Ship of Fools: Giving the sign of peace

Thread: Giving the sign of peace Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023343

Posted by Lucydog (# 15116) on :

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 ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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."

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

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.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

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]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

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.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

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.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

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.

Posted by Cryptic (# 16917) on :

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"...

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

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.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

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.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

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.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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 ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

(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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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 .....

Posted by Lucydog (# 15116) on :

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.

Posted by Cryptic (# 16917) on :

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.

Posted by cosmic dance (# 14025) on :

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.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

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

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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...

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

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).

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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...

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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!

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

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

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

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]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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!

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

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]

Posted by Hoagy (# 12305) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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????

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

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."

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I think passing the peace is a good thing, and I also think that no one should feel that they have to physically touch or be touched.

Even if no one in your church has ever seen the namaste greeting, no one can shake your hand while you are doing it. I can't imagine anyone trying.

ETA: Yesterday at the exchange of the peace I took the opportunity to speak to a man who was in the church for the first time in months; he had suffered a heart attack. It seemed right to tell him how glad I was to see him in the context of the Eucharist.

Moo

[ 30. July 2012, 12:28: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

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.

[ 30. July 2012, 12:34: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In some churches, if you look as though you're deep in prayer everyone else will leave you alone. Surely this is an excellent way of preventing people from pestering you during the peace.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

It is an excuse, but usually for a deeper reason, some of which I outlined in my post at the beginning of the thread. It may be that the individuals in question haven't delved introspectively as to exactly why it bothers them. And it doesn't have to be a syndrome before it becomes a problem for people. For some, it is a step-too-far in a series of imposed liturgical changes.

I understand that for many people it is very meaningful. I would hope that they understand that for others it is meaningless and disruptive, even if not more problematic. If it appears to be compulsory, and it often does, this compounds the problem.

Curiously, I have found the passing of the peace in Spanish and French churches to be more natural and much less fussy. In the vast majority of anglophone churches I have attended (80%), it is a social event and, the more social it is, the more certain it will be that the visitor will be ignored at the coffee hour.

As far as hugs go, I will note that I have twice been butt-squeezed by huggers, so shipmates should not be distressed that I prefer the 8.00 service where this is not likely to be a danger.
(I did try PeteC's namaste approach and two times out of four, found my hands grasped anyway).

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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)

I submit the minority is much bigger than you think, and that the reason you think it is so small is because such people often do not want to draw attention to themselves.

As one I find it scarily common how often I come across others with similar problems and mine are mild.

Jengie

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huia:
[qb] It's a pathetic excuse.

In fact, it's no excuse at all.

That's a harsh judgment call from someone who calls themselves postmodern - especially when you cannot (in this context) discover the actual reasons behind individuals' reluctance to participate in the peace.

You may be fine with others invading your personal space - ands that's fine for you as it helps your worship. Others don't appreciate this invasion and would rather stay at home than face it. If they aren't forced tpo take part by over zealous individuals, their worship can be enhanced too.

Why should they be forced to dip out because the church culture presupposes a desire for involvement? Want an exchnage - fine, stand up. Don't want it? Sit still and pray but don't anyone break into that.

What did we used to do before showing a sign of peace was popularised? Why did we change?

The answer to the first part is - we did nothing. Why did we change - because the liturgy told us to. If we wanted to show the peace we would (?should) have done it before new forms of liturgy were popularised. Why be made to do things when we should be allowed a choice as reasonable adults?

I'd lose 20% + of my congregation if we introduced the peace - not because of theology but because of aversion and (past) abuse. Do you really want to condemn these suffering peoiple anymore evensong?

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Because I'm a naturally reserved person, I find the passing the peace quite uncomfortable. The thought of moving all round the church as some do is something I avoid like the plague and I tend to stay where I am and only greet those either side of, in front and behind me. I would really rather that this ritual wasn't included in the church service, preferring that it took place after the service as it seems to be too much of a social chit chat at our church these days.
Our usual greeting is "Peace be with you". Some years ago when at church with one of my young children I was highly amused when she asked why people kept saying "Piece of biscuit".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

When I'm giving the peace, I'll always try to discover if the other person is uncomfortable with touch. In that case I'll just give a nod while saying "The peace of Christ."

I admit that my perception isn't always perfect, but I'm hoping it works most of the times.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

You may be fine with others invading your personal space - ands that's fine for you as it helps your worship. Others don't appreciate this invasion and would rather stay at home than face it.

Since when has a handshake an a small exhange of words ever been an invasion of privacy?

It's what we do when we meet new people for God's sake! It's a standard cultural norm!!

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

I'd lose 20% + of my congregation if we introduced the peace - not because of theology but because of aversion and (past) abuse. Do you really want to condemn these suffering peoiple anymore evensong?

Twenty percent of your congregation are averse to social conventions and have suffered from past abuse?

Son of a bitch. That's one seriously wounded congregation you have there.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

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)

I submit the minority is much bigger than you think, and that the reason you think it is so small is because such people often do not want to draw attention to themselves.

Can you stipulate a reason for a pathological inability to participate in standard social norms for the vast majority of people?

Bugger the "I want to be alone when I worship" syndrome.

Christianity is about others as much as it is about ourselves.

If you have a theological aversion to an exchange of peace then you need to rethink your theology.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[QUOTE]

1. Since when has a handshake an a small exhange of words ever been an invasion of privacy? It's what we do when we meet new people for God's sake! It's a standard cultural norm!!

2. I'd lose 20% + of my congregation if we introduced the peace - not because of theology but because of aversion and (past) abuse. Do you really want to condemn these suffering peoiple anymore evensong?

Twenty percent of your congregation are averse to social conventions and have suffered from past abuse?

Son of a bitch. That's one seriously wounded congregation you have there.

1. It might start as a handshake but who knows where it goes from there? For some even a handshake is a step too far. Social norm? perhaps for you and I but not for some.

2. Please don't use such offensive language. Yes 20% is the figure - depression, autism, aspergers, prostitutes, abused etc etc. Many introduced to the church by those who work alongside the people that the rest of society wants to kick out.

[ 30. July 2012, 13:43: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think passing the peace is a good thing, and I also think that no one should feel that they have to physically touch or be touched.

This

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

2. Please don't use such offensive language. Yes 20% is the figure - depression, autism, aspergers, prostitutes, abused etc etc. Many introduced to the church by those who work alongside the people that the rest of society wants to kick out.

Fair enough.

In that situation special rules would apply.

But we're talking in general here, not in hard core abused and unusual congregations.

[ 30. July 2012, 13:47: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

2. Please don't use such offensive language. Yes 20% is the figure - depression, autism, aspergers, prostitutes, abused etc etc. Many introduced to the church by those who work alongside the people that the rest of society wants to kick out.
Fair enough.

In that situation special rules would apply.

But we're talking in general here, not in hard core abused and unusual congregations.

Every congregation I've been part of has its fair share of people. Lots keep it hidden until one day it emerges to someone they can trust, like men who have been abused.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Our oldest son has Aspergers. He had difficulty at first shaking hands properly. He would pump hand up and down repeatedly and jerkily. The passing of the peace has provided him with an opportunity to learn to shake hands properly.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):

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.

That says it perfectly for me. If everyone would stick to Silent Acolyte's rules (if only they were nailed to the door) all would be well, but the churches I've attended in recent years have let this thing become horizontal in the extreme. A few people seem to think they would be remiss if they didn't shake every hand in the congregation and ask about every persons' and their relatives' health. When I was church treasurer I would also get the Walmart receipts,and explanations about them, at that time.

I don't hate being hugged but I don't particularly like it either and to think that the touching is keeping some people from church sounds like The Peace just isn't worth it to me. Can't people who are starved for touch go to the coffee hour, Thursday Bible Circle or anything else more social? Surely church can be "Us and God," with the congregation trying to achieve something vertical together, the way we do with music.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd lose 20% + of my congregation if we introduced the peace - not because of theology but because of aversion and (past) abuse. Do you really want to condemn these suffering peoiple anymore evensong?
Twenty percent of your congregation are averse to social conventions and have suffered from past abuse?

Son of a bitch. That's one seriously wounded congregation you have there.

That's a pretty agressive response.

I'd say my congregation would have the same reaction as Mark's. Not because of "past abuse" or any pathology but just because a lot of people don't like that kind of thing.

To accommodate these perfectly natural and normal differences in social expectations and comfort levels we have a number of different kinds of services on Sunday mornings. Each service has its own conventions around activities such as this.

At the informal services, for example, everyone is expected to participate and the service involves a number of activities where people move around, talk to each other, volunteer for demonstrations, answer questions, and do things. The sign of peace is a normal part of that service. At the more formal services no one is asked to do anything other than the liturgical responses, prayers and singing.

To each his own. I do not think that people who go to one service or the other tend to be more wounded.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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. 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).

A completely obscure ritual that means nothing to most people.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What did we used to do before showing a sign of peace was popularised? Why did we change?

The answer to the first part is - we did nothing. Why did we change - because the liturgy told us to. If we wanted to show the peace we would (?should) have done it before new forms of liturgy were popularised.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to clarify that before the action of shaking hands, kissing etc, was added (or restored depending how you look at it) and made popular in recent years, there was always the sharing of the Peace in the liturgy - at least in Anglican circles.

The priest would say: 'the peace of the Lord be always with you', and the people would respond, 'and also with you.' And for a lot of us that was it - but it was still the sharing of the Peace. At every communion service.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Actually, i am still astonished that this thread exists. the sharing of the peace was reintroduced into the C of E in 1971 with Series 3 - FORTY-ONE years ago. The Op makes it sound as if it is something new.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

41 years ago is new for the C of E. [Biased]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Actually, i am still astonished that this thread exists. the sharing of the peace was reintroduced into the C of E in 1971 with Series 3 - FORTY-ONE years ago. The Op makes it sound as if it is something new.

I recall the introduction of the sign of peace from the mid-1970s into the late 1980s. The continuing un-ease among some might suggest that its reception is a challenging process (ecclesiastical speak for it hasn't taken the way we expected).

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The continuing un-ease among some might suggest that its reception is a challenging process (ecclesiastical speak for it hasn't taken the way we expected).

Ten years ago we made a small change in the way that we celebrate communion. It hasn't taken either. Maybe there's a lesson there.

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

It's a good reminder that we should not partake of Communion unless we are at peace wi one another, and an opportunity to make peace with anyone in the congregation with whom we have - shall we say - failed to have peace. I was once badly let down by a chap in my university Christian Union. Very occasionally the CU would take Communion together, and at one such meeting the said chap approached me to share the peace. It was impossible, in that setting, for me to refuse his gesture but at the same time, it enabled him to absolve his conscience for what he had done without ever having to apologise to me for the hurt.

Now, of course I am commanded to forgive him and with the help of God have done so, but the sharing of the peace was inadequate in and of itself to achieve proper reconcilliation between us.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

While I might not express myself so bluntly, I'm rather inclined to agree with Evensong on this one. I certainly agree with Leo.

I accept there may be a few people who have genuine personal difficulties with the peace, just as there are a few who cannot eat ordinary communion bread or wafers. The rest of us need to accommodate this.

Nevertheless, apart from those with genuine disabilities, I can't help thinking that the rest of us have had a great many years to get used to the peace, that not many now really do still grumble about it, and those that do are thinking 'I come to church to meet my(sic) God, not these other nasty people who smell, and of whom He cannot possibly approve'.

Ask the other question. Suppose it were suddenly to be announced that the peace will be abolished from Septuagessima 2013. Do you really think it would quietly slip away?

As for the pax-brede, however charmingly antiquarian that custom may have been, it seems to have died out at the Reformation, among recusants just as much as among conformists. Can anyone really imagine such an insanitary custom catching on?

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

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.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

In answer to Lucydog's earlier question, I think shaking hands, in the Western world, is the norm at the peace.

Obviously there are people, who, for various reasons, find it not their cup of tea. I, myself, don't find this a problem.

I think Evensong seems to be way off target on this one. Who knows what mental, or other, problems prevent some people shaking hands? Does it matter? You have to look at the purpose of the Eucharist.

I think TSA and Twilight have brought up good reasons for keeping the peace short, simple and to its original purpose.

Amos is right: there are still services held suitable for non handshakers.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[QB

If you have a theological aversion to an exchange of peace then you need to rethink your theology. [/QB]

Hilarious. And utter twaddle, of course.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

[Roll Eyes]

The fullness of the Gospel is expressed in both transcendence and immanence of God.

The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.

If you think that's twaddle then I recommend a different religion.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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. [Biased]

Posted by Lucydog (# 15116) on :

I'm NOT saying the practice is new. What I said was
'There are many people who support the church .... 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).
If this board is closed to people who might be new to the CofE and it's ways, and so might ask what others may see as stupid questions, it would be nice to be told in advance.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

The comment was made to me by an Anglican that her objection to the Peace was that everyone rushed around hugging and kissing each other within the in group, possibly shook hands with the others and then completely ignored anybody who's hand was shaken after the service.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

In a church I used to worship in, we asked alot of people why they didn't come to church.

Many said the times of the services don't fit my work/family commitments. I.e Sunday and weekday mornings, so we started a weekday eveninbg service - but none of them came

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In a church I used to worship in, we asked alot of people why they didn't come to church.

Many said the times of the services don't fit my work/family commitments. I.e Sunday and weekday mornings, so we started a weekday eveninbg service - but none of them came

The same is true in churches I've been involved with - and it's got nothing to do with whether they like sharing the Peace or not, 'cos we rarely do it.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The fullness of the Gospel is expressed in both transcendence and immanence of God.

The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.

If you think that's twaddle then I recommend a different religion.

But so does sitting facing other people during worship, does you church have static pews in rows? Does your church deliberately move the communion table into the nave of the church for communion? In other words there are more than one way of doing this and to say if you don't do it the way I like you are not a Christian is not a good idea.

Jengie

[ 31. July 2012, 08:17: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In a church I used to worship in, we asked alot of people why they didn't come to church.

Many said the times of the services don't fit my work/family commitments. I.e Sunday and weekday mornings, so we started a weekday eveninbg service - but none of them came
The same is true in churches I've been involved with - and it's got nothing to do with whether they like sharing the Peace or not, 'cos we rarely do it.

I read somewhere that many people don't want to give the real reason why they don't want to go to church. Maybe they don't want to cause offence. Or there may be a residual guilt that they ought to go even though they don't want to, and so it makes them feel better if they state a reason that's more or less out of their control, or that puts the onus onto someone else to deal with the problem.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In a church I used to worship in, we asked alot of people why they didn't come to church.

Many said the times of the services don't fit my work/family commitments. I.e Sunday and weekday mornings, so we started a weekday eveninbg service - but none of them came
The same is true in churches I've been involved with - and it's got nothing to do with whether they like sharing the Peace or not, 'cos we rarely do it.
I read somewhere that many people don't want to give the real reason why they don't want to go to church. Maybe they don't want to cause offence. Or there may be a residual guilt that they ought to go even though they don't want to, and so it makes them feel better if they state a reason that's more or less out of their control, or that puts the onus onto someone else to deal with the problem.

I suspect the real reason is quite simply that they do not want to, and for most people all the other reasons are just excuses.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.

True, and the extension of the peace into a loud chatty social gathering is a symbol of how secular we all tend to be and how hard it is for us to get into a spiritual state of mind.

quote:
Enoch: ...and those that do are thinking 'I come to church to meet my(sic) God, not these other nasty people who smell, and of whom He cannot possibly approve'.

More likely we're worried that we smell. Here's my brain during the Peace: "I wish I'd washed my hair this morning. Oh there's Jean! I hope her knee transplant went okay. Yes, my husband's trumpet intro was a little loud, I'll tell him you suggested a mute. Oh Margorie, it's so nice to see you. (Damn! It's Maryanne! It's her sister who's Marjorie!) Thanks for the receipt, John! (Uh oh. Does this go in Sunday school supplies or Children's choir? I'll have to run after him the second church is over.) Oh great. Mr. Castle's coming for his Sunday squeeze. I wish someone would tell him I'm married to the trumpet player and that's why I sit by myself."

All this would be bad enough if it stopped there but I will now spend the rest of the service thinking about how I called Maryanne by the wrong name and wondering how best to apologize.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The fullness of the Gospel is expressed in both transcendence and immanence of God.

The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.

If you think that's twaddle then I recommend a different religion.

I still can't figure out what your first sentence means, nor how it connects with any of this discussion, but that may be me.

While I might agree with the theory of your statement about the symbolism of the peace, my experience of it is that is a symbol of exclusion with a whiff of hypocrisy-- the idea that it is a sideways action of God is very much at odds with how I have seen it in action. Your suggestion that those who are not on message find themselves another religion is what? an example of passive aggressive liturgical politics which damns those who are not on the programme?

I understand those who find value in it; I simply ask for respect for those who have an different experience.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

More likely we're worried that we smell. Here's my brain during the Peace: "I wish I'd washed my hair this morning. Oh there's Jean! I hope her knee transplant went okay. Yes, my husband's trumpet intro was a little loud, I'll tell him you suggested a mute. Oh Margorie, it's so nice to see you. (Damn! It's Maryanne! It's her sister who's Marjorie!) Thanks for the receipt, John! (Uh oh. Does this go in Sunday school supplies or Children's choir? I'll have to run after him the second church is over.) Oh great. Mr. Castle's coming for his Sunday squeeze. I wish someone would tell him I'm married to the trumpet player and that's why I sit by myself."

None of that is an argument against passing the Peace. It's a good warning against turning it into something it's not meant to be.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
I'm NOT saying the practice is new. What I said was
'There are many people who support the church .... 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).
If this board is closed to people who might be new to the CofE and it's ways, and so might ask what others may see as stupid questions, it would be nice to be told in advance.

Lucydog:

Welcome to the CofE. I hope you find grace, truth and peace within its walls. I welcome you as an Australian cousin. [Smile]

Your question is not a stupid one: far from it.

The heatedness of the discussion attests to that.

No questions are closed in the CofE - nor the Ship. Therein lies a big part of their Grace.

I may have missed it, but did you ever ask these people you questioned why a handshake and a short greeting ( a standard social, cultural, western norm when meeting new people ) could cause them to abandon the body of Christ?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The fullness of the Gospel is expressed in both transcendence and immanence of God.

The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.

If you think that's twaddle then I recommend a different religion.
But so does sitting facing other people during worship, does you church have static pews in rows? Does your church deliberately move the communion table into the nave of the church for communion? In other words there are more than one way of doing this and to say if you don't do it the way I like you are not a Christian is not a good idea.

The changes in liturgical space you note are good changes that express something of the presence of "God with us" but they are by far the softer option to greeting the face of Christ in a fellow human being.

Who said the Gospel was easy?

I never said that if you cannot or do not engage in the peace you are not a Christian.

That is not my call. That is God's call.

I did say that if you cannot recognize the Christ in the Other, or recognize that people, community, humanity, the body of Christ (whatever you want to call it) are an integral part of the Gospel, then you are missing a large part of it.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.

True, and the extension of the peace into a loud chatty social gathering is a symbol of how secular we all tend to be and how hard it is for us to get into a spiritual state of mind.

I was reading some homework on sacramental theology today and there was a line that said:

abusum non tollit usum.

"abuse renders not proper use empty".

One of my earliest priests told us once during the liturgy that the peace was not a social occasion.

In my opinion, leaders of congregations need to reiterate this every now and then.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

More likely we're worried that we smell. Here's my brain during the Peace: "I wish I'd washed my hair this morning. Oh there's Jean! I hope her knee transplant went okay. Yes, my husband's trumpet intro was a little loud, I'll tell him you suggested a mute. Oh Margorie, it's so nice to see you. (Damn! It's Maryanne! It's her sister who's Marjorie!) Thanks for the receipt, John! (Uh oh. Does this go in Sunday school supplies or Children's choir? I'll have to run after him the second church is over.) Oh great. Mr. Castle's coming for his Sunday squeeze. I wish someone would tell him I'm married to the trumpet player and that's why I sit by myself."

All this would be bad enough if it stopped there but I will now spend the rest of the service thinking about how I called Maryanne by the wrong name and wondering how best to apologize.

Welcome to the messiness of the Incarnation (and that's a good thing btw. It brings heaven and earth together).

Your example is precisely what it embodies.

It is in the both everyday (immanence) and the extraordinary (transcendence) that we encounter God.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Because I'm a naturally reserved person, I find the passing the peace quite uncomfortable.

Because I'm a naturallly reserved person uncomfortable talking to new people, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to make contact with others - it's not superficial even if I never get to know the others any more. Small talk at parties is far more superficial than this holistic acknowledgement of the other's value.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

I did say that if you cannot recognize the Christ in the Other, or recognize that people, community, humanity, the body of Christ (whatever you want to call it) are an integral part of the Gospel, then you are missing a large part of it.

Not only that, but St Paul implies that if we don't discern the Lord's body in each other we won't meet him in the sacrament either.

Essential preliminary to receiving communion: being in love and peace with our neighbours.
Optional expression of this: symbolic gesture which can vary according to culture and traditions.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...Welcome to the messiness of the Incarnation (and that's a good thing btw. It brings heaven and earth together).

Your example is precisely what it embodies.

It is in the both everyday (immanence) and the extraordinary (transcendence) that we encounter God.

But this is not what most people mean by the "Incarnation." What you describe seems to be the element of eternity that we should discern when we take Communion.

But the Incarnation is nothing more and nothing less that the Word being made flesh and dwelling amongst us.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

What I mean is that, sure, many of us believe that the bread and wine do indeed become the body of Christ - but we mean the living Christ who is already Incarnate - he doesn't "become" Incarnate during Eucharist.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I'm a great enthusiast for the Peace, as part of the primitive liturgy of the church. However in Lucy's situation, a small country church, I can see it may cause more awkwardness than anything else, and may be probably best omitted.

We attended a parish eucharist at a country church some years back, and when it came to the peace, the priest, probably aware of possible embarrassment, invited people to greet their friends and families, thereby excluding strangers such as ourselves.

It was greatly to the credit of a man in the pew in front that he turned round and shook our hands.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

We attended a parish eucharist at a country church some years back, and when it came to the peace, the priest, probably aware of possible embarrassment, invited people to greet their friends and families, thereby excluding strangers such as ourselves.

It wasn't Royston Vasey by any chance? "This is a local church for local people"

[ 31. July 2012, 15:57: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

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. 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).
A completely obscure ritual that means nothing to most people.

I know. Isn't it wonderful?

Seriously, however, I like this idea. It means that people don't have to touch one another and it's more significant than a handshake. Personally, I think that there should be some kissing at the Kiss of Peace. It's time for people to get over their Northern European reserve and remember that Christianity is at its heart a Levantine-Mediterranean religion. It shouldn't be too great a leap: extravagant 'air kissing' seems to be an increasingly common form of social greeting amongst young persons of both sexes.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

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, there's a bit of a melee and it's over when the organist strikes up the music for the offertory hymn.

It can go on a little too long for my taste, but then that's just me.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Actually, i am still astonished that this thread exists. the sharing of the peace was reintroduced into the C of E in 1971 with Series 3 - FORTY-ONE years ago. The Op makes it sound as if it is something new.

That's true, but don't forget it took a long time for some rural churches to catch up with the rest of us. I even knew of a few that were still using Series 2 well into the 1990s!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Series 2 was illegal after 1980.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

So is the Roman Rite! Doesn't stop em though.

Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :

I came to the cofe from a different church culture. I found the peace uncomfortable and often false. I still hate having someone grab my hand and mumble while looking for their next target. False. I can see why it would put people off. It often comes across as very informal compared to the rest of the service and can disturb the flow. I used to nip to the loo for that bit, and met the same people in there most weeks!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I honestly don't understand what you mean by "false".

Posted by Fool on Hill (# 12183) on :

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 is a sharp point in the service, where a developing clarity of thought can help build community, and where ham-fistedness can eliminate the possibility. My job as priest is to allow the Holy Spirit to mediate the former, whilst avoiding, in my sinfulness, reinforcing the possibility of the latter.

Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :

One of the reasons I love the Peace is that it may be the one moment in the week when some people are touched by another human being.

It's true that some people find touch invasive and distressing. But others may go from week's end to week's end without being touched, and without the human warmth and caring are expressed in touch (we shouldn't forget that an infant's first experiences of love are experienced through touch).

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.

Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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 ]

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

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.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

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]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

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.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

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

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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.'

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Every congregation I've been part of has its fair share of people.

Well, that's encouraging.

[Biased]

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

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.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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?

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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?

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

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?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

Perhaps things have evolved since those days?

Yes... we've become more individualist and lost our sense of community.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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.

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

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.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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.

Posted by recklessrat (# 17243) on :

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, [Smile]

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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?

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

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' . . .

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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?

Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :

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....

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

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 ]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

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.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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... [Smile]

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

ooops wrong button. Was meant as response to Evensong's outbust. Apologies.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

(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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

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.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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 ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

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]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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!

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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...?"

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0