Thoughts on church membership
An Excerpt of my thoughts on church membership from a recent online discussion:
Did you ever watch "Cheers?" Here is what I found fascinating about this show: Along with the stars of the show and the cameo appearances, there are a group of actors that make semi-regular appearances as semi-regulars at the bar. They're present enough to recognize their faces, but not so present to need a place in the strolling.
Interestingly, having worked at a restaurant with a bar-type environment, I found the same dynamic of people groups. Regulars, semi-regulars, and cameos. At gathering places everywhere people find themselves in one of these three roles. And they know their role. The point is not that these roles were definitive or could not change--Lilith went from cameo to semi-reg to regular. It is just that we understand our relationship with the rest of the bar. The obnoxious Yankee fan is not given the remote control. The regulars control the dialogue.
If we can shift our ecclesiological paradigm for a minute from church as identity giver to church as gathering place, we could see a potential shift in value away from "lines" and toward "space." For instance, it appears many folks today (at least folks under 30) increasingly find more value/enjoyment in associating with people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives despite their differing opinions--as long as they are gracious and kind to each other. The dissonance has taken on a positive value. Globalization and urbanization both have contributed to the heterogenization of our society, and a new generation that has grown up in it has become rather comfortable in it--even amiable to it.
So what in the world does all of that have to do with church membership? Several non-connected and potentially incoherent points:
1. I believe people understand when they have taken or been given "membership" in a community, regardless of when/if they receive a certificate. What makes us nervous is when its not "official" Without stated boundaries, the community takes on a much more fluid, dynamic, even unstable quality. It means that our requirements could change . I understand the risks here . . . but do we want our community to resemble an institution or a family, an organization or a movement. Is the potential for bad change more likely than the potential we CANNOT or WILL NOT change once we know that 'them's the rules?'
2. Because of the culture's growing affinity to difference/dissonance, I am not sure identification is any longer synonymous with belonging. For sure, people still long to belong--but not in the same way. This generation has a phobia of labels. They don't find them useful because they recognize the irony in them. Case-in-point: describe what a liberal is. Ask a hundred people, how many different answers do you get? So then, when we create "membership" labels, who are we creating them for? Particularly if the people in the bar already know when they are regulars (You know when that is right . . . when everybody knows your naaaame--sorry, I couldn't resist).
3. I am struck by the story of Jesus' disciples wanting to stop the "non-disciple" from casting out demons in the name of Jesus. Jesus says, "Leave him alone--he's not our enemy, so he's on our side." I believe Jesus is making one of his many, many commentaries about the danger of setting boundaries about who is in and who is out. It isn't that it shouldn't be done, it just takes a lot of wisdom to not screw it up and get short-sighted about the whole thing. In what ways are being "not like us" truly important for this community?
4. I am working under a paradigm that is more interested in members of a community rather than members of a doctrinal position. I think this generation shares that perspective. It prefers locality, relationship, and the community of the now. It is less tied to any particular historical lineage--it prefers to associate with multiple histories. I love being a Wesleyan, but these days I am learning more from the Anabaptist tradition than anything else--so I have aligned myself with their story, too. And as a church leader I hope to shape our community in that way. We bristle at that idea. Old allegiances die hard, I suppose.
5. Finally, I struggle with the idea of EMPHASIZING lines. I maybe willing to go with a word like 'acknowledging'--but not if you capitalize it, or 'witnessing,' particularly if you would put it in italics for me. Part of that comes from our tendency to dichotomize evangelism and discipleship. While in some ways they are different tasks, they are the same relationally. I think it is all disciple-making. I think we are all in the process of becoming disciples from the moment we encounter the reality of God and chose to move in that direction. Even when we don't move--we cannot always know at the time which events have begun the disciple-becoming process in us.
If we could see the church as parade--Justo Gonzalez calls it romeria: part parade, part festival, part picnic--we would see the community in motion, inviting and picking up observers along the way, perhaps for the exercise, perhaps for the food, or perhaps because they want to see the party at the end. We don't really know when they ceased to become observers and actually became part of the parade. All we know is that they chose to get up and walk in this direction, whatever the reason. And really, what kind of parade would it be if we spent our attention trying to decide exactly who was part of it?
Did you ever watch "Cheers?" Here is what I found fascinating about this show: Along with the stars of the show and the cameo appearances, there are a group of actors that make semi-regular appearances as semi-regulars at the bar. They're present enough to recognize their faces, but not so present to need a place in the strolling.
Interestingly, having worked at a restaurant with a bar-type environment, I found the same dynamic of people groups. Regulars, semi-regulars, and cameos. At gathering places everywhere people find themselves in one of these three roles. And they know their role. The point is not that these roles were definitive or could not change--Lilith went from cameo to semi-reg to regular. It is just that we understand our relationship with the rest of the bar. The obnoxious Yankee fan is not given the remote control. The regulars control the dialogue.
If we can shift our ecclesiological paradigm for a minute from church as identity giver to church as gathering place, we could see a potential shift in value away from "lines" and toward "space." For instance, it appears many folks today (at least folks under 30) increasingly find more value/enjoyment in associating with people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives despite their differing opinions--as long as they are gracious and kind to each other. The dissonance has taken on a positive value. Globalization and urbanization both have contributed to the heterogenization of our society, and a new generation that has grown up in it has become rather comfortable in it--even amiable to it.
So what in the world does all of that have to do with church membership? Several non-connected and potentially incoherent points:
1. I believe people understand when they have taken or been given "membership" in a community, regardless of when/if they receive a certificate. What makes us nervous is when its not "official" Without stated boundaries, the community takes on a much more fluid, dynamic, even unstable quality. It means that our requirements could change . I understand the risks here . . . but do we want our community to resemble an institution or a family, an organization or a movement. Is the potential for bad change more likely than the potential we CANNOT or WILL NOT change once we know that 'them's the rules?'
2. Because of the culture's growing affinity to difference/dissonance, I am not sure identification is any longer synonymous with belonging. For sure, people still long to belong--but not in the same way. This generation has a phobia of labels. They don't find them useful because they recognize the irony in them. Case-in-point: describe what a liberal is. Ask a hundred people, how many different answers do you get? So then, when we create "membership" labels, who are we creating them for? Particularly if the people in the bar already know when they are regulars (You know when that is right . . . when everybody knows your naaaame--sorry, I couldn't resist).
3. I am struck by the story of Jesus' disciples wanting to stop the "non-disciple" from casting out demons in the name of Jesus. Jesus says, "Leave him alone--he's not our enemy, so he's on our side." I believe Jesus is making one of his many, many commentaries about the danger of setting boundaries about who is in and who is out. It isn't that it shouldn't be done, it just takes a lot of wisdom to not screw it up and get short-sighted about the whole thing. In what ways are being "not like us" truly important for this community?
4. I am working under a paradigm that is more interested in members of a community rather than members of a doctrinal position. I think this generation shares that perspective. It prefers locality, relationship, and the community of the now. It is less tied to any particular historical lineage--it prefers to associate with multiple histories. I love being a Wesleyan, but these days I am learning more from the Anabaptist tradition than anything else--so I have aligned myself with their story, too. And as a church leader I hope to shape our community in that way. We bristle at that idea. Old allegiances die hard, I suppose.
5. Finally, I struggle with the idea of EMPHASIZING lines. I maybe willing to go with a word like 'acknowledging'--but not if you capitalize it, or 'witnessing,' particularly if you would put it in italics for me. Part of that comes from our tendency to dichotomize evangelism and discipleship. While in some ways they are different tasks, they are the same relationally. I think it is all disciple-making. I think we are all in the process of becoming disciples from the moment we encounter the reality of God and chose to move in that direction. Even when we don't move--we cannot always know at the time which events have begun the disciple-becoming process in us.
If we could see the church as parade--Justo Gonzalez calls it romeria: part parade, part festival, part picnic--we would see the community in motion, inviting and picking up observers along the way, perhaps for the exercise, perhaps for the food, or perhaps because they want to see the party at the end. We don't really know when they ceased to become observers and actually became part of the parade. All we know is that they chose to get up and walk in this direction, whatever the reason. And really, what kind of parade would it be if we spent our attention trying to decide exactly who was part of it?
posted by ben price at 3:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home