Category: UMC

“What does it take to become a member?” (pt. I – beliefs)

shield

shieldA number of people have asked me what it takes for them to become a church member. Most recently, I talked to someone who was concerned she couldn’t become a member because we United Methodists believe a person can “make shipwreck of his/her faith” and lose salvation. She, on the other hand, believes once someone is saved, they are always saved. Did that disqualify her for membership?

What about the man cheating on his wife who wants to join the church? Can he join? A situation a friend of mine had a few years ago.

How about the nominal Buddhist, atheist, Mormon, or agnostic who wants to join to please a spouse?

If they’re willing to attend my membership 101 class, memorize the mission statement, and turn in a financial pledge, are they ready to join?

My answer to the question, “What does it take to become a member?” is the same for anyone. You must be baptized and be able to answer the questions we ask at baptism without winking.

The Questions we ask at baptism

On behalf of the whole Church, I ask you:

  • Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin? 
  • Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?
  • Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as your Lord, in union with the Church which Christ has opened to people of all ages, nations, and races?
  • According to the grace given to you, will you remain a faithful member of Christ’s holy Church and serve as Christ’s representative in the world?
  • Do you believe in the Father? Do you believe in the Son? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? Candidate recites the Apostles’ Creed.

Three major things I see these questions asking:

  1. Have you turned to God in repentance?
  2. Do you share the historic Church’s faith?
  3. Will you be a faithful member of that historic Church?

Again, my standard: you need to be able to respond to all of the above without winking. Over this next series of posts, I’ll address those one at a time. I’m starting with question 2.

Do you share the historic Church’s faith?

Specifically, here I want to know if someone can make the claims of the Apostles’ Creed with integrity. They believe God is creator of heaven and earth. They believe Jesus Christ is his only son our Lord, who became human, lived, suffered, died, and was raised to save sinners. They believe in the Holy Spirit, who gives life to and empowers the holy catholic Church. And as the question above asks, the grace of Christ is where they put their whole trust.

Some people don’t think my standard for faith is enough. They want more specifics as far as someone’s beliefs.

Some churches want to know that you agree with them on the role of women in the church, whether the creation accounts are literal history, or whether certain individuals are predestined to salvation while others aren’t.

I’m okay admitting a staunch Calvinist, even though his beliefs about salvation aren’t in line with mine. We may disagree, but I believe we’re both still well within the broad stream of orthodoxy. I can do the same for someone who believes women shouldn’t preach, someone who believes the Lord’s Supper is a memorial only, or someone who believes in purgatory, even though I and my church hold none of those beliefs. This is why I use the Apostles’ Creed as a measure. It provides a great, concise standard for the Church’s historic, orthodox belief.

Others think my standard here is too rigid. From my above examples, I couldn’t admit the Buddhist, atheist, Mormon, or agnostic to membership. They can’t make it through that Apostles’ Creed without a lot of shrugs, winks, and qualifications. This would also be a problem for anyone who doesn’t accept the historic death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. So if someone says the Jesus account is no more than a nice story or a great, figurative depiction of God’s power and love, I can’t in good faith admit her as a member. This isn’t just a disagreement in theology. From the standpoint of Christian orthodoxy, it’s heresy.

Some will call such a rigid standard closed-minded or bigoted. But I think this is more a matter of honesty and factuality. If you can’t hold to the Apostles’ Creed as it is, you’re not a Christian, in the historic sense of the word. And at least in the historic understanding of the Church, its members should be Christians.

So what do you think? Is the Apostles’ Creed as a standard of faith and a requirement for membership too much? Too little?

Related articles

Trust, Money, and the Guaranteed Appointment

guaranteed

guaranteedThe United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council just nullified a decision at GC2012 to do away with guaranteed appointment. I’m not going to get into all of the legislative technicalities here. Let’s look at the bigger picture.

The guaranteed appointment issue is about trust – on all sides. Those worried that a Bishop won’t continue a worthy person’s appointment are ultimately saying they don’t trust our Bishops. They believe they need protection from Bishops who might make an ill-informed, prejudiced, or punitive decision.

Some will say this is about a check and balance. The Board of Ordained Ministry determines who will serve; the Bishop determines where they will serve.

Either way, United Methodists commonly hold up the importance of submission in our system. Elders submit to the Bishop’s authority and submit to go where they are sent. Are we saying elders are willing to submit to the Bishop regarding where they go, but not whether they go anywhere or not? This seems backward from the New Testament appointment of elders, which appears to be a submission regarding whether one served as an elder, not where.

If people are willing to submit to where, but not whether they are appointed, I wonder if this is really about a guaranteed income (with benefits), not a guaranteed appointment. We don’t just guarantee appointments to elders. We guarantee them appointments to full-time jobs, where they must be provided a minimum salary, housing, health insurance, and a pension. And as more and more churches face budget crunches in the coming years, there will be concern about whether we can provide all of those guaranteed incomes.

[Major edit: Wesley Sanders notes in the comments that GC2012 passed a petition to allow appointment of elders for less than full-time, and the Judicial Council didn’t nullify that petition. See it here. This is a big deal. It moves everything I’ve said below from hypothetical to realistic. We have effectively done away with guaranteed full-time appointment. In my mind, this is more important than doing away with guaranteed appointment.]

Some will say, “No, I’m concerned about having a place to serve as a pastor, not the income.” That’s a great attitude. I hope it’s true. And what if that’s how we approached guaranteed appointment? What if we stopped guaranteeing a full-time income and benefits to our elders? Guarantee that they’ll have a place to serve, but it might be a part-time position.

Why have we mandated that ordained elders receive a full-time income from the church? Some will claim that ministry requires full-time attention, and that needs to be protected. But then they’ll need to explain all of the part-time local pastor appointments throughout our connection.

Get rid of the guaranteed full-time paid position, and I think many of our other problems go away. I hear concerns over whether to ordain people who don’t speak English fluently. “They can be great in a Hispanic (or Korean, or French-speaking Congolese…) congregation, but we only have four of those in our Conference. What if we have more ordained Spanish-speakers than positions?” That’s only an issue if it’s about a guaranteed full-time income.

But if you thought there was a lot of consternation over removing guaranteed appointments, just wait until you see what happens when guaranteed full-time incomes are threatened. Due to our current financial situation and the further budgetary strains coming, it’s an issue we’ll have to broach sooner or later.

See more United Methodist posts on my UMC posts page.

For more reading…

“Your organizational structures are killing you”

decision making

decision makingI was recently talking with my good friend Eddie, part of the leadership team at a mega-church, and I asked, “What’s a blind spot smaller churches seem to have – from the vantage point of mega-church world?”

Eddie didn’t even hesitate. “Your organizational structures are killing you,” he said.

Me: “What does that mean? How can we organize differently?”

Eddie: “Last year, we had the idea to start a multi-site location one Tuesday. It was the first time we had ever talked about it. Six weeks later, on Easter Sunday, we opened the site. How many committees would your church have had to go through to do that? How many people would have had to approve it? How long would it have taken you?”

At Eddie’s mega-church, there’s a weekly Tuesday meeting of their 6 or 7 primary leaders. He says everything could change on any given Tuesday.

Now we’re not all trying to become mega-churches. That’s not what I’m advocating here. And maybe we would say there are good reasons to move a bit more slowly. But is there a chance your organizational structures are a serious problem? How long does it take to make a relatively major decision? How many meetings have to be called?

How long to make even a minor decision? Are there less-than-earth-shattering things that likely can’t be accomplished in three months’ time because there are too many steps in the decision-making process to get there by then?

[For an example of how the UMC is struggling with this at an Annual Conference level, not to even mention the General Conference level, see here.]

How come a 3,000-member church is able to turn more quickly than churches much smaller? This seems to defeat the whole notion/excuse that “It takes an aircraft carrier a long time to turn around.”

And is there a risk that church politics start to play a bigger role when people know how easy it is to throw a wrench into the middle of plans and grind everything to a halt – or at least slow it enough that it’s likely to die?

Invite some friends to join the conversation –
share this on Facebook. Thanks!

For anyone in church leadership, you should take the time to read the article “Leadership and Church Dynamics,” by Tim Keller. Thanks to Chad Brooks for pointing it out to me. Find the link here (requires free registration) or download the PDF directly here.