;)
Congregational Integrity And Transfer Of Membership
Posted by Cyle Clayton in Uncategorized
SBC pastors and staff rarely, if ever, contact the pastor of the previous church when someone joins their own church. I have been the pastor of a SBC church for thirteen years, and have never once been called by the pastor of a church where we were granting a letter. I do not like our current church policy, which is to grant the letter of any member unless they were removed from active membership via disciplinary process. Currently there is one family that has joined another church after being corrected here. Another family, who left after being corrected for continual gossip, slander, and divisiveness attended another church for some time. I communicated with the pastor of that church what happened, and that I would not admit them to membership until they had resolved the conflict with our church. He said they weren’t any trouble there and he would admit them freely into membership. Only one time has the pastor of another church called me to warn me about someone who had left another church and joined ours.
The “transfer of letter” process is nothing more than a paperwork shuffle in most SBC churches. Churches that have taken the added steps of required membership classes seldom take the step of checking references from previous churches. Why? I think the main reason is that we are hungry for members, not for integrity. The problem in American Christianity today may not be transfer growth, but the refusal to treat other churches as sisters in Christ. Here are my observations and recommendations:
What if the way we transfer members is unhealthy and contributes to the lack of integrity of and commitment to the local church body? The church is a body of believers related to one another. When someone can just fail to show up, travel across town and join another church without so much as a ”please pray for us as we make this difficult decision” then we have created a culture that is destructive.
What if pastors and church leaders would not receive members into membership until they had spoken with the pastors and leaders of the previous church personally as well as to the person or family that is attempting to join their church? Anyone who is insulted by the effort to maintain the integrity of the local church body should be further scrutinized.
What if churches, or at the very least pastors, agreed that they will not transfer members unless they have at least spoken with one another? This could certainly be the policy of a Baptist association. It would make a fine resolution at the SBC.
Recently a man who is now attending our church felt led to seek another church home. He spent time in prayer, consulted with his mentor, and his current pastor. He then came to me and said he believed that God was leading him to explore the possibility of being part of our church. He did not, however, start to attend on Sundays until he had first gone to his own church and stood before them to tell them what he believed God was doing in his life. Here was a man of integrity, who cared enough about the people he was going to church with to do the right thing. We should care enough to do the right thing. What if we did?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother Cyle,
Great observations. However, you fail to realize something that is prevalent among us pastors–ego. We are always ready to point to a flaw in the other pastor or church as to why this person is leaving. We are also too ready to give the benefit of the doubt to the person coming into the fellowship.
After some previous issues with local pastors I committed before God that I would speak plainly to those desiring to come into our fellowship. I will never forget the first time my current chairman of deacons went visiting with me to a home. The couple said they had some difficulty with the way their pastor was doing something. I told them that they needed to go and get it worked out with their pastor and if they still felt God leading them to leave, we would be honored to receive them. When we left my chairman told me that was the first time he had ever heard a pastor tell someone something like that. The said ending to this story is that the member went to another local church and was received with open arms. Guess what is happening at that church now?
Blessings,
Tim
I was contacted by an associate pastor of a church (we were receiving a new member; they were “sending” the member). He told me a little history and a warning. The member was a college age male with a history of hanging around the high school age girls… nothing overtly inappropriate but enough to give a few of the girls and their parents some concern. Additionally, he had a hard time holding a job, had been ostracized from his parents, and was in the habit of not-so-subtly maneuvering for handouts.
In talking with the young man, we agreed to accept him as a member if he agreed to stay away from the youth group and to be mentored by two of our deacons.
I ran into him a few weeks ago. He’s doing well, holding down a good job, and has been married for about a year.
So… the only time another church has contacted me it involved a lot of work but seemed to work out well in the end.
This is a true story from many years ago. I was a teenager at the time (I’m 64 now) but I remember it just like it was yesterday. This story happened in the early 1960s.
I was a member of a medium sized Southern Baptist Church in my hometown of Downey California.
A man who was a former pastor (and his wife and family) joined our church. He did a few positive things (such as promoting that we order Stamps Baxter Song Books) but he also did a bunch of stuff that caused strife and dissention. There was a special called business meeting — which I attended — where he was kicked out of the church.
I later found out that this former paster joined via “letter in hand.” Evidently, that was a coded way of saying “this guy causes trouble”.
I don’t know if the practice of physically handing a person his letter of transfer is still used or not. If so, this would be a way that the sending church could use to notify any potential receiving church that a person is a troublemaker.
To this day I don’t know exactly what this pastor did that warrented him being kicked out. I was about 18 at the time and wasn’t tuned in (or interested) in church politics. If this happened today I’d be doing due-diligence to find out the particulars.
My wife and I have been Baptists since childhood and this is the only time I can ever recall a church kicking someone out. Being kicked out must be exceedingly rare — possibly one member in ten thousand.
I think the key here is what you’ve all said. It takes alot of work. It also takes willingness on the part of each of us to be scrutinized. Baptists don’t seem to be too good at that. I think we just have to begin to work toward it; that I have to begin to work toward it. It means a great deal of extra communication.
Cyle,
We do not ask for nor accept for membership letters from other churches. We require all those who want to join Woodland Creek to go through a class and sign a covenant. We take their word that they have been baptized and rarely check background unless they are working with kids.
This process has worked well. Because the membership class requires a commitment, and gives us time to build a relationship, folks do not join casually. It is a big deal. Our covenant requires joining a small group, serving on a ministry team, tithing and several other commitments (like not gossiping). So people rarely join here to cause trouble. It’s just not worth the effort!
All that said, I really like the idea of contacting the church where prospective members were previously members. Though few of our folks have been members at other churches, for those who have, I think we will start doing that here. Thanks!
Might there be any legal implications for giving a “negative recommendation” for a church member going elsewhere. I seem to recall reading about litigation on several occasion where one pastor “warned” another about transfer members. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
Cyle,
A few months back, I posted about a similar topic on my blog (see here: http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2007/04/ministerial-ethics-and-city-church.html). In the region of Extremadura, Spain, all the churches in the region-wide Evangelical Council subscribed to a list of guidelines of “ministerial ethics.” Included in the list was the following statement:
——————————
“We believe that, acting decently and in order, each member has the right to belong to and collaborate with the church he/she prefers.
-In cases of doctrinal disagreement, or incompatibility in personal matters or forms of worship, brothers or sisters in Christ ought to join themselves to whatever church they wish, with the agreement of the respective pastors, leaders or missionaries.
-Whenever a person or group of people leave a church, whether they are under discipline or not, they should not be received into fellowship without hearing beforehand the report of the church from which they are coming. No one should be received into fellowship without the previous consent of his/her leaders, or without having come to a point of reconciliation and restitution of any moral or material damage that may have been caused. A peaceful exit from one’s former church is of utmost importance.
-In cases of immorality, serious offenses or a persistent lack of discipline on the part of the brothers and/or sisters leaving one church for another, the leaders of the new church, upon confirming the facts, ought to take on the discipline that had been applied in the former church, provided it is deemed to be proportionate.
-Teaching should not be given nor visits made to members of churches other than one’s own without the consent of their respective leaders.
-Members of other churches, upon consulting pastors, leaders or missionaries other than those of their own church on matters of church polity, worship, doctrine or morality, should be referred to the leaders of their own church.”
——————————-
In summary, I believe this topic is an important topic that relates to the essential unity of the Body of Christ. In some ways, though not under an ecclesiastical hierarchy, local congregations should not be quite so “autonomous” as what is typically practiced in the States. Biblically, I see more of a “voluntary interdependence.”
Thanks for calling this to our attention.
David,
Thank you for that comment. I fully agree with your last paragrph. While some might see this as control, I see it as an issue of integrity. Mutual submission, voluntary interdependence, while voluntary, is nonetheless commanded. To ignore God’s instruction results in God’s discipline. Thank you again. I’m headed to a pastor’s breakfast now and I’m going to bring this issue up and ask them to begin thinking about it.
[...] constitute a problem? And if so, what are some practical solutions? Cyle Clayton has written an excellent piece on this subject over at sbc IMPACT! which spurred the thinking that led to this somewhat rambling post. I encourage [...]
Not sure this sits quite right with me. Sorry.
Bernard,
I’d be interested in what made you uncomfortable about this. I am uncomfortable about it, but really believe that the way many of us treat membership isn’t healthy. And, I think we ought to at least begin to talk about how it could be.
Cyle – I hope I can say all of this without you – or anyone else – misunderstanding me to be confrontational. I realize that most of you – if not all – are active pastors or full-time Christian servants of some sort, and your perspective is much more educated and encompassing than mine. So, please, don’t think I’m claiming to be “right” while accusing you guys of being “wrong”. I DO understand the problem, and I’ve seen it many times.
I’m having trouble putting all this in words, so I’ll just quote the parts that concern me.
“Anyone who is insulted by the effort to maintain the integrity of the local church body should be further scrutinized.” (You complain about me invading your privacy justifies my concern. In other words, if you apply to this church for membership, you have no right to privacy.)
“It would make a fine resolution at the SBC.” (SBC has no policy regarding how members are accepted in churches; this is an autonomity issue.”
“A peaceful exit from one’s former church is of utmost importance.” (This is in a comment. This is rarely possible. In other words, you’re proposing that if a person doesn’t “get along” in one particular SBC church, we’ll just kick him out of all of them. That’s a much bigger thing than I think you’re realizing.)
You’re proposing things which can affect a person’s reputation for a lifetime, as the general populace understands someone who is thrown out of church to be a full-blown heathen.
I think this needs to be approached with great care. The general tone of this discussion comes across to me as this.. “More people should be kicked out of Baptist churches, and no other Baptist church should let ‘em back in. Let’s purge ‘em!!!”
But I’m not a pastor. What do I know…
I’m not even sure that “church membership” is Biblical.
Part of my previous comment SHOULD read – “Your complaint about me invading your privacy justifies my concern.”
Left out the r on “your” and the “t” on “complaint.”
Bernard,
Thanks for the comments. Let me walk through your comments.
First, the scrutiny statement. If your church hired a pastor without doing a background check, and then you find out he is not what he said he was, you would probably not be happy. I think that a phone call to the previous church is wise. If that offended someone, I would want to know why it offended them. I would want to know why they did not want me to know how they had conducted themselves in the previous church, and why they had left that church. By the way, this is not the policy of our church. We are an open membership church. If someone wants to join, we let them. If they want to leave, we grant their letter. I don’t think that’s best, but that is the decision of our church.
As for resolutions and autonomy, I am in no way advocating any type of external hierarchy. I just wonder what would happen if the churches in my association would say, “We won’t let someone join our church if they haven’t worked out their bitterness with their previous church. We care too much for our churches and for the people of our churches to trade members without integrity.”
Your last group of comments seem to indicate that you think the discussion is advocating the wholesale purge of church rolls. I don’t have any idea what the attitude of the other posters is, although I don’t think this is it. I do, however, know that I am not concerned with kicking people out, but helping them stay in.
Cast In Point: In the past ten years one family here has been a member of six different churches. In each situation, they were welcomed with open arms. They are active in the community, and are “committed Christians.” Every time they change churches, they attempt to take people with them. They have been involved in trying to start two new churches here during that time. Both churches were splits, not intentional church plants. If they show up at your church, do you want to readily receive them into membership?
P.S. that should have been “Case In Point” rather than “Cast In Point.” I’m not sure what a Cast In Point is.
That would be a point where one begins fishing…
Your points are valid and well taken. No argument that there are problem people. I’ve seen ‘em. They frustrate me. They are usually very much in “the wrong”. If there is such a place.
Your response to my scrutiny comment misses one thing – I’m NOT advocating “free leadership”. ALL teachers are subject to intense vetting, pastors, deacons, etc. I’m only referring to membership here.
Don’t forget that non-members can cause a church split, too.
My point is largely that grudges can develop in two directions. We can easily become entrenched in the disagreements in other churches, even appearing to “take sides”, if we refuse membership to an applicant because they disagree with a previous church. Suppose that the member has tried to reconcile, or is simply leaving to avoid conflict, or is leaving because someone there “doesn’t like” them, but the church is in the wrong by refusing to reconcile. If we adopt a “principle” of refusing them membership because they are in a conflict, it’s extremely likely that they will simply drop out of church altogether and nothing will ever be settled.
Maturity is a hard thing. Likewise integrity. We can’t impose it on people, and if we think we can, we’re very immature.
I think the most MATURE approach is to counsel the applicant. Since this is THEIR decision, their reputation, and their life, we are best served to start with them. I would guarantee that 15 minutes of structured discussion would determine whether the person is “in disagreement” with their last church. Once that becomes evident, ASK this person if they will allow you (the pastor) to discuss the situation with their former church leadership.
This all needs to be done carefully to prevent judgmentalism and aristocratic domination.
Again, these are just my viewpoints, but they have basis. I’m not a church management specialist or anything of that nature… just a guy who has seen a lot and suffered a good deal at the hands of a respected church in my local association. I’m also a member of a church that was formed when another church chose to just write off several members. If those members had elected to join another church, they would have had to apply on statement of faith. No choice. No letters would be granted. This was due to a mass protest on their part that the government of the church was out of order with some procedures they were following. According to YOUR recommendation, these members should have been REQUIRED to reconcile and settle with the leadership of the old church, and would probably have been refused membership at a “new” church.
Kind of a catch 22 since the original church basically disowned them.
There are lots of perspectives.
Hope I’m not being a jerk, here.
Cyle,
This is a great post and witness for the body of Christ. The body of Christ (Church) needs to discern the Members; if one is hurting the others should be hurting as well. Some people think it is a Country Club Membership and act accordingly. If someone in the body wants to leave because their feathers are ruffled, they should be honest enough to have this problem come to light before Bothers and Sisters in the Spirit of Christ. Usually it is someone who has never really experienced the Fullness of the Holy Spirit that is at Odds with the Body of Christ. We all need to be under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, regardless of which church we attend.
David Rogers comment is right on, as expected from Brother David.
In His Name
Bernard,
You are most definitely not “being a jerk” here. Your thoughts are insightful and worthy of consideration. And they are definitely welcome on this blog!
Indeed, there is always more than one “side” to any conflict. Indeed, we have had church letters refused simply because the people were coming to OUR church, not because of anything the people involved had done. Our sister churches are not always on the right side of these interpersonal conflicts.
This seems, to me, to be something that cannot be solved by any set policy or procedure. Instead, as Cyle is suggesting, we must invest time and effort in the process of getting to know people. We must counsel, question, and pray with all of our prospective members.
Bernard,
I like your comment about grudges developing in both directions. I’ve been there and done that and don’t like the color of th T-shirt. Look, I don’t know any pastor who loves granting letters to other churches in the area. We want to keep the people we have. Shepherds don’t like losing sheep. Sometimes that devolves into bitterness on the part of leadership.
The whole communication process needs to begin before the person leaves. Pastors and leaders need to be more involved with those who are less involved. We should find out why they aren’t connected, why they are disgruntled, why they feel like they need to leave or want to leave. I have “blessed” several people in the past few years who believed they needed to go to other churches. I was unhappy to lose them, but happy to recommend them. The question and issue is more to do with those who refuse to be part of any conversation.
It is an issue of maturity. Even though my church has an open membership policy, I don’t just shake hands with new members and plug them into a Sunday School. I begin a conversation with them about the process. If they are bitter, I don’t want them to be. If there is unforgiveness, I want to help them forgive. If they weren’t being fed, I want to find out how they are feeding themselves.
There is always tension here, and I think we agree that we cannot force maturity by establishing rules. At the same time, we should address the issues. We will not mature unless we do, and policies and agreements between churches could be part of that process.
Couple things to add…
People who leave churches – especially those holding “positions” as teachers, committee members, etc., without so much as a word to a deacon or the pastor REALLY get on my nerves. I pity the next church in line. I think they owe the church a severe apology and that they really need to evaluate their spiritual condition, regardless of whether they were right or wrong about whatever they are “leaving” about. I’m with you guys here, don’t misunderstand. That said, I don’t feel that forcing an apology to happen before membership will be granted is always best, largely because we’re usually dealing with very weak Christians in these situations anyway. It also bothers me to think that we would bias the leadership of another church against someone simply because our style of worship or our doctrinal stance or our method of evangelism or our lifestyle commitments didn’t match up. (Such things are the root of most of these.)
Second thing – does anybody agree with me that we overstate the “value” of church membership? Seems to me that the best way to be a lazy Christian is to just not join a church. Thus, you can hold no positions, can’t be responsible for anything, and cannot vote on any issues. So, somebody remind me again, why is it that “church membership” is so important? My point here is that membership basically only carries responsibilty, not reward. There’s no free ID card. There’s no promise of heaven. I can’t even figure out why we really do it. Is it just so we’ll be able to decide who’s in and who’s out? Is it to determine who gets to vote? Where is “voting” in the Bible?
By saying this, I’m trying to get at one thing – by being over-sensitive about who we accept as members, we’re furthering the “country club” mentality, and we’re furthering the “misunderstanding” that THE CHURCH decides who goes to Heaven and who doesn’t. We’re acting like membership is a reward that we give only to the godly. I don’t see it that way.
One thing that a lot of “unincorporated” churches fail to do is say this – “When you join our church and allow us to put your name on the roll, everything you own immediately becomes legal tender to pay any debts incurred by our church due to judgment from civil courts concerning liabilities.” That oughtta discourage a few.
Of course, many churches are incorporated these days, but there are many small ones that are not.
I just want to reiterate – being a church member shouldn’t be thought of as a “reward”. In my opinion, it’s just one tool that a church uses to make disciples for Christ. (Maybe this is off topic, but I don’t mean for it to be.) It’s not like we’re giving away salvation or even a million dollar jackpot. Don’t we sometimes create an illusion with all this hullaballoo about who’s a member and who’s not?
Thanks for the welcome, Geoff. I suppose I’m a little controversial, but I’m not meaning to be hateful. I love pastors. You guys are awesome. Thanks for being transparent. Please know that my thoughts are given in very sincere love and concern for the church.
Cyle – Very wise words – “If they are bitter, I don’t want them to be. If there is unforgiveness, I want to help them forgive. If they weren’t being fed, I want to find out how they are feeding themselves.”
You and I agree 1000% there. Highly important.
I’ll step back a notch here and admit that there is a very important opportunity to resolve conflict at the point where a Christian requests membership at a new church, and we should seize it immediately. I’m just not comfortable with the idea of requiring a resolution in order to grant membership.
Bernard,
For me, local church membership is all about mutual accountability. As believers, we are all “members” of the Universal Church. But, if we are not members of a local church, when we need to be held accountable for something, it is both everyone’s job and no one’s job at the same time.
Also, without a doubt, there are times when someone may wish to transfer membership, and their previous church does not wish to endorse the change, and the previous church is wrong. In the such a case, I believe it is the responsibility of the receiving church both to talk to the new prospective member, as well as to investigate the situation, including, as much as possible, talking to leadership at the previous church. If convinced the previous church is wrong or mistaken, then, in good conscience before the Lord, they may decide to receive the new member anyway. But, I believe this is a serious decision that should not be taken lightly, nor “rubber-stamped.”
I really wish I possessed the linguistic skills to say what I’m trying to say, but I can’t seem to make it happen.
God bless all of ya, good and bad church members both.
Bernard,
I think your linguistic skills are more than adequate. You’ve stated your case. That’s what this is about, discussing the issues that effect us. It’s not about deciding the issues. Thanks for the discussion.
If I have a really bad person going to a church like,…say, the one Tim Rogers serves as pastor I lie and say they are the salt of the earth kind of people and tell Tim I am really going to miss them and for him to get them into leadership as soon as possible.
This always causes Tim and others like him trouble and really pumps up my ego to which he referenced in the very first comment in this thread.
Seriously, this is a good post which deserves much thought and prayer.
cb