Member vs Adherent

[KayTheCurler]

BAck when I was attending the local UCCan congregation I was told that there was no point in me going to the Annual Meeting because I wasn't a member.

 

[paradox3]

BAck when I was attending the local UCCan congregation I was told that there was no point in me going to the Annual Meeting because I wasn't a member.

Is it possible this was meant kindly? To spare you a boring ordeal? Those meetings are sometimes tedious.

It's not right to make you feel unwelcome though

 

[Mendalla]

BAck when I was attending the local UCCan congregation I was told that there was no point in me going to the Annual Meeting because I wasn't a member.

*snort* I attended meetings as a non-member before I joined the UU fellowship. Taught me a lot about how they do things. And meant I was there when they voted to call a minister that I quite liked from various meetings during the candidacy process, which in turn led to me signing a membership card (that's all they required back in that era, that minister then implemented an actual membership process). So, me attending even when I couldn't vote helped get me onboard.

 

[paradox3]

A couple of years ago I was invited to join a church committee. I asked if I could attend one of their meetings to get a feel for what they did before committing myself.

They told me they didn't have any real agenda for the next meeting and it wouldn't be a good one for me to attend.

This put me right off and I never did join the committee.

 

[KayTheCurler]

Much of my experience at churches tells me there are lots of people who are there because it is socially acceptable to go to church. They seemed to know less about the Bible, religious history, ther ules of their denomination etc. than I did myself.

 

[GordW]

I worked on updating our sadly neglected Historic Roll recently. To my surprise, I discovered several of our members who are on the Official Board, and some who are Trustees, and one who is a LLWL --- are not listed as members. When I brought it up, no one seemed to care. I thought it could be easily fixed if there was any sort of will to do so.

Technically speaking that HAS to be fixed. In a UCCan context all members of the governing body are to be Members, unless permission has been given by the Regional Council (though I suspect many places conveniently 'forget' to ask for permission). As long as a majority of the Trustees are Members some of the Trustees can be Adherents. I think that to be recognized (by the wider church) as an LLWL one has to be a Member.

THat said, I suspect many people do not realize they are not, in fact members of the congregation. ANd since the members present at a meeting of the congregation can now extend adherents voting privileges on all items there is less of a pressure point (I know of multiple places where long-time adherents became members so they could vote on the new minister or for a property issue). At the same time, there is a sound governance basis for ensuring that the people voting on the life of the church are people wh are actively involved and supporting the life of the congregation (which sometimes means committted adherents should have a louder voice that the member who has been on the roll for decades but has not been seen in the building for many years)

 

[Mendalla]

the member who has been on the roll for decades but has not been seen in the building for many years

True story, the UU fellowship had a member on the books who sent a cheque every year and that was that. I knew her through work but never saw her in church and was surprised to see her name on the membership list.

Much of my experience at churches tells me there are lots of people who are there because it is socially acceptable to go to church

In fact, I think was kind of the case with the person above. Being a member of a church got her brownie points with her clients or employer or something.

 

[Mendalla]

Technically speaking that HAS to be fixed. In a UCCan context all members of the governing body are to be Members, unless permission has been given by the Regional Council (though I suspect many places conveniently 'forget' to ask for permission). As long as a majority of the Trustees are Members some of the Trustees can be Adherents. I think that to be recognized (by the wider church) as an LLWL one has to be a Member.

On another note, while I fully understand the whys of having a majority of the Board/Council (depending on your governance model) being members, given current reality in many mainstream churches, I wonder if it is even possible to do that anymore without recycling the same names over and over. After all, attendance in general, both members and adherents/friends, is shrinking and the percentage of those who do attend who actually do things like sit on boards, committees, run programs, etc. is small (the old 90% of the work is done by 10% of the people problem).

 

[JayneWonders]

Wow, i thought you had to be a member to be on an official board or a trustee. Maybe that has changed?

I know i had to become one about 4 years ago, and someone else about 2 years ago to be on the Council of the church

 

[Mendalla]

Wow, i thought you had to be a member to be on an official board or a trustee. Maybe that has changed?

Gord post suggests you have to be a member to be the former but not necessarily the latter. My guess, though, is that churches just aren't being too picky about who goes on the various bodies. Having the position filled may be taking priority over who fills it in some of these churches. Which relates to the reality I talked about.

 

[GordW]

Gord post suggests you have to be a member to be the former but not necessarily the latter. My guess, though, is that churches just aren't being too picky about who goes on the various bodies. Having the position filled may be taking priority over who fills it in some of these churches. Which relates to the reality I talked about.

Some of it is practicality to be sure. Also many people (including some who really should) simply don't know, or care to know, what the rules actually are. Which in some cases comes back to bite people and organizations in the back side. And as I said above, there are lots of people who honestly see themselves as a member, who others see as a member but have never actually become a member.

I remember in my childhood congregation there was a fellow who had helped build the original building, who was an elder (but not an Elder) spokesperson within the congregation but who was actually Anglican/Church of England his entire life. Most of us never would have thought of him as anything other than a member.

 

[paradox3]

I remember hearing about changes to the rules re: members and adherents a few years ago.

Am I recalling just the changes to voting procedures @GordW? Or was something else proposed?

Voting priveleges on ALL matters can now be extended to adherents at congregational meetings. Since a motion and vote by the actual members is required, does it ever get voted down?

Could get ugly, right? I wonder the views of adherents ever become an issue in these times of votes to close congregations?

We have been hearing about more amalgamations coming up in this city. These are tough decisions that's for sure.

 

[Nancy]

I brought up the information I learned from working on the Historic Roll to both the Minister and the Chair of the Board. I don't know what else I can do....But I am thinking of reading a bit of the church manual at each Board meeting, as a way to educate all of us. Not sure how that will go over. Apparently, when I do such things I appear to be ruffling feathers. The latest was when I asked for a breakdown of what was listed as Miscellaneous in the monthly Treasurer's Report ... $400 worth for a small church. I didn't think I was being unreasonable, but certainly got flack for the question.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Jesus Murphy, I am the keeper of the paper copy of the Historic Roll of our congregation (another member keeps the electronic copy updated). We are in constant contact to make sure we are on the same page. Your congregation, Nancy, to be quite frank, sounds, to be kind, incompetent.

 

[Nancy]

Jesus Murphy, I am the keeper of the paper copy of the Historic Roll of our congregation (another member keeps the electronic copy updated). We are in constant contact to make sure we are on the same page. Your congregation, Nancy, to be quite frank, sounds, to be kind, incompetent.

We are definitely lacking in some ways @BetteTheRed. But our excuse has always been that we are small; our minister is only half-time; we have enough money to keep going at the moment; our faithful congregation doesn't want to question anything that seems to involve business or rules; the people on all the committees are good people; our congregation is old and we won't be around as a church too much longer. Those are not my excuses.

 

[Luce NDs]

Can you imagine irregular process in the perfect church of the unmentionable?

I had toads of questions that I was told were nonsense in a materially oriented world ... little thought of following intelligence!

Thus under pans ... are subtle!

 

[GordW]

I remember hearing about changes to the rules re: members and adherents a few years ago.

Am I recalling just the changes to voting procedures @GordW? Or was something else proposed?

Voting priveleges on ALL matters can now be extended to adherents at congregational meetings. Since a motion and vote by the actual members is required, does it ever get voted down?

Could get ugly, right? I wonder the views of adherents ever become an issue in these times of votes to close congregations?

We have been hearing about more amalgamations coming up in this city. These are tough decisions that's for sure.

THere have been ongoing discussions about what we mean by Member/Full Member for several decades now. There were a couple of proposals related to that question at GC last Summer. It seems to be one of those issues we have a real problem getting our heads around.

I have never heard of the motion to extend privileges getting defeated. I suppose it could theoretically happen. Alos my understanding is that the motion could actually (if someone chose say "That priviliges be extended on al matters except....". It does push congregations to be clear about who they consider an adherent and not just a visitor or someone who happens to show up, because you want people who are actually part of the community to be the ones making decisions. {This was, and is, also a problem when it comes to members. In 1988/89/90 there were numerous congregations where members who had not been active for years showed up to meetings to complain about the decision regarding Membership Ministry and Human Sexuality, and as that was a spiritual issue adherents, no matter how involved they were could not vote.]

 

[Luce NDs]

Then there is the situation of crazy people that will not go to congregational meetings where decisions are rendered by elusive gatherings ... yet expect to rule! Such is the fantasy being formed ... and the other type demanding those present to be silent ... dissonance pours 4th ... as Eris!

It does come up because no one is allowed to be medium! We accept only extremes in the debate ... the mediums are the crazies that stayed home ... pondering the divine parts ... mores to consider ... the wasted on the front line ... many cannot see the joust!

 

[Mendalla]

Then there is the situation of crazy people that will not go to congregational meetings where decisions are rendered by elusive gatherings ... yet expect to rule!

Ah, yes, similar to the people who don't vote and then complain ceaselessly that they don't understand how the government got elected. I've never understood the attitude that says it better to complain about governance than to actually participate in it.

 

[Luce NDs]

Ah, yes, similar to the people who don't vote and then complain ceaselessly that they don't understand how the government got elected. I've never understood the attitude that says it better to complain about governance than to actually participate in it.

We need that to resolve wholly desires that appear as emotional vapours ... in essence ... that's a thought expressed as a word! The word is not that well evaluated and studied ... only done from the medium ... a type of fringe to both sides! There I stand and few grasp the reason ... as the divine thing is extremely divided on the communication as delivered by Aries ... the messenger ... dirty myth, or just mire? Thus it is transposed onto tiles ...

Is that indicative of transcendence that is mostly denied as essence of comprehension of sophisticated matter? Thus in be twixed ... and the powers don not listen to such things only the strength of what stresses their insecurities ... while thoughts are extracted to the alternate that is elsewhere ... out there ... beyond! Abstract domains ... tis a leap of imagination and you know how folk are over leper Zae thing as total integral! Wasting dis ease ... settle and ponder for a pass time ...

The stuff of mystic and observers of histrionics in the presence ... different fol que ... and que settle where it falls ... as what? Not that differential ... yet often skimmed over like the dash of donkeys ... a' MU eL? It carries ... no matter how deep ... Herculean? Lift in deep domain ...

Once dropped on mortals it is the beginning of ends ...

The urge is to just visit and observe, do nothing as the mortals will do as they will ... the epitome of do no harm? Is there an epi C tome? Leads to epi stemic etude of stoma ... upstanding items in the quantum order ... they'll resolve and come down!

What's level in that state is indeterminate ... and denied by the determinate as it isn't over them ... over drive ...