Welcome young_glass (nice name BTW) - looking forward to having you here at WonderCafe - and no worries, agnostics are very welcome.  We just really look for respectful interactions, and from reading your post I think you'll have no difficulty there.

Sorry I can't shed light on your specific question ... I don't know for sure, but I think after a time, one goes onto an 'inactive' roll in the church ... not sure if there's any mechanism for bowing out, but someone here will surely advise you before long. 

Welcome, young_glass.  Why do you feel that your continued membership is a negative thing?  The UCC is a big umbrella, after all.

I say this as someone with no Christian beliefs, nor membership in any church.  Even as such an individual, I can't say I'd mind being a member all that much.

Thanks very much for the welcome (the name comes from the song by Hey Rosetta!).

I think you are right about the inactive status. If I remember correctly, someone at the office phoned me a few years back asking if I was still attending. I should have been more clear at that time with her, but I wasn't ready to ask about my membership.

Do you still get regular mailings etc from that church?  If not, you've likely been moved to the 'inactive' side of things.   As far as I know, there is no need to 'remove' your name - you were after all, historically, a member for a period of time.  It's not like a fitness club where they keep charging you membership fees even if you don't show up .  

The number of members with active/inactive status does have a bearing (I think) on how much money the home church transfers to Presbytery & Conference though - so that's one reason they like to tidy up the lists every few years - or so I hear.

If you want you simply have to contact the congregation and ask that your membership be removed from the roll.

OTOH, the congregation may one day contact you asking if you want your name to remain on the list as part of regular roll maintenance.

Hello young_glass]

Yes such a thing does exist.  It is called removing a member from the historic roll.

The "membership" of an individual is held at a congregational level.  At the time of your confirmation you would have had your name written on the congregation's historic roll.  It would stay there until you requested it changed, died or the Session removed it for disciplinary or administrative purposes.

Since you are not transferring, haven't died and aren't being disciplined your name won't come off for those purposes.  If you haven't attended for five or six years I would expect that your name might have already been removed from the roll.

Some churches are very poor about maintaining the historic roll so you could still be listed as a member.

Unless you feel very strongly about it the congregation will eventually take action and remove you from the roll.  Hopefully an Elder will attempt to contact you and see if there is a reason for them not to remove you before they strike you from the roll.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Azdgari, I don't know if I view it as a negative thing. It's just that right now in my life I would never join a church, so why would I remain a member? I suppose it would be closure to some degree too.

Hello young_glass and welcome!

RevJohn - I have never heard of anyone being removed from membership for disciplinary reasons. Do you know of any examples of when this has happened and why? I'm curious!

Hi somegalfromcan

I have never heard of it happening.  I know it has been discussed by several congregations which had funds embezzled by treasurers.  It is a pretty extreme measure and I know of nobody who would enjoy having to enforce it.

Argument could be made that when a Session removes a name from the historic roll for reasons other than a transfer or death it must be discipline of some sort.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I can't imagine anyone actually enjoying excommunicating someone - lol!

Welcome young_glass. I hope you stay around and join in some of the various discussions.

As I have never been a member of a church, I will never know the joy of being excommunicated.  I suppose the Mormons will try to baptize me after I'm dead, but I'm all out of ideas for getting myself a post-mortem excommunication.

I think young_glass is on to something, and I know there are people looking to get their names off of the rosters of the religious.  It's not something I know much about, though I have heard there are some denominations where getting your name stricken is a rather difficult proposition.

Reasons for making this request vary, but it's usually either they no longer believe and wish to be removed as an act of closure (like y_g), or they don't want their names associated with a particular church.

Good luck, young_glass.

Thanks everyone!

At the same time, while you can remove your membership in a local congregation, you can't change the fact that you were baptised and confirmed. Both of those actions are irrevokeable, at least in the eyes of the United Church (and the Christian church in general). Basically, you can walk away from God, but the church believes that God doesn't walk away from you - ever. Other than that, it is likely that your name has already been removed from the Historic Roll, as congregations are often diligent about this. Some may not be and your parents may also have intervened (if your parents are active in the church) to keep your name on the Roll. But that is a family matter.

Naaah. That's peanuts compared to what the Jehovah Witnesses and Mennonites do. Excommunication simply means you can't receive the sacraments. So no bread and wine for you! The JW's and Mennonites take it a step further and practice shunning. you are dead to family and friends and to the church. RIP.

Contrary to what appears to be chansen's understanding, there is no such thing as excommunication in the United Church. As noted above, if your behaviour is egregious and harmful to the community, your membership may be withdrawn. But at least in this church, there is no connotation of being separated from God, from no longer being "saved".  It is simply a matter of no longer being part of a particular faith community, and having to work through issues of life and faith on your own or with a different community.

No, my parents were not active in the church. And all the ministers left too (probably lots of congregation as well) so I don't even know who would still know me there.

Also, shunning - ouch! At least I'm not dead to people!

I grew up UCCan and then drifted away after I left home in my twenties. My mother was church secretary so I think she made sure that my status was changed to non-resident or inactive or something like that when I moved away from my hometown but I have no idea if I was ever removed from the roll. Eventually, I ended up joining a Unitarian Universalist fellowship so it's not something I even worry about.

And I'm an agnostic who's a regular around WC so welcome aboard and feel free to chime in wherever you feel you have something to contribute.

Mendalla

Membership or non-membership may be a moot point - ie it really doesn't matter if it doesn't change my life.  There are times when I want to withdraw my membership in the human race when I see what vile things human beings can do to each other for the most self-serving of purposes. There are times when I want to withdraw my membership in Canadian society when I hear what Stephen Harper claims to be saying on my behalf (especially when it comes to matters concerning the environment or foreign relations).  But I doubt that would change either myself (or Stephen Harper).  And so the question really is not "what am I a member of (or not)?", but "what can I do?".

I would say that MANY congregation are less diligent about roll maintenance than you suggest.  Based on my experience that is...

That membership list isn't one of the noisier wheels in congregational life I expect.

I know someone who attended the same UC for twenty years or more and didn't ever hear a whisper about joining.  You belonged because you showed up on Sunday mornings and helped with fundraising events.

Depends on whether the congregation is assessed by the conference based on membership numbers. We revised our Roll and dropped our assessment by 25%. There has been much similar revision in this conference, once assessments reached five figures.

Just in case there are those there who are unfamiliar with the "assessments" that DKS refers to - that's the $$ that each congregation must send to the higher levels of the church organization (presbyteries, conference, general council), which depends on how many members a church has on its rolls. So there is actually an incentive to trim people off the rolls (= congregation pays less upstairs, has more $$ for itself), although I think most presbyteries/conferences have a formula that includes the # of identifiable givers (is this so?), so a congregation of 100 can't say they only have 10 members.

Question to those in the know. Do the higher courts of the church assess independently, or do those funds go from congregation to presbytery to conference to G.C.?

COnference makes an assessment on the Presbyteries within its bounds.  Then PResbyteries do the same on the Pastoral Charges in their bounds.  In many cases roughly half of the Presbytery budget is the Conference assessment.  Conferences also recieve an operating grant from General Council to cover some portion of staff costs.  General Council is funded by gifts to the M&S fund as well as some of the business that is done through the office.

Depends on the conference. In Toronto Conference, the assessment is set by and paid to the conference, who then forward a presbytery portion. It's far more efficient that way.

Greetings! and welcome young_glass - cool avatar photo!

If your decision is to do something about your membership in the church you became a member of you might want to call that church and find out exactly what their policy or procedure is.  If you choose to remove your membership, your name will still be recorded in their historic roll, except that it will show that you are no longer a member by your request and you will not be considered as such or counted as a member by that congregation.

In difference to your feeling hypocritical about being on a church's historic roll or membership list, some persons leave their names on membership lists because they find it hard to give up or end something that was an important part of them or a part of them that defines who they are.  And so, although they have left the church, they remain as a member and have no involvment - unless that particular church takes the step to remove them as a member.

wishing you well as you determine what you want to do with your membership and in finding out what you need to do about it.

ANd at one time Congregations in this conference used to get an assessment from Conference and one from Presbytery--which was changed to one assessment in the interests of efficiency.

As a total aside (and completely unrelated to the thread):  how many are aware that your assessment is of a higher priority for paying bills than anything other than payroll-associated costs?  Before utilities, insurance, taxes (if applicable), supplies...

Many years ago a friend wanted to terminate her membership with the UCC and she was told that along with informing her congregation by letter that she also had to send a letter to the UCC Conference office - do you think this would have been the reason for that letter, GordW?

NO, the discussion about assessments is different topic (thread drift).  THere is no reason I can see why this letter would be asked for.  THe wider church relies on the congregation to submit the information --it is part of annual statistics collected nationally.  I have never heard of something like you suggest.  DKS do you have any insight?

This was probably about 20 years ago.  I had never heard of it before, nor had I heard of it since.  It could have been the way a particular minister gave instruction at the time and was not really required by the church.

DKS - So let’s assume what you state is correct - in the eyes of the United Church, you can't change the fact that you were baptized and confirmed - now where I have the questions are - let’s say I moved to US for a job - went to the United Church of Christ - liked it so much I became a member - was there for 10 years - didn't expect to come back to Cananda.  As far as I am concerned I am a member of both denominations.  However, if I was to go into Ministry in the United Church from another Christian denomination, the United Church asks that you give up your previous affiliation/membership. If your statement is correct it sounds like the United Church has a double standard.......

I don't think so Jobam.  THe fact that something happened does not change.  TO "undo" it would mean rewriting history and records.  Membership status is a different thing.

But behind the minister's pension assessment...

Officially that falls under "payroll associated costs"

It is my understanding that during the 1980s some people wanted to have their names removed from the UCC membership rolls - I think they wanted to make a statement.  They were asked to send a letter to the congregation where they were members.  Then a note was put beside their name.  Instead of 'transferred to . . .' or 'deceased', it read 'removed by request'.   So they were no longer members.

That did not cancel their baptism.   If they wished to rejoin, they wouldn't have to be baptised again (nor do people joining from other faith communities).  Nor would they have to be confirmed.  But they would be 'received as members' the same as if they were transfering in from another congregation.  

Aside to Chansen - nice avatar.  This familiar verse reminds me of how much our thinking has changed since this psalm was written, and of how much it remains the same.  

Never heard of anything like that other than speculating that a minister was trying to send a message to the conference that certain policies of the United Church were causing us to lose members (remember what was preoccupying us in 1991).

Right seeler, i would think if it was "about 20 years ago", that would be around '88 and the people were probably being told how to make their "statement".

Anyhow, re removing a member, it can be done.  It is better if the member chooses to withdraw instead, if there are circumstances which cause the relationship to be unhealthy.

re your removing your membership.  ....just a thought you may wish to let them know why....ie, "heh, i understand you may be paying for me, i no longer consider myself a christian, and so i feel it is appropriate to remove my membership>

now the only thing that i might caution is that you spend a bit of time here, and share what you do believe in, what you don't believe in, and what you are gray about... You may find you have a lot in common with other united church of canada folks that are present and active in the church.

No, it's his usual insulting self. It takes scripture out of context, wraps it in a literal meaning, while ignoring what the text actually says. The psalm is lament and grief, placed on the shoulders of God. Nothing more and nothing less. It's a human cry to God. To see it otherwise is simply a sign of ignorance and lack of literacy skills.

Welcome aboard, young glass...I'd be interested to hear where you're at on your trail.  You'll find many of us that have bumped along evolving into our own irregular bumps, so chime in wherever you're at...

Jobam...what a beautiful chocolate lab!!

 If THIS is a problem for you, NEVER subscribe to anything from the Readers' Digest stable... 

The psalm is a call for retribution - for revenge.  Against the children of the enemy.  Touching, really.

I would like to be able to say that it's just my kids are driving me crazy, and that's what prompted me to use the avatar.  But truthfully, my youngest is walking and eating and sleeping through the night, and I haven't considered dashing him against the rocks in months.

Does that make me a bad Christian?

No, it doesn't. But you know that.  

That's what I've read.  The idea that you can take "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." and make it about lament and grief, and not about retribution and murdering children, is ridiculous.  In context:

Psalm 137:

The better rebuttal for the charge of biblical immorality is that this was a desire for retribution written by a psalmist, but not "endorsed" by God.  Perhaps it just slipped past the editorial staff.

But to say it has nothing to do with retribution or a desire for revenge is quite the twist.  A google search on the verse retrieves a number of answers as to why the verse is so violent, but I have yet to find one that agrees with you that the verse is not violent and immoral and is instead about "lament and grief".

Edit:  Ahhh....you're removed your comment about it being about "lament and grief".  Interesting.

I understand the poetry of grief and lament -for it begins in the first part of sitting down at the waters and wept..... following  through is the idea I wish I was never born, nor my children.  Yes the image is violent but it is not a call to do that to ones child.

Yes one in the poetry one feels the oppression of the oppressors, asking us to sing when we feel so much pain. Yet  I hold on to the return.  There is hope and despair, and anger in the poem. 

Having been in groups where they felt the whip of oppression their lament was strong, their desire to return in kind violence.  Yet in the singing of the Psalm they found release, by their crying out, so in the end they could reject returning in kind the treatment they had receieved.  In asking God to take over they were released so they could act non violently. 

Of course if one does not understand poetry then one could say God is violent.... but if one understood that in the end God deals justily with the good and the bad, one can turn the other over to God for God do compassionate justice to the oppressors.  If that is behind the poets view then the poet is not asking for violence, but for justice. 

It is a very human response to oppression and loss... a cry many make in the face of despair.  It is our human desire for retribution, and the poet is asked to be released from that feeling.  Happy is an ironic term in the hebrew.  In one sense it means you will feel the pain you have caused, and having felt that one gives up pain causing.

Rule #1:  The bible is moral.

Rule #2:  If the bible appears immoral, it is just being metaphorical.

Rule #3:  If people aren't buying the "metaphor" line, the bible is being poetic.

Rule #4:  If people aren't buying the "poetry" line, refer them to Rule #1, or just talk in circles until they lose interest.

Sorry, that's a FAIL. It's absolutely not about retribution and revenge. It is a psalm of lament and grief. The people of Israel are destroyed and bound into slavery. They have suffered a crushing defeat. Their expression of that lament and grief uses strong images, but no stronger than the frustration of any parent in today's world. It is an expression of feeling, not a literal action.

Your problem is that you are a literalist. That's not how many of us understand scripture. Literalism is a dead end. You use it to abuse others and to hammer at Christians. That's abusive and wrong. And there are better theological resources than Google.

BTW, my comment about lament and grief is still there. I have no idea what you are talking about.  Which is typical for your approach.

Is the Bible moral? Nope. It contains moral principles. It also contains law, history, poetry and many other aspects of human writing and experience. To say that "The bible is moral" is to set up a logical fallicy. And you have done that. Again, you fail.

And it contains immoral principles, which are also, technically, biblical.

You can write "FAIL" all you want, but the verse is about the deaths of the children of one's oppressors.  I've seen Christians try to spin away from "retribution" and say that it's just divine judgement (like that makes it any better), but at the end of the day, what we have here is a God who condones infanticide, albeit on a case-by-case basis.