Do You Date the Church?
by Motte Brown on 03/29/2007 at 1:40 PM
Speaking of the "me, me, me" mentality, it's one of the characteristics Joshua Harris ascribes to a "church dater." In our Mentor Series interview with Joshua and Carolyn McCulley -- which was primarily centered around Joshua's book, "Stop Dating the Church" -- we asked what a church dater looks like.
Joshua responded:
Well, I hone in on three things. First, being "me"-centered, meaning what can I get out of this church, what does it have for me, what can it do for me.
A second one would be being independent. Going to church because that's what we do, that's what we've always done, but not really looking to involve others in our lives and say, "Here's who I am, I need help." But instead, "It's me and Jesus, and I come to church like a person goes to the gas station to fill up once a week or something. But this is not where I live my life. I don't open myself up to others and become dependent on others."
And then finally, I would add a church dater is often critical. And so there's this mindset of "Here's what the church is doing wrong, here's where it can be improved, and I'm sitting in the back evaluating. But I'm not getting my hands dirty and saying how can I contribute to the solution and really help what's really going on here."
As I sat listening to Joshua, I remember thinking, I've been guilty of all these and I'm a committed member of my church. But what he's talking about is more than just being a member and showing up; it's involving yourself in the lives of others and welcoming them in your life; it's asking "what can I give?" instead of "do I like this or that?"; it's filling a need that you know you may not particularly enjoy instead of saying "it's not my gift" or "I don't feel called to that."
Joshua said it's important that we continually check ourselves in the way we approach the church. That's good advice for me. I think I'll always be prone to the getting-involved-but-not-so-much-that-it-interferes-with-the-things-I-really-enjoy attitude.
1. Zeph Greenwell said the following at 2:16 PM on Mar 29:
I think if you stay connected in the church you will eventually be asked to help do something. That is why I am helping in the youth group and my church because someone asked me.
I am commited to my church but I am not a member and never took a membership class or confessed my membership before the church. I also don't think the church would ever ask me to leave, but someone would sure come and talk to me if they thought there was a problem.
I was raised in the church I attend and have studied the church doctrine online. Honestly I don't agree with everything in the doctrine but I KNOW that the church I go to now wants most to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to the people in our community and the rest of the world and I want to help in this as much as possible.
When it comes down to it a church body together can do more than just a bunch of individuals all working on their own thing. For this to happen there has to be a good bit of commitment and respect from the people in the church toward the leaders and fellow church members and attenders. For that reaosn I do think the church is very important, but I think an official commitment made by a person is more important than an arbitrary "membership".
2. Acousticguitar said the following at 3:22 PM on Mar 29:
Agree with many statements in your post Zeph, but I believe that you ought to take the membership plunge. If you are indeed committed to your church, you have no reason to not become a member of the church and sign some sort of membership statement/agreement/covenant.
Lest you think I am a clergyman, I am just an ordinary member of my church-- a layman. (who also is heavily involved in many aspects of my local church) I am thankful that my church has a number of members who have both taken on membership and have been willing to help out and volunteer... even w/o being asked. The strength of the church is really the strength of the commitment of and bond between its core members... and yes, that includes membership b/c that's a very basic thing.
3. TD said the following at 3:42 PM on Mar 29:
Zeph-
A church can't discipline (very well) those who aren't members, that's the importance of membership. You need to confess to the leadership and other members that you are putting yourself in their authority.
In any case, Josh's book is fantastic. I highly recommend it--and I highly recommend "falling in love with the family of God". It's a glorious and blessed thing.
4. Danielle said the following at 6:23 PM on Mar 29:
Zeph said: I do think the church is very important, but I think an official commitment made by a person is more important than an arbitrary "membership".
An official commitment made by a person? Sort of like marriage, when you think about it... or baptism. In liturgical churches, "membership" tends to include any who have been baptized in "the Church." (and let's *not* go into differences of thought there... lol) Marriage and baptism are sacramental in nature -- part human, part God/"mystery." Yet, whether marriage or baptism, a public record is made, something in writing to attest to the fact of one's "most solemn vow" (of the parents, in an infant baptism). After the Reformation some denoms, instead of sacraments, began asking "membership" -- so I understand your feelings, Zach. I hear you saying you're part of the Church, you've "vowed" or committed, why the need for some further membership?
Yet, if baptism (or a later confession/confirmation) is not seen by one's denomination as one's formal commitment, "something" must signify that level of commitment, no? The public "X on the line," so to speak -- making one's vow "official" by putting it in writing.
Just some thoughts, as I have long pondered "membership" in Church, and always asked if membership was available to those with doctrinal issues, making those exceptions part of what was being signed... I don't sign my name lightly. :)
5. Darin said the following at 6:30 PM on Mar 29:
Deja vu! It seems like we had the "membership" discussion just a couple of weeks ago.
So, if I can also be redundant.... Different churches approach membership differently. In some churches you are automatically considered a member when you are baptised; in some churches it's a separate ceremony altogether; in some churches there is no "formal" membership process at all. (That's a denominational preference...this is an interdenominational audience...I don't find arguments over minor denominational differences very productive.)
What I think all denominations can agree on is that being active and ready to serve are marks of a true Christian. (If membership is a prerequisite to service in your church then I'd say it's a good idea to join.)
Something else that all denominations can agree on hopefully is that a piece of paper can't save you...only the blood of Jesus can do that. (I refer us all back to the article "The Legalist Within".) It makes me nervous to hear statements that link "membership" with "salvation". Consider this quote from the article:
"Josh, you begin a chapter about church membership by quoting a statement from Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, addressing a gathering of young adults. The quote reads, 'If you are not a member of a church you regularly attend, you may well be going to hell.' Can you unpack that statement for us?"
The article goes on to explain it away and Josh admits that the statement was made for it's shock value. But is that a statement that we want imprinted in people's minds? You can try to clarify it, but can you be sure that people will understand? Can you be sure that at some level people won't be nudged closer to the misconception of "salvation by membership"? (Given our afinity for legalism I don't think I'd want to take that risk.)
I appreciate the fact that this post emphasizes being committed and serving in the church. That's great! I perceived the article itself to be somewhat tainted by legalism. Too bad because it started out so good.
6. Kevin said the following at 8:39 PM on Mar 29:
Hmmm... this comments on church dating are certainly good principles, but we must be very careful with them. Maybe my experience is myopic and not representative, but it seems to me it is important that we do just those three things that church daters do, except for the second charge of independence and fill-up Christianity--that one is wrong on all fronts.
However, it is quite important when thinking about where and what community of believers you commit yourself to to consider who you are and what your needs are and how you will suit the church and how the church will suit you. That said, for example someone who is recovering from spiritual abuse very much should rightfully consider whether a church that has quite legalistic tendencies is right for him or her. Or, someone who is twenty may need to consider locating a church with at least a some members her age so she can engage in community with believers she can best relate to (that includes she can best understand and serve and that also can best understand and serve her). The bottomline here is that if you divorce considering yourself and who you are and what spiritual needs you have from your church selection process, especially if you make doing so immoral, you're on dangerous territory.
Second--being critical. Now its certainly wrong to point out flaws and be unwilling to help, but being critical in and of itself is by no means something we should consider a sign of a church-goer who is of a bad heart. The very heart of a prophet is often a "critical" heart--as prophets were always calling for reform, calling for change, calling to move towards God. We are instructed not to judge non-believers, but we are instructed to judge unrepentant believers and called to judge doctrine. If there is anything we really ought be critical about, it is how we are running the church! For what else matters with such preeminent importance? Should we be negative? No. Should we be haughty? No. Should we run to serve and to help make changes? Yes. But should we be thoughtful and critical of ourselves and our churches? Yes!
If we take ourselves out of the equation when searching for a church, we become irresponsible. If we stop evaluating and correcting errors and improving the church (and this will necessitate frequently being critical), we have shirked the responsibility of one of our most holy and powerful institutions.
Surely it is easier to stop being critical at all than to be critical rightly in church. Surely it is easier to stop considering yourself at all when selecting a church than to consider yourself rightly. Let us not be too zealous (as zeal is easy to amass, and can easily turn into legalism when directed at others) insofar that we become irresponsible and neglect the harder work of keeping ourselves in balance. Absolute imperatives, such as do not consider yourself or ever have any "me me me" attitudes, or, never be critical of the church, are easier to follow, but are far more risky than seeking to learn the balance each entails.
7. Laura said the following at 9:03 PM on Mar 29:
Membership in a church doesn't make you a Christian -- we've all got that, right? But from the leadership's perspective, when you covenant with a body of believers and place yourself under the authority of the leaders, your pastor(s) will be able, with clear consciences, to stand before the Lord and attest to your salvation.
Covenanting with a local body is important for lots of reasons, but one of the most important reasons is that it publicly announces both our agreement to participate in the life of that church community, and the leaders' agreement that we are part of the larger Body of Christ. And THAT is a group that you can't be saved apart from!
I'd discuss this more but my laptop battery is dying!
8. Darin said the following at 10:31 PM on Mar 29:
On March 8, 2007 (just three weeks ago) there was a post called "Church Membership". Now, as fun as that discussion was...it eventually run itself out.
Anyway, I was just thinking that perhaps we ought to move the "church membership" debate back to the "Church Membership" post so that we can use this post to discuss the subjects of: being "me" centered; being independent; being critical...and how it all affects our actual hands-on committment in the church.
Does anyone second that motion?
9. Leah said the following at 12:24 AM on Mar 30:
I was baptised in my church as a baby and have spent my whole life here (I'm now 19 and 4 months). The presbyterian church in Australia has two categories for membership -- adherants and communicants. Adherants are simply those who are over 16 and have put their names on the "adherants" roll. There is no class, no ceremony, no nothing. They have almost the full priveleges of communicants (can vote on almost all issues EXCEPT voting for ministers and elders).
I was raised to believe that only communicants could partake of communion but have since asked my minister and discovered that's not really true (maybe it's traditional but not upheld).
I'm not a communicant or adherant yet. I'm not sure I see it as all that necessary. I'm very involved in the church -- on a worship team, am a leader of our primary youth group, help out with other aspects of the service (eg. taking up the offering and counting it afterwards -- you have to be approved by the session, or elders, to be allowed to do that) and I do take communion. In fact, I was talking to the oldest elder at our church the other day who totally didn't even realise I wasn't a member.
I've been thinking about becoming a member recently, simply because I feel like I 'should', and also because it gives me full voting rights, especially now that I'm at the age where I have opinions (and often strong ones at that :P) on things that go on in the church.
Darin -- I'm not sure "me" focussed comments belong on this thread, but on "Me, Me, Me"?
And Laura, my pastors would be able to stand before the Lord and attest to my salvation, even now, while I'm not a member. If this was not the case there is no way in the world my youth pastor would let me come anywhere near being a leader at the primary youth group or on primary & high school camps.
Yes, membership is a public announcement of commitment to the church etc etc. But I don't think that, in and of itself, is enough of a reason to point the finger at people and say "you should become a member".
And as for the quote 'If you are not a member of a church you regularly attend, you may well be going to hell', Josh was way out of his league and out of his depth to be saying that. I generally enjoyed the only book of his I've read, Boy Meets Girl, but that comment is totally uncalled for. It's when people start making legalist comments about membership that I start heading in the other direction. (And by that I don't mean away from the church, I simply mean not becoming a member.) Fortunately it's not an opinion flogged around these parts.
10. Leah said the following at 12:54 AM on Mar 30:
Sorry. Didn't read the quote properly- - it was Mark who was out of his depth to be making that comment, not Josh. Though I hope Josh didn't perpetuate it in his book.
11. jane said the following at 1:04 AM on Mar 30:
Zeph, you had a great point about being involved with the youth group because someone asked you to. In big churches it's easy to get lost in the shuffle and not respond to calls for help unless they are personally directed at you. But I know that every time someone has specifically said, "Jane, you'd be so great at X... have you considered joining that ministry?" I start thinking seriously about it. It's good to have someone else's encouragement that yes, you are needed and your skills are valued. A good reminder to be continually encouraging others in their gifts.
12. Jan said the following at 4:10 AM on Mar 30:
I would say that some people are church daters out of circumstance rather than personal choice.
Right now I am doing my postgraduate study in the UK. I have found a good Bible based church that I attend every Sunday. However, there are not many opportunities for getting involved. (And it is not very safe to go out at night.) I would love to be more active in church but it is just not possible.
Back home in the States I was very active in my church and enjoyed fellowship with other believers. This is something I really miss having in my life.
I guess this is more of a cultural difference. But that, of course, is a whole other discussion!
13. Mandi said the following at 11:03 AM on Mar 30:
I don't disagree with Joshua's three points about "church daters". Nor do I take issue with his contention that the Church is part of God's plan. The Scriptures are clear about that. And so is the historical record of the Early Church (which cannonized the books we find in the Bible today, in the first place).
But what I found really curious about this article, with great respect and love, was how it appeared to give weight to what the Scriptures say about this, but then relied entirely on what Boundless referred to in the interview as "the modern church" for its model or reference point.
But why do that? Why not use the Early Church as the reference point? After all, the earliest Christians were under the leadership of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Doing that would also remove us from the frame of mind of "denominational" issues (which have come to be thought of as just matters of taste today). We've come to a point where there *are* "denominations" precisely because of people throughout history leaving the course of the historical Early Church, and the Scriptures (again, which that Church canonized). If we feel a right to do that, we really have to ask why that is.
The article talks about finding a church that's faithful to God's Word: "the three most important things to be looking for is a church that teaches God's Word, a church that values God's Word, and a church that lives God's Word".
But wait a second -- how does a church that teaches, values, and lives God's Word then go on to have "membership", worship, and beliefs that differs so much from (or disagrees with) what God's Word actually says about these things, and what the earliest Christians under the leadership of the Apostles of Christ Himself taught, valued, and lived?
The Bible itself is very clear about how people "join" the church: they're baptized. How do we justify coming up with a multitude of ways to "join" a church, when the Early Church had just one? Under the leadership of the Apostles, this was *essential*, not something you could choose not to do if you wanted to be a Christian (Matt. 28-19-20, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-41, 1 Pet. 3: 21, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12, Gal. 3:27). If we want to "date" churches that don't teach, value, and live this, we have to ask ourselves how we can justify that.
How does a church that teaches, values and lives God's Word then either eliminate, or defer to later stages as the Roman Church does, participation in the mysteries of chrismation (or as some western churches refer to it, "confirmation") and Communion? The Early Church did not separate (or eliminate, or make optional) those mysteries from baptism by any significant amount of time.
How does a church that teaches, values, and lives God's Word either not believe that Communion is His *true* Body and true Blood, or attempt to explain it away as "transubstantiation" (as the Roman Church has done)? How can we justify having disagreements about what Communion is, and is not, when the historical record and the Bible itself, are clear about this issue (John 6: 53-56)? Were people getting sick and dying over something that was just a symbol in the first-century church (1 Cor. 11:17-24)?
How can a church that teaches, values and lives God's Word pattern its worship differently from what God's Word says about worship, and what we know about how the Church worshiped under the leadership of Christ's Apostles and their hand-picked successors? There are probably as many types of worship services as there are churches today. And yet, the Early Church was *liturgical* throughout all the regions it existed. This is clear from both the Bible and the earliest universally recognized texts written by Early Church readers.
The Greek word used in Acts 13:2 is "leitourgounton", the verb form of the old Greek noun "leitourgia". I'm not a Greek scholar by any stretch, but you don't need to be to see what that word is. The original text of the Bible shows there was "liturgy" in Acts 13. Most post-Reformation traslations have taken the liberty to change the word to the verb "ministering". God also told His people how He wanted them to pattern their worship -- after the things in Heaven (Heb. 8:5 and 9:23, Revelations chapter 4, and Isaiah chapter 6...waaay too much to get into here).
The earliest and universally recognized sources outside of the Scriptures also clearly describe the Early Church as having been liturgical, and centring that liturgy on the Eucharist, which they all believed to be the true Body and true Blood of Christ. These writings are the "Didache" (or "The Teaching of the Twelve") of 70 A.D. (that's Bible times!), "First Apology" by Justin Martyr of about 150 A.D. where he put in writing the pattern of Christian worship for the emperor, and "Apostolic Tradition" by Hippolytus, written about 200 A.D. So how is it we can "date" around with churches that don't have these basic things?
If we want to go to a church that "teaches", "values", and "lives" God's Word, as the article says, we would follow the *earliest* model of membership, worship, and Christian life.
I realize there can be an instinct to reject all that has to do with mysteries such as baptism and Communion, as well as liturgy because the Roman Church, which has introduced novel excesses (like indulgences, elevation of the Virgin Mary to co-redeemer status in "Immaculate Conception", etc.) has *remnants* (and only remnants...that's a whole other story!) of these things. But that would be too bad. We simply cannot ignore what the Scriptures say, and what the Early Church wrote, preached, believed, and practiced before the Scriptures were finally "put together" simply because of Roman excesses. If we did, it would just be subtracting from the Apostolic Tradition, instead of adding to it.
Anyway, as always on these "doozy" topics, I hope that no offense was taken, as absolutely none was intended. I'm just expressing all the thoughts and questions that ran through my head as I read the article. My comments come from a place of love and respect, which aren't always easy to see in this medium. (And for the record, I *loved* Joshua's books about dating and courtship! They presented what my parents always taught us and which I'd already accepted, but which had come across as something more cultural than anything else. Joshua did a fabulous job of showing how this model of meeting one's spouse is not limited to one culture or another.)
14. Darin said the following at 12:54 PM on Mar 30:
Leah, with all due respect...the subject of "me" as it pertains to church dating IS specifically mentioned in this post. In fact, the post begins with it, ends with it and nearly everything in between is permeated by it. Can you explain then why you don't think that it belongs here?
15. Darin said the following at 4:48 PM on Mar 30:
I think that Josh makes some very good points. I often get discouraged by the fact that people not only don't have time to help out in the church; but they don't even have time to fellowship afterward (which I consider a very important part of the church's function). And when it comes right down to it, it's just selfishness. (Some of us struggle with it and some of us don't struggle ENOUGH with it.)
I can certainly agree with his point on "me"-centeredness.
I agree with his point on "independence" too. We celebrate individuality and self-reliance far too much in our society and it's even affecting the church.
Finally, the point on being critical. Being critical (in the sense that Josh was talking about) is really just a form of self-righteousness and pride.
So there you have it: "me, me, me". The "me" of self-centeredness; the "me" of self-reliance; and the "me" of self-righteousness.
16. Leah said the following at 7:22 AM on Mar 31:
Darin- I didn't think 'me' stuff didn't particularly belong here, I just didn't think that it belonged here any more than discussing the membership stuff. Because that too was talked about in the article.
17. BDB said the following at 2:25 PM on Mar 31:
This is something my church really struggles with. It's not that people are fickle, but that it's so hard to keep track of who the church should be following up with. Now that we're over 5000, we end up with the church directory being the de-facto "membership" list. An elder or staff member calls through everyone on the list I believe once a year. But the reactions range from, "I stopped going to your church months ago - why are you calling?" to "I was in the hospital, why didn't you come?" We try to encourage everyone to be in small groups so that there are at least some people who know a person's routine and will look into it if they stop coming, but it's still tough to keep a balance and meet people's needs.
18. Darin said the following at 2:37 PM on Mar 31:
Sorry Leah, I misunderstood. As far as the "membership" topic goes I was just trying to deflect some of the divisiveness that surrounded the last discussion. (There were a few people there with a "my denomination's way or the highway" sort of attitude that really turned me off in that discussion.)