The Value of Church Membership?

[Wilson Deaton]

I'm starting this thread from the perspective of local church membership and all that it entails as practiced in the Church of the Nazarene.

First, imagine a person who is very active and involved, faithfully gives, and attends regularly but who is not a member. With that person in mind:

Other than board/officer eligibilty and voting rights why encourage or push that person to become a member? What is the benefit to the local body?
How would you answer if that person asked: "Why should I become a member? What difference does it make?"

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

It's fairly simple, Wilson. Membership is there because of the democratic structure in our church, and we simply need to know who can and who cannot vote. That's the practical side.

On a more theological level, I strongly believe it is God's intention that we form a local body of Christ. As much as one can believe without being baptised, it was never meant to be that way. We should publicly confess our faith and likewise join (if at all possible) a local congregation. And if you're in, you're in. There simply is no good reason not to commit yourself to the body of Christ where God wants you.

I've had long talks with a good friend of mind who has been attending our church for like 10 years. There simply is no good reason not to join then, and he knows it.

[Todd Erickson]

I can't find any good reason to officially join a church, myself.

If I'm there and I'm going to be dedicated, then I am, and making an announcement in front of the church isn't going to change anything, though it is going to mean I need a specific letter of release if I want to move somewhere else. whereas, if the church changes drastically, and I realize I need to go elsewhere rather than fighting people about something that they have chosen, I'm free to do so.

If the only meaningful reason to join is "so that I can vote", then it seems like an entirely secular difference, rather than a "body of Christ" one. If I testify Christ with my mouth and my life, and I've been Baptized, then I am a member of the body, whether or not I'm a voting member of a specific organization.

[Greg Farra]

I look at it as an official committment. It's saying that I'm here for the long haul, that I'm going to work through any problems because it's a covenant relationship between the church and me. I guess that's not for everybody, but I look at it as a contract. It's like the difference between marriage and living together.

[Todd Erickson]

I suppose my view is that there are a lot of people out there who give their membership to a church, but do the absolute minimum they have to as part of that community, and i don't want to be identified with them. :P especially the ones who are dead.

[Shea Zellweger]

I'd rather not place value on membership outside of the democratic processes of the church, unless of course a person is interested in entering the pastorate, in which case membership is the first step toward ordination. To me, membership is not something that comes with benefits for the member, but is rather a statement on behalf of the member concerning his or her intentions to uphold the standards and doctrines of a specific church/denomination. Most members of churches I know do not actually uphold the standards of those churches, and many have no interest in doing so. Within the CotN, I'm sure we can all think of several times when this or that member said he or she was not particularly interested in what the Manual says on a given matter, which to me is a statement which runs counter to the nature of membership. So, I would say don't become a member unless you really want to be a part of what it is that your church believes, and certainly do not do it for perks or benefits, because the responsibilities far outweigh the added rights.

[Greg Farra]

I suppose my view is that there are a lot of people out there who give their membership to a church, but do the absolute minimum they have to as part of that community, and i don't want to be identified with them. :P especially the ones who are dead.

I guess I'm not in the position to judge those who are 'dead', or perhaps I can encourage them to grow in faith.

[Todd Erickson]

I guess I'm not in the position to judge those who are 'dead', or perhaps I can encourage them to grow in faith.

Er, no. I meant people who are literally dead (as in, in the ground) but are still counted as on the church rolls of membership.

[Greg Farra]

Er, no. I meant people who are literally dead (as in, in the ground) but are still counted as on the church rolls of membership.

ok, sorry for my confusion!

[Hans Deventer]

I can't find any good reason to officially join a church, myself.

If I'm there and I'm going to be dedicated, then I am, and making an announcement in front of the church isn't going to change anything, though it is going to mean I need a specific letter of release if I want to move somewhere else. whereas, if the church changes drastically, and I realize I need to go elsewhere rather than fighting people about something that they have chosen, I'm free to do so.

If the only meaningful reason to join is "so that I can vote", then it seems like an entirely secular difference, rather than a "body of Christ" one. If I testify Christ with my mouth and my life, and I've been Baptized, then I am a member of the body, whether or not I'm a voting member of a specific organization.

To me, such an attitude tells me more about frustrations from the past, than of a sound theology. As nearly always is the case.

[Eric Frey]

I think the theological issue is that "membership" is not a theological issue. Baptism certainly is, as Hans and Todd pointed out. But to equate the two is a bit tricky in my estimation.

I suppose one could discuss the importance of being connected both to the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" through baptism AND to the local "community of saints" through whatever process said community deems appropriate.

All that to say... I don't know! I wrestle with this question, but have yet to come to any solid conclusions...

[Todd Erickson]

To me, such an attitude tells me more about frustrations from the past, than of a sound theology. As nearly always is the case.

Very true.

My issues with church are, after all, issues with people, not with an institution.

However.

Most churches are not going to go to any lengths to fix my issues of the past. They're going to expect me to make a new start, get well, and participate on a brand new level. Unfortuantely, people don't generally work that way.

So until I figure out how to fix myself, those issues remain.

[John Kennedy]

Er, no. I meant people who are literally dead (as in, in the ground) but are still counted as on the church rolls of membership.

Hey, if they can vote in Chicago and south Texas, they surely ought to be able to be on the church rolls.

[Hans Deventer]

I think the theological issue is that "membership" is not a theological issue. Baptism certainly is, as Hans and Todd pointed out. But to equate the two is a bit tricky in my estimation.

You don't think that the people who were baptised in the NT considered themselves and were considered by the church to be members?

To me it is a theological issue as much as marriage as opposed to living together.

Faithfulness seems like a key concept to me in the Bible. It is who God is and it is what He asks of us. And He asks us to publicly stand for what we believe.

I really deplore the tendency to merely live together and to attend a church without ever becoming a member. I do believe God asks for our public commitment to Him, to His body and to our spouse. And yes, I do think this is theological.

[Todd Erickson]

If I've been Baptized, and I show up every sunday, and I'm involved in things, but a person who shows up occasionally and isn't involved in anything is more of a member because they've made an official statement, then membership is not anything that I need.

[Shea Zellweger]

You don't think that the people who were baptised in the NT considered themselves and were considered by the church to be members?

To me it is a theological issue as much as marriage as opposed to living together.

Faithfulness seems like a key concept to me in the Bible. It is who God is and it is what He asks of us. And He asks us to publicly stand for what we believe.

I really deplore the tendency to merely live together and to attend a church without ever becoming a member. I do believe God asks for our public commitment to Him, to His body and to our spouse. And yes, I do think this is theological.

Hans,
I definitely agree that people in the NT who were baptized would have considered them to be members of the body of Christ. I personally consider anyone who gives a profession of faith, whether baptized or not, to be a member of the body of Christ. But I think there is a distinct difference between being a member of the body of Christ, and choosing to be a member of a specific church or denomination, thereby binding oneself to adhere to that specific church's beliefs, even the ones you completely object to... Some of us are willing to do that, but I do not begrudge those who are not.

[Larry Parsons]

Hey, I have a question. At our CotN you can be member, pay your tithes, etc but if you don't attend all three services you are not allow to teach a Sunday School class. Is that true in your church?
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

Hey, I have a question. At our CotN you can be member, pay your tithes, etc but if you don't attend all three services you are not allow to teach a Sunday School class. Is that true in your church?
Larry

it wasn't in the last one I attended, and it's not required by the manual, but any individual church can set that sort of standard.

[Dale Cozby]

A little over a year ago at our annual meeting a young man who had been attending our church off and on since his teen years but not very faithfully except for the last 8 months came up to me and and asked why his name was not on the ballot for church leadership. He had been very faithful in any task he had been asked to perform and was serving on the platform singing, etc. I explained that he needed to be a member to vote or hold office and he was sad that we "excluded" him from those roles in the church. He joined two weeks later. A few weeks ago at the first annual meeting he was a voting member, he was also elected to our board and is now serving as a steward.

This Sunday I am taking in new members, not because they want to serve on the board, but because they want to belong with us. They want to make a public declaration of unity with us during a major outreach event. It will present us the opportunity to show our love for one another before others. "by this all men will know you are my disciples, if you love one another" Making that public declaration is good for us and for those who are just watching.

[Dale Cozby]

Hey, I have a question. At our CotN you can be member, pay your tithes, etc but if you don't attend all three services you are not allow to teach a Sunday School class. Is that true in your church?
Larry If you can be generally faithful to be there 11 of 13 Sundays you are teaching and are able to make sure your class is provided for from a pool of substitute teachers for those you miss, if you have no obvious hypocrisy in your life, if you are in general harmony with the Articles of Faith and the Covenant of Christian Conduct, and if you desire to teach and show forth the gift, AND if a classroom is available you may teach, providing you don't just go off and steal sheep from other classes!

*Most of our teachers started by being a substitute teacher or a co-teacher with an "old timer"

[Wilson Deaton]

Hey, I have a question. At our CotN you can be member, pay your tithes, etc but if you don't attend all three services you are not allow to teach a Sunday School class. Is that true in your church?
Larry

Not true in my church. I don't require Sunday evening service. In fact, I don't even offer Sunday evening service!

We didn't make it a rule but as it happens, all my Sunday School teachers attend worship and an every-other-week small group...

Wilson

[David Graham]

If I've been Baptized, and I show up every sunday, and I'm involved in things, but a person who shows up occasionally and isn't involved in anything is more of a member because they've made an official statement, then membership is not anything that I need.

Todd, I quite agree, and some of our churches are now moving such people from the "active membership list" to an "associate membership list"; i.e. they lose their voting rights.

(The only exception being those who because of physical incapacity, or work commitments can't always be at church)

[Rich Schmidt]

I'm starting this thread from the perspective of local church membership and all that it entails as practiced in the Church of the Nazarene.

First, imagine a person who is very active and involved, faithfully gives, and attends regularly but who is not a member. With that person in mind:

Other than board/officer eligibilty and voting rights why encourage or push that person to become a member? What is the benefit to the local body?
How would you answer if that person asked: "Why should I become a member? What difference does it make?"

Wilson

I've wrestled with these questions over the past decade... and I haven't come up with any great answers yet. I hope I do soon, though. We're celebrating our church's 10 year anniversary this September, and I'm planning to have the whole church go through a membership renewal process this summer to make sure we're all on the same page. We have quite a few who have attended, contributed, and served for years but have never officially joined the church -- some because they know they differ with us on some issue or other, but many because they just don't see it as meaningful or valuable. That's one thing I intend to change this summer...

[Todd Erickson]

A church I attend is thinking strongly about negating membership entirely, as it seems to get in the way of discipleship. People feel that if they're living up to membership within the CotN (not that most of them are precisely Nazarene, or even necessarily know who John Wesley was) and thus don't need to go too much further. And really, if enough activity is provided by general membership, why would you need to?

Context...

[Rich Schmidt]

You don't think that the people who were baptised in the NT considered themselves and were considered by the church to be members?

To me it is a theological issue as much as marriage as opposed to living together.

Faithfulness seems like a key concept to me in the Bible. It is who God is and it is what He asks of us. And He asks us to publicly stand for what we believe.

I really deplore the tendency to merely live together and to attend a church without ever becoming a member. I do believe God asks for our public commitment to Him, to His body and to our spouse. And yes, I do think this is theological.


Hans,
I definitely agree that people in the NT who were baptized would have considered them to be members of the body of Christ. I personally consider anyone who gives a profession of faith, whether baptized or not, to be a member of the body of Christ. But I think there is a distinct difference between being a member of the body of Christ, and choosing to be a member of a specific church or denomination, thereby binding oneself to adhere to that specific church's beliefs, even the ones you completely object to... Some of us are willing to do that, but I do not begrudge those who are not.

Beyond what Shea said, I imagine those NT believers were also considered members of their local church. All this "members" language comes from the NT metaphor of the church being the body of Christ, and all of us being members of it -- and the NT is definitely speaking locally, not just globally/universally.

However, their commitment to each other as members of one body is different from today's formal commitment to an organization. Like I said in my last post, we have several folks in our church who are members of our body, but not members of our organization, for various reasons. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, baptism is when we "publicly stand for what we believe." The analogy for the marriage vows is baptism, not what we today call "church membership."

[Gene Tatsch]

I really deplore the tendency to merely live together and to attend a church without ever becoming a member. I do believe God asks for our public commitment to Him, to His body and to our spouse. And yes, I do think this is theological.I don't follow your reasoning. It seems to me that making a public commitment to Him is quite a different matter than making a public commitment to an organization (i.e., an organized/institutional church). When the latter is a means to making a public commitment to Him, it may be useful.
However, I experience too much of what Shea said in #6 "Most members of churches I know do not actually uphold the standards of those churches, and many have no interest in doing so. Within the CotN, I'm sure we can all think of several times when this or that member said he or she was not particularly interested in what the Manual says on a given matter" and I perceive that membership/association with such folks damages my commitment and witness to the Truth.
Hence, I am presently trying to identify a nearby organized/institutional church/congregation whose focus (philosophically and functionally) is on making disciples of Jesus, so that my commitment to that organization will nurture my commitment to Jesus.
gene --

[David Gerber]

So membership is broken. That doesn't mean it is irrelevant or unneeded. Seriously, the number of Christians I know that seem to not live up to the Christlike life doesn't mean I am giving up on Christianity. Maybe that is a stretch for the context of this conversation, but I think it is valid.

This is probably also a stretch, but I could simply say that I will love my wife without having to have a religious ceremony in front of a bunch of people. Who are they to tell me I need to be married in a church or by the justice of the peace? Besides, look at all the failed marriages. People in the church can't even stay married. Marriage is a farce.
I know, I know overly melodramatic. But I think it makes a point about membership. We are holding ourselves accountable to each other and the church as our lives represent something far bigger than just our personal relationship. My ritual says that it represents the mystical union that exists between Christ and his church. Is it possible that membership should represent something larger, too? Maybe?

How does Matthew 18 work if we are not trying our best to live by the same standards of community? How can I bring an offense to the body if no one is willing to be submitted to an authority bigger than one's own opinion? That is just part of membership. There is the political side of it for voting on things that are needed, but that is only a part of it.

Wesley had class meetings, bands, and societies. All one needed to do join was to express a desire to flee one's life of sin. However, to stay in that group one had to attend the means of grace and attend to the acts of mercy (?). Why? Because he knew that those things were formative and would help transform one's life.

If membership is merely an ascent to a set of doctrinal beliefs and attending, no wonder it gets in the way of discipleship. If, however, we take a look at how membership can be formative, then maybe the story changes. It isn't a matter of whether or not I can drink wine or have a beer with dinner. It is about my brother or sister that struggles with alcohol. It isn't about all of my freedoms in Christ, but restricting my freedoms for the sake of the weaker brother or sister in our midst. A member says that they will put others before themselves and their freedoms. A member says that they will attend to those things the church thinks are formative: Bible reading, Bible study, attending worship, serving, Communion, Baptism, on and on. Without mutual submission and accountability, those goals may be thwarted. A commitment in front of a bunch of people is perhaps just what is needed.

Now, how do I do with membership at my church? I stink at it. I cannot get people to join to save my life. But I do think it is important so I am working on it. Not because I need board members or people to vote (and I do need those things) but because I believe that membership should be transformational and perhaps a forgotten tool for discipleship.

Like I said, I stink at getting people into membership so what do I know?

[Rich Schmidt]

This is probably also a stretch, but I could simply say that I will love my wife without having to have a religious ceremony in front of a bunch of people. Who are they to tell me I need to be married in a church or by the justice of the peace? Besides, look at all the failed marriages. People in the church can't even stay married. Marriage is a farce.
I know, I know overly melodramatic. But I think it makes a point about membership. It isn't just about us, it is about others, too.

I take it that you disagreed with what I just said about marriage vows = baptism, not "joining the church"?


Beyond what Shea said, I imagine those NT believers were also considered members of their local church. All this "members" language comes from the NT metaphor of the church being the body of Christ, and all of us being members of it -- and the NT is definitely speaking locally, not just globally/universally.

However, their commitment to each other as members of one body is different from today's formal commitment to an organization. Like I said in my last post, we have several folks in our church who are members of our body, but not members of our organization, for various reasons. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, baptism is when we "publicly stand for what we believe." The analogy for the marriage vows is baptism, not what we today call "church membership."

[Hans Deventer]

If I've been Baptized, and I show up every sunday, and I'm involved in things, but a person who shows up occasionally and isn't involved in anything is more of a member because they've made an official statement, then membership is not anything that I need.

Anything good can be abused. "I know a couple who fight all day long, then marriage is not for me". I'm sorry Todd, that remark makes no sense.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,
I definitely agree that people in the NT who were baptized would have considered them to be members of the body of Christ. I personally consider anyone who gives a profession of faith, whether baptized or not, to be a member of the body of Christ. But I think there is a distinct difference between being a member of the body of Christ, and choosing to be a member of a specific church or denomination, thereby binding oneself to adhere to that specific church's beliefs, even the ones you completely object to... Some of us are willing to do that, but I do not begrudge those who are not.


I don't follow your reasoning. It seems to me that making a public commitment to Him is quite a different matter than making a public commitment to an organization (i.e., an organized/institutional church).


Actually, it's not. The commitment to the Church at large is no commitment at all. It has to be done in the context of a local church with real life people, otherwise it's just a pious smoke screen.

[Shea Zellweger]

Actually, it's not. The commitment to the Church at large is no commitment at all. It has to be done in the context of a local church with real life people, otherwise it's just a pious smoke screen.

But Hans, a commitment to a local church is not the same as membership any more. In order to become a member of the Church of the Nazarene, you have to agree that you are "in hearty agreement" with the teachings and practices of our denomination. There are more than a couple very honest people who are fully committed to their local church of the Nazarene, but cannot in good conscience become full members of that local church. I don't see what makes them any less a part of the body of Christ, or a part of the local church, than those who pledge membership



Anything good can be abused. "I know a couple who fight all day long, then marriage is not for me". I'm sorry Todd, that remark makes no sense.

I don't think this is a fair assessment of Todd's position. He did not speak about problems in the church, but rather the problem of how we view membership. I have been to churches where some "members" had not attended in over 5 years, yet were not removed from the role because the pastor/board did not want to offend them, while the evangelism committee refused membership to other committed people in the church because of this or that personal issue. Based on what he's said here, I assume Todd has as well- in fact, I think every American Christian has had or will have this experience at some point in their lives. Who is more a member of the church; the person who is on the official role but not at all involved in the church, or the one who is off the role but a major contributor? If we are going to look to the Acts church for our guidelines for membership, then I think we need to add to our roles every person who comes to us and professes faith in Christ, but of course we can't do that because then they will have voting power and might change the look of our church. So long as our membership requires more of members than the Bible does, then membership needs to be optional.

[Hans Deventer]

But Hans, a commitment to a local church is not the same as membership any more. In order to become a member of the Church of the Nazarene, you have to agree that you are "in hearty agreement" with the teachings and practices of our denomination. There are more than a couple very honest people who are fully committed to their local church of the Nazarene, but cannot in good conscience become full members of that local church. I don't see what makes them any less a part of the body of Christ, or a part of the local church, than those who pledge membership

Then we get to the essentials and non-essentials. Do you agree on the essentials? Then there is no problem. Don't you? Then you should seek another church. If that really isn't possible, then you might start to reconsider what is essential and what isn't.


I don't think this is a fair assessment of Todd's position. He did not speak about problems in the church, but rather the problem of how we view membership. I have been to churches where some "members" had not attended in over 5 years, yet were not removed from the role because the pastor/board did not want to offend them, while the evangelism committee refused membership to other committed people in the church because of this or that personal issue. Based on what he's said here, I assume Todd has as well- in fact, I think every American Christian has had or will have this experience at some point in their lives. Who is more a member of the church; the person who is on the official role but not at all involved in the church, or the one who is off the role but a major contributor?

I actually think it isn't fair to rule by abuses. I'd say 95% of our local membership regularly attends church and is in some way involved in the church. It's indeed a matter of keeping a clean slate. If a church board doesn't do that, they create their own problems but the fact that they abuse the idea of membership (it seems some even have literally dead members) is no reason to say one should not be a member. As I wrote, that's the same a saying I don't believe in marriage because some marriages are lousy and too many end up in divorce anyway.


If we are going to look to the Acts church for our guidelines for membership, then I think we need to add to our roles every person who comes to us and professes faith in Christ, but of course we can't do that because then they will have voting power and might change the look of our church. So long as our membership requires more of members than the Bible does, then membership needs to be optional.

It seems the Agreed Statement of Belief is pretty much such a statement.

I'm sorry Shea, I hate this "optional" thinking about membership. It prevents people who are definitely qualified to take their place in church, and that is a bad thing from a Biblical point of view.

I believe God wants me to take my place in the local expression of the Body of Christ. In our day and time, we even get to choose the one to our liking. In the first centuries, that choice did not even exist. And then too many still don't commit.

I've been in the church all my life, have looked in the kitchen, so to speak. I've seen the good and the bad. No need to tell me the bad stories. Been there, done that. But I'm in, for better and for worse.

[Steve Reece]

I gave up my membership in the Nazarene church after nearly 25 years of being a member (plus being raised Nazarene) because I take what the Nazarene articles of faith say seriously and cannot reconcile my beliefs to them. I am closer in alignment to the Nazarene articles then any other church I know; so I still attend and am involved in a Nazarene church. But I cannot be member agreeing with all the articles of faith; to claim otherwise would make me a liar. I could not care less about voting or being in leadership. If a church requires that I believe 'X' to be a member and I do not believe 'X', then I will not be a member.

[Hans Deventer]

I gave up my membership in the Nazarene church after nearly 25 years of being a member (plus being raised Nazarene) because I take what the Nazarene articles of faith say seriously and cannot reconcile my beliefs to them. I am closer in alignment to the Nazarene articles then any other church I know; so I still attend and am involved in a Nazarene church. But I cannot be member agreeing with all the articles of faith; to claim otherwise would make me a liar. I could not care less about voting or being in leadership. If a church requires that I believe 'X' to be a member and I do not believe 'X', then I will not be a member.

The church requires of you to align with the Agreed Statement of Belief. What is in there that you do not agree with?

[David Gerber]

Rich: lol...I shouldn't respond after a long day. No, I actually do agree with you. My bad.
I guess I am trying to make a case for not just the Body of Christ universal, but also the local body or more specific body such as the Nazarenes and how we understand the Christian life.

[Wilson Deaton]

The church requires of you to align with the Agreed Statement of Belief.

Confession: Even though I was raised in the Church of the Nazarene and have pastored for over 20 years, I never really "noticed" this important distinction until this past GA...

I haven't done the transitional work yet but I have made the decision: Next time I teach church membership, I'll be teaching Agreed Statement rather than Articles!

Hans, having read all your replies on this thread, I'd love to have you come and speak to my church family on the topic!

Wilson

[Todd Erickson]

Anything good can be abused. "I know a couple who fight all day long, then marriage is not for me". I'm sorry Todd, that remark makes no sense.

All you can tell me is that membership to a local church is showing loyalty to a party line. There is nothing in the bible which requires it (in fact, I could argue that the church as we practice it is violently outside of the experience and intent of what the disciples practiced), and in all of the churches where I was a member, I behaved no different, was treated no different...the only difference is my ability to vote, and even then, since that's often anonymous, that doesn't come up.

Nobody has ever "held me accountable" because I was a member. In fact, I have been held to far more accountability in a church where I am not a member than in any of the ones where I was.

So far, your argument appears to be a stand on principal, rather than anything coherent.

And there are not only things in the Nazarene Manual that I can't really hold to, though I appreciate their context (drinking, various others), never mind how those articles conflict with how the church actually practices those beliefs...

Maybe the CotN is a very different animal over in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised. But you seem to perceive a coherency about the church that I do not see here.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, having read all your replies on this thread, I'd love to have you come and speak to my church family on the topic!

I preach for free, but unfortunately, that doesn't go for my travel expenses ;)

[Hans Deventer]

All you can tell me is that membership to a local church is showing loyalty to a party line.

Todd, you know me. You've read numerous posts I wrote and by now, you know quite well how I think. I have yet hear anyone say to me that I'm one of those that just "shows loyalty to the party line". I've heard quite frequently that I'm rather critical, but never the other way around. Perhaps the conclusion is that I'm unable to explain my thoughts on this issue. That would be ok with me. But do NOT accuse me of just showing loyalty to the party line. That is NOT what membership is about.

[Shea Zellweger]

Then we get to the essentials and non-essentials. Do you agree on the essentials? Then there is no problem. Don't you? Then you should seek another church. If that really isn't possible, then you might start to reconsider what is essential and what isn't.

Okay, so what if an individual disagrees with 26.6, "That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ," because they do not believe that a person can indeed be sanctified wholly, at least not this side of glory, but they do believe that the Nazarenes are right in calling the church to holiness, and feel that is missing in the surrounding churches? If I have read Steve Reece's statements correctly, this is pretty much where he stands, and why he is no longer a member. Our Agreed Statement of Belief is still distinctly Nazarene in its application.





I actually think it isn't fair to rule by abuses. I'd say 95% of our local membership regularly attends church and is in some way involved in the church. It's indeed a matter of keeping a clean slate. If a church board doesn't do that, they create their own problems but the fact that they abuse the idea of membership (it seems some even have literally dead members) is no reason to say one should not be a member. As I wrote, that's the same a saying I don't believe in marriage because some marriages are lousy and too many end up in divorce anyway.

That is not what I am saying, nor is it what others are saying. I didn't say "people shouldn't become members because some will abuse it." What I said, in short, is that taking membership vows is not truly what makes you a member of your local church.



It seems the Agreed Statement of Belief is pretty much such a statement.

I'm sorry Shea, I hate this "optional" thinking about membership. It prevents people who are definitely qualified to take their place in church, and that is a bad thing from a Biblical point of view.

I've already said that those pursuing ordination should take membership for very practical reasons. Those wishing to serve in some official capacity (church board, for example) that requires membership should do so as well. But no, I don't see how this prevents the qualified from taking their place in church. I've known non-Nazarenes who were Youth Pastors at local Nazarene churches. I've known plenty of non-Nazarenes who were Sunday School teachers, building superintendents, nursery workers, worship leaders, and on and on, in Nazarene churches. If it is your local church's requirement that anyone wishing to serve must become a member, then I can understand why you think membership is so crucial, but there are many churches that make no such requirement.


I believe God wants me to take my place in the local expression of the Body of Christ. In our day and time, we even get to choose the one to our liking. In the first centuries, that choice did not even exist. And then too many still don't commit.

I've been in the church all my life, have looked in the kitchen, so to speak. I've seen the good and the bad. No need to tell me the bad stories. Been there, done that. But I'm in, for better and for worse.

This isn't about the good and the bad, Hans. We all have stories of sinners and saints that we could share, and so be it. What I've been talking about all along is the simple fact that a person can be a committed member of the body of Christ, both locally and universally, without taking vows that require that person to say "I will" when the pastor asks
"do you covenant to give yourself to the fellowship
and work of God in connection with it, as
set forth in the Covenant of Christian Character
and the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the
Church of the Nazarene?"

For those that wish to be a part of our church but cannot in good conscience agree to follow the CoCC because they know they like to have a beer during the ball game, or some similar thing, and don't wish to be in violation of their vows, I say good for them.

[Hans Deventer]

Okay, so what if an individual disagrees with 26.6, "That believers are to be sanctified wholly, subsequent to regeneration, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ," because they do not believe that a person can indeed be sanctified wholly, at least not this side of glory, but they do believe that the Nazarenes are right in calling the church to holiness, and feel that is missing in the surrounding churches?

Well, if they believe the Nazarenes call people to what does not exist, the only conclusion I can come to is that according to them, the Nazarenes are misleading people on what indeed is a crucial issue, because it is related to our salvation. Then it is better to join a church that doesn't preach all of the gospel instead of one that is misleading people. That's what I would do.


That is not what I am saying, nor is it what others are saying. I didn't say "people shouldn't become members because some will abuse it." What I said, in short, is that taking membership vows is not truly what makes you a member of your local church.

You mean like, when you sleep with someone, you're already married in God's eyes, no matter the legal stuff?


I've already said that those pursuing ordination should take membership for very practical reasons. Those wishing to serve in some official capacity (church board, for example) that requires membership should do so as well. But no, I don't see how this prevents the qualified from taking their place in church. I've known non-Nazarenes who were Youth Pastors at local Nazarene churches. I've known plenty of non-Nazarenes who were Sunday School teachers, building superintendents, nursery workers, worship leaders, and on and on, in Nazarene churches. If it is your local church's requirement that anyone wishing to serve must become a member, then I can understand why you think membership is so crucial, but there are many churches that make no such requirement.

Well, the Manual is quite specific on this. Perhaps we are too obedient. But not being a member definitely bars one from several offices in the church according to the Manual.


This isn't about the good and the bad, Hans. We all have stories of sinners and saints that we could share, and so be it. What I've been talking about all along is the simple fact that a person can be a committed member of the body of Christ, both locally and universally, without taking vows that require that person to say "I will" when the pastor asks
"do you covenant to give yourself to the fellowship
and work of God in connection with it, as
set forth in the Covenant of Christian Character
and the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the
Church of the Nazarene?"

For those that wish to be a part of our church but cannot in good conscience agree to follow the CoCC because they know they like to have a beer during the ball game, or some similar thing, and don't wish to be in violation of their vows, I say good for them.

So you got youth pastors that aren't even Nazarenes, but you make a problem out of a glass of beer? Wow! I think we deal with these issues quite differently. I don't care about beer, but I sure want a Youth Pastor who is a Nazarene because our identity is not in abstination but in what we do stand for in a positive way.

For us, the CoCCon is largely an American thing. In fact, we only discuss it during the pastor's class and then with a lot of explanation. I can tell you, if this was processed through a Dutch District Assembly, it would look quite differently. We rather emphasize the CoCChar and I have yet to hear people who have a problem with that. I'm quite sure we usually add "as explained in the pastor's course" regarding the CoCCon in the reception of church members form.

What is far more important is that people have learned to think in a Nazarene way. Have learned about the great commandment. Have learned about essentials and non-essentials, and about God who can do much more than we can imagine. That was the very reason why I could enter the church. I didn't want to tell God what He could not do in a human being, felt it was rather arrogant to do so. So yes, grace can accomplish a lot.

Bottom line, I care not if people have a glass of beer, I care if love if lacking in their lives. And in my life!

So what do people have to believe regarding ES? For all I care, 1 Thess 5:23 is enough. When and how and in how many instances is up to God anyway.

[Todd Erickson]

hans, the members of most of the nazarene churches I've seen here in America care far more about the non-essentials than they do the essentials, for the most part.

[Hans Deventer]

hans, the members of most of the nazarene churches I've seen here in America care far more about the non-essentials than they do the essentials, for the most part.

Well, we try to do it differently. More in line with Bresee, I think. Perhaps the reason is that the first church on the district was started only in 1967, by Dutch people. The first pastor, Rev. Cor Holleman, later on became our first DS. I've known him very well, in a way he's been like a father for me.
And A Theology Of Love has been quite influential here. That might also have been an influence.

[Shea Zellweger]

So you got youth pastors that aren't even Nazarenes, but you make a problem out of a glass of beer? Wow! I think we deal with these issues quite differently. I don't care about beer, but I sure want a Youth Pastor who is a Nazarene because our identity is not in abstination but in what we do stand for in a positive way.


I really feel as though this conversation has been you and I talking past one another.

I said "For those that wish to be a part of our church but cannot in good conscience agree to follow the CoCC because they know they like to have a beer during the ball game, or some similar thing, and don't wish to be in violation of their vows, I say good for them." That's not me making an issue out of someone having a beer, that is that individual making a conscious choice. My parents are an example of this- my dad firmly believes that if you choose to join a group that has a set of "rules" or "guidelines," that you should follow those rules. He will not join the Church of the Nazarene because there is a policy on alcohol abstinence in place, and he does not agree with that. I respect that he has made that decision, and am not going to demand that he compromise his own values just so that he can be an "official" part of something.

[Bob Hunter]

For those that wish to be a part of our church but cannot in good conscience agree to follow the CoCC because they know they like to have a beer during the ball game, or some similar thing, and don't wish to be in violation of their vows, I say good for them.

Don't get me started on this, because if I would have held people to the CocC in the manual when I was a pastor I would not have had a Church board. I had several key leaders that responsibly consumed alcohol in moderation and I personally didn't make an issue of it. Actually, I could care less. I personally never consumed alcohol when I was a pastor because I felt I could not do that in good conscience and serve as an assigned elder.

Hans, I'm not sure you have the Bresee approach, from what I understand he was a pretty staunch advocate of prohibition. Nazarenes at that time were battling poverty on a number of fronts and many felt that alcohol was a contributing factor to it. So Nazarenes and Methodists in general have a storied history of opposing alcohol consumption. I don't see this changing even though the default position of many of our members is moderation.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I'm not sure you have the Bresee approach, from what I understand he was a pretty staunch advocate of prohibition. Nazarenes at that time were battling poverty on a number of fronts and many felt that alcohol was a contributing factor to it. So Nazarenes and Methodists in general have a storied history of opposing alcohol consumption.

True! But with these good reasons, we would likely follow as well. Point is, the church is no longer involved in that kind of work and hence, the reason has gone.

BTW, it is interesting how a discussion on the Special Rules always comes down to talking about alcohol. We do seem to have a problem there.

[Hans Deventer]

I really feel as though this conversation has been you and I talking past one another.

So thanks for the chat last night. That was very helpful. Let me go on record as saying that if a church has dead members (literally) or members that haven't shown up in years, the value of church membership is zero, nada, nothing, none existent.
But that really only means that the idea behind it has been totally abused. I still see a link with marriage and it sounds like: I'm married but I haven't seen my spouse in years and I'm living with someone else. What's the value of marriage in that case? You got it.

[Rich Schmidt]

So thanks for the chat last night. That was very helpful. Let me go on record as saying that if a church has dead members (literally) or members that haven't shown up in years, the value of church membership is zero, nada, nothing, none existent.
But that really only means that the idea behind it has been totally abused. I still see a link with marriage and it sounds like: I'm married but I haven't seen my spouse in years and I'm living with someone else. What's the value of marriage in that case? You got it.

I still don't understand why you're linking marriage to membership instead of baptism. (Scripture says we are united with Christ in baptism, after all.)

If the appropriate link is to baptism, then insisting on membership sounds like: We're married, but my wife doesn't feel like it counts unless I get her name tattooed on my arm. :D

[Hans Deventer]

I still don't understand why you're linking marriage to membership instead of baptism.

Because, Rich, I do not believe in being part of the church at large as some abstract concept. I may be terribly mistaken, but as I understand it, Jesus meant for the church to be a community of local believers united by their faith in Christ and committed to Him and each other. In the NT, that happened with baptism. That makes you a member of the body, but not in a abstract sense. We have separated the two (membership and baptism), but they belong together.

From chatting with Shea I understand that you guys need to make a huge step out of what membership means in a US context in order to grasp what I am talking about.

[Todd Erickson]

Because, Rich, I do not believe in being part of the church at large as some abstract concept. I may be terribly mistaken, but as I understand it, Jesus meant for the church to be a community of local believers united by their faith in Christ and committed to Him and each other. In the NT, that happened with baptism. That makes you a member of the body, but not in a abstract sense. We have separated the two (membership and baptism), but they belong together.

From chatting with Shea I understand that you guys need to make a huge step out of what membership means in a US context in order to grasp what I am talking about.

I think that the problem with this view is that it predates the point where Christendom was a reality, and there were many Christians in many locations. Or rather, the view you espouse here seems to deny brotherhood with the Catholics of the Netherlands, a sort of "The Nazarenes are the only ones on the boat going to heaven". I don't think that you're particularly saying this, but it seems to point in that direction.

[Rich Schmidt]

Because, Rich, I do not believe in being part of the church at large as some abstract concept.

I don't either. I thought I made that clear in an earlier post.


I may be terribly mistaken, but as I understand it, Jesus meant for the church to be a community of local believers united by their faith in Christ and committed to Him and each other. In the NT, that happened with baptism. That makes you a member of the body, but not in a abstract sense.

Isn't that still true today? If not, then shouldn't we fix that? Or are we giving up on baptism here?


We have separated the two (membership and baptism), but they belong together.

Again, I agree. Granted, the situation is different today than it was in the NT and apostolic era. We are MUCH more mobile today than they were. Many people today move several times during their lifetimes, which means leaving one church community and joining another. Also, we have all the various denominations.... but still. People in the early church occasionally moved from one place to another, which meant they had to commit themselves to whatever church body existed in their new location. But they weren't re-baptized, and as far as I know, they had no formal "membership" process like what we have today.


From chatting with Shea I understand that you guys need to make a huge step out of what membership means in a US context in order to grasp what I am talking about.

What I tell people in our Living Hope 101 class is that membership communicates your commitment to this particular body of believers, to this local church. However, I don't believe that official membership is necessarily required for that to be the case. To use a different family metaphor, a newborn doesn't have to officially join the family they're born into. They're just automatically a part of it. Likewise, a spiritual newborn is automatically a part of the family (local church) into which they're born.

I guess the question of membership enters when those who are already (re)born "switch families".... Do we need some sort of "adoption" ceremony, or do we simply welcome them as brothers and sisters who used to live elsewhere but now live here?

Frankly, all of this is somewhat beside the point. In the Church of the Nazarene, we have membership. I don't foresee that changing. The question is how each local church integrates that into their mission, their discipleship process, etc. As I mentioned earlier, I'm taking our whole church through a membership renewal process this summer. So I'll be highlighting the value of membership and encouraging everyone to officially join the church. I just need a couple more weeks for all of my thoughts on the matter to develop further. :)

[Hans Deventer]

Or rather, the view you espouse here seems to deny brotherhood with the Catholics of the Netherlands, a sort of "The Nazarenes are the only ones on the boat going to heaven". I don't think that you're particularly saying this, but it seems to point in that direction.

I can't believe my eyes that I'm reading this. :smilies1390: :smilies1390:

[Hans Deventer]

As I mentioned earlier, I'm taking our whole church through a membership renewal process this summer. So I'll be highlighting the value of membership and encouraging everyone to officially join the church.

I'd love to see that a lot more.

[Todd Erickson]

I can't believe my eyes that I'm reading this. :smilies1390: :smilies1390:

Could you unpack this?

By Acts standards, any Christians within the same city/town were, essentially, of the same church, no matter what home they met in. By making a public statement of Faith and being Baptized, you were from "the church of urban development X". This in a time where the average city might have a population of 50k and be considered massive.

To then say, "I am declaring membership soley to this aspect of one person's version of the faith, in this building, with these people" seems to move directly against that original awareness, but that's a product of 2k year of the church doing very obnoxious things, and killing people for being in different churches, etc. So, it's quite clear how we got here.

But to say that this is this accurate of Christ...I think it's in fact accurate of where we've gotten to. I'm not sure how much we can actually say "Christ is in this", as it has very little to do with Unity.

[Hans Deventer]

Could you unpack this?

No. I tried but I found myself getting so irritated for being so utterly misunderstood that my continued contribution to this thread seems not to be beneficial. If after all those posts these are the conclusions you make, I'm obviously not able to communicate what I want to say. And there is wisdom in realising that and acting accordingly.

[Shea Zellweger]

Could you unpack this?

By Acts standards, any Christians within the same city/town were, essentially, of the same church, no matter what home they met in. By making a public statement of Faith and being Baptized, you were from "the church of urban development X". This in a time where the average city might have a population of 50k and be considered massive.

To then say, "I am declaring membership soley to this aspect of one person's version of the faith, in this building, with these people" seems to move directly against that original awareness, but that's a product of 2k year of the church doing very obnoxious things, and killing people for being in different churches, etc. So, it's quite clear how we got here.

But to say that this is this accurate of Christ...I think it's in fact accurate of where we've gotten to. I'm not sure how much we can actually say "Christ is in this", as it has very little to do with Unity.


No. I tried but I found myself getting so irritated for being so utterly misunderstood that my continued contribution to this thread seems not to be beneficial. If after all those posts these are the conclusions you make, I'm obviously not able to communicate what I want to say. And there is wisdom in realising that and acting accordingly.

Hans and I talked for a while last evening (two evenings ago for Hans). It was a very helpful conversation. The status of Church Membership in the Netherlands, at least among Nazarenes, is essentially what Todd and I have been saying it should be- any person professing faith in Christ can be welcomed as a member of the CotN. Those who are committed to the church seek membership, while those who are not, don't.
The American Church, on the other hand, has many other reasons for membership. People join as a status symbol. They join because their parents were (insert denomination). They join because they like the church and hope to be married there some day. After they grow tired of this or that church, they insist that their names remain on the roll, and their good friends on the board see to it that this is so. Meanwhile, this gentleman doesn't join because he would like to have a beer, and that woman stays a non-member because she's just not sure that perfection of any kind is attainable. So we have a lot of non-committal members, and a fair number of very committed non-members.

I think Hans, coming from the view of the Netherlands, is right in his view of membership, as is Todd in his assessment of membership in America. Then again, maybe Todd and I are both just jaded.

[Marsha Lynn]

I'm starting this thread from the perspective of local church membership and all that it entails as practiced in the Church of the Nazarene.

First, imagine a person who is very active and involved, faithfully gives, and attends regularly but who is not a member. With that person in mind:

Other than board/officer eligibilty and voting rights why encourage or push that person to become a member? What is the benefit to the local body?
How would you answer if that person asked: "Why should I become a member? What difference does it make?"

Wilson

Some of my favorite local non-members have joined up in the past few years. I guess I pushed them toward it but not in the way I envision when I read your phrase "encourage or push." Rather, in the course of many, many conversations, occasionally they would question a direction the church was going in a particular area and I would suggest with a smile that they join the church so they could get involved in the decision-making process. When time for our annual membership class came around and involved missing our regular Sunday School class, I vocalized permission for the nonmembers in my class to attend (just in case they needed it). It kind of surprised me when they actually went through with it. For some of them it was the most visible and formal commitment they had made to the Church at large as well as the local body. However, all of them were actively involved in church life before joining.

Our most talented children's teacher is not a member of the church because of doctrinal issues. I doubt many people are even aware of that fact. She has taken on many roles for which membership is not a requirement over the years, including several (such as teaching Sunday School) for which it would ordinarily be an assumed requirement. She knows the official doctrine of the church and doesn't teach against it even where she doesn't agree with it. She has plenty of ministry opportunities that don't require church membership. Yet, I'm pretty sure that if the various obstacles to her membership were resolved, she would join the church.

To me membership is a statement that a person is officially joining up with a group of people and supporting their mission. Some do so lightly and some for the wrong reasons, but for those who stick around and get involved, it opens doors for greater influence and a "voice" in the direction being taken.

Marsha

[John Reilly]

I'm starting this thread from the perspective of local church membership and all that it entails as practiced in the Church of the Nazarene.

First, imagine a person who is very active and involved, faithfully gives, and attends regularly but who is not a member. With that person in mind:

Other than board/officer eligibilty and voting rights why encourage or push that person to become a member? What is the benefit to the local body?
How would you answer if that person asked: "Why should I become a member? What difference does it make?"

Wilson

Hi all, Lots of discussion preceeds my answer to Wilson's question. In NH a few NH YANKEES resist membership and as best I understand "JUST BEcause!" But some NH yankees will not be told what to do! NO, Not rules! NH of course is known for its motto, "Live Free and DIE" They live ALMOST as good Christians. Kinda like the "ALMOST perfect game. It really was except the umpire made a bad call. Of course the umpire, Jim Joyce apologized for the mistake and there was then the friendly hand shake and smile. SO it really was a perfect game! Church membership is never a perfect game. Even for the members, there have been in my recent ministry, second and third generation NAZARENES with and/or without PERFECT HEARTS who are NOW not members of the Church of the Nazarene because of one of more BAD CALLS. Membership is meaningless unless we intend to bring back 18th Century Wesleyan Methodism and require and live the RULES by God's grace and in seeking his grace. We have rules that are ignored, The manual states concerning alcohol, our position is abstinence rather than moderation." How many members do you know who use in moderation and ignore abstaining. Some of the most committed workers in the church are NOT members and are doing ministry simply by the Grace of God and through the grace of God and I delight in them because some of them show signs of a PERFECT HEART from time to time. Anyway concerning the ALMOST PERFECT game, the baseball commissioner will never reverse Jim Joyce's bad call but regardless it was still a perfect game. Living the Sanctified Christian Life has nothing to do with membership and "the call will never be reversed."

[Shea Zellweger]

Hi all, Lots of discussion preceeds my answer to Wilson's question. In NH a few NH YANKEES resist membership and as best I understand "JUST BEcause!" But some NH yankees will not be told what to do! NO, Not rules! NH of course is known for its motto, "Live Free and DIE" They live ALMOST as good Christians. Kinda like the "ALMOST perfect game. It really was except the umpire made a bad call. Of course the umpire, Jim Joyce apologized for the mistake and there was then the friendly hand shake and smile. SO it really was a perfect game! Church membership is never a perfect game. Even for the members, there have been in my recent ministry, second and third generation NAZARENES with and/or without PERFECT HEARTS who are NOW not members of the Church of the Nazarene because of one of more BAD CALLS. Membership is meaningless unless we intend to bring back 18th Century Wesleyan Methodism and require and live the RULES by God's grace and in seeking his grace. We have rules that are ignored, The manual states concerning alcohol, our position is abstinence rather than moderation." How many members do you know who use in moderation and ignore abstaining. Some of the most committed workers in the church are NOT members and are doing ministry simply by the Grace of God and through the grace of God and I delight in them because some of them show signs of a PERFECT HEART from time to time. Anyway concerning the ALMOST PERFECT game, the baseball commissioner will never reverse Jim Joyce's bad call but regardless it was still a perfect game. Living the Sanctified Christian Life has nothing to do with membership and "the call will never be reversed."

Or, on the other hand, we could just welcome everyone professing Christ as members...

btw, dunno if it was a typo on your part, but NH's motto is "live free or Die." Changes the meaning somewhat.

[John Reilly]

Shea, I did intentionally misquote the NH motto. Live Free or die does have merit, Live free and die implies bad behavior. I reverse my previous call! But I do wear a helmet when riding a Harley even though in NH people are FREE to ride a motercycle without a helmet. GO NH BIKE WEEK! June 13-20. Live free and die. ooopppps!!!! Live Free or Die. I will get it right one of these days.