During the Total Church Conference, Steve Timmis shared that The Crowded House does church discipline without church membership. They advocate a culture of “gospeling” that promotes Jesus-centered discipline in little ways throughout the week. Apparently, this happens in their house church communities quite often.
He shared a story of a young woman who called him on the carpet for being impatient and touchy with someone on the telephone. He suggested that, done respectfully, this kind of “church discipline” should be normative in churches. Moreover, he argued that, if this church discipline method was normative, bigger church discipline issues could more easily be avoided. Provided that this is a gospel-centered phenomenon, I see some merit in it; however, I’m not quite ready to jettison church membership. Are you? Why or why not?
For more see the recent 9 Marks interview with Steve.
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 16, 2009 at 7:08 pm
jason allen
also not ready to jettison membership.
I think what you described is quite helpful. I also think it’s just the commonsense way of doing relationships well.
January 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm
brance
I still think church membership is a good idea. I would go so far as to have members physically sign a membership covenant. Then you have legal proof that they’ve seen and agreed to the church’s policy regarding church discipline. If a larger issue blind sides you, and believe me they can, you can deal with it swiftly and have no fear of someone taking legal action stating that the church did not have the authority for such discipline.
I do hear his concern regarding people “opting out by not opting in.” I think that’s a valid concern and one that all church leaders should reflect and pray on.
January 16, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Jonathan Dodson
Although it may seem commonsense, the reality is that our churches don’t “do” relationships like this. Jason, how do you advocate moving our churches in this direction? Perhaps you are currently experiencing this in your community?
Brance, I hear you on the legal piece. How do we avoid the mechanical nature of membership while promoting this more organic, gospel-centered approach?
January 16, 2009 at 7:54 pm
brance
I think small groups which are gospel-centered in the way total church describes would be at least part of the answer. You’re right to say that most churches don’t do relationships in this way. That’s sad. I’m not sure how else to move in that direction other than to put some primary importance on small group participation.
To some degree, membership will be mechanical if we require a new members class of some sort to make sure they understand the church’s doctrine, and then the formal signing of a membership covenant. Again, if the small groups are an integral part of the church, with all members participating, then most of the “mechanical nature” can be at least softened.
These are good topics to think through. I’m planning to plant in 2010 and trying to work a lot of these ideas through right now.
Jonathan, how do you “do” membership? Is a new members class of some sort required? Signed covenant? Small group participation? if so how do the groups function in reality?
I know that’s a lot. Maybe several blog posts!
Thanks for this blog, btw.
January 16, 2009 at 10:27 pm
lukesimmons
I’m not ready to jettison church membership because I think it provides a commitment point for people in a commitment-phobic world.
I’m 100% ready to jettison the term “gospeling.” I was at the TC conference and I have a friend who keeps using that word…very annoying.
January 17, 2009 at 2:33 pm
christophergonzalez
We have been going since June, and still haven’t done a formal membership deal yet. I think we will need to do one in the future, more for legal purposes. But right now all the discipline and accountability seems to be working through our missional communities.
We have a visitor or two at our Sunday gatherings each week. But other than that, everyone in our church is in a missional community. I think we’ll have to do a more formal membership process if Missional Community involvement were to become optional for people.
I guess right now, our commitment point is missional community, not our church?
Luke, I’ll work on gospeling you into the terminology next week!
January 17, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Phil
It sounds like you are dealing with two kinds of church membership. At one level there is Church membership – being a member of Christ’s body at large – in this sense all of Jesus’ disciples are members. At another level there is a local church membership – being a member of a local body of believers. Is that right?
What if the way we lead people to Christ involved the precursors to local church membership? What if we stopped leading individuals to Christ through one-on-one evangelism, but led existing households and affinity groups to Christ instead? As they discover God and obedience through scripture on their way to conversion, they are doing this in the context of a group process that involves precursors to “becoming church” – fellowship, self-correction when heresy pops up, mutual accountability to commitments to apply/obey and share what they’re learning. If the Group Process was part of discipling people to conversion, then perhaps there wouldn’t be a bait and switch after conversion – people wouldn’t have to be convinced that they need to commit and submit as members of a local body of believers. We’re experimenting with this in LA. Your thoughts?
January 17, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Jonathan Dodson
Yes, Phil, we are assuming membership in the universal Church and focusing discussion on membership in the local church. Great questions and reflections!
What you described is very similar to what we are experiencing at Austin City Life. We believe in the apologetic power of gospel-centered communities, which is expressed through our City Groups. We have found that community-based “evangelism” is effective but also requires a gospel center to prevent community from becoming a new idolatry.
Based on the teaching of baptism, I also find it important to call people to personal public confession once they have experienced a process conversion. This public confession of Jesus is Lord is an embrace of gospel—its demands and its promises. Our partnership, then, allows them to formally commit to what they have already been living—Gospel, Community, Mission. It also affords us an opportunity to disciple them through specific instruction.
In our experience, a Partners Class (w/out a certificate) fosters deeper commitment to the church/city groups and creates a climate of missional togetherness and mutual accountability that is church enriching.
What resources on Group Process and your experimetns have been helpful?
January 17, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Phil
Just did a search of “Partners Class” on your blog and read up a little on it. What you’re doing with this has appeal. Looks like you’ve been doing these Partners Classes for a little over a year, which is good for me because I get to learn from you. How are these classes going? Are your expectations being met? What have you learned or needed to tweak along the way?
On the group process, we’ve been helped a lot by David Watson and CityTeam’s training materials available online at http://www.cpmtr.org and http://www.davidlwatson.org. Still learning what this looks like in a North American setting.
March 7, 2009 at 2:00 am
CD-Host
I did an extended interview on membership and discipline with the lead pastor for Xenos which is (to be my knowledge) the largest non membership church with an active discipline process. People here interested in non membership discipline might want to read how this works in practice.