I found your blog from your review on Bell’s new book. Good review, by the way.

Funny you use a picture of a snarling sheep. I just wrote a post about sheep, though I mention wolves in pastor’s clothing as an alternative.

You seem to place financial security as the primary reason when you write, “There are certainly other reasons for membership other than financial security, but …”

Natalie seems to think that it is about a sense of belonging which, between her take and yours, highlights the devide between leadership and the audience.

Still if membership is about accountability, then I have to say the leadership in Sande’s story is more a threat to the congregation than one individual. I’m not a literal or figurative shepherd so I may be wrong on this one, but I don’t think a literal shepherd, when spotting a wolf in or near a flock, would try to hush up the wolf and send him packing. Nor do I think I shepherd was concerned about if the wolf was going to sue.

Like any analogy, the shepherd/flock - pastor/congregant analogy can be taken too far. People are not sheep. People can, should, and must be taught to fend for themselves. I refer to Bonhoeffer’s book Life Together when he talks about how people show up in the good times and scatter in the bad. For those not aware, Life Together was written in Nazi Germany in a secrective underground seminary. Check it out, short but profound.

Membership or not, it is through close personal relationships that any determination can be made about another’s personal spiritual condition. That is not to say that gathering together is bad, but membership just reinforces spiritual atrophy. By going through the motions and classes of membership without true personal contact, a person quickly learns how to play the part of church and relies on someone else to give them their weekly feeding. What happens when they are left on their own? Do those followers of Christ in situations of persecution follow our (western, American) example, or do they teach like they might not meet again?

I look forward to reading more of your blog.

-mike

Come Lord Jesus…

Becoming a member of my church is one of the coolest things I’ve ever done; even though I’ve been going there my entire life, when I became a member at 17 I took on a new level of accountability and involvement that challenged me to be better. Two years into membership, I love seeing my friends and other teens make that important step from being members of the youth group to committing to the church as whole adults. It’s an important step, not unlike a nuptial ceremony. In this day and age, commitment is everything… and is probably more necessary than it was 30 years ago.

Thanks for this well thought out post. I don’t remember how I stumbled upon your blog but I bookmarked it so I could come back and read it and it and I’m sure glad I did. I especially dig point number 4, I have thought that the church should focus on Hebrews 10:24-25 on Sunday’s like you said “celebrating and encouraging” the congregation for the ministry they do the other 6 days a week.

However, these studies always skew towards the ultra-rich because the analysis is based on totals. Total giving vs. total income. So the guy making 10 mill and giving zero is going to influence the numbers a lot more than the guy making $50k and giving away $5k. Is the “average” guy out of those two giving 5% of his income? Or .1%? It all depends where you put the parentheses. So some parts of the study don’t tell us a lot about us average Joe’s giving, unfortunately.

Very interesting about the working poor giving more percentagewise than the middle class. How sad. This fits in with my restaurant experience though - the working class are always the best tippers. Worst tippers? Rich women, teenagers, and the after-church crowd.

I hope not. I hope what it leads to is a church that can say to those coloring outside the lines of biblical sexuality- you may have a “civil union”, but you don’t have a marriage, and be able to say that to others, themselves and their children without being contradicted by the Government.

Thanks for the shout-out, Skye!

Hope to see you at NPC this year…

Doesn’t “live-and-let-live” lead down a road where the church is neutered, unable to proclaim and practice truth? And it’s not like the evangelical church is the only organization that opposes ssm. From what I understand, Islam and orthodox Judaism also are against ssm.

And I agree that Christians should get their “house in order”, but first, before anything else? Unless we get to the point of not allowing divorced Christians to take communion, or otherwise participate in the body of Christ, I don’t know how to turn back the tide of divorce in the church. I don’t think people realize that divorce is, in most circumstances, contrary to God’s will and a breaking of a God-ordained bond. But the way to address that I don’t think is more preaching about divorce is bad. What it will take is a church body willing to dig deeply into God’s word, eating it and breathing it, until they are so consummed by love for Him that they are constantly vigilent for any influences that could damage their marriage and, more importantly, their relationship with Christ.