Way back in the day, when I was 17, I became a member of the URC I attended.  Along with half a dozen others aged roughly 15 - 25, I attended a six week 'membership class' in which we talked about the essentials of Christian commitment as well as the responsibilities of Church Membership.  In those days, to be a Church Member was a privilege, not least in granting access to Communion and participation in the discernment process that is the Church Meeting.  Worshipping for a number of years in traditions without that congregational ecclesiology, I came to value it very highly indeed.  I am, a bit of a hard line, dyed in the wool believer in Church Membership and Communal Discernment.

Two problems with that! 

Firstly, my experiences over the last three decades mean that sometimes (often?) I lose sight of the relational, covenantal aspects of Membership and end up banging on about the fact that it is Members who carry the responsibilities for making ends meet, keeping the legal matters on track, etc etc.  It ends up as functional and dull.  Sometimes it is both of those.  Especially when you are a minister.  But it's only part of the picture.

Secondly, the world has changed.  People no longer view membership as a privilege, nor do they want all the hassle of the practical, legal, humdrum elements of it.  Some people baulk at making a faith declaration.  Some people are ideologically opposed on the bases that they see it as hierarchical or divisive.  Some people just think it's irrelevant.

In the thirty or so years I've been a member of various churches a lot has changed.  As well as opening their Tables, most, though by no means all, Baptist churches I have been a part of have opened their Church Meetings to non-members who are regular attenders.  At one point, it was precisely this possibility that helped me make my decision to join the church which would become my 'sending church'.  It was, though, clear that non-members were observers, and did not speak; there was a sense of privilege withheld unless/until I was willing to covenant to walk with these people.  Since then things have moved on further, often in a Church Meeting it is the non-members who raise interesting ideas or ask challenging questions - something that always leaves me in a bit of a quandary!  I love to hear these thoughts but am uneasy that (and I apologise to any one offended by this) the direction of a church is potentially driven by those who have not covenanted to it, and who don't carry the responsibilities of the, all too often silent, members.

At the Gathering Place, our Diaconate has been charged to have a good think about membership, and that's no bad thing.  I am open to being shown that there are other models that are more helpful than the current one, I'm even open to being convinced that I am wrong on some aspects, though not on others.

I would love to hear from any other Baptist or URC/Congregational readers, if you have found new ways of expressing membership that are effective and attractive without losing the core identity of the church as a "covenanted community of Baptised believers". 

Because the comment thing on here is so rubbish, I suggest you just leave a comment saying 'yes' and I will then email you privately to find out more.

Here's hoping for some interesting ideas!!