quote:
Originally posted by Jengie:
However I am aware of many of the pastoral care courses which stress how much more a hug can say than words. I know many people very much appreciate touch.
I was taught the complete opposite as touching anybody in a pastoral context could be misinterpreted and that we could find ourselves in trouble. This is particularly true if dealing with somebody who is particularly distraught. Even worse if someone is mentally ill or drunk, or the worst scenario of all, mentally ill and drunk. Generally speaking (from a male perspective) a woman would be likely to interpret it as an unwelcome sexual advance and a man to take it as an act of aggression.
As for hugging in worship, well I don't like it except in exceptional circumstances.
::uuuuurrghh::
Jengie, do you have to put such a personal problem you sound as if you're seriously dealing with ... in hell???
If so. Well! I may have some fun with you problem!
....Lev
"If so, well, I may have to have some fun with your problem."
Now.. I have a problem... it's called typing.
I suck at it.
....Lef
(I deliberatly spelt my name wrong! Do you see what I did there? Ooo never mind)
Slightly more seriously, touch is a very important tool in pastoral work. As such, it should be used with care and consideration, especially consideration for the person being touched. In a pastoral situation, I would always ask permission before touching, because it can be a very big issue. In church, I would love to hug lots of people, but tend only to hug those who have indicated that they are happy with it.
I try to take the attitude that this person may have suffered abuse at some point, and that may not be resolved. The touch of another person may be something that will scare them away, rather than enable them to open up and address the issues. I tend to assume that they may have been abused within a pastoral church situation. It makes me very aware of what their feelings might be. This is not to suggest that they have been abused ( or that you Jengie has been ), but it helps me to read the signs better.
Of course people who haven't had a bath for 6 months are also unlikely to get any physical contact. You could try that approach, if the Goth thing doesn't work.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie:
The question is how do we strike the right balance between respecting those who do not wish to touch and those that do.Jengie
You do just that - respect their wishes either way?
On a general note, if I don't know someone well enough to know whether touch is ok, and I want to hug them, or touch their shoulder etc, I usually ask. Along the lines of 'Is it ok if...'. That way it's more ok for them to say no.
And usually people make it kinda obvious - especially if they don't want to be touched - through their body language.
So (for me personally) people with arms crossed tightly, or wrapped around them; leaning away from me; moving slightly away as I reach forward; slight wary look; wide-eyed panic as all around start hugging - all this kinda thing would stop me from touching.
I guess others wil have a lot more to say,
Viki
For example at v. high C of E churched it is very unusual for you to shake hands with anyone, apart from the person you came with, while going to fairly low C of E churches/'free evangelical' hugging everyone during the peace is a normal act. I think you learn those who appreciate a hug and those who qould prefer to have their handshaken.
I agree with Spike on hugging during pastorial care. You have to ask someone if they want a hug, otherwise it is possible to have it taken the wrong way, and 'sexual harshment' conduct is brought up.
On a personal note, a hug is a special thing which sys you care about the person, and therefore hugging everyone in church takes anyway the specialness of the hug.
‘Abuse of authority’
‘Inappropriate behaviour’
and
‘Knee to the groin’
come to mind.
Think about how 'physical' you would be with a stranger, and you simply don't go beyond that line in counselling.
One of the simplest ways of avoiding hugs etc in church is to walk up to someone with your hand extended. The vast majority of people will simply shake your hand.
bb
quote:
The vast majority of people will simply shake your hand.
and then kiss you on the cheek.
At the 'peace' again, it's usually shaking hands (very British), with various others hugging/kissing - once, twice, three times! - these continentals 
But we had an abuser in our midst, who was hugging, kissing, touching people under the pretence of 'sharing the peace' and at other times. We took a while to really appreciate what was going on, and that he was regularly assaulting many people, and by that time we had gone through all the usual things - keep your elbow firmly down at your side and stiffly hold out your hand to shake so he can't get near you - say, "I don't want a hug/kiss!" - say "Don't touch me!" etc.
Eventually we had to organise a proper official confrontation. He has left the church. It was all very horible. It feels much safer now.
No-one has the right to touch us unless we give them permission - and vice-versa. 
I remember someone telling me about an occasion when they visited a new church, and sat quietly in their pew to pray for a while at the end of the service. A lady came up to her and asked her if she was OK - fair enough - my friend nodded and bowed her head again, whereupon the lady sat down next to her, put her arm around her shoulders and said 'There, there, it's OK'. Talk about space invaders!
The suggestion was not adopted.
bb
quote:
Talk about space invaders!
Lovely phrase, Tina.
Another hard part of the equation though it those that really want hugs or physical contact, especially those who never get it anywhere else, but who are so bad at giving and receiving it that they rarely initiate it and often seem to be uncomfortable when it is initated by someone else, even when they really welcome it - if you seem not to be reciprocating in a hug, it may just be because you are bad at hugging.
It is usually those who are very touchy-feely and can easily initate touch themselves, who get enough of it off their own bat. 
Tubbs
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
I hate the idea of a bear being crossed out!bb
Think of it as covering it with a kiss bb
You hug if you want to and don't if you don't want to, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!
Other similar complaints- churches with prayer ministry people that actually try to push you over when praying with you. This happened to me once at the height of the Toronto blessing thing, and being a very new christian at the time I was pretty alarmed by it.
And my other pet hate- air kissing. I work in an industry where there's an awful lot of it, and it's one of the most false and empty gestures I know. So I get really annoyed when someone tries it at church
I'll stop ranting now.
b
I also remember a young couple many years earlier who were overly affectionate towards one another...
-------
And can I just say, I would like to, in every situation, have the freedom to opt out of hugging without being made to feel like I don't want to hug because I'm not as spiritually advanced as those who do. I havehappily accepted hugs from my former rector, a very loving individual, but shunned them from an acquaintance's teenage (overweight, sweaty) son...and was made to feel like there was somthing wrong with me for doing so!
Apart from a rise in the number of women kissing / hugging each other, I have not noticed much change. The men still go for the ladies but not for each other - rather suspicious don't you think?
quote:
Something that was suggested to me as a housegroup leader was to lay a hand gently on the person's wrist, and be prepared to withdraw it if it wasn't welcomed.
I'd have thought the wrist a very aggressive touch from a stranger. Disabling, potentially, if someone grabs it. Upper arms, shoulders, backs, all less invasive.
In those cultures where men do touch each other in public (as far as I can tell that means adverts in US magazines and pubs in South London) it is the shoulders, or sometimes the hands, that are touched. And quickly withdrawn as well, not "lay on".
Those who are not comfortable with hugging will leave it at that. Those who ARE "huggers" will usually initiate a hug themselves. I leave that choice up to them. In my experience, almost all the "grandmotherly" types are major league huggers.
[Anyone know how to get makeup smudges off a white stole?]
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie:
I am starting this in Hell as I know that a lot of people have very strong opinions on it.
There's nothing wrong with expressing strong opinions in Purgatory, and this is a very reasonable, non-Hellish discussion, so I'm moving it up to Purgatory.
RuthW
hellhost
I've discussed this issue several times with a fellow extremly-high-introvert friend who used to go to the same Jesus Iz Way Kool college church I did. We said things like, "I'm dreading the sign of peace today."
Luckily I've now found a service that suits my style -- 7 a.m. Sunday (not many twentysomethings up then!), where there's about fifty retired farmers and myself in a space built for several hundred. Not only are there no hugs to dread, everyone's usually so spread out that there's not even anyone close enough to insist on a handshake! It's great, we all just aim good-natured nods at each other from a distance.
Really, I'm not a total misanthrope.
Thus, men who may hug women more than men (and that includes me and probably applies to the majority of men) do so because physical contact with other men can often provoke negative reactions.
However, I think the closeness of relationship is important - I don't embrace people who I don't know well, and I don't embrace those who don't like it. Following that rule means that from an external observer's point of view, I could be seen as predatory as I know more women well than men, and the difference when considering those who are more physical, that difference is even bigger.
Having said all the above, I am probably on the lower physical contact spectrum by some way.
Reader Alexis
mezzo-huggy Orthodox guy
What do us gold ole' English do when we ever ever ever so lightly graze someone in the street? "Oh, I'm sorry!" We are scared stiff of touch and so the fear generates a salaciousness of touch, the hint that there might be more to it than comfort .... and there sometimes is. Many often say that evil creates fear ... forgetting that often it works the other way round as well ... fear generates evil.
The answer then is not to turn up the emotional frigidity (the fear response).... nor to go round hugging everyone and everything in sight. The answer is to develop a life spirituality where APPROPRIATE touching is NORMAL ... yes normal, folks. Not something to get worked up about or to give a wrong interpretation to. My, are we really screwed up about physicality in the west or what?!
Quoting from Spike
quote:
I was taught the complete opposite as touching anybody in a pastoral context could be misinterpreted and that we could find ourselves in trouble
Thanks. My basis was on pretty limited experience though I have been on basic pastoral care courses. I am sure that those who echo Spike sentiments are correct and this is modern practise.
Steve said:
quote:
Jengie - you need to go for the Goth look - leather, spikes piercings. Then no-one will come near you. (apologies in advance to those Goths on baord).
Well I do to a certain extent follow the intent here. I'm not a Goth but I can cultivate the formidable women at times and that can be quite effective at least as far men are concerned.
Questia - I can at least understand in part I have a fairly similar response at healing services. Though I would say your concerns were much more worrying than mine.
Father Gregory
Touch need not be sexual to be abusive. It can be used to place yourself in a position of power over someone.
In at least one situation I have been in I know for certain that the touch was not sexual on either part. The touch itself was not abusive but used to further a very toxic emotional game.
Jengie
The example you gave although not sexually abusive was emotionally abusive. My point was somewhat different. We have lost the natural ordinariness of non-threatening affirmative human touch and that is because the west has a grossly distorted perception of the physical. I just don't think that it helps to repress legitimate physicality. Such repression makes the whole situation worse. I know you are not advocating that. I am just raising the issue.
takes me back to 6th form where a gang of us used to greet each other with a pinch and pat of the cheek! always felt good.
Suggested rules of thumb!
IMHO index of intimacy goes- handshake without eye contact-awkward
Hug without eye contact- awkward
Handshake with eye contact and smile- good
Hug with eye contact and smile -good.
Hug you want to stop and rest in- intimate, friendly and good, with someone you trust.
Hugging someone you know you ought to find time to listen to and feel vaguely guilty about- bad idea.
Hugs from people who've never bothered to talk to you- bad idea, decline gracefully
Rules of thumb-suggested. Make eye contact and smile first. Base decision on whether to shake hands or hug on length of eye contact and what you feel/ intuit other person feels.
Golden rule- more physical than emotional/mental contact is selfish and poss abusive.
Hugging people you love is natural. Hugging people you don't really love feels unnatural. However sometimes people you find hard to love need a hug. Be open to the possibility, but be aware that a hug signals that you're also available to listen.
Just some late night thoughts!
Look at a train or bus that is filling up so people can no longer sit on their own. Women who find they have to sit next to a stranger tend to choose to sit next to a woman. Men tend to choose to sit next to a woman as well. Both sexes are much less likely to sit next to a strange man.
This is almost always irritating if you are a bloke and the last seat taken is the one next to you, which normally happens to me, because you feel that everyone is scared of you, which is a bad feeling.
Though it can be useful. On one long crowded train journey from London to somewhere in the west country in very hot weather no-one sat next to me the whole way even though it was standing-room only till Oxford and every other seat was taken. I was grateful for it then. But usually it just pisses me off.
Applies to church as well. I think I quite like hugs, but I know that many people don't so I wouldn't go up and force a hug on someone, so, in practice, no-one other than my own daughter is likely to want to hug me.
That said, there are perhaps 2 or 3 people in our congregation that I do feel uneasy around, and would not want to hug. And yes, out of the maybe 100 women and 20 or 30 men in the place - they are all men. There isn't one of the women I wouldn't want to hug if they wanted to hug me first, IYSWIM.
yes one of the collars with the 2 inch long spikes will definitely discourage hugs. Problem is you might find people are so scared of you they may not approach you at all.......
Madkaren
People are talking mostly about hugs, but it is quite possible to be abusive whilst merely shaking someone's hand. This man who goes to our church used to come up to me during the Peace with a big evangelical smile pasted to his face, seize my hand in a death-grip and grind my rings against my bones. It hurt like hell. After a few months of this, I tried to ensure that I was always looking the other way when he approached my pew.
I was never quite sure whether his attempts to crush my hand were inspired by a spirit of Christian love, or sadism. But now I'm in the choir, so I am well protected from him.
Incidentally, the 'women hug other women' applies to our choir, but we don't hug the men.
Jane R
My experience that it is always the prayer who will reach out and seek contact.
That means there is a power relationship in who touches and who is touched.
Jengie
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie:
Anyone ever considered prayer and touch. How often does the prayed for ever initiate the touching.My experience that it is always the prayer who will reach out and seek contact.
That means there is a power relationship in who touches and who is touched.
Jengie
Absolutely - that's one of the things we teach our prayer ministry people - and we deliberately use praying for each other in the team as part of the training. So they get to feel both vulnerable and affirmed.
And we practise checking out physical boundaries by walking towards each other and making eye contact, seeing how close we feel comfortable sitting with each other (our prayer is usually done sitting next to the prayed-for person, in a fairly private part of the church which is in view but out of earshot of the rest of the congregation), and observing how many different reactions we have.
However, we do have people who come for prayer and try to snuggle up to us too close for our comfort, and also some who fling their arms around us or kiss us.....there can be a 'power' thing from them as well.
When someone is offending against our boundaries, as well as giving them visual signals a verbal confrontation is in order - 'Don't hug me (or whatever)! I don't like it.' "Don't squeeze my hand; it hurts!' Then they don't have any excuse; and use the 'broken record' technique, just repeating the same words till they get the message, and getting louder so other people hear if they still ignore it. Of course, assertive peole are not always welcome in church - they think we should all be doormats.
I have read both your responses and been impressed. It sounds like you are extraordinary thorough. I particularly like it that you do not just teach it but practise it.
Jengie
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
... it is quite possible to be abusive whilst merely shaking someone's hand. This man who goes to our church used to come up to me during the Peace with a big evangelical smile pasted to his face, seize my hand in a death-grip and grind my rings against my bones. It hurt like hell.
I have had that done to me. I knew enough about the men who did it to be sure that there was no aggressive intent.
I think the problem was that they had never been taught how to shake hands.
Moo
Moo
quote:
Originally posted by Steve:
Jengie - you need to go for the Goth look - leather, spikes, piercings. Then no-one will come near you.
Though I do believe in being careful re spikes.I love hugging but I try to be very respectful of others' wishes.
quote:
Originally posted by gbuchanan:
Then there's the limp lettuce handshake, which is just as appalling. Are folks so dim that they need instruction on handshakes?
No of course not. We are all born knowing how to do that.
Reader Alexis
sarcastic Orthodox guy
quote:
That means there is a power relationship in who touches and who is touched.
So, when Jesus did it he was abusing people with his power, yes?
Reader Alexis
friendly Orthodox guy
Please, gentlemen, a little acknowledgement that the world is very bad place and very bad things have happened to many many people and that people should be allowed NOT to be touched if they don't want to be. That's all we're asking--the freedom to say NO.
quote:
Originally posted by Qestia:
No witch-trial here, just the heartfelt desire that people pause to reflect on the nature of their actions before performing them.
You didn't answer my question: is Miss Matar's embrace to be construed in terms of power, or in terms of a friendly old lady greeting people effusively? She knows what the nature of her action is before she does it, and so does anybody who stops to think about it for a second, unless they have some hang-up, as I said.
quote:
I can't count on one hand all the inappropriate touches I have received in my life, from a relative, a friend's father, my employer when I was a teenager. I have no desire to go into the details here or in any other forum, IRL or virtual. I'm not sure that it's even relevant. Yet I find your suggestion that I am projecting "hang ups" to be insulting.
You have stated in so many words that you have a hang-up, and in the same breath that you find it insulting that I recognize this fact. I'm confused.
quote:
Was it a hang-up that caused me to be disgusted by the sight of a middle-aged man kissing an adolescent girl's ears IN CHURCH?
Possibly. I'd have to know more details about what happened before I knew if it were inappropriate. In my church we do a lot of kissing. (As one of our khourias (priests' wives) has said in print, only practical considerations keep us from kissing the thurifer.) We kiss icons, the priest's hand, the gospel book, the cross, and each other. So kissing does not, to me, seem inextricably linked to sexual perversion or abuse.
quote:
Please, gentlemen, a little acknowledgement that the world is very bad place
It can be. It can also be a very wonderful place. I'm willing to acknowledge the former if you will acknowledge the latter.
quote:
and very bad things have happened to many many people
Undoubtedly. And then again there are other people who whom these things have NOT happened, and they should not be judged as if they were the perpetrators of the evils that others have experienced.
quote:
and that people should be allowed NOT to be touched if they don't want to be. That's all we're asking--the freedom to say NO.
If that were all you were asking, we would have no argument whatever. It is a reasonable demand, and one I am not averse to granting.
But in point of fact you're asking a great deal more. For one thing, you're asking that touch be viewed as a power issue. Also, you appear to be asking that all touch be banned from the church. And you appear to be asking that all touch from an older person to a younger person be viewed as sexual impropriety. That's a lot to ask.
Not having had any improper touching experiences in my life, I don't know how exactly it feels to be you. But I would ask you not to judge us all by the criteria of your unhappy past. Sometimes a hug is just a hug. If EVERY hug bugs you, then I'd say, yes, you have a hang-up. You may have every reason to have that hang-up, and you may not be willing to undergo whatever it takes (counselling, therapy, whatever) to overcome it. But nevertheless that is a hang-up, which is not shared by the majority of your fellow-men, who have much less of a problem with hugs in church.
Reader Alexis
trying-to-be-balanced Orthodox guy
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
[QB]If EVERY hug bugs you, then I'd say, yes, you have a hang-up. [QB]
If you would have actually read the whole thread, you'll see that I have very happily accepted hugs from **eek** males in church (and outside, to be honest!) plenty of occassions. My former rector was quite the hugger and I loved him. So your statement there about my hang ups is inaccurate.
I am not asking that all touch be banned. Is anyone here? I don't think so. Perhaps you need to re-think using the title "reader".
Is an old lady kissing people an act of power on her part? Yes. Think of the opposite: if she was so withdrawn and lacking in confidence that she felt she could not initiate contacts with others even if she wanted to, we might well consider that powerlessness. Her ability to initiate this contact signifies that, in this case, this person is in a position of power.
And now, I'm going to excuse myself from this thread for at least 12 hours and let other folks get a word in edgewise!
Signed Qestia,
BA Sociology/Anthropology
quote:
Originally posted by Qestia:
If you would have actually read the whole thread, you'll see that I have very happily accepted hugs from **eek** males in church (and outside, to be honest!) plenty of occassions. My former rector was quite the hugger and I loved him. So your statement there about my hang ups is inaccurate.
I can accept that, as far as it goes.
quote:
I am not asking that all touch be banned. Is anyone here? I don't think so. Perhaps you need to re-think using the title "reader".
Perhaps you need to rethink being personally abusive in Purgatory. It's against the rules.
quote:
Is an old lady kissing people an act of power on her part? Yes.
We shall have to agree to disagree, then. I think that equating an old lady kissing people with an act of power is sick.
Also your unwillingness to engage the other points I made makes me think you're not looking to debate (which is the purpose of Purgatory) but to preach (which is forbidden) or simply gripe (which belongs in Hell) -- please prove me wrong by being more responsive in your replies.
Reader Alexis
Orthodox guy not acting as Purgatory Host in this thread (yet)
[ 09 May 2002: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
Not sure what the issue is here.
scot
BS Geology (although I'm not sure why it matters. )
In my dictionary, the first definition of power is:
The ability to do something
I *think* (though I am not Qestia, and therefore can't know definitively) that this is the definition Qestia is working with? Similar to being empowered - able to do something - I suppose.
Which seems to me to make a lot more sense of the sentence:
quote:
Her ability to initiate this contact signifies that, in this case, this person is in a position of power
She is not in a position of power/control over someone, she is empowered, able to act, to do something (in this case, to offer/initiate a hug).
Clearer friends?
Viki
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Clearer friends?
Clear but tautological. Yes, clearly if she DOES hug people, she is ABLE to hug people. What is gained by saying so? I can't imagine that's what Qestia meant.
Rdr Alexis
really a nice Orthodox guy if you meet him on the street
Whoah!!!!
I think personal remarks and misunderstandings are going on on all sides here.
It's certainly not purgatorial so I will move the thread to hell.
Qestia, I can see from your earlier posts why you feel that you have been misread and and misunderstood - but very personal swipes like
quote:
Perhaps you need to re-think using the title "reader".
are commandment breaking and out of bounds.
So you should apologise for that remark.
It's fine to say 'I think you've misread me' but it's not OK to make this sort of personal dig.
As I said before I'm moving this thread to Hell - but can I ask everyone on it to go back and read carefully what the other people are saying and not attribute to them views which are not what they have actually posted.
Thank you.
Louise
host mode off
]
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Clear but tautological. Yes, clearly if she DOES hug people, she is ABLE to hug people. What is gained by saying so? I can't imagine that's what Qestia meant.Rdr Alexis
really a nice Orthodox guy if you meet him on the street
The ability to hug people is not one that everybody has. Although now I have lost where this whole side arguement started...
(Trying not to degenerate into: she said...then you said...then she said...etc.)
Jengie talked about touch being to do with power. Mousechief brought up the old lady hugging newcomers. Qestia said that was an act of power. Mousechief disagreed. I stepped in to define power, and try to prevent misunderstandings.
So Qestia was answering your question (about whether old lady hugging people was an act of power) by saying 'Yes, she has the power to hug them'.
And having sorted that out, I think Jengie and Qestia are possibly using different meanings?
And your helpful friend from Dictionary Corner (recognise the reference anyone? ) is now stepping back outta the fray, unless there are any more questions? Specifically related to the topic
Viki
She is empowered to hug people and that is a positive thing.
Louise
It seems to me that sarkycow and Louise are both saying something tautological. Clearly, somebody who hugs is empowered to hug. And somebody who sweeps the floor is empowered to sweep the floor, and somebody who blows his own nose is empowered to blow his own nose, and so on through as many verbs as the English language can provide.
I don't see what saying this adds to the conversation, however.
Reader Alexis
perpetually confused Orthodox guy
It's a 'physical boundary violation' (useful jargon ) when anyone gets too close to us or touches us when we don't want it. If we call it that then it gets a bit more objective.
Now, when people in a happy huggy charismatic or orthodox congregation all do this and feel comfortable about it (idealistic, isn't it?) then it's OK. The problem is, there will always be some people who feel uncomfortable for some reason or other (could be they don't like the small of the perfume, after-shave or sweat), and they have the right to say 'no' to the contact. Then, any old lady or young man who hugs and kisses when asked not to, is out of order.
Fireworks going off round here - Orthodox Easter? or Arsenal celebrations? or something else?
]
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
It seems to me that sarkycow and Louise are both saying something tautological. Clearly, somebody who hugs is empowered to hug. And somebody who sweeps the floor is empowered to sweep the floor, and somebody who blows his own nose is empowered to blow his own nose, and so on through as many verbs as the English language can provide.I don't see what saying this adds to the conversation, however.
Reader Alexis
perpetually confused Orthodox guy
Qestia wasn't randomly adding this to the conversation.
Jengie said touch is to do with with a powerful/powerless relationship.
You asked about the old lady (forever after to be referred to as TOL!):
quote:
is Miss Matar's embrace to be construed in terms of power?
Qestia said yes. She tried to explain herself, by saying about the old lady being able to do it (which indicated to me that she meant power equalling ability, not control here).
That's why she brought up the OL's ability to hug. As an explanation, rather than a comment in it;s own right, as it were.
Any clearer? Please say if you're still not seeing where I (and Louise?) are coming from, and I'll attempt to explain it better
This announcement was brought to you by the letters V and L, and the number 13
Viki
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
It's a 'physical boundary violation' (useful jargon
My question is, how is one to know if a certain person 'don't want it'? This seems to call for an ability to read minds. Until recently, the obvious solution was that such touching as is commonly held to be appropriate in a given setting may be assumed to be acceptable unless and until the touched party indicates a preference to not be touched.
I still don't understand why this has become a problem?
scot
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Fireworks going off round here - Orthodox Easter?
On a Thursday? Our Easter (Pascha) was this past Sunday.
I see what you're saying but we weren't talking about her hugging somebody who has asked not to be hugged, we were talking about her hugging somebody she's never met before (I believe "stranger" was the word I used). She can't possibly know if that person is made uncomfortable by being touched.
Some of the little kids at church, when doing the kiss-of-peace thing, keep their faces far away from mine (making it look like two people trying to see past each other more than two people kissing!).
I always figured it was because I have a beard and they don't like being scratched. Anyway, it never bugs me, and I don't try to force them to make cheek contact when they clearly don't wish to. Thus it seems to me there are ways to avoid getting more contact than you want without making a big deal out of it.
Reader Alexis
accommodating Orthodox guy
quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
[QBQestia said yes. She tried to explain herself, by saying about the old lady being able to do it (which indicated to me that she meant power equalling ability, not control here).That's why she brought up the OL's ability to hug. As an explanation, rather than a comment in it;s own right, as it were.
Any clearer? Please say if you're still not seeing where I (and Louise?) are coming from, and I'll attempt to explain it better
I'm not sure I understand; it still seems tautological to me.
Also, if I can add this, it seems to be kind of equivocating on the word "power" when the thread had previously been talking about abuse of power and people feeling powerless, and "power" was nearly equated (or so it seemed to me) with "abusiveness." Then to come back and say "all I meant when I said she was powerful was that she had the ability to hug" seems to be (at best) special pleading.
Or to put it more plainly: yes, clearly she is ABLE to hug. But is her hugging a stranger the same as her exerting power OVER them? Answer THAT question and we'll be back on track.
Sorry for the double-post.
Reader Alexis
apparently-powerless-to-make-himself-understood Orthodox guy
Many people can't hug or are uncomfortable with hugging - often as the result of abuse of one sort or another.
Someone who can go around happily hugging people is not disempowered in this way.
A better word would be confidence - they have the confidence to hug. Lucky them.
You don't need confidence to sweep the floor but you do need confidence to speak in public and to hug people you don't know.
So it is a form of positive personal power.
This may seem strange but for some of us - it's also an acheivement to be able to hug people without feeling uncomfortable.
cheers,
L.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
we were talking about her hugging somebody she's never met before (I believe "stranger" was the word I used). She can't possibly know if that person is made uncomfortable by being touched.
And if I visited your church and she tried it on me, I'd push her away. I can't stand being hugged by strangers.
I think you're a bit too sanguine about the ease of avoiding touch, Mousetheif. Just this morning a member of the congregation I work for, someone I am only vaguely acquainted with, was in my office on an errand. Before she left she quite suddenly raised her arms to hug me, and I only avoided it by instinctive reaction I warded her off by raising my hands and catching her arms as she advanced on me. It was very awkward, and I think she was embarrassed, but I figure that's what she gets for trying to hug someone she barely knows.
You know Miss Matar, and you clearly think she's a dear, so all the discussion of power makes no sense to you. But someone who is in their own church, who is at home, is definitely in a more comfortable position than someone who is a stranger, and while I wouldn't characterize what you describe her doing as an abuse of power, I would say that it doesn't sound very thoughtful or considerate.
Having more than once had the horrible experience of being felt up during the exchanging of the peace in church, I avoid hugging men until I have reason to know that they're "safe" - i.e., I've gotten to know them well enough to feel comfortable hugging them, or to know they're gay.
quote:
And if I visited your church and she tried it on me, I'd push her away. I can't stand being hugged by strangers.
Mousethief has already agreed that this is your perfect right.
quote:
I figure that's what she gets for trying to hug someone she barely knows.
As I said above, it is reasonable for an appropriate touch to "be assumed to be acceptable unless and until the touched party indicates a preference to not be touched."
You so indicated. She stopped. End of case.
I think we are moving toward a very cold, impersonal, sterile society and it makes me sad.
scot
I've never understood why - my parents are affectionate (but not overly so), I've had no bad experiences (that I remember!!!), and I'm not averse to showing my emotions.
Having said that, however, I'm just not a very emotional person. I don't like the false distinguishment between the rational and the emotional, but even so, it seems to sum me up.
Perhaps this is something wrong with me. I've attempted to confront the 'problem' head on, but now I've decided that it is no problem.
I dunno... maybe I'm just too cynical.
Ruth and Stoo: We may have to agree to disagree.
Reader Alexis
Orthodox guy with other hangups
My own church is very English about it - handshakes and smiles (though it's warm and friendly, and sometimes newcomers look a bit alarmed by the enthusiasm). I think I'd be happy to hug everyone there, but it just wouldn't happen!
But in the West I think we have become very conscious that touch can be abusive, and it's caused a lot of fear and anxiety - I think particularly, and sadly, of the fact that many teachers of small children are reluctant to hug a distressd child in case they're suspected of child abuse. It's not surprising that that discomfort is reflected in churches.
It's obvious that different people have very different ideas of where their personal boundaries are, and it should be part of sharing our lives in a Christian community that we're allowed to make it clear to others just what our boundaries are without feeling we're going to be criticised for it.
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Fireworks going off round here - Orthodox Easter? or Arsenal celebrations? or something else?
Arsenal, I fear.
I know why I'm bad at hugging/touch - we were discouraged as children, neither of my parents are particularly touchy-feely, and I think my mum felt badly that she wasn't, so got upset if we were affectionate towards other adults.
But I haven't ever had any really bad experiences with touch, probably because England generally, and the English Protestant church in particular, don't have masses of it for it to be abused. So I have the opposite problem - being poor at initiating touch - rather than being poor at refusing it. I'm poor at initating it with anyone (except possibly significant others, and even then sometimes), which sadly can come over as not wanting to receive it.
Some people are poor at refusing it, and would rather not have it from particular people who have demonstrated they can abuse it. Other people are poor at refusing it (not everyone is as unsubtle as small children when they don't want something - look at how they refuse food!) and don't want it in general, or from people they don't know. Usually from a little old lady this wouldn't be a problem, but for some it might be.
So how would we prevent people from being borne down upon by little old ladies? Or do we just leave it to natural drifting towards touchy/non-touchy environments? No-one in a touchy church is going to chuck me out because I find it hard to hug people; but if you find it hard to receive touch you could go to a church where handshakes among relatives and nods for others are the norm.
Any form of laying-on of hands can give rise to an allegation of assault, including times where the hand ‘hovers’ above or about the recipient’s head/ body. It could possibly be argued that a response to an invitation to ‘come forward for prayer’ constitutes implied consent to the touching involved but it is safest to always ask the other person whether he/she objects to being touched. To further minimise risk, insist in same-sex ministry. Also, ensure you thoroughly vet members of ministry teams.
Similarly, with hugging, although I agree with those who don't particularly want to tread the path of Political Correctness all the way to the law courts and agree that huggin, kissing etc per se is not necessarily sexual (in fact rarley so in my experience in church life although I accept that others have more unpleasant experiences), I nevertheless feel that it is legally prudent (and indeed humanly courteous) to ask permission before hugging or kissing someone you dont' know; I think there needs to be a sensible balance struck beween extreme PC-no-touching-at-all and a free-for-all-hug-n-grab-anyone-you-like (which is potentially a pervert's charter).
Lawyer-hat-off!
Yours in Christ
Matt
I only want to clarify my stance:
ALL I was ever trying to say was that people should have the right to refuse physical contact.That's the entirety of my personal stance on this topic! From your comments, Mousethief, you really seem to think there's something wrong with people who do not wish to be hugged by sweet old ladies they've never met before. If that's the case, you and I will never see eye to eye on this subject, as long as we're seeing through a glass darkly anyway.
And can it just stand, for the record, that I was not the first person to use the word "power" in this thread. Jengie did, and perhaps should explain her/his definition of this word. I was defining it the way Viki did(and thank you so much for more clearly stating what I was trying to say). And yes, according to that definition (empowerment/confidence) it's not really a point of contention. I had felt the need to support Jengie's use of this word and attempt to define it in a way Fr. Gregory and MT could understand, after they objected to use of the word. I felt Fr. Gregory understood what I was getting at. (This is going to p.1 of the thread, not my more emotional outpouring on p.2).
And perhaps it's moot since we're now in Hell, but I don't really feel there's a reason for me to apologize for suggesting that someone who does not read carefully should not call themselves "reader". Of course, maybe we should also clarify whether Alexis actually steals mice, or is that another inaccuracy?
I'm beginning to wonder whether the disagreements on this thread are to do with the country/culture someone comes from. I might be making sweeping generalisations here, but I did notice the people that were saying "no hugs without permission" were from the UK. Perhaps it's nothing more than the famous British Reserve going on here? (and I type as a Brit, remember!)
Please don't jump on me if I'm wrong. I'm a bit fragile today and I can't cope with it ("well why are you posting in hell then, they ask!!")
I have to ask the question to Mousethief and the others, why would you want to hug someone you don't know? A hug is a very warm affectionate gesture, which indicates support and love, and surely it's not appropriate if you don't know the person concerned from Adam (or Eve, depending!). I can understand hugging someone you don't know if they're in floods of tears after a sermon that's hit them between the eyes, or a ministry time or whatever, but that's a very specific situation and they will usually indicate that that's what they want.
And I think you can tell if someone really doesn't want to be hugged. I read somewhere that only 7% of our communication is verbal. Yes, body language is not 100% foolproof but people usually get the gist!
b
Boot: "hug" is perhaps a misnomer. The "kiss of peace" in our church most often consists of touching cheeks 3 times (LRL or RLR) with the person, sometimes accompanied by making phony "kissing" noises. And as I've said, there are people who don't touch cheeks at all, particularly among the younger children. On the flip side, my closer friends (the choir is pretty tight) will often lock arms with me, and actually kiss my cheeks. There is an entire spectrum of amount-of-touch. Other people sort of fend you off with an offered handshake, and nobody makes a scene about that, either.
My complaint was about the claim that hugging somebody was exercising (or worse abusing) power over them. This to me seems based on an unproven and unprovable theory about human interaction.
Reader Alexis
prickly Orthodox guy
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Qestia: I am "Reader Alexis" because it is an official title of the Church of which I am a member, and I hold the office for which that is the title. It has nothing to do with how well I read electronic correspondence. Your quip I found insulting, rude, and abusive. Your refusal to apologize for it I find sad and self-serving and a true abuse of power.
I am sorry. I was hoping my comment also about the term "Mousethief" would drag my comment into a more playful iteration. I understand that Reader is a title in your church and that is why you use it. That you have willfully misunderstood my posts here and attributed things to me that I did not say, and not read carefully the things that I did say, does not give me the right to insult your title. I am sorry. I do not want to create divisions between us, and I have, and I am sorry for that.
But: not only was your swipe at Mousethief a breach of the Commandments, but a gross inaccuracy... seeing as "Reader Alexis" actually refers to the said gentleman's liturgical role in his Orthodox Church. As far as I know, it has little significance, other than perhaps a pun, in regards to reading threads on Ship of Fools.
Personally speaking, I think body language is a good key. Also, if I have doubts about a person I will give off body language that says "Shake my hand, or not at all." Doesn't matter if I am in church or elsewhere.
Just tonight at bellringing I was standing next to someone I don't particularly like - and felt he was invading my space by standing too close to me. I drew away. But some people are socially inept and there is nothing for it (I know it was nothing sexual).
Alot of it comes down to social ettiquette - much of my own reactions have to do with whether I feel "safe" with the person. Eg I have some gay friends and I love to be hugged and kissed by them. But even though my Dad (to my knowledge) has never laid a finger on me, that doubt about to what extent this is affection, and to what extent sexual, always plays on my mind when I hug him.
Interesting side point:
I come from a very touchy feely family. In December 2000 all but my sister moved overseas. I have no relatives in Sydney. I really felt the lack of touch, the lack of other human contact - and was subsequently sent into a form of depression.
Touch is very very important to humans. It reassures us that we are human, and that we are not alone locked up in our minds. I truly believe we need to touch one another.
But I do understand the space-boundary problem, trust-issues, and the abuse of power, and the abuse of sexuality, especially in church.
Mousethief, to be honest I don't know why you jumped on your high horse. Having said that, and coming from a European huggy-touchy-feely background, I totally understand that hugging might be considered perfectly acceptable in your church. Fantastic! Great! It's wonderful that there are bunch of people on the earth that are balanced enough to touch each other as human beings.
Getting back to something Fr G said earlier, though: our societal norms possibly breed those situations where abusers may take the advantage; because we are cautious about touching others, there are always going to be those who get their jollies from testing the limits of decency ("Can I get away with it today? Goody goody I can;t wait!"). I can't help that. The best I can do is to establish where my own boundaries are, and attempt to make that clear either with body language or verbally.
Another example. My best friend's mother died when she was 13. Her family never touch each other. I couldn't comprehend this, and so insisted on hugging her (even though she was discomforted) because it was not inappropriate to do so. Having acquired a great number of touchy feely friends, she is now more able to hug/touch others than I am - partly because I no longer am in an environment that allows it, and partly because she has many more friends than me... grrrr 
So touch is something one can grow into, I think.
Apologies for being long winded. I have been asked how I was using power. As I was flying a kite in an attempt to move the discussion off hugging and widening it to a different touch where I also was felt abuse was possible.
[Warning: Personal Hang-up I have at least twice had people use touch in prayers for my healing when I have later seriously come to question their intentions. With one I have since concluded that we were both manipulating each other. With the other, the persons was grabbing as many opportunities as possible to touch me as part of a deceit. Both occasions were within friendship relationships so not part of the formal church. There is more but that should be enough to warn people.]
What I think I mean is there is an inequality in the status between the two people in the situation.
To use a totally out of the discussion example I will use my situation in work. When I am doing most of my work I am in the dominant person in the relationship. That is because I have the skills that others want access to. This is symbolised by the fact that even very senior members in the establishment come to me rather than me being expected to go to them. However within my own department however I am nearly always the subordinate in the situation. I therefore need to be polite, fit around others and am unable to get things that I see as important on the departments agenda.
Ok why did I bring up power in this context?
As stated earlier I was using a red cloth but perhaps with a slightly different intention to how it has been taken in the discussion.
I do not believe all touch is sexual nor do I believe all abuse is sexual. Nor all touch abusive or any other combination.
Now this inequality in status is commonplace and I certainly not for one minute suggest that we should cleanse society of it. It is simply impossible! We would no sooner achieve it than it would be upset again. However in most abuse situations there is often a dominant-subordinate relationship.
In an equal relationship as pointed out elsewhere on the list both toucher and touched negotiate the touching.
However in an relationship that is unequal the subordinate does not have the same ability to refuse the dominants touch as in an equal relationship. Though I fully accept that they can manipulate the pray-er into touch.
However when you are offering prayer for someone you are with by that act the equality is disturbed for a time.
That is why I appreciate DaisyMay's training being so thorough. It is not about preventing abuse per se but about creating more equality in the caring situation.
I hope this is useful, I am not sure that it is as my instincts with regards to touch are seriously muddled.
Jengie
quote:
Originally posted by Boot:
I'm beginning to wonder whether the disagreements on this thread are to do with the country/culture someone comes from. I might be making sweeping generalisations here, but I did notice the people that were saying "no hugs without permission" were from the UK. Perhaps it's nothing more than the famous British Reserve going on here? (and I type as a Brit, remember!)Please don't jump on me if I'm wrong. I'm a bit fragile today and I can't cope with it ("well why are you posting in hell then, they ask!!")
Will try not to jump on you too hard - but - I'm an American, so there goes that theory! Reserve is by no means reserved to the British. (Qestia, living in Massachusetts, is probably American too.)
I think my personal preference about who gets to hug me (only people I know well and like) comes from my upbringing, but Stooberry is very different from his family. I think it's going to be very hard to come up with a general rule to explain why some of us are more huggy than others.
**************
And a hostly reminder:
Flaming and personal attack are allowed in hell, no apologies required. But you'd better be prepared to take the heat if you indulge ...
RuthW
hellhost
quote:
Originally posted by Qestia:
I am sorry. I was hoping my comment also about the term "Mousethief" would drag my comment into a more playful iteration. I understand that Reader is a title in your church and that is why you use it. That you have willfully misunderstood my posts here and attributed things to me that I did not say, and not read carefully the things that I did say, does not give me the right to insult your title. I am sorry. I do not want to create divisions between us, and I have, and I am sorry for that.
Handsomely said! My hat is off to you.
For my part I apologize for playing amateur psychologist and for my misreadings (which I must beg you to believe were not intentional) of what you had written. Pax?
Jengie: Thank you for the explanation. I'm not entirely sure I still quite understand you on the power thing, but I'm getting closer.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Flaming and personal attack are allowed in hell, no apologies required. But you'd better be prepared to take the heat if you indulge ...
I realize that it is acceptible in Hell; my point was rather that someone who is sensitive to issues of abuse-of-power vis-a-vis touch is operating under something of a double standard if that same person is --in the very same post!-- verbally abusive. But since Qestia has apologized this point is no longer relevant.
Reader Alexis
much happier Orthodox guy
Happy weekend to all! (And hugs to those who are currently accepting them from strangers.)
FCB
For me, hugging comes naturally, and is my standard way of greeting people. I see it as welcoming. Drawing somebody physically close to me is my way of showing that I'm comfortable with them and that I've no problem letting them into my life in whatever capacity. The emotional, even sexual aspect is signalled by the way in which I hug; closeness of the cheeks, duration of the hug, where the hands go &c.
I see a handshake as a silly practice, which lacks this symbolism. The hand, to me is a symbol of power. The hands are what we use to manipulate things to get them to do what we want them to.
However, because of the social acceptability of this, I reserve handshakes for situations where I'm not particularly keen on a person but don't want to come across as rude, especially after hugging everyone else.
When I approach somebody with intention of hugging them, and get greeted with an extended hand, I see that as a rejection of sorts, ie, them saying to me "I don't want you to get close to me. You're someone whose name I know and that's it!".
I must admit though, that the posts here have really shed a whole new light on responses that I've received in the past.
Thanks for the insight folks.
x
quote:
Originally posted by Regina Caeli:
For me, hugging comes naturally, and is my standard way of greeting people. I see it as welcoming. Drawing somebody physically close to me is my way of showing that I'm comfortable with them and that I've no problem letting them into my life in whatever capacity.When I approach somebody with intention of hugging them, and get greeted with an extended hand, I see that as a rejection of sorts, ie, them saying to me "I don't want you to get close to me. You're someone whose name I know and that's it!".
So, hopefully now you understand why people might be doing that without intending to reject you... either because they've had bad experiences of hugging in the past, or because they are very poor at initating touch, and don't know how to give hugs though they are happy to receive them...
We aren't all cold and rejecting!
And it's not always becuse of someone's past bad experiences - it can be simply that we are all different characters and some of us want to hug, touch hands, kiss, and some of us don't. We have the choice - to accept/offer or not.
quote:Bleurgh!
Originally posted by splosh:
and then kiss you on the cheek.
Seriously though, has anyone noticed how people who insist on putting their arms round others shoulders usually have really stinky armpits?
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
Back in the 70s, when I first noticed this huggy thing coming into churches, what put me off was the fact that the men thought it was open season - they had a right to hug, and/or kiss any female they chose. I noticed however that the men did not kiss other men. If it is to be a 'Christian' thing, it should not matter the sex of the person they touch. So I concluded it was a sexual thing and stayed well clear.Apart from a rise in the number of women kissing / hugging each other, I have not noticed much change. The men still go for the ladies but not for each other - rather suspicious don't you think?
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The "kiss of peace" in our church most often consists of touching cheeks 3 times (LRL or RLR) with the person, sometimes accompanied by making phony "kissing" noises.
Been thinking about this triple kiss. One of my friends at church is Coptic (Ethiopian) - she always kisses me (authentically) three times, as does her daughter, and I thought it was to do with her being born with eastern habits and aquiring extra-kissy mediterranean ones in her journeyings. So maybe this is a ritual/formal/churchy thing? But she does it always - not only when we share the peace.
My other Ethiopian Coptic friend doesn't even do much touching at all - she tends to bow, and so we bow to each other.
I'm going to have to ask them more about this - they both say, "It's the way we do things!"
With the Indian members of the congregation, we tend to 'namaste', but without touching. When we were in Nepal, my daughter and a distant cousin each thinking the other was more to be respected, bowed low, saying 'namaste', each expecting the other to place their hands on their heads and bless them, and there was a tremendous noise of crashing heads and two teenagers between hysterical crying and giggles.
In each of the churches I've been in for more than six months, someone of the other sex in a position of authority has played with or pulled my hair juring church meetings. But because the balance of things is different for blokes, this just seems a little odd rather than threatening.
In terms of hugging, my family hugs and I hug my family. People have to be quite close to me emotionally before I feel comfortable hugging them, but it's not that big a deal if they initiate; they just might not get much of a response.
Visions in York has a policy of putting the peace first in the order of their communion services, so that those who don't want to do the huggy bit can turn up fashionably late and miss it.
In terms of sexual hugs, I have had late teen lasses at huggy churchs with crushes on me who tend to be the only ones NOT to hug in the peace, but use a demure handshake instead. I also have had occasional unwarrented kissing from gay men (not at church, but known through church), which reminded me very strongly of an old woman at my parent's church who kissed me every time she saw me when I was a child. When I got to seven I told her my name was Peter not 'Peterkins' and asked her to stop.
Campbellite:
In terms of power handshakes, the two handed shake is the wrestling equivalent of the double bind in fencing- the hardest to get out of and renders the victim with the least power. Who ever is on top has 'won' in power terms. (if you go for the eighties business psyche thing).
TME
Nobody has examined my contention that Protestant cultures are hung up about the physical realm.
Nobody has examined my critique of touch being NECESSARILY construed as sexual or invasive.
Everyone has a right not to be touched. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the erosion of natural and uncomplicated touch as an expression of human warmth without threat and the violation of human rights and preferences.
(Let's just talk about touch please ... not hugs ... it's so easy to used that issue as target practice.)
Jesus touched people when he healed them, and I believe that also when we pray for people, that touch, if it's acceptable to the person receiving it, is healing. Some people can't bear it, however, and then the Holy Spirit can just as easily heal from a distance.
Also, touch can be healing even if we are not doing it in a specifically "Christain" way. A small child with a scraped knee needs the knee washed, a plaster and a "kissing it better" from mummy (or whoever).
I think it's really sad that we deprive each other of appropriate affection in the U.S. (and it sounds like in the U.K. as well) because we're so paranoid about abuse.
I think the hands-off guidelines given to some pastors is frankly bad counsel. And I would never work in a ministry where I was told to keeps my hands off those I'm ministering to.
Yes, we need to be sensative to those who don't like to be touched. But should we deprive the rest of us who need physical touch? Shouldn't church be a safe place to express love to people without keeping them at arm's length?
First thing that occurs to me is that him touching people as part of healing is mentioned, and mentioned often. Not that he was not able to heal without touch: there are several examples where because of the faith of the one requesting healing he healed, as it were, from a afar.
Touch seems to have something to do with faith. Maybe he touched people to confirm their faith - like, yes this is real, not your imagination, you don;t have to live in the ghetto of your own head anymore. A reassurance in the most physical terms of the care of God and his concern for those who are marred by the results of sin (I am not implying illness or sickness or any other afflication is directly related to sin specifically).
I am fascinated by the interaction of Jesus' power to heal in certain situations being related to faith, eg when he went to X town, they didn't recognise him, and he was astonished at their lack of faith, and could only heal afew sick people. etc etc. And the time where he heals the blind man telling him not to go into the town - and as a result he is unable to into towns except secretly and had to sleep "in the hills."
There are other important resonances for me. Firstly, the number of psalms crying out to be rescued from a pit... Someone has to pull the crier out - usually the image for this is "the helping hand", a hand extended to help someone up.
Second, following the writer of Hebrews and looking at the OT ritual practices for dealing with sin... The person offering the sacrifice, or in the case of the scapegoat, the whole nation in the person of the high priest, laid his hand upon the head of the victim/scapegoat and confessed whatever sins he'd committed. This signalled a transferance of the penalty for sin.
Third. The above resonance seems to have some sort of bearing in Isiah 53: "Surely he hath born our sin and carried our sorrows." I have thought this at times to be directly related to healing, to the transfer of peace to the troubled mind/soul etc - ie Jesus healing lepers meant he was taking upon himself the "sin" of that disease. Hence the stretching out of the hand as an offer; the afflicted persons in some circumstances, and the human race in general can't reach out to God effectively - he has to come to us in the Incarnation.
One more reflection - touch for Jesus had something about it. If someone touched in faith, "power went out of him" and he felt it. I have no idea what to make of this!
This is all wonderful and all.
But I have the major problem that it doesn't happen today anymore. OK ok, the Eucharist. But it's not like he is there in person to touch, like the person sitting next to me. Grrrr.
Hope this somehow at least begins to address this aspect of your post Fr G. I have no idea how one would apply it to touching/hugging/kissing/snogging/etc in church!
Sometimes we can feel treated by someone standing too near to us without touching because our personal space has been violated.
2 people in a pew tend to divide it up evenly if one of them takes up more than half the pew it can be seen as a power move.
Different cultures have different amounts of space that they consider acceptable. I have heard that the 2 extremes are Germans (most space) and Lebanese (least space) so that if you have a conversation between a German and a Lebanese the German will eventually end up backed against the wall.
When informal worship came in and people got more touchyfeely, it became known as 'Evensnog'
due to a misprint on another thread, the phrase Snug Eucharist has also joined this one!
Touch seems to occur most naturally in informal settings rather than in church services - even passing the peace is usually formalised and is the better for it in my opinion.
I have taken my time to answer because I am cautious over responding when emotions are running high. I simply do not communicate well plus I have been doing a lot of thinking. The need for which is why I started the discussion to begin with. My stance is not the one I would have taken a fortnight ago. Secondly I put it off for I intended writing it when I had a Bible to hand but as I kept forgetting to do it when that was the case I am writing this below from memory.
Firstly Jesus did not need to touch to heal, see the Centurions servant, nor was he controlling the power used to heal that seems to have passed through him. See the woman who had been bleeding for ten years. Equally there are occasions where Jesus seems to just have used words when he easily could have touched e.g. the paralysed man.
Two occasions stand out for me when he specifically use touch. One is the healing of Lepers, here the abuse was carried out by exclusion and not touching and the second was in the case of a blind man. A situation where
I guess touch is a greater part of the communication. Interestingly he also used touch with Jairuses daughter.
Firstly not all touch is abusive and no one in this discussion has said it was. What is clear is that different people have different approaches to touching. The issue then is on the negotiation of the touching. Certain types of touching probably do need some formal social restraint e.g. sexual touch of minors, but not friendly hugging between consenting adults. Its when an individual ability to consent is taken away that we run into difficulties. The tricky part is that goes both for the consent to touch and the consent not to touch.
After 2000 years it is very hard to tell what was consentual and what is not. It does appear from the two incidences above that touch was part of the healing processes at least on some occasions.
There is no way to definitively answer your question. We simply can not know but there is evidence to suggest that he was not using touch indiscriminantly but adjusting it to circumstances.
However I do think that sometimes those of us who do not like touching share an awful lot with Peter not liking Jesus washing his feet. Surely one of the few cases where the negotiation is verbal rather than through body language. We know touch is powerful but we do not understand what it says and so we play to stay safe and not touch.
I hope that answers you somewhat. As I said at the begining I am thinking.
Jengie
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Nobody has answered my point about Jesus touching people in his healings yet.
If Jesus wants to come down from heaven and touch me, that would be great. Jesus is not a stranger to me. Strangers should by and large keep their distance.
quote:
Nobody has examined my contention that Protestant cultures are hung up about the physical realm.
Way too huge a generalization. I've been to plenty of Protestant churches in which people are very touchy-feely, and also to plenty where there is a mix of touchy-feely and not touchy-feely people.
quote:
Nobody has examined my critique of touch being NECESSARILY construed as sexual or invasive.Everyone has a right not to be touched. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the erosion of natural and uncomplicated touch as an expression of human warmth without threat and the violation of human rights and preferences.
(Let's just talk about touch please ... not hugs ... it's so easy to used that issue as target practice.)
But people have posted to say that they don't construe all touching in church as sexual. I think you're making generalizations about other people's positions about touch, and I see no reason why we should just talk about touch in general. To me there is no such thing as touch in general. Shaking hands, touching someone on the arm or shoulder, and hugging are all very different kinds of touch. I'll shake hands with anybody. I'm pickier about who I'll allow to touch me in other ways, especially hugging.
I'm also not sure that touch as an expression of human warmth has been eroded. Do we have any documentation that says 500 or 1000 or 1500 years ago Western culture saw touch in a better light than we do today?
And if we have suffered some kind of decline, about which I have a lot of doubts, I don't think you can blame "Protestant cultures" when the fact is we live in secular cultures.
Finally, any general analysis will probably not account for personal preference. I don't like to be hugged by people I don't know well and like not because I don't like to be hugged at all, but because hugging means something to me. It's the same with other forms of non-sexual touching - hugging is just the high end of that spectrum. I'm not going to touch or hug someone if I don't feel what that touch or hug expresses.
I'm not an expert on social history, but off the top of my head here are two pieces of information;
1. Erasmus commented after a visit to England that one of the things he liked about English people was the amount of social kissing they went in for. Admittedly this would have been before the English Reformation, but before Father G starts saying that I've just proved his point;
2. About a third of the dances in John Playford's 'English Dancing Master' (first published in 1652 RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH,* went through many editions in late 17th/early 18th century) were kissing dances.
Jane R
*Note for non-UK people; this was the period after the end of the English Civil War and the execution of Charles I when the Puritans were in charge... they may well have disapproved of kissing dances as much as they disapproved of Christmas, but judging by Playford's popularity, they were in a minority.
I come from German-American Midwestern stock and learned as a child not to touch other people very much, if at all. I look back and see something positive in that. I see my parents as trying to teach me about the infinite value of human beings as God's creatures. Reluctance to touch was associated for me with human beings' intrinsic worth.
Then came young adulthood, I started studying Russian, and before I knew it I was hugging and kissing others very happily. There was a warmth about this way of interaction which I badly needed and continue to need. (Though probably my parents could have done without the contempt I also expressed for "Midwestern repressiveness"...)
As I say, perhaps I am not being polemical enough here... I've had men touch me during the Peace in a way which left me wishing my husband had been there (not, to be fair, something I ever experienced in an Orthodox service---bear hugs and triple-kissing were somehow different). I find that as a citizen of the most diverse nation on earth, I'm constantly making snap decisions, both in and out of church, about how much physical contact to use with others. I find this very difficult.
One final point. The Episcopal diocese of which I'm a member has policies about what constitutes inappropriate touching. These policies are not perfect, but I'm grateful for them, not so much for myself as for the baby on the way. At the same time, I see the cost of implementing such policies when I hear clergy talk about not touching others for fear of getting sued. One priest I know clearly has rid himself of this fear and at the same time---by supernatural grace, one must assume---touches, or hugs, or kisses, or shakes hands with, each congregant in such a way that talk of "appropriateness" seems just so mundane. Hugging him during the Peace, I am quite sure that God is with us.
There. Boot me to Heaven if you dare... 
![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
or going to another church.quote:You need the guerilla school of repelling unwanted hugs. My partner and I developed this after being at one too many Presbyterian Assemblies where anti-gay blokes kept on trying to hug us to show how much they loved us (while hating our sin, blah, blah, blah.) It did feel very much as though they were getting their little thrill by touching a real live lesbian.
Originally posted by duchess:
I also STICK OUT MY HAND right away to some types when I visit a church and see a possible rubbing-chest-into-chest type. I have literally been told "Hey, no hug? Oh...ok..." disappointed look. I then wonder if I am too uptight...or maybe he is a jack-ass wanting his little thrill. I dunno.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Way cool, Duchess! May there be many more hugs like that for you! My Aspie boy is huggy with me (not with anyone else), but doesn't stand for kisses.
Originally posted by duchess:
[/asperger tangent]... Well he ran outside, hugged my mom...then stopped and said "Oh, Aunt Melissa, I need to hug you AGAIN!" He has NEVER done that before (2 hugs like that).
quote:In the Orthodox church, sharing of the peace is usually performed by sticking out your hand, grasping the other's hand as if to shake, and bumping cheeks three times (two times if you're Greek or Arab), while saying the appropriate greeting for the day. Or some folks grasp shoulders and bump cheeks. Rubbing chest into chest just doesn't happen.
I also STICK OUT MY HAND right away to some types when I visit a church and see a possible rubbing-chest-into-chest type. I have literally been told "Hey, no hug? Oh...ok..." disappointed look. I then wonder if I am too uptight...or maybe he is a jack-ass wanting his little thrill. I dunno.
