Americans increasingly are avoiding getting hitched – not just to their significant others, but to their church. Today, just over half of all adults are married compared to 72% in 1960. Similarly, though the percentage of Americans attending church has remained relatively unchanged for five decades, church membership has plummeted. In fact, there are about as many church members in America today as there were in 1960. This, despite a 40% increase in U.S. population over that same time. Today, less than four in 10 churchgoers are members of their congregation, according to Grey Matter Research.
One might think church membership
and marriage are unrelated, but I think they’re actually closely
connected. Take the reasons people give
for avoiding both. Many co-habiting
couples, for example, say their love validates their union, so there’s no need
for a piece of paper from the state.
Similarly, those who avoid membership argue that the church is organic,
not institutional. It’s a living
organism comprised of people in relationship with God and each other. So, there’s no need to formally add their
name to some church roster.
People who spurn both marriage and
church membership also cite bad experiences to justify their aversion to
commitment. Confirmed singles often
recall their parent’s divorce or bad marriage. Similarly, those who avoid
membership frequently tell of rancorous church splits and hypocritical church
members.
However, none of these objections,
though understandable, negate marriage or church membership. Churches, like marriages, are comprised of
humans, so they’re going to be flawed. And,
though it’s true, the local church is organic – it’s also, like marriage, an
institution created by God. It’s an
outpost, so to speak, of Christ’s kingdom.
It’s where we, as citizens of Christ’s kingdom, fully participate in His
mission – where our citizenship becomes real, not merely a concept.
So, if you’ve been attending a local
church, but have never joined, how about resolving this New Year to get hitched? For better or for worse, it’s a commitment
that honors God.
I have to disagree with you. I think you would need to explain to me how being a church member increases my ability to relate to other people within the church, reach out to those who don't, and improves my relationship with God. I have been a member of churches in the past. It seems the only ones who really crave new members are church pastors and church boards, because higher numbers improve their standing with District Superintendents and within their districts among other pastors. It seems politically motivated. In other respects, when I took the oath to become a member, I swore to follow the "special rules" in the membership manual which was supplemental to the scripture. It never did sit well with me, but I wanted to be part of the church, so I did it. Now, looking back, I don't believe it's sound doctrine to require such an oath, and in fact, is adding to the scripture. If I attend a church where other "Christians" require membership to relate to me, then I know I am attending the wrong church. I am sorry to disagree with your point-of-view, and I understand your point about commitment. However, I've attended many churches as I've moved several times, and there is always the inevitable "search for a church" and each church measures their members' commitment in different ways. I just don't feel responsible for pastors' insecurities anymore. My commitment is to Jesus. I prefer to be held accountable for how I am representing Him.
ReplyDeletehomebody,
ReplyDeleteI think you just made Julie's point.
I can't speak for any other church than the Catholic Church regarding "oaths". in the Catholic Church there is a process adults go through before entering the Church called the RCIA program which is intended to teach people what the Church believes before making the commitment, much like dating and courtship is necessary before committing to marriage. I believe thaat should be the only purpose of anything resembling an "oath".
If you or I were to join any other group would we not first decide whether-or-not we agree with the purpose, or philosophy of that organization before giving some allagiance to that group such as the Salvation Army, Red Cross, or Amnesty International? That allegiance manifested by our support is indeed an oath we agree to take. The difference between those organizations and church membership, or marriage is simply a private "oath" vs. a public one, and the inability to make that public affirmation is, I believe, one of the points Julie is making.