musings on mission and ministry ... and other miscellaneous mind-leaks
That question is 'well vague'If you mean, do I want to get rid of that silly list of names that has be updated when someone remembers, an dis used to calaculate how muchwe give toBMS or HMF, then yes, yesterday is not soon enough.If you mean, do I want to abandon the idea that people voluntarily enter into some form of covenant relationship, share in decisions making and 'seeking the mind of Christ' as part of congregational governance then no, absolutely not. It is part of our heritage. if we can find a better way of doing/being it then great. Butlet's not not discard the offsrping with the soap suds
Yes, deffinitely vague - I did try to tighten it up but it started turning into an essay rather than a poll. What I have in mind is the tension between the benefits of mutual commitment and the drawbacks of the institutional mechanics of actually beoming a member - you know being visited reported on and voted on. One comment that has haunted me for some time was "this feels like applying to join the golf club". Also I'm uncomfortable with the clear demarcation of in and out that tends to go with membership how we do it. I'm much happier with a self selection, opt in if you want approach - I think.
I'm a bit late in commenting, but have so far had no success in either persuading anyone to be a church member, or persuaidng myself that I know what it is I'm trying to persuade them to do. We clearly need to revitalise the phenomenon, but in the brave new world of post-modern, church non-membership how do we explain our theological ideals and ecclesio-missiological practice to the Charity Commission?
Post a Comment