On belonging and membership

Recently some pastors were challenged by my description of how my former church handled membership. As a “covenant community” church there was no “voting” on membership. You became a member of the congregation by entering into covenant with the congregation and signing the “book of covenant”—the defining, living document and confession of the congregation. Specifically, the conversation was an attempt to help them get clear about their understanding (and assumptions) about membership, participation, and belonging.

The issues of “belonging” and “membership” are perennial. That debate has been going on since the first century. Throughout the course of history the church has struggled with how to be the church in the world (while not of it). She has also struggled with what constitutes who belongs to the church (or who belongs IN the church, or, to whom does the church belong?). Everybody? Certainly not. One clarion call that comes around now and again is the call for the church of the redeemed only. That is, a call to authentic discipleship and legitimate membership into the Body of Christ. This usually in times when the church has been too inclusive in either its attempts to “reach the unredeemed” or when the church enjoys the dubios status of being so much a part of the culture that there is no discernable difference between church and culture (see Richard Neibuhr’s classic work, Christ and Culture and the recent interpretation by Carter, Rethinking Christ and Culture, who makes some interesting points, though I don’t think much improves on Niebuhr’s original and seminal work.).

I suspect that calls for narrow and strict conditions and qualifications for membership may miss the point. Every congregation, as is true for every community has the right to decide who can and cannot belong, of course. But a congregation’s attempts to set up boundary fences about who is “in” and who is “out” may fail to appreciate the reality that there are different kinds and statuses of “belonging.” Those kinds of stances lack appreciation for the nuances of how people “belong” and may be the result of theological or cultural misunderstandings, the chief one being the notion that “belonging” to the (local) congregation is equivalent to “belonging” to the Church (big “C”) or belonging to the Body of Christ. One schema that seeks to address this is the “open set/closed set” way of thinking about the issue rather than the binary “in or out” way of thinking about “belonging.” Administrative demarcations of “membership” may identify who is “in” or not, but people’s level and quality of “participation” and “belonging” is a whole different matter altogether. Not everyone “belongs” to any given church in the same ways; and people’s level of commitment and belonging are informed by too many variables than I can grasp to make a judgment about what constitutes legitimate “membership.”

I can appreciate the attractiveness of current so-called “post-Christian-post-denominational-post-modern-emergent-seeker” “open” membership relativism. But, sorry, I’ll go the other way on this one. Not everybody does or can “belong” to the church. Churches, even in the form of congregations, are a form of faith community. And like all communities, they have boundaries related to who belongs and who does not that help maintain their corporate values, identity, and purpose. But that does not mean that we should close the doors to “others,” nor does it mean that the church should overly-accommodate people in an attempt to “entice” them into belonging (or “membership”).

However, I’m not much in support of individualistic notions about faith, either. At a conference some time ago a seminary professor shared his experience with a 20-something young man, a waiter at a restaurant he’d visited with a group, I think, who gave that old statement, “I’m spiritual, but not religious. I believe in God but I don’t believe in the church nor would want to be a member of the organized church.” You know the schpeal.

This person shared that story it in a way that communicated that (1) that was a valid stance, and that (2) we should “understand” and “accept” those who’ve arrived at that stance. Knowing and sympathetic nods all around the room from the other participants.

Well, it was not one of my better moments (perhaps because I’d just come from a seven hour drive to get there), and I just couldn’t let that go. So I said my piece, basically that while we do hear that stance often, I’ve come to the conclusion that it is basically an adolescent, egocentric, and selfish stance. The person is basically saying, “I think my PERSONAL spirituality is more “right,” and superior to that of people going to church. Furthermore, I’ve made the value decision that I will not invest my life, talents, or gifts in a community of people. My faith is my own, it’s all about, and between, me and God, and I will make no attempt at practicing generativity.”

I ended by saying that we need to hold people accountable when they make statements like that or take that kind of stance. Can they give a rationale and justification for that stance (aside from saying, “Well, that’s just how I feel about it”)? Where the heck do they get a theology that endorses that stance or justifies taking that position or attitude? (Certainly it’s not reflective of any corporate understanding of faith related to the Body of Christ). Yes, all people are spiritual by nature, as much as some would repress it, but by its very nature spirituality seeks communion. I suspect that if we would do that more often we’d discover that that position is one informed by irresponsibility and shallowness rather than “enlightenment.”

“I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died.” — Steven Wright