quote:

---

Don, does your church have members?

---

quote:

---

Don,
What is the vision that God has given your church?

---

quote:

---

Thanks Modes for the history on how your church does "membership."

The only problem I can see with that approach is a "marketing" problem. I gotta think that when covenant classes are promoted from the pulpit, people grasp the concept as church membership class.

From what you say, that's not what it is at all. Does your church have some way of promoting the opportunity to learn more while showing the distintive difference from membership class?

Just being practical
Pragma Man

---

quote:

---

In a culture that is almost incurably individualistic and scared of committment, this is not an easy sell. But it is an important one.

---

This is illustrated by the fact that I, an Existentialist! , find myself trying to draw people away from unhealthy individualism!

The irony in this is rich.

Maybe its just that you all are incurable Anabaptists?


"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

quote:

---

"The mistake they (the terrorists) made was in thinking that freedom was a weakness. It is in fact our greatest strength."

Boy, does that reek with theological insight or what? I don't mean to be name-calling here, but ask the question bluntly: Is God, like the Taliban, afraid of freedom? Is he less glorious if he doesn't control everything? Does humanity glorify God more if we are predetermined to choose him (or not) than if we have the freedom to choose him or not? Or is God STRONGER and WISER if he grants humans freedom -- with all the possible problems that causes?

Even more bluntly: Does God operate like the Taliban by ENFORCING his will on others, or does he operate more like the United States which maximizes the freedom of others (within necessary and appropriate parameters)?

---

Here on this thread, Doc said:

quote:

---

In a culture that is almost incurably individualistic and scared of committment, this is not an easy sell. But it is an important one.

---

Semeia: So is freedom about individualism and fear of commitment? Or is freedom a sign of strength, a sign that principles (and vision) have the power to take effect on their own, without a "heavy hand" enforcing compliance and conformity?

"I don't mean to be name-calling here, but ask the question bluntly:" Is the Church, "like the Taliban, afraid of freedom?" Doc, do you object to my substitution here? Can a comparison be made?

Why does the church feel it needs a class and a signed document to get commitment from people? Why is this "control culture" method necessary for buy in?

The covenants in the Bible were between God and his people. I have no problem making a covenant with God. My covenant with God is fulfilled in my personal relationship with Jesus Christ. As my father-in-law said, "The only person who claims he's a vicar of Christ on earth is the Pope -- and I'm not going to do a covenant with him!" Could someone please draw out more clearly for me how this relates specifically to the church requiring a signed, public commitment?

The New Testament is a new Covenant, one which looks very different from the Old "Covenant".

The New Covenant is a relationship with the living God. I see absolutely no parallel between the profound commitment that God makes to his children, through the blood of Christ, and the rather artificial "hoop jumping" that the church requires of its members. God's commitment is freely given to rank sinners such as us. God shed his blood without a single promise from his children to "be good", "follow scripture", "give money to the church", or even to "stop murdering". He made his promise to us not only without such promises, but almost to drive the point home in the most shocking way -- he made the promise to us "through" the act of us murdering him! Does the church model itself after this? Does the church model itself after God's outrageous act of incomprehensible mercy? Or does the church take the legalistic Old Testament version of a "covenant" and use it for its own purposes?

God's covenant: God is saying to us that God all on his own makes the covenant and we are free to enter in and join that covenant, and to the extent to which we fulfill our part is the extent to which we are fully covered by that covenant. So we can start small, and are encouraged to grow greatly over time by the very nature of the covenant. In the very beginning, in our sinful state, we "belong" to Christ and receive the "benefit" of membership. All we are asked to do is to accept Jesus as our Savior -- to accept the gift of his covenant.

Church's covenant: the Church is saying to us that we must first meet a set of obligations (set of classes) then sign a set of promises about our good intentions BEFORE we get the benefit of "belonging" to the church. (Free pizza! ) The Church is not promising what IT will do for us, it is asking us to promise what we will do for IT. Shouldn't the church be modeling the "servant leadership" it it is promoting in its members? With the classes and the covenant statement the church is asking for something UP FRONT -- you will not get the benefit of membership until you show alignment with with the vision by the "works" of the class and signed statement. Isn't true servant leadership to offer the BENEFIT up front - like Jesus did - and then watch the growth happen when people freely "belong" and receive the fruit of the Spirit, which then allows them to "do" whatever the Church aims for as its goals?

I am in full agreement with Pragma-Man when he says:

quote:

---

But why do we have the cultural convention of membership to a Church, complete with classes and such?

Shouldn't we all, on an individual basis, decide to pursue, consistently attend, and become apart of a Church fellowship and family? Shouldn't we all choose to submit ourselves to healthy, accountable relationships with other believers we've developed a Christ centered friendship with?

Wouldn't that satify the biblical mandate of fellowship and assembling together?

So why do Churches push for us to "join" their particular church? As a follower of Jesus, am I not already a member of Christs' church universal?

Can someone explain the actual biblical texts / doctrine that says we should actually complete membership classes?

Maybe I'm just ignorant, so I'd like to see what other more learned folk have to say.

For now, I think membership classes are more about helping a local church develop a targeted marketing strategy to cultivate consistent donations. I'm not against the local church cultivating it's congregation to help raise funds.

I am against creating almost a "class" culture where for more of my time, I can get the spiritual stamp of approval for attending a 1 month course.

---

And I agree with Don when he says:

quote:

---

ps. when the church I attend feels the need to place a mission statement on a seal on the wall, we are headed on a path that leads us away from the very thing we desire to do. What we DO should make the mission crystal clear.

---

So far, Doc, no one has made a compelling argument which shows any biblical foundation for this at all. And in particular, how does this square with Jesus' covenant with us? Is our church modeled on the Old Testament or the New? Isn't servant leadership about GIVING before ASKING? Didn't Christ show his disciples that washing someone else's feet was a critical part of their leadership? How do the classes and the document fall into this model?

Why is the church afraid of freedom?

Thanks,
Semeia




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

quote:

---

I know you often speak metaphorically. I do not interpret your metaphors literally, but I do take them seriously. What criteria do you use for choosing which analogies—e.g. gorillas and the Taliban—to make your points? I feel like consideration for people who have made the commitment you are criticizing is not a criteria for you. I have a hard time not taking these metaphors personally, I feel insulted and defensive.

---

quote:

---

In the Bible, the concept of a covenant at the center of our relationship with God. Whether between God and us, people with each other, or both, it always involved pledges, ceremonies, and memorials (reminders). People can be deeply committed without a covenant, of course. But the covenant brings understanding, union, and accountability. It doesn't CONSTITUTE commitment, but it does EXPRESS it, and in expressing it, it helps constitute it.…

Compared to most evangelical churches (especially Baptists) the WHC covenant statement is incredibly minimalistic. It was intentionally so, because we didn't want to enter into the sea of what is and is not "consistent with Scripture."…It seemed to me and the rest of those who were designing the statement that a believer should desire to live a life consistent with Scripture, whatever their understanding of it may be. But, in the light of this discussion, I also feel the force of having (never MAKING) people promise "to live a life consistent with Scripture." None of us live up to this. Just read Matthew 5.…

A covenant is NOT a contract. You buy cars and sell houses with contracts. You get married with a covenant. It's not about "whats in it for me, whats in it for you"? THAT is a contract. It's about "what vision do we share together"?

The goal of the covenant is to be no more or less inclusive than to encompass all who want to align themselves with the vision God has given to WHC. As a statement of INTENT, not achievement.…

---

quote:

---

Pia, thanks for the in-depth response. I appreciate the insight.

I guess what it comes down to is that I don't see the distinction you make between "membership" and "covenant partnership". Perhaps if one could be a member of the church by simply regularly attending - and eventually showing up in a church directory - and then if one wanted a deeper commitment they could do something additional and become a "covenant partner", then I wouldn't see "covenant partnership" as "membership". I think if you did a poll of people attending WHC, most would equate covenant partnership with membership. Perhaps this is just a perception problem. However, since it is the only sign of "belonging", it is hard for me to see it differently. Now if there was a church directory that included the names of everyone who regularly attends, that would be a different "sign" of belonging.

The act of putting my signature on a document is serious to me, and for me it does represent an agreement of sorts with the church policies. No amount of telling me that it is not like that will change my perception, because I have a whole history of signed documents in my life that give a different perception. The sign that has been chosen in this case is one that comes with a lot of baggage for a lot of people.

I disagree with the interpretation of the covenant statement, and I do believe the church is discriminatory in spite of its slogan of "Tearing Down the Walls". However, this disagreement in interpretation goes a long way toward explaining why you have no problem with the statement and I do.

What do you think about the idea of having a standard membership that has nothing to do with signed documents and promises, but is more along the lines of membership in other churches of other denominations, where you just eventually show up in the church directory after a length of attendance? You could still have your covenant partnership for people who wanted to show a higher commitment to the overall vision and policies of the church, and who felt this kind of covenant was the only way they could accomplish that commitment. But that way the thousands of people like me who are not willing to go that route for whatever reason would still have a way of belonging.

By the way, giving people a sense of belonging INCREASES their commitment naturally. It seems so backward to me to get the commitment first, with the belonging coming after the declaration.

What do you think?

---