I’ve been doing some thinking on church membership recently.
In France, the lack of commitment of many professing christians is a problem. People make a profession of faith and take a long time to get baptised, or never get baptised at all. Others get baptised and never enter into membership in their local church. Or they will become members of the church where they are baptised, but when they move out, they never bother resigning from membership and taking membership in the church where they settle down (if they ever settle down into another church). All of these people may attend the meetings regularly, they often may take responsibilities in the church, and even attend members’ meetings (taking part in the meetings but not voting),without ever taking membership in their church.
This leads to all sorts of problems. People come and leave as soon as they are not “fulfilled”(whatever that means), or because there are no other children, or they don’t like the music… But also how do you exercise church discipline if there isn’t a clear difference between committed members, and mere attenders?
It’s complicated. But I wonder if part of the answer lies in the Roman Catholic Background. Who are the members of the Roman Catholic Church? All those baptised into the church (as infants or adults), are automatically members. The fact that they attend or not does not change that and they remain members (unless they are excommunicated, but does that happen in our days?). I suppose the thinking of Evangelical christians goes along the line: I am saved by faith in Christ, I believe, so I am saved and therefore a member of the church. But it seems to me that there is a difference between professing faith (and therefore being member of God’s invisible, universal church), and being a member of the local church. Does a mere profession of faith and regular attendance make someone a member of the local church? Somehow, I think there is a need for some visible form of membership (baptism, and being on the church rolls). It seems to me that it is the same difference between marriage and simply living together. In the first there is a public commitment and covenant. In the second, there is no clear public commitment, and each one is free to move on  when they “feel” the relationship is not suiting them anymore. Most Christians agree that marriage should be the norm, yet they do not think that beeing a church member is important. I find it puzzling. What do you think?
I agree. I think church membership is seen as mainly just an administrative thing as well. So it’s not seen as important. In terms of baptism, I’ve come across so many facing the “I may have been a Christian for years already but I’m just not ‘ready’ yet” so there are some gospel-understanding issues.
It might be interesting to ask people how they would define the Church. I wonder if some might think that while it’s God who saves us as individual Christians, church is a human institution. It sometimes feels like it’s treated that way.
Thank you for your thoughts Gethin. I think you are right that many professing christians in France only see membership as an administrative thing. Concerning the issue of baptism, you are raising an important question concerning the way the gospel is taught and preached here. I would personally have added “deep” gospel-understanding issues.
Somehow the idea has been transmitted that we must be worthy in order to be baptized, or take the Lord’s supper. But isn’t the whole point of the gospel that we are not worthy? If I must be worthy in order to be baptised or to take the Lord’s supper, am I not adding works to my salvation? If I think that somehow I must show some worthiness, have I really understood the gospel? If I haven’t understood the gospel, am I really a christian? I’ll stop there. I think we need help here.