Newsletter #81
On Membership Transfers
Let’s think together about what I call the “spiritual chain of custody.”
When They Leave
What happens when a member leaves your church?
The answer to that question depends almost entirely on two factors: (1) the reason for and circumstances surrounding the departure, and (2) the understanding and spiritual maturity of the congregation who remains behind.
Members sometimes die. Sometimes they relocate to another region or state. Sometimes they leave for another local church. Sometimes we discover they’ve left only after sustained follow-up and inquiring. Each of these carries its own dynamics and challenges. But does your church have a biblically informed procedure for responding to the departure?
Through the years of ministering in both North Carolina and Missouri I’ve had to bear witness to dozens and dozens of departures. Death is undoubtedly the factor which explains most. Scripture says, “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints” (Ps. 116:15). It’s not always easy to maintain this conviction, but at least Scripture provides clear guidance. Much more difficult are those departures where we lose faithful members to other ministries because (1) life has taken them to another geographical location, or (2) they felt they could not continue in our ministry.
The first of these is easier to rationalize and accept, even if the absence is still felt for a season. The latter elicits surprise, disappointment, frustration, and even grief. Moreover, it raises many questions among church members that leaves pastors having to address, whether he should have to or not. Many things may not be our fault, but they are our problem.
In either scenario, what tools do you have to address the departure? Despite the reason for people leaving, the hope and prayer is that they will soon unite with another church of like faith. Will they request a letter of transfer of membership? Will you grant it? Why or why not? What if they don’t request one? Will they indefinitely remain on your roll until you hear otherwise?
I’m convinced that churches need a biblically informed, practical way to help practice a sort of “spiritual chain of custody” when it comes to their members, especially given how common it is over time for people to leave. It’s one thing to remove a deceased person from your membership roll; it’s another to remove someone alive and well, with perhaps family who remain in your congregation.
“Transfers”
When people seek to unite with a new church, many churches request letters be sent to confirm the person’s membership and standing in their church of origin. Sometimes this practice borders on formality, but there has historically been a purpose to it. First, it verifies the testimony of the person seeking membership. It backs up the story they’ve told about where they’ve come from, the fact that they are a baptized, Christian who was a member of another church of like faith. Second, it gives a courtesy notification to the original church about the actions taken by the outgoing member. They will be received into membership into the new congregation, and thus they can be removed from the original church’s membership.
Whether everyone thinks of this process in precisely this way, I think this has been how Baptist churches have conceived of the practice. (Even many non-Baptists engage in this practice.)
As an aside, studies in pre-twentieth century Baptist history yield a much more robust emphasis on church membership and discipline. The 9Marks parachurch organization has done an excellent job recovering and promoting this emphasis. Other resources are helpful also, such as Greg Wills’ Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South, 1785-1900. I highly recommend it.
So, how does your church handle these “transfers”? Article II of my church’s Constitution and Bylaws states the following:
Section IV. Transfer of Members: Members in good standing who desire to transfer their membership may request a letter of transfer from the Senior Pastor. Such a letter may be granted at the discretion of the pastor(s) and deacons, provided said member seeks to unite with a church of like faith, and has consented first to an exit interview with the Senior Pastor or his designee.
Our church has had some statement about membership transfers/letters for a long time. However, when we revised our official documents in 2021, we adjusted some of the language in Section IV to the version above. It’s not perfect. No humanly devised language could be. However, I would like to call attention to a few elements of it.
First, notice the clear and up-front emphasis on “members in good standing.” We define “good standing” as those members not under church discipline. Essentially, once disciplinary action has been initiated, those members are no longer considered in good standing. We would not grant a free and clear letter of transfer for someone engaged in unrepentant sin, who, once spiritual action was taken, had decided to take their sin elsewhere to evade discipline.
Obviously, the more common scenario is for someone who is simply not a very faithful member to take their dissatisfaction and unmet needs (they would say) elsewhere. While I have granted a letter in most cases, I’ve written more than one letter (directed to the pastor of the new church) giving a brief caveat about the circumstances of the member's departure, and some present concerns he needs to be aware of. It then becomes the obligation of the receiving church to take responsibility for accepting members, even if I think they haven’t done their homework.
Second, notice that the request for a letter is directed to me, the Senior Pastor. Now this is mainly a prudential move. There’s not one clear Bible verse that places membership decisions in the hands of the pastor. In reality, it’s the purview of the entire church. However, the pastor is called the “overseer” and “shepherd of the flock of God.” He is best positioned, in almost every case, to know the circumstances of a departure. He has likely counseled or advised members who were considering leaving. Along with the deacons (notice their inclusion), he can exercise discernment about the membership status of the person desiring a letter of transfer.
Additionally, as the lead teacher of the church, he is able to research and know if the church requesting a letter is a church of sufficient “like faith”—a third and important element to consider. And in ambiguous situations, there’s nothing that precludes the congregation being asked to weigh in. At any rate, they should always be informed about what is happening in these membership situations.
As with anything, this responsibility could be abused at the pastor’s hands. One could imagine a wounded, disappointed pastor refusing to grant a letter, or at least, a free and clean one. However, by involving the deacons and making all membership letters a matter of church record (church clerks are implicated in this also), it makes it far less likely for a hurt pastor to abuse the letter of transfer process.
Finally, notice the provision of an exit interview. If I’m not mistaken, I borrowed this idea from Capitol Hill Baptist Church's Constitution, a Southern Baptist church in Washington, D.C. It provides an opportunity for the pastor to exercise his role as spiritual counselor to all outgoing members, regardless of the reason for their departure. He is able to assess the situation to see if a member is leaving in a hasty, ill-informed way. He may glean insights on areas where the church may need to adjust or improve its ministry. He can also offer guidance in the selection of a new church.
Ideally, this interview would be a personal, face-to-face meeting. Naturally, much of this will depend on the relationship and circumstances, but some type of meaningful dialogue must take place for a letter to be granted.
Complicating Factors
Most departures aren’t without their problems. All too many church members and leaders know the familiar feeling of being ghosted, that is, abandoned.
Questions could be raised about what constitutes a “a church of like faith.”
Some churches simply don't request letters of transfer and good standing.
Situations can even be complex when they involve other Free Will Baptist churches. On the one hand, we’d prefer people unite with a sister church. On the other, sometimes even these decisions are ill-advised.
I think of a scenario years ago when both I and the pastor of a receiving church thought a membership transfer for one of our families wasn’t well-conceived. That is to say, it wasn’t in the best spiritual interest of the family. Nevertheless, absent any clear and unrepentant sin prompting the move, neither of us felt we should stop the transfer since the family persisted in their desire to move.
Ultimately, the authority lies in the local congregation to receive or not receive members. There is no panacea for all the woes associated with the immature judgment of members. Yet we have an obligation to God and each other to attempt to receive and release members in keeping with Scriptural principles and spiritual judgment.
Churches who don't have a biblical understanding of church membership minimize such principles to their own peril.
Sometimes It Just Works Out
Recently our church had a brother move to another area of the state. After a lot of prayer and research, it became clear that his work and living situation necessitated the move. I hated to see him go, but we all saw the need. Before he moved, I provided him with the information of two Free Will Baptist churches close to where he planned to rent a home. I also contacted the pastors of these churches to make them aware of his pending relocation. One was proactive in responding, another was not.
This past week it was my privilege to write a letter of transfer and good standing on behalf of our departing member. I’m so pleased he chose to unite with a church where he felt he could make a contribution—a church that no doubt will benefit from his presence.
Things don’t always work out this way. Under some circumstances, could I have recommended a non-Free Will Baptist church? Yes, I think there are several types of situations where that would be appropriate. However, I’m glad God provided a different option.
Our church was notified yesterday of this member’s transfer. Though they will continue to pray for our brother, we have now released him to the spiritual watch care of another pastor and flock. However, our love for him will endure. He even happened to be in town yesterday for a family affair and was able to worship with us.
This is as it should be. We all need a good church to look out for us. And as part of a church, we need to look out for fellow members. Letters of transfer and good standing are a practical, biblically-informed tool at the disposal of pastors and churches to help ensure that these things are more likely to happen.
Follow Up:
Two weeks ago I wrote about the perpetual influence of C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer on many Christians. I’ve had occasion to revisit what is perhaps my favorite book by Schaeffer, True Spirituality. The book is filled with gems. My sermon this past Sunday (which actually went by the same title as Schaeffer’s book) afforded me the chance to quote from him: “We do not come to true spirituality or the true Christian life merely by keeping a list, but neither do we come to it merely by rejecting the list and then shrugging our shoulders and living a looser life.” If you listen closely, you’ll hear the similarities between this and F. Leroy Forlines’s formulation of long-list legalism and short-list legalism.
Currently Reading:
Jon Meacham, And There Was Light: Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle.
Hannah Barnes, Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock’s Gender Service for Children.
Quote of the Week:
Barack Obama famously argued that empathy was the key quality he was looking for in judges. “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t just about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook,” he said. “It’s also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives—whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.”. . . Now, depending on the situation, I think those considerations are entirely appropriate for legislators, and to some extent, presidents. They’re also important for police, prosecutors, priests, policy wonks, poets, journalists, screenwriters, novelists, and the broader category of people we call “human beings.” But judges and justices are bound by oath to keep their empathy in check and follow the law. They swear to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon” them. It’s not hard to see how bad law stems from too much empathy for a specific plaintiff—never mind a category of people—on the wrong side of the law.
Jonah Goldberg, “The Problem with Einfühlung.”
On My Mind: The Collapse of Gender Ideology
In recent months I’ve continued my in-depth and wide-ranging research into developments surrounding so-called “gender-affirming care” for transgendered persons. Since I began probing this topic in 2016, I’m always intrigued (and troubled) by the many twists and turns which have happened on this cultural front. More recently, I’ve been reading Hannah Barnes’s excellent investigative work into the closure of Tavistock, the infamous gender service for adolescents in England. For the life of me, I don’t know why more American physicians aren’t paying attention to what’s happening in Europe. As usual, we’re late to the party, and not for the better.