A question of membership

Genevieve Peterson: are we asking enough?

“People just don’t seem to want to ‘join things’ anymore.”
Geoff Ryan

Membership is a funny issue in The Salvation Army. We are told constantly that young people, and people in general, just don’t want to join things anymore. Now, I am not going to dispute the facts or the social research that backs up the quote above. However, it feels wrong.

Let’s look at memberships for sporting clubs. In Australia, we have football. It is not that terrible game that involves getting a round ball into a giant net and frequent rolling around on the ground in mock agony! Nor is it football that requires 20 kilos of padding and stops for a little rest every two minutes. It is real football. Football with 36 unpadded men running full pace half-marathons, tackling ferociously, being able to execute the diverse skills of the game, and putting their lives on the line for the sake of the team.

In our league at the moment, memberships are skyrocketing and have continued to rise every year over the past two decades. Despite the economic crisis, or the at times woeful performance of any given club, fans will budget in the cost of their membership and become proud, paid-up, passionate members.

So how do we reconcile this phenomenon with the excuse that memberships are perhaps a thing of the past? We don’t. We simply ask ourselves the tough questions like, “What is it about football that people are willing to invest in?” Well, it is fun, involving, unlikely that your team will experience any glory, passionate, consistent, and there is unspoken law that to be a real fan, you have to be a member. Everyone else is just riding the bandwagon, and no one wants to be accused of that!

And what of memberships in general? I still seem to be buying a platter every weekend for the latest couple that announced their engagement. Sure, keeping the membership is an issue, but the membership itself doesn’t feel like its slowing down.

So let’s transfer this over to the soldier’s covenant. People have been watering it down for years to the point where now, it is a quaint certificate on your wall or an entry pass into some form of corps leadership. We have bought into this idea that people are weak!

I agree that in every sense, culturally and practically, the soldiers covenant is an odd and difficult practice. However, when Jesus’ model is to “take up your cross and follow,” I find it hard to agree that the soldiers covenant is too much. Rather, it becomes too small a commitment! The question for me is not are we asking too much, but why are we not asking for anything at all?

Writer: Genevieve Peterson officer in the Australian Southern Territory. She is currently appointed to the Social Programme department as a social policy consultant. She loves the mission of the Army, the best part of the body of Christ and she loves the mission of the Melbourne Football Club, the oldest and greatest football club in the world. She is always surprising people with the things she cannot do including swimming, riding a bike, jogging, spelling, singing or music of any kind, tanning, and not engaging in an argument when baited. She also blogs at justsalvos.com.

Thursday, February 12th, 2009 theRubi-Blog

22 Comments to A question of membership

well I think people will join what is important (I mean REALLY important) for them. every time when we called them to join we need to be honest to what we called them. for real action? for great impact on others’ life’s? or to weekly dull meetings when you know all things in advance. why people choose football membership? it gave them illusion of real action when they can be really tough and cool. and we often cannot suggest this things to them.

Vadim on February 12th, 2009

I think the army should not dare to call soldiership ‘covenant’ unless the army solidly commits to engaging with that individual in a two-three year minimum intensive, integrated discipleship and spiritual formation process/journey just as any other vowed person in religious life would have with their community. Even the newest Franciscan Orders have this, and they are mostly made up of people in ordinary life situations, married and single, so surely the army can handle it? The army needs to demonstrate an extremely clear commitment to each soldier developing in ministry and being ‘missioned’ by the Salvation Army throughout their lifetime, the army being there to help them serve actively and effectively. A covenant which leads to a vacuum, or a ’sheep’ sitting in a pew is worse than them having no covenant at all, because it leads people into unfaithfulness as normalised way of life in the church. What I see around me at the moment in the army is ‘laity’ and ‘clergy’, this is constantly reinforced from the top down, and I am not yet seeing anything that evidences that the army sees the concept of a soldier as being someone in covenanted missional life. The actual evidence (a few recruits classes, possibly following a basic Christianity course) demonstrates very clearly that the army sees soldiership as ordinary church membership, maybe with an evangelistic flavour, but there’s no training provided for this.

I’m very glad there is renewed emphasis on discipleship in the army and I hope and pray it will start to rectify this disaster before it’s too late.

Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 12th, 2009

A great program that started in Catholic church - now an ecumenical version is also available, “Just Faith” is a social justice program that Jack Jezreel developed using the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) of the Catholic Church for taking in new members. The point was that it is a rigorous year of work. People will be willing to do what matters. Asking for more is worth it, asking for a little - means why bother to fit one little extra thing in my busy schedule? Led this group (15 people all ages, educations, etc.) for a year - and follow-up gatherings the next year. It required weekly reading (over 100 pages), weekly meeting (a full evening), service projects (alone and as a whole group), 2 retreats, 1 in-service day with all other such groups in the diocese/division. And there was only one woman who had a hard time making the meetings due to her work schedule, but did a lot to be there…In a year, people made job changes, relationship changes, found new ministries…. The point for Jezreel was what can we do to facilitate transformation, to give the soil for it? God does the changing of people, but how do we create facilitative conditions? Adding a task isn’t transforming, it’s adding a task.

Maureen on February 12th, 2009

I would wholeheartedly support what Eleanor has to say about intensive and extensive preparation for soldiership. By way of agreement, what I think is also lacking though is support for soldiers once the convenant is signed. Officers get retreats and other opportunities for renewal. Soldiers have to make do with what they can seek out for themselves and it can get lonely.

Andrea

Andrea614Regent on February 12th, 2009

I get downloaded books on holiness off the net - Andrew Bale has a great post up at the moment here: http://beyondthebrook.blogspot.com/ but obviously this isn’t something the corps provides, even in a plain wrapper and handed out quietly folded inside the War Cry? I’ve found a Catholic Sister to be a wonderful spiritual director, and she has encouraged me in missional living. I am training by distance from a Baptist College, and with two parachurches (I’m now offering training as well). It is possible for soldiers to train but they have to do it outside TSA. The difficulty is then that they come back to the corps and find the congregation is half a century behind them and there’s nothing they can do about it, and nothing the CO can do with them either. If anything, it makes it all worse.

I have a secret habit of reading armybarmy blog, I know it’s a problem. I can’t seem to break it. Nobody at the corps knows. It’s very embarrassing. I’m so worried they will find out? What can I do? I think it’s ease of availability on the net. I do try not to let it dominate my life, because I don’t want to make life even more difficult for myself at the corps. Once you’ve started glimpsing the army with passion and soldiers engaged in living out their faith though, it’s very difficult to stop wanting more and more and …. (click)?

That’s my life as a soldier. (sigh)

Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 12th, 2009

Discipleship, Discipleship, Discipleship! We need more people who will commit the time and pain necessary to walk alongside new soldiers with the intent to disciple and mentor them. Without such efforts, mediocrity is too high a hope.

As for the support soldiers receive after they’ve signed on, I know that there have been attempts in some territories to make such support available, but as is too often the case, finances dictate their continued presence. In the USA Western Territory two such training modules have been offered - Master Leader Key and T.E.A.M. Training Seminars. The time and effort it took to implement these training pieces was well worth it in my opinion. There continues to be a valiant effort to keep T.E.A.M. on the front burner, but I fear that finances may well shut such efforts down. There’s got to be a way to push money toward this and other discipleship efforts.

Rob on February 12th, 2009

Why not train one person in each corps to lead workshops? Then they can be responsible for rolling out not only these training seminars but a stream of new ones, and they can work with the CO to tailor make them to suit their corps.

I think soldiers should chalk up a list of short courses they have taken on specific skills, such as the absolutely crucial ones in communication and listening, conflict literacy and conflict transformation, healthy decision making, effective committee work, fundraising - it’s not rocket science, is it? I mean it would demonstrate a solid commitment to helping build disciples in all sorts of ways that could impact their neighbourhood. Can you imagine what a neighbourhood would look like if every soldier in a corps was up to date on these skills just like our local voluntary paramedics are up to date in how to do first aid and resuscitation? Training gives confidence. And that’s without including skills on working with young people and children. I’m not saying the corps should duplicate what is available at the local college, but we get out what we put in. I know I’ve said this before, but people get more training to sell underwear in Marks and Spencers here in the UK than Soldiers in the Salvation Army get to win the world for Jesus.

Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 12th, 2009

I think a major point is being missed here. People will join - even if nominally - anything that has relevance to them. I believe people are far more discerning in what they join nowadays - not that they don’t want to join. In the past, people would join a church or whatever because ‘it was the done thing to do’. Now, they will only join if it is relevant to them. I believe the ‘Army, along with many other congregations, have been stuck in dead doctrine without realising that it is no longer relevant to people. Salvation is relevant - EXTREMELY RELEVANT - but dead doctrine is about as relevant and useful as ham at a barmitsfa! Yes, there are churches and congregations that are growing. But let’s not kid ourselves. It’s not because of the ‘activity’ etc. It’s because people find belonging and relevance to their lives. If they do, they will commit and do anything in the cause of that relevance. Don’t forget, people need to walk into a congregation before you can begin to disciple them.

I believe this is/going to be the single most important issue facing the church today and in the years to come. Essentially - What do we believe, and is what we believe relevant to people or is it just dead doctrine?

Graeme Randall

Graeme Randall on February 13th, 2009

I think this is not about programs of discipleship or courses. It is ABOUT PEOPLE who will invest time and energy in other people. For now I have 7 people whom I meet every week to pray to speak and to discover about them and God. Also I have more contacts during the week through phone and internet. This is hard, THis takes lot of time and energy. So what will be if every soldier or officer or good christian in your core will have 4-5 people to meet and pray and talk during the week. THen they will do the same. and no program is needed for it.

Vadim on February 13th, 2009

In theory yes, but this is simply not church culture or typical leadership style in our corps.

Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 13th, 2009

To Graeme: I would contest that SA Doctrine is dead! How methods may be lacking and in some places in need of life support, but our doctrine, securely founded and rooted in God’s Word are hardly dead. People will join a cause if they are convinced that such a cause is worth joining. Romans 1:16-17 sums it up: “I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’”

To Vadim: I agree that more programming is not the solution - as you’ve indicated, time and effort is what needs to happen. The programs that I happened to mention are simply a means to the end, which in this case is structured, intentional discipleship. It is not in anyone’s second nature to be a discipler, for that we need training and such programs help provide that. Your people are blessed by what you do through the telephone, internet and face to face. Oh, that there were more like you!

Rob on February 13th, 2009

(By ‘our’ corps I didn’t mean local, I meant TSA generally)
What do you mean by ‘dead’ doctrine exactly? Do you mean the doctrines are framed as statements which don’t connect with the way people’s faith is actually constructed?
- or is it that being doctrines, they are not connected to action? ie would it be better if our defining statements were along the lines of ‘we feed the hungry because… ‘ and ‘discipleship means… ‘

And what has doctrine to do with cause?

What makes doctrines ‘live’ and what life, exactly, do they bring?

Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 13th, 2009

Rob and everybody:

Planning + Structure = Programs…always! Unless we want to keep improvising, act only on impulse, don’t worry that access is unjustly uneven (ie we only serve who we perceive to be our most “promising” favourites) What you are probably concerned about Rob is the level of formality and rigidity and the absence of the spirit in the way programs are delivered. But sometimes (most often) what community needs is slow, steady, repetitious and RELIABLE; only prayer will ensure that this doesn’t make us complacent but rather further inspired.

Andrea614Regent on February 13th, 2009

To Eleanor: What do you mean by church culture? IF we say church - is people so this is not peoples culture to invest in other’s. I can agree with it. But in the church people will model what they see, Babies in faith just see what gown ups are doing and model it. So we need to be good models and ask others just to follow us. As Paul have said. “imitate me as I imitate Christ

Vadim on February 13th, 2009

Hi Andrea. The desire to provide evenly for everyone is admirable, but what do you do with the reality that the majority of any congregation who attend on a Sunday will never really engage missionally. Christendom shaped churches are designed to care for sheep, the largely passive majority, and most ministers spend almost their entire time looking after those people who are, after all, the overwhelming majority in their congregation. Meanwhile the minister often lacks time to make disciples who will make disciples.

Some, like the simple church practitioners and writers like Floyd McClung argue we just make disciples, and that should be the majority of our time. We create some settings where people can hear the gospel, but if they just want a little reading or worship now and again they can get that elsewhere. For those who want to follow and obey Jesus, we engage with them personally, invest time, and disciple and develop. It is selective in terms of who gets attention and therefore doesn’t create a ‘congregation’. It is not possessive however, those selected are selected only so they can be developed and deployed, then more are welcomed to the learning relationship.

The programme model is congregation, the disciple-making model is simple/organic church, at least as I understand it.

If we look at the Jewish model of shtibls and beis medrash, then you see the equivalent of simple church orientated tightly around discipleship, with organic and fluid community existing around that. The community gathers for daily prayers and with a culture of meal-time hospitality on Shabbos and festivals at which there is often teaching at the table as well as food. There are open classes for whoever wants to attend, but those who get ‘close’ to the rabbi, and get his attention, are the ones who are really committed and who he sees are able to develop into teachers/rabbis who can pass on the tradition.

Our model is congregations. Why? Which model came more naturally to Jesus in his setting?

Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 13th, 2009

Eleanor:

I appreciate your engaging on point (a non-trivial quality!). You are right that discipleship is not for everybody and that resources do need to be spent where they will do the most good. When it comes to identifying potential for discipleship, well it’s hard and sometimes those who seem the least promising, the least likely (and frankly, this is at the root of it, the least likeable) can in fact have the greatest gifts in this area. I would argue that you shouldn’t meet potential disciples where they are and ought to make them go a distance so as to promote discipline. But I would err on being open and repetitive about advertising about where opportunities for such training exist…as you say to welcome more as others complete learning.

Where I do see a gap in the scheme you outline is in ensuring that discipleship can be more than a phase and that people who feel led can continue on the journey without experiencing burnout. There need to be opportunities for renewal for experienced disciples and they need to be systematically offered.

Thanks again for your insights, Andrea

Andrea614Regent on February 14th, 2009

Hi Andrea,
Again I agree, though postmoderns are less likely to engage with the idea of having to develop self-discipline. That needs framing and presenting differently in a UK context. Have you read Steve Taylor’s ‘Out of Bounds Church’? Steve, so far as I understand it, works within a denominational setting, and explored emerging church in various settings as part of, I think it was a PhD. His book is very readable, and what I got out of it was the way he stressed that there need to be well thought out and well put together pathways from seeker-sensitive or emerging/taste and see gatherings into discipleship.

The practical crisis I’m seeing here in rural UK is that the church decline is so advanced, each little congregation is struggling to provide one element at best, and none of them really lead anywhere. So for example we have quite a few churches all offering a children and tween-agers group on a Friday night - four in one small town ALL meeting on a Friday evening in different churches in different places. But then - nothing. So far as we know there is no group for people over 13yrs and there hasn’t been for a long time. The church has been ‘processing ‘ children through a kind of contemporary sunday school only for them disappear and not return - and checking around, some of those who went through the process 25-35 yrs ago are now grandparents living locally and they have still not returned - frankly I don’t think they could relate to the kind of churches we have here, never mind their children.

We are still putting children through the same kind of programmes here without asking them what kind of church they imagine might be here in ten and twenty years, and then helping them to create it. We have also not begin to clearly and intentionally start giving them the skills to form their own churches, notwithstanding the fact the reality is the denominations probably won’t have any significant presence here in around 20 yrs from now. We are preparing them for adult life in a church that isn’t likely to exist.

For adults, the only pathways until recently have been for older church returners to come back into traditional congregations, largely unchanged in the last forty years apart from some new songs being introduced. There is now an Alpha course running in one of the more expensive coffee shops, that some of the young professionals etc are going to, and that feeds into a new (free methodist) plant.

Here we need to stop thinking piecemeal and short term before we can think effectively about discipleship. That’s talking about the ecumenical scene rather than TSA, which is doing it’s own thing locally. I’m not involved in that, though obviously have a link there. The most serious problem here is still the huge gulf between the modernity minded people amongst whom churchgoers are found, and postmoderns who can’t relate to their thinking, their way of doing or being church,and who simply can’t cross such a huge cultural divide to hear the gospel. ‘Membership’ isn’t really in their framework, and the army hasn’t begun to address that reality. ‘Covenant’ is a possibility, but it needs pathways and appropriate church frameworks to work.

Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 14th, 2009

Hi,

I agreee, there is a major difference between those who are in the ‘modernity’ framework, and those who are in the ‘postmodern’ frmework. This does have a significant impact on every aspect of church and christianity. This is what I was getting at earlier when I mentioned ‘dead doctrine’. For me, doctrine has to answer my fundamental questions of life and bring me life - not just something that can be reduced to a series of ‘thou shalt’ and ‘thou shalt not’ type statements. I would fall into the category of those who call themselves ‘postmodern’, yet I am enthusiastic about my church - a United Reformed congregation.

We need to find a new way of understanding our faith. This means really getting to the heart of what Salvation means for the individual, and as far as possible, remove that meaning from cultural and historical influences so that we get a ‘distilled’ understanding that can relate to any culture, any time, and any person. I believe we can see that in the early church. Paul in Athens preached at the ‘altar of the unknown god’. Both Paul and Peter understood that the various regulations of clean and unclean relate only to orthadox Jews and such instructions on how to live do not have bearing on what it means to be saved.

I believe the church today is at the same place. I firmly believe the reason church attendance is on the decline is because we have lost sight of what it means to be saved, and reduced it to a formula for living. Worse still, many believe they can pronounce judgement on others’ salvation by looking at what they believe or do etc. Such a view of salvation does not answer the problems of life, and a church/philosophy/religion - whatever - that does not answer the problems of life is not only dead, but just a quaint little idea with little or no relevance. If we do believe it answers the questions of life, then we have misunderstood the question. Yes, there will always be an extremely small minority of people to whom it does relate - that is seen in those who do stay and are attracted - but they are by far not ‘all people’.

This is an extremely hard challenge - but one the church must undertake if it is to survive and fullfill the great commission of making disciples of all people in all nations. It means re-thinking what discipleship is, what salvation is, what christianity is, what the ‘message’ is, and what salvation is.

Graeme

Graeme Randall on February 15th, 2009

This struck me as interesting. http://www.theforgottenways.org/blog/2009/02/14/adaptive-challenges-and-the-church/ Any thoughts?

Eleanor Burne-Jones on February 15th, 2009

Once you have read this and stopped laughing, read it again and see if it might help.

Cancel all soldiership and officer covenants.
Have a membership criteria (For now call it adherency)
Give these members access to all the “normal” weekly corps activities.
Now for those who want to go a step further, re introduce a soldier type covenant, BUT put a time scale on it (EG 1,3 or 5 years)
At the end of the agreed time scale review the position. Possibly sign a renewed covenant or revert to “regular” membership.

The effects will be:
a) In a post modern age where many christians do not hold such loyalty to their denominations, people will feel more at home in TSA
b) Leadership will know on an annual basis who their “warriors” are.
c) Finance will be easier because there is a wider membership base supporting the cause
d) More will commit to the cause knowing there is an agreed timeframe, AND knowing there is no shame if at the end of the time agreed they revert to membership due to work/families circumstances etc
e) There will be more transparency and openness

The only downside for me here is the multi layered membership level remains.

Which leaves one very simple yet complicated question!!!
IS TSA A CHURCH OR NOT!!!

adrian on July 6th, 2011

It’s all about the numbers, you see.

The larger the numbers (statistics) the greater one’s chances for career advancement.

I’ve been researching SA statistics for the past dozen years. I came across church membership numbers for American and Canadian churches which reported Army membership in the USA as 455,000. Confused, I referred to the Army’s own Disposition of Forces which reported a total of about 140,000 senior soldiers, junior soldiers and adherents. So, who are the other 315,000 that the Army claims? Are we including our advisory board members - most of whom are members of other denominations? What about participants in our youth centers and Boys & Girls Clubs? Who knows?

What is clear is that the Army is using the term “membership” quite loosely in order to impress the public that we are a much larger denomination than is actually the case.

We also tend to go to great lengths to fool ourselves by not updating our corps membership numbers. We’ve been known to keep people on our membership lists well after they have joined another church, moved to another city (or country) or — most inconveniently — died.

Our membership statistics tell us that we have about 100 senior and junior soldiers (and adherents) per corps in the USA — but that our Sunday School attendance average is 34. Hmmm. Where are the other two-thirds?

Apparently it is quite easy to become a member…and quite difficult to be removed. Looks like careers are being advanced based on smoke and mirrors.

Just who are we fooling anyway?

Walter Coles on July 26th, 2011

…and here is another perplexing set of statistics.

TSA in the USA reported 657 Girl Guard units in 2008, with 5,929 members. It was also reported that the Guard program had 12,717 volunteers who gave 30,900 volunteer hours that year.

Does that sound right? 2 volunteers for every girl? Nearly 20 volunteers for every Guard unit? Can you name just one corps that has 20 volunteers serving their Girl Guard troop?

Once again, how reliable are our statistics?

WC

Walter Coles on July 27th, 2011

Sound and Fury

Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend