Two churches I visited nearby my home in the past few years (one Lutheran, the other ultra Reformist), someone approached me as I walked in and made it absolutely clear that I was NOT TO TAKE COMMUNION. I didn't belong. The Reformist was in the middle of a series of sermons based on their commitment to the Augsberg Confession of 1530, and it was his JOB to prevent anyone from participating because it was his JOB to guard the fence around the communion table. Karen the Lutheran got her karen chance for the same reason. No interest in me, my testimony, the fact that I'd served in ministry for years. Just NO. You have to belong. And for the Reformist that meant subjection to his authority, no questions asked. He wouldn't meet with me in his office (lawyers recommend they not do that, I might be after his... you know). Instead he invited me to have lunch with him. He got a final letter from me. That was it. Something written in 1530 made the rules. Period.
Thank you for sharing this. I’m genuinely sorry you experienced that.
What stands out to me isn’t just the refusal, but the total absence of curiosity. No interest in your story. No desire to know you. No pause to ask who you were or how you came to the table. Just a boundary enforced in the name of faithfulness.
That’s the quiet grief underneath so much of this: the table becomes something to be guarded from people rather than a place where people are met, known, and tested by proximity. Not discernment after relationship, but exclusion before it.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of those guarding the fence. I also don’t doubt how deeply formative confessions and traditions can be. But when something written in 1530 is given more authority than the living person standing in front of you, something essential has shifted.
Your line, “You have to belong,” captures it perfectly. Not belong as in be present, but belong as in submit first. That’s a different thing entirely.
I appreciate you naming it so clearly and honestly. Stories like yours help surface what many feel but struggle to articulate.
65 now and this is the finest thing to reach thy earthly realm from my father ABBA and His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit to settle matters as to what true fellowship joining respecting spiritual Holy Hospitality upon Holy ground in the proper presence of our Lord be it just this and just getting together for warm love for each other. Not that I put down worldly Hospitality yet they have demonstrated that same response over the generations when just having guests as it was stated even non believers followed Gods laws yet his people back then did not. So I say for this article subject is beautifully done and explained and the Heavenly Court would say it does the opposite like magnets
Often, people will use this verse to support the assertion that the “numbers kept indicate membership,” or from Pentecost onward, the Church kept records of members:
“Those who believed what Peter said were baptized and added to the church that day—about 3,000 in all.”
Great catch — you're right, that’s probably the verse people go to most, so I’m glad you named it.
I don’t think Acts 2 denies counting at all. Scripture counts people constantly. Sometimes it’s neutral… and sometimes it goes very badly. David coiunted once and a whole bunch of people died, which at least suggests that counting, by itself, doesn’t come with a built-in halo. ;)
What helps me with Acts 2 is paying attention to what happens before and after the number.
Before the counting: repentance, baptism, public identification with Christ — all happening out in the open, in full view of the community.
Immediately after: shared meals, prayers, resources, daily gathering. No waiting period. No secondary gate. The number isn’t creating belonging — it’s naming a belonging that’s already visible and embodied.
So I’m not arguing against knowing who’s there or even keeping track. I’m pushing back on when the record itself becomes the thing that authorizes belonging, rather than shared life being the thing that naturally gets counted.
Really appreciate you raising it — that’s a great catch and a helpful place to clarify.
Boy, you have described the churches of today and exactly why I do not go. Have experienced the same thing. Awful feeling, nauseating, to say the least. Felt like a "spy" corporation, for lack of better words. They were on top of us like vultures and others creeping around us, almost in a circle. Never went back. Other churches were only interested in musical talents (which we did have), but we declined. We paid a visit to several churches, and it was like walking into a concert hall. Others were like all the fake babbling going on and people throwing their arms around. All I can do now is either laugh at it or shake my head. Thank you for this very truthful share.
I hear you. That “nauseating” feeling is real, and once you’ve felt it, it’s hard to ignore. When a space meant for care starts feeling like surveillance or performance, something is deeply off.
All I can really say is what you already named: this is not the way it was ever supposed to be. What you’re describing isn’t a personal failure to “fit in” — it’s a system that quietly replaces presence with production.
Thank you for sharing your experience so honestly. You’re not alone in it, even if it’s often made to feel that way.
This again Great observation! A couple of years back I moved back to Indiana. My new wife was a member of a good size church. Didn't know anyone but her. It was weird that the elders/shepherds did not ever really approach me, befriend me -- but people started asking when I was going to place membership? And pressured me. This irritated me. No one ever really did the "guarding the henhouse" way -- no one really asked me what I thought or where I stood on the important issues. I was going because thats where my new wife was going, so ok. Very few even said Hi to me. After while of this I decided I would just start meeting individuals, taking some out to eat with us, enjoy fellowship with some. Now when I go, lots of folks rush over to hug me and see how I'm doing.
Membership is for a club, a list. Church is to be a family. Feel that you really belong -- not because you're in the "going to heaven club" -- because you get involved, you love these people, you believe the same things (mostly). You really belong!
What strikes me is how belonging showed up after relationship, not before. No paperwork, no pressure — just shared meals, time, presence. And suddenly people knew you. Of course they did. You made yourself known, and they responded in kind. That’s family behavior, not club behavior.
I also appreciate what you said about how little anyone actually asked about you early on. That’s the quiet tell. When membership is the focus, curiosity about the person often disappears. Once you flipped that script and leaned into people directly, real connection followed.
“Membership is for a club. Church is a family.”
That line pretty much says it all.
Thanks for sharing this — it’s a hopeful picture of how simple, human faithfulness still works when we give it room.
Yep. That constant low-level guard is such a real thing.
When belonging is conditional, I think your body knows it before your mind does. You’re listening, but also scanning. Participating, but holding back. Not at ease, because ease requires safety, and safety requires being known rather than evaluated.
It helps explain why so many people feel tired, guarded, or quietly lonely even while “belonging.”
In general I agree. But it's all from your perspective. If you put yourself in the shoes of the leadership, what might their concerns be? Why would they put certain mechanisms in place?
Two churches I visited nearby my home in the past few years (one Lutheran, the other ultra Reformist), someone approached me as I walked in and made it absolutely clear that I was NOT TO TAKE COMMUNION. I didn't belong. The Reformist was in the middle of a series of sermons based on their commitment to the Augsberg Confession of 1530, and it was his JOB to prevent anyone from participating because it was his JOB to guard the fence around the communion table. Karen the Lutheran got her karen chance for the same reason. No interest in me, my testimony, the fact that I'd served in ministry for years. Just NO. You have to belong. And for the Reformist that meant subjection to his authority, no questions asked. He wouldn't meet with me in his office (lawyers recommend they not do that, I might be after his... you know). Instead he invited me to have lunch with him. He got a final letter from me. That was it. Something written in 1530 made the rules. Period.
Thank you for sharing this. I’m genuinely sorry you experienced that.
What stands out to me isn’t just the refusal, but the total absence of curiosity. No interest in your story. No desire to know you. No pause to ask who you were or how you came to the table. Just a boundary enforced in the name of faithfulness.
That’s the quiet grief underneath so much of this: the table becomes something to be guarded from people rather than a place where people are met, known, and tested by proximity. Not discernment after relationship, but exclusion before it.
I don’t doubt the sincerity of those guarding the fence. I also don’t doubt how deeply formative confessions and traditions can be. But when something written in 1530 is given more authority than the living person standing in front of you, something essential has shifted.
Your line, “You have to belong,” captures it perfectly. Not belong as in be present, but belong as in submit first. That’s a different thing entirely.
I appreciate you naming it so clearly and honestly. Stories like yours help surface what many feel but struggle to articulate.
65 now and this is the finest thing to reach thy earthly realm from my father ABBA and His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit to settle matters as to what true fellowship joining respecting spiritual Holy Hospitality upon Holy ground in the proper presence of our Lord be it just this and just getting together for warm love for each other. Not that I put down worldly Hospitality yet they have demonstrated that same response over the generations when just having guests as it was stated even non believers followed Gods laws yet his people back then did not. So I say for this article subject is beautifully done and explained and the Heavenly Court would say it does the opposite like magnets
Often, people will use this verse to support the assertion that the “numbers kept indicate membership,” or from Pentecost onward, the Church kept records of members:
“Those who believed what Peter said were baptized and added to the church that day—about 3,000 in all.”
Acts of the Apostles 2:41
Can you address?
Great catch — you're right, that’s probably the verse people go to most, so I’m glad you named it.
I don’t think Acts 2 denies counting at all. Scripture counts people constantly. Sometimes it’s neutral… and sometimes it goes very badly. David coiunted once and a whole bunch of people died, which at least suggests that counting, by itself, doesn’t come with a built-in halo. ;)
What helps me with Acts 2 is paying attention to what happens before and after the number.
Before the counting: repentance, baptism, public identification with Christ — all happening out in the open, in full view of the community.
Immediately after: shared meals, prayers, resources, daily gathering. No waiting period. No secondary gate. The number isn’t creating belonging — it’s naming a belonging that’s already visible and embodied.
So I’m not arguing against knowing who’s there or even keeping track. I’m pushing back on when the record itself becomes the thing that authorizes belonging, rather than shared life being the thing that naturally gets counted.
Really appreciate you raising it — that’s a great catch and a helpful place to clarify.
Thx for the context.
Awareness of the state of the flock rather than certification that a sheep is … well… a sheep.
Boy, you have described the churches of today and exactly why I do not go. Have experienced the same thing. Awful feeling, nauseating, to say the least. Felt like a "spy" corporation, for lack of better words. They were on top of us like vultures and others creeping around us, almost in a circle. Never went back. Other churches were only interested in musical talents (which we did have), but we declined. We paid a visit to several churches, and it was like walking into a concert hall. Others were like all the fake babbling going on and people throwing their arms around. All I can do now is either laugh at it or shake my head. Thank you for this very truthful share.
I hear you. That “nauseating” feeling is real, and once you’ve felt it, it’s hard to ignore. When a space meant for care starts feeling like surveillance or performance, something is deeply off.
All I can really say is what you already named: this is not the way it was ever supposed to be. What you’re describing isn’t a personal failure to “fit in” — it’s a system that quietly replaces presence with production.
Thank you for sharing your experience so honestly. You’re not alone in it, even if it’s often made to feel that way.
This again Great observation! A couple of years back I moved back to Indiana. My new wife was a member of a good size church. Didn't know anyone but her. It was weird that the elders/shepherds did not ever really approach me, befriend me -- but people started asking when I was going to place membership? And pressured me. This irritated me. No one ever really did the "guarding the henhouse" way -- no one really asked me what I thought or where I stood on the important issues. I was going because thats where my new wife was going, so ok. Very few even said Hi to me. After while of this I decided I would just start meeting individuals, taking some out to eat with us, enjoy fellowship with some. Now when I go, lots of folks rush over to hug me and see how I'm doing.
Membership is for a club, a list. Church is to be a family. Feel that you really belong -- not because you're in the "going to heaven club" -- because you get involved, you love these people, you believe the same things (mostly). You really belong!
What strikes me is how belonging showed up after relationship, not before. No paperwork, no pressure — just shared meals, time, presence. And suddenly people knew you. Of course they did. You made yourself known, and they responded in kind. That’s family behavior, not club behavior.
I also appreciate what you said about how little anyone actually asked about you early on. That’s the quiet tell. When membership is the focus, curiosity about the person often disappears. Once you flipped that script and leaned into people directly, real connection followed.
“Membership is for a club. Church is a family.”
That line pretty much says it all.
Thanks for sharing this — it’s a hopeful picture of how simple, human faithfulness still works when we give it room.
I experienced this in churches and in the back of your mind you were always on guard in a negative way not at ease
Yep. That constant low-level guard is such a real thing.
When belonging is conditional, I think your body knows it before your mind does. You’re listening, but also scanning. Participating, but holding back. Not at ease, because ease requires safety, and safety requires being known rather than evaluated.
It helps explain why so many people feel tired, guarded, or quietly lonely even while “belonging.”
In general I agree. But it's all from your perspective. If you put yourself in the shoes of the leadership, what might their concerns be? Why would they put certain mechanisms in place?