Material on congregational development published by the Order of the Ascension asserts, rightly, that healthy growth in a congregation requires a committed core of members who take discipleship seriously. I think that, at the other end of the commitment spectrum, healthy and growing congregations need to include a fair number of occasional worshippers, people who feel somehow connected. When parish leaders, clergy or lay, drive those folks away or make them feel uncomfortable, they seriously hurt the congregation's chances for growth. As one of my parishioners said about the parish I was serving, people felt welcome wherever they were and we're invited to go deeper. I hope he was right. We never know when someone who has come to worship once in a while will come and encounter Jesus in a new and transforming way.

dweir - please sign your name when you comment - thanks ~ed.

"Completely unrealistic in a modern society"? I think not. It turns out all kinds of modern people are regular churchgoers.

I'm sorry for the bad experience she received from this priest. Nonetheless, it sounds like she's making excuses for wanting to be a part of a community without actually being a part of it.

Yes, there needs to be room for those on the periphery. Yes, we can expect people to only show up on Christmas and Easter and still be decent people. But the Church is a community which requires participation. "The ministry of all baptized" isn't just a catchphrase. How can you be a minister of the Church without actually being a part of the Church?

My home parish in Fort Smith has a lot of experience with this. Welcome everyone, even those you don't see very often. The Parish Church is first of all a place to worship, as much as some folks don't like to see it this way, and service flows out of our encounters with the sacred. Some people love to serve, but just aren't wired to attend public worship very often. There have been a number of cases when my home parish would get sizable gifts from people who were never formal members of the parish, who very occasionally worshiped there (if at all) but were impressed with the hospitality and all the programs for the less fortunate that are at the heart of the life of that church.

People gotta do what they gotta do, but the Parish Church is there to serve them wherever they are. Maybe if someone seeks confirmation, that's a different story - oh wait, confirmation just isn't that useful anymore, that's what people say, maybe we should just drop it. Right? Nope, wrong. We serve the community. We call the baptized. We depend on the confirmed. It's not that hard, really.

I have rather mixed feelings about this that ultimately boil down to motivation...what is the point of going to church only 2-3 times a year? Superstition? Getting a few punches on your card, just in case. Entertainment? It's part of the holiday experience like putting up a tree, hiding eggs, and the tv specials and songs. Curiosity? Like going to the zoo or to a custom.

If it is spirituality, then they are cheating themselves, like reading five or six pages of a book and thinking you've read it.

I agree that all should be welcomed...even visitors. This is not some fancy exclusive country club. But someone who visits that infrequently cannot be considered part of the community. To be part of the community you have to BE present somewhat regularly.

Imagine joining any other organization but wanting to only participate once or twice a year...scouts? PTA? Rotary? Volunteering?

I welcome those who are seeking God, but church requires commitment. IMHO

Larry Shell

Ironically, I think one of the great joys of TEC is our willingness to accept persons whose beliefs (and doubts) run the gamut. Much of the value of congregational life, too, is in learning to be part of the larger faith community, which in even the most loving parishes isn't always easy.

It's funny, too--most of my friends who only rarely attend church say the issue is less about raised eyebrows and implicit criticism, and more about being tackled, signed up to run for vestry, and asked to join 10 different committees all in the space of a few weeks. Even in my case (and I enjoy other people and my parish tremendously), there are times where I sigh inwardly and wonder whatever happened to being God's frozen chosen.

Eric Bonetti

This is an old article, October 2010, in the English publication The Guardian, about an experience in the Church of England in 2000. The Church of England is very different from the Episcopal Church in that the established C of E marries just about anyone who wishes to marry, except same-sex couples. The C of E by law is supposed to be there for everyone, which would explain why William Temple was able to say the church is "the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members." Some would argue that this sentiment should apply even in North America.

I empathize with Ms. Groskop because she makes it clear that the priest who presided at the blessing went out of his way to express disapproval that she was marrying a divorced man. That this same priest subsequently went over to Rome, a church which refuses to acknowledge divorce, makes it all the more plausible that he stigmatized the couple. The story brings home to me the inadequacy of blessings without a full marriage rite

Maybe the couple in question should have contented themselves with the register office wedding they seem to have had. The story is unclear on where they married. Maybe if they wanted more they should have got a celebrant from the British Humanist Society. More people in the United Kingdom have been choosing nonreligious ceremonies for weddings and funerals. But I don't think it is the job of the priest to tell someone who can still find some meaning in church services that he or she should abandon the institution.

In North America, the situation in any case is very different because churches here are more like membership societies where each member ideally is expected to contribute their time and/or money. The North American emphasis on membership, however, makes William Temple's view of the church seem romantic.

Gary Paul Gilbert

It's not as if you'd ever be turned away from a service, but there is a clear message on high days and holidays. Always the hopeful raised eyebrow: are you coming back on a regular basis or not?

Someone raised a hopeful eyebrow towards her? How DARE they!!11!1

O_o

Seriously, there's a conflating here of her now-Pope'd jerk-of-a-priest messing up her not-wedding-but-"blessing", and faithful churchmembers being inviting&encouraging. Apples & oranges much?

I think she wants us (the greater Anglican "us") to be responsible for her feelings. I'll "plant&water", but whether she grows or not, is up to God (perhaps w/ her cooperation?).

JC Fisher

J C Fisher, If the priest in question was as bad as he sounds, then I doubt any sort of outreach would have worked. She would have been right to stay away. A congregation which can demonstrate the good work that it does in the community should be able to attract all kinds of community support, even from people who don't see a need to join the club.

There are different paths people can take. Not everybody must be a member of a church or even of a particular organized religion.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I think some of the comments are pretty harsh.

There was a time in my life, in the half-dozen early years of my marriage, when I very frequently was working on Sunday mornings. Think of nurses, for instance, very often working 12-hr. 7 to 7 shifts, who either miss church services altogether or have to stagger in after being up all night. But one Easter Sunday morning I was free, and went to the nearest Episcopal Church to be filled with joy, and was greeted with barely contained hostility from a lot of the congregation and a sermon castigating those who only showed up for the Birth and Resurrection Club.

I didn't go back for several years. Yes, it is important to make a commitment and become a member of a worshipping body, but when you make a tentative effort and get slapped down, it hardly encourages more attendance. Later on, when my first child was born, and a new Rector had been installed, I tried again, and 30-something years later, and through a succession of Rectors of varying levels of openness, I'm still there.

I've been in the sanctuary, doing Altar Guild after a service, when a visitor has stayed after the Recessional and everybody else has filed out, and has said "I came today even though I'm not even an Episcopalian (or "just because the church is pretty" or "because I'm looking for a church I like" or "I don't even know why") and I felt a holiness here" (or "I really appreciated the welcome, and I'd like some more information").

Because of my own experience, and because our current Clergy believe it and practice it, I (and most everybody I know there) make an effort to welcome each and every stranger who walks in, because you don't know if this is going to be the day that they will become aware of God in their life for the first time, or if they are in a world of hurt and are desperate for somebody to reach out to them, or if they will end up joining and becoming an incredibly vital part of the community.

My own two children, raised there, have drifted away from "organized religion" as so many young adults have. I think some of it is laziness on their part. But both still seek spiritually, and there is always the potential that they will realize the incredible benefits to be gained in being part of a worshipping community. I can pretty much guarantee that that won't happen, though, if they're lectured or shunned if they make a tentative effort, or admit that they have doubts about parts of the Creed, or have work conflicts that prevent regular attendance.

I very much empathize with the writer of the article. I hope she'll keep seeking, despite questions or doubts, and will find more of a welcome if she decides to make an effort to recommit to church membership.

Sarah Ridgway

I don't get it - if the priest were that that much of a jerk, surely there were signs before the wedding day. Why go through the process with such an a$$hole in the first place? I'm sorry she had such an awful wedding, but it seems as if it easily could have been avoided.

Sarah Ridgway, Thank you for that beautiful statement! I think church people should get out of the way and let people find what they need or go elsewhere. Trying to make people feel guilty is counterproductive.

Gary Paul Gilbert

"Slapped down" "with barely contained hostility"?

I guess I'd just have to see it to believe it, Sarah. I've been a member of Episcopal parishes all around the country, and visited many more. Some of them are warmer than others, to be sure (a few snooty ones still give off that "Republican Party at prayer" vibe).

But actively hostile to newcomers? On Easter Sunday?! I've just never seen it.

JC Fisher

@Sarah

It was not my intention to sound harsh...my apologies. I am a nurse and when working a weekend rotation, my church attendance suffered.

I was simply trying to speak to those who only WANT to participate a few times a year, not those who are unable to participate.

Also, as I stated all should be welcome regardless. The difference though is that one should not be miffed for being treated like a guest when he or she only "visits" on rare occasion.

Church is a community activity that is so much more than just passively observing liturgy on occasion.

I loved a former Rector who always responded to my apology for being absent for a number of Sundays with "We don't do attendance."

Peace!

Larry Shell