More Thoughts on Membership

After my last post on membership, a friend brought up some questions that really got me thinking more about the idea of membership.  So, I wanted to address some of her questions from my standpoint.  I know that I won't answer them exactly, so I won't necessarily list the questions out.  The questions dealt with where church membership requirements come from, were they created by man or by God?  The questions also addressed the participation in church activities for those who are not members of that specific body.

Becoming a member of a church with a simple piece of paper attesting to it is certainly man's requirement.  It's something that we have created to give a more clear sign and symbol of what we see in Scripture.  The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the God of covenants, He has made and makes promises with covenants.

I do not have space in this post to go into a long and detailed explanation of covenants, but an overview is essential.  If we look throughout the Old Testament, we see the covenants that God made with His people.  He promised them that He would watch over them and care for them, that He would set them apart from other nations.  To Abraham He promised that all peoples would be blessed through him.

Some of the covenants that God made with His people were one-sided, there was nothing required from them.  But there were other covenants that were made that were mutual, covenants that were conditional, under which the covenant would be voided should the terms not be followed.  Whenever covenants were entered into between people and God or people and each other, there was generally a blood requirement, blood needed to be shed in order that the covenant would be signed and sealed.

Covenants seem to be an antiquated idea in our society, we don't hear of them often.  We talk of contracts and agreements, but just the mere sound of those words makes it seem a bit formal with no relational aspect to them at all.  Covenants were things that were to be taken seriously and when we continue to enter into covenants, we should take them as seriously as they were in Old Testament times.

I say all this because, while the requirement of church membership is man-made, this requirement ties into the idea of the biblical covenant, entering into an agreement between us and God.  We join with Christ to be a part of his work on the earth, agreeing to be in partnership with Him, through the power of the Holy Spirit.  With this, there is an accountability required, which is why churches have established membership.  We enter into covenant with God and each other in order that we can keep each other accountable, to hold each other to what we are called to as members of the body of Christ.  Paul speaks of this in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians, the idea of a body with many members.

When we are baptized, whether as infants or as adults, we enter into a covenant with God.  Infant baptism is a sign and symbol of the fact that we are set apart, called by God, not in and of ourselves, but before we have done anything.  Adult baptism is a public profession of faith, acknowledging that we have been called by God to be a part of His family.  We enter into the family of God and just like our earthly families, we might not have contracts or membership forms, we know that there are still requirements of us to be a part of our family.

Herein lies the difficulty: how do we become members of an organization, a club, or a church without having some kind of membership requirements?  Like any relationship, we expect it to be two-sided.  If we were to join a club and feel that we were not getting the benefits of membership, we might either quit the club or simply stay a part of it for status sake.  But church should not be like this, we join not so that we can tell people that we are a part of it, but so that we can have a group of people who walk with us, holding us accountable to our covenant and commitment, encouraging us, praying for us, teaching us, and learning from us as we journey through life.

At the same time, if a church does not feel that members are holding to the requirements that they are called to uphold as members, what do they do?  Many churches differ.  Some remove members who no longer contribute or attend from their rolls.  Other churches allow members to stay on their rolls regardless of their status, giving an unclear picture of the make-up of a church.  While this may be a denominational thing, it is also fairly diverse on a church by church basis.  While I believe that each body needs to determine what works best for them, it seems fairly insincere to beef up membership rolls with people who don't positively contribute to the overall health and advancement of the body of Christ.

The idea of membership as it pertains to participation in certain church activities, most likely things such as the sacraments, is a different questions.  Are we united through Jesus Christ regardless of our denominational affiliation?  My general answer to that question is, "yes."  My non-general answer is, "it depends."  More and more, churches have begun to put statements of faith on their websites in order to explain the specific things that they believe.  Unfortunately, this practice can easily be transformed into legalistic lists, but I certainly don't think this is always the case.  It is essential to hold to convictions and to be able to specifically explain what you believe and why you believe it.  The danger is not falling into the trap of listing everything that you don't agree with rather than making specific statements of what you do believe.

Some denominations would get specific by listing the things that they would consider to be essentials and non-essentials.  The Evangelical Presbyterian Church has as its motto, "In essentials...unity, in non-essentials...liberty, in all things...charity."  This seems to be a fairly good motto to embrace as long as we distinguish the things that are essential and non-essential to us.  We need to lay those out, by ourselves, working out our salvation with fear and trembling.  If we are unsure, we must search the Scriptures rather than simply take someone else's word.  Belief may involve faith, but it certainly does not mean blind belief without struggling and wrestling to come up with answers.  Contrary to popular belief, faith can be cerebral.

Do denominations and membership within them pull us away from the specific mission and purpose of God's Church?  Sadly, I think this is becoming the case more and more.  Instead of seeking to reach a world who needs to understand and know the love of Jesus Christ, we bicker and argue and spend significant amounts of time debating things that should be essential beliefs and trying to convince others of things that are non-essentials.  These conversations are important, if they are indeed conversations, but we need not let them displace our true calling to make disciples of all people.  If we are to make disciples of all people, we need to be able to articulate our beliefs, so this gets kind of sticky.  It really becomes essential for us to know which things fall into essentials and which things fall into non-essentials and then be ready to move on from there, holding loosely to the things which should be held loosely and holding firmly to those which should be held with firmness.

I'm still wrestling through so much of this.  Membership to a church is something that is not specifically stated within Scripture, but it is certainly implied, at least the idea of being a part of God's Church as well as being held accountable to standards.  We cannot think that we will successfully journey through this life as individuals with no help or accountability.  If we think that we are capable of being islands, fulfilling all of our own needs, we are sadly mistaken.  Membership is a mad-made concept while covenant is a God-made concept.  Frankly, membership is a softer notion than a covenant, and we really should enter into our relationships with covenants, especially our relationships with the body of Christ on the earth.

I don't claim to hold the corner on the market with these ideas, but I have continually wrestled with them.  Feel free to question my thoughts, there may be some that I have not thought through as well as others.  I hope and pray that I can hold loosely to things that are non-essentials and yet be firmly convinced of my convictions.  May we all seek to grow more in wisdom and knowledge, but  may we never lose sight of the fact that wisdom and knowledge without practice is nothing more than good ideas without any implementation.

Rules, Part II

What do we base our rules on?  When we come up with a system of guidelines, laws, or principles, how do we formulate them?  Many people will say that laws are based upon ethics and a system of ethics.  Generally, we can all come to some amount of agreement upon an ethical system, formulating rules which are workable.

The problem that I see with some ethical principles is that they can easily become relative.  We can easily move into a system of normative relativism which implies that even ethical beliefs that are contradictory may both be right.  There is also the concept of metaethical relativism which says that people legitimize their ethical principles based upon who they are, what their religious beliefs are, and what their culture is.

The ongoing question is whether or not there are moral absolutes or whether morals continue to be flexible and relative.  Moral relativism can easily slide down a slippery slope to become “mob mentality.”  We have seen the destructive nature of this throughout history.  Slavery seemed to have been a good idea to someone, once upon a time, and somehow, it caught hold and was embraced.

I go back again to the question of the normalization of our ethical and moral systems.  How do we keep things from becoming too relativistic?  We can probably all come up with examples in our heads of what things are morally acceptable and what things are not.  But what prevents those things that are currently unacceptable from becoming acceptable?

There is a place for moral absolutes, I believe that the Bible gives us a moral compass from which we can determine those absolutes.  But what do we do with those who don’t subscribe to the authority of Scripture?  Can we really mandate morality on people whose system of beliefs is in direct opposition to what the Word of God teaches?

This is where I get hung up.  I choose to live my life governed by a set of rules that are given to me by the One who created me.  Others choose not to do so.  If I tell them that they are wrong and implement a system by which they are forced to subscribe to my belief system, will they really be convinced that it’s a good idea simply because they are legislated to follow that system?  Or will they resent that system more because it is being forced upon them?  Would it be better to open up a dialogue to express our differences and viewpoints?

The problem with dialogue is that it takes time, and in a broken and fallen world, we are not always willing to commit to the time that it takes to generate dialogue and begin a conversation.  To me, dialogue implies that the conversation is ongoing, it continues as long as people feel as if there is movement or progression.  It needs to be filled more with wonderment than with dogmatism, otherwise, it’s not really a dialogue but a debate.

But there are times when people’s hands are forced, when they have no choice but to stand firm rather than entering into dialogue.  What happens when organizations that previously held to a system of moral absolutes devolve, holding instead to a system of moral relativism?  What happens when organizations that once held to a “True North” allow instead for their North to be magnetic, changing based upon the poles of a constantly evolving culture?

The definition of the word “conviction” is, “a fixed or firm belief.”  I wonder how many of us can articulate the convictions which we hold.  I wonder how many of us are really convinced of our convictions, instead embracing something that has been handed down to us rather than doing the difficult work of working it out for ourselves.  I wonder what our convictions are based upon: a constantly changing culture, our emotional state at the time, or something that remains constant, never-changing, always staying the same?

I didn’t fully appreciate that my convictions needed to be my own until I was in college.  The process of working them out was formative for me, allowing me to wrestle with difficult questions.  After that wrestling, I landed in a place where my convictions are based upon what I believe to be absolute Truth, unchanging, always the same.  While I hold to those convictions and that absolute Truth, I do my best to remain humble, admitting my own fallibility and brokenness.  But if I let my own fallibility and brokenness inform my convictions rather than allowing my convictions to inform my fallibility and brokenness, my system of beliefs will change constantly.

Paul said in Philippians 2:12-13, “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”  We must work out what we believe and why we believe it.  We must work out our system of rules with a willingness to ask difficult questions and hold in tension certain things.  If we approach the formulation of our convictions with anything less than humility and grace, we will simply be dogmatic, leaving no room for transformation.  Is it possible to hold to convictions and still have some wonderment over mysteries that have yet to be revealed?

Rules

I have yet to find someone in life that likes rules.  Generally, if I find someone who claims that they like rules, I can always push them hard enough to find that there are some rules that they don't like.  There are some people who claim that rules were meant to be broken, the rebels among us who like nothing more than to buck the system and break as many rules as possible.  Others just love rules, they love the order that they bring to the chaos of their lives.  They love to have structure and routine.

Still, there are others who like to push right up against the rules, tiptoe along the edge of breaking them, and then begin pointing out the technicalities of the rule system to specify that they haven't indeed broken any rules, they've just "expanded the strike zone," so to speak.

It's hard to classify myself in a category in regards to rules.  I probably fit with the large majority of the population that says that there are certain rules that are just plain dumb, they don't make sense.  I honestly believe that rules are meant for protection, they're meant to provide some order and structure to life.  Without rules and systems, life would have the potential of turning into utter chaos.

The key to rules is determining exactly why they are in place.  Most teenagers believe that rules are put into place simply to make their lives more miserable.  They think that there is a conspiracy instigated by their parents and most other adults to use rules to make their lives anything but fun.  Sadly, there are adults who espouse the same beliefs and theories, they just simply never grow out of them.

But there may be something to those theories.  Sometimes, rules and systems can get in the wrong hands.  Sometimes, there are individuals who take rules which were intended for good and positive things and they misuse them to manipulate people and to lord their power over others.  Their intention isn't to protect people but instead to show how much control they can have over the lives of people who fall within the system of rules.

Each and every one of us is capable of taking rules and using them for our own self-interest.  Our motivations may differ, but it is possible for systems and rules which were intended for good to be abused.  We have seen this in communities, in states, in countries, in churches, and in other places throughout our world.  Dictators come in and make the rules as they go, becoming the adult equivalent of a three year old playing a game that he or she has made up with the only rule being that they will win no matter what.

Rules can be used to measure ourselves against others.  Generally, we can come out looking really good or really bad in comparison.  If we follow the rules, we may consider that we are deserving of something, that we have earned something.  If we don't follow the rules, we may not be surprised when there are consequences to breaking those rules, but it probably won't stop us from crying about the injustice of it all.

The best systems that I have experienced are the ones in which there are some sort of checks and balances, put in place for the protection of everyone involved.  While they certainly aren't foolproof, they may prevent some of the strong abuses that could easily become prevalent under broken and sinful people.

When Jesus walked the earth, there was a group of people who liked rules.  They liked to keep the rules and point out everybody who couldn't keep them.  Truth is, they were deluded in thinking that they could actually keep the rules.  Outwardly, they had kept the rules, but inwardly, they were in major violation of them.  Jesus reserved some of his strongest words for this group.

God knew that no one was capable of following and obeying all of the rules, that's why he sent Jesus.  He was the only one who could live perfectly, without breaking the rules, outside or inside.  Jesus' words in his teaching were that he had not come to do away with rules, but to fulfill them.  He had come to show that it was impossible to follow rules and that he had provided a way for us to still be okay despite the fact that we continue to break rules.

We all have to live by rules and we generally can't do anything about that.  What we can do is make sure that when we are the ones enforcing the rules, we can keep ourselves in check and have others do the same thing.  We can do our best to make sure that our own self-interest and selfish motivation doesn't take advantage and abuse a system that was put into place for the benefit and well-being of others.

There's more to say on this topic, but I'll reserve that for a Part II.