Yesterday after the funeral for the former WAF, I got chatting to one of her nephews, a cheery man of around 65 who told me that he's a member of my church.  He couldn't quite remember when he was baptised, but he told how he'd done various things in his teens - including preaching, which it seems was expected at the time.  He hadn't been to church in over 40 years, he reckoned, but he was still a member...

I checked the roll book - he was baptised in July 1956, along with his brother and three or four other people, none of whom attend our church, most attend none.  In the 1960's when the non-active 'B' list was invented, his name was put on that as indicated by a pencilled B by his name; in the early 1970's someone wrote 'LEFT' in the 'comments' column.

So is he a member?  Of the 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' - well, yes, most probably (or definitely in some views of baptism).  Of our church?  I'd have to say 'no'.  He has not fulfilled the responsibilities of membership as defined in the church constitution, so beloved of his former Sunday School teacher.

So what, I wonder, is it that makes him believe that he is still a member?  And what harm might have been done had I been foolish enough to say 'no you're not'?!

Our church had a policy - there is no other word for it - until the 1980's of baptising 15 year olds and chucking them out of Sunday School (which was in the afternoon, separate from services, until the mid 1970's) at 16.  There was, so far as I can tell, never any expectation that they would attend church after this, so it is no real surprise that there are no younger people in the church - the last few were approaching 16 when I arrived.  Yet, having been made members at Baptism, they still consider themselves part of a fellowship they know nothing about.

I don't for a moment think our church is alone in this - just I guess I wish we were more interested in making disicples than members, for that is truly lasting.