Comments on: Ownership, Not Membership

By: Rich "Richie" Merritt

Rich "Richie" Merritt — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:48:43 +0000

What about “Teammates”. Discipleship is coaching of sorts – No? Community, Team, Body, members, all the same in my opinion.
IHL,
Richie

By: Rozell

Rozell — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:50:29 +0000

I’m an “owner” at Vintage. I don’t know if everybody took a look at the website to read the reasoning behind the terminology or if some of you are just posting based on a gut reaction to what you percieve as “churchy” speak. I’m not accusing, I’m just wondering if everyone who posted here actually visited the website.
Yes, one of the purposes is to avoid the connotations of “membership” as in a country club or whatever. But it also comes from the Biblical idea of being “heirs” or “co-heirs” (ones who have been given ownership) to the Kingdom of God.
Most importantly, however, the reason the word “ownership” is used is because we believe Vintage has a responsibility to the community around us, and to those who come through the doors seeking to know more about Christ – not to it’s members.
By calling ourselves “owners,” though it may BE semantics, we are each reminded that we have a responsibility to the church, rather than the church having a responsibility to us.
Also, this is reinforced by our once-monthly “Owners Night” meetings. Anyone and everyone is welcome to attend, and non-owners sometimes do, but the message on these nights markedly different in tone and purpose from our Sunday services: On these nights, we are challenged by our Deacons, Elders, and one another to step up and take on the RESPONSIBILITES that have been given to each of us as followers of Christ.

By: James Dalman

James Dalman — Thu, 31 May 2007 15:20:29 +0000

Why must we always be coining new terms that will be outdated in four weeks anyways? Why do some groups feel they need to create terminology that doesn’t offend or turn people off to their church?
I saw this with the word “experience”. You are NOT coming to worship, a service, or church – it is an experience – as if we hand out LSD,listen to Jimi Hendrix, and see God in vivid, living colors.
Call things what you will but the lead dude will always be a pastor, an experience a worship service, and an owner a member. I think this terminology fits in well with the “it’s all about me” generation and society.
I’ll wrap up by saying that I love marketing and creativity but churches are quickly becoming nothing more than the world around them. Don’t believe me? Check out some of the Christian conferences and church planter gatherings today.

By: Paul Munafo

Paul Munafo — Tue, 29 May 2007 13:11:11 +0000

The problem with the word member is that it has become so closely tied to the word club, and everyone wants you to be part of their club. Every online store, supermarket and drug store has a club, and wants you to be a member. For people who come into the church off the street we need to help them understand that the church is much more that that.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 16 May 2007 09:02:17 +0000

If I was going to propose a change to this term in my church (I’m not about to), I would suggest ‘stakeholder’. In Communications, that terms implies a wide variety of connections to the organisation, with an equally wide variety of responsibilities.
Owner seems to smack of territorial control and consumerism, something that we should be curbing within the church not endorsing. And, as pointed out earlier, God owns the church — we get into trouble whenever that understanding gets the least bit cloudy…
It isn’t a waste of time to consider this — it’s part of figuring out what the church is, and how it relates to shifting culture.

By: Shelly Ivey

Shelly Ivey — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:51:34 +0000

The word “owners” has a corporate, business-like connotation to me. I’m considered an owner and a shareholder at my credit union. It seems like corporate language.
I can see where Vintage 21 is coming from, but I’m not sold on the idea.
To me, the word “membership” implies a community- a body of people with the same purpose.
Isn’t that what we are? The body of Christ?

By: Mean Dean

Mean Dean — Mon, 14 May 2007 01:46:28 +0000

I dunno, the more I read this thread, the more I wonder if “ownership” isn’t more of a concession to society’s over-developed sense of entitlement, e.g. “what’s in it for me?”
I agree with those above, why all the NT writings regarding the “members” of the “Body” if it was all about ownership?
Then again, this is the guy who realized while not everyone can be the eye … sees himself as the pancreas or somet similar organ.

By: st. Mars

st. Mars — Sun, 13 May 2007 21:06:21 +0000

hmmm? At first, the term ‘owner’ gives me the creeps….probably because I went to a church once where John Maxwell’s material was seemingly taught more than the Bible. Not that Maxwell is bad, but his stuff has a wordly tint to it.

By: Ann

Ann — Sun, 13 May 2007 19:00:56 +0000

Why are wasting time on trying to figure out what to call a churh’s body of Christ. What is wrong with the traditional word “member”. I agree with the above writer who worked in mental health with regard to client vs. consumer. I too worked in mental health, and we had the same thing, and it did not change a thing. We are in that “let’s make everyone feel good” mode. It’s almost like the church are going to give into potential members wants rather than have them give their lives to Christ which is a very simple message…John 3:16

By: Gloria

Gloria — Fri, 11 May 2007 10:03:18 +0000

Ha!
Good point Joe.