Comments on: Revisiting "Visitors"

By: Andy J

Andy J — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:46:56 +0000

Adam — Great post, as usual. I think the identification of anyone as a “visitor” implies that there is someone who is somehow at home in the congregation, and there’s something deeply missing even in that language. I’ve been troubled by the PCUSA’s insistence on thinking about church membership even as I recognize its importance for some things. Maybe along with revisiting the concept of visitors we need to rethink members too, because at one level we are all at home in the church and all visiting, too.

On that note, here’s an interesting note from theology today:

http://theolog.org/2009/02/is-church-membership-outdated-idea.html

By: chad m

chad m — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:23:51 +0000

great idea. i love your thoughts. simple. profound. yes.

By: adamjcopeland

adamjcopeland — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:17:17 +0000

Hmm, I think guest may do the job. Yeah, let me think on that but I’m liking it — exactly b/c of the hospitality connotations and the biblical connections, etc.

By: Betsy

Betsy — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:14:02 +0000

I don’t love the “visitor” tag… but we do need ways to talk about those who are new to us. I find “those who are worshipping with us for the first time today” and similar phrases to be a bit unwieldy, especially in printed media. Maybe a simple acronym – twawwuftftt

I have recently started hearing “guest,” with its implication that those who worship with us are welcomed as guests as in a home, not simply visitors, as at a museum. At least that’s better than the dreaded “newcomer.”

Words certainly matter – what we call things shapes how we think about them. But I have to believe that our actions towards visitors/guests/newcomers/twawwuftftt can overcome the worst (or trash the best) language we have to name them.