|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Giving the sign of peace
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
False in the sense of insincere. I'm sure no one means harm, but aren't those words meant to be a prayer for the other? Mumbling them while looking elsewhere is meaningless istm.
They might be. Or it might be a sign of someone pushing through shyness to extend the peace of Christ because they really really believe in & desire to do that despite their personal discomfort.
My friend Adam McHugh has some interesting insight on both passing the peace as well as it's sociable twin, coffee fellowship, here:
introverts in the church
There are good reasons for passing the peace. But those very reasons, I think, compel us to extend grace to one another. Grace in the way you extend the peace (in our non-CofE church, we explain it to newcomers in a brief rif, and give a range of options-- handshake, the traditional "peace be with you", a more Calif.-ish "hi", etc.). Grace for those who struggle w/ this part of the service. Grace to explain what we are doing & why, even though that means some people will be hearing it for the 2000th time. Grace to notice the people who are standing alone while others have paired off and segued into conversation.
Like everything else in our liturgy, passing the peace can be either a temptation toward meaningless ritual-- or a means of grace, and a way of living out what we believe.
[ 31. July 2012, 21:49: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Like everything else in our liturgy, passing the peace can be either a temptation toward meaningless ritual-- or a means of grace, and a way of living out what we believe.
No ritual is ever meaningless. Sometimes the meaning is forgotten, but there is always meaning.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
In the Anglican Church of Canada it can happen in a couple of ways depending on if the Eucharist is Prayer Book or Book of Alternative Services . If PB it is an response to what the priest says if it is BAS the exchange involves interaction between people at the serviice. And in BAS is a rearranged PB service but the peace is in the form oused with BAS. Gets confusing,
But it is an integeral part of the service and not a time for chitg chat. So one has to offer & recive it in an appropiate attitiude.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
The peace is just a sign. For some people it is a pure formality. For others it may mean more.
Just because a fervent peace is exchanged by all and sundry doesn't necessarily mean there is any deep underlying brother and sister hood to the place. The reverse may well be true.
Christianity is far more than the peace. It's not a surface thing.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
I wonder if there may be some people who - in the reverse of the OP - come to church because of the Peace, and because in the Peace the loneliness of being untouched is, for once, breached.
Much as I said I have absented myself from church because of the peace, I think this also true. Touch communicates very powerfully, which IMO is why it is a sensitive issue.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I tend to kneel at the end of the Lord's Prayer and try to give off 'don't touch me, don't touch me' vibes. Also in quiet masses I try to sit outside touching distance of anyone else. Usually people leave me alone but if someone does pat me on the shoulder or whatever I literally have to get up and leave to avoid a public meltdown. And then it will be a couple of weeks before I'm brave enough to go to mass again.
I know my reaction is probably extreme but that's the reality of who I am and where I'm at. The church should be able to recognise that everybody is different and if people are clearly trying to avoid the peace then leave them the fuck alone.
I agree entirely. For my own reasons, I avoided the peace for a time. While everybody was milling around, I would sit down with my head bowed, my eyes closed, and my hands on my lap, palms down. I would still get people coming up to me, despite what I had been taught was a basic principle of not disturbing a praying person unless absolutely necessary. One even grabbed my hand from off my lap and started shaking it.
Because of my own reasons for avoiding the peace, this posed no real problem for me but it has given me an awareness of just how intrusive people can be despite obvious "Please leave me alone" signals, and of how difficult it is for people with genuine anxieties to actually avoid being accosted. It seems that the only thing to do is to follow the earlier suggestion of leaving for a minute until everyone has settled down.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
As for the pax-brede... can anyone really imagine such an insanitary custom catching on?
You're talking about a congregation all venerating the same icon. I don't see that its being carried to the people makes it any more unsanitary than the people all approaching to kiss a stationary icon, or all drinking from the same chalice, or receiving from the same spoon, all of which are very widespread customs.
Besides, as anybody with regular experience of any particular act will observe, the practical difficulties associated with that act will be accommodated for in places where it is done. People in churches with low doors will know to lower the Cross or banners at the doorway if going on an outdoor procession. Only someone without that experience would look at the doors and say, 'They'll never get through carrying those'. People in churches where icons are customarily venerated or where there is a ccommon chalice will know to wipe off their lip grease before approaching, and will see people wiping the icon glass periodically, often with disinfectant wipes these days. Only someone without that experience would hear of these customs and say, 'Oh it's too unhygienic: it'll never catch on.'
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Every congregation I've been part of has its fair share of people.
Well, that's encouraging.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Evensong I am glad no one at my church casually dismisses my difficulty with the peace. In the past I have avoided church because people could not understand the difficulty I had, so it was easier, though isolating, not to go.
I submit that in small minority of people there is a pathological inability to exchange the peace (be it Autism, trauma at physical touch, paranoid hypochondria etc)
But in the vast majority, there is no earthly reason why exchanging a handshake and a few words should render people unable to attend church.
It's a pathetic excuse.
In fact, it's no excuse at all.
The Peace is a ghastly survivor from the days of hippyness that should have been given the last rites twenty years ago. It is what it represents that is the big put off. It comes with smiley vicars and Happy Birthday played on the organ. It is the bastard-child of 60s liberal liturgists and was fed to the congregation as if they were simpletons - and they were. It is everything that is a turn-off about the modern church.
It is an unassailable reason for staying away or commuting to the nearest traditionalist shack.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on Hill:
Jesus said to his disciples when you bring your offering and have a dispute with your neighbour, first resolve the dispute, then bring the offering [or something roughly equivalent]. "The peace" enables members of the congregation to indicate that there are no unresolved disputes before the "collection/offering" and before the eucharistic prayer...
This worked for me recently. I had a falling out with another member of the congregation, which was quite upsetting. When we next met at the service we made our peace with each other during the Peace - it was meaningful and heartfelt, and the dispute is now forgotten.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It is the bastard-child of 60s liberal liturgists and was fed to the congregation as if they were simpletons - and they were.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's fair to accuse the church-goers of that era of being simpletons. At least they faithfully went to church, and they never asked for the Peace, they had it foisted upon them. So is it fair to call them simpletons, just because they remained faithful and stood their ground?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It is the bastard-child of 60s liberal liturgists and was fed to the congregation as if they were simpletons - and they were.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's fair to accuse the church-goers of that era of being simpletons. At least they faithfully went to church, and they never asked for the Peace, they had it foisted upon them. So is it fair to call them simpletons, just because they remained faithful and stood their ground?
Except after a time, instead of standing up for themselves, they stopped faithfully going to church (or at least the successor generations who were innoculated against the Church by this sort of development did). But I take your point simpletons they were not - they were unwilling collaborators.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I tend to kneel at the end of the Lord's Prayer and try to give off 'don't touch me, don't touch me' vibes. Also in quiet masses I try to sit outside touching distance of anyone else. Usually people leave me alone but if someone does pat me on the shoulder or whatever I literally have to get up and leave to avoid a public meltdown. And then it will be a couple of weeks before I'm brave enough to go to mass again.
I know my reaction is probably extreme but that's the reality of who I am and where I'm at. The church should be able to recognise that everybody is different and if people are clearly trying to avoid the peace then leave them the fuck alone.
I agree entirely. For my own reasons, I avoided the peace for a time. While everybody was milling around, I would sit down with my head bowed, my eyes closed, and my hands on my lap, palms down. I would still get people coming up to me, despite what I had been taught was a basic principle of not disturbing a praying person unless absolutely necessary. One even grabbed my hand from off my lap and started shaking it.
Because of my own reasons for avoiding the peace, this posed no real problem for me but it has given me an awareness of just how intrusive people can be despite obvious "Please leave me alone" signals, and of how difficult it is for people with genuine anxieties to actually avoid being accosted. It seems that the only thing to do is to follow the earlier suggestion of leaving for a minute until everyone has settled down.
Goodness me. I thought people knew better than that! Perhaps those who deliberately come and make a nuisance of themselves when you're praying have problems of their own.
Sometimes I go to the toilet for a little while if some aspect of a church service doesn't sit well with me.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by aumbry
It is the bastard-child of 60s liberal liturgists
Would that be 60 AD or 160 AD, aumbry. Either way, I think you'll find it predates Hippydom by a millenium or two. "Greet one another with the kiss of peace", anyone?
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by aumbry
It is the bastard-child of 60s liberal liturgists
Would that be 60 AD or 160 AD, aumbry. Either way, I think you'll find it predates Hippydom by a millenium or two. "Greet one another with the kiss of peace", anyone?
The poor old early christians are always trotted out to support the latest fad.
Perhaps things have evolved since those days?
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Perhaps things have evolved since those days?
Yes... we've become more individualist and lost our sense of community.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I'll take that as an admission, then, that the peace was not an innovation of the 1960s, but rather the authentic rediscovery of part of the liturgy of the early church.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
There was a KISS of peace in early liturgy. It was dropped (except for a ritual between clergypersons) probably because it had become disorderly. When it was revived the disorderliness returned in spades.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
False in the sense of insincere. I'm sure no one means harm, but aren't those words meant to be a prayer for the other? Mumbling them while looking elsewhere is meaningless istm.
So I shouldn't sing "my richest wealth I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride" because I don't sincerely feel like that? Or pray "the burden of (my sins) is intolerable"? Or say "hello, I hope you're OK" to someone who has been rude to me in the past and I don't like? Or visit someone dying in hospital when it makes me feel awful?
We say and do things without much enthusiasm in the hope we will learn to accept them.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
"Greet one another with the kiss of peace", anyone?
But we can't use this to justify the ritual 'peace be with you' thing part-way through church services as being a necessary thing. The Biblical command is not to shake hands (or hug etc.) with people at a certain point in church services. Did Paul even have church meetings in mind? I'm not sure he did.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I think Paul probably intended his instruction to apply to Christians whenever they met: which is pretty much the practice at many churches, mine included. The services are just a subset of that. My argument is not that it is necessarily required, but that it is valuable, as long as people who don't want to participate are allowed the grace not to so.
Having said that, the practice of sharing the peace as a precursor to the eucharist (in order that we should not approach the Lord's table unworthily because of resentments, etc) is an extremely ancient one.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
recklessrat
Shipmate
# 17243
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
False in the sense of insincere. I'm sure no one means harm, but aren't those words meant to be a prayer for the other? Mumbling them while looking elsewhere is meaningless istm.
They might be. Or it might be a sign of someone pushing through shyness to extend the peace of Christ because they really really believe in & desire to do that despite their personal discomfort.
My friend Adam McHugh has some interesting insight on both passing the peace as well as it's sociable twin, coffee fellowship, here:
introverts in the church
Hello all,
I am newly registered on the site but have been lurking for a while and have enjoyed reading this discussion.
Cliffdweller, I can really relate to what you say about pushing through shyness to extend the peace.
(Thank you also for the link to the introvert book, which I look forward to ordering!)
Due to anxiety, I used to feel sick and nauseous a good 15 minutes before the Peace, and would also feel nauseous if I thought about the Peace anytime before Church on a Sunday morning.
This was due to fear of somehow getting it wrong/going for the same person's hand twice etc.
However I really really believe in the importance of the Peace as tbh, if you can't reach out, both literally and metaphorically, to another person in your own Church, how can you begin to try and reach out to anyone outside it?
And of course as has been mentioned, some people will get no other form of human touch in the week, so I think the Peace is of real importance in that respect.
So despite my fear, I have kept going, and kept giving the Peace. It's not easy, and I'm sure I probably look awkward and nervous when shaking everyone's hands. But I see it as part of my development as a Christian to keep fighting the fear and to keep extending my hand.
Incidentally, I have found my fear to be significantly eased since joining my current C of E church. There are about 25-30 of us, and we go around the church trying to exchange the Peace with most other people, and the Vicar goes round exchanging Peace too.
In the RC church where I grew up, it was a case of just shaking the hands of the people immediately beside you, in front and behind.
You might expect the former example to be more stressful than the latter. However, the friendly compassionate smiles I encounter when giving the Peace in my current church leave me feeling loved and more at ease, and this is followed up at coffee afterwards. At the RC church, the Peace was sped through pretty quickly and felt much more forced and stressful.
But even though it felt that way in the RC church, I still think it was a valuable way of reminding the congregation that we were there together with other people as part of a church community.
--------------------
stay simple, remain whole
Posts: 80 | From: The Shires | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think Paul probably intended his instruction to apply to Christians whenever they met: which is pretty much the practice at many churches, mine included. The services are just a subset of that. My argument is not that it is necessarily required, but that it is valuable, as long as people who don't want to participate are allowed the grace not to so.
Okay, I'll happily agree with all this. My problem is with the ritual aspect, though; if it is intended as a general instruction for all occasions then why ritualise it as part of a church service at all? Why not keep it as a general instruction for how we should relate with one another?
If Christians greet each other warmly when they meet, whatever the context and occasion, what advantage is there in having a ritual peace-greeting as part of church services?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
I serve two churches, one Congregational, the other Baptist. The congregants at both churches (which are small) hobnob both before and after worship; what's more, we have a coffee hour at the Congregational church after the service. Neither church does the Passing of the Peace, and no one has ever mentioned doing so. To me, it would be superfluous. We did it midway through worship in my previous pastorate; some people liked it and others quite vocally did not. It eventually was discontinued one winter over concerns about the spreading of viruses. We never did it again, and frankly, I never missed it. I still don't. I have several times had the experience of doing it in churches where everyone is momentarily friendly during the Peace, and then after the service not a soul has spoken to me.
The whole thing seems to me to be kind of shallow. Just sayin' . . .
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I serve two churches, one Congregational, the other Baptist. The congregants at both churches (which are small) hobnob both before and after worship... I have several times had the experience of doing it in churches where everyone is momentarily friendly during the Peace, and then after the service not a soul has spoken to me.
Exactly what I was getting at. If a church is friendly and welcoming then the peace seems superfluous to me too; if a church is unwelcoming then the peace (on its own) won't do much to address that, I'd have thought. It needs more than a brief ritual once a week to change a community, doesn't it?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boopy
Shipmate
# 4738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Evensong I am glad no one at my church casually dismisses my difficulty with the peace. In the past I have avoided church because people could not understand the difficulty I had, so it was easier, though isolating, not to go.
I submit that in small minority of people there is a pathological inability to exchange the peace (be it Autism, trauma at physical touch, paranoid hypochondria etc)
But in the vast majority, there is no earthly reason why exchanging a handshake and a few words should render people unable to attend church.
It's a pathetic excuse.
In fact, it's no excuse at all.
Let's hope, Evensong, that you never become one of the (quite large) group of people with a degree of social anxiety, whether temporary or as part of eg a depressive disorder. As for those people, the prospect of shaking hands with multiple people can induce anxiety sufficient to make them run from the building. In that situation, I think staying away from church is entirely understandable when the alternative is public distress and embarrassment. Clergy really need to be aware of this not as a remote possibility for a tiny group, but as something within the range of 'to be expected' for quite a lot of people. A bit more empathy needed....
Posts: 1170 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Kevin, it's not so much an issue of affirming general friendliness/Christian goodwill as it is providing a means for individuals with particular tensions or grudges against one another to set those aside, share the peace and thus be able to share the Eucharist in a "worthy" manner. In Eastern Orthodoxy, as I understand it (someone else can provide the details) there's a Lenten service in which worshippers are given significant time to reconcile with any others in the assembly whom they've offended/hurt/treated badly. The Western "passing of the peace" is a kind of short form version of that, in addition to a general expression of harmony and goodwill.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I serve two churches, one Congregational, the other Baptist. The congregants at both churches (which are small) hobnob both before and after worship... I have several times had the experience of doing it in churches where everyone is momentarily friendly during the Peace, and then after the service not a soul has spoken to me.
Exactly what I was getting at. If a church is friendly and welcoming then the peace seems superfluous to me too; if a church is unwelcoming then the peace (on its own) won't do much to address that, I'd have thought. It needs more than a brief ritual once a week to change a community, doesn't it?
But isn't the point, that exchanging the Peace of Christ isn't about friendliness and welcome (if you know what I mean)? The Peace is about exchanging the Peace of Christ - however that is done. Though I agree it seems strange if it's done in an identifiably unfriendly manner.
A little bit like taking communion isn't about a rather pleasant little half-time snack, but about an authentic ritual action. We don't omit the eating and drinking of the communion because we know we're going to get a decent meal; we know the bread and wine means something a little bit more significant than calories and physical sustenance. Exchanging the Peace is a little bit more than smiling and shaking a paw or two.
Thank you, recklessrat, for that lovely post, by the way. And seeing how, for you at any rate, it has helped to transform your experience somewhat, despite your own difficulty with the physical part of exchanging the Peace.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
quote:
But isn't the point, that exchanging the Peace of Christ isn't about friendliness and welcome (if you know what I mean)? The Peace is about exchanging the Peace of Christ - however that is done. Though I agree it seems strange if it's done in an identifiably unfriendly manner.
A little bit like taking communion isn't about a rather pleasant little half-time snack, but about an authentic ritual action. We don't omit the eating and drinking of the communion because we know we're going to get a decent meal; we know the bread and wine means something a little bit more significant than calories and physical sustenance. Exchanging the Peace is a little bit more than smiling and shaking a paw or two.
"A pleasant little half-time snack". Exactly. I feel somewhat the same way about the typically Reformed way of doing Communion as I do about the Passing of the Peace: there's a certain perfunctoriness about it. (Bear in mind, I've been a Congregationalist almost all my life, and the passing of the little "wee cuppies" of grape juice is the way we've always done it.) I don't like it. To me, it lends to the idea that Communion is a mere appendange to what is primarily a preaching service, and it also lends to an audience mentality. No --- get up off your arse, go forward, and receive the Body and Blood of Christ. That's how it should be done.
[ 01. August 2012, 23:58: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The vicar recently just said after the words introducing the Peace 'and for those who wish to, you may offer a sign of peace'. There was an amused tittering, and some shared the peace and others didn't. It seemed a good compromise.
Maybe it is just a matter of perspective.
After all the peace sign (as opposed to the sign of the peace) means something completely different depending on which way round you view it.
Which one in particular? They all probably as silly as each other.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Kevin, it's not so much an issue of affirming general friendliness/Christian goodwill as it is providing a means for individuals with particular tensions or grudges against one another to set those aside, share the peace and thus be able to share the Eucharist in a "worthy" manner.
Hmm, okay. Genuine question - can you or anyone else estimate how well the peace succeeds in this aim? I'm interested to get a sense of whether it does, in reality, help people deal with such issues to any significant extent.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The Peace is about exchanging the Peace of Christ - however that is done. Though I agree it seems strange if it's done in an identifiably unfriendly manner.
But what does that mean, 'the Peace of Christ'? And what makes you think it's something specific or ritualised (struggling for the words, sorry!) that isn't exchanged when we simply relate warmly with each other in the context of our lives together?
As for your point about Communion, Anselmina, I think we've maybe got the wrong end of the stick on that too. It seems in the New Testament that Communion was a meal eaten together with a remembrance of Jesus' life, death and resurrection; so why don't we do the same today? But that's probably another discussion...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
ooops wrong button. Was meant as response to Evensong's outbust. Apologies.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The Peace is about exchanging the Peace of Christ - however that is done. Though I agree it seems strange if it's done in an identifiably unfriendly manner.
But what does that mean, 'the Peace of Christ'? And what makes you think it's something specific or ritualised (struggling for the words, sorry!) that isn't exchanged when we simply relate warmly with each other in the context of our lives together?
As for your point about Communion, Anselmina, I think we've maybe got the wrong end of the stick on that too. It seems in the New Testament that Communion was a meal eaten together with a remembrance of Jesus' life, death and resurrection; so why don't we do the same today? But that's probably another discussion...
As you say, another discussion. Just trying to imagine 'real' meals - sausage and mash, nice fry-up - blending with 'real presence' arguments for the Body and Blood of Christ!
As for the Peace of Christ. I can't explain how it's done metaphysically. Nor how anyone else experiences its effects. But this is how I think of it. On a couple of occasions Christ quite deliberately shared his peace with his disciples at crucial moments of his and their lives. So, imo, it's appropriate an explicit reference should be somewhere in some of our liturgies.
We don't need to shake hands, kiss or whatever to share Christ's Peace - but arguably in the same way it is somehow needful to confess shortcoming, hear the absolution, intercede, pray the collect etc, as a Body, so it is somehow needful to acknowledge the presence of Christ's Peace within the Body as it meets to worship him.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
In Eastern Orthodoxy, as I understand it (someone else can provide the details) there's a Lenten service in which worshippers are given significant time to reconcile with any others in the assembly whom they've offended/hurt/treated badly. The Western "passing of the peace" is a kind of short form version of that, in addition to a general expression of harmony and goodwill.
This is true, and the similarities have been in the back of my mind:
Orthodox faithful mark Forgiveness Sunday
Forgiveness Sunday
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin asks:
quote:
Hmm, okay. Genuine question - can you or anyone else estimate how well the peace succeeds in this aim? I'm interested to get a sense of whether it does, in reality, help people deal with such issues to any significant extent.
This sounds like one of those questions I used to deal with in my former bureaucratic existence. However, I am in the singular position of being able to offer a semi-informed sort-of objective response. I was a member of a parish which became bitterly divided over an extended (10-year) period and eventually split/left. There were three services, an 8.00 BCP low Mass (with no passing of the peace), a 9.15 folk Mass (with passing of the peace) as well as another 11.00 choral eucharist (BCP-- no passing of the peace).
Having studied the situation carefully over many years in committee meetings, parish council and vestries, I can assure you that the peace-passers and the non-passers were equally unanamored of the other. I find it hard to say which was the more vicious and resentful, but the passing of the peace did not make the 9.15 crew any more loving and forgiving. We could argue over which faction might have been the more hypocritical and unXn-- that, I think, is an open question.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
(aside) recklessrat: glad the link was helpful, and hope my friend's book will be as well (maybe I'll hit him up for a cut on the royalty... hehehe). Mostly though, bless you for your faithfulness is pushing thru boundaries even when it's hard. I am glad you've found a parish where that is received with grace and thanksgiving. Yours was a great post that added much to the conversation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
It's very interesting to read where Shipmates have found real help from sharing the peace with someone with whom they are not at peace.
My one observation is this: why wait until Sunday? If sharing the peace is both a corrective and a sign of that corrective having talken place, then why not "go to your brother sister)......" as soon as the problem is recognised.
That's one reason, aside from the personal space issues, why I find (perhaps very cynially) that the giving of the peace during a worship service is forced. If we are real about it, express it daily when we meet or inetrect in soem way.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
In Eastern Orthodoxy, as I understand it (someone else can provide the details) there's a Lenten service in which worshippers are given significant time to reconcile with any others in the assembly whom they've offended/hurt/treated badly. The Western "passing of the peace" is a kind of short form version of that, in addition to a general expression of harmony and goodwill.
This is true, and the similarities have been in the back of my mind:
Orthodox faithful mark Forgiveness Sunday
Forgiveness Sunday
It does coem across that ... you harbour a grudge for a year ... then get it sorted .... pat yourselves on the back publicly. What's the need - surely the Lord's Prayer (to be said daily) does it for you?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Exclamation Mark, I really don't understand the logic of your position. If we were to follow it, we would not meet together for a service at all. I mean, we're supposed to repent of our sins daily? Surely the general confession is superfluous? Are we not to live close to God everyday? What, then, is the point of drawing near to Him around His table?
The truth is that we sacrilise all these acts in order to state to ourselves and others that they are important in and of themselves. They teach us what things are of value. And, of course, if they are of value, why would we not want to do them, at any and every opportunity?
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Exclamation Mark, I really don't understand the logic of your position. If we were to follow it, we would not meet together for a service at all. I mean, we're supposed to repent of our sins daily? Surely the general confession is superfluous? Are we not to live close to God everyday? What, then, is the point of drawing near to Him around His table?
Big question - why do we have church services? In my view, it's not to repent of our sins or even to draw near to God, as such. I'd say we gather as Christians to encourage one another, to share with each other what is going on in our walk with God.
I also think our church services should be a heck of a lot more spontaneous and genuinely God-led than they (my church included) are at the moment, so that whatever needs to happen does happen. Whether that be forgiving one another, confessing to God and each other, praising God, challenging one another, being silent and listening for God's guidance etc.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It does coem across that ... you harbour a grudge for a year ... then get it sorted .... pat yourselves on the back publicly. What's the need - surely the Lord's Prayer (to be said daily) does it for you?
This, again, could only come from somebody without the experience of the context.
LutheranChik and Mark did not say that the Rite of Mutual Forgiveness is the only expression of reconciliation. Before each confession, before confessing his sins in the hearing of the priest, the penitent bows to the people and asks their prayers and forgiveness. Prior to receiving Communion, communicants venerate icons asking forgiveness of God and of the saints, before bowing to the congregation and asking their forgiveness as above.
These things are signs of recognition that when we sin, however we sin, we do some damage to the communion that exists among us both when that sin directly hurts or offends someone and when it doesn't. Certainly, holding a grudge runs against how we are taught to live and grow into Christ. That doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate to give particular focus from time to time to reconciling ourselves to each other in a more direct way.
[ 02. August 2012, 07:40: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin, I wouldn't necessarily differ from you here, but spontenaity, and a liturgical framework around which spontenaity can occur, are not mutually exclusive. Because we want all the things you want, that does not preclude the communal restatement, before God and the world, of the things we believe in, and the application of those things. It's an important part of building community that there should be both individual encouragement and a reaffirmation of shared values.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
There's plenty of kissing at our place - people shake hands, hug, or kiss as they feel is appropriate. Our vicar kisses everyone in sight, .
It's one thing when two people who are comfortable with it mutually agree to kiss...but a vicar (or anyone) kissing "everyone in sight"?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Exclamation Mark, I really don't understand the logic of your position. If we were to follow it, we would not meet together for a service at all. I mean, we're supposed to repent of our sins daily? Surely the general confession is superfluous? Are we not to live close to God everyday? What, then, is the point of drawing near to Him around His table?
The truth is that we sacrilise all these acts in order to state to ourselves and others that they are important in and of themselves. They teach us what things are of value. And, of course, if they are of value, why would we not want to do them, at any and every opportunity?
I don't see what iI've said as a substitute, more complementary. General confession - fine. Specific confessions to one another as appropriate - fine too. My point was, in essence, this: don't wait until sunday to sort something you know you can sort sooner.
Why not say the general confession daily?
Drawing near around the table is the highpoint that we reach by the quality of our everyday relationships with one naother and with God, not once a week hit and runs where we believe we have sorted it out and we can mess about with impunity until next week.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
[QUOTE]That doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate to give particular focus from time to time to reconciling ourselves to each other in a more direct way.
Provided that from "time to time" clearly includes the possibility of a daily action.
I don't doubt the veracity or helpfulness of what you mention but I'd rather see it on a more ad hoc footing as necessary rather than a planned exercise. See James 5 - "...confess your sins to one another ...." neither includes nor excludes a time frame!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
[QUOTE]That doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate to give particular focus from time to time to reconciling ourselves to each other in a more direct way.
Provided that from "time to time" clearly includes the possibility of a daily action.
I don't doubt the veracity or helpfulness of what you mention but I'd rather see it on a more ad hoc footing as necessary rather than a planned exercise. See James 5 - "...confess your sins to one another ...." neither includes nor excludes a time frame!
But asking forgiveness of each other, apologising for wrongs done, and seeking to be at peace with other do have an ad hoc footing. Anything less would be a severely impoverished Christian life. However, the discussion here is specifically about the liturgical expressions of that (and why this thread is still in Purgatory is something of a mystery to me), so most people's comments have been limited to that context of expressing this in a service. None of that precludes the right and proper practice of my making a telephone call when I get home from church because I realise on my way home that something I said may have upset someone or because I lost patience with people who were doing their best but didn't manage to get things quite right.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by ExclamationMark
Drawing near around the table is the highpoint that we reach by the quality of our everyday relationships with one naother and with God, not once a week hit and runs where we believe we have sorted it out and we can mess about with impunity until next week.
I never suggested anything to the contrary. My point was, that by doing this formally, (whether passing the peace, gathering around the table or confessing our sins) in the context of public worship, it emphasises the importance of these activities to our faith, and therefore encourages us to do them day by day, as part of our shared values.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
There's plenty of kissing at our place - people shake hands, hug, or kiss as they feel is appropriate. Our vicar kisses everyone in sight, .
It's one thing when two people who are comfortable with it mutually agree to kiss...but a vicar (or anyone) kissing "everyone in sight"?
Well, perhaps not everyone - but a good number of people hug and/or kiss because a good number of our congo are comfortable with it. We are a very mixed bunch racially and culturally and for a lot of people a kiss in greeting is normal.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by ExclamationMark
Drawing near around the table is the highpoint that we reach by the quality of our everyday relationships with one naother and with God, not once a week hit and runs where we believe we have sorted it out and we can mess about with impunity until next week.
I never suggested anything to the contrary. My point was, that by doing this formally, (whether passing the peace, gathering around the table or confessing our sins) in the context of public worship, it emphasises the importance of these activities to our faith, and therefore encourages us to do them day by day, as part of our shared values.
I agree with you although would qualify this by what I wrote earlier about the twin dangers of
a) thinking that by sharing the peace we have done "it" as opposed to being it and remaining it
b) exclusivism - locking out those people from a physical action because they (for one reason or another) don't like close contact. Being locked out physically can say - to some - that they are locked out spiritually.
I don't know the exact answer I'm afraid but there has to be some expression of community that is inclusive without being threatening. How do we really engage with the idea of "Christ is our peace...?"
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
Whenever I attend my local RC church some people will shake hands, while many will glare at each other out of the corner of their eyes. I get stressed before the Peace. I like to shake hands, myself.
I find it better in the Orthodox church I attend where we don't do this.
When I'm in Germany and attend Mass I've felt pretty welcomed when people pass the Peace with me.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
