Another “hula hoop” has hit the evangelical market. It’s trendy. It seems everyone who’s anyone has one. And it’s cheap. Only this hoop asks believers not to encircle their waists with it, but to jump through it.

Unfortunately, those who do take the leap could one day find they’ve been serving two masters.

Google the words “membership covenant,” and in less than one-quarter of a second, the search engine spits back more than 4,000 different web pages that include the term.

Hot links transport the curious to websites of churches with names like “Peaceful Rest Family of Faith,” “Blessed Hope,” “Kenmore Baptist” and “Knox Presbyterian.”

Clearly, membership covenants are becoming all the rage.

The fact that I have twice recently encountered stories about Ontario churches implementing or exercising membership covenants is simply another indication of their increasing popularity.

Yet for all that they seem to be the fashion, there’s something about the notion of these covenants that makes me uncomfortable.

It seems odd, for instance, that while the churches adopting them are apparently diverse, the covenants themselves are often not. During my internet travels, I skimmed countless membership covenants from across the denominational spectrum that appeared to have been lifted directly from the pages of Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Church.

Warren’s covenant, which has been enthusiastically adopted by so many churches, calls on those who sign the document to promise to “protect the unity,” “share the responsibility,” “serve the ministry” and “support the testimony” of their church.

It’s hard to quibble with such sentiments, for each seems an admirable aspiration. But these declarations are further broken down, providing details as to how signatories are expected to specifically uphold every pledge.

For example, protecting the unity of the church is to be accomplished by “acting in love toward other members,” “refusing to gossip” and “following the leaders.”

Definitions of “acting in love” and “following the leaders” are not given. No mention is made of what happens if leaders become unwell, unwise or worse. Are those who sign such agreements effectively relinquishing their right to question, voice concern or illuminate error?

Jesus tells us no man can serve two masters, and that the most important things we can do are to love God and to love our neighbour.

If as believers, we are earnestly seeking to carry out His will, then shouldn’t the emphasis of church leadership be on enabling us to do exactly that—carry out the will of an infallible God—rather than insisting we carry out the will of a document drafted by imperfect men? And if we’re not earnestly seeking to carry out God’s will, then will signing a membership covenant change that?

On page 313 of The Purpose Driven Church, Warren says there are numerous benefits to the type of church membership he advocates, (i.e., the type that comes with a signed covenant), including that “it identifies a person as a genuine believer.”

But Jesus identifies genuine believers as His own with or without church membership. And He clearly taught that it is by our love for one another that all men will know we are His.

Real love cannot be compelled, coerced or mandated. Neither can it be enforced.

Methinks it should not be evaluated on the basis of whether or not one is willing to jump through another hula-hoop.