Ship of Fools: Giving the sign of peace

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » » Oblivion » Giving the sign of peace (Page 1)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Giving the sign of peace

Lucydog
Apprentice
# 15116

Posted

we are trying to find ways of making our church (small, rural CofE)more attractive to people don't come. There are many people who support the church through flower arranging/cleaning/cake baking etc who don't come and worship - though they did in the past. A couple of times I've asked them why and the answer has been they they really dislike exchanging a sign of peace (i.e. handshake). Obviously they don't HAVE to do it, but would feel uncomfortable if they didn't. Initially that came as a surprise, but this feeling is not unusual. What is of concern to me (in our search to make the church more attractive) is that it seems to go against the grain of what is assumed to be a 'good' church - i.e. welcoming, warm etc. People have said that they wanted to be 'left to worship in peace'. Have other people met with this, and has anyone any thoughts of how it can be accomodated in our services?

[ 30. July 2012, 11:09: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2009 | IP: Logged

Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

Posted

When people do the peace thing, it doesn't come across (to me) as the church being friendly, people are greeting their pewmates as a formality because they were just that moment told to, so the "greeting" aspect comes across as superficial. A warm smile when you enter, a cheerful offer to lead the newcomer to coffee after (preferably by the seatmate instead of someone wearing a label "official greeter") have much more to do with conveying welcome. IMHO.

These people are demonstrating some kind of interest in church, just not the kind you expect. Why not ask them if there are other ways they would like to be involved but see barriers.

Be aware we all have limited time. If you get them to come Sunday mornings that may decrease the time they have available for "flower arranging/cleaning/cake baking etc."

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Uncle Pete

Loyaute me lie
# 10422

Posted

I do an Namaste greeting, mostly. If someone gets there first and has a hand ready to shake, I do shake it. Now, though, namaste seems to be catching on. I can only hope.

--------------------
Even more so than I was before

Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005 | IP: Logged

Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

Posted

I loved the episode in "The Vicar of Dibley" where the parish council discusses this practice.

If anyone can find it I would love to see it again.

I think it expresses it very nicely. [Biased]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

Posted

I get a small buzz out of sharing the peace. It incites a very mild form of anxiety, crossed with a welcome opportunity for nonthreatening physical contact with people who may be complete strangers to me. I appreciate the sense of community it gives. I'd feel a bit sad to visit a church and find that noone wanted to touch anyone else during the peace. I've never had that experience.

But the problem with viewing church as community, as 'we', is that it clashes with some people's idea of church as 'me and God'. If church is just 'me and God', then touching strangers' hands is irrelevant and entirely unnecessary. At certain times in our lives I imagine we all have that feeling.

Still, if the people mentioned in the OP know each other it's hard to understand why a handshake and a greeting are so uncomfortable for them. Maybe the church needs to create more opportunities for people to get to know each other.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012 | IP: Logged

South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe the church needs to create more opportunities for people to get to know each other.

Lucydog, could your church do the above in some way and also not do the peace for a while? Or is the peace a required part of Anglican services?

I also find it odd that people are so put off by a handshake and quick word with a few other folks that they choose not to attend church services. I'd love to have a chat with them and find out what they're thinking!

--------------------
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

Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe the church needs to create more opportunities for people to get to know each other.
Lucydog, could your church do the above in some way and also not do the peace for a while? Or is the peace a required part of Anglican services?

I also find it odd that people are so put off by a handshake and quick word with a few other folks that they choose not to attend church services. I'd love to have a chat with them and find out what they're thinking!

This has been touched in previous threads over the years. Reasons I have heard include a sentiment that it is in an intrusion into their worship, that it becomes an occasion for socialization best left for the coffee hour, it is a false gesture that excuses people from substantial acts of brotherhood, that it is a custom imposed on them from outside and, when it gets to the embracing stage, occasion for unwelcome familiarities (amusing if slightly disturbing anecdotes available upon application).

I'm not persuaded that the benefits outweigh the discomfort it causes many, but YMMV.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
What is of concern to me (in our search to make the church more attractive) is that it seems to go against the grain of what is assumed to be a 'good' church - i.e. welcoming, warm etc. People have said that they wanted to be 'left to worship in peace'. Have other people met with this, and has anyone any thoughts of how it can be accomodated in our services?

It seems to me its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

My understanding of the increase in Cathedral attendance is precisely because of this - people want anonymity and do not want to get "involved" in a community. They just want to come and worship.

Which, as you say, is the opposite of the parish church model most of us try so hard to make a reality.

Personally I reckon not attending because of the peace sounds like a load of bollocks.

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009 | IP: Logged

Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I reckon not attending because of the peace sounds like a load of bollocks.

Which is why some up thread have suggested chatting with these people. It does seem a bit unusually strong a reaction, even for people who would cheer if the "peace" were discarded.

I have run into two legitimate concerns -- one is the person with arthritic hands who has suffered painful episodes during the peace and doesn't want to risk a repeat. The other is the germ concern, especially a concern for those with a compromised immune system, shaking hands with lots of people who have been handling who knows what since they last washed and then consuming those germs via receiving the bread in hand.

Chatting with the people involved could unearth concerns like these and possible ways to deal with them.

But I have also met people who don't believe in God yet feel some kind of gratitude to the church, perhaps for helping with their elderly mother, and want to express it by doing something like volunteering but not by attending.

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

Huia
Shipmate
# 3473

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I reckon not attending because of the peace sounds like a load of bollocks.

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.

Now I go to a church that has a passing of the peace on a sporadic basis and it's easier because the namaste greeting that Pete mentioned, is perfectly acceptable.

If a church is trying to welcome new people, as well as being inviting to people who used to attend (as Lucydog mentioned) then it needs to be understanding of what may seem strange in the needs those people have.

--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.

Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002 | IP: Logged

Cryptic
Shipmate
# 16917

Posted

When the greeting of peace become common in Australia (or at least in my part of Australia), I think it was in the late 70s or early 80s following the release of the AAPB prayer book, many clergy seemed to latch on to the sharing of the peace. It was the new thing, it modernised the liturgy and made it look like they were doing something! The only problem was that a lot of congregations hated it and refused to participate, or did it with such enthusiasm that it was like the hubbub in the bar of a theatre during interval. At no stage, though, don't ever remember a clergyman explaining to a congregation why it was in the service, and why it was important (I did also go to some churches with pretty low-grade clergy around that time, so YMMV).

I do have a lot of sympathy with the idea that people often want to worship anonymously and in their own space - I have been in that situation myself. It did take me some time to be comfortable with the practice, however I am now totally comfortable with it - but it has to be done within the liturgy and with some dignity - the theatre bar version still gives me the horrors.

My suggestion is that your church/clergy need to do a bit of education about the symbolic meaning of the act, and point out that it's not a social greeting. Maybe even lay down some guidelines about quietly greeting the few people around you etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Personally I reckon not attending because of the peace sounds like a load of bollocks.

Agreed. Excuses about sharing the peace, germs, the common cup etc always strike me as justification for "I'm not sure about this", "I don't really like this church but I don't want to tell you that" or just "I'm not interested in church any more"...

--------------------
Illegitimi non carborundum

Posts: 225 | From: Sydney | Registered: Feb 2012 | IP: Logged

Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

Posted

I'm actually wondering, Lucydog, whether objecting to shaking hands at the peace is the "stated", as against "real", reason people don't attend church. If you really know, or got to know, some of these non-attenders, you might find the reason goes a bit deeper. I'm not sure Evensong's "bollocks" suggestion is helpful here: I think the matter needs a somewhat more sensitive approach.

Having said this, I think it should always be made clear, if in doubt, that "the sign of peace" does not necessarily mean handshakes. Pete's namaste; a wave or a smile would also pass muster in my book.

What I do find a pain in the ass is when the peace becomes a great song and dance effort: when it can detract from the focus of the Eucharist itself. It is a communal ceremony, but its ultimate focus is up to God and then down to us. The "horizontal" dimension - between us - depends on aforesaid "vertical" dimension.

If it were merely a communal ceremony there would have been no need for Christ's birth; life, teaching and miracles; suffering, death and glorious resurrection. Sadly, I think we sometimes miss this point.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006 | IP: Logged

Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

Posted

Here is an interesting meditation on the Passing of the Peace,

This is one of the most ancient liturgical practices in the church. There was once a time if you would not pass the peace with your fellow worshipers, you would not be allowed to go to communion.

Personally, I think those who refuse to come to church because of this ancient practice are missing out on what it means to be a Christian.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011 | IP: Logged

Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...
Personally, I think those who refuse to come to church because of this ancient practice are missing out on what it means to be a Christian.

The Church, in many ways, is a school for Christianity.

I have a horrible suspicion that, when this practice was re-introduced into some Churches, after a long period in abeyance, the reasons may not have been made perfectly clear. Many recent returnees IME seem a little nonplussed by it. I can remember talking to some about it and their saying it made them feel a little ill at ease.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006 | IP: Logged

The Silent Acolyte

Shipmate
# 1158

Posted

Here are ten Ecclesiantical Observations:

No idle chatter, please. No, "How's the wife and kids?" No, "So glad to see you back from vacation; How was the shore?" No, "You do remember the hassock-stuffing work-party on Thursday, don't you?"
Do say these words, "The peace of the Lord be with you," or some abbreviation.
Why? Because the Exchange of the Peace is not all about you. It's not about being welcoming and inclusive and upping the odds of those lovely visitors in the second row coming back next week.
It is about sealing the mystical communion of the Eucharist with one's fellows present.
It is the Lord's peace, not fully yours. So, handle it with care and respect.
No phreakin' hugging! Or, even handshaking. Unless you are sure that the other person will welcome the physical contact.
DO NOT try to complete the graph. It is not necessary for there to be n*(n-1)/2 greetings.
Just greet some subset of those directly adjacent to you.
The Kiss of Peace has moved around over the years. If it is too enthusiastic a scrum of well-wishing at your parish, then move it to right after the Lord's Prayer.
If everybody is kneeling at that point, all the better.

Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001 | IP: Logged

ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

Posted

If, as a regular churchgoer, I find it hard to participate in the peace, then it's possible that my reason(s) are more common that I imagined for irregular or first time visitors.

On the occasions when I do attend a church where the peace is shared (the new Jerusalem doesn't do it), I find it squirmingly forced and rather off putting. Not so bad if I'm with family but it's the others who try it on - even the Mark famous laser gaze doesn't put them off as they hone in on me hand outstretched, lips puckering ....I mean, we haven't been properly introduced and some of them might be in trade [Paranoid]

When I lived in , and attended the parish church of a village, I'd probably be less likely still to exchange a sign of peace with people I knew well - I might "know" them too well from unfortunate romantic attractions, to those with well known peccadillos, to people I suspected of breaking my fences or stealing my cat/wife/sheep lol

Joking apart, in my own church we are given to dispays of affection which atre natural and unforced but the peace does reverberate with the idea of soemthing we ought to do, promoted by a leader with a sickly smile. Just seems false. I usually exchange the peace with a handshake as I meet people when I come in - on their terms.

[ 30. July 2012, 05:55: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009 | IP: Logged

Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I loved the episode in "The Vicar of Dibley" where the parish council discusses this practice.

If anyone can find it I would love to see it again.

I think it expresses it very nicely.

Is this the one Freddy?
The Vicar of Dibley: Songs Of Praise 1.2 [1/2]
The Vicar of Dibley: Songs Of Praise 1.2 [2/2]

--------------------
"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

Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

Posted

(Ahem!) Anyway, there's some truth in the Vicar of Dibly sequence, where a dirty old man might like to shake hands with the volumptuous blonde young thing adjacent to him, but just wave at the wirey haired old lady in the back pew.

I don't have a problem with it theologically, but it does seem forced, and some will just shake hands with only their family or do it with people they don't know through gritted teeth.

Besides, why do you have to make peace with people, when you were never not at peace with them in the first place? I dare say some people like it, while others don't, but it shouldn't be a reason to avoid attending church altogether.

--------------------
"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

ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
.... but it shouldn't be a reason to avoid attending church altogether.

Perhaps not to you or me .... but it might be to the chronically shy or the person with concerns around others (same or opposite sex) touching them even in piublic, even in a friendly way. The churches have a proportion of recovering people who find some things we do so hurtful and so reminiscent of their abuse that they just can't accept it.

Understand that for some who were abused in the church itself, that any church building is a far from safe place. What about the teenager being abused by his/her youth leader who approaches her every sunday for a hug at the peace yet does unspeakable things on a monday night after club?

You're hardly likely to get people admitting to this stuff outright (it may have been hidden for years) as they never told anyone before. So, they do what we all do when soemthing cuts too deeply, they dissemble and give aind of explanation that others find laughable and/or silly but which is nothing of the kind.

You can't escape from the fact that a lot of people actually find it twee and embarassing: you may not want that week to do it as you're feeling down. Once you're in the building there's no where to run or hide once the peace kicks off. Even remaining in an attitude of prayer, reading a bible doesn't deter the zealous faithful .....

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009 | IP: Logged

Lucydog
Apprentice
# 15116

Posted

thank you everybody for your wise words. Like most of you, I like giving the sign of peace, and it's an important part of the service for me, but I recognise that we all have different expectations of worship. I also accept that there will generally be more to a person's absence from church than just this one reason (but I don't feel it's appropriate for me to probe deeper in these circumstances)
As a relative newcomer to the CofE, though, can anyone tell me if this is the officially approved way of doing things, or are churches allowed to make up their own minds about this.

Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2009 | IP: Logged

Cryptic
Shipmate
# 16917

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Once you're in the building there's no where to run or hide once the peace kicks off.

There are a couple of members of our congregation that don't particularly like the sharing of the peace. They just quietly slip out for a few minutes after the intercessions and come back in during the offertory hymn, but I can see that if you were a vistor or "inexperienced" churchgoer, that's not always a good solution, you'd probably feel like you were drawing attention to yourself.

--------------------
Illegitimi non carborundum

Posts: 225 | From: Sydney | Registered: Feb 2012 | IP: Logged

cosmic dance
Shipmate
# 14025

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Besides, why do you have to make peace with people, when you were never not at peace with them in the first place? I dare say some people like it, while others don't, but it shouldn't be a reason to avoid attending church altogether.

I thought this was the whole point Mark. Usually in our church the peace is immediately before the Eucharist. To be in communion with the Lord, we also need to be in communion with one another. So as I understand it, the 'passing of the peace' is to provide an opportunity to be reconciled with or apologise to anyone who you may have offended, so that you can take communion with a clear conscience. Of course, not everyone you greet in peace will be someone who you have offended - I hope - but it does make the point that we are to be in communion with one another.

--------------------
"No method, no teacher, no guru..." Van Morrison.

Posts: 233 | From: godzone | Registered: Aug 2008 | IP: Logged

Amos

Shipmate
# 44

Posted

Does your church have an 8 am BCP Holy Communion? That's the one for people who don't like exchanging the Peace.
One of the difficulties with small, friendly, rural churches is that people tend to exchange the Peace with everyone else in the congregation, not just the people sitting adjacent to them. There will be a certain blurring of the edge between the liturgical and the social in that case, as well as quite a lot of rushing around. The answer is to keep it short. The beginning of the Offertory Hymn signals the end of the exchange of the Peace.

--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken

Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

Posted

I agree with much of what TSA says, but I'm one of those who likes the peace. We've had the 2 great commandments read to us, sought mercy, confessed and been absolved. Now's the time to be at peace with our neighbours, who we should love as ourselves. But just a shake of the hand, no hugging, no kissing. And a simple greeting, as TSA suggests. Although if someone's spouse has recently died, and its their first return to the usual service, you can say "peace be with you, especially in this time of bereavement" or soothing like that. "Peace be with you in this time of great joy" is also OK to a new parent. "Peace be with you in your recuperation" after an extended absence for illness. Nothing more; welcomes back from holidays are for outside. And there's no need to go beyond the pews around you. Most certainly, don't charge half-way down the aisle to greet a particular friend and ignore others on the journey there and back.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008 | IP: Logged

Huia
Shipmate
# 3473

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Perhaps not to you or me .... but it might be to the chronically shy or the person with concerns around others (same or opposite sex) touching them even in piublic, even in a friendly way. The churches have a proportion of recovering people who find some things we do so hurtful and so reminiscent of their abuse that they just can't accept it.

(Snip)

You're hardly likely to get people admitting to this stuff outright (it may have been hidden for years) as they never told anyone before. So, they do what we all do when soemthing cuts too deeply, they dissemble and give aind of explanation that others find laughable and/or silly but which is nothing of the kind.

You can't escape from the fact that a lot of people actually find it twee and embarassing: you may not want that week to do it as you're feeling down. Once you're in the building there's no where to run or hide once the peace kicks off. Even remaining in an attitude of prayer, reading a bible doesn't deter the zealous faithful .....

Exclamation Mark, thank-you for spelling out the point I was trying to make. God alone knows how difficult it is sometimes to actually turn up at church, without people making judgements about whether or not I am a "good Christian" for not sharing the peace - how ever ancient a custom it is.

And I would also like to say - the church I attend is growing, in part because new people aren't judged, in the way I wasn't when I turned up.

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

Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

Posted

IME in several liturgical churches, many people just smile and/or nod--especially when there aren't many attendees, and they're spread out. Seems to work ok.

--------------------
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

South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IME in several liturgical churches, many people just smile and/or nod--especially when there aren't many attendees, and they're spread out.

Although if the people are choosing to sit far apart from one another then there's maybe a more serious problem regarding lack of community, and the peace might indeed be something of an awkward formality...

--------------------
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

(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

Posted

May I suggest that you try substituting a pax-brede instead of the now-usual handshake? This is a small silver plate (although another substance might work) inscribed with an image of the pelican in her piety (again, another image might work, although I'm attached to this one). During the peace, the people come forward to venerate this item by osculating it. Its use has fallen slightly out of favour since the peace was extended from the sacred ministers to the whole congregation, but it should work wonderfully in a small church and is far less likely to degenerate into a social hour (which, I agree, is something that must be avoided at all costs).

--------------------
'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

Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

Posted

Ummm...

IIRC, osculation = kissing? If people are reluctant to touch each other, I'm not sure that sharing germs on an object will appeal to them...

--------------------
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

Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

Posted

What about those who love a hug? There are many elderly people who attend our church - for many, the only hugs they have now are at church. (We are a very huggy church - those who dislike physical contact are respected of course. But they need to let us know.)

I'm a very huggy person and all my greetings with friends are hugs!

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

chive

Ship's nude
# 208

Posted

I hate, hate, hate, hate the peace. Because of my madness being touched by someone I don't know, even a handshake can literally make my mentalism spiral to the extent I will be unable to work for a few days. Shaking someone's hand is not worth that. Most of the people in my old church knew and understood that and left me to it but I've had to retrain people in my new church to leave me the hell alone during the peace.

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.

--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost

Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

Posted

May I suggest people take time to read my first thread in Hell which is on this topic.

What I got first and foremost is that touch must be mutually agreed, there are ways of negotiating it (mainly non-verbal) and if someone is clearly signalling not to touch, DO NOT. You do not know why they are so signalling. It may be arthritus, or other painful cause, it may be memories* of past sexual abuse.

People do signal, they do it almost unconsiously and will quite often flinch if you touch them. So this is not a call for banning of physical touch but it is a call to be aware of the other person involved. Those not wanting touch may have very strong reasons for not wanting it.

Jengie

*memories sounds weak for something that can in severe cases produce flashbacks to the situation of abuse.

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

What I got first and foremost is that touch must be mutually agreed, there are ways of negotiating it (mainly non-verbal) and if someone is clearly signalling not to touch, DO NOT.

Yep.

I have arthritis in my hands - a firm handshake HURTS!

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

My understanding of the increase in Cathedral attendance is precisely because of this - people want anonymity and do not want to get "involved" in a community. They just want to come and worship.

Yet, in most cathedrals, the sharing of the Peace is the norm. I wonder if part of the resistance in Lucydog's parish is the sense that it's forced and artificial because everybody knows everybody else anyway. In a more anonymous crowd it becomes a sign of a deeper solidarity.

--------------------
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

Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814

Posted

I'm not familiar with the passing of the peace in a more formal liturgical setting but...

The congregatiion when I'm at Matarangi is small and ageing. The mingling is a joyful time, but those who are close friends hug and one offers a smile and a welcoming handshake to visitors and to not such close friends. You can tell who else would welcome a hug (as another post pointed out, there are older folk who don't get the equivalent elsewhere).

In the larger more mixed-age congo in the city, still some hugging where a particular concern in felt – but we don't 'do the peace' so often.

I think the emphasis in our Presy/Union culture for some time now is that worship is much more focussed on the family unity, together in Christ, of the worshipping folk, and there are fewer who come for a time of 'me and God' – maybe they've gone down to the cathedral?

I tend to use the formula that was current in a UCA congregation I visited in Perth – 'Peace and Blessing' with a warm smile and a firm handshake.

GG

--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113

Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008 | IP: Logged

LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

Posted

quote:
The Silent Acolyte: Do say these words, "The peace of the Lord be with you," or some abbreviation.

I usually say "The peace of Christ" (A paz de Cristo). I don't know whether that's liturgically correct.

And sometimes I walk a long way in Church, shaking various hands [Smile]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What about those who love a hug?

The liturgy isn't primarily about getting our "fix" of the things that make us feel warm and cosy. I like quaffing industrial quantities of red wine, but I think we all know where that would get us if I tried doing it during a Communion service.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003 | IP: Logged

SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

Posted

Perhaps sharing the peace is more of an issue in a particularly sacramental and/or high church setting, because it breaks into the sense of awe and mystery that such churches try to foster? I can't imagine that it would be such an issue in other kinds of church.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012 | IP: Logged

Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

Posted

I always think of 'The Peace' as 'The Peace of Christ'. Which for me puts it into perspective as it is harder to deliberately refuse to give or receive the 'Peace of Christ' than merely shake hands, if you know what it is you're actually doing. But I'd be equally happy sharing the Peace in the way I grew up with where the minister and congregation simply exchanged the bidding and response. I'm a minimalist hand-shaker myself!

I think it would be a retrograde step abandoning the shaking hands thing, if that's what a church already does. I imagine, too, shaking hands was a compromise for the uptight, on the scriptural instruction of 'greet one another with a holy kiss'. But again I understand that liturgically that would've come at the point of a eucharist service where the non-baptized would've left the main congregation for their catechism, leaving the committed communicants, who presumably wouldn't've had a problem with sharing the Peace of Christ.

It must be more difficult for some people who find themselves caught, therefore, in a ritual act intended originally for initiates, when they're new, visiting or don't know what's happening. And kudos for going out and asking. I hope it was a great opportunity to explain a bit what goes on and why, as well as reassure folks they don't have to shake hands if they don't want to.

I tend to think, nonetheless, that the idea that people don't come because they don't like shaking hands with the person next to them sounds more like a red herring, to cover other reasons. You may as well say, 'I don't fly any more because the big compulsory smiles of the flight crew as I get on and off the plane make me feel really uncomfortable'.

I'm trying to remember the last time I heard a Muslim man complain he never went to Friday prayer because he didn't like to put his face to the floor, or have another man's face directly behind his butt!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002 | IP: Logged

Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What about those who love a hug?
The liturgy isn't primarily about getting our "fix" of the things that make us feel warm and cosy. I like quaffing industrial quantities of red wine, but I think we all know where that would get us if I tried doing it during a Communion service.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002 | IP: Logged

Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What about those who love a hug?
The liturgy isn't primarily about getting our "fix" of the things that make us feel warm and cosy. I like quaffing industrial quantities of red wine, but I think we all know where that would get us if I tried doing it during a Communion service.

Haha - good point. I'm a low Church Methodist and know nothing of liturgy. But I don't see a kindly touch as a 'fix'. I see it as a human need, one which - for some (especially the elderly) - is only to be found at Church.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

Posted

What you're aiming for is certainly good and laudable. Have you considered the value of having more Morning Prayer services (which are generally more welcoming to outsiders) and fewer eucharistic ones?

There's the text of a helpful talk here, done by a bishop at the CRE this year.

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.

Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004 | IP: Logged

Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps sharing the peace is more of an issue in a particularly sacramental and/or high church setting, because it breaks into the sense of awe and mystery that such churches try to foster? I can't imagine that it would be such an issue in other kinds of church.

High church maybe, if 'awe and mystery' are synonyms for pomp and impersonality. Sacramental, no, because the awe and mystery, by definition, are conveyed by simple everyday realities. Bread and wine primarily, but also by touch, smiles, greeting. St Paul warned about coming to communion and not discerning the Body of Christ. While the Peace (especially as often performed) is not the same thing as 'discerning the Body of Christ', if we don't recognise Christ in our brothers and sisters we're not going to recognise him in the bread and wine either.

--------------------
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

Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I loved the episode in "The Vicar of Dibley" where the parish council discusses this practice.
Is this the one Freddy?
The Vicar of Dibley: Songs Of Praise 1.2 [1/2]

That's it. Thanks! [Killing me]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Hoagy
Apprentice
# 12305

Posted

Enjoying a years sabbatical from my old Church after 12 years and 10 on the PCC & an ex Treasurer.

I used to love exchanging the sign of Peace but over the last 4 years found it at times giggling by some as the 40-50 congregation moved around,and the Kissing by the Wardens on a selected few stomach turning.

Having been to a Mass in Malta the Congregation bowed and there was no handshakes which I prefer,as I found them to be sincere.

Posts: 17 | From: North of England | Registered: Jan 2007 | IP: Logged

SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
While the Peace (especially as often performed) is not the same thing as 'discerning the Body of Christ', if we don't recognise Christ in our brothers and sisters we're not going to recognise him in the bread and wine either.

What's wrong with how the peace is often 'performed'?

Some commentators on this thread disapprove of how it sometimes becomes an opportunity for socialising. Is this the problem? I don't see why the social aspects should be a problem, although I think it's a shame if the time is used to chat only to one person, instead of greeting several. But that doesn't happen a lot, does it? If so, the minister can simply remind the congregation to share the peace with as many people as possible.

I'm sure there are many creative ways in which congregations could share the peace, but in my experience there's not usually much attempt to develop the practice.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012 | IP: Logged

Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Some commentators on this thread disapprove of how it sometimes becomes an opportunity for socialising. Is this the problem?

Well yes, because the Peace is a liturgical act, symbolic of our solidarity (and hence our need to socialise), but it points deeper. In much the same way our receiving of communion reflects our need to eat and drink, but points deeper than that. If we had a full-scale meal at that point, instead of a tiny piece of bread and a sip of wine, its significance would be lost.

--------------------
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

ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
May I suggest that you try substituting a pax-brede instead of the now-usual handshake? This is a small silver plate (although another substance might work) inscribed with an image of the pelican in her piety (again, another image might work, although I'm attached to this one). During the peace, the people come forward to venerate this item by osculating it.

Venerating an item????

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009 | IP: Logged

LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

Posted

Way back in this thread I think Sir Pellimore made an excellent point about how this practice was reintroduced into worship without much of an explanation. If worshippers understood the history and liturgical significance of the peace, I think many of them would be less uncomfortable.

On the other hand...I recall, having moved to a different city and checking out local churches, visiting one where passing the peace had devolved into something that seemed like a pre-orgy group grope -- waaay too handsy and slobbery. My only thought was "Get me the hell out of here before people start taking off their clothes."

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005 | IP: Logged

SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Some commentators on this thread disapprove of how it sometimes becomes an opportunity for socialising. Is this the problem?
Well yes, because the Peace is a liturgical act, symbolic of our solidarity (and hence our need to socialise), but it points deeper. In much the same way our receiving of communion reflects our need to eat and drink, but points deeper than that. If we had a full-scale meal at that point, instead of a tiny piece of bread and a sip of wine, its significance would be lost.

Interesting. Some commentators feel that a meal would actually be better than a wafer and a sip of wine.

I'm not an Anglican, and must admit that I don't take a hugely sacramental view of things.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012 | IP: Logged

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website