Definition change: owners, not members

December 17, 2011 in Church Life

I like this change in wording that shifts expectations:

Members have rights, but owners have responsibilities. At NewSpring church, we want owners not “members”.

…and I guess ‘body parts’ isn’t a very appealing term to describe church members!

  • Michael Kellahan

    Not convinced. If anyone ‘owns’ the church it must be Jesus. And surely owners have more ‘rights’ than members, anyway? 

  • http://www.communicatejesus.com Steven Kryger

    I think it’s challenging the idea of membership being like membership of a golf club – all rights, no responsibility. I’m not convinced on the language either, but I think it’s a necessary reminder of what it means to belong to a church.
    …Communicate Jesus
    digital inspiration for ministry
    http://www.communicatejesus.com
    http://www.twitter.com/communic8jesus

  • Michael Kellahan

    Yeah, I can see they don’t want members like that.
    But if we are looking for language to describe it were on safer grounds using biblical language biblically. It’s not as though there is a shortage of ways this relationship is described in scripture – even as body parts! (fellow workers, slaves, children, branches etc)
    The only place I can think of ownership of the church coming up is Acts 17 where God buys the church with his blood

  • Steven Kryger

    Good thoughts Michael.

    How do you refer to members/regulars/guests at your church?

  • Adunn

    Our church went from “members” to “partners” with the same philosophy that we want more than just members.