She stopped mid-stride. “Wait, shouldn’t we be going the other way?”
“Oh. Right, let’s go.”
She hesitated.
“What?” I kept walking. “Are you afraid of looking stupid?”
“No…”
“Oh, right, I’m the one whose always afraid of looking stupid. You’re just afraid of…”
“–being stupid?”
“Something like that.”
We crossed a snow-laden 11th street.
She asked, “Did you get Alex Helga‘s email?”
“No. She didn’t send it to me.”
“But I forwarded it to you.”
“I got the other one you forwarded, but not that one.”
“Oh, well, at the bottom of the email she asked about our membership interview with the Farhis.”
“Oh yeah?”
“Yeah. She asked what we would do if they decided we’re ‘not what they were looking for.’”
I laughed, “That’s awesome: ‘I’m sorry, but you’re not cool enough to join our church.’”
“Yeah, like, ‘don’t you guys do anything artsy?’”
“–I know:
==
‘Don’t you do anything creative?’
‘Well, Ken designs websites sometimes…’
‘Yeah, but only as a hobby–and even then, they suck!’”
==
Uh… the websites don’t suck… well at least this one doesn’t. I dunno about any other ones, but this one is good.
By your tone toward the end of that whatever-that-was, it seems you’re doubting your webdesign abilities. Hmmm, not a good sign seeing how I just hired you to design ours…
BTW, any prototype yet?!?!
Also, I registered halliegreider.com at Dreamhost.com. I think I’ll need some additional advice on how to get everything going for that.
Nice seeing you, albiet briefly, at TVC this morning.
I claim total responsibility for the “sucking” slander that’s going around…http://www.posegate.org/russ/Nov2003/why_i_suck/index.php
Since you designed my website, that’s probably where this all came from…
“…if they decided we’re ‘not what they were looking for.”
“I’m sorry, but you’re not cool enough to join our church.”
Why on earth would you want to attend a church you have to apply to in the first place?
Well, there’s a difference between attending a church and joining a church. Being a member and being an attendee are two different things, but I’m sure Ken will say a hundred times better than I can what the differences are…
Churches are usually democratic institutions. Members are allowed to vote and be elected/assigned to positions of authority/responsibility, such as deacon. Non-members can attend, enjoy, support financially, etc…
Kind of like US citizenship vs. green card.
Other benefits: Members are usually shown a secret handshake. They also are given immunity from speeding tickets and told the punch lines to various jokes that other members usually leave hanging. They also have the right to make any non-member carry their things and explain complex theological issues using pig latin.
I like democratic institutions in which everyone gets to vote, instead of the elite member class..
That said, clearly I don’t know what I am talking about. So I will just shut up.
I am curious what the result would be if Ken and Sarah aren’t made members – do you keep attending, always knowing that the leaders of the church don’t think you are cool enough to join? Or do you find another church?
Ryan,
I don’t think it will be much of a problem seeing that Ken dwarfs me in coolness and I was accepted….
Pez
–
Why on earth would you want to attend a church you have to apply to in the first place?
–
So that they can be snobbish and be all “I’m a member of such and such church” … its like the theological country club or something.
/me ducks and runs for ken before he can punch me.
–
I like democratic institutions in which everyone gets to vote, instead of the elite member class..
–
I have to agree. This is something that was brought up recently in a local tech group meeting. The arguement that I gave into was “You shouldn’t be able to vote unless you have a basic knowledge of the topic at hand.” Thus, to get membership you need to have a basic understanding of the topics (and in the case of this group, a gpg key and get on the keychain … voting is limited to gpg so people can’t vote twice … or at least that is the idea, nothing is coded yet
)
That logic I can go with. I wouldn’t expect to walk into a church one day that they were voting on something and be allowed to have the deciding vote on some issue. Thing is, who decides is that basic knowledge if there or not? Especially in issues of something like religion where one passage in a book can mean completely different things to different people.
Ryan—John and Russ are right: there’s a substantial difference between membership and attendance. Attendance carries with it organizational privledges (such as congregational voting and being able to take office), but really emphasizes commitment to joining and taking part in a community. The Village Church takes the responsiblity of churches to care about its members seriously, so it makes interviews a requirement for membership.
These interviews aren’t like job interviews, where they pick and choose members based on skills or character or some other criteria, but more like opportunities to get to know the church leaders and let them get to know us. Alex was just being clever.
Ah.. so it’s less “interview and we will vote you in” and more “we just want to make sure you arent some sicko who gets off on sneaking in to the hospital rooms of sick church goers and preaching satanism”
I suppose that’s fair.
Ryan,
I think another component at work in membership interviews is that of clear communication regarding the implications of membership. The idea behind “membership” is that of a covenant, similar to a marriage contract. In marriage, you pledge that you will do certain things (ie: love the other person till death do you part, in sickness & health, etc). In a church setting, we covenant to be submissive to the scriptures which include things like committing to humility in regards to one another, meeting the needs of one another, striving for unity, and many others. The elders aren’t concerned with what you “bring” to the table as much as they want to clearly explain to you the reality of membership and get a sense from you if you still want to pursue this commitment. This is also why extended privledges go along with membership. You wouldn’t want someone in leadership who wasn’t willing to consent to these things. Covenant keeping is essential to true community (again, look at marriage).
–
Covenant keeping is essential to true community (again, look at marriage).
–
In general, or in a church setting?
If in general, I disagree strongly. I live in a community, where I can freely talk/socialize with my neightbors. We help each other when we need it, and there is no “Covenant” between us at all. But, we are a true community. If someone brought a batch of cookies over, it really wouldn’t surprise me all that much and we’d end up sitting around the living room chatting … We have very little in common, even our ages very by 10/15 years (in both directions).
If you were speaking exclusively of a church setting, I would tend to doubt that a covenant is essential … but I can’t speak on that topic.
Altp.
I’ve been attending churches since I was 3 years old and I still don’t get the emphasis on membership. To this day it irks me a bit. I don’t find it evil or anything like that, just I don’t see it in the scriptures in the context that it is used in churches today. The covenant that Darin pointed out is 100% valid, though I don’t see what membership has to do with that. That covenant is /implied/ in the scriptures to all who believe. I guess that might be viewed as membership into the family of Christ, but that’s not the kind of membership that churches are offering (so far as I know) into their churches. Seems more like you have the right to vote on church politics from dumb stuff (color of carpet, comfiness of pews) to serious stuff (hiring of a new pastor, dealing with a crime committed against the church [my old church had an issue with a swindler who posed as a new "convert" and stole the pastors credit card]). It’s an intersting concept I guess, though the last time I remember a church voting on something was the end of Acts 1… and I’ll go out on a limb and say that their voting methods were shady (praying for direction, then blindly cating lots to find a replacement for Judas and picking some guy with the shortest straw named Matteas or something. Um… hey, voters, just wait for Paul ok?!).
Now that was all sounding negative. I’m not opposed to it at all. It just gets me stirred up when /membership/ as a concept becomes more akin to /community/. It’s not the same thing, and I concur with Altp [mark the record books
] that a covenant (in this membership sense) is not necessary for community. The community covenant is there, yet it should be /implied/.
The church membership covenant is a different thing. It’s a stamp of loyalty to a particular [relatively] small group of people with the benifits of that covenant and the responsibilities of it- and it’s in writing. It’s by no means a bad thing- just not a mandatory thing. I’ve felt that sometimes if a person in a church is not a member, they become isolated by those who /are/ members – whether intentionally or not.
Now, I’ll have to say, 95% of what happens in most churches (I’m certain Ken’s church is included in this) can be participated in by both members and regular attenders alike. I think in the churches defense, they are hoping to have a level of understanding of how many committed people are going to attend and function in their church. Membership is a commitment, and an expectation, that the member will act as expected. For that purpose, membership is a helpful aid to the church administration/body and will help them determine things like budgets and other needs.
Ok… I realize I didn’t help anything here. I just played both sides of the fence with equal valid arguments. Good thing I’m a Skitzofrenic. No I’m Not. Yes I am… No… um…
Did anything I say make sense? Does anyone understand where I’m going? I think it’s just me trying to bring to light the difference between what membership (1) is percieved to be, (2) is, and (3) should be.
And K- you have nothing to worry about.
Dear Walker Family:
I heard earlier this week from someone in BOSTON….yes, Boston, that Alex was mentioned on your blog. To protect this girl Alex, I would much rather prefer that you called her “Sandy”. I’m not doubting the Walker’s genuine interest in The Village Church….I just want to be sure that “Sandy’s” membership is secure through your screeing process. You see…she isn’t a public person, many dont know she socializes with you.
I’m sure you understand.
Sincerely,
“Sandy”
I am acting under the assumption that the above comment is a joke of some sort – if not, I would like to point out a few things.
1) It’s a first name. Not a full name. Thus it only really affects people who would be closer to the church.
2) What kinda church would cause their members to attempt to keep their socializations secret?
3) What kinda friend would ask for anonymity so that other members of the church or extended group would keep their friendship with you secret?
4) How long does this membership thing take anyway? If it’s just an interview to make sure you’re hip, why is it taking so long?
5) How freakin’ creepy is it that “Sandy’s” membership is even called into question because of association with applicants (or for anything else that could be triggered by a first name on a blog)
I just want to say – this whole membership thing is elitist, creepy, and should be completely unneccessary in a church… and pretty much everything I just re-read strengthens that belief. It feels more like some secret society out of the movie skulls than it does a caring group of people who just want to help others and spread the good word.
I hope I am wrong.
Ryan,
re: 1. That was a joke.
re: 2. That was a joke.
re: 3. Um, joke.
re: 4. Membership requires attending a class to learn about the Village Church (check), a membership interview (scheduled), and a new members’ service (in January–wanna come?).
re: 5. It’s funny. Laugh.
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?topic=133
Then, reread our content policy.
http://www.kennsarah.net/about/#content-policy
Ken,
Hence my first line – assuming it was a joke, but responding in case it was not. I am unfortunately not going to be there in January (i fly out on the 27th), otherwise I would love to go. Would be interested in seeing your new church. I am going to be flying in on Saturday the 20th however, so if you are interested in dragging a raging taoist with you on the 21st, let me know. I can meet all the people who think I am way way way too paranoid.
I reread the content policy, but I don’t really see your point. I don’t hold you responsible for the contents of your comments. I hold the poster responsible. Or are you suggesting I somehow violated the policy? If so, I apologize… and please let me know what it was that I said so that I can decide if I will ever do it again.
-R
Holy smokes! I just realized how much information I put in the above post. My itinerary… where I will be on the 20th… my FIRST NAME… ARGH!!! “They” are gonna get me!!!!!!
“Sandy”–the aforementioned name has since been changed to protect the innocent.
(With semantically correct <ins> and <del> tags for you markup jocks.)
Altp,
When I use the term “true community” I may be drifting from Webster’s definition (which could explain our disagreement). I understand the concept of “true” relationships to go beyond that which you describe in your comment (bringing over cookies, etc), although such relationships would certainly /include/ those things. I would posit that the greatest intimacy and trust is found in covenant relationships, which again, is why marriage holds out such wonderful potential. The protection that a covenant offers (My wife and I told each other 12/9/01 “I will never leave you nor forsake you for any reason, ever.”) paves the way for trust and intimacy. I can show the real ugliness of my soul to my wife because I trust that she’ll keep on loving me, no matter how much filth she finds. This is not true with an acquaintance.
The benefit of the church is that relationships are built on a similar covenant. While we do not promise to stay in the same church forever, we do promise certain things that also pave the way for much greater trust and friendship than is present in acquaintances. We promise things for example that we will be open to being accountable to love. This does not mean that we will love perfectly, but that we will change and repent when we violate the covenant of love. Jai brings up a good point that these things ought to be implicit in the church, but sadly, that just isn’t the case in most. In most churches there is no expectation that people committed to a covenant of love, even though such commitment is commanded and expected in the scriptures.