Church weddings, baptisms, etc. for nonpracticing families

[Vibiana]

As the personal secretary to a Protestant bishop, a former church secretary, and an active member of my Lutheran parish, I'm familiar with the phenomenon of nonmembers or basically-inactive members who wish to have a baby baptized or be married in church. I haven't seen many nonmembers want church funerals, but perhaps that's because the basic funeral chapel service is quasi-religious in a way that suffices.

Frankly, I can't understand why people who have no desire to affiliate with a church and participate in its services and ministry on a regular basis would want to be married in a church or have children baptized there. However, I also realize that my attitude doesn't look very
terribly hospitable.

My question for debate is this: What are the limits of hospitality? Should churches set strict (or otherwise) guidelines for use of their facilities by nonmembers? If so, what should the guidelines be?

If not, should churches throw the doors open to whomever asks, no matter whether that person has ever belonged or ever intends to darken the doorway again?

Why do you feel as you do?

[McCulloch]

I suppose that it all depends on what the church considers its mission to be. If the purpose of the church is to minister solely to its own members, to provide spiritual teaching, support and brotherly love to itself, then your inhospitable attitude would be justified.

But if the church's mission is to reach out to the larger community with its unique message from the Almighty, then you might consider some adjustments. What pastor can resist inserting some of the message of God's word into the baptism, marriage or funeral service?

Personally, I agree with you, I can't understand why people who have no desire to affiliate with a church and participate in its services and ministry on a regular basis would want to be married in a church or have children baptized there.

[NGR]

In an age of diminishing church attendance I would have thought that getting people in the door would be half the battle, and adopting an exclusive attitude to potential converts would seem to be counterproductive.

Personally, I agree with you, I can't understand why people who have no desire to affiliate with a church and participate in its services and ministry on a regular basis would want to be married in a church or have children baptized there

I can. One of the strong attractions for religion is tradition and even those that are infrequent church attenders may still have a history with a particular faith. In the case of a wedding maybe one of the parties is more religious than the other and is insistant on a church wedding even if they shy away from regular attendance afterwards. In addition the parents of the couple usually have an influence and I can well imagine the couple seeking a church wedding simply to pacify a more religious parent.

In the case of baptism perhaps the couple are only mildly religious but out of tradition seek to baptise their child into their childhood faith on the understanding that they have at least provided the child with a religious connection and are then content to allow the child to seek its own path as it matures.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I am willing to bet that the majority of those inactive members still consider themselves Christians, and think themselves on the path to salvation.

I meet scores of people with this mentality. Someone I don't suspect to be even remotely religious comes out one day and starts talking about God. They profess to believe, and rant on about what it will be like in heaven. Nevermind the fact that they have not been to church since last Easter, and openly conduct their lives in the exact opposite fashion of Jesus' teachings.

Thats American Christianity for you. 85% of our population professes to be Christian. How many actually practice the religion on a regular basis? 20%? 15%?

I think the answer to your question is that these people are "Christians". Not Christians, but "Christians".




I think that the church should always open it's doors to such people, no matter how contradictory their lifestyles may be. No church ever grew by becomming exclusive. Jesus plyed his trade amoung everyone willing to listen, not just the circumsised.

[Chimp]

I think the argument goes... going to the butcher's doesn't make you a
butcher.

Church attendance is not a requirement to be Christian.

[Bugmaster]

Church attendance is not a requirement to be Christian.

Jesus would actually agree with you:

When you pray, be not like the hypocrites who love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. When you pray, enter into the closet, shut the door, and pray to thy Father in secret.

[McCulloch]

Church attendance is not a requirement to be Christian.

Jesus would actually agree with you:

When you pray, be not like the hypocrites who love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. When you pray, enter into the closet, shut the door, and pray to thy Father in secret.

One would hope that Church membership and involvement is more than Church attendance. By using the metaphor of head and body to represent Christ and Church, you might think that Paul seemed to be emphasizing the importance of Church involvement. No?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Isn't there a verse that commands us to gather on the first day of the week?

Heb 10:25 We should not stop gathering together with other believers, as some of you are doing. Instead, we must continue to encourage each other even more as we see the day of the Lord coming.

Anyway, I'm not sure if church attendance is necissary for salvation, but it is heavily encouraged. In addition, we are commanded to partake of the Lord's Supper on the first day of every week. A bit difficult to do that at home.

Church offers us a venue to strengthen one another and better learn the word. I have seen the people who practice Christianity privately. They do not tend to do so well.

[AlAyeti]

However, I also realize that my attitude doesn't look very
terribly hospitable.

Those coming into your house need to be just as hospitable.

My question for debate is this: What are the limits of hospitality? Should churches set strict (or otherwise) guidelines for use of their facilities by nonmembers? If so, what should the guidelines be?

They should be questioned about their actions and required to explain themselves, their position towards Christ, and repent if necessary, be forgiven if aligned with Gospel guidelines and be readmitted. Or, admitted as new members. Even if for a moment of time. The Ethiopian in Acts was Baptised after just a few moments of time with a Christian. But he offered to accept the Gospel of life. I wouldn't advise marrying any couple unless the were firmly founded on and accepted God's word.

If not, should churches throw the doors open to whomever asks, no matter whether that person has ever belonged or ever intends to darken the doorway again?

Church doors must only be opened for those that repent or will be respectful towards "the Church." John gives sound advice in one of his letters about not opening the door and letting in certain kinds of people.

Why do you feel as you do?

[/quote]

The New Testament is clear on this issue.

Unless the Lord calls you to be a martyr, there is no reason to suffer indignation or worse. Following Christ is a commitment. There are actions and declarations involved in the choice, and a person coming to a church should be required to folow that churches ways.

[koriani]

Another thing one must take into consideration is availability of other alternatives and some people probably don't realize there might be other alternatives.

A lot of Pagans I know were married in a church ceremony because there are no legal alternatives in our area. Even though handfasting, a traditional Pagan joining ceremony, is considered legal here, there are few people who are able to do these ceremonies in the eyes of the court.

We have no 'non-denominational' wedding chapels here about either which would be about the only other alternative to a church wedding.

I recently became an Ordained Minister and so am recognized by the local authority as being able to legally perform weddings, etc. I am also a First Degree Wiccan Priestess so handfasting is in my within my scope. I am only one of two people, however, who are willing and able to do this in the immediate area.