If brides can spend 3-10K on a wedding, surely $150-300 of that can go to their presiding clergy, and another just like it can go to the musician. If not, priorities are waaaayyyyy off.

I think that Cliff is way low for costs of many weddings today. They are often more like 30K and more. I definitely feel that clergy should be paid for this. The fees for organists and other musicians are often laughably low. I remember when I asked for (gasp!) $75.00 for a wedding and was told it was too much. The same couple, however, shelled out vastly more for a photographer and a DJ.

I liked the method one priest I know uses who set the cost for officiating at 10 percent of the cost of the reception.

Having a clear policy in place is generally very helpful, rather than leave people to guess. This means thinking it through ourselves, of course, which I know I haven't done. What are we charging? Why are we charging that amount? And what is our policy for the use of the money we are given? Having all of that thought through and settled before the question arises would be very helpful for all.

Laura Toepfer

Discretionary fund for anything received in connection with weddings, funerals, baptisms.

I don't charge for pastoral services for members or children of members. They can contribute to my discretionary fund.

I rarely do weddings for people who are not members, so it doesn't come up. I am fairly much a jerk and don't want to be a hired extra in someone's performance. If they are coming because this is part of their spiritual life, great. If not, let their friends get ordained a Universal Life minister and leave me out of it.

Some will say, but this is a great evangelical opportunity. No it isn't. They are hiring me just like a DJ and I am just as forgettable after the fact.

So not worth it.

The fee does not cover the sacrament. It covers the seven sessions of two hours apiece of pre-marital counselling; the preparation of the bulletin; the photocopying of said bulletin and all the other prep that goes into making the service work (including the rehearsal). I have no guilt charging that because any therapist would get more for the counselling than a priest does. What we receive qua church is laughably low and I also want to move to the day of 10% of the reception. I also give away whatever I receive. If they want to pay directly to what I designate, that is fine by me.

Oh Peter, you miss those simpler days of seminary controversy, don't you!

Peter and I were in the same class at VTS, and I remember this very question caused quite a stir, with strongly felt opinions on both sides, during our early days there. Its ironic that most people in the nay column then have probably gone on to work in parishes with carefully delineated policies (price distinctions for members vs. non members, etc).

I think the real questions we should be asking go deeper than "should we charge for weddings or not"? The real question to me is: how did weddings become such elaborate productions that its really necessary to charge for them? If weddings grew more organically out of the sacramental life of a parish community--if, for example, people who wanted a wedding were content, even eager, to have their marriage celebrated as part of an ordinary Sunday morning, with their supportive parish community surrounding them, maybe one or two particular supporters with them after the prayers and before communion--if weddings were like that, we wouldn't think of charging for them (any more than we think of charging for baptism nowadays).

But for the most part, people who want to get married want a full wedding production--a $5000 Vera Wang dress, 12-18 attendants flying in from all over the country, flower girls, two rings, ridiculous monogrammed napkins or chocolate bars or flasks (! which I have received three times as a groomsman) for the attendants and/or guests, $1000 wedding cakes, and on and on. Thanks be to God most Episcopal altar guilds draw the line at the cheesy faux-ritualism of the "unity candle." And if this is the kind of production that people need/want in order to have a real wedding, I've got no problem with clergy being slipped some cash in order to put up with all this madness.

What does this wedding-as-broadway-production (cf. SATC 2 opening scene) have to do with the sacrament of marriage, anyway? I'm not trying to be merely curmudgeonly here--I understand that a wedding has always been an excuse for a good party, at least since the one in Cana of Galilee. But all this ridiculous frippery--and the absurdly high expectations that go along with the frippery (this will guarantee our happily-ever-after)--are dangerous, and undermine (I think) the sole point of marriage, the careful and realistic cultivation of a lifelong commitment.

I think the church could start by discouraging these "bridezillas" style weddings. We changed the culture of private baptisms! We could do this too, if we really wanted to.

And one final note: at least among people my age (I'm 32) and in my part of the country (LA), wedding-as-extravaganza is increasingly seen as a rank outgrowth of the worst excesses of American culture. Women I know are rejecting the bridezilla model. And most of them are choosing--here's the clincher--to not get married at all. They're happy to live together in committed relationships, raise families, join lives together, without all the ridiculous show. I think the real question is: is marriage important enough for us to offer a compelling alternative vision for what it is meant to be or do? Or is it a sacrament that has outlived its usefulness? (It was a latecomer to the party, after all--its always been a queasy mixture of patriarchy, state contract, church interest, and, in modern times,"love").

Jason Cox

What Lee said.

I have a set fee for performing a marriage ceremony and it is spelled out in a printed wedding guide I give to anyone who is considering getting married at our parish church. The funds paid to me go directly into my discretionary fund. My time and expertise is at least as valuable as that of the caterer or the photographer, and I believe that it's important for the couple to give this aspect of their special day a reasonable amount of financial priority.

I don't have much opinion about how much or whether to get paid, but for goodness sakes, let's not get into competing with the insanity of the bridal industry: "If they're willing to pay thousands for caterers, florists, etc., they ought to be willing to pay us, too!" The bridal industry is part of the dark side, and we need to stand in contrast to that. Whatever we get paid (and I think that's fine), let's not make it anything to do with the outrageous costs of the bridal industry.

What's the bridal version of the "plain pine box"? ;-)

As any psycholotgist will tell you, people don't apreciate what they don't pay for. Most people getting married want to remunerate the officiant. A set fee makes most more comfortable than trying to compute a tip.

If it's a Jewish/Christian union, just ask for the same the rabbi gets. That will double your income for the year.

PS. And what about funerals?