Where Did All The Church Members Go?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, July 27, 2005
- Viewed 78
- (21) comments so far
Remember Encyclopedia Brown? He was cool. Solving all those complicated cases with quick thinking. Maybe the Southern Baptist Convention should call Encyclopedia. You see, they're missing 10 million members.
Of the SBC's 16,287,494 members, only 6,024,289 show up on the average Sunday for their church's primary service. That means only 37% of church members actually go to church. So if your church has 200 people on Sunday morning, you likely have 500 to 600 people on the membership roll. Yikes.
So where'd everybody go? Some are probably sick or out of town. Or perhaps they're in the military or are elderly shut-ins. But that hardly accounts for 63% of a church's membership not showing up. Where'd all the churchgoers go?
I suspect they went to a different church. My hunch is that the membership rolls aren't kept up to date and they may be packed with people who long ago left the church or have since died. That might just account for 10 million missing church members, especially if they left one Southern Baptist church for another and were double counted.
I'm no Encyclopedia Brown, but if I'm right you really have to wonder about the point of those membership rolls. If more than half your list is bad data, you don't have a very good list. That means 63% of every mailing is money down the drain.
And I could be wrong. But whatever the reason, somebody's got to account for 10 million empty seats in pews across the country. Maybe we should call Encyclopedia Brown.
One could look at this and say... 'what's the big deal'? But these aren't just names... these are 'souls' we are talking about. How does one lose track of people/souls so easily?
FOR DISCUSSION: How are your membership roles? Is church membership a thing of the past? Does your church place much emphasis on membership? Just wondering what's really happening out there...
The guys over at ChurchMarketingSucks.com had a great post yesterday about church membership. I remember one of the churches I was at had a church membership role that confused everyone. There were people’s names on there that nobody could ever remember. How does this happen? Take a look at this…
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Jason Nelson on Wed, July 27, 2005
Our church has a membership class, but we focus more on salvations than members. I am the worship leader and we don’t require church membership to be on the team (though we do require that they be faithful attenders for at least 6 months).
Don Solin on Wed, July 27, 2005
Memebership rolls—another “old time” deal that has lost its way. Who knows, to some—they love the #’s, they love the “idea” of what once was…mainly loyalty…. those days are gone! Way gone. Besides, when counting of heads became something more than just follow up and “care” it lost its value. When it became a should and ought for the spiritual—when people started guilting people for not seeing them in church and all that goes with it, roll count has become obsolete. It’s goofey! It’s like some former students of mine that went to a “christian” school and had to complete weekly devotions for a grade. Gimme a break.
“When the roll is called up yonder” is for another time. I know, there will be those that get bent out of shape—for this post—I know what it used to be for… Care and concern, but again I haven’t seen that kind of care for the people or loyalty back to the church for quite some time.
Don
sillyputty on Wed, July 27, 2005
the whole membership roll thing needs to be rethought at this point…that sad truth is that a lot of churches (and their respective denominations) “cook the books” when it comes to how many folks actually attend church..so much is often made of “being on the roll” that a number of people believe that all they need to do is belong to a church to be saved…its the church’s dirty little secret
Bart on Wed, July 27, 2005
We don’t stress membership, but do see it as an important issue. As a congregational rule church, we keep our membership roles current for the purpose of voting. Every year we send our letters to those who have not been attending. We encourage them to return, or if they are attending somewhere else we ask if they would like to be removed from the membership. It is done in a very loving manner and has not caused any hard feelings. If they wish to remain on the roles we as them to participate not just in voting procedures, but in all the things we do.
pjlr on Wed, July 27, 2005
Your post coincides nicely with the most recent issue of Christianity Today and their article on church discipline.
In order for discipling (discipline) to be effective there needs to be some kind of meaningul commitment to the church and iin the past that “meaningful commitment” was membership.
Membership in a church should entail accountability. Since there is little accountability, and where that is taught the practitioners are often labeled legalistic when church discipline may be necessary, we find ourselves with meaningless membership rolls that are inaccurate at best and hiding a feebly weak congregation at worst.
I read an article recently that showed that many “evangelical christians” claim 3 home churches. As an example, they go to one where the teaching is good, another for the worship and yet a third because of the youth group. When this kind of consumer mentality is coddled and cultivated you can bet that church membership is absolutely meaningless.
Chris on Wed, July 27, 2005
There’s an interesting article in this month’s Leadership magazine about membership by the head of Peacemakers.
The way of doing membership in the past may not be working, but when it comes to issues of Church Restoration/Discipline, it is important to have membership roles. Churches face libel and slander lawsuits for attempting to reconcile a wayward member if that wayward person is not a member of the congregation in question.
It’s also helpful to have church membership to curb the kamikaze way people church-hop today. When people see themselves and are seen by others as a part of a fellowship, they’re more likely to plug in to a church rather than playing church roulette every week.
anonymous on Wed, July 27, 2005
We do not church hop, but neither do we feel the need to be official “members” of our church. We’ve had two bad experiences in churches (we’ve only ever been to 3 churches) that we chose to become official “voting” members. I guess due to those experiences we just didn’t want to become members somewhere else. We are members of the Body of Christ and we use our gifts where they are needed/requested in and outside the church. Whether good or bad is up to ones opinions, but it doesn’t bother me one bit. Just my 2 cents as a non-pastor type.
JMH on Wed, July 27, 2005
Do members join the church to ensure their place in heaven? If so, the pastor or person extending the right hand of fellowship failed to teach them a basic NT truth. The moment that you received Christ as your Lord, you became a member of His church. Membership should include accountability. Everyone of us shall give account of ourselves to God (Ro. 14:12). A form of that takes places even now, as God chastens His children, according to His good pleasure. He has reckoned our present course to not be in His, or our, best interest, and grants us the discipline we need to fulfill our calling (He. 12:5-11). Or should I say to fulfill our membership responsibilities as being accepted in the beloved body of His Son.
Why should members discuss holding staff members and the pastor, for that matter, accountable, if they refuse to abide by any standard themselves? The common reply, “that’s what we’re paying them to do.” But should that be the reason for our leader’s allegiance to God and His flock? No, if so, they should be replaced. Did you join your church to enjoy the fellowship there? Or because others were doing it that you respected or wanted to impress? Or because you wanted the ability to vote in the assemblies and decide what policies others would abide by, what work others would do, and who would be your representatives in church ‘parliament’? I hope the answer is no to all of these, but you’ve joined that church because you believe that God has lead you to worship and ‘minister’ there. You may be in a season of preparation, or of standing still and seeing the salvation of the Lord, or His season of reaping a plentiful harvest has arrived because you refused to quit.
Members should be held accountable, yet I do not have a biblical framework or structure to offer. Most here conclude that our present structure isn’t respected, and there are no consequences to those that rebel against previous verbal commitments to support their church. Some offer an ongoing active member list, ever fluctuating, requiring no verbal or written commitment, which apparently has to be updated on a weekly basis. This may keep them coming and comfortable, but it seems to fail to confront the issue of faithfulness, which God himself will deal with, if we don’t. Another issue, usually avoided in our modern churches, is that of church discipline. For if we held members accountable, as we like to do our staff, then when all efforts to comfort, rebuke and guide are unheeded, we must actually confront them with the rod (1Co. 4:21). Or heaven forbid, take their names off the membership roll, to which they willfully abdicated all of their responsibilities long ago anyway. Yet if membership doesn’t mean any responsibility on the part of the member, all of this reasoning is certainly incorrect. Any ideas?
crz on Wed, July 27, 2005
I support active/participating church membership. In fact, I believe that it is very important to identify “officially” with a church through membership. It is not only about accountability and the like, it is also about the “one another’s” of Scripture that I believe happen best when people are truly committed to a local body of believers.
People can say all they want about being committed and involved in a local church, but until they actually make that commitment public by becoming members, then they are still what I refer to as “spiritual free agents.”
BeHim on Wed, July 27, 2005
When I first became a Christian, I couldn’t get enough of the Word and my church only had Wednesday Night and Sunday morning, including Sunday School, studies. So my pastor recommended some other events at churches he knew had good programs so I started attending them.
What I learned early on, as a young believer, there are many in each church that truly seek the Lord (and there are those who just socialize). As time went on, the group that sought the Lord (2 or 3 at each location) began meeting on their own. There were times we were all together 6 or 7 days out of the week. At least 4 of the 10 or 12 core people that met now serve in some ministry. I wasn’t a member of any of the churches, even though they all counted me. I currently call one church my “home” church and help 4 other churches with teaching or guest speaking. They all count me but as what? A member? I’m a member of only one. An Elder? Most church membership agreements forbid membership (including eldership) at multiple churches (I wonder if Paul was considered an Elder in the 7 churches).
So how are things counted anyway? Many have itching ears and move around seeking teachers who can satisfy the itch, yet many of them are counted at multiple churches? What is the point of membership? Accountability? To who? For What?
Currently most consider the “alter call” and membership as the correct number but isn’t that kind of like a client list? I think True Believers are counted differently.
If pastors are corrected (dealing with doctrine) or reproofed (dealing with conduct), many just start looking for another church or ignore the correction and consider it as those who would “argue” and to stay away from them (improperly applying Scripture). If members are corrected or reproofed they might just leave (afterall, there are many places they can choose from). Count the people who are willing to be corrected and reproofed. Challenged in Scripture and proven worthy of their calling. I think numbers (even in the mega-churches) would drop DRAMATICALLY.
Kent on Wed, July 27, 2005
Life Church in Okalahoma has an interesting concept in membership. They renew their membership annually. Membership is only for one year at a time. If you want to be a member it is annual commitment, and each time you have affirm that you will abide by the commitms that are basis for membership. If you want to leave, you don’t renew. There is no awkward resigning your membership. You just don’t renew it. it is a concept that we are looking at in our church. As it is membership needs to be more important ot less important.
Chuck Gohn on Wed, July 27, 2005
I have only been a pastor for a year, and have found this whole membership thing to be very interesting and frustrating. To many people at our church the whole membership thing seems to be a big deal. Many of our council members believe that the members (whether active or inactive) remain on the rolls unless they request to be removed or submit their “letter of transfer”. This seems to be the trend on the east coast, and I am wondering if it is more of a mainline thing that had to do with allocating dollars at one time. Is anyone familar with this concept? Anyway, part of me wants to simply do away with membership, but some people want to be members, and specifically ask to be. When someone is baptized we don’t automatically make them members in the local church. We treat that as a separate event. Some of you may have done the Experience God study. You may recall that Blackaby said we should treat local membership as a big deal. That we should bring them up front and tell them that God has placed them in the local body for a reason (i.e., that their unique gifts will help accomplish what God has in store for the church), and that by becoming a member they are making their gifts available to the whole church). That is basically want we do. Anyway, I am not sure just doing away with the concept of membership or changing the name to “partner” or something else like some of the churches who were mentioned in the leadership article are doing.
Don on Wed, July 27, 2005
One of the first things I did when I took an established church was review and update the membership rolls. It is amazing what you find, but it always helped in church growth.
Also, there are may legal problems,if you don’t. David Gibbs of Christian Law Ass’n recommends keeping the membership up to date
Anthony D. Coppedge on Wed, July 27, 2005
Churches for decades have been more focused on membership than attendance - well before there was such a name or category as Mega Church.
Go check out the minutes from the Southern Baptist General Convention from 20-30 years ago and read how for decades Pastors were introduced as pastors of XXXX member churches.
I think the real issue could be that back when there was a viable count of both worship attendance and Sunday School, the total numbers were simply added togther. This was also before church database software was plentiful, so it was just easier to say “we have an XXXX member church” based on these numbers.
In today’s world, where accurate counts are easy to tabulate and track, churches still (for the most part) want to tell you about how big their “membership” is. The only other group of people who I know are more interested in membership over attendance are fitness clubs, where up to 50% of their “members” don’t show up - and they count on that both for income and to ensure they have enough machines/space for everyone!
I find this interesting, because attendees are those who show up. The 20% of the 80% who do the financial giving in most churches are attendees. The group of volunteers is mainly (if not nearly completely) comprised of atendees.
So why do we still count membership over attendance? For some, it’s simply a trained behavior of “we’ve always done it that way”. For others, it’s an ego-protection device to justify their position in a stagnant or declining church attendance. I suspect that it’s mostly because the vast majority of churches are still using outdated databases and are too lazy to take the time to not only count attendance, but - more importantly - use that data to ensure inreach and outreach are being done by the staff and lay leadership.
My 2 cents,
JMH on Wed, July 27, 2005
Don, or anyone else with knowledge in this area:
What are the legal problems for not keeping your rolls updated?
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment