You can follow the summer's blog posts here.
You can read my experiences trying to learn to fly, which is here.


Joiners.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger      12 comments      link this post     


I'm not a joiner.

I don't join stuff. I don't join groups, organizations, causes, unions, political parties, or even my church1.

Right now I'm reading a book, written by Marcia Ford, called We the Purple: Faith, Politics and the Independent Voter. I'm not far enough into it to talk about the book, but the idea is that voters who refuse to swear allegiance to a particular political party aren't doing so because we're confused, unable to decide, fickle, wanting to destroy America, or waiting to the last possible moment.

We just aren't joiners.

What happens when you join something?
  1. You have to adhere to a set of guidelines.
  2. You feel like you have a bit of protection, since there's safety and power in numbers.
  3. You often have to send in membership dues, with your money being used however the group sees fit.
  4. You are associated with the entire organization and it's policies, actions, and reputation.
  5. If you want to stay a member, you lose a bit of autonomy of action since you have guidelines to consider.
  6. The longer the group is in existence, the more likely it is that the preservation of the group itself becomes the goal, and not the original purpose or reason that the group was formed in the first place i.e. the focus is lost.
  7. There is pressure to not rock the boat and to maintain the status quo within the group. Solidarity within is necessary for the appearance of strength on the outside.
Is the Republican party more interested in the success of the Republican party, or the success of the people? Is the Democratic party more interested in the success of the Democratic party, or the success of the people? Is the National Education Association more interested in the protection of their members and the power of the entire group or in the actual education of children?

You can substitute just about any group in this verbal equation and get the same result.

These groups have been around a long time. Their focus has shifted to now being the preservation of the organization. And if I join, despite the seeming benefit of being part of a crowd and the feeling that someone has my back, my money -- which, I believe to not be my money but God's money -- is used how it should not be used. (The money I send in for my taxes, and how it is used, is distressing enough.) My voice, even in dissent within the group, is only adding to the volume of the group's general message because I'm still a member. By being a member, I am giving credence to whatever the group stands for, by sheer numbers2.

I will continue to avoid joining stuff as best I can. I don't want to find myself in a situation, someday, where the groups and organizations I've joined are demanding that I sacrifice my ideals or conscience for the "greater good" of the organization. I am responsible for my actions, whether they are direct (what I do personally) or indirect (the actions of a group I'm part of). I will have to answer for them someday.

My voice is my own. No one else speaks for me. And even if that means I'm barely or rarely heard, so be it. At least it's my true voice.



1 I don't see why I have to "officially" join a church and become a "member" when all Christians are "members" of the body of Christ, i.e. "the church." I'm perfectly willing to accept and understand that that means I can't vote and take part in decision making of my local body. I'm not a person that thinks I should receive any of the member benefits without being a member; I'm perfectly fine with understanding there really are "members only" situations, beyond the ugly jackets from the 1980's.

2 I understand the dilemma facing teachers and the need for liability insurance and other things the NEA provides. There are other alternatives, I guess, but again, it's still another group to join. Tort reform would be good right about now.

Labels: , ,



Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger      4/16/2008 10:58:00 AM      (12) comments      Links to this post    
SHARE THIS POST: Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

  Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.     Click here to help support this site.



SHARE THIS POST: Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine



Links to this post:

Create a Link



12 Comments:

Julie --

You knew I was going to respond to this one.

I don't particularly enjoy joining things either. As much as possible I avoid groups and organizations like the plague. Unfortunately, I don't always have that luxury.

As a teacher, I am in a district that is represented by THE UNION. If the teacher's union were a true professional organization (like the AMA), I might not be overly concerned. But the sad truth is that today's union (the NEA) is little more than muscle to enforce their view of how things ought to be.

We have had this conversation before, but it bears repeating. To have the fruits of your labor forcibly extracted with no say as to 1.) whether you wish to or not, or 2.) how those funds are to be used verges on the criminal. In fact, members of organized crime are sitting in prison for doing the same (it's called extortion).

At least the political parties have to beg for donations. Although, I can imagine how much more money they would have if they didn't spend so much in mailing those annoying letters. But they cannot forcibly suck money from you the way the NEA does.

What really angers me is that the majority of that money goes to support candidates and causes that are absolute anathema to me. And, as you have stated, as an individual I have no control over those things.

Taxes are no better. You don't send in money for taxes. Once again it is forcibly extracted from you. And once again so much of it goes to support programs that I adamantly oppose.

I wish that it were possible to avoid these things, or at least to be able to opt out. But at least for the remainder of my working life, it doesn't appear possible.

Good luck in your quest to continue to avoid joining stuff.

By Blogger Rey, at 16/4/08 12:17  

Ok, Jules... Totally with you re: the joining the party issue. The only potential downside to not joining up is an inability to influence the group towards reform from the inside. Again, that's not saying that reform is even possible or anything...

But I was more interested (being the church-nerd) in the ecclesiastic issue you presented at the bottom:

I don't see why I have to "officially" join a church and become a "member" when all Christians are "members" of the body of Christ, i.e. "the church." I'm perfectly willing to accept and understand that that means I can't vote and take part in decision making of my local body. I'm not a person that thinks I should receive any of the member benefits without being a member

While I appreciate your point re: the 'church universal', I still think there are reasons to become a 'member' at your local church if they have formal membership. The primary one being the acknowledgment of your submission to that church's teachings and discipline.

Though church discipline has become almost non-existent, I'm personally convinced that it's a critical part of maintaining the purity of the Bride of Christ. I think that not wanting to connect 'formally' to a local church is (in some cases, at least) a sign of a very under-developed ecclesiology.

Just my $0.00002 on that. I expect some change, too.

By Blogger HeavyDluxe, at 16/4/08 12:25  

I absolutely have to disagree with the church membership thing.

I can submit to my church's leadership and be faithful in attendance and be a faithful worker without adding a human-tradition requirement of "joining." In our own church, my family and I are not members and I really don't think anyone would say the Neidlinger's aren't faithful in attendance or active and supportive of the body. On the other hand, I look down the list of "members" of our church and see names of people that haven't been there for years, aren't there very regularly, or don't do much beyond showing up for Sunday morning service and voting once a year.

Such membership requirements to be part of Christ's church are not in the Bible. They aren't. They are a human principle created for voting/leading purposes. They don't even inspire faithful attendance or a right heart that wants to get involved in the body.

I would even counter and say that some people now misconstrue the concept of being a member of a church as being saved. Or, at least, that they are "doing their part."

Membership, in that case, gives us a low goal to strive for that is easily attained and really doesn't guarantee that a person will become any more faithful, true, diligent, or right-hearted in the church. It merely says "I'm a member, and I can vote."

In today's current church culture, where people leave a church at the drop of the hate and make a habit of switching churches every few years, I can see where membership might supposedly put a damper on that. However, it doesn't. The people transfer membership, or just become members in the new church. In the case of me and my family, we have gone to the same church, and been involved in it heavily (except, of course, for leadership positions that are denied anyone not a member), for 30 years. Sans membership. Sans internal squabbles and failings that would make discipline necessary.

I understand the concept of why membership would be valuable. We think it says a person is serious about a church and that, if they fulfill our requirements it will be safe to have them on the board, etc. However, membership can easily become an excuse. "How dare you say that? I'm a member of this church!" Or, a person fulfilling all the good requirements and making the pledge in front of the church and becoming a member and...ending up being a pretty lousy youth worker any way. (Yes, that's from personal experience.)

Membership promises nothing. It does not make a person more faithful, give them a right attitude, designate loyalty, causes them to be subject to discipline, cause them to be peacemakers instead of troublemakers (on the contrary, actually) -- it promises nothing.

I would say we need to stop pushing membership and instead, push the hard internal work that makes a person stick with a church in right attitude and labor and love for no other reason than it is Christ's church, His body.

By Blogger Julie R. Neidlinger, at 16/4/08 12:41  

Rey,

I remember you telling me about that requirement. I would find that extremely distressing and have absolutely nothing to offer you other than...I would find that extremely distressing. It would bother me to no end, as it does many teachers, I'm sure. I'm fortunate that in my career of being, uh, non-career, I haven't had to deal with that.

By Blogger Julie R. Neidlinger, at 16/4/08 13:38  

FUN! I miss discussions like this!

On the other hand, I look down the list of "members" of our church and see names of people that haven't been there for years, aren't there very regularly, or don't do much beyond showing up for Sunday morning service and voting once a year.

Then I would first submit that your church's understanding of membership is grossly deficient. The whole point of any 'membership' covenant should be to ensure that the shepherds are holding people accountable for their walk in faith with Christ. The pattern you outline - which I do not doubt is true all over the place - says nothing about what membership should be.

Such membership requirements to be part of Christ's church are not in the Bible. They aren't.

Ummm... well... Depending on what you mean by 'requirements' I would agree.

But I'd also say that there are biblical supports and principles surrounding our making a vital connection to a particular congregation of believers (locally). I can provide some support for that case if you'd like.

Membership, in that case, gives us a low goal to strive for that is easily attained and really doesn't guarantee that a person will become any more faithful, true, diligent, or right-hearted in the church. It merely says "I'm a member, and I can vote."
...
However, membership can easily become an excuse. "How dare you say that? I'm a member of this church!"


Again, agreed... But I'd say that tolerance of such a low idea of membership speaks volumes to the weak ecclesiology that lies beneath it. We have lost moorings for what the local gathering of believers is supposed to be, and turned a vital part of God's plan to display His wisdom to the world into a moralistic Elks/Grange/Lions/Oddfellows club.

I could ramble here, but I'll just make two comments:
1) The issue of membership is at least equally (if not more) about the commitment of the church to the members. By declaring you a member, the church should be saying that the leadership is taking responsibility for your spiritual development as a follower of Christ. Sadly, that bit is almost always ignored.

2) You say 'membership promises nothing'... And I am only saying that should not be the case. Membership should have promises, and consequences for breaches of those promises, on both sides. If it is merely a 'who gets to vote' issue, we've missed the entire point of what it is to be an under-shepherd of God's flock.

One last note: I've been serving as an elder at our church... We have no formal membership policy either. We're elder governed, so it isn't even about votes.

But I can say, without a doubt, that a lack of any formalism of who is 'with us' has hurt our church.

Membership like you're describing would serve us no better... But that's a caricature of what it means to graft ourselves together rather than the real deal. Granted, we never hit the target anyway but I think we must strive for better than we've got.

Look forward to more banter! And thanks for the post.

By Blogger HeavyDluxe, at 16/4/08 15:25  

As a side note:

I absolutely *hate* the blogger comment screens. It's so hard to see what you are typing along with the comment/post to which you are responding.

Of course, that's not your problem J. But I felt compelled to gripe for a second.

By Blogger HeavyDluxe, at 16/4/08 15:28  

The main problem I see with what you're saying isn't that it doesn't sound good, but that it relies heavily on how things should be, or how they could be.

I'm dealing with how they are.

Church membership -- and I'm just guessing here, but I don't think I'm that off the mark -- tends to end up being about what I describe and not the ideals that you describe.

And, in order to get to those ideals of membership, I don't think more membership, a push for membership, or anything that resembles any current form of membership will help the problem.

I think, in fact, that to solve the problems described we have to not see it as a mere membership definition issue, or membership qualification issue, but instead, a misunderstanding of what the church is issue. Being a member of something not well defined or agreed upon doesn't mean much, and clearing up the guidelines for membership won't change the heart of the matter.

Perhaps the problem of dealing with "who is for us" isn't the real problem at all.

Of course, this could lead into a discussion on church as body vs. building, local church body vs. the church universal, the problem of denominations, and all the human tradition we've brought into the church that isn't in the Bible though obviously has been though to have some support in the Bible since we are still doing it.

By Blogger Julie R. Neidlinger, at 16/4/08 15:46  

I want to be a member of the same Church Jesus is a member of.

I had someone ask me if I was a member of the Assembly of God, I said, I'm as Assembly as Jesus is.

As a minister in a Lutheran Church I'm as Lutheran (not a member) as Jesus is.

Seems to keep me on target.

I'm submitted to the leadership but if they ever went off the deep end, (Like here, have a drink of this nice Grape Kool Aid) or some other goofball idea I'm outta there. Just because I am or am not a member doesn't mean I'm going to let some man created polity lead my life.

I just posted on this on my blog a few days ago.

Lots of arguments.

There is one other reason to not be a member. If for some reason my ministry was no longer embraced or engaged, I must go somewhere else to exercise it or be in violation of all that "Go Ye Therefore into all the world stuff"

So, good on you. You have the right spirit and if your pastor understands it, you will be in good stead.

By the way, most of the good leadership in a church, those who get things done are seldom members in my experience.

As a Pastor, I learned to hold people loosely.

Otherwise we Pastor's use membership as a way to keep the rats in the barn.

Dumb. If they want to go they should, membership doesn't hold them.

By Blogger Gene Redlin, at 16/4/08 17:57  

I think, in fact, that to solve the problems described we have to not see it as a mere membership definition issue, or membership qualification issue, but instead, a misunderstanding of what the church is issue.br/>
You win the prize! You're absolutely right, J.

I guess my last salvo would be this: While I agree we're largely speaking in 'ought to be' statements rather than describing the reality of how most churches 'do church'. But, if we don't start longing for more and calling our churches to reform then how will change ever come?

And as I've mentioned before, we'll always miss the mark to some degree until Jesus comes back. Thankfully, God is gracious and uses our imperfections. Even so, we can and should try to see the church grow into what she is called to be.

By Blogger HeavyDluxe, at 16/4/08 21:04  

Julie,

Just wondering, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but have you been baptised? I assume you have been, and to me, baptism signifies the only membership in the Church that is meaningful and necessary.

Very good post, as usual, but there was ne need to be so negative about Members Only jackets. (Yes, I had one . . . thanks for reminding me about that . . . one thing in my favor though, someone gave it to me; I did not buy it).

By Blogger Will, at 16/4/08 22:03  

Yes, I've been baptized. Not as an infant, but by immersion when I was about 14 or so. We had a baptismal service at a lake.

By Blogger Julie R. Neidlinger, at 17/4/08 08:31  

Both of my baptisms (yes, for the liturgically puritanical out there, I was baptised twice) were held in the swimming hole of a local creek after the snakes had been driven out by some of the braver men of the church.

And although I am now United Methodist, my personal theology runs more towards an Anabaptist understanding. This is probably because of my own experiences as a teen in that cold creek, wondering if the pastor was going to raise me to new life in Christ or really let me die in Christ by leaving me underwater for too long.

By Blogger Will, at 17/4/08 09:44  

----------------------

Post a Comment

ARCHIVES