What does the expression “church membership” bring to your mind?  The expression carries different meanings across Christian denominations, depending on their theology, governance, and ecclesial identity. For mainline Protestant denominations (Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians) membership typically involves Baptism, Confirmation or profession of faith, and often, a formal joining ceremony. Members may be listed on membership rolls and such affords one voting privileges in congregational meetings and eligibility for leadership roles.

In Evangelical Churches (e.g. Baptists, Assemblies of God, or independent Bible churches) church membership is often voluntary, distinct from baptism (though baptism is usually a prerequisite). It involves a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ, believer’s baptism (by immersion), completion of a membership class, and a congregational vote or pastor’s approval. The emphasis is placed on active participation, accountability, and sometimes church discipline. Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches are similar to Evangelicals, but with more focus on the Holy Spirit’s work.

What about the Catholic Church? Church membership is not a voluntary affiliation but a sacramental reality; one becomes a member through Baptism with full communion via the Sacrament of Confirmation and participation in the Eucharist. There’s no formal “joining” ceremony later in life for baptized Catholics. There is OCIA for adults coming to the Church as either unbaptized or from other Christian traditions. Parish registration is sometimes called “membership” in practice, but it is administrative and not sacramental.

This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday (Year C) with the gospel from Luke 14:25-33. These two parables are unique to Luke and are without parallel. Jesus draws attention to a simple observation: a prudent person would not begin a project until being sure it can be finished – neither a builder nor a king. In the first parable Jesus says, “Sit down and consider whether you can afford to follow me.” In the second he says, “Sit down and surmise whether you can afford to refuse my demands.”  In the same way, God has not entered a redemptive process without being prepared to complete it. Jesus did not set his face to Jerusalem (9:51) without knowing and being prepared for his own Passion.

The two parables move from the lesser to the greater. In the first, the threat is that of embarrassment before one’s peers and neighbors. In the second, the consequence is the defeat at the hands of an enemy. In continuing the movement to the even greater, the implication is that one’s network of family or simply membership in a religious tradition is inadequate to assure one’s status before God. What is required is fidelity to God’s only Son.

This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday (Year C) with the gospel from Luke 14:25-33. The expression carry his own cross is a metaphor of discipleship. In terms of dedication, one is to live as already condemned to death, “oblivious to the pursuit of noble status, find no interest in securing one’s future via future obligations from others or by stockpiling possessions, free to identify with Jesus in his dishonorable suffering” [Green, 566].

Many scholars interpret “carrying the cross” as a vivid metaphor for complete renunciation of self-will and self-preservation. Roman crucifixion was public, humiliating, and painful. In the Roman world, carrying one’s cross was literally the path to execution—a condemned man would carry the beam of his own instrument of death. So Jesus’ words suggest that following Him requires being willing to lose one’s life, ambitions, or status. It is a stark image suggesting to his followers that a disciple should expect to walk as Jesus did: a path of suffering, shame, and possible martyrdom.

This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday (Year C) with the gospel from Luke 14:25-33. Jesus’ command of love makes it unthinkable that he commands hating one’s family all the while commanding to love those we do not know and are even our enemy. As Culpepper [292] notes, one should understand the Semitic hyperbole always uses stark differences so that the contrast is more clearly seen. The term misein (hate) denotes attitudes and modes of action rather than emotions. The point is not how one feels towards one’s parents, but rather one’s effective attitude when it comes to the kingdom.” This becomes clearer in 16:13, “No servant can serve two masters, he will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”  This continues Luke 12:49-52 regarding division with the household caused by the proclamation of the reign of God.

Other scholars argue that “hate” is a Semitic expression meaning “love less” or “put in second place.” For instance: Genesis 29:30–31 says Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, and in the next verse, Leah is said to be “hated.” This sense of “hate” aligns with Matthew 10:37: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…” — a softer but similar idea.