Musing
on “Membership Matters”
Thoughts
on the nature and standards of church membership
Designed
to provoke my denomination (and others) to think seriously about membership
matters.
By
Keith Drury Associate Professor of Religion, Indiana Wesleyan University Winter,
2005
1.
Lowering Membership Standards
Robert Leonard is
worried about declining membership. He’s seen the bottom drop out of his national
figures in the last 50 years—from 4.1 million in 1959 down to 1.6 million this
year. That’s a “reverse growth rate”
(as the church growth movement used to call it) of –.013 per year. While losing less than 2% of membership a
year never seems to be an “emergency,” over 50 years it can pile up and bite
you in the rear [pocket].
Why aren’t they
attracting new members? Daniel Wilson from the New Jersey region
thinks they’ve got to reach out to the younger people. He along with other leaders thinks the
membership standards may be too high for the newer generations. They want to shorten the length of new member
training, cut out some of the hoops a candidate has to jump though, and maybe
even compromise on some of the stringent requirements for new members.
So what do you
think? To get themselves on the map again should these guys lower
standards to grow or leave them high because people value things more when they
cost more? What do you think?
So which denomination
are we talking about here? None. The story above is about the
Masons. Their membership has been
dwindling since the 1950’s. They are
desperately trying to reach what they call “the younger generations 21-55”
(55?). They’re shortening the year-long
membership process collapsing the first three (of 33) Masonic steps (“degrees”)
in an attempt to bring in the next generation and keep their local “lodges”
alive. While they are still unwilling to
open up membership to women (the Mason’s version of the church’s WMS is the
“Eastern Star”) they are willing to make other compromises. After 50 years of declining membership they
think its time.
So what is the lesson
for us church folk?
Think about these things.
Discuss them with someone else who cares about the church like you do.
So what do you think?
2.
Church Membership in the Early Church
Recently a lady told me God had reveled to her that their
church should have no membership since the early church had no membership. Is she right? Membership is a hot topic today. Some denominations are trying to decide if
practicing homosexuals can be members of their church. Other denominations have long ago accepted
the idea of “membership as the mission field not the mission force” and thus
accept anybody who wants to join into membership, including practicing gay a
lesbians. These more open denominations
fight about ordaining gays (or elevating then to a bishop) and not about
membership standards. Still other
denominations (like my own the Wesleyans) have strict membership standards
(often with twice as many attendees as members) but we are pondering changes in
our membership standards that still include a ban on gambling, alcohol and
tobacco. Conservative ministers in liberal denominations are aghast that we are
still debating lottery tickets while they are fighting about gay bishops!
In the ongoing debates people often toss the Bible and early
church history around as arguments for this or that position. So in the interest of truth this article
outlines how the early church actually practiced membership matters.
1. At the very beginning of the church all the converts were
already members. The first Christians were Jews and thus already were
“members” of the Jewish faith and Christianity was not considered a separate
religion. “Becoming a Christian” was for
them a matter of belief—believing that Jesus was indeed the promised messiah of
Israel. The Jews already had a strict
behavioral code and thus candidates needed little “cleaning up.” In fact at first there was nothing to “take
them in” to. The “church” at first acted
like a Jewish sect that hoped to convince all Jews that Jesus was the
messiah. As soon as a Jew believed the
gospel they were baptized and became a part of the house fellowship of other
Christian Jews. They needed no
instruction on the existence of one God or even on how to live a moral life—in
some ways the Jewish lifestyle was stricter than the Christian standard would
be. A “convert” at the very beginning
had a short trip to “membership” in the Christian group—believe and be baptized—both
of these could be accomplished in one day.
These converts’ membership induction was more like joining a small group
today and thus Jewish evangelism falls short as a model for today’s membership
standards debates, though it is often used by those interested in liberalizing
denominational positions.
2. As the church spread to the gentiles “belief” became
another matter. When Christianity started spilling over onto the
gentiles10-15 years later, things changed.
Christian missionaries to the gentiles like Paul, Barnabas, Silas and
others faced a whole new set of problems. The first problem was the gentiles
were polytheistic—they believed in many gods.
They were inclined toward add-a-god religion—their gods were
specialized—one for the sea, another for celebrations, and another managed
pregnancies and still others dealt with healing or protection. They figured it never hurt to add a new
specialist-god to your collection. Thus
gentile evangelists could get people to “pray the prayer” fairly easily, but
they soon discovered gentiles were merely adding Jesus into their pantheon of
other gods. That didn’t satisfy Christian (or Jewish) theology. When the
Apostles worked with Jews they did not have to get them to abandon their
God—just accept Jesus as the Messiah and son of this God. However, when the apostles evangelized the
gentiles they had to get them to both unbelieve and believe. They had to get
the gentiles to both confess unbelief in their present Gods and belief in the
One True God. This, of course, is why
the early Christians were considered atheists in the Gentile world. Making members out of the gentiles took
time—to convince them of the uselessness of their Gods and the exclusivist
claims of Christianity. Fixing their beliefs was hard work.
3. But apostles to the gentiles had an even bigger
problem—the gentile’s behavior. Evangelists to the Jews had it easy when it
came to behavior—most Jews already behaved, or at least knew how to
behave. The gentile “dogs” were
different. They were called dogs by the
Jews because they had the morals of a wandering dog, especially relating to
sex. The gentiles visited shrine
prostitutes like people go golfing today—they had little remorse or guilt. Lasciviousness was “normal” and telling a
Corinthian he needed to stop visiting the temple prostitutes to be a Christian
would be similar to telling people today they have to give up golfing to become
a Christian. Evangelism among the Jews
was like converting life-long church attendees at youth camp (with the same
problem too—heard-heartedness). On the
other hand, evangelism among the gentiles was like winning prostitutes off the
streets in Las Vegas. So what did the
apostles to do? If they had followed the
pattern of Jewish evangelism they would have simply preached Christ, invited
people to believe in Him as messiah, baptized them that afternoon, then took
them into the fellowship of the Christians that evening for the common meal. In
fact they did do this among the Jews of the Diaspora and they may
have even been hasty in baptizing gentiles at first (perhaps this is why Paul
goes to great lengths to instruct the Corinthian members that they should quit
going to the prostitutes?) But
eventually the apostles and missionaries to the gentiles had to slow the
process down to filter out the easy believism of add-a-god people and to clean
up the lives of the gentile “dogs” before taking them into the church. So what did they do?
4. The church delayed baptism among the gentiles and
introduced membership training. Since baptism was the entry point into the church it was
withheld until candidates got their beliefs and behavior straightened out. Here was the general procedure about the time
the final books of the New Testament were being written:
All of this was in place before the close of the New
Testament. We are not talking here of what the church did in 200 or
after Constantine in 350, but we are describing what the church did in the
first century –while some of the New testament was still being written.
5.
So what does all this
tell us about the current membership debate? I don’t know—that’s up to you. I’ve done my
job: translating the best scholarship into a readable article for ordinary
church leaders. Now it is your turn to
decide if these things matter. And in
the process you’ll have to determine how much authority you give the early
church practices. There are dozens of positions along a continuum but the
clearest ones are:
a.
The Bible primitivist
position. This position says there is nothing
whatsoever authoritative in the Didache or any other document from the early
church—only the books in the canon can tell us anything. This position assumes we should pattern our
worship, organization, baptism, Lord’s Supper and membership after only what we
clearly see in the New Testament. The
most radical group goes even further saying that nothing should be done that is
not explicitly reported in the New Testament (which is why some
primitivists reuse to have any musical instruments in worship). The bible primitivists usually believe their
present worship and practice is most close to what the actual New Testaments
church did. So the above description
that uses sources of church history is irrelevant to them—only what they read
in the canon has any authority for them. Hard or “radical restorationists” fit
in this position. To them the above
article is meaningless for membership issues for they do not let authority
extend beyond AD 90 [1]
b.
The “soft
restorationist” position.
This position says we should restore as far as possible the practices of the
early church as recorded in the Bible and in the first hundred years or so
before Constantine ruined Christianity.
This group assumes the early church “had it right” or at least had it
best. They would say we ought to call
our elders elders and our deacons deacons and baptize people however they see
it done in the New Testament, mostly in Acts. This group is softer than the
Bible primitivists though for they accept the first hundred years of church
history as also guidance for “the best way to do Church.”
c.
The “That was then, this
is now” position. This position says
that all we need to keep is the theology of the early church and we are free to
“do church” just about any way we want to “serve this present age.” This position is interested in what the early
church did but does not give it more than 10% of the votes—our culture is much
too different today to practice what they did.
This the That-was-then, this-is-now people feel membership decisions are
up to us now based on the theology of the early church, not its practices.
Everyone leans toward one end of this spectrum or the
other. Toward which position do you
tilt? Challenge: craft a single
statement reflecting your own view on this.
Keith Drury
3. “Membership Standards” in
the Didache
What is the Didache?
Like the Dead Sea Scrolls the Didache is an
ancient document rediscovered in modern times (1873). It is a written record of the oral tradition
of the first century Christian house church’s membership training. It is not Scripture, though many in the early
church treated it as such. Actually it
is more like a church discipline or membership-training program. It is an old book—older than some of the
books in the New Testament, and for several hundred years was considered
inspired and authoritative. It almost
made it into the Canon, but (along with the other almost-but-not book, the
epistle of Clement) did not make the final cut.
Why read the Didache?
I first came to study the Didache when searching for
Christian evidence against abortion.
Since there is no explicit condemnation of abortion in the New
Testament I thought it seemed like the early Christians would be against
abortion and sought evidence elsewhere.
I turned to early church documents and found the Didache (2:2) listed
abortion as one of the you-will-not new member instructions (along with murder
and other commandment-like rules). I
again returned to this short book when researching my book on worship to
confirm the early church’s patterns of baptism and communion (chapters 7-10). I
have been studying it again recently since I am now teaching more Christian
Education courses and thus am interested in how the ancient Christian church
did spiritual formation of new members. I’ve been pondering what the first
century church’s “rules” would look like if they were put into today’s
words.
How the Didache was used.
The best scholarship today believes that the Didache was used
in a mentoring approach to membership training (at least the first part: the
“two ways”). There is still disagreement
over weather the rituals and church organization sections at the end was a
separate book or not). The Didache
was recited orally in section by a trainer in stages to a candidate for
baptism/membership which could last as long as two years. While the New Testament gives some details of
church life in the church at Jerusalem the Didache gives a complete description.
Anyone interested in what the early church actually did should be interested in
reading it.
How much authority does the Didache have? There
are plenty of spurious documents the Christian church rejected—including the
Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip used by Dan Brown as sources for The
DaVinci Code. However the Didache
was never rejected by the church who used it regularly and gave it inspired
authority for a time but eventually it slipped to the sort of authority one
might give a denomination’s Discipline or Manual. The Didache is a practical guide for
training new members and includes the actual instructions on the rituals a new
member would take on completion of their preparation—Baptism and their first
communion. (Sorry Baptists—the Didache gives a practical multiple-choice
answer on immersion, though also sorry to the Anglicans—it prefers immersion.
It also prefers cold water to warm and running water to still but we’re getting
off track here—read the text of it to see what you think.) The real question is how much authority does
it have? You will have to make up your
own mind. For me it supplies a glimpse
on what the early church stood for while some parts of the Bible was still
being written. This glimpse is important to me as I try to understand how the
first century “Jesus movement” grew and spread.
However, I am not a primivitist or restorationist. I do not believe “the
way they did it then was best and we should copy their ways.” Many of my readers won’t agree with me on this.
I admit that I did not take this position when I knew less about what the early
church actually did—but the more I’ve studied the Bible, first century culture,
and what the first century church actually did in that day the more I
have come to believe that we today much conserve their theology but are free to
invent our own methodology.[2] So why do I read the Didache at all? Because I like to learn. And knowing what the early church did might lead
me to understand their theology (for all theology is found upstream from our
actions). However if you believe the
early church practice is a model for us today you’ll probably give the Didache
more authority than I do. Either way—it
is fun to know what the early church actually did in membership training. I’m interested in the latest way the
“emerging church” does church, but I’m even a tad bit more interested in how
the first century church did it.
Here is what I did in this article: The Didache has 16 chapters (though some chapters have only
a few verses). My question was: What
if we adapted the early church’s Didache membership training for today’s
church? What if we assigned new
candidates for baptism to an individual “sponsor” or “Membership mentor” and
they trained the new members using the early church’s training program. What sort of member would we be trying to
get? OK…you can do this for yourself—but
I’ve done some of the first heavy lifting for you—but I hope you merely scan my
work then read the Didache on your own and decide for yourself the kind of
Christian the early church was trying to make.
Don’t get sidelined by trying to decide if the Didache has any
authority or not—just treat this as if it were Bill Hybel’s or Rick Warren’s membership
training program for now and as you’re looking over it decide what kind of
spiritual formation they were trying to do with their membership
candidates. Then decide for yourself. I hope I’ve whetted your appetite enough to
seduce you to actually go to the text and read through the Didache once—then
decide for yourself.
(Based on the Didache c.
60-100AD)
as a member you should covenant to…
1.
I will treat my enemies with
love. (1:3-6)
·
Love you enemies
·
Pray for them, fast for
them
·
Turn your other cheek
·
Go the second mile
·
Give generously to
anyone asking of you
2.
I will avoid our list of
DON’Ts (2:1-3:6)
·
Murder
·
Commit adultery
·
Corrupt boys
·
Have illicit sex
·
Steal
·
Practice magic
·
Make potions
·
Abort your offspring
·
Kill a newborn
·
Covet your neighbor’s
things
·
Swear falsely
·
Bear false witness
·
Speak badly of anyone
·
Hold grudges
·
Make empty promises
·
Covetousness
·
Greed
·
Hypocracy
·
Bad-manners
·
Arrogance
·
Hating any person
·
Anger
·
Envy
·
Contentiousness
·
Hot-headed
·
Lustful
·
Divining, enchanting,
astrology
·
Lover of money, seeker
of glory
·
Self-pleasing,
evil-minded
3.
I will practice our
lists of DO’s (3:7-4:14)
·
I will be gentle
·
Be merciful, harmless,
calm & good
·
(Not be self-exalting)
·
Accept all experiences
as from God
·
Remember constantly my
mentor & other saints in the church
·
(Not cause dissention but reconcile those
fighting)
·
Ignore social status in
correcting others
·
Focus on giving more
then getting
·
Cheerfully give without
grumbling to those in need
·
Be active in training my
children
·
Treat my slaves rightly;
(slaves should be subject to masters)
·
Hate hypocrisy
·
I will give to those in
need
·
Keep these rules adding
nothing or taking nothing away
·
Confess my failings in
church
B I WILL AVOID THE
“WAY OF DEATH”
I will reject the “Way of death” as represented by the
following (5:1-2)
·
Murders
·
Adulteries
·
Lusts
·
Illicit sex acts
·
Thefts
·
Idolatries
·
Magic
·
Potions
·
Sorceries