Membership

[stevenson]

If you feel that we should what would be the alternate? Showing up 3 times and your a member?

[paul]

Disclaimer: Former COGOP

Your poll is either yes or no. Your post indicates what alternatives could be put in place. My first response comes in the form of a question. What is your definition of membership ?

[Shellie]

I voted yes in that the "tests" of membership that have always been should be done away with.

Fred Fisher said it best when he gave the following illustration. Only the ump at home plate has the best view of who is safe and who is out. I believe that we do pastors a disservice and show them disrespect when we dictate their ministry.

For example....you could come in and see one of our people and think "what a good christian" and the pastor know totally different. Or, you could think "what in the world are they doing sitting on the platform" and the pastor through grace sees and knows something you don't.

People are not cut out of 3 or 4 molds. Let the pastors of the local ministry make the call.

[dolfan]

I'm one of those folks that believes membership is vital. Now, when I say 'vital', I mean important to body life and to each person in the fellowship. What I don't mean is necessarily formal. There are any number of ways that a church can live, and most of those ways involve people who've made no formal commitment but whose lives in the church demonstrate total commitment. It is important, in my own opinion, to have some way of making that commitment recognizable, to put some visible frame to it so that everyone knows that a commitment is made, expectations are present that flow in every direction. In our local church, we have a yearly covenant that you must sign to be a member of our church. That covenant is the topic of an annual, non-Sunday-morning meeting that is special and emphasizes commitment of the church and commitment to it. It being annual serves as an 'excuse' to hold the kind of service that honors making that commitment, and it also self-cleans the rolls of those who have, for whatever reason, moved on. What it doesn't do is limit the demonstrated commitments of those who, for whatever reason, choose not to sign up formally, nor does the value of those people get lessened since we really do not have any functions where membership is even an issue except our once-a-year business meeting which, incidentally, is held when the once-a-year covenant signing is conducted.

[Pastor Chip]

In our local church, we have a yearly covenant that you must sign to be a member of our church. That covenant is the topic of an annual, non-Sunday-morning meeting that is special and emphasizes commitment of the church and commitment to it. It being annual serves as an 'excuse' to hold the kind of service that honors making that commitment, and it also self-cleans the rolls of those who have, for whatever reason, moved on. What it doesn't do is limit the demonstrated commitments of those who, for whatever reason, choose not to sign up formally, nor does the value of those people get lessened since we really do not have any functions where membership is even an issue except our once-a-year business meeting which, incidentally, is held when the once-a-year covenant signing is conducted.

I like that concept very much!

[stevenson]

Paul wrote:

Your poll is either yes or no. Your post indicates what alternatives could be put in place. My first response comes in the form of a question. What is your definition of membership ?

I thought everyone would understand by the word "traditional". I like dolfan's comments. We still do the "traditional" vote by membership, take the oath, everybody shake their hands, ect..