Wednesday 2 June 2010

Membership

Pop's recent comment on membership and his (rightful) insistence that the Church should be (is!) the bride of Christ has prompted this post... about experiences of joining and belonging to a membership-type church.

'On the pull'

It's a curious experience turning up a new church, particularly if you have an inkling that it might be one you want to attend regularly. It involves eyeing people up, checking out the oddballs, feeling out the vibes, pricing up the wares. If we're very shallow (I am) I'm interested in what's on the surface (the music, the P.A., the cardigans...)... if we're trying to be more spiritual we try to get a feel for what's going on underneath... It bears an uncommon resemblance to the habits of our pagan brothers who go "on the pull" to "night clubs"... We're so deep!


I wonder what would happen if - when we saw a new couple turn up at the church - we stuck our hands in fin shapes on our heads and shouted 'Shark'...

Anyway, after a few sermons, a lunch invitation, perhaps a church weekend, a prayer meeting or two... a 'special worship Sunday'... you start to feel like this could be church for the moment... it might even be the Home church... The courting period is over... now it's time to meet the parents in law...


'The parents in law'

This is the scary bit... It shouldn't be, it should be joyous and wonderful, like when you fall in love with someone and it's so obvious that it helps her parents overcome their initial reticence and adopt you into their family... But, actually, it's a lot more like asking for someone's hand in marriage. There's that awful moment where you have to strip your soul bare and ask 'the question'... and accept that, despite having known you for the last 2 years, they might suddenly decide that when push comes to shove, you're good enough, or sincere enough, or safe enough... and say 'no'.

For a church, this stage usually involves an 'official visit' of some form - which often involves people with whom you might have already been on holiday, who have possibly cried on your shoulder, and who you've been drinking with in the pub for at least 6 months and who know your in-depth views on the whys and wherefores of nearly everything under the sun, putting on special cardigans and coming to check you out. Alternatively, the church might make a point of sending around people who you don't know and have nothing in common with for an uncomfortable hour or two. It's rather like asking your parents in law if you can marry their daughter, and them sending around the local headmaster and the chairman of the allotments society because they like you too much to trust themselves to make a rational decision.

At this point, it pays to be as careful as possible what evidence you make available for consideration... Some friends of ours were joining a pretty traditional church just at the time that I'd lent them some books by a fairly well-known liberal theologian. They just happened to be sitting in the bookcase alongside their season sets of 24 and Prison Break and CDs by well-known worship leaders - but they were spotted immediately by the visiting Pastor who thought (and I quote) "Ah, we could be in for a bit of trouble here"... again, we're so deep!

The difficulty of 'a trial separation'

You've jumped through the membership hoops, joined up, paid your subs, attended the meetings... got your membership card and learned the secret password so you can read members' only correspondence (this is scarily accurate), turned up on voluntary Saturdays, suffered the vagaries of the flower rota and otherwise demonstrated utter faithfulness to the church in question... You might even have got married in the church... now, for whatever reason, you need a period of trial separation. Actually, in our case, this is more a question that we needed to move for work, and weren't sure if or when we'd be returning...

However, here, you find that unless you return licketty spit, or quickly join another church 'on the rebound' (interesting that you can transfer your membership within the same demoninational... sorry... freudian slip... denominational cabal) ... lo and behold, before too long, the church lawyers are on the case asking for a 'divorce'. The reason give us was that too many absent members mess with the quorum (defn: a minimum number of members in an assembly, society, board of directors, etc., required to be present before any valid business can be transacted) at church meetings, making them much more difficult to achieve an effective decision.

Now, I'm all for absolute democracy... but I have to say, when the secretary of your church writes and suggests (albeit reluctantly) that you might like to withdraw your membership because the fact that you're not physically there gets in the way of church business rules... it hurts rather.

... and then, when you come back... you have to go through the whole palaver all over again, just in case you've changed your fundamental beliefs in the meantime... (we had actually, but that's rather besides the point).

'Confused frowns'

Last, but not least, there's the issue of what to do with the oddness of all of the above, when you're actually in a membership-type church... most of which is met with confused frowns

For example, do you challenge it with the membership, as a member?
- "Heh, heh... dissolve the membership... that's funny... it's a good thing you're joking... oh, you're not?" *confused frown*

Do you embody the challenge and chose to give up your membership, either staying within the church, or continuing to believe - whilst belonging to more than one church?
- "Why are you leaving the church?... you're not?... but you won't be able to attend the members' meetings or vote... don't you care about what happens here?" *confused frown*

Do you side with, or against (or are you deeply, caringly neutral towards) others who also wrestle and come to a different conclusion or the church that let them go?
- "XYZ left the church of their own accord... why are you angry?" *confused frowns*
- "XYZ left the church... why aren't you angry?" *confused frowns*

Or do we simply accept that it's the nature of the beast, and start putting on smart cardigans and visiting our wives and children to see if they are also worthy of being members of our earthly family...

*confused frowns*

7 comments:

  1. One of your best articles yet. I almost snotted on the keyboard when I read "interested in what's on the surface (the music, the P.A., the cardigans...)".

    Indeed you beat me to it. I was drafting a similar membership piece (but not as funny or insightful) which has now gone to the pixel cemetery.

    All I would say to "pro-membershippers" is: Show me a successful organisation with >50 odd people in the decision making team, and I'll let you drive my Lamborghini Reventon...

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are definitely some issues raised here. How we miss the importance of what church should really be about and replace it with organisation and meetings. On the flip how do we deal with issues that need to be decided, without meetings?!
    I think a lot of it has to do with our individual definitions of church. If we promoted commitment to each other, spurring one another on to good deeds, and let the meetings happen as they need to then maybe we'd be in a better place.
    The church should be organic, yet somehow we place all the importance on structures and not people.
    Then there's the feeling that church shouldn't be about what we get out of it, but what we put into it - as they say it's easier to change something from the inside. Imagine a church where everyone came to give what they could! I sense I'm flip flopping back and forth, it just seems that if the church started getting some of this right people would flock to it.
    Me - I'm hoping to stay optimistic...

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Pop... snot on the keyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyboard leads to stickyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy keyyyyyyyyyyyys...

    @ both.. interesting, there's a lot of exploration 'network churches' towards organic and decentralised structures like the Internet, or Google... where groups and movement forms around commonly shared ideas.

    But it still seems that that kind of thing grows until it becomes self-aware, or there's a fight over resources... and then there seems to be a tipping point beyond which some kind of structure has to be imposed for the sake of long term survival.

    I think Nick's suggestion that "If we promoted commitment to each other, spurring one another on to good deeds, and let the meetings happen as they need to then maybe we'd be in a better place" is a good one... I'm all for a bit of semi-anarchic DIY... but how do we deal with structural stuff like buildings and pastors... or don't we need that any more... at least until we get back to them from a far off place of freedom...?

    I've been looking at material from 'church from scratch' (http://www.churchfromscratch.org/ although the address ooks broken at the moment)... and they talk about the tension of moving from something small enough to be totally organic, to being big enough to need a structure... the difficulty of one generation wanting one thing, whilst a later generation wants something else...

    That's something that I met in YWAM in the early 90s as the first generation were giving way to the second... and the visions clashed for 'how' to achieve pretty much the same thing...

    It's not a case of just being able to do something different, when the 'doing' puts - what one generation considers fundamental - at risk.

    ReplyDelete
  4. and again @ pop... don't consign that article to the bin... publish it, I want to read what you wrote!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I second that - publish it!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sadly - Blogger does not have a recycle bin...

    But something similar may be published in due course...

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't read the mirror, as I like my papers to have words, but
    saw this headline and thought of you!

    ReplyDelete