Membership Lost

Boy, I agree with you on this. I am very concerned about the laxness. Recently we purged our rolls of inactive members. We sent letters and told them what was going on, cited the constitutional requirements, and asked them to contact us. Only one lady contacted us saying she wanted to be on the membership rolls. This lives less than 1/2 mile from here. People see her out all the time. But not once in five years has she darkened the door of this church. She called, said she wanted to be maintained on the membership rolls, but still didn't show up. So we removed her.

People seem to think that membership is a "status" instead of an obligation. I think the latter. Church membership means nothing if you are not coming ...

Have you (or anyone else) ever read Church Polity by Mark Dever. I think he deals with this issue quite extensively through historic Baptist documents. I have started it but haven't read a lot of it.

 

I've heard of it, but not read it yet. I'm afraid too. It might expose how far we have drifted.

 

So, a person can come in and fill out the card and do little else and be ok while someone who really gets involved in working but is scatter brained about those little cards can be considered not in good standing and not acting like a proper member? That's what it sounds like to me. And it's funny that no mention of membership roles is made in the entire NT - other than to mark false teachers and heretics so you can stay away from them. Could it be, we've added requirements that were not there in the beginning?

It's not that its confusing, and accountability is anathema. If you need those cards to tell who is and who is not a regular attendee, then it seems you don't know those you labor with that well. The apostle Paul said to get to know those you labor with. We should not be so disconnected from each other that we cannot tell when someone is there or not from week to week.

 

But, did you visit her to get to know her and see if their was any problem or anything else? Seeing someone around town is a great deal different than actually getting to know someone.

 

Theoretically yes, but that is not how it works in practice. The eligibility list has never been disputed. In fact, we don't even read it. It is not an issue. It is a protection for the church body.

ACtually, the NT makes it clear that membership rolls (and roles) were a part of the NT church. Consider this:

1. In Acts 2, there were 3,000 souls added to the church. Who were they added two? The 120 in Acts 1. Clearly the very inception of the church involved a clear delineation of who was a part of it and who was not.
2. In Acts 3, the number came to be about 5,000 souls. Once again, we see a clear delineation that the church knew who was a part of them and who was not.
3. In Acts 6, the church (a clearly known group) were told to "select from among them." How did they knew who was "among them"? Because they had a membership roll.
4. In 1 Tim 5, there was a "list" that widows were to be put on under certain qualifications. The existence of a "list" and "widows" to choose from shows very clearly that there was membership in the NT church.

So the reality is that membership rolls are not an addition to the NT church. The absence of membership rolls is a failure to be like the NT church.

I don't need them. And no one else there does. But the church body needs an objective way to control the church. Many churches don't have this type of setup and they have no problem. This was a church where a bunch of inactive members showed up and affected the outcome of a business meeting. In other words, they voted in a church that they were not even attending.

This church values the NT meaning of membership. And so we take steps to encourage it and to protect it.

 

I did not visit her. Others did. There was a problem: She did not want to fulfill her obligations to the local body of Christ. She was visited by members of the body. She was encouraged to come back by members of the body. She refused. The problem was that she did not take her responsibility to the body seriously. She was "forsaking the assembling of herself together." She was not "provoking [other believers] to love and to good works." In short, she was disobedient to Scripture. She was exhorted and lovingly encouraged to return. She chose not to. What else were we supposed to do?

 

How long were the visits and with what frequency? An occasional 10-15 minute visit isn't the same as really getting to know someone. It is really hard to get to the deep places in a person's life in a short time. And what I'm hearing is that you wrote her off without taking any effort yourself. Was she uplifted in fervant prayer? How often? Once or occasionally or daily? For how long? A day, a week, a month, or longer? Many things can be done. Sometimes nothing can be done while other times we really need to go that extra mile to reach someone.

 

TC,

As a deacon in my church, I can relate to Pastor Larry's issues. There are some "inactive" members that don't care. We can love them, pray for them, visit them, and grieve that they have fallen away.

Follow-up is hard work, but it's worth it. However, how long do we continue to labor for those that contiunually reject the church? When do we "dust off our feet" as Jesus commanded and move on to those that will listen? I also have responsibility to keep up with members that are active and minister to their needs. Scripture compels me to minister FIRST to those that are maintaining active covenant fellowship with the church. "Inactive" members that willfully stay away are no longer in covenant with the church.

There are no easy answers here.

 

TC,

There were a number of calls made over years of time. This was not something we did quickly, nor without a careful approach. Remember, I have been here for 5 years, and she has not been here even one time in five years. No one remembers how long it was before that.

The bottom line is that some people are not willing to follow Christ. It is interesting to see Christ's approach to this. He didn't go begging people to come and follow him. He commanded their allegiance and demanded that they follow him. He didn't spend a lot of time going after wayward people. In fact, when John 6 tells us that many no longer followed him, we don't see one iota of evidence that Christ went begging for them. He is a master, not a beggar.

We pray for people, we call on them, we disciple them, we reach out to them, we preach the Scriptures, and call on people to follow Christ. We have discipleship studies and small groups, etc. But the church of Jesus Christ is not an institution of beggars. If people don't want to follow Christ, we cannot force them ...

As Jeffrey says, there are no easy answers. In ministry it is possible to spend a lot of time on "green apples" rather than on "red apples." That was the metaphor used in a recent article in leadership journal. The point was that we can spend a lot of time on people who aren't ready and aren't interested, all teh while ignoring our responsibilities to those who are interested and ripe.

 

I agree that there are no easy answers, but Jesus did speak of leaving the 99 sheep in the pen and going searching for that one lost sheep.

 

In my church we write at least twice to members who haven't turned up to either a service or church meeting for 6 months and whenever possible they get a visit from one of the leaders (if they agree to it; frequently someone in that situation does not permit anyone to visit them) and then the matter is put to the meeting if there is no positive response; invariably we vote to remove them from the roll in such circumstances.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Agreed. That is why sincere follow-up is needed. Based on the facts given, I don't believe "the lady" in Pastor Larry's situation is one of the "lost sheep". Even if she is, she refuses to return to the "99" sheep in the pen.

 

An Australian experience.

At my church, in a country town with currently 60 memebers and a normal Sunday AM congregation of around 120/130, the requirement is for the Diaconate to make reccomendations to the chirch business meeting at least once a year regarding the removal of people from the membership roll.

No problem when people leave the area or change to another church and resign, simply an administrative exercise.

No problem when people have extended sickness, or travel north for the winter, extended holidays or family commitments, these are known and understood reasons.

When folk simply stop comming and are absent for a period of months the diaconate make all reasonable efforts to rectify the situation (including prayer, visitation, phone, writing - the last resort, and then if all has failed reccomend to the church meeting the removal of that person from the roll. Not something done in haste, but done for the benefit of the church as a whole. If they see a good reason for not removing them, then they stay on the roll.

For us the term "diaconate" in practice includes pastor, elders and deacons. All mature christians trusted by the church, can't think of a reccomendation about memership removal that has been rejected by the church.

Regards
Bob

 

In my church, members become "inactive" if they miss all services and activities in a six-month period. A member may reactivate him/herself by simply attending ANYTHING...even a concert...at any time during that six month period. However, some abuse that generous policy by barely showing up just a week short of six-months just to avoid the label of "inactive."

 

TeaTime,

Your church's situation is like so many, including mine. Some folks want to have a "membership", but they don't really care about the people of the church. They are not being "members" of the Body of Christ by their actions.

Our church's don't expect much from their members and therefore, we don't receive much.

--Jeff