Guest Blog: Scott Williams
Get Rid of Church Members
I’ve been in full-time ministry with LifeChurch.tv going on two years now. Recently I have come to the conclusion that it’s time to get rid of church members. I had this epiphany as my team, a Starbucks manager, and the principal of an impoverished elementary school were meeting to talk about our upcoming endeavors. As we visited, the manager made reference to the role of Starbucks partners. When I asked for clarification, she said that partner is the new term Starbucks uses to refer to a Starbucks employee. This just further proves how ingenious Starbucks is. Now they refer to every individual who makes our coffee experience amazing as a partner. Though this is a subtle shift, I believe it will have lasting results.
It’s time for us to get rid of our church members, and make them our ministry partners. When we empower the people who walk through our doors to be partners, it increases their sense of commitment and ownership. I consistently meet volunteers who feel the need to be frequently reminded of the importance of their contribution. Allowing the Church to be our ministry partners reinforces the importance of everyone’s contribution to the mission. I have several memberships—clubs, gyms, organizations, Netflix—in which I ask, “How can you benefit me?” I have only a few partnerships in which I ask, “What can we do daily together to achieve our desired mission?” Read the definitions below, and then ask yourself: Should we get rid of church members and begin to develop ministry partners?
member – a person, animal, plant group, etc., that is part of a society, party, community, taxon, or other body.
partner – a person who shares or is associated with another in some action or endeavor; associate; a husband or a wife; spouse.
Ministries around the country are evolving, changing, becoming more relevant. It’s time to get rid of the dated idea of having church members and instead develop ministry partners.
Visit 
One definition of “partner” is “associate,” the term Wal-Mart uses for employees. Whatever term we use we need to impress on “the church” that they are to be contributors, not consumers. All of us are the church and we are here for the world (Craig Groeschel). The paid staff is not to do the ministry; they are the support team for the true ministers.
Good post Scott…I agree whole heartedly about the concept of eliminating “members” and moving toward “partners”. In our church plant (launching 9/23), we have decided to call them “vision carriers”. I think it means so much more than “members”. I am a “Member” of the YMCA. I am a “member” of my favorite airline’s frequent flyer program. “Member” implies benefits, “partner” or “vision carrier” implies responsibility!
Who would have thunk my Starbucks habit could contribute to such an epiphany? That is an amazing re-think. Love it.
Scott - Thanks for the post. I think that the distinction that you make between members and partners is excellent. I believe that it is important to continue to remind the church that it exists for those who have not yet heard the good news - to be a part of God’s coming Kingdom.
Scott, good post. The funny thing is that I have been refering to our membership as ministry partnership to our campus the last few weeks. I agree with you 100%. BTW, a good book for everyone to read (especially for ministry) is “The Starbucks Experience” by Joseph A. Michelli
HELL YES! The Church is a BODY! I’m tired of church culture that makes 10 people do everything, and the rest of us just show-up on a Sunday, what a waste of resources! This is actually a stewardship issue. - we need to mobilize the gifts/talents/abilities of members of the church to love/serve/reach the world, this is absolutely necessary.
I think it’s a serious, unbiblical, problem with our church culture. But one that has a tremendous upside, if we fix it.
[...] August 15, 2007 @ 8:44 am } · { Ministry Partner, Membership } I read a blog this morning that just made me soexcited. It’s a blog entitled, “Get Rid of Church Membersâ€?! Read it here…then come back for my thoughts.The reason why this excites me so much is that I’ve really down deep inside never liked the term “membersâ€?. In the secular world, most anyone can be a member of something, but fewer can actually be partners. Being a partner carries the sense of greater commitment to something, like marriage…it’s a convenant relationship, a partnership. It’s something that takes work, but is well worth the effort put forth. [...]
Scott, you make a great point about how we choose our words can affect people’s perceptions of what they do. Starbuck is ingenious in how they give ownership to employees with just one word. However, this raises one more question. How are they brainwashing us into paying $5 for a drink?
Tom- You know we are on the same page as it relates to contributors, I could not agree more.
Mike- Great insight, I am sure the “vision carriers� are excited. 9/23 is around the corner may God Bless your ministry.
Lori- Thanks! I just wanted to use the word “epiphany� in a post.
Andrew- Amen!
Josh- It’s cool to see that you guys in Albany are already moving that way. The Starbucks Experience is a great read. I enjoyed your post yesterday.
Jesse- We are obviously on the same page, I appreciate your passion.
Brandon- That’s one secret that Starbucks probably will not share.
Mosaic (a church in LA) calls their church members “staff.” How’s that for ownership? If asked to clarify they’ll tell you that they have volunteer staff and paid staff but they don’t make that distinction upfront. Whether paid or not, we should all live our life on mission.
From the perspective of formerly having been a “member” and being a “partner” for the past year or so, I have to say that I do “feel” as if I’m more than a person with the right to vote. At Lifecentre we partners are even encouraged to contribute to how we feel the building renovations are going. I love it. I feel as if I’m part of a family unit, not just submitting to what the “man of the house” says.
It seems that many would say “you are no longer members, you are partners with us in Christ’s vision”, but that is where the concept would stop. I LOVE the concept of being a partner, and I can already see the impact that term would make in the minds of some members. However, when I think of partners I think of a group that invests a lot of money, effort and time on the mission, they work together and listen to each other, discuss ideas and come to conclusions.
As a lay leader it feels to me that we are more so pacified then asked to be engaged in the forming of any part of the mission or where it is headed. I loved what Bill Hybels said at the Summit, about his process for refining the delivery of vision. Genuinely not only wanting people’s feedback but actually doing something to obtain that feedback. Those bold moves help the members realize they really are partners. All of us (paid or unpaid), need to feel like our thoughts are heard and at least considered to really feel apart of the team, like a partner.
Does anyone have any suggestions of what has worked to engage lay leaders and members to feel that their thoughts and opinions really do count and matter?
Phil 1:5 Partners in the ministry
At Journey we believe that the Partnership goes beyond “church”. As we begain our new launch September 06 we invited people to join us as “Partners on Lifes Journey”. Everyone needs a partner / friend to help them get through the up’s and downs of life, that is what faith is all about. But partnership needs to be more than a phrase or a word that replaces members, it must find its expression in the lives of those we partner with. I’m proud to be a partner in minstry with each of you as we seek to help people take their next step toward Jesus.
Brian- Thanks for the info. I agree we need to get out of our comfort zone and “GO” What’s up in Mesa?
Hope- That’s cool! It’s important that we remember who the real “Man of the House is!”
Melissa- I look at partners in the basic sense such as a marriage. Investment partners generally will not develop unless they are bought into the mission, business, prodeuct or potential.
Implement good suggestions and be receptive to feedback. Allow partners to fill in for various roles, allow partners to have a real seat at the table especially those that desire that level of engagement. You also have to be able to tell partners “No, That’s Rediculous…. and Why” when it’s necessary.
Susan- Thanks for the passage.
Robert- I agree totally, the term is the beginning of a mindset, heart posture and a lifestyle.
ok. So really this has less to do with being a partner in the local church and more of a partner in the vision Christ left us with as His church.
Right? If so, that clarifies much for me.
Thanks for the input.
-m.
Scott: Thanks for the post. Your perspective is very applicable to the public safety world. Employees or Partners? Based on what you wrote, my mindset has already changed. I will work to bring this mindset to my staff. I love getting rid of “church members”, too!
Scott - The concept is great. I would hope that such a concept would grow beyond the walls of any single church, so that multiple churches might be partners in Christ. Working in IT, I know that a website could be put together where ideas could be submitted in an organized fashion. Those ideas would have overhead, however. Someone would have to read them, classify them, and respond to them in some fashion. With unlimited potential partners who is going to do that? I’m not shooting down the idea! I love it. I have some ideas of my own..
This is perhaps nothing more that a semantics game.
Although the conversation of ownership is one that needs to be happening.
Are other ways to involve others and give them ownership beyond simply changing a title?
I do have to admit I like the concept of “staff.”
Scott,
Great post…it struck a chord with several of us on our team. We started thinking about the definition of “partner”…and here is a quick comment:
Partner= I am valued and appreciated. I will be “justly� rewarded, honored, and recognized for my contribution. I share and shape the values of our culture.
But,it does NOT mean that I am free to do whatever I think is right…I was invited to become a partner…I wasn’t a founding partner…in other words, being a partner doesn’t mean no authority, no structure, no focus.
It’s so amazing to me how simple words can completely change the way I think. Am I a spiritual consumer or a spiritual contributor? Am I a Christian or a Christ follower? Am I a member of a church or a ministry partner? Over the years, these questions/words have completely challenged and convicted me. I went from being a Christian that went to church and eventually “joined� to being a Christ follower that contributes to the vision of leading people to become fully devoted followers of Christ. These words have inspired me to be intentional and to take action, not just label myself with a term that has no meaning to me. If death and life are in the power of the tongue, there is definitely a weight to the words we use.
As for Starbucks…..I’d have to say I’m a consumer!
Scott thanks for helping clarify a necessary shift that’s taking place on our campus. There were 2 comments that really have me thinking. Allowing “partners” to contribute to the vision from Melissa via Bill Hybels. Brians piece on members at Mosaic being “staff”. Now that’s one body with vested members.
Melissa- Thanks for the post.
Terrence- I totally agree, It would have been helpful to have this perspective when I worked in the Corrections.
Phillip- When you talk about IT, that’s out of my league. As it relates to partners, I think that all partnerships require some intentional thought,as to what the relationship will look like, how you reach the mission…
Billy- I agree w/ the sematics comment. By definition sematics is: the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning of a word. The thought is how to get “The Church” to interpret their role differently. There are tons of other ways, this is just one of them.
John- Great additional thoughts, thanks for the post. BTW, I like “Pastorpreneur.”
McCall- “If death and life are in the power of the tongue, there is definitely a weight to the words we use.” That says it all! Thanks for the insight.
Scott,
Awesome concept, it reminds me of the way the early Church is described in the Book of Acts.
This also not unlike the concept Life Kids uses for their volunteers. As you know they are referred to as cast members, while this does have the word members attached to it there is a very different connotation associated with it.
This concept of cast members is discussed in detail in book called Inside the Magic Kingdom. I highly recommend it if you have not read it yet.
Kyle.
Thanks Scott. As a pastor, words are my craft. I’ve been searching for some time for the right word to express ones commitment to a local church without perpetuating the consumerism that is so rampant in churches today. Your epiphany has become my epiphany. I cannot thank you more!
Kyle- I could not agree more, Disney understands that calling their employees cast members reminds them that they are part of the show. It has had a positive impact in LifeKids ministry.
Greg- Thanks for the thoughts, I am intersted to hear how the application works for your ministry.
Scott, This was GREAT! I totally agree! I hope we can begin to shift our people’s mindsets! We’re all in this together!
It would definitely make people see the contrast of a volunteer and partner, as it pertains to ministry. Its not something you do (volunteer), its something you are (partner). Like the difference of going to church and being the church.
very well said Pastor Juan.
Anna- Thanks!
Juan- That’s right you are a “partner” and we are “the church.”
If it is supported biblically (it seems to me that it is) I think it’s a great idea. Immediately changes the perspective. Thanks.
[...] Along those lines, I think the quote above should read, “Partnership,” not membership. Check this out. [...]
Thanks Marcin, and everyone else who contributed!
[...] Scott Williams posts over at the Swerve.tv Blog. Should we get rid of church members and begin to develop ministry partners? [...]
[...] What is the distinction between church members and ministry partners? Quality response at Guest Blog: Scott Williams from Swerve. [...]
(Ephesians 4:11-13)
“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.”
“[E]quip the saints” is my motto for ministry. My job is not merely to minister, but to give the ministers the equipment they need to minister. That includes an understanding of the Bible, habits of prayer and spiritual disciplines, comfort at the funeral home or hospital, fellowship with students at the school lunch table, and many things in between. That is why the job description of a pastor, youth pastor, worship pastor, etc., is so difficult to precisely quantify.
Your shift in terminology is a fantastic suggestion. Thank you for that insight.
[...] Businesses should never exceed the hospitality of ministries. We must be intentional. And we must train our members to see themselves as “unpaid staff� or ministers to welcome those who don’t know Christ and invite them into our family. [...]
[...] It just reminds me of the fundamental most important thing I love about The ROCK. It’s not the leadership or the preaching (though solid in the Word of God and relevant to real people), the building or the technology (though we’re blessed) or the worship (though authentic and passionate). All those are just a bonus. The real jewel - the people. Not church members - ministry partners - - kindred hearts - - yeah, family. [...]
[...] Get Rid of Church Members   It’s a Bloggy Blog [...]
I hear what everyone is saying, but have one simple comment. We refer to the body being the church. This is a comparison to the sacred human body. Our body has members, hands, feet, toes, eyes, heart, etc. For years we have refferenced the body comming together as members of one body. Members is a critical word and has deeper meaning. May be old school, but.