that we know of), yet do not attend ours as well. They have requested, each time asked, to keep their membership with us. Hey, no problem. My issue is with the dead people or those who have moved with no plan of returning. Your kids are a good example of an innactive member.

[Tami Martin]

I have children who have been members of a church who are likely still on the rolls somewhere that are in no way living a life of faith. I do not want them forgotten.

However, that does not mean that I think they should be counted and considered members and then have them included in the statistics reported at national and international levels.

Most people agree that the So. Baptists are the largest denom in this country. But I was once a keeper of THOSE rolls. Even dying wasn't always a guarantee of getting removed. But they keep reporting those numbers as if they are accurate.

[Cindi Hammons]

Tami,

In the CON, tithing is a responsibility of membership. So...:) if a person dies, do they still have to pay tithe? :M)

[Tami Martin]

Of course!

But as I'm not the treasurer, I don't know what methods are employed to actually get the checks!

[Billy Cox]

Is it really a requirement if we don't remove non-tithers from membership?

[Billy Cox]

[QUOTE=Marsha Lynn;143034] people who have been associated with the church in the past and ought not to be entirely forgotten. QUOTE]

Marsha,

Likely that's my most significant concern. We newcomers have little knowledge of those who no longer attend. They are people, and they are not valueless. I'm just concerned that we not treat them so. Let's not willy/nilly remove names without considering the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son. We can't forget them. If we can't remember them when their names are on the list, what's the likelihood we'll remember them when they're not?

So run the inactive list past the board. If they don't know who the person is or if they know that the person isn't even a prospect for the church, then remove them.

If you want to apply the parable of the lost sheep/coin, you should drop everything you are doing and actively seek the people on your membership list who have lost contact with the local church. You can bet that if such 'seeking' was fruitful, then some joker would have developed a program for revolutionizing your church by vigorously pursuing inactive members.

We live in a mobile society with a plethora of church choices. To keep inactive people on the rolls forever is dumb at best.

[Ryan Scott]

Each congregation, according to the manual, is supposed to have committee that oversees membership. I've seen very few who do, but, I assume, it would be this committee's responsibility to go over the list and decided what to do with each name.