I’ve wanted to have this discussion on the old blog for quite some time. Riddle me this….
In your humble opinion is it more important for someone to be actively involved in a local church fellowship or to be an official member of a local church fellowship? Don’t cop out…make it an “either / or”. Pick a side and defend it.
I guess I’d have to ask the question of why somebody that’s “actively involved” isn’t an official church member? Either way, somebody that’s an official member but isn’t actively involved sounds an awful lot like a check-box Christian to me.
They need to be involved. For a church to do the most good we have to flip flop the attender/involved attender ration from 80/20 to 20/80. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean on Sunday mornings either.
Tony, I don’t think either of those are the biblical picture of the church. You are to be an active member.
j razz
Going to a Cardinals baseball game means that I am a spectator. Being an active player makes me part of the team(through the shed blood of Jesus Christ). This may not be a “biblical” picture of the Church, that is why Jesus taught us in parables…..
Can’t argue with you, J.
My point is that I’d rather have 10 very active non-members than 1000 (about what I have right now) inactive “official” members.
Agreed: If you’re in the kingdom, you should be an active member of a local church.
I guess I’d answer by saying that inactive members are a more serious problem than active non-members. I agree with j razz that neither are ideal.
Unless there are extenuating circumstances (illness, pregnancy, elderly shut-in, etc.), my church removes people from the membership rolls after six months of non-attendance. If the church communicates the idea that membership is meaningless, people will treat it as such. I think this is what leads to a lot of people being heavily involved in a church but feeling no need to enter into membership.
Great words, Peter.
I’m thinking of proposing something similar to what your church does.
I’d like to put the names of those members who haven’t been here in a year on an inactive list. We’ll make these folks the “target” of some very special in-reach to determine the issue(s) surrounding their departure / lack of activity with us.
After a period of 6 months to a year, if they still have not returned after our best efforts, I would recommend that they be removed from membership.
The goal for me is not culling the membership or making our per capita giving look better. It’s about letting folks know that church membership is a privilege, not a right. And as such, membership has certain responsibilities attached to it.
Tony,
The church I am a member of (Cornerstone Community Church)requires that every potential member sign a covenant affirming certain biblical truths as well as agree to fight for the salvation (read sanctification) of their fellow members as much as they fight for their own. This is asking a lot, but no more than what the Bible already states is our responsibility. It also has each new potential member to come before the church body to present them as a potential new member. The church is then told that if there are any reasons why this person should not join the church that during the next week, come to the elders and speak to them about it. If no one does, then they are presented for membership the following week at which time they will give their testimony which includes them being able to share the gospel. Even before they are presented to the church, they go before at least one elder to share with them their testimony and are asked to share the gospel. From here it is expected that they will regularly fellowship with the church body. What we find is that the church body makes the effort to go after the ones who seem to not uphold the covenant. This makes the elders’ job of oversight easier and lets the member know that others in the church body not only notice when they are gone but it affects them being unified as a body of believers. If someone misses three consecutive Sunday Morning services without notifying someone, the elders place a call to that person to see what is going on. Nothing mean or demeaning, just a call to see what has happened that they have not been able to make it for the past 3 weeks.
Oversight is taken seriously and I think when it is, the members take it seriously and this aides in taking Christianity seriously which leads to active members as opposed to the scenario you pose above.
j razz
Tony,
I believe we are called as christians to be active in our church. By being active I mean regularly attending, tithing, being involved at meetings, ect. This does not mean that we must teach or serve as church officers unless led by the Lord to do so.
I’m not a pastor, but I’d think that being actively involved is much more important than being a member. Being passive is not an option, right?…
We need to be active…but we need to be responsibly active–meaning that we are there to advance the Kingdom rather than to see that the church is run ‘properly’.
Because there is so much of the latter, (and all it takes is a handful of folks) many choose the option of just being the official member because they are so turned off by the bickering that that handful can create.
I vote for simplifying the running of the church as much as possible so that more time can be spent in worship, Bible study, and advancing the Kingdom.
I know I got off on a tangent here, but I think you catch the drift as to why I think some are content to ‘just be members.’
Minimize the chance for bickering and you’ll probably have a lot more who seek to be active members of the fellowship. OR AT LEAST I WOULD HOPE.
Now the question is: “How is that done?”