In part to prevent "hostile takeovers".  In part because there are differing understandings of membership.  And it isn't just the interests of the local congregation that are at stake.  THe interests of the wider church are too -- for example in property matters.

That being said, adherents can be granted the voting privelege on many things.  Mind you I still fail to see how the budget of a church is a temporal matter not a spiritual one.

However, I do think that a new solution has to be found as ideas around membership and "joining" are changing.

I went to church (UC) but no one there talked about spiritual things.  Teas, bake sales, rummage sales, turkey suppers, meetings.  Didn't seem to be anything much there to actually join.  Didn't seem to be much point in going anymore.

Richard - I don't even understand the questions you pose so I couldn't say they reflect whaat I believe.  What DOES 'Jesus Christ the word made flesh' really mean.  Is it referring to the impregnation of a Virgin?  By a God that presumably has a humanish body to be able to do that? I know that doesn't reflect what I believe. 

RichardBott,

Some adults (not all) who start attending a church have never been confirmed.  At my church confirmation classes aren't offered every year.  I was an adherant for several years before I was able to attend confirmation classes and then become a full member of the church.

Just saying that churches really vary in terms of opportunities to actually become a member if you are not yet confirmed.  I had long-since been commited to the church spiritually and contributing in terms of time and financial support and finding a place as a part of the community before I was ever an official member.

Not a complaint there.  Just a consideration.  It wasn't about being "willing to say the words" for me.  Nor was waiting an awful thing.  I was OK about the voting.  I'm just speaking to what you said about why people don't become members.

Its true that I can't speak for all congregations.  During my lifetime I have only been a member of about 1/2 dozen. rural and urban, large and small.  I have never before heard of anyone having to wait for a long period of time for confirmation and membership.  I would think that if a person approached the minister or the clerk of session with a request for confirmation, classes could be arranged even for one person. 

 Well... by the polity of The United Church of Canada, with the permission of the members, adherents can be given permission to vote on "temporal matters". (I bet that really answers your question, Stevie. *grin*)

The definition of "Temporal Matters" is:

"those transitory and secular affairs that pertain to the life, work, and finances of a Congregation. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Temporal Matters to not include: the calling of a member of the Order of Ministry; a request to a Presbytery for an appointment; the election of an Elder or a Trustee; the order of worship; the discipline of the United Church; the amalgamation of Pastoral Charges or Congregations; the disbanding of Pastoral Charges or Congregations; and property matters requiring the consent of the Presbytery." (The Manual 2007, sec. 001)

One must be a member of a specific UC congregation to be an Elder (Member of the Session or its Equivalent - Board, Council). One does not need to be a member to be a Trustee - as long as a majority of the Trustees are members.

The members can give "corresponding membership" to the adherents at the beginning of a meeting - this means that they have the right to speak on matters, but not the right to vote on them.

Fun. fun. fuuuunnnn.

Christ's peace - r

My parents are not members.  They have been adherents for almost 20 years.  They are active in the congregation.  They have a "thing" about membership.  They do NOT wish to vote on the minister.

One thing  that I shold know, but, I forget, is presbytery charges based on members?  I think it is correct?

You see, for me, I feel we should be paying presbytery dues for folks like my parents.  They will be buried from the church, they are active in the church. 

oh well, I know they are by far the exception in our congregation ;however, it is another angle.

Suppose for a moment there is a vacancy and the congregation is about to call a new minister.  The proper steps have been taken, a JNAC perpared, a search committee in place.  They call a congregational meeting to present the candidate they have chosen.

But, there is a small but vocal group in the congregation who wants to see the church go in a different direction.  They know of a minister who supports their views and would love the opportunity to move into this church.  So, on the day of the congregational meeting, many friends and relatives of this particular minister and his supporters attend the worship service and then attend the meeting.  If there is no rule about who votes and who doesn't, everybody at the meeting has a right to vote.  So the search committee, who represent the majority of church members, present the information about the candidate of their choice.  Then the other group nominates their candidate and call for a vote.  Everybody present votes, whether they have formal membership, have attended the church for ten years, are new in the last six months, or this is their first day of attending.  And the newly nominate minister wins. 

Does that seem fair or right? 

As much as I would like to say that all are equal I think that we have to have rules and follow procedure.  If we do away with formal membership, do we put other rules in place?  Such as, attending 30 Sundays out of the last 52?   Or regularly for the last six months?   Or do we open it to everyone who comes on the Sunday the vote is being taken?

 Hi, Seeler -

About a year ago, for a couple of different reasons (statistical & demographic, and making sure that the Elders would be in contact with people who weren't here), we instituted a "communications sheet" which invited everyone to sign-in. (If someone isn't here for three Sundays, their Elder is contacted, and calls them to make sure everything is ok.)

It's worked wonders for us - espeecially when our guests fill out the contact part of the sheet, and we can send a 'thank-you - we were glad to have you with us" note.

One of the things it has done is given us a way to understand which of our adherents are regular participants in worship. That would allow us to move to some kind of a decision-making model that was based on worship participation, rather than profession of faith.

The thing is... I think that profession of faith is an important part of the decision-making process, if we believe we're about discerning God's will for our communal life. There is one participant at StAH who has been with us for decades, and wants to sit on the Board, but has been vocal that s/he doesn't believe in God. So - in that case - why would s/he want to be part of the spiritual decision-making processes of the church? 

Christ's peace - r

 Good catch, Gord! *grin*

Pinga - in the Presbytery I'm part of, there's a wonderfully complex formula that's based on "line 40" in the Yearbook - that's the annual income of a congregation.

I think, here, it's averaged over three years, divided pi to 14 places, then multiplied by the number of working right thumbs at the last Board meeting.

Or something like that. :)

Christ's peace - r

wow, budget would be spiritual, i would think.....it is about how we live out our faith.  interestingquestion, gordw...as adherents always vote on this item, i think.

ok, come to think about it..what  decision  that we do wouldn't be about living out or faith, or of the spirit?

 I would never argue that the budget is a "temporal matter", Gord. :D

While it has to do with financial matters, I don't believe they could be considered matters of a "transitory" nature. Budgets, from my perspective, are part of the tools for the long-view of the mission and ministry of the congregation... and how were going to use the financial gifts God has given us to get there.

But, here's the other thing - I would also argue that the congregation doesn't vote on the budget.

That's a matter for the Board.

*grin* Let's have fun discussing that one!

Christ's peace - r

Hi, Stevie -

Here it is... for free! *grin* 

http://www.united-church.ca/files/manual/2007_manual.pdf

Christ's peace - r

Hi, Arminius... 

Actually, Arminius - I'd like to suggest that "much is left up to the decision-making body of the congregation: the Session, Board, Council, whatever," would be a more correct statement.

Our polity actually leaves very little up to the whole congregational body.

And, I'm sorry to differ with you, but - while it would be in the best interests of the congregation for the Board to re-work a budget that the congregation thought was a dud, there is no requirement that they do so. (It would be a good idea, 'cause people probably wouldn't put money into a ministry that they thought was not being responsible with its financial stewardship... but its still the Board's decision about whether or not to take the recommendations of the congregation.)

I'm not sure that most congregations understand that decisions - even good ones - could be overturned if the overseeing court (in the case of a congregation, the Presbytery) found that adherents had been given the ability to vote on a non-temporal matter. INAL (I am not a lawyer... just a Manual geek) but I'd even argue that congregations are putting themselves at legal risk by knowingly electing to the Session (or its equivalent) people who are not members of the congregation. Like I said above, if somebody didn't like what a Session (or equivalent) was doing, and decided to challenge, well... the church wasn't following its own rules.

Now... I'd love to come up with a way that we could rework the polity on this one. But until it changes, that's what we've got to work with.

The Manual is the UCCan's bylaw book... not a book of guidelines.

Christ's peace - r

 So - let's define what an "active member" is, auchters.

If we could do that, it wouldn't be difficult for someone to put a Proposal to their Board to go to General Council. GC could then make a decision whether to change things.

Christ's peace - r

Agreed. I also personally believe that anyone who doesn't walk in is also a part of God's family.

Personally, I believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. When he did so, he made it so that everyone became one of God's children. I think it's wonderful that people go to church. To read the Bible and hear it proclaimed, to fellowship, to take communion, to get baptized. Why do you believe that going to church is a requirement to be in God's family?

Several years ago-when after careful and study and discussion it became clear that our congregation was going to vote in the spring about decding whether or not to be affriming.

It was clearly stated that only members could vote.

We had the largest number of folks receive full membership that year through transfer of membership, and/or profession of faith. It included folks who had been attending for 25 years.

Some weren't aware before what the process was for full membership or even that they didn't have it.

So my understanding is for faith questions-calling a minister, becoming (or not) affirming, closing a congreagtion or joining with another one you must be a full member-baptism and public confession of faith (confirmation)

On the subject of membership and given that there's at least one manual "geek" hanging out on this thread: I was baptised and confirmed in the UCC, but have not been an active member since c. 1989 (other than being married in my family church in 1993). I am currently a member of UU fellowship (as many of you know). However, as many of you also know, I attend a UCC with my wife. So, what if I have a change of heart and decide to return to the UCC by joining this UCC? Do I need to "re-profess" my faith, given that I was confirmed in the UCC already? Is it up to the local church to decide or is there something in the manual?

I'm not really planning to do so right now. Indeed, I could not, in good conscience, answer the questions Richard quoted above in the affirmative (okay, I could probably do so with about a dozen caveats about what I mean by answering in the affirmative, but I would feel uncomfortable doing so). However, given this discussion about the rights and meaning of membership, I'm curious about what might happen if my feelings on the subject change.

Mendalla

Sorry, auchters.

People need to be prepared to make a formal commitment to God's ministry through a congregation, before I would be prepared to support their participation in the formal discernment process. I will do everything I can to make sure that anyone who is part of the community has a voice in the decision making... but to be part of the congregation that guides the spiritual life of the church, a formal commitment to that congregation's expression of its faith.

This is not in the least saying that they are not part of God's family - or even part of Christ's community. It is saying, however, that there are expectations of the people who are called into congregational leadership.

Anyone, of any faith understanding (or no faith understanding),  is welcome to come and worship and participate and live with us. Anyone, of any faith understanding or no faith understanding, is welcome to express what that means to them, and what they believe it could mean to the rest of the community. Anyone, of any faith understanding or no faith understanding, is welcome to have voice in the discussions. To actually make decisions of a "non-temporal" nature, people need to make a commitment to the expression of faith lived out in that United Church community.

Except for the concern that churches don't offer the option particularly often, I haven't heard why this should be a problem.

If people believe they are part of God's family and household in Christ's love, what is keeping them from saying that out loud? What is keeping people from making a commitment to the congregation? As you've pointed out, the only difference is whether or not they are allowed to vote on certain parts of the life of the congregation, or sit on the Board/Council/Session.

Christ's peace - r

Transfer of membership is only within UCC Congregations.  Since Mendalla is now UU, the route in question would be Reaffirmation of Faith.

ANd I would say that a line should not be put through the name, just the date and means of removal placed in the appropriate column.  When entries are lined out it makes it hard to do checks of if a person was on the roll and when he/she was removed.

The historian in me wants the roll to remain as legible and easy to follow as possible (and I have had to search through lined out entries--trust me it ain't easy)