Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Is Church Membership Class biblical?

Forum Quick Jump

37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/14/2001 4:23 AM (GMT -6)

Pia has said pretty much everything I'd want to say in response to Semeia's concerns about covenant partnering. I'll just add one further thought.

Semeia, all I can say is that, so far as I can see, what you are reacting against is not what WHC is advocating re: covenant partnering. If the concept of being a covenant partner meant any of the things you seem to think it means, I'd be as opposed to it as you are. I want to try a different approach that might help shed light on what we DO mean.

Semeia, the reason we chose the term "covenant partner" as opposed to "membership" is precisely because we regard every believer as a "member" of the Body of Christ universal. Anyone who ACTS like a member IS a member, just as everything that ACTS like my body IS a member of my body. e.g. I know my fingers are fingers because they DO fingering things. Being a member of the Body of Christ is a descriptive term. (I've preached on this several times). So all who participate in the body of Christ and do "body" things -- whatever their gifting is -- are part of the body of Christ, by definition.

So, we regard you and anyone else as a member of the Body of Christ when you do body things -- and in your case your doing "body things" at Woodland Hills Church, and I for one am very thankful for that.

The reason we invite people to (freely, without coercion, voluntarily, without Taliban-type control[;), following their own sense of God's leading, etc...] learn the details about our church's theology, vision, structure etc... (in the two classes) and enter into an informed covenant with us is to deepen the unity of vision and commitment of this local body. There is an increased sense of committed solidarity with this community and the vision that defines us when people enter into a biblical convenant with God and with each other. For the leadership, there is an increased sense of support and accountability. While we have no idea where many of the 4 to 5 thousand people who attend the church each week are spiritually, or in terms of the church, this is a group whom we know understands the vision, mission and values of the church and thus is better equipped to help in decision making of the Church. We wouldn't open up (say) decisions about the name of the Church or the budget of the Church or Overseer candidates to first time visitors, for example. Well then, to WHOM should we invite in on these decisions? And note, ANY decision we make here will form a dreaded "REQUIREMENT"! The concept of "covenant partner" is our answer to this question.

Let me draw an analogy. Would you think it odd if we required those who wanted to be overseers of the Church to take two classes to be fully informed about what the Church stands for? Would you think it odd if we required overseers to affirm before other overseers that they were in agreement with the vision and faith of the Church and that they strove to be disciples of Christ in their life? I doubt it, for you understand that a person couldn't possibly help lead the church if they didn't have this understanding and weren't willing to make this commitment. You wouldn't see this as a Taliban assault on their freedom, would you? And you wouldn't feel slighted or second class as as a member of the Body of Christ because you don't feel called to this ministry, would you?

Well, it may help to see the covenant partners as an extension of the board of overseers. This is part of the decision-making body of Woodland Hills Church. They aren't "more" members of the Body of Christ than anyone else, any more than the Overseers are "more" members of the Body of Christ than anyone else. But they are people who feel led to have more "buy in" on the unfolding vision of the Church.

We as a Church are delighted by anyone who is impacted by the Church, and anyone who participates in the Church. But, as much as we love and affirm them, we wouldn't invite a first time visitor authority to help determine the direction of the Church or give feedback on how the ministry is going. Only a person who has taken the time to really know what the vision, mission, values and faith of the church is can give informed input on these matters.

As a body, we know that those who have partnered with us in a committed, covenantal relationship understand and share the vision of the Church as well as help shoulder the responsibility for seeing that this vision is carried out. They are thus in a position to help steer the church. In this sense they share the burden of the Overseers and thus help share the decision making of the Church.

It has nothing to do with whether you or anyone else is "legit" as a Christian, as a member of the Body, as a good person, or anything else. IF you don't feel led to become a covenant partner, don't become one. I have no problems with that. No one is going to put pressure on you.

Does that help "reframe" the matter?

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 12/14/2001 4:32 AM (GMT -6)

Pragma-Man says:

quote:
In American cultural christianity, there's this mentality that christians should make consistent, repeated visits every Sunday to the same Church building.

Maybe we should consider a new way of doing 'church'. No one should attend the same church gathering more than once every three months. This would allow for much greater diversity within our gatherings and prevent folks from just relying on habit to drive them. Also, this would not allow any one person from gathering to themselves a large power base from which to gain control over folks.

Sometimes you just have to think outside the box.

peace and love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 12/14/2001 4:55 AM (GMT -6)

the Doc says:

quote:
While we have no idea where many of the 4 to 5 thousand people who attend the church each week are spiritually

Why do you ( WHC ) put yourselves in the position of not knowing the people you are supposed to have spiritual responsibility over.

I hope you really mean that you, the Doc, have no idea where many of the 5 thousand are at spiritually, and not that WHC ( the 'we' in your statement above ? ) as a whole has no idea.

I trust that the cell groups, or whatever they are called, are filling this knowledge gap.

Please don't view this as an attack on WHC, I'm just generally concerned about how well mega-churches can minister to the individual needs of large groups of people.

peace and lots of love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 12/14/2001 5:41 AM (GMT -6)

Doc, Yes, that reframe helps quite a bit. But will you at least grant that many WHC attendees perceive Covenant Partnership as membership, and non-covenant partnership as non-membership?

I have no problem with decision-making only including people who have made an extra commitment to the church. That makes total sense. I have never refuted that. In fact I have repeatedly made the point that I have no problem with that.

My problem surrounds the issue of "belonging". What I hear you say is that everyone "belongs" to the body of Christ. I agree. But that doesn't mean that I "belong" to every church I have ever attended. My issue with WHC is that I see no way for me to "belong" to it unless I agree to this higher standard and want to be a "decision maker". And what you just said confirms this.

Let me ask you this: Are there "members" of Woodland Hills Church? Who are they? Is everyone who attends a "member"--or is there no such thing?

If I am not a decision maker, am I just a visitor? What do you call people who go to Woodland Hills Church regularly? Attenders? Members?

My honest impression after several years of attendance is that if I do not become a covenant partner there is a very important sense in which I do not belong to Woodland Hills Church. That makes me sad, and I would like to change that perception. Your reframe actually confirms that perception, because being a member of the Body of Christ of course is different from being connected with a particular church. I was a member of the Body of Christ long before I had anything to do with Woodland Hills Church.

You have assured me that I am a member of the Body of Christ. But what you have not done is assure me that I am a member of the body of Woodland Hills Church in particular. Are you saying that there ARE NO members of Woodland Hills Church, only decision-makers and non-decision-makers? Or are you saying that EVERYONE is a member of Woodland Hills Church, from first-time visitor to covenant partner? Do you see my confusion?

I'm not talking about leadership. I have no problem with requirements for leadership. I'm talking about belonging.

Am I wrong to feel that I don't belong to Woodland Hills Church? Are you telling me that I DO belong? Where is the disconnect?

I am not a Woodland Hills Covenant Partner. What am I? A member? An attendee? A visitor? How do you refer to non-Covenant Partner contributing long-term attendees? How do I get to belong to Woodland Hills Church without becoming a "decision-maker"?

I would like to belong to Woodland Hills Church, but I have no interest in becoming a "decision maker". How do I go about that?

Sorry for all the questions, especially since they are mostly all asking the same thing. I would like to feel like I belong. Right now I very clearly feel that I don't.

Doc, when you say:

quote:
We as a Church are delighted by anyone who is impacted by the Church, and anyone who participates in the Church.

Your very language presupposes that I am not a true part of the Church. "We as a Church" - translation "overseers and covenant partners"- are delighted by "anyone who is impacted by the Church" or "participates" - translation "non-overseers and non-covenant partners". You could not make it any plainer: I am not a part of the Church, I am just someone who is impacted and participates in the Church. Your statement is non-sensical without this presupposition. The "we" does not include me, unless you are saying I am delighting in my impact on myself.

Do you see why I feel like I do not truly belong? I am not a part of the "we" of the Church. I would like to be, but it seems that the only way I can is to become a covenant partner. Do you see my problem? Is there a solution to this?

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/14/2001 7:13 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia,

I am genuinely confused. Are you advocating memberships as churches usually have them? If so, why the derogatory analogies (mindless Gorillas, power-mongering Taliban)? I hear you criticizing WHC BOTH for having Covenant Partnership (which you have confused with membership for most of this conversation) AND for not having membership. I can't hold both of these complaints together in my mind.

I think I am seeing your desire to belong while rejecting what you think is the only way to belong at WHC. See if what follows makes any difference:

We do have a roster with the names of ALL of the Covenant Partners AND and extensive list of regular attenders (yes, the term we use is "attenders" or "regular attenders"). YOU are on that list. You asked about a roster. We don't publish it, mostly for financial reasons, but you ARE in it (I just checked this morning!). Even if you don't feel like you belong, we (WHC by way of the roster) already assume that you do belong. I attended WHC for years before they had CP and I felt the same tension. But I resolved it in my mind that I WAS a "member" of WHC as much as anyone else is. If I were still in the same position (essentially the one you are in) I would still consider myself identified with WHC, so long as I was regularly attending. That is when I had doubts about my belonging, those periods when I attended less frequently.

As far as your moral delimma goes, I can only tell you what I think applies to anyone wrestling with this issue. Doc alluded to it, but I'd make it more explicit:

In your prayers, ask God to reveal to you whether God wants you to be a Covenant Partner with WHC. I have found that when I have taken this approach to an issue, God has sometimes led me to do things that I didn't understand (things that required faith) and couldn't have had the gall (things that presuppose God's grace and empowerment) to do on my own (getting married was this way for me). But God has already promised both that God's grace is sufficient to cover our sin and God's strength is made perfect in weakness. If we assume these by faith, we can indeed enter into a covenant, but only as the Lord leads.

I do acknowledge the seriousness with which you take signing your name to something, and precisely that seriousness is appropriate in this situation.

There is no intention on my part to pressure you to do anything. You asked for help with a moral delimma, I recommended prayer. Whether or not you become a covenant partner is none of my business. Of course, if you became a CP then that would become something of my business in that we share in that particular covenant together.

I do not deny that there is something offensive or exclusive about this whole process, but that, as doc pointed out, is unavoidable. We often have to pass by offense and commit to some things anyway. Faith is surely like that. Covenants ARE a matter of faith. If God is leading you to do it, it would be disobedient not to. If God is not leading you to do it, it would be disobedient TO do it. That is why I recommend prayer on this and ANY issue of covenant.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Pragma-Man
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 23

Posted 12/14/2001 8:21 AM (GMT -6)

Semia,

Modes beat me to the punch. I was going to say that how he describe's his church's covenant partnership perspective, does not apply to this thread I started concerning church membership.

It sounds like you and Modes go to the same church? WHC? from what Modes says, WHC does not have members. Just a group of people who publically commit to eachother.

Or do you not "buy into" the distinct difference Modes has pointed out?

Don't remember if Modes ever responded to my question. Maybe you know since you go to the same church:

When the covenant partner thing is promoted at WHC (I assume it is promoted from the pulpit.) Do people get it that this is not membership class, or do they "shut down" and not listen to the subtle difference?

Pragma-Man

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 12/14/2001 9:33 AM (GMT -6)

Pragma-Man, We have attended Woodland Hills for 2-3 years, and I have always associated, based on what is said from the pulpit (combined with my own bias, obviously) covenant partnership with membership. I am STILL VERY CONFUSED listening to Doc's and Modes' responses. On the one hand they say it is not membership, and describe it as a sort of leadership training, and yet it is always promoted as something which the church hopes everyone will do. (It is not promoted as something that obviously only a smaller group of people who are called to leadership will do. It is promoted as something that the church ultimately wishes that MOST people would do. At least that is how we hear it.) And the implication is very much one of membership. It is not spoken of as special leadership training, so much as it is talked about as a way of "getting to know the church" so you can decide whether or not you want to "take the step" toward "becoming a partner". Now maybe I am remembering wrong. Maybe these aren't the exact words. But this is what I have heard, from my point of view. Even on this thread and the other thread it is promoted as something that shows strong commitment - and by implication to not do it is a lack of strong commitment. By the way, even the language of "partners" suggests the body, not a special group of "leaders".

When Doc says,

quote:
We as a Church are delighted by anyone who is impacted by the Church, and anyone who participates in the Church.

How can I read that as anything but a statement which shows that the "Church" is the overseers and the covenant partners? What does that make me? He's saying it to me, with the assumption that I am not a part of that "we". That is what I have heard from the pulpit for these past years. I have a very difficult time interpreting that in any way other than that I do not "belong" in the same way this other group does. I very much hear it as not having the "spiritual stamp of approval". Nothing has ever been presented to counter that view. From time to time Doc gives sermons that rail against the "maverick", "lone-ranger" type Christian that doesn't "commit" to a particular church. I very much hear that as directed toward myself. So does Iconoclast. Because after all we do not "belong" to a church as far as we can tell. The only "method" of belonging to Woodland Hills Church as a body that we have ever heard is that of "covenant partnership". The idea that our name is on a roster is news to me. That has never been communicated.

I have nothing against membership or belonging. What I am against is a membership that excludes people, or requires a class or a signed statement to join. Again and again everyone says that this is not membership. But the very language they use to talk about the church is inclusive/exclusive, and it implies membership.

If I "belong" to WHC just as much as the Covenant Partners, why do they keep talking to me as if I don't? If covenant partnership is leadership training that not everyone is called to do, why do people keep insisting on its value for everyone? Why would anyone be upset that I reject signing a covenant statement if it is understood that only a smaller group of "leaders" will feel called to do this?

I am confused. Doc's and Modes' posts were helpful, but they still leave me with a lot of questions. If I "belong" to this church just like a covenant partner belongs, why don't I feel like I do? I wonder what the other thousands of people feel? Perhaps it is something particular about Iconoclast and I that leads to this feeling. I am open to that possibility. Perhaps if someone told me how it is expressly communicated from the pulpit or the bulletin that people like me belong, I could change my perception. Doc's post actually communicated the opposite to me. What I heard him say was that he was "OK" with me not belonging. That's good to hear, but it doesn't really help me. I was very glad to hear from Modes that my name is on a roster. But for some reason that still doesn't make me feel like a part of the "we" of the church.

Do you hear what I'm saying? What am I missing?

Pragma-Man said:

quote:
WHC does not have members. Just a group of people who publically commit to eachother.

OK. What does that make the people who don't publicly commit to each other in the form of a Covenant Statement? Especially in light of how the value of this is stressed, along with Doc's sermons on "lone-ranger" Christianity?

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/14/2001 8:37 PM (GMT -6)

We (I'm talking leadership of WHC here) need to seriously think and pray about ways to make all who feel spiritually aligned with the church apart of the church, whether or not they are covenant partners. It concerns me that someone can have signficant "buy in" to the vision and values of the church, be part of it for two years, and yet not feel like they "belong" simply because they, for their own reasons, don't want to be covenant partners.

I appreciate the feedback Semeia.

Doc

Edited by - GregBoyd on 12/15/2001 12:51:25 PM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 12/15/2001 2:41 AM (GMT -6)

the pastor Doc says:

quote:
Doc: I think you would agree that a major problem today among American Christians is a "consumer" mentality where people never grow out of the "whats-in-it-for-me" mindset and float from Church to Church (something it almost seemed like Might-be-Don and Pragma-man were recommending!) like they do clothing stores?

Whoops... I forgot you can't see into my head like the demons can do. Many churches take on an almost cult-like following of the preacher-man. By shifting the loyality from a local body to the church body at large these kind of power hungry preachers can be limited in their effect.

By reopening the local grocery store, instead of relying on giant supermarkets, we could bring the gospel closer to the people. We would give up the variety of services, but the personal touch would return.

peace and love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/15/2001 7:54 AM (GMT -6)

I understand your concern, might-be-don, but I'm convinced encouraging people to simply be "Christians at large," as it were, would have the opposite effect you desire. I agree with you, however, that we must shift our understanding of the congregational gathering (however big it is) as the primary unit of Christianity to smaller groups. Here is where the "personal touch" takes place.

Blessings
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Pragma-Man
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 23

Posted 12/17/2001 9:53 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia,

You responded to my question just as I thought you would. Modes and Doc put it their views rather nicely on this thread, but I wondered what the practical, realistic perception is of those who "sit in the pews."

So you just confirmed that there's at least one person (you) that thinks this covenant stuff is a marketing effort to re-name church membership. I suspect there's more than 1.

So even with Doc's (and church leadership's) best intentions, he hasn't accounted for the fact that many church goers are conditioned (via american cultural christianity - not biblical christianity) to grasp these "covenant" type concepts as church membership.

What I am doing (and think you join me?) is trying to debate the biblical reasons for membership, and then expose the fact that how american's do membership is really about developing repeat donors.

I don't think that trying to create repeat donors is wrong either! I think I should give to the Lord via my church!!!!

But Semeia, you articulate much better what I think. In an effort to build repeat donors, the marketing appeal was introduced into the american churh, that joining a distinctive group makes you special. To join that group, you (in theory) are asked to give faithfully and regularly to help fund that distinctive group.

I propose that church leaders across america need to re-think their basic assumption that membership, or creating a distinctive sub-group, is an effective way to get donations and pay the electric bill.

It is my belief that most of us really don't care about membership. But we still give $. What we care about is real relationships of committment and accountability to eachother. If the convention to arrive at that place in the most efficient manner happens to be membership, than people go for it.

But you and I know that we can achieve that (in a much more genuine way) without having to go to a class and give $ regularly.

On this thread, I think we all are in agreement that we can have committed, accountable relationships without church membership class.

So the ONLY reason I can think to explain why we have this tradition, is $ donations.

Can anyone else explain to me why we have membership drives at Churches?

Pragma-Man

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/17/2001 1:09 PM (GMT -6)

I'm not in principle opposed to the theory that church membership was originally created as a way of getting repeat donors. In most affairs in life, the bottom line is $$$$. YOU CAN'T OUT-CYNISIZE ME!!! But I don't believe that this needs to be the reason behind church "membership." Indeed, I think it repugnant that it ever is.

You CAN have community and accountibility without a covenant relationship. But covenant is always good for community and accountiblity. Indeed, in all our relationships its better to MAKE EXPLICIT what our relationships are then leave them ambiguous. It is better to relate WITH UNDERSTANDING than without it. All genuine relationships involve some level of commitment and responsibility, and a covenant is simply a way of making these commitments and respnsibilities EXPLICIT and therefore MUTUAL.

I believe that doing so among a group brings to group to a higher level of understanding and therefore group solidarity.

THAT is what a "covenant partner" is at our church. There are no financial pledges whatsoever.

Love

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual