Defined Core Partner Paper 

*much of this paper’s use is directly or indirectly inspired by Renovation Church’s (Blaine, MN) “Defined Membership Paper” and has been used with permission.

WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH?

We believe that all people who have chosen to accept Christ's work on the cross for their sins and now follow him in an engaged relationship as Lord and Savior are members of the universal church and are “positional members” of the global church.

OUR “ROMANS 13” OBLIGATION

Clarity Church is recognized by our government as a 501c3 organization, having filed our exemption both federally and locally in MN as a non-profit corporation.  

As an organization recognized as such by the local and federal government, there are requirements that we are expected to fulfill.  How we organize ourselves — from our articles of incorporation, bylaws, and statement of faith — is meant to not only submit to the leadership that God has given to us as citizens of heaven living under the government of the United States but also serve as a way to make sure that we have measures of accountability in how we organize and operate.

So what does all of that mean? It means that churches need to have a governing board (also referred to as the “Governing Team”) that is elected by a membership (also referred to as “Core Partners/Core Partnership)

When it comes to Core Partnership, Clarity Church embraces a view of “defined Core Partnership” rather than a “process of core partnership.”  In other words, we define our core partners by what they already do, rather than approving them after they go through a typical “church membership process.” This keeps us focused on our mission and avoids needless duplication and vision confusion. 

THE PROBLEM WITH THE HISTORY OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

In the average church organized in the United States, voting rights are only given to members.  However, members must also do a number of other things.  They should be regular attenders, givers, and participants in a small group. One of the reasons these requirements are put in a constitution for members is so that the church can ensure that the members are actively engaged with the vision of the church, which is what you want from the people who are voting. 

However, in an average church, this sort of engagement is not tracked, and people are not kept accountable. Unfortunately, what can end up happening is that members can easily end up being disengaged. While on the opposite end, some of the most engaged people end up not being members (because it is unappealing). As a result, the people who vote on issues are often not a perfect sample of the most engaged people of a particular church. 

One way to solve this is by having renewable membership. In this system, people have to commit every year to be a member again and also commit each year to do things like attending, giving, and being in a small group. This is much more preferable because the membership each year would then be a proper sampling of engaged people. However, it doesn’t solve the problem of how unappealing, confusing, and repetitive the concept of membership is in the first place. 

A SOLUTION TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

Therefore, here is our solution. If indeed the core intention when it comes to voting is to have engaged people who care about the church be the ones that are actually doing the voting, it seems to make sense to get rid of the extra burden of membership altogether and just have the engaged people do the voting in the first place. Therefore, the people who will do the voting in our church (i.e. approve budgets, ratify board members, amend the constitution) are the people who are already engaged in Missional Communities and have actively participated in giving financially to the church in the past six months to support and contribute to the ministry that we share as Clarity Church. These are the people who are already fully engaged in our church and believe in our mission. 

One might say, “But isn’t that unfair and limiting to someone who doesn’t want to be in a Missional Community?” No. It is not, and here’s why. This system is actually a much more open system than the normal concept of membership and involves a significant amount of more people. In a typical evangelical church, 10-20% of people are members. In our church, 80% are in a house group. We’ve now opened up the voting to 80% of people rather than just 10-20%. We’re not worried about limiting people’s votes. 

One might also say, “But what if someone just isn’t interested in Missional Communities? Shouldn’t they still get to vote if they give and are regular attenders?” We would say, “No, they should not get a vote.” If they are at our church for a long period of time and are not interested in Missional Communities, they are not tracking with the core vision and values of this church and, therefore, shouldn’t be voting with us. 

One potential loophole in the defined core partner system is that there may be non-believers actively engaged in Missional Communities. Therefore, when it is time for a vote on a particular issue, it will be communicated to the congregation that all baptized believers in Jesus Christ who fully support our Core Doctrines (Statement of Faith) and are a part of a missional community is eligible to vote. We will also ask that all voters have been an active part of Clarity Church for a period of six months or longer and participated in giving financially to the church in the past six months to support and contribute to the ministry that we share as Clarity Church

It’s still possible, however, that a non-Christian would still come and vote. However, it’s possible that such a person could “become a member” of the old system as well. And in the old system, it’s also possible that 50% of your members weren’t even actively involved. Therefore, we feel that the “defined core partner” system is superior in identifying actively engaged believers who should be a part of the voting process in the church. 

Finally, we feel like this system is superior to the old membership system in that we are not trying to unwisely duplicate ourselves by demanding commitment on paper when we already have it in reality. There is also just no sense in developing a whole system of membership when it is already unappealing to our culture, not Biblically very important, and takes our focus as a church slightly out of alignment. We already have what we want from people, so there is no sense in trying to put a whole extra layer of commitment on them just so we can satisfy the status quo!