Do Churches Need “Membership”?
There’s been some trending away from the idea of “membership” in the church as an artificial stricture over what some claim ought to be an “organic” form. I understand and agree with this sentiment to some degree, but at the same time have qualms against it. Most of these thoughts are summarized in a previous post but the general gist of my opinion is capsulated by the words of a friend: (membership) is “the difference between guests and hosts, members and visitors, and discerning supporters and empty critics”. That rings true with me, as the church abounds in critics who have essentially given nothing of themselves to any particular body. But to be fair, I am open to disagreement and even (no surprise) criticism. So?
Like
I’ve never been a part of a membership church but I do see a lot of problems with being nondenominational and non membership. So I look at the issue of membership with some hope. Perhaps it will help solve some of these issues. At least that’s what a number of well respected planters claim. The biggest question I have is, “Does membership really weed out people?” I would think that a lot of people would just go through the class and nod their heads but do not really believe or understand what they’re getting themselves into and the same problems would persist. Again, I’ve never been a part of a membership church so this is pure speculation to me.
I’m thinking that going through the membership process itself has a way of cementing that commitment. It is one and the same beginning of commitment and commitment itself. In that sense it’s almost a supplement to the sacrament of baptism…
In this sense membership shouldn’t be taken flippantly, and should actually be made quite rigorous… ?