NG: ||How does your church understand "active membership"?

AK: My church has become strangely focused on health recently, so I think they understand it to mean "exercising at least 30 minutes four times a week"

DH: Standard constitutional definition: attend contribute once every 2yrs. That said, other congregations in this area think that constitutional definition is "too strict" and we should never "kick people out" of the church. This congregation's understanding of discipleship is growing, but the constitutional definition will take some time to change.

JRC: Past practice was confirmed, communing and contributing once a year.
I find that average Sunday attendance is a much better figure for discovering the health of a congregation. I don't pay too much attention to who is on the rolls (except for home visitations).

BB: I would guess they dont. But the constitution says "commune and give yearly."

We will be sending letters to those members who have not given in the past year in January (a full 1/4 of family units), which is the first time its happened in t...he congregation's memory. We will see if I get fired...

MLR: There is no constitutional definition of "active" (or "inactive") membership in the ELCA. The contribute/communion (with the assumption of confirmation or reception by affirmation of faith) is definition of "voting" membership.

West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod memorialized Churchwide Assembly '07 to change the standard of voting membership to commune 4/per annum and a contribution of record. This was pigeon holed by Churchwide Assembly '07 Memorials Committee. At the same time, they did adopt a clarification that the minimum criterion for basic membership could not be supplanted by a congregation with a higher standard. BTW, Luther quipped that he was afraid that a person who didn't desire to receive the sacrament at least three or four tims a year was no Christian. By that yardstick, we have lot's of non-Christian voting members.

Constitution does allow a congregation, in its bylaws, to develop a definition and mechanism for the removal of members for "inactivity." In theory, a by-law could be created by a congregation which set some standard more difficult to achieve than the voting membership standard, but I have my doubts that it would survive a challenge.

All that being said, the important question to answer is: how would a definition of active membership serve in some application and what would that application be? E.g., would it be used to determine voting rights in the congregational meeting (which ELCA already said it can't, though I would like to see that reversed)? Would it be used to determine who a nominations committee nominates for council positions? Would it be used to determine who can serves as a baptismal sponsor? Would it be used to determine who doesn't have to pay the building fee for a wedding? Would it be used to determine who gets a hospital visit? Would it be used to determine who gets buried? Categories mean little unless one knows how the category is going to be used. Knowing that use is as important to determining the denotation of the category as knowing the various criteria used in assigning people to the category.

JM: one drink with pastor in a calendar yr

NG: In this case, I've got a member "on the roll" who wants a free wedding at the church (no building fee, etc.) but hasn't darkened the door in many years. I said no - she got angry.

I told her if she were active we would certainly do the wedding for free. However, I don't want a huffy bride showing up for one Sunday, taking communion "just cause" and putting a dollar in the plate just to prove her point. Instead, it would be great to have her in the community because she'd be a great part of this church.

DK: You could always ask how 'marital' she and the groom to be are in their relationship. There's another way to construe "active"...

NG: ‎@DK: ??

DK: I carry about with me the perennial youth group and college minister concerns about students sleeping with each other...

BB: Ahh.

Yeah we don't have "free weddings" for active members either. The wedding fees are 250-Active, 750-Inactive. Then we pay the pastor, janitor, etc out of the fee and the rest goes to general fund. I make more $$ from non-member weddings, approved by the council.

Good luck navigating, but I wouldn't fight about it unless you can figure out what you would believe a good outcome to be and can see a reasonable path to that outcome.

NG: I have never - and very well may never - married a couple who wasn't at least sleeping together. So far only one wedding I've done was for a couple not living together. I get stuck between "at least they want this in a church" and then hope that translates to some version of church involvement and wanting to say, "have you considered a Justice of the Peace"?

LB: Does it really matter? I mean, who cares, really, who "members" of a congregation

are. This language comes from older generations for whom "church membership" was something akin to country club membership. In both cases, all that mattered was that you paid your dues on time. Isn't it more important to know who the "disciples" in a congregation are? So if people....

Worship regularly...
Study God's Word faithfully...
Give of themselves generously...
Serve others selflessly...
Share their faith stories honestly...
Encourage others openly...
Pray fervently...

then they are probably disciples. They might even be good members. But the latter really doesn't matter, now does it? (Or is all this too much to ask?)

TKV: It doesn't. People are free to come and go, serve and be served. This is the first time I've EVER seen a lutheran pondering whether to marry a couple, (mail+femail). Interesting indeed.

LB: While I was writing the above, the wedding posts populated. I stand by the above, and would add to it that the "fees for member or non-member weddings" etc. confirm my suspicion that it is all about the country club and the services you get for paying your dues.

TKV: ‎*male :)

BB: I don't tink that NG is pondering whether to do the wedding, just whether to ask for the Member or Non Member costs of the wedding.

PW: A baptized confirmed member who has taken communion once n given (n there is record of) financially in last year

DH: Is there anyone in her family (parents, grandparents) who are active (or were until their death)? Was she confirmed there?

NG: ‎@LB - I think the flip side of the "country club" issue is wondering how to encourage people to be involved - take ownership and see the need/purpose to being part of a faith community, not to keep the insiders in and outsiders out. Luther mentioned that when the heart is given the gift of faith, the last thing to be "converted" is the pocketbook. It's not about taking money, but about noticing for yourself where you assign your resources. The thing(s) you love is the thing(s) that will receive your money/resources.

While some churches may be identified as "country-club style", I think there are just as many churches are concerned with investment in a faithful life together - at least that's the hope. Maybe money and stewardship are an unhelpful way to address the topic, but it sure is an indicator about where your heart and the hearts of those who associate themselves with a church exist.

Please note that I am not trying to hook this bride and her family for more money because of her inactive status. I'm interested in her being a welcomed and active part of this church (she lives and will continue to reside nearby with her fiance/husband) and frustrated that she sees the church of her baptism, confirmation, etc. as a wedding drive-thru that I am supposed to happily facilitate.

TKV: Oh, must assume you don't have tax for church. Finnish lutheran and orthodox members pay 1-2%.

NG: No, TKV - no tax for us.
Furthermore, each individual church decides the cost of the facility and the pastor - AND how that money is allotted/used.

LB: I hear you NG. I'm not saying this is about your response. I am saying that most policies read that way. I remember one non-member couple I married, where one had lost a job and they really couldn't afford the fee. They were about to write me/the church checks when I told them to put their checkbook away, that I wouldn't take a dime for what I was doing for them. Shortly after that they moved to another city and I didn't hear from them for several years. Then, out of the blue came a check, with a nice long letter to our congregation. The check was HUGE. They had done well in their new city. They had been inspired by my congregation's generousity and hospitality to join a church there and were very active members (they were on the ground floor of a mission start). Our random act of kindness helped them integrate into a community of faith, where they had not been religious before. I think this is the ideal that we aspire to, no?

TKV‎:---( it must be really consuming in so many ways. It's actually difficult to see the money issue the way you have to.

DG: Active = related in some way to someone who "everyone" thinks is important. (;

DG: I'll say more about this when I have a fullsized keyboard

SY: So... uh... does this mean that I need to make it to your church at least once so you would do my wedding? Crap!

BL: A pastor friend of mine in Rochester, MN has organized his pre-marriage work in for this very challenge. His focus on their time together is essentially faith formation stuff. He has them praying together. Doing a family faith tree and some other things. Personally, I haven't been "brave" enough to work in that direction myself, but I do think it's a wise idea, and might be something worth pondering yourself. It makes sense doesn't it? Whether it leads to "membership" or not, what we're trained in is matters of faith, so why wouldn't that be what we focus on when we meet with couples? (Now, for me to listen to my own logic.)

EG: Communion/contribute once a year and the constitution says you can vote at a meeting. Dropping people from roles, very contentious because usually happens in times of lack of pastoral leadership or conflict. I basically could care less what the membership role is, worship attendance and participating in discipleship are what matters. However, for weddings policies must be in place, the church is not the backdrop for pretty pictures. That said, since this person wasn't dropped from the roles, you are in a tough spot.

In my previous call I charged $500 building use fee for non-members as a way of supporting the upkeep of the building. Then the fee for Pastor ($200), Musician ($200) and Custodian ($100) were on top of that. Those fees typically drove away most of my non-member weddings, but some still did it. For members, the only fee was for Custodian and Musician. I never asked the council for permission for any of this, it isn't there area of expertise or governance.

MLR: The context of the question is important! When I first saw the question, I was thinking primarily about participation in the decision making mechanisms of the church. @LB, your critique is well stated about the importance of discipleship. Given the nature of ELCA polity, however, something with observable and quantifiiable measures is still needed. The _Ecclesia visibilis particularis_ is a mundane reality requiring mundane things.

AS: NG- I think you should do it, and do it for free. This young woman feels some sort of connection to this congregation - that's why she's back. There is something there for her. Be accommodating, treat her as an insider (as she sees herself) and pursue her and her soon-to-be husband mercilessly once they are married (or before).

NG: Yes - I suppose the real question is: How do you deal with people who just want to use the church, God and the congregation without actually participating on any level. It really is a faith issue - and indeed, how we disciple that faith.

EG: the other question we haven't asked is...should they even be getting married?

AG: First off, we allow ourselves to be used. Remember our Gospel lesson from Sunday? Then, we don't let them off as easily as normal. One thing I absolutely LOVE about the "family church" is that everyone knows when someone's missing, they keep track of how long they're gone, and they discuss it with them at non-church times. This might be just what your church needs - though I'd assume it's harder to do if the people aren't already related to one another. Harder, but not impossible...

LS: I always thought they had to be on the up side of the dirt.

SY: NG - if they were willing to go through some pre-marital counseling w/you - is that a possibility to consider? Should there be something written down for the entire local church to be able see as a consistant and that any special circumstances that Luke brought up earlier about financial hardships or other factors of the sort. But I wonder if their prior activity before you led the congregation was significant enough... just thinking out loud...

DA: I can't speak for my church as a whole but I believe in compassion, love, and

outreach. Sometimes as a church we only get very limited opportunities to reach some people and it is important for us to take advantage when they present themselves. Sometimes it is only Christmas Eve and Easter. Sometimes it is only marriage and baptism. Sometimes it is when they wonder in off the street. Who are we to act like a gatekeeper for something we have no control or power over. It isn't our church, it belongs to Him.

RA: For voting purposes, attend AND contribute once during the past year. True active membership is somewhat different though...beyond the C & E folks.

MF: I ignore the constitution....if they worship regularly (at LEAST 3 Sundays a month,) they're an active member. The ELCA constitution we have says make a contribution of record and commune at least once in the year. Which is truly a farse.

DH: Pre-marital counseling is non-negotiable for me. This fee alone sometimes scares those who wish a lovely cheapo wedding in a pretty little church in the Poconos running to the justice of the peace (side note: weddings in this county are often conducted by the clerk of the Orphans' Court, which makes me giggle). There are real costs involved with a wedding, so at least make sure that all-even members-pay these basic costs. As for above and beyond, my parish has a fee schedule that is fair and discourages "wedding chapel" events, although as a congregation we would do pretty well if people decided to use us as such.

BWM: Premarital counseling is nonnegotiable with our church and pastor as well, and I think it's a great idea. And more likely than money to discourage those who just want the pretty backdrop. As for rules for voting members, stricter rules would have prevented some of the stacked votes in the last year on leaving the ELCA, where long lost members suddenly came out of the woodwork (dragged there by a fw activist members) to cast their vote, as though they actually gave a rip about what body the congregation belongs to.

Oh, and NG, hang in there...you will get the occasional couple (yes even very young ones) who (like my daughter and her new husband) put "things" in the right order, if you get my drift.

KH: My congregation has decided that things like weddings and funerals are, like AS and DB have noted, opportunities of outreach- no fees for anyone- member or nonmember.

Like DG, premarital counseling is a nonnegotiable for me, and like BL said, it can be faith-formation focused.

In a culture where the average wedding is outrageously expensive, I joke that it would reinforce the significance of the rite if we requested the couple tithe to the church 10% of the cost of the wedding- so your average wedding would have fees of about $2500. It could also be a reward for those who choose to be frugal- reasonable wedding, reasonable fees.

DB: Willing to clean the Phrygian Stables for Christ!?

DG: There are several issues here. The one that matters to me is your health and the effectiveness of your ministry there. if it is the case that council and formal and informal leadership are not with you this is not a hill worth dying on. I get the sense from what I have read that you are in a congregation where family connections are very important. If that is the case then you are an outsider who will leave one day. You will lose.

If she gets a free wedding out of it, I see her as the only one injured by her dishonesty. I think from your position it is better to err on the side of grace. Perhaps you will plant seeds that will blossom later. Talk up grace and community in the homily and maybe good things can happen.

EB: People that actually attend church failry regularly....I am guessing.

BWM: ‎@EG: "I never asked the council for permission for any of this, it isn't there area of expertise or governance." Really???? Other than your own fee, it IS their job. And their job to keep a pastor from becoming a little dictator, too.

AS: Marriage counseling (pre- or post-ceremony) should be left to licensed counselors. Our expertise is in religion - let's stick to what we do. Doesn't mean we don't meet with couples - just means we talk about what we do, and allow those who know what they're doing to do their job. (see BL's comment earlier)

This conversation seems to me to be missing the point. I realize that weddings are expensive, and that most people spend more on the dress than we are asking for use of the church - pastor and all. But, it's not about weddings, it's about being the body of Christ. We need to consider what Christ does with his body, and then ask how we should proceed. Plus, this wedding ceremony is a chance to preach the Word to people who usually don't darken our doorways. You really want to pass on that opportunity???

BWM: Many "licensed counselors" are the ones who are quick to recommend divorce at the first sign of trouble, and don't address faith issues at all. Some basic identification of potential areas of conflict and how to address them, some basic instruction on financial management (our pastor waives this for those who take Financial Peace University), and some talk about developing a faith life as a couple are indispensable, and I think any pastor who just marries people willy-nilly without at least these things is irresponsible.

AS: Then Christian pastors don't refer to those particular counselors. And I never said "marry people willy-nilly." I definitely suggested that we discuss developing a faith life and such things - these are our area of expertise.

Realistically - it's not your decision who gets married. When someone chooses to come to you it is an opportunity to teach them that marriage is a promise one chooses to make, not a feeling one has, like love. It is also an opportunity to make a connection and preach the Word. Or, to make someone feel judged and pushed away.

I think any pastor who chooses to ignore an opportunity to preach the Gospel into someone's life is irresponsible.

DH: Amanda, we do have something to offer couples and there are wonderful tools at our disposal. We can help them speak frankly about the joys and difficulties they will have as husband and wife, all the while allowing us to develop a relationship with them that can produce marvelous fruit later on.

A wedding is an event; a marriage is a journey that we hopefully can walk alongside cheering the couple on in their faith as joys and struggles occur. That accompaniment works best when it begins before the wedding day and continues as we mark their anniversaries and baptize their children. It is an amazing privilege all too often neglected.

EG: ‎@BWM, I couldn't disagree with you more. And I have witnessed many a council full of little dictators because Pastors don't have the guts to remind them that Word and Sacrament ministry (under which weddings fall) is the Pastor's call. But that is a topic for another day.

BWM: But money is not, EG.

AS: DG, I agree with you completely. I think what we have to offer them is much more than personality inventories and financial planning - there are people better equipped for that. We have an understanding of relationships and how they work. We have an understanding of forgiveness and how important it is in relationship. More than that, we have the forgiveness of sins and weddings and pre-marital meetings give us a chance to use it.

Accompaniment is wonderful, and if you look at my earlier comments, you'll see that I never suggested doing this one event and letting them go on their merry way. I also agree that accompaniment is often neglected. I consider this neglect on our part not because we didn't screen well enough before performing a ceremony, but because we don't work hard enough to follow up.

This is not just an argument to me. I did a wedding last month - my first wedding - and I don't know how the marriage will go. His third, her first, they're 12 years apart, he already has 3 daughters and they're pregnant with their first. It sounds like a train-wreck. But, we talked about what a marriage is - now they understand what a promise is all about. We talked about how important money is, and they sat down with a financial planner and made out a budget. They also talked with her parents and a couple in the congregation (because his mother died when he was young) about what marriage is and how to make it work. Our discussion about the promises they would be making, and the promises God makes to us, led to me baptizing the groom before the wedding, and him bringing his kids to Sunday school. It could still be a train wreck - easily. But I'm praying for them, and I know they feel comfortable talking with me. And, I've been seeing them from time to time.

I don't think I'm irresponsible. I do think I am much better able to talk about faith matters than about married life. I also think where money is concerned we should err more on the side of doing for people even when it hurts our pocketbooks than using those who come to us to line the church's pockets.

NG: The persecuted church around the world "self-selects" and also self-sustains its membership. Where life and livelihood depend on it, the church uniquely thrives. If you want to be baptized, married, buried and part of the community of faith, you have to really mean it, really want it, really participate.

I know its more complicated than a fb feed could do justice, but do you think there any point at which pastors/councils can ever say, "This obviously isn't of any interest and/or working for you" (assuming it is not "punishment" over petty issues, but a real sense that Person X just has no real interest in matters of faith and faith communities). Could it be pastorally responsible to say that to someone - even to a couple looking to be married for the "backdrop" with no other commitment/involvement?

I recall a college friend who went up to visit a mutual friend. He was surprised when the friend said, "hey, do you want to see my church?" This guy had 0 interest in anything about the church (continues to be that way today), yet he and his family were all baptized, married and buried there. He showed my friend a building where he obviously felt a sense of attachment to tradition, but not to faith or even practices that are/were grounded in matters of faith.

Is there ever a time to say, "I just don't think this is working for you and its not helping either one of us to keep you on the rolls." This of course includes the reality that the [former] member is always welcome to return, but voids (speaks law) to the sense of obligation and inappropriate attachment to a building and history that has nothing to do with faith, faith life and/or God.

In short: is formally breaking ties ever a means of true Christian ministry, even and especially when the hope is always faithful reunion and return?

DH: I assume this is not something that is ever discussed in seminary training. In my +15 years (I lost track) experience as a "wedding hostess" and talking with several other pastors about their wedding experiences, weddings are one of the th...ings many of them would happily give up completely as often more effort than they are worth. Way too highly emotionally charged! Certainly is a quandry sometimes, and maybe why hard policies and rules can be both helpful (everyone knows what is expected each time) and not helpful (mitigating circumstances, desire to preach to people who haven't been in a church for a long, long time, real expenses involved.) If they want a wedding with the stipulation that it contain no references to God (yes, some do ask for that!!), then feel free to refuse; otherwise?

Maybe church council should set the policy on church fees or not, the organists set their rates (variable with each person), and you decide if it is a wedding you can/should do in good conscience. Then there is no discussion of the church fees (they can take it up with the council, it is not your decision) and you aren't not bound to do weddings for anybody who asks you to, member or not. And you get to do them for family and friends for free if you so choose, too. It shouldn't all be on you. Most churches don't allow just "rental" of the building (bringing in their own pastor or JP, etc, and just using the space for a fee) but it can be an option for some historic or really pretty churches. Like it or not, the setting is a real consideration for many unchurched people.

I did always wonder why inactive church attendees find it important to be married in a church. Perhaps that is a question you could ask as well. Is there *something* drawing them back there ... and when they have children, will they bring them to be baptized? What will you say then? esp. if they haven't been very active since the wedding. It all sort of goes together, I think.

DG: As I said before, my main concern is for you and your ministry. In the totality of what you may be able to do, how big an issue is this really? I understand the ecclesial and constitutional issues, but this seems like a situation where you could earn the wrath of a genuine psycho for an issue that is not that important to the congregation.

Breaking ties is truly a means of Christian ministry, but it presumes that those ties are desirable and a means of leverage. In my experience, you have no leverage over someone whose connection to the congregation is purely historic. So my question is, "Is this worth the grief and compromised ministry that may result?" If you believe so, wade in, but if this is a peripheral issue, save your ammo for items worth your time and effort.

Finally, consider the distinction between power and authority. The constitution grants you authority, but the people grant you power. Even though you seem to be fitting in well, you probably have little power given the length of your tenure. You can bring down all the authority that you want and it will still lose to those who have power.

AS: The Christian church has used formal breaking of ties as a means of ministry throughout history. Usually in terms of correcting active heresy, though. And always with the hope of future reconciliation. I guess you'll have to decide how important this matter is to you. And, I'd listen to your friend when he talks about power in the congregation...

Faith means trusting the promises of God. God has promised to give faith to those who are baptized. If we look at someone who has been baptized and say "I don't think this is working for you" what are we saying about God? Aside from all the nuances we can think up as pastors and theologians, what will our people hear us saying about God? Two important questions we should always consider, I think.

NG: ‎@DG: I'm speaking in broad generalities because a single issue sparked the question. No one involved is nuts in any way (except the pastor, who is, perhaps, increasingly so!). This is a broad issue for my congregation and for the wider church - and its surely not the first time these issues have been considered. The Donatist controversy (where we don't want to go) was one of the first discussions of who is in/out.

Again: the questions I'm posing are broad for the sake of application in a variety of circumstances. It's not a single issue of a single bride and her desire to be wed in the church building (I couldn't even speak to her personal faith at this point). It's simply a broad question for discussion.

DH: Oh NG, of course you're nuts! I think it has something to do with Luther Sem grads with parishes in PA.

DNG: somewhat oddly similar to "active cultures"

WG: Church participation level right before Confirmation....

DNG: no members. Only ministers.

RA: My father has refused to marry people over the years, but never refused anyone on the rolls; only walk-ins off the street, so-to-speak, who refused to go the extra step. If this woman wasn't removed from the rolls, you should probably marry her and the boyfriend.
A few years ago, we removed 93 people from our parish rolls. First, however, we sent letters and made phone calls to ascertain people's wishes. Some had no idea they were on the rolls and considered themselves members elsewhere. Others never took the time to respond. Still others said to remove their names - some said remove our names but we would still like to get the newsletter.
As far as fees, we have set fees for organist and custodian regardless of membership status. Not sure of the pastoral fee....

DNG: we have a pastoral fee for "non-members" sort of as a deterrent because the 12 hours of pre-marriage classes per couple would eat up all my time if we took all comers. And I'm just not interested in hooking up couples that won't invest that minimal time up front. Nobody turned away from worship or other "activities", though!