Some churches do members classes; we have a Partners Class (we took this name from the Austin Stone Church). The reason we call it a Partners class is that we believe the church is a partnership of Spirit-led disciples who follow Jesus. The church isn’t a country club bound by exclusive membership; it’s a missional community bound together by the gospel.
Read about it here.
Church Planting Novice 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 23, 2008 at 7:48 pm
PJ Tibayan
Thanks for your blog. I’ve found it insightful and helpful as I prepare to plant a church. I actually thought about calling our members “partners” as we prepare to plant a church in L.A. I thought that idea from Philippians 1 would help people not think of membership like membership in a country club. The reason the church actually started using that actually comes from “members of the body of Christ” from 1 Cor. 12. I think that member and partner are both helpful terms. Member probably miscommunicates to the culture though since they will think of country-club like “membership.” The other smashes on membership don’t have to be that way. Exclusive membership vs. patnership? Is not the partnership equally exclusive? If people have to take a class then that means those who don’t are “excluded” from being partners.
Anyway, it’s good to think about and I might actually end up calling the members “partners” instead. Thanks for the post.
September 23, 2008 at 8:45 pm
jdodson
Thanks for the feedback! Glad to hear it.
Good point about 1 Cor 12. I don’t think partnership has to be exclusive, but rather includes all those called to the mission of our church. In fact, I seriously considered calling it a Disciples Class, because this is what is basically expected of a disciple of Jesus: Gospel, Mission, Community.
The way our Partners Class works is that the class doesn’t qualify you to be a partner; it just educates you. We wont hand out any certificates or anything. Instead, we will ask the City Group leader to “sign-off” on that individual’s participation in a CG, in missional community. That will be the true sign that they are “partners.” It enables us to shepherd our church. Those that don’t go through the class and particpate in CGs really aren’t part of our church; they just come to some gatherings. Some are Christians and some aren’t. There’s plenty of grace for them to gather with us without being “with us.” Make sense?
September 23, 2008 at 8:47 pm
jdodson
Dang it. You really got me preferring Disciples Class now….! Anyone want to help us out here? 🙂
November 10, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Members/Partners Class - II « Church Planting Novice
[…] 10, 2008 in Uncategorized We just finished our first Partners Class (what we call members). It ran four weeks, one night a week, two hours per night. We had a […]
February 24, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Jason
Just adding my thoughts here (a little late). We have been discussing this same issue lately and partner seems to be more institutional and member has a more organic sense. Back to 1 Cor 12, the member is part of a body and living being, the church. A partner sounds like a business endeavor or someone in a law firm. Partner also seems like I maintain my individual control and can stop partnering at any time where as a member becomes part of the very nature of the body and begins to surrender and submit to the other parts and the head.
I know member has been simply used in traditional churches and lost its meaning, but should we not reclaim it instead of replacing it.
Still trying to figure this one out.
November 30, 2015 at 5:10 pm
Jimmy pay
Agree with Jason, how can you be part of his body if you are just a partner? “Member” is a functioning living breathing attachment that is necessary for the whole beings survival?
Wonder why a push to take member out of the equation and replace with partner? Is there another reason for the removal of this word, say to possibly allow “others” to become actively involved without fulfilling requirements that members have done the past?