Thread: The Sign of Peace - Why? 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=027821
Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on
:
Oh dear! I know there will be lots of opinions about the sign of peace - how not to do it and so on, so its with hesitation that I raise it for discussion.
I'm coming from this angle. What is it about? I hear the words sometimes 'Let us offer each other a sign of peace' which could be heard as lets show we are friendly with each other.
The I also hear 'Let us offer each other a sign of Christ's peace' which is different, I guess.
So what do you think its about, and given that what is a good way to offer it...
................................................
Anglo Catholic Congress books on eBay. Do bid!
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I think it's about sharing with one another a sign of the peace we have among us because of Christ. Scripturally it comes from an overarching theme of the peace Christ brings between people of all kinds, and specific texts in the epistles which encourage the members of the church to greet each other with a kiss of peace.
Liturgically, in the modern period, it came into the liturgy with the liturgical movement. Those in favour of it regard it as the restoration of an ancient practice found as far back as Hippolytus. Those against tend to regard it as an innovation.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
St. Justin Martyr mentions it as marking the Eucharist of the Faithful, does he not?
I'm not sure if the symbolic link with our Saviour's words to refrain from going to the Altar before making peace with our brother is as ancient as that, but it certainly long been recognised.
The question is not whether we should be at peace but rather how the sign should be enacted, perhaps?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
For me, the reason why this is an important part of the Eucharist is that it forces us to acknowledge that it is not about MY relationship with God, but that WE are gathered together in worship.
Yes - it may feel uncomfortable. But perhaps that's a good thing. And yes - it may seem a little hypocritical to gladhand someone we don't know or perhaps know and despise. But again, that may be a good thing overall.
And the physical aspect of sharing the peace - of offering one another a hand to shake or whatever - is equally important. It is so easy to "say" the Peace to someone we can't abide. It can be much harder to make physical contact.
Of course it is easy to highlight ways in which sharing the Peace can be annoying or naff - such as when it causes the service to grind to a halt for 10 minutes as everyone HAS to greet everyone and then share a little gossip. But that is not a reason to abandon the practice - just an opportunity to make people aware of what we are doing and why.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
For us, it comes right after the Lord's Prayer. We have just confessed that God is "our Father" -- not just mine. The source of our common sister/brother-hood is enthroned on the altar: through Christ, God has adopted each of us as His own beloved child. We share an amazing bond with each of our fellow worshippers by virtue of what God has done for us. As C.S. Lewis puts it in Weight of Glory, "next to the Blessed Sacrament, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses."
The peace actualizes that ritually.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
For us it comes immediately after the confession and absolution, and seems to be understood as a physical embodiment of our common life in Christ -- with the absolution, we are right with Christ and with the exchange of the peace we are demonstrating that we are right with each other.
I have known it to be used as an opportunity for two people who have been in dispute to reconcile before they go to the altar, but I would not claim that was common or neccesarily part of the general understanding.
John
[ 21. October 2013, 16:25: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
I think it also has - like most of the Eucharistic rite - an eschatological dimension: this is if you like a pre-enactment of the eschatological peace that passes all understanding.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
I dislike the Peace intensely.
It disrupts the service while the clergy and half the congregation wander round the church shaking hands with everybody.
It occurs at the wrong point in the service (in the Anglican liturgy, just before the Offertory). You wouldn't go for a meal at someone's house, and then shake hands and greet everybody just as you are about to sit down for the meal - the natural time to greet people is on arrival. So if we must have it, the start of the service, before or immediatley after the introit hymn would be appropriate. Since the eucharist begins with "The Lord be with you", which also precedes the Peace in the middle of the service, it would fit in quite appropriately at the start.
It is not properly ceremonial - see my comment above on people wandering all round the church . If we must do it why don't we formally accept a handshake from the person on (say) our right and then shake hands with the person on our left, who then passes the handshake on down the pew. The priest can start it off by shaking hands with the people in the chancel who can then each take a side of the church or block of seating to pass the peace on to. That would be much more dignified.
If we have to go back to the ancient church to determine how we conduct our services, it was the kiss of peace, not the handshake of peace. When the Peace was first introduced into Anglican liturgy sometime in the 1970s, kissing your neighbour might have seemed dangerously continental, but these days you are expected to air-kiss everybody of the opposite sex on first meeting, so I can't see that a peck on the cheek in church should cause a problem.
But I accept that a lot of people, especially the clergy, seem to like it, so I can I make a plea for a "handshake-free zone" in church where those of us who prefer a more reverential style of worship.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Yes, it was the kiss of peace, and in Greece this is still the case:
Clergy exchange the peace with each other or with men standing near them.
Otherwise men exchange the kiss with men, women with women - NEVER is the kiss shared between men and women.
Now, in the chilly north we dropped the kiss of peace even for celebrants at the Reformation and it only started to creep back after the RCs began to reintroduce it post Vatican II.
But it doesn't feel natural - perhaps because most people don't understand the history.
And in far too many churches it is as Gwalchmai says: a hideous exercise to see who can "get" around the most people with lay people (and clergy, who should know better) charging around.
Not only do newcomers find it confusing, many of them find it downright uncomfortable.
As an organist I'm out of it - literally, feet above the floor and able to observe with my jaundiced eye.
Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on
:
I've noticed the text from the Gospels about 'first make your peace...' before presenting your gift, is rarely used in liturgy to introduce the peace. I've heard many different sentences or introductions but rarely that.
That made me think the Peace in worship is not about making up / reconciling but rather an expression of the peace of Christ which is already uiting us in 'the Body of Christ into which we are baptised...'
Having said which I notice some people greet differently in the peace. I've noticed a priest at one church shake hands with some people and embrace others during the same 'sign of peace'. I presumed that he did this because he knew some better than others, or was aware some were not as huggy as others.
But then I am uneasy with that differentiation if it is the 'sign of Christ's peace' offered symbolically. Maybe I am just too fussy!
..........................................
Anglo Catholic Congress books on eBay: Bid Now!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
I dislike the Peace intensely.
etc
You seem to be confusing 'the Peace', which is an ancient ecclesial and scriptural liturgical action, with a particular custom as practised - arguably not very well - by your church, which doesn't personally float your boat.
Like you, I don't like clergy and large numbers of congregation who wander all over the place, or get too enthusiastic about shaking hands, kissing, hugging etc at this point in the service. It's not my 'thing' either.
'The Peace of the Lord be always with you'
'And also with you' end of story - is perfectly adequate.
However, shaking hands with a fellow Christian to wish him/her, and receive from him/her, the peace of Christ is perhaps the very least I can require of myself during a service of worship, with regard to human interaction. Even at the risk of my sacrificing a few points of my supposed 'dignity'.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
I don't mind the peace, but I certainly mind how poorly it is handled in many congregations.
Quite bluntly, most places seem to care first and foremost about using it as a way to showcase how "friendly" we are. (In other words, to exhibit the extroverts and shame the introverts into "coming out of their shell.")
As a frequent visitor to churches, here's what I want: no longer than a minute, stay near or in your pew, greet all those around you. That is it.
Places that try to do what I referred to in paragraph 2 above tend to epic fail out: visitors are either pressured too much, ignored entirely, or given a perfunctory greeting and left to stew while the others chat about Aunt Bessie's lame horse.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
However, shaking hands with a fellow Christian to wish him/her, and receive from him/her, the peace of Christ is perhaps the very least I can require of myself during a service of worship, with regard to human interaction. Even at the risk of my sacrificing a few points of my supposed 'dignity'.
On a previous thread related to this topic, somebody noted that in parishes where things were not going well, this would inevitably become quickly evident during the Peace, even if it was papered over pretty successfully during the rest of the service. I think the symbol is more powerful than we appreciate, even allowing for introvert/extrovert differences which should of course be respected whatever the setting.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
dj_ordinaire, that's a very interesting point to make. Perhaps, in some cases - not all by any means - some of us are rather fed up or irritated by the Peace - or the way it's done - because we're aware of what it reveals to us; either about ourselves or about our community.
But I'm not saying that this means that everyone who'd rather not participate refrains because they feel threatened by it, or are unconsciously worried about exposing their own flawed spirituality! It does seem that in some instances, people see a lot of happy hand-shaking business going on, and for some reason perceive this as not being authentic or truly representative of the fellowship doing all the happy hand-shaking.
Over the years, I guess I've just tended to allot less significance to the more superficially human elements of the sharing of the Peace of Christ, in the hope that for all our mucking about Jesus is still in the midst of us, keeping his promises.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Olaf's points quote:
visitors are either pressured too much, ignored entirely, or given a perfunctory greeting and left to stew while the others chat about Aunt Bessie's lame horse.
are ones which I would cheerfully underline-- they are almost universal in my North American travels. Shipmates who are curious can see my past posts on the Peace, including the two attempts to feel me up (I suppose that I should be flattered, but can only take this to be a symptom of some perversion or the other), so I won't repeat it all here.
I wonder to the extent to which the problematics (primarily the very real artificiality and distraction) of this are Anglican and anglophone First World difficulties. Attending Anglican churches in Jamaica and RC churches in Spain, France, and Argentina, I found the exchange of the Peace to be natural and relaxed. Even embraces and cheek-kissing of the sort which would convince me that North American parishioners be addled evangelicals and/or rabid workshop-goers and that I need Get The Hell Out of here, were genuine and welcome and comforting. It may be a cultural thing, and we just can't do it.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
I dislike it intensely, but that's more to do with my own reluctance to make physical contact with people in a structured way - "and now let's all do this." Where I currently go it just descends into a wandering free for all which totallty breaks the flow of the service and does nothing for my concentration.
It was best handled (in a slightly unorthodox way) by where I went as a student in the same city. "The Peace....and also with you" crash into the first bars of the Offertory, making it very clear that "there's none of that offering one another anything nonsense here."
Of course, the fellowship, talking, etc, was very much part of the sherry (or champagne in the summer) afterwards...
It's all of a mile away from where I now live, and I attended sporadically up to last term, but I'm a good decade older than the students now and a "proper" parish seems like a sensible move...
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It does depend a great deal on context. The church I normally attend ticks all the wrong boxes for most Ecclesiantophiles: everybody gets out of their seat and walks around until they have greeted everybody. It's made worse by fixed pews with doors on them. But it's a small, very varied, and friendly congregation and nobody prolongs the process by gossip or long chats (that happens before [!] and after the service). People just want to acknowledge each other and the presence of Christ in the community.
This wouldn't work in a cathedral or with a large congregation. And a very small one would probably have a sufficient sense of togetherness not to need this ritual expression of it.
As an introvert myself I still have a residual resistance to sharing the Peace. Therefore it's all the more important to be forced out of my instinctive isolation.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I would prefer not to go through the peace ritual, but that is my problem. However, I am willing just to greet my immediate neighbours. I become really irritated when the whole service stops while people wander all round the church and at times have long winded conversations. I know of one chap who refuses to come to a church that does this sort of thing as he is very shy and reserved. I am concerned that at times we put up roadblocks to some worshippers such as the peace, incense, collections of money etc.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
As an introvert myself I still have a residual resistance to sharing the Peace. Therefore it's all the more important to be forced out of my instinctive isolation. [/QB]
Horses for courses though. I find it borderline psychologically damaging and experience an enormous overwhelming dread from the beginning of the service until it's out of the way. I force myself to go because I think it must be good for me, but I'm really not convinced in any way that it is.
If I could do one thing in the whole ecclesiological world (and we're into very small things territory here) it would be to go back to the early 1970s and say to the liturgical decision makers within the CofE (I do think it's particularly unEnglish) "you'd like to do this? Just think of all the people that would really hate to do it. So don't. You'll drive them out eventually."
Sorry if that's a bit hellish. I promise I would have said it nicely.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I sympathise. But I don't think it's anything to do with 'liturgical decision makers', at least not in the shape of Liturgical Commissions or things like that. 'The Peace' as a verbal exchange has been restored to the liturgy by them, but the fact that it's taken off as a ritual action is almost entirely down to the spontaneous decisions of various congregations. And that is not an introvert/extravert thing, at least not in the UK, because as everybody knows most C of E members are introverted in the extreme, and more to the point very conservative in matters of liturgy. There must be a very strong force driving the change, and it's certainly not a diktat from on high.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I sympathise. But I don't think it's anything to do with 'liturgical decision makers', at least not in the shape of Liturgical Commissions or things like that. 'The Peace' as a verbal exchange has been restored to the liturgy by them, but the fact that it's taken off as a ritual action is almost entirely down to the spontaneous decisions of various congregations. And that is not an introvert/extravert thing, at least not in the UK, because as everybody knows most C of E members are introverted in the extreme, and more to the point very conservative in matters of liturgy. There must be a very strong force driving the change, and it's certainly not a diktat from on high.
Hmmm, I'm not sure that that doesn't actually make it worse though (unless you're hinting that this is some sort of movement of the holy spirit?). If congregations are making spontaneous decisions like that that make people uncomfortable then maybe they shouldn't be? If it was mandated that "thou shalt," and only the refuseniks didn't do it then that would be one thing. But "thou may, and Oh look, we all now are, no matter who we're failing to make accommodation for in the process because a small detail like this makes us feel right-on even though we could quite happily not do it" is something else entirely.
On Sunday I stood there on the verge of tears whilst being approached from all angles and you know what? You grin and bear it, because otherwise you'd never go to any service again. But you do that with a loud voice screaming incessantly in your head - "leave me alone. go away. this is spectacularly uncomfortable for me." And yet it's not like we're rocks that don't know how anti-social we must appear unless we're trying very hard. I'm aware that this says a great deal about me and those like me. But it's like bib says, how many people would go somewhere else if the sign of peace wasn't offered by the congregation? How many people get as far as the church door and can't go in because they know it's coming? That's been me - I've even left pews before the start of the service and gone home. But to stand there and physically make it clear that you want no part in it, which is what I've done in the past is even more soul destroying.
like I say, I'd love to have somehow stopped it in the first place, and if there was one thing I could actually *forbid*....
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
I don't like my personal space being invaded (for all sorts of reasons), so I don't participate when the peace is shared. It also breaks the flow of the service
IMHO it's divisive: who does the Rector hug this week???? And, what about those people who always get left out? The people who sleep rough, the girls who work the streets, those with mental health issues - all get ignored or passed over. We're up for a bit of a grope with that nice Mrs X who always has a bit on display and gives you a good squeeze but we're not so keen on someone whose personal hygiene is a bit different to ours.
Well I'm no oil painting but I'm usually clean and presentable and smile (if my straw has been renewed) but I've been "missed" at the peace in a church far from home. These days if the peace is invited, I'll say the response then remain firmly seated with eyes in the bible.
I also have a theological objection. If you have to express the peace, then perhaps you weren't at peace before. In which case you should have sought the relevant people out to be reconciled. Besides which there's plenty of time to meet greet and do whatever before the service and after. I'm quite happy to get at close quarters then: I just don't perform to order.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
There are people in all the churches I've been in, who cannot countenance close physical contact with anyone as a consequence of their life experiences. Would you have them leave over a non essential bit of liturgy?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
It's the custom at our place to keep the Peace short - we have it in the Roman position, just before Communion, and our organist is primed to start playing the Agnus Dei after a minute or two......
......my own practice, as I'm usually acting as liturgical Deacon these days, is to exchange the Peace with priest and servers, and then to rush into the nave to do the same with any visitors or newcomers, before hastening back to the altar. Our congo is pretty good at including newbies, but I feel it's right for someone at the sharp end to make the effort as well. (And, just for info, Father will go straight back into church after the vestry prayer - still in full vestments - to meet and greet.......).
Ian J.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
It is actually one of the earliest liturgical practices encouraged by Jesus.
"If, when bringing your gift to the altar, you suddenly remember you have a grievance against your brother, go and make your peace with him, then bring your gift." I am paraphrasing this.
Thus, it is quite appropriate to offer the sign of peace right before the offering.
If a person is comfortable with this, just sit down. Most people will honor your preference not to participate. If they approach, just shake your head, smile, and say, "No, thank you."
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
Like Gramps said. Mrs tomsk said to me that it is because we shouldn't carry grudges against one-another when sharing the eucharist. In the anglican liturgy, we say 'though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread'. Sharing the peace provides an opportunity for grudges to be set aside. I suppose that, done properly, it ought to be less about one's mates than people one's fallen out with.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Like Gramps said. Mrs tomsk said to me that it is because we shouldn't carry grudges against one-another when sharing the eucharist. In the anglican liturgy, we say 'though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread'. Sharing the peace provides an opportunity for grudges to be set aside. I suppose that, done properly, it ought to be less about one's mates than people one's fallen out with.
You shouldn't even, in normal circumstances, get to church with the grudge. Sort it before and then you are at peace.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Its not a greeting. Its a ritual acknowledgement of each other as sinners in receipt of the unmerited grace of God. And also echoes the words of Jesus on his appearances to the disciples.
Posted by crunt (# 1321) on
:
I am uncomfortable during the peace, but as someone commented upthread, perhaps that not such a bad thing. At the cathedral last Sunday (Wellington Cathedral of St Paul) it was the usual hand shaking in the pews wth regulars rushing around to shake hands / greet / kiss the people they know (I'm assuming they were regulars, and I'm also assuming they were making beelines for people they knew).
I liked it better in Korea where people just make eye contact and bow to those around them. No contact!
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its not a greeting. Its a ritual acknowledgement of each other as sinners in receipt of the unmerited grace of God. And also echoes the words of Jesus on his appearances to the disciples.
There is much to be said for this approach (even if I would have the Calvinism softened, but that's me), however I do not think that one in twenty congregants have ever heard this expressed. I cannot remember the number of times we were urged to "greet each other in the Name of the Lord."
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Exclamation Mark
You said you should not go to church bearing a grudge.
That might be wishful thinking.
Often times, I do not think I am bearing a grudge.
However, I might see someone I would really rather not see.
Or something is said in the sermon that reminds me I have some unfinished business.
Or something may happen during worship that causes some friction.
Or maybe it is someone who has a grudge against me that I am unaware of.
No, church is where people holding grudges need to go. They will hear how God bears no grudge against them. They will hear encouragement to resolve whatever difference they have with their brother/sister. They will receive the power of the Holy Spirit to seek peace with their brother or sister; and they are given a place in the service, however briefly, to make amends.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an introvert myself I still have a residual resistance to sharing the Peace. Therefore it's all the more important to be forced out of my instinctive isolation.
Why?
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
'Let us offer each other a sign of peace'
This is liturgical bollocks, inviting all sorts of greeting and roaming around.
The sign is the address of the words 'The peace of the Lord be with you' and 'And with your spirit' to those standing nearby.
All the pew-leaving, hand-shaking, cheek-n-lip smacking, howz da wife-n-kids, whaddyadoin' fer lunch is witless embroidery engendered by announcing the sign rather than just performing it.
Of course the theology doesn't carry through, but the late, lamented leo had it right when he thought, All ya need is namaste (or, namaskar).
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
'Let us offer each other a sign of peace'
This is liturgical bollocks, inviting all sorts of greeting and roaming around.
All the pew-leaving, hand-shaking, cheek-n-lip smacking, howz da wife-n-kids, whaddyadoin' fer lunch is witless embroidery engendered by announcing the sign rather than just performing it.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an introvert myself I still have a residual resistance to sharing the Peace. Therefore it's all the more important to be forced out of my instinctive isolation.
Why?
Because church isn't all about me.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Mebbe so, but if, in quoting me, you're going to ellide a portion of my post, you might do us all the courtesy of indicating the place where the core bit was removed with an ellipsis or a "<snip>". I did not jump immediately from bollocks to a faux folksy dialect.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I always connected the peace to Matthew 5:23&24 in my mind.
"Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift."
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Mebbe so, but if, in quoting me, you're going to ellide a portion of my post, you might do us all the courtesy of indicating the place where the core bit was removed with an ellipsis or a "<snip>". I did not jump immediately from bollocks to a faux folksy dialect.
And there we go - 59 posts to my first telling off. Ironic that it came in the act of agreeing with someone. I'll of course do you the courtesy of apologising - is it that I've made your post look flippant though or what? I struggle with peoples' emotional meaning when I'm face to face, I've got no chance with internet text....
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
There have been a few occasions on which l have needed to exchange the peace with an individual to clear the air. l tend to peter handshakes, though at TSSF gatherings hugs tend to be more likely. One problem l've noticed is that if there are fewer 20 people present it is possible to get round everyone over 50, it's impossible, 20-50 is awkward.
Carys
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
l tend to peter handshakes
Now there's a practice of the Peace I haven't seen before. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Carys
Why do you have to "get round everyone" - this is not some sort of party game.
When originally (re)introduced in the 1970s the stated intention of the people on the Liturgical Commission was that people should turn to those standing on either side of them to shake hands; if there were very few people in church perhaps turn to those seated behind and in front - AND THAT'S IT.
It was NEVER intended to be an opportunity for people to go waltzing around churches, hugging and exchanging pleasantries.
And at the time many of us raised objections on several counts, but including
a) that since many attend church with their nearest-and-dearest what is being achieved? - after all, how many of us shake hands with our spouse?
b) what exactly was "the sign of peace" - did they intend us to go back to the kiss of peace?
c) what would happen in churches where congregants were spread out and had no obvious neighbours?
(d) what about those who didn't want physical contact in church? - it was potentially coercive and thus abusive.
None of these objections were ever seriously addressed.
IMHO the only satisfactory "peace" sharing technique is to clasp BOTH of the hands of the person next to you while saying "God's peace be with you" (or something similar) - and nothing more.
"The Peace" is meant to be part of solemn liturgy, not an occasion for socialising which can be done at the proper time, after the service.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Carys
Why do you have to "get round everyone" - this is not some sort of party game.
"The Peace" is meant to be part of solemn liturgy, not an occasion for socialising which can be done at the proper time, after the service.
I entirely agree.
I used to think I was just being curmudgeonly in trying to avoid shaking hands with everybody at the Peace and I have been greatly heartened by this thread to find that I am far from alone.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
I have found very (no, make that VERY) few parishes in TEC where the exchange of the Peace works smoothly, whether done before the Offertory or in the later (Roman) position. (The notable exceptions are those places that were using the Missal pre-1979, and so were used to seeing the Peace ceremony done at the altar.)
IMHO, the problem arose because most parishes 'discovered' the Peace in the run-up to the 1979 Prayer Book--Green Book, Zebra Book, Son-of-Zebra Book, etc. There was so much stuff being added or changed that, inevitably, some things were insufficiently explained. Result = 'Peace as Greeting/chat.'
There are some pretty bizarre aberrations by now: a friend has recently taken a job as Organist in a local parish. He reports that 'everybody runs around and chats at the top of their voices, and (hold on to your seats) the organist & choir bring it to a close by singing 'God Bless America.' ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
(I'm almost sure he's not pulling my leg.)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
If hugs come in, I'm sticking to Evensong. The Organist has great control over the proceedings, he just strikes up the first line of the Offertory Hymn when he thinks we've shaken enough hands. A very shy organist can hide behind the organ and get missed out altogether.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Carys
Why do you have to "get round everyone" - this is not some sort of party game.
I used the phrase 'Getting round everyone' not because it's my aim but to try & describe what I have observed about dynamics. l grew up with the peace (born 1979) so it does seem to be an innovation to me. I've had some powerful experiences with it and value some interaction with my fellow worshippers who are my brothers and sisters in Christ but acknowledge it can be a bit of a hiatus and dislike chit chat during it but l try and avoid being grumpy. I've noticed a tension in my reaction most in a congregation which varies between about 20 & 50. I've thus pondered why?
At very small gatherings (eg a midweek Eucharist) with 3 people in congregation then both your neighbours is everyone with 4 people would feel odd to exclude 1. Even with a few more people missing someone could feel pointed. With a larger group, the dynamic is different because the number of exchanges for everyone to greet (for want of a better word) everyone is stupidly large. There's a size which is sufficiently large for it to be getting unwieldy to get round but sufficiently small that it feels socially awkward not to, this is particularly true if congregation size varies week by week between the top end of small & bottom end of large. It's partly that we're not good at maths and don't appreciate the way the number of interactions grows much faster than number of people. So for 2 people it takes 1 interaction, for 3 people it's 3, for 4 it's 6. By the time there's 10 I think it's 45, by 20 it's 190 if I've got the maths right. This makes 50 = 1225.
Another aspect of the dynamic is how easy movement is and how expected it is. In a small space with few chairs, it is quick and simple to reach other people and if others move it seems churlish (to me at least) not to acknowledge those with whom you are gathered, whereas if the space has a lot of chairs &/or the custom is to stay in one's place then the dynamic is different.
I'm happy with a variety of practices but I know some people have strong preferences one way or the other & these differences can lead to awkwardness or people being uncomfortable, especially if some people don't acknowledge other preferences either because the idea of a different approach isn't on their radar or because they know their way is the right way. Boundaries need to be respected and if you've got an enthusiastic hugger who doesn't get it that not everyone wants hugs from someone they may well not know well, someone (preferably someone in the leadership & other than a person for whom hugs are unwanted) needs to challenge them and keep an eye the situation.
quote:
IMHO the only satisfactory "peace" sharing technique is to clasp BOTH of the hands of the person next to you while saying "God's peace be with you" (or something similar) - and nothing more.
In a large gathering that would be my preference, but others will differ. l was talking to an extrovert who has just changed countries and who is missing hugs the other day so she would welcome more. I also find myself behaving differently in different contexts. I'm much more likely to exchange hugs at a TSSF Eucharist because that's close family (and a complete stranger especially one with little or no idea about Christianity is unlikely to be present).
Carys
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
When it was first introduced, it was regarded as something the clergy wanted us to do, but there was a lot of resistance to it. It's clear from the reaction when people were temporarily were restrained from offering one another the peace during the swine 'flu epidemic, that it has now caught on. If the clergy were to pronounce that people should stop doing it, there would be a lot of resistance.
It is about 'first make your peace...' before presenting your gift, but that isn't the only thing it is about. Whether the average congregation consciously verbalises this or not, they now regard it as an expression of fellowship and agape.
It is difficult - I think I'd say it is impossible - to gainsay that.
I can sympathise with those whose personalities mean they find this difficult. In a way, that's a bit like not being able to hear the sermon because your hearing isn't very good or the sound system is crud.
I've rather less sympathy with those who say that the peace interrupts the liturgical flow of the service, or disrupts what should be a succession of moments of formal solemnity. That seems not very far from saying 'I don't see why I should shake hands with other people I have nothing in common with, or are lower class than me'.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
There is an old saying, if something is done for three years it is a "tradition."
Just last night at Evangelism committee meeting someone asked why we have chili on Epiphany Sunday. She had never experienced it, but the rest of us told her it was "tradition." We have been doing it for three years. She had missed out on it because during January she and her husband go to Hawaii for a few weeks.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. It is about 'first make your peace...' before presenting your gift, but that isn't the only thing it is about.
2. Whether the average congregation consciously verbalises this or not, they now regard it as an expression of fellowship and agape.
A good post Enoch but a couple of other thoughts
1. Why isn't this sorted as soon as it becomes a problem? Are we saying that you "suddenly" realise there's a fellowship breaking issue when you see someone at church? If it's big enough to warrant a reconciliation then it would surely come to light earlier and needs to be dealt with that way and quickly.
2. I'm not so sure. It's a habit that few people actually think about and most simply "do."
3.There's still the point of the action of sharing the peace bringing division. What about those who are excluded? It becomes counter productive
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
And there we go - 59 posts to my first telling off.
It's a tough crowd all the way round, with writing standards considerable higher that average. I did look at your post count first and upon seeing nine over fifty posts, I figured you were a shipmate tough enough. I should have softened my crank with a welcome. Or, a dratted emoticon or something.
Oops. There I go again. You can't take me anywhere.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
...
1. Why isn't this sorted as soon as it becomes a problem? Are we saying that you "suddenly" realise there's a fellowship breaking issue when you see someone at church? If it's big enough to warrant a reconciliation then it would surely come to light earlier and needs to be dealt with that way and quickly. ...
I think this does sometimes happen. Even if the address about examining oneself isn't read much these days, being about to take communion prompts people to be more self aware than usual.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
My two cents:
We're supposed to be gathered in church as a community - if not a family. Is it really so horrible to share the Peace of Christ via a brief handshake with your brothers and sisters in Him? We are continually being told that one cannot be a Christian on one's own - does that not apply to those who seek to set up a barrier around themselves during a service such that no-one else can get near? If there's someone (anyone) in your church family who you're not prepared to even shake hands with, is that not a problem to be solved rather than a foible to be tolerated, or even encouraged?
If Christ Himself came back to earth and turned up at your service, would you shake His hand and greet Him warmly? If you would be prepared to adknowledge Him in that way, there can be no excuse for refusing to adknowledge His image in your fellow congregants.
To me, the Peace is a key part of Christian worship. It is the one part of a service that clearly demonstrates that we are gathered as the Family of Christ, rather than as a disparate band of unrelated individuals who just happen to be in the same place at the same time. It's what makes us a congregation rather than an audience.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Nope. It's Holy Communion which does that, not the peace. It might have worked in ancient times but now it's just a piece of sentimentalist, stomach churning rubbish, used as an excuse to do all sorts of stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the peace as it was meant to be.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Marvin puts the case well and I would agree with that it is an important part of Xn worship but I have rarely in Anglican circles (albeit in North America) experienced it as such. Let us be blunt and honest: it has become a social intermission and little more.
Other shipmates have made practical suggestions on how it might better fill its liturgical function and I would desperately hope that clergy are reading this thread and taking up these suggestions. My unhappy experiences have driven me to seek out services (usually the early morning ones) where the Peace is absent or minimal in its presence. It seems that I am not the only one.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Nope. It's Holy Communion which does that, not the peace.
I disagree. In my experience people frequently walk up to the altar rail without even looking at anyone else, keep their head bowed when there other than to look at the elements being presented, and head directly back to their pew. Hardly an example of familial unity - we may as well be queueing at the supermarket checkout!
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
How far The Peace goes depends on local custom, of course.
Where things are more formal, it is confined to one's neighbours in the pews. At a church where I am a regular, I don't mind circulating in a free-for-all; but where I am a visitor, I remain in my pew and allow others to come to me. Under certain circumstances I keep up chatting briefly with what's going on as I circulate, but I try not to. The more formal side of me takes over, so that I make no more intimate embrace than a mere hand-shake.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Nope. It's Holy Communion which does that, not the peace.
I disagree. In my experience people frequently walk up to the altar rail without even looking at anyone else, keep their head bowed when there other than to look at the elements being presented, and head directly back to their pew. Hardly an example of familial unity - we may as well be queueing at the supermarket checkout!
One faith, one baptism, one altar under a bishop. There is unity.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If Christ Himself came back to earth and turned up at your service, would you shake His hand and greet Him warmly?
In all honesty, probably not. I mean, I'd be really pleased he was there and everything, but I'd struggle to hold his eye. Seriously, it's not just walls we're conscious of building around ourselves just at church, the main reason at the age of 32 I've only ever had one long term relationship is because I just can't deal with people on that level (and then I met a girl who was prepared to put the time in and then it was great - you can probably imagine quite how devastated I was a couple of years later when it ended). Since then (4 years ago), nothing at all. Again.
I accept that not everyone is like me (thank God), but there are those of us out there who for some deep psychological reason just can't do it. And not being able to do it and trying to sit it out just makes it worse. It's better just not to go in the first place sometimes. It may well work for most people - good for them - but it's divisive in a way that choice of hymnal (for example) just isn't because it causes actual mental pain and trauma for that minority.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The problem of what do do during the Sign of the Peace is presumably easier to deal with in churches where Communion doesn't happen every week. Methodists, for example, only have it once a month. And because their churches are usually smaller and more modern, it's easier to slip out of the room and wait in the foyer or the toilets until the handshaking is over. This might eventually be noticed, but if you have a quiet word with the minister or senior church steward to explain why you're doing it, it should soon cease to be of interest.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I disagree. In my experience people frequently walk up to the altar rail without even looking at anyone else, keep their head bowed when there other than to look at the elements being presented, and head directly back to their pew. Hardly an example of familial unity - we may as well be queueing at the supermarket checkout!
Well, it is a holy moment, and it seems appropriate to be able to focus on what one is receiving, and there's a long tradition of the practice of "custody of the eyes," wherein one maintains focus partly by not allowing distractions of seeing who else is there, who's wearing what, who's looking particularly attractive today, who's paired up with whom these days, who's having more or less trouble walking than they did last Sunday, etc.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
Well, it is a holy moment, and it seems appropriate to be able to focus on what one is receiving, and there's a long tradition of the practice of "custody of the eyes," wherein one maintains focus partly by not allowing distractions of seeing who else is there, who's wearing what, who's looking particularly attractive today, who's paired up with whom these days, who's having more or less trouble walking than they did last Sunday, etc.
I agree. Which means that it can't also be a focus for congregational unity in fellowship. If everyone there is focusing exclusively on the sacrament, they cannot at the same time be focusing on their relationship with each other. It follows that a separate part of the service should be dedicated to said fellowship, and that part is the peace.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
For once (hyperbolically once*) I agree with Marvin. The one bishop, one baptism stuff might be a representation of unity, but it doesn't really demonstrate the family-relationships within that unit if we don't have a moment to look at each other and shake hands. (I can do without the kisses and hugs though).
* - as in much more than once but seems like once
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Well - read all the posts and contributed my own two-pennorth
I'm going to stay in my loft and strike up the hymn when I think the P***e has gone on long enough.
You can ask me if I want a cutting from your clematis after the service.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
Remember that this may be the only time some parishioners are touched by another human and that feeling uncomfortable is not a good reason to deny people the comfort this can give,
Can be a not so good experirnce if hand being shaken is conne4cted to eyes busily seeking out next person to greet
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
At one church I used to go to for a regular midweek service, the issue for one man was skin-to-skin contact. Obviously he had discussed this with his priest because someone came up with a solution - he always wore leather gloves to church. Then, when it came to the peace, he was able to shake hands with his gloved hand - problem solved. All the regulars knew why he did this and accepted it, but it also wasn't too strange for visitors to experience. I was already used to shaking a gloved hand because of someone in the congregation, when the peace was first brought in, who always had a gloved hand due to a serious war injury.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Can be a not so good experirnce if hand being shaken is connected to eyes busily seeking out next person to greet
I remember going to a Silent Eucharist at Greenbelt one year and sharing the peace silently made me notice this tendency in myself but I still struggle with it.
Maybe a silent peace would help at the chitchat
Carys
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Remember that this may be the only time some parishioners are touched by another human and that feeling uncomfortable is not a good reason to deny people the comfort this can give,
Can be a not so good experirnce if hand being shaken is conne4cted to eyes busily seeking out next person to greet
I agree with both points. Regarding the second one, I find this behaviour to be most apparent at a church where you don't know many of the people. It doesn't give a very good impression at all.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
feeling uncomfortable is not a good reason to deny people the comfort this can give,
Yes but that's putting all the "blame" and responsibility for not being able to do it back onto me/others that struggle with it isn't it? "This is something you have to do because their need is greater than yours." Frankly, that's an awfully big assumption to make - and ignores the fact that really people aren't *choosing* not to do it - they can't, and they get judged for it because they're not being "nice" to the people who only get to touch someone once a week...
Entirely selflessly I could of course just grin and bear it, but if we laid our souls bare, I wonder sometimes if the hypothetical person would do it if they realised the pain they were inflicting was potentially greater than any comfort they were getting in the process? At the moment, this line of argument is applied only to the refusers when in fact it cuts both ways.
This is no-win on either side, which is why I still think it's a damaging and divisive thing to be doing, albeit for the most noble of reasons. I agree entirely with the post up thread:
"The Peace of the Lord be always with you."
Cong: "And also with you."
Is (assuming we go wild for a second and take you as being plural rather than a singular response to the Priest alone - and hey, we make crazier mental leaps...) quite enough in my opinion.
People that want to touch each other and have a chat can do so after the service, no one is stopping them. But at the moment we are making a small number of casualties through our actions every Sunday - one side getting offended, and the other disablingly anxious. I wasn't aware that we went to church to hurt people, but one way or the other, that is what offering a sign of peace does. In the great scheme of things it probably matters less than a whole host of dead horse issues that inflict pain and damage on a variety of sectors of congregations, but the pain is real for the sufferers none the less - and I think there's a regrettable tendency to want people to just "man up" and get on with it.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
This is no-win on either side, which is why I still think it's a damaging and divisive thing to be doing, albeit for the most noble of reasons. I agree entirely with the post up thread:
"The Peace of the Lord be always with you."
Cong: "And also with you."
Is (assuming we go wild for a second and take you as being plural rather than a singular response to the Priest alone - and hey, we make crazier mental leaps...) quite enough in my opinion.
Yes, I agree with this. Doing the Peace this way would also, I think, reduce the awkwardness felt by people like me who have been Christians many years but are part of churches that don't do the Sign of Peace.
Personally, I wonder if it isn't actually a divisive, unnecessary thing (certainly done for the most noble of reasons, mind you!) for the reasons expressed upthread; sometimes newcomers or people not well-known in the church are left looking on at everyone else greeting one another enthusiastically, and sometimes people are embarrassed or offended by the expectations of sociability and physical contact.
IME churches can be welcoming without having a Peace ritual, and it's also possible to address the points about physical contact and reconciliation in a non-ritual way.
ISTM rituals like the Peace can easily lose their power, so we end up doing them because 'that's what we do at this part of the service'. Or am I barking up the wrong tree - do most people actually find the Peace a significant, helpful practice which reminds them of the need to be in good relationship with one another?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
Well, it is a holy moment, and it seems appropriate to be able to focus on what one is receiving, and there's a long tradition of the practice of "custody of the eyes," wherein one maintains focus partly by not allowing distractions of seeing who else is there, who's wearing what, who's looking particularly attractive today, who's paired up with whom these days, who's having more or less trouble walking than they did last Sunday, etc.
I agree. Which means that it can't also be a focus for congregational unity in fellowship. If everyone there is focusing exclusively on the sacrament, they cannot at the same time be focusing on their relationship with each other. It follows that a separate part of the service should be dedicated to said fellowship, and that part is the peace.
For my money, I don't associate the artificial forced smiles and handshaking rituals of "the peace" in any way with fellowship with other members of the congregation. The latter would have to involve something meaningful and real, like going down the pub or for a walk on the moors or something. For me, this ritual just highlights that there actually isn't much interpersonal relationship between many members of the congregation so this excruciatingly embarrassing and fake ritual has to be invented in order to pretend that there is.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Yep, it's naff!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
For me, this ritual just highlights that there actually isn't much interpersonal relationship between many members of the congregation so this excruciatingly embarrassing and fake ritual has to be invented in order to pretend that there is.
If that were the case in a given church it would hardly be a reason to stop doing it. It's worth continuing to feel uncomfortable until the lack of interpersonal relationship is fixed.
(For what it's worth my smile is usually genuine, and sometimes I don't smile and that also seems to be OK)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
For me, this ritual just highlights that there actually isn't much interpersonal relationship between many members of the congregation so this excruciatingly embarrassing and fake ritual has to be invented in order to pretend that there is.
If that were the case in a given church it would hardly be a reason to stop doing it. It's worth continuing to feel uncomfortable until the lack of interpersonal relationship is fixed.
(For what it's worth my smile is usually genuine, and sometimes I don't smile and that also seems to be OK)
Not worth it for me. When I'm at a shack that does it (God be praised neither my previous one nor my current place do) I start dreading it from about half way through the sermon. Even where there is genuine interpersonal fellowship it still seems silly - I don't interact with people in a meanginful manner to order.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
In my shack(s) there is a great deal of hand shaking (and even hugging) that goes on when people arrive and also after the service when refreshments are available.
Why then have a handshake or a hug to order during the middle of the service? It simply embarasses many.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's worth continuing to feel uncomfortable until the lack of interpersonal relationship is fixed.
Only if you're implying causation, and that somehow by forcing people to do it over and over again they will grow to want to do it. That's right up there with an inverse of the Ludovico Technique in A Clockwork Orange. If it's being trained into people then the results are not a free-will expression of fellowship but a conditioned response.
Meanwhile, for those who struggle with it (to a degree more than dislike), it continues to be more akin to the alleged famous edict of the Imperial Japanese Navy:
"The beatings will continue until morale improves"
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
I do think the extended peace feels almost like a mid-term break in some Anglican churches and it thererfore loses its significance and meaning. Catholics seem much more discplined.
I want to share this from St Martin-in-the-Fields who have just begin a new way of sharing the peace which adds an additional perspective:
An Open-Handed Peace At St Martin in the Fields the Disability Awareness Task Group have suggested that we explore a new way of sharing the Peace. So until Advent we are using an “Open-Handed Peace”. We stand with hands out, palms upwards, for another to place their hands gently and carefully on ours. Why? For some people a hug is horribly invasive, for another with arthritis, or with damaged or swollen hands and arms, the traditional handshake is extremely painful, especially if vigorous! Besides, we become so accustomed to shaking hands that we no longer experience it as a way of receiving the other. So please join us for an open handed peace today and extend the welcome of Christ to the other whose presence we value
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I do think the extended peace feels almost like a mid-term break in some Anglican churches and it thererfore loses its significance and meaning. Catholics seem much more discplined.
I want to share this from St Martin-in-the-Fields who have just begin a new way of sharing the peace which adds an additional perspective:
An Open-Handed Peace At St Martin in the Fields the Disability Awareness Task Group have suggested that we explore a new way of sharing the Peace. So until Advent we are using an “Open-Handed Peace”. We stand with hands out, palms upwards, for another to place their hands gently and carefully on ours. Why? For some people a hug is horribly invasive, for another with arthritis, or with damaged or swollen hands and arms, the traditional handshake is extremely painful, especially if vigorous! Besides, we become so accustomed to shaking hands that we no longer experience it as a way of receiving the other. So please join us for an open handed peace today and extend the welcome of Christ to the other whose presence we value
So, it's slower, and feels instinctively like it's going to take even more care and thinking about (which I totally get is the whole point, btw). However, that's SMITF crossed off my list of occasional London stop-offs until Advent and if that was explained to me at the beginning of a service (either on the sheet or by the vicar) it would be my cue to turn around and walk straight back out. Replacing an awkward handshake with full immersion of the palms of both my hands - in what possible world is that *less* invasive? I see that it's better than a hug, but then hugs and huggers I just avoid anyway. This is like "let's go out and destroy the coping strategies people have come up with in the last few decades"...
FWIW, it looks like a good way of addressing the problem that it can degenerate into an unthinking observation, so 10/10 for that. It doesn't however address the underlying question about whether *anything* should be done other than the verbal priest:congregational exchange, rather than *a better something* -
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It doesn't however address the underlying question about whether *anything* should be done other than the verbal priest:congregational exchange, rather than *a better something* - [/QB]
I only worship there midweek where the peace is relatively subdued - ie a raise of the hand or a nod to those closest - but my understanding is that this was part of a recent review of liturgy, and the majority of consultees wanted the peace modified rather than dopped altogether.
I have noticed at some parishes that even when just the verbal exchange takes place - without the formal invitation to greet - that some people still do it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Only if you're implying causation, and that somehow by forcing people to do it over and over again they will grow to want to do it.
I'm not implying that shaking hands once a week will fix a lack of community, but stopping doing something because it highlights a lack of community is a bit like turning off the car dashboard because the "low oil" light is annoying. It might be, and leaving the dashboard on isn't going to fill up the oil by itself, but it really doesn't seem to be an appropriate response.
If you and Karl find the process unbearable and are always going to find the process unbearable I'm sympathetic and agree that such views should be taken note of. But that personal argument is a different argument from the one that says it shows up our lack of community and therefore should be stopped.
Posted by Andromeda (# 11304) on
:
I have to say this thread is a huge revelation to me. I had no idea people were so uncomfortable with the peace. It's one of my favourite parts of the service, particularly when I don't really feel like I know many people in a congregation and feel too nervous or inhibited to make small talk after the service. The enforced, structured interaction does enable me to feel connected to my fellow attendees. I actually enjoy seeing a congregation greet each other in this way.
However I will be more mindful of the distress it could be causing to those who seem to hang back a bit at this point. I had no idea.
(Some of you would positively HATE the church I used to go to! - non anglican, charismatic, prone to spontaneous instructions to 'turn to the person next to you and pray together about X' and all kinds of other unexpected frights)
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an introvert myself I still have a residual resistance to sharing the Peace. Therefore it's all the more important to be forced out of my instinctive isolation.
Why?
Because church isn't all about me.
Ah, so the church is for extroverts. I get it now.
This is the same crap they teach in seminaries now. Translated: introverts are selfish, introverts are wrong, introverts are bad for the church. We must change them. Because they never greet anybody else ever.
The shaking of hands during the liturgy is, quite simply, not essential. It's a modern rite with a modern cultural agenda. That said, most people, including myself, have no problem with it until it becomes a free-for-all.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm an introvert who appreciates sharing the peace, but that's because, for me, churchgoing is about community. And community doesn't always come naturally to me. But I'm not hugely sacramental, so just taking the bread and wine wouldn't be enough.
It shouldn't be difficult for churches to make arrangements to accommodate attenders who don't want to do the handshaking thing. For example, they could sit in an attitude of prayer, which would be taken as a sign that they should be left alone. But the willpower to explain and institute a simple change like this would have to be there, and churches don't like change.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Ah, so the church is for extroverts. I get it now.
I get that distinct feeling when I look at websites of a couple of churches I used to attend. Maybe it's what they're choosing to show on the site, but from the photo galleries one would think a lot of time is spent smiling maniacally in big happy groups. Nothing wrong with that, but I feel like I'd stand out with my sad-looking "resting face." ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an introvert myself I still have a residual resistance to sharing the Peace. Therefore it's all the more important to be forced out of my instinctive isolation.
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Why?
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Because church isn't all about me.
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Ah, so the church is for extroverts. I get it now...Translated: introverts are selfish, introverts are wrong, introverts are bad for the church. We must change them. Because they never greet anybody else ever.
That's a bit of a leap from what Angloid said. I'm sure Angloid could equally point to areas where extroverts are challenged by an element of the service to do something they are not comfortable with, given the chance.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
Indeed. Another introvert chiming in to say how helpful I find sharing the peace. It's not my default reaction to look for the presence of God in other people, but I know He's there. So, I'm grateful that the Church brings this to my intention daily in the liturgy, because I might miss it otherwise and end up being irreverent towards one of the ways God is present in our midst.
I have a good friend (ordination classmate actually) who's been described as an "extrovert's extrovert." It was interesting to discover that he prefers a pre-Mass announcement to keep a minute of silence before the opening hymn, whereas I prefer a pre-Mass announcement to introduce yourself to some of your fellow worshipers. Both of us wanted the liturgy to point us to the manifestations of God we find harder to find on our own.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
An Open-Handed Peace At St Martin in the Fields the Disability Awareness Task Group have suggested that we explore a new way of sharing the Peace. So until Advent we are using an “Open-Handed Peace”. We stand with hands out, palms upwards, for another to place their hands gently and carefully on ours.
I really like this idea.
But I disagree with what some people are suggesting, that sharing the peace is an extrovert thing. I am more of an introvert, and I find sharing the peace, when it's just shaking hands (not hugs), to be meaningful, and a way of connecting with people that I would find hard in an informal situation. I don't find it easy to approach people and to do small talk. So having an actual ritual, where I know what I'm supposed to do, and it simply involves shaking hands and saying 'Peace' and looking at the person, is very helpful for me, especially in a new church where I don't know people yet. I'm sure it's not supposed to be like this, but it's kind of like an ice-breaker.
I do like the idea of holding out hands for others to put their hands on top though. That is a gentle sort of contact, and gives each person more control and more time. Although I think if I was at that church for the first time, I'd be confused whether I was supposed to be standing with my hands out or putting my hands on someone else's hands. With a handshake, you both do the same thing, so you don't have to wonder who does what.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I admit to disliking it, and it's part of the reason why I don't usually go to a Sunday service. Besides, it's false: you sit there surrounded by people you don't know, who don't speak to you and you don't speak to them, suddenly for half a minute you're all smiles and handshakes, then you ignore each other again for the rest of the service and leave separately. What it doesn't do is engender any sense of community. It comes across as hugely contrived and frankly quite pointless. We never used to have it and I wish they'd scrap it.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I admit to disliking it, and it's part of the reason why I don't usually go to a Sunday service. Besides, it's false: you sit there surrounded by people you don't know, who don't speak to you and you don't speak to them, suddenly for half a minute you're all smiles and handshakes, then you ignore each other again for the rest of the service and leave separately. What it doesn't do is engender any sense of community. It comes across as hugely contrived and frankly quite pointless. We never used to have it and I wish they'd scrap it.
That's just it...there are plenty of people who shake hands and chat easily during the service who persist in being nasty and selfish the rest of the week, and plenty of introverts who go off from the service to do the Lord's work quietly and without seeking praise, thanks, or acknowledgement.
This little ritual moment is an attempt to inculturate a message that extroversion is the church's ideal, and that introversion is a problem to be fixed...at least, that's the way it is presented in the overwhelming majority of churches. To add insult to injury, some of these purported fellowship-friendly churches, such as my own, will poo-poo the sharing of a common cup.
"There are many gifts..." Stop holding up some over others.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
People are imbuing too much into the Sign of Peace. It's a ritualized gesture at a particular moment in the service with a particular meaning. If the socializing is going overboard its the fault and misunderstanding of that particular congregation an not the ritual and should be brought up with the celebrant or at the next parish liturgy meeting. It's not a value statement about extroverts vs. introverts unless someone wants to read that into the ritual, and again if it comes off that way it says more about the congregation or the complainer than about the rite itself.
If one is an extreme introvert and one finds this extremely difficult then joyfully take up your cross. Today you may have to shake hands with the guy in the pew. Tomorrow you may have to touch a leper.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
This little ritual moment is an attempt to inculturate a message that extroversion is the church's ideal, and that introversion is a problem to be fixed.
I think you're reading too much into it. Many people seem to struggle with sharing the peace and identify with varying degrees of introversion, but nevertheless can see arguments for doing it besides favoring the extroverts.
I'm not denying there is an argument to be had about how useful the practice is, but reading an attempt to inculturate into it seems to presume bad faith to me.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Did an experiment today: after the Peace was pronounced I waited until I reckoned more than 50% of the congregation were in their own pew - so we had a 4 minute (FOUR!) hiatus in the middle of the service.
PP not happy - have assured him we'll now have a maximum of 20 seconds in future.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But it's not a 'hiatus' - it's part of worship. I do agree that 4 mins seems a bit long, though I suppose it depends on the circumstances.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
This can be covered by a bit of careful leading - i.e. a firm instruction from the front to share the Peace just with the people immediately beside and around you.
And there is absolutely no need to meet and greet - just saying "The Peace of the Lord ..." is quite sufficient.
[ 27. October 2013, 15:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
People are imbuing too much into the Sign of Peace. It's a ritualized gesture at a particular moment in the service with a particular meaning. If the socializing is going overboard its the fault and misunderstanding of that particular congregation an not the ritual and should be brought up with the celebrant or at the next parish liturgy meeting. It's not a value statement about extroverts vs. introverts unless someone wants to read that into the ritual, and again if it comes off that way it says more about the congregation or the complainer than about the rite itself.
If one is an extreme introvert and one finds this extremely difficult then joyfully take up your cross. Today you may have to shake hands with the guy in the pew. Tomorrow you may have to touch a leper.
Well said!
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
This little ritual moment is an attempt to inculturate a message that extroversion is the church's ideal, and that introversion is a problem to be fixed.
I think you're reading too much into it. Many people seem to struggle with sharing the peace and identify with varying degrees of introversion, but nevertheless can see arguments for doing it besides favoring the extroverts.
I'm not denying there is an argument to be had about how useful the practice is, but reading an attempt to inculturate into it seems to presume bad faith to me.
Not exactly....it doesn't take a great deal of work to find a church where post facto defenses have been overlaid onto this ritual. Heck, they are all over this thread.
I'm not calling for an end to this liturgical practice; I'm just calling it like it is, and not as it has been charmingly imagined. The work of the church continues outside, in the world around us.
Pancho is partially right...people read too much into it, but it is the ardent defenders who have invented theology behind it who do so. They might as well just call it what it is in many churches: a free-for-all exhibition of socialization.
Don't be so quick to blow off your introverts...we are the ones who really run the church.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This can be covered by a bit of careful leading - i.e. a firm instruction from the front to share the Peace just with the people immediately beside and around you.
And there is absolutely no need to meet and greet - just saying "The Peace of the Lord ..." is quite sufficient.
Agreed. This was done tonight at an evangelical evening service (I hadn't been before) and it was done very sensibly and sensitively. In rather surprising contrast to the forced Peace with the entire congregation in my usual A-C church.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Don't be so quick to blow off your introverts...we are the ones who really run the church.
What I blow off is the whole notion that the world divides into introverts and extroverts such that it could possibly be meaningful to say which group runs the church.
I also blow off the notion that I (or anyone else for that matter) is being defensive in their support of the peace. You say you call it like it is, I'm not sure I agree with your analysis.
Having said that I'm currently at a church which doesn't do the peace (well, has done once in the last 6mths) and I'm perfectly happy with that.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I've never understood where the peace ritual came from. In my younger days we never did such a ritual, but then it suddenly appeared without so much as a by-your-leave. How come we managed for centuries without it and now it seems to be important to the liturgy? I dislike it and wish it would go away. Maybe it should be optional in the way that making the sign of the cross and kneeling to pray are.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Too right. Perhaps those of us who'd rather not, thanks, could hold a service book in our hands, like the folks not receiving the Eucharist?
[ 28. October 2013, 09:27: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Or wear boxing gloves? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I've never understood where the peace ritual came from. In my younger days we never did such a ritual, but then it suddenly appeared without so much as a by-your-leave. How come we managed for centuries without it and now it seems to be important to the liturgy? I dislike it and wish it would go away. Maybe it should be optional in the way that making the sign of the cross and kneeling to pray are.
Yes, it used be just a versicle and response when I was growing up. Now, it's much more, and I for one value it. But it must be kept to a simple greeting "Peace be with you" and not a chat session about the bargains this week at the supermarket. The only times you can go beyond the greeting are to add a short "at this time of great sadness" for someone recently bereaved, or "at this time of great joy" on the birth of a child or grandchild. No congratulations for an exam success, no commiseration about a damaged bumper bar. They are matters you can deal with at coffee.
And for those who find the physical contact difficult or distressing, do what some in our congregations do. Press your hands together, fingers under your chin, and give a slight bow before your greeting. The physical contact is avoided in a manner which can't give offence to the other.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
One solution to The Peace: be an organist and sit in a loft ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Too right. Perhaps those of us who'd rather not, thanks, could hold a service book in our hands, like the folks not receiving the Eucharist?
Even that doesn't always work, I've been seated in a prayerful attitude with a service book in my hands only to have someone reach in and yank my hand out just so that they could shake it.
I can cope with the peace at the small, Agape service I attend where you share the peace only with the person on your immediate right and left, what I cannot cope with is in the main Church service where a few people bound about like over excited puppy dogs trying to tag as many people as they can
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The peace is really a piece of liturgical archealogism. The liturgical reformers of the twentieth century (may God have mercy on their souls) thought it would be good to resurrect a long forgotten practice without really having any understanding of how it was practiced in ancient times. It was thus introduced under the guise of authenticity and a theology was invented around it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I admit to disliking it, and it's part of the reason why I don't usually go to a Sunday service. Besides, it's false: you sit there surrounded by people you don't know, who don't speak to you and you don't speak to them, suddenly for half a minute you're all smiles and handshakes, then you ignore each other again for the rest of the service and leave separately. What it doesn't do is engender any sense of community. It comes across as hugely contrived and frankly quite pointless. We never used to have it and I wish they'd scrap it.
So the solution to an almost-total lack of real community within the church is to remove the one part of the worship that tries to promote it?
I suppose then we'll be completely free to turn up at church and utterly ignore all those nasty humans surrounding us. A whole church full of isolated individuals, with the concept of Christian Unity nothing more than a weekly geographical curiosity. How wonderful.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I admit to disliking it, and it's part of the reason why I don't usually go to a Sunday service. Besides, it's false: you sit there surrounded by people you don't know, who don't speak to you and you don't speak to them, suddenly for half a minute you're all smiles and handshakes, then you ignore each other again for the rest of the service and leave separately. What it doesn't do is engender any sense of community. It comes across as hugely contrived and frankly quite pointless. We never used to have it and I wish they'd scrap it.
So the solution to an almost-total lack of real community within the church is to remove the one part of the worship that tries to promote it?
I suppose then we'll be completely free to turn up at church and utterly ignore all those nasty humans surrounding us. A whole church full of isolated individuals, with the concept of Christian Unity nothing more than a weekly geographical curiosity. How wonderful.
Whereas the fakery at the moment which causes active distress to a minority (albeit lots like it) is a good thing? Personally isolated individuals coming together to worship and receive the sacraments is a heck of a lot more wonderful than an opportunity to disconcert and marginalise as currently practised by the ambulatory ones. One lady at the service I was at last week actually hit me (and I do mean punched) on the arm to get my attention and shake her hand. Truly twinning discomfort with contact with the inability to make and hold eye contact has been a blessing to me. I was kneeling at the time.
Ban it. Asap.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
betjemaniac
Why don't you just have a quiet word with your minister (or other church leader), requesting them to ask worshippers to be sensitive to people who may be at prayer, etc, during this time?
If people are in the habit of hitting someone who's at prayer, that's pretty bad, but there's no need to ban the Peace for that. It's their poor behaviour that needs to be dealt with.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I admit to disliking it, and it's part of the reason why I don't usually go to a Sunday service. Besides, it's false: you sit there surrounded by people you don't know, who don't speak to you and you don't speak to them, suddenly for half a minute you're all smiles and handshakes, then you ignore each other again for the rest of the service and leave separately. What it doesn't do is engender any sense of community. It comes across as hugely contrived and frankly quite pointless. We never used to have it and I wish they'd scrap it.
So the solution to an almost-total lack of real community within the church is to remove the one part of the worship that tries to promote it?
I suppose then we'll be completely free to turn up at church and utterly ignore all those nasty humans surrounding us. A whole church full of isolated individuals, with the concept of Christian Unity nothing more than a weekly geographical curiosity. How wonderful.
It may "try to promote it", but in fact it merely obscures the fact that it's not really present. It may be that getting rid of the fake community ritual of "the peace" will actually expose the lack of real community and encourage real building of community.
If taking it away means there's no community left, there was none there in the beginning. You lose nothing, except the pretence. For fuck's sake go down the pub together or something real if you really want to build community.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
betjemaniac
Why don't you just have a quiet word with your minister (or other church leader), requesting them to ask worshippers to be sensitive to people who may be at prayer, etc, during this time?
If people are in the habit of hitting someone who's at prayer, that's pretty bad, but there's no need to ban the Peace for that. It's their poor behaviour that needs to be dealt with.
Sorry, I'm just pretty raw about it at the moment. I would of course not seek to ban it, but it doesn't stop me fervently hoping that it'll just die out...
In terms of talking to the vicar, I've only been going there a month, I've never spoken to him about anything to date.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Maybe you could try other churches in the vicinity and see if they do it differently. Otherwise, you'll probably have to wait until you know these folk a bit better and can talk to them about it, or come up with some strategy such as nipping to the loo, etc.
As I said before, it must be difficult for someone who has to it every week and doesn't like doing it. I might really dislike it as well if I had to do it every week!
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
This whole subject is so fraught with difficulties and possible awkwardness! As I have said, my own practice (as liturgical Deacon) is to make the effort to exchange the Peace with visitors/newcomers/peeps I haven't seen at Mass for a few weeks, but leaving 'How are you?' etc. to the post-Mass coffee-time.......
.......OTOH, I do sympathise with those who say that the verbal exchange between priest and assembly is all that is needed!
ISTM that this is just one of those many church situations where you're simply never going to please everybody all of the time.....but that does not mean that the Peace should be unduly prolonged beyond the minute or two it should take!
Ian J.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I admit to disliking it, and it's part of the reason why I don't usually go to a Sunday service. Besides, it's false: you sit there surrounded by people you don't know, who don't speak to you and you don't speak to them, suddenly for half a minute you're all smiles and handshakes, then you ignore each other again for the rest of the service and leave separately. What it doesn't do is engender any sense of community. It comes across as hugely contrived and frankly quite pointless. We never used to have it and I wish they'd scrap it.
So the solution to an almost-total lack of real community within the church is to remove the one part of the worship that tries to promote it?
No. If you really want to engender a sense of community get people properly introduced by someone as they arrive, i.e. show them to a pew and ask (without pushing it) whether they already know anyone who might be sitting there, and if not, offer to introduce them. This sort of thing could take place easily before the service starts, and there can be a coffee event afterwards they can go to to continue it if they want. The fake handshake thing is just a waste of time.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You lose nothing, except the pretence.
And the visual reminder of what you need.
Earlier the argument was that the practice was painful because of the lack of real community.
Would the practice become less painful if there really was a community?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You lose nothing, except the pretence.
And the visual reminder of what you need.
Earlier the argument was that the practice was painful because of the lack of real community.
Would the practice become less painful if there really was a community?
No, it's pointless where there's a lack of real community. It'd be pointless if there were, as well, because shaking hands with people where the rubrics say I should do so has very little to do with real community and real relationship. It's bizarre, strange and uncomfortable and is as far away from my real interpersonal relations as it is possible to be. This may shock some people, but I do not shake hands with my friends - it's something I do with work associates. It's formal, not friendly. I'd be more likely to offer a hand then take it away and stick my thumb on my nose going "ner ner! Got you!" to my actual friends. I have a feeling that'd not go down very well in the middle of the service. A real greeting to a real friend is a genuine smile and an enthusiastic "eyup" or "hello" - something that cannot be faked and cannot be scripted. Trying to promote community in this way makes as much sense to me as trying to get a girlfriend by wanking to numbers.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
So, back to what was said earlier. It's not about community, or friendship: it's about formal, liturgical peace.
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
I dislike the peace. I find it jarring, In our church which is small, everyone must shake hands and hug every other person. I do not feel like being hugged 30 times on a Sunday morning, thank you, nor do I think that is what the peace is all about. I would much rather simply stay in my seat and shake hands with the person next to me, and bid them God's peace. Having said that I also know for many living alone it is the only human physical contact they have during the whole week and it is important to them. So I smile and hug away and relax when it is over.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, it's pointless where there's a lack of real community. It'd be pointless if there were, as well, because shaking hands with people where the rubrics say I should do so has very little to do with real community and real relationship.
And for people who find it OK and quite like it, and do find some meaning in it, can you accept that or are you clear that they are simply wrong?
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Each to their own and all that, but having grown up not having to shake hands with the people next to me (and it would feel odd to do this with members of your own family, surely?), it does feel disconcerting having it enforced suddenly in the middle of the service.
I was once unexpectedly hugged by someone I didn't know at an Anglican service, which was also quite disconcerting. Friends and family are fine but complete strangers are another matter.
I think churches ought to do a vox pop and see if the majority of their congregations actually like it and want it. I suspect there may well be a sizeable element who don't but remain silent about it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
(and it would feel odd to do this with members of your own family, surely?)
Often I'm in the choir so I don't notice this, but when I'm in pews and the peace is announced neither me nor my wife can bring ourselves to shake hands, and we don't really feel like kissing or hugging in public to order either.
[ 29. October 2013, 05:47: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, it's pointless where there's a lack of real community. It'd be pointless if there were, as well, because shaking hands with people where the rubrics say I should do so has very little to do with real community and real relationship.
And for people who find it OK and quite like it, and do find some meaning in it, can you accept that or are you clear that they are simply wrong?
I'm happy to let them got on with it. But if anyone thinks that it's actually building community that otherwise wouldn't exist I think they're barking, frankly.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So, back to what was said earlier. It's not about community, or friendship: it's about formal, liturgical peace.
To be honest, I'm not sure I know what "formal liturgical peace" means. If it's a general desire for our neighbours to experience the peace of Christ, then it doesn't require individual greetings.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
What I mean by it is a symbolic expression of being at peace with your neighbours before you receive the Sacrament with them. This is why, when occasionally I have been irritated by someone else's behaviour during the service so far or, more rarely, have had a serious disagreement with them, I make a point of sharing the peace with them.
If you are at peace with those around you, a token acknowledgement should be enough- and should be accepted by others as being enough.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Perhaps the real problem with The Peace is more (and less) fundamental:
It was decided to re-introduce something that had (they thought) been part of the liturgy so long ago that no one knew how it was done/how it worked.
So far, so unpromising.
But the real genius for liturgical confusion and upset was that it was decided to dump this into the middle of a service by a group of people most of whom rarely, if ever, were in the congregation for a run-of-0the-mill service.
I don't think this last point can be over-emphasised: it was decided to be something "good" for congregations to embrace by people who hardly ever were in a congregation.
And as far as I can find out, little if any trialling was done in normal parishes before it got included in the service booklets and parishes were expected to accommodate it.
You shouldn't underestimate how little many clergy know about being in a congregational setting or role. Some of the most joyous and sustained laughter I heard in my childhood was after a group of clergy wives had all 'fessed up on their strategy for churchgoing during the holidays - and almost unanimously they all said they let their priestly husband take the children alone because it was the only time he ever went to church with his own children and he would get to discover the unique joy of 3 (or more) offspring hell-bent on playing up.
So, The Peace was foisted onto congregations by people with little idea of how it might have worked in the past, little concept of what its impact might be at the time, and without the sense to think through or imagine the outcome of their little experiment.
And the much later justification on the grounds of "building community" would be laughable if it didn't show just how out-of-touch these people really were/are.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Not only little trialing, but no explanation to the congregation about why their worship service was suddenly being interrupted for a round of hand-shaking/hugging.
I love liturgical worship (the Peace excepted...). But I think the Church has done a terrible job, over the years, explaining the WHY of the liturgy to laypeople.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But the real genius for liturgical confusion and upset was that it was decided to dump this into the middle of a service by a group of people most of whom rarely, if ever, were in the congregation for a run-of-the-mill service.
I don't think this last point can be over-emphasised: it was decided to be something "good" for congregations to embrace by people who hardly ever were in a congregation.
And as far as I can find out, little if any trialling was done in normal parishes before it got included in the service booklets and parishes were expected to accommodate it.
That's a fascinating point. Maybe it's obvious to most people in the more 'clerical' traditions but from my faith context, where the senior pastor won't be taking a lead role in every service, it's not obvious at all.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
What I mean by it is a symbolic expression of being at peace with your neighbours before you receive the Sacrament with them. This is why, when occasionally I have been irritated by someone else's behaviour during the service so far or, more rarely, have had a serious disagreement with them, I make a point of sharing the peace with them.
If you are at peace with those around you, a token acknowledgement should be enough- and should be accepted by others as being enough.
My community has a weekly practice of confession and of addressing grievances with one another, followed by the Peace. I'd say it's extremely effective as a symbolic restoration of right relationship with one another.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
It sounds like it would be. You say 'my community': are you a member of some religious Order, then? I'm not sure how it'd work in a parish context.
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Too right. Perhaps those of us who'd rather not, thanks, could hold a service book in our hands, like the folks not receiving the Eucharist?
Oh I wish!! I have tried that - grabbing my hymn book and holding it tightly with both hands as soon as I hear the priest say "let us offer one another a sign of peace", but unfortunately some people are very persistent,and thrust their hands at you. I have even had my shoulder yanked by some enthusiastic "peace-nik" behind me whose proffered hand I had tried to ignore. Why can't other members of the congregation respect the fact that some of us do not wish to do the peace?
I used to do the peace as I did not wish to appear churlish by refusing to do it, but now I won't do it at all, even though I have seen people roll their eyes or tut or giggle when they approach me and I won't shake hands, I just smile or nod.
I am in agreement with the Shipmates who think the peace is unnecessary, intrusive, coercive and false - and I am so pleased I am not the only one who thinks this.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I still think the best introduction/comment I've ever heard at The Peace was from a cleric some years ago who did as follows:
1. Notices from the Chancel step.
2. Banns - requesting couples present to stand so that people could see them and wish them well.
3. "You may, if you and they wish, offer each other a sign of peace. The Peace of the Lord be with you."
He would then share the peace with 1 person on either side of the aisle before turning to walk back to the altar.
This meant (a) it was quite clear that the peace should be something shared willingly.
And pre-wedding couples could be identified which not only rendered the reading of banns more meaningful but also meant people could welcome them at the end of the service.
As for sharing the peace with the congregation, he always walked straight to the door at the end of the service so was available to every member of the congregation as they left the church.
Howzat!
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
feeling uncomfortable is not a good reason to deny people the comfort this can give,
Yes but that's putting all the "blame" and responsibility for not being able to do it back onto me/others that struggle with it isn't it? "This is something you have to do because their need is greater than yours." Frankly, that's an awfully big assumption to make - and ignores the fact that really people aren't *choosing* not to do it - they can't, and they get judged for it because they're not being "nice" to the people who only get to touch someone once a week...
Entirely selflessly I could of course just grin and bear it, but if we laid our souls bare, I wonder sometimes if the hypothetical person would do it if they realised the pain they were inflicting was potentially greater than any comfort they were getting in the process? At the moment, this line of argument is applied only to the refusers when in fact it cuts both ways.
This is no-win on either side, which is why I still think it's a damaging and divisive thing to be doing, albeit for the most noble of reasons. I agree entirely with the post up thread:
"The Peace of the Lord be always with you."
Cong: "And also with you."
Is (assuming we go wild for a second and take you as being plural rather than a singular response to the Priest alone - and hey, we make crazier mental leaps...) quite enough in my opinion.
People that want to touch each other and have a chat can do so after the service, no one is stopping them. But at the moment we are making a small number of casualties through our actions every Sunday - one side getting offended, and the other disablingly anxious. I wasn't aware that we went to church to hurt people, but one way or the other, that is what offering a sign of peace does. In the great scheme of things it probably matters less than a whole host of dead horse issues that inflict pain and damage on a variety of sectors of congregations, but the pain is real for the sufferers none the less - and I think there's a regrettable tendency to want people to just "man up" and get on with it.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
Do people who find touch difficult find it difficult to put their hands together (as with a child at prayer) and nod to another person while saying "Peace"?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Roselyne
Its not just about the touch thing: its the whole false bonhomie, hey, aren't we "in touch" with our softer side, 1970s self-conscious garbage that many of us dislike.
Frankly, putting hands together and saying Peace will only complete the picture of a bad attempt to take off the Hare Krishnas.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
On occasions when I have not wished to join in the handshaking gaggle I have found that a gracious and I hope graceful shallow bow in the general direction of those around me, followed by a conspicuous riffling through the hymn book for the next hymn, does a pretty painless job of saying 'I wish you well but please leave me alone'. But then I've never been subject to the rather aggressive approaches that some shipmates have described upthread. I don't think the words 'fuck off' have any place in church but if they did, those situations would be it.
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
It's a handshake. Nobody is insisting on exchanging bodily fluids.* I really don't understand the fuss.
*Not at this point in the service. It may happen later if you share a chalice with someone who drools.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
I would be interested to know what our non-Anglophone shipmates think about the peace and whether it raises the same issues for them as identified on this thread. In my travels elsewhere in Europe I have observed a far more practical application of the practice (cross denominationally) which roughly translates as - those who want do it somehow manage to do it with others who want to do it, and those who don't just don't, and now let's get on with the service!
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I would be interested to know what our non-Anglophone shipmates think about the peace and whether it raises the same issues for them as identified on this thread. In my travels elsewhere in Europe I have observed a far more practical application of the practice (cross denominationally) which roughly translates as - those who want do it somehow manage to do it with others who want to do it, and those who don't just don't, and now let's get on with the service!
While still an anglo, I find it useful in my MW reports to mention how the Peace works out in other places (France/Québec/Spain/Argentina) -- I have found that in non-English-speaking RC churches, I have found it to be non-invasive and workable, and its purpose is clear to me there. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that anglophones are unable to carry out the Peace without offensiveness and problematics. I wish we would just give it up.
In the interim, I hide behind pillars and examine the preface to the prayerbook.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
P
You shouldn't underestimate how little many clergy know about being in a congregational setting or role. Some of the most joyous and sustained laughter I heard in my childhood was after a group of clergy wives had all 'fessed up on their strategy for churchgoing during the holidays - and almost unanimously they all said they let their priestly husband take the children alone because it was the only time he ever went to church with his own children and he would get to discover the unique joy of 3 (or more) offspring hell-bent on playing up.
It never quite worked like that in my family. We used to do exchanges with other clergy for holidays. The deal was that you took the Sunday services but otherwise were able to have a holiday in another part of the country. So even on holiday my father was able to escape to the safety of the chancel leaving my mother to cope with a recalcitrant churchgoer (me - "why do we have to go to church on holiday?").
The same is true for organist's families. My mother-in-law has many a tale of the mischief my wife and sister-in-law got up to in the pew while their father was safely out of the way in the organ loft.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
It's a handshake. Nobody is insisting on exchanging bodily fluids.* I really don't understand the fuss.
*Not at this point in the service. It may happen later if you share a chalice with someone who drools.
Actually, I did once share the Peace with one man who'd been wiping his nose on the back of his hand throughout the service, and another who'd been vigorously biting his nails throughout, so yes, there was some exchange of bodily fluids. (Well, we all have them.)
But leaving that aside the Peace can come across as false for the reasons already stated. It can also be embarrassing as you stand there ready to shake hands with people, and are passed over in favour of people they already know or are closer to, or they leave you out completely. It can be embarrassing when someone determinedly avoids you. It can be less pleasant when someone is determined to do the rounds and lunges at you. And I don't want to be hugged or given a kiss by a stranger.
It's never felt uplifting, or gone on to engender any friendship or sense of community in my experience, but obviously YMMV.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
It's a handshake. Nobody is insisting on exchanging bodily fluids.* I really don't understand the fuss.
You could try just believing those of us who tell you that it's majorly embarrassing at best, and traumatic at worst rather than assuming everyone's like you.
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
I do believe you. I just don't understand it. At all. I also can't understand why there are so many folks on the Ship like this when I have only met one in real life.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I do believe you. I just don't understand it. At all. I also can't understand why there are so many folks on the Ship like this when I have only met one in real life.
Maybe the ship self selects *because* we find it easier here.....?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I do believe you. I just don't understand it. At all. I also can't understand why there are so many folks on the Ship like this when I have only met one in real life.
also (sorry for double post) catch me on a good day when I'm all srewed up inside with courage and you'd never notice - but equally, you don't know what's going on inside everyone else's head - just because they're not curling up into a ball and shrinking away from you doesn't mean it isn't a huge effort they're making below the surface. Like I say, it's much easier to have this conversation on here than it is in a church, so you might be surprised about wider attitudes....
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I do believe you. I just don't understand it. At all. I also can't understand why there are so many folks on the Ship like this when I have only met one in real life.
Don't try to understand why, just understand that it is.
You'd not know if you only knew me IRL. I think it's easier to say we hate it here than in the church where we think saying this would make us Pariahs.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I do believe you. I just don't understand it. At all.
I'm guessing your church community may be different - you possibly go to the same one each week and there are familiar faces. The "community" aspect makes more sense if there are. If you're on your own in a strange town, as a way of getting to know people, the Peace is useless.
What it does is basically introduce a small formal element of acknowledging the humanity of others alongside your own, but it doesn't really do much else really. I'm quite happy to meet people, but this isn't about meeting them. "Let's all pretend we're friends for 30 seconds."
What is it that you like about it?
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
What is it that you like about it?
Thank you for asking this question. It's been missing for a while.
I believe that each and every human being is made in the image and likeness of God. I believe that they are fallen, but that out of immense love for us, God took on human flesh, lived as part of a family and part of a community, died for us and is redeeming us. My inability to always be aware of the presence of God in each and every person I meet is due to my sinfulness, not theirs. C.S. Lewis put it better than I can in Weight of Glory:
quote:
There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal... it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit. ... Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses.
When I come to worship, I need to reverence that way God is present to us. Christ died for that person sitting next to me. How could I fail to reverence her when she's clearly immeasurably precious in God's eyes, the God I want to become more and more like?
As an embodied human being, touch is a terribly important way in which I express reverence. To exchange the peace does not exhaust that, just as to hear preaching does not exhaust the ways in which God calls me to be open to His Good News all the day long, or to receive communion does not exhaust the ways God feeds me. But it's a symbol (no mere sign!) of my willingness to reverence what God loves and so participate in my own sanctification.
[ 31. October 2013, 12:40: Message edited by: Hart ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
If you're on your own in a strange town, as a way of getting to know people, the Peace is useless.
What it does is basically introduce a small formal element of acknowledging the humanity of others alongside your own, but it doesn't really do much else really. I'm quite happy to meet people, but this isn't about meeting them. "Let's all pretend we're friends for 30 seconds."
It seems to me that this gets at the crux of the issue. The Peace isn't about getting to know people or being friends. I don't even think it's about "creating" community really. Acknowledging the gift of community, perhaps, but not creating it. When it comes to the church, Christ creates community; we live into the community Christ has created.
The Peace is about just that—greeting those around us with a prayer that they experience the peace of Christ. We pray that for them whether they are friends or not, or whether we will ever see them again or not. The important thing is that we say it to them, not about them or for them. The problem comes, ISTM, when this function is ignored and the Peace becomes a meet and greet and a time to chat. Then it becomes about us, not about Christ's peace.
Granted, I'll sometimes go beyond the formula. If it's someone I know has been sick or is grieving or the like, then I'll add how glad I am to see them. But otherwise, I avoid any temptations to chat.
As for physical contact, surely that is culture dependent. I agree completely that no one should be made to feel uncomfortable. If we stick to the formula and take our cues for physical contact from those to whom we speak, it seems to me that it should all work out.
And yes, L'organist, the music should start signaling the end within 15-20 seconds.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
No, The Peace is not about "Acknowledging humanity" or any other BS that you may care to come up with.
And frankly, that sort of trite explanation just reads like its come from the columns of Private Eye and deserves to be quoted right back in that august organ - in their Pseuds Corner.
The Peace was dreamt up by a group of saddo liturgists in the 1960s/70s who were hell-bent on showing how "relevant" and "right-on" the church could be when the rest of the world was getting to grips with Timothy Leary's Turn on, Tune in, Drop out mantra.
The Clue to the falsity of it all is in the words "offer a sign of peace" - WHAT is the sign of peace? There isn't one. Its that simple: the church has been going along with trying to offer something that doesn't exist for 4 decades.
Frankly, if something doesn't work after that long then maybe its time to admit defeat.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The Clue to the falsity of it all is in the words "offer a sign of peace" - WHAT is the sign of peace? There isn't one. Its that simple: the church has been going along with trying to offer something that doesn't exist for 4 decades.
Frankly, if something doesn't work after that long then maybe its time to admit defeat.
Or ask if it's not working because we're doing it wrong, perhaps? I've worshipped in congregations where it fails miserably and in others where it works quite well.
As for the "sign of peace," seems to me that the NT and early church writings are pretty clear that the sign was a kiss. (Augustine and others are pretty clear it was a kiss on the lips, at that.) These days, I'm sure most people would prefer a different sign, hence the preference for shaking hands.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Frankly, if something doesn't work after that long then maybe its time to admit defeat.
Works fine for me. I believe those of you who say it doesn't for particular individuals or particular churches, and I've heard people in real life complaining that they don't like it, but I do.
It would be a step forward to extend reciprocal belief across the I-tell-you-it's-terrible/ fine-for-me gap. It strikes me as a gap that probably isn't all that susceptible to rationalization. If you hate it, I doubt I can persuade you that you ought to like it, and vice versa.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
I do believe you. I just don't understand it. At all.
I'm guessing your church community may be different - you possibly go to the same one each week and there are familiar faces. The "community" aspect makes more sense if there are. If you're on your own in a strange town, as a way of getting to know people, the Peace is useless.
What it does is basically introduce a small formal element of acknowledging the humanity of others alongside your own, but it doesn't really do much else really.
And why should it? I think there would be much less reason to share the Peace among a tightly knit community of people who all know each other. I don't go to church to join a club or be sociable, I go to join with others in celebrating our common humanity and letting it be transformed by the Risen Christ. So in an unfamiliar church, surrounded by strangers, it seems to me important that I recognise that by this simple ritual gesture. As an introvert, I will happily slink out at the end of the service: I don't want to be back-slapped or dragged along for coffee. But I don't go to church as an individual to express my personal devotion to Christ in isolation; I go as a member of his Body to worship as that Body. A handshake, as sacrifices go, is a small price to pay, surely?
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, The Peace is not about "Acknowledging humanity" or any other BS that you may care to come up with.
And frankly, that sort of trite explanation just reads like its come from the columns of Private Eye and deserves to be quoted right back in that august organ - in their Pseuds Corner.
The Peace was dreamt up by a group of saddo liturgists in the 1960s/70s who were hell-bent on showing how "relevant" and "right-on" the church could be when the rest of the world was getting to grips with Timothy Leary's Turn on, Tune in, Drop out mantra.
The Clue to the falsity of it all is in the words "offer a sign of peace" - WHAT is the sign of peace? There isn't one. Its that simple: the church has been going along with trying to offer something that doesn't exist for 4 decades.
Frankly, if something doesn't work after that long then maybe its time to admit defeat.
Though I am not a particular fan of the peace, isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that it was "dreamt up" in the 1960s. Assimilations of a gesture of peace into the Eucharist were very early and widespread in Eucharistic liturgies based on the New Testament injunction to be reconciled to one another before offering gifts at the altar. And the peace actually appeared as an option in the 1928 Prayer Book.
But simply because you or I don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't work for the majority of the congregation who may find it helpful. What is unhelpful is the feeling that those who don't want to participate have it thrust upon them by those who should know better.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Yes, it was made up. We really have no idea how it was practiced in ancient times. The reformers of the last century were guilty of the following liturgical sins (and I'll say again, God have mercy on their souls): archealogism, primitivism etc. and that this equalled authenticity. What they really did in the process was destroy over 1500 years of liturgical tradition.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, it was made up. We really have no idea how it was practiced in ancient times.
Do we really have no idea? From Augustine's sermon to the newly-baptized (found here, and admittedly the note indicates the original text may be corrupted, so that the translator has done his best):
quote:
Then, after the consecration of the sacrifice of God, because he wanted us to be ourselves his sacrifice, which is indicated by where that sacrifice was first put, that is the sign of the thing that we are; why, then after the consecration is accomplished, we say the Lord's prayer, which you have received and given back. After that comes the greeting, Peace be with you, and Christians kiss one another with a holy kiss. It's a sign of peace; what is indicated by the lips should happen in the conscience; that is, just as your lips approach the lips of your brothers or sisters, so your heart should not be withdrawn from theirs.
From Justin Martyr's First Apology (Chapter 65):
quote:
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.
From Cyril of Jerusalem ( Lecture XXIII)
quote:
Then the Deacon cries aloud, “Receive ye one another; and let us kiss one another.” Think not that this kiss is of the same character with those given in public by common friends. It is not such: but this kiss blends souls one with another, and courts entire forgiveness for them. The kiss therefore is the sign that our souls are mingled together, and banish all remembrance of wrongs. For this cause Christ said, If thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against time, leave there thy gift upon the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. The kiss therefore is reconciliation, and for this reason holy: as the blessed Paul somewhere cried, saying, Greet ye one another with a holy kiss; and Peter, with a kiss of charity.
The Cathoic Encyclopedia seems to have a fair bit on how it was practiced.
[ 31. October 2013, 18:23: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
As an outsider dare I suggest that a relevant old text is Romans chapter 14: ("Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth").
Perhaps not.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
In the middle of a worship service we are invited to wish God's peace to other people and to have it wished to us. we have just confessed to not loving others as much as we should. why would anyone want to pass up the chance of sharing/sharing in God's peace??
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
why would anyone want to pass up the chance of sharing/sharing in God's peace??
Very few do. Some, however, for what feels like the ninetieth time, can't, no matter how much they may feel they ought and how many times others tell them they ought.
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on
:
One thing that the peace does is to allow people who may never be touched from one week's end to the next to be touched by another human being.
Too often we are so busy feeling distressed about what the peace does or doesn't do for us, that we forget what it might mean for the other person involved. So many people never have loving touches -- people whose partners have died, for example.
One of the most revolting things that has happened to me in a church was shaking hands with a disturbed woman who had gone to the toilet just before the peace, and come back with hands still wet and maybe still even soapy. But I wonder who ever touches her, and how often she is welcomed into the circle of human community by someone taking her hand?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
One thing that the peace does is to allow people who may never be touched from one week's end to the next to be touched by another human being.
Well, yes, but wouldn't it be far better if every person leading such a lonely life were welcomed into a church community by actions such as being invited out for coffee, having visitors to come and watch TV together or do a jigsaw together or have a cup of tea and a chat? With an appropriate level of physical contact (handshake, hug, or whatever) as part of the interaction.
I know the above and having the peace ritual in church services are not mutually exclusive, but the latter feels to me like a tokenistic act that - judging from the angst expressed by many in this thread - probably causes more trouble and discomfort than it's worth.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I think that one thing about Sharing the Peace has become very clear from this thread: there is really no agreement about why we do it. In light of that, perhaps it'd just be better to say the words (celebrant: 'The Peace of the Lord be always with you' congregation : 'and also with you') and leave it at that. If you want that kind of interactive fellowship and community, or to welcome newcomers, or whatever, do it before or (preferably) after the service, or in the week. If you have a dispute with somebody that you need to put aside bfore approaching the altar with them, and you really can't do it before the service starts, feel free to go and do something symbolic like shaking their hand.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Agreed, Albertus. I've been thinking about this a bit more, trying to put into words my disquiet over the peace ritual. I think it's that ISTM like a classic example of the tendency to externalise and ritualise what should be matters of the heart.
Jesus instructed us to be reconciled to our brethren before we make our sacrifice to God. So, like the Pharisees with their many commands designed to keep us from sin, we institute a ritual that carries the outward form of being reconciled before we worship God but that can leave our heart utterly unchanged.
If the peace ritual does actually help with the internal transformation into people whose very nature is to seek reconciliation and not bear grudges, then let's keep the ritual. But does it help in this way? Or does it cause more problems than it resolves?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
That's an interesting point South Coast Kevin - I confess I've not thought of it that way. Food for thought, in truth!
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The option of The Peace appeared in the 1928 proposed revisions? Well, yes, but only in Versicle & Response form:
V The peace of God be alway with you;
RAnd with thy spirit.
It happened just before the administration and there was no walking about shaking hands.
So it is perfectly fair to say that the nonsense we have now was dreamt up in the 1960s: and it is also true to say that they were attempting to inject into the service something ("The sign of peace") that didn't exist. One would have more respect for their meddling if they'd had the balls to put in the kiss of peace by they didn't.
And in mediaeval times the Kiss of Peace happened just before the administration of communion, not before the consecration.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
why would anyone want to pass up the chance of sharing/sharing in God's peace??
Very few do. Some, however, for what feels like the ninetieth time, can't, no matter how much they may feel they ought and how many times others tell them they ought.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
"Very few do. Some, however, for what feels like the ninetieth time, can't, no matter how much they may feel they ought and how many times others tell them they ought."
can't because they might look like Hare Krishnas? Can't because other people are too eager to xchange greeting? I Don't get it!!
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
"Very few do. Some, however, for what feels like the ninetieth time, can't, no matter how much they may feel they ought and how many times others tell them they ought."
can't because they might look like Hare Krishnas? Can't because other people are too eager to xchange greeting? I Don't get it!!
First, it is the imposition of a particular cultural approach to greeting; second, the practical delivery is often alien to the stated and original purpose; third, some individuals have personal histories or conditions where this form of greeting presents serious problems; fourth, some individuals find it at odds with their approach to prayer and participation in the liturgy; and fifth, on (happily, rare) occasions, the passing of the peace takes on an abusive and intrusive nature.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
Looks like St Paul was wrong; All this stuff CAN separate us from the love of God??
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Looks like St Paul was wrong; All this stuff CAN separate us from the love of God??
I don't see how this follows, Roselyn, but we are really very good at separating ourselves from each other. As everyone is very different, finding what works is not easy, or automatic, or liable to imposition.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
don't want imposition, just have trouble understanding people's motivation I suppose.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
In the middle of a worship service we are invited to wish God's peace to other people and to have it wished to us. we have just confessed to not loving others as much as we should. why would anyone want to pass up the chance of sharing/sharing in God's peace??
To many of us, sharing in God's peace has absolutely nothing to do with the ritual in question.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The option of The Peace appeared in the 1928 proposed revisions? Well, yes, but only in Versicle & Response form:
V The peace of God be alway with you;
RAnd with thy spirit.
It happened just before the administration and there was no walking about shaking hands.
So it is perfectly fair to say that the nonsense we have now was dreamt up in the 1960s: and it is also true to say that they were attempting to inject into the service something ("The sign of peace") that didn't exist. One would have more respect for their meddling if they'd had the balls to put in the kiss of peace by they didn't.
And in mediaeval times the Kiss of Peace happened just before the administration of communion, not before the consecration.
And prior to that it happened earlier. But anyway, I don't think when it became almost universal across the denominational spectrum - which as you rightly say was in the 1960s - that it manifested itself in the extended and sometimes chaotic free for all found in some churches today. This is something unfortunate that has developed, but only in certain churches much more recently. I know in my locale it varies from no exchange at all to what seems like at least a 2 minute break!
One would think it might be possible to eliminate it where it is genuinely not wanted, and at least contain it elsewhere.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The option of The Peace appeared in the 1928 proposed revisions? Well, yes, but only in Versicle & Response form:
V The peace of God be alway with you;
RAnd with thy spirit.
It happened just before the administration and there was no walking about shaking hands.
So it is perfectly fair to say that the nonsense we have now was dreamt up in the 1960s: and it is also true to say that they were attempting to inject into the service something ("The sign of peace") that didn't exist. One would have more respect for their meddling if they'd had the balls to put in the kiss of peace by they didn't.
And in mediaeval times the Kiss of Peace happened just before the administration of communion, not before the consecration.
And prior to that it happened earlier. But anyway, I don't think when it became almost universal across the denominational spectrum - which as you rightly say was in the 1960s - that it manifested itself in the extended and sometimes chaotic free for all found in some churches today. This is something unfortunate that has developed, but only in certain churches much more recently. I know in my locale it varies from no exchange at all to what seems like at least a 2 minute break!
One would think it might be possible to eliminate it where it is genuinely not wanted, and at least contain it elsewhere.
Where the custom is/was observed in the versicle and response form, the commixture happens at that moment, when a small particle of the host is broken off; the sign of the cross is made with it over the chalice before dropping it in. The celebrant tries to consume this particle in receiving the Precious Blood.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And in mediaeval times the Kiss of Peace happened just before the administration of communion, not before the consecration.
But it certainly did exist and was practiced in the Church since the earliest days; the variance generally was not whether it was found in the liturgy, but where. And there is no question that the versicle-response between the celebrant and people is a vestige of what once involved interaction between worshipers.
That's why it's simply wrong to say it was "made up" 40 years ago. A ill-advised attempt to translate an ancient ritual that was once standard in the liturgy into contemporary cultural norms? Some may well think so, and not without good reason. But to say it's made up simply ignores just because it hadn't been practiced in Western churches for centuries, and had never been practiced in this precise form (shaking hands) is an overstatement.
I understand completely how the Peace, the way it is carried out in many churches, can be uncomfortable and meaningless for lots of people. For me, though, the choices aren't keep it or drop it. Rather, the choices are keep it the way we're doing it (which often is a social time), rethink how we're doing (which I would say means sticking to the formula with an appropriate and comfortable gesture) or drop it.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I spent a while looking for alternatives to the standard peace. I have reason for this, touch is not easy for me and touch during the peace particularly. They included
- The saying of the response while holding hands (this was done in a church where the whole congregation came out for communion
- passing a candle/clay dove or other item around a congregation perhaps using Put Peace into each others hand. This is admittedly only usable with small congregations
- I would suggest the using of the hands together and bowing to other people is also appropriate
- restricting it to immediate neighbours, the same ways as many Evangelical churches ask you to greet your neighbours.
- Give people a verse and response to say to each other.
There are more, those are just the ones I recall more than a decade later.
Jengie
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
Another variation is used in the Order of Julian of Norwich (Waukesha, Wisconsin): the Peace is given by the Celebrant to each of the other people present. Or in other places, the Peace starts with the Celebrant and radiates out through the congregation, with each person receiving the Peace from one other and then giving it to one other.
It can be stylized, too: hands together, bow to each other, brief embracing gesture (giver clasps other's shoulders lightly; recipient clasps giver's forearms or elbows lightly), then another bow.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
[*]passing a candle/clay dove or other item around a congregation perhaps using Put Peace into each others hand. This is admittedly only usable with small congregations
This calls to mind the old medieval custom of the 'pax-brede', a stylised depiction (of the Crucifixion usually I think?) in precious metal that was passed around and kissed in turn.
Advantage - long tradition, avoids contact.
Drawback - exchange of saliva doesn't sound too hygienic, people might squabble over who gets to kiss first...
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Pancho is partially right...people read too much into it, but it is the ardent defenders who have invented theology behind it who do so. They might as well just call it what it is in many churches: a free-for-all exhibition of socialization.
There was already a theology behind it before these free-for-alls came about. People on the thread have tried to explain what it is.
Like I said, if it's a free-for-all at your church that means it's time for a little talk from your pastor, a note in the bulletin, or the agenda at the next parish council/liturgy committee meeting.
Otherwise, it's a little like blaming hockey games for the existence of fist fights.
quote:
Don't be so quick to blow off your introverts...we are the ones who really run the church.
Almost anybody who knows me in real life would describe me as an introvert so it's not like I have no idea of the discomfort some people go through. I go through some of it myself!
What surprises me is how much some fellow "introverts" have seized on the Sign of Peace as a major stumbling at church. You would think just getting there, going out in public, then surrounding yourself with strangers for 1 to 2 hours would be the major challenge.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
I have expressed my reservations about the Peace up thread. This morning, I exchanged the Peace with someone who has recently lost a parent and suddenly it all made sense.
Posted by Always in trouble (# 14252) on
:
i actually googled 'sign of peace' looking for some comfort, as at the Anglican Christmas Eve Communion I attended recently, the vicar told us off to do it pre-sop and oppined 'some people were upset by it when it was introduced, ie not now' - anyway, all around me just said Merry Christmas. So much dust from my sandals, anyway.
So I was glad to find you all, and everyone looking so well,if I may say so, in this New Year. I am a backsliding Methodist who can't go to church because of the liturgy, the praise-singing - and especially the sop at Communion. It's good to know that it seems from the Blog that Anglicans and Methodists continue to have so much in common.
Two things I do believe from what i've read of this blog, (which has been most heartening) -
1. The sop is a problem of misuse of power - forcing people do physically what you can never have the freedom to do with their minds.
2. disabled/old people not getting felt up enough out of church - this argument is brought out regularly to validate sop, and is patronising, full of prejudice, and just plain creepy.
3. People outside - they know we all do this thing, and it Stops Them Going To Church - sadly, even when they've got there just for once, eg a wedding, christening etc. I have seen visitors avoiding the sop They are just not likely to return. Aren't we supposed to be welcoming people in? What happened to mission?
Aren't we supposed to be welcoming people in? Not becoming boutique conventicles! Whatever happened to mission?
Well, last Saturday was Covenant Sunday for Methodists, so I have promises to keep, and miles to go.
Thank you Shipmates very much for cheering me up with your free speech. Really, one would pay if one could.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Hmmm.
Perhaps in our culture we either need to be drunk or in a business meeting to be able to greet someone new with a handshake? If so, perhaps some wholesome alcoholic drink should be served before (or maybe even during) services, rather than tea afterwards? This wouldn't help the Methodists, but perhaps the CofE could consider it. Alternatively, perhaps in some churches attenders could simply be asked to share a smile with the folk around them. (But some people probably won't like smiling at strangers either.)
I've never been in a church where people appeared to be having problems participating in the Peace, but the churches I attend are probably more multicultural than most of the ones mentioned here.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Hmmm.
Perhaps in our culture we either need to be drunk or in a business meeting to be able to greet someone new with a handshake? If so, perhaps some wholesome alcoholic drink should be served before (or maybe even during) services, rather than tea afterwards?
Er.... so you're saying we just need to have much larger helpings at Communion and have the Peace directly afterwards? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Its not agreeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
And I don't honestly believe that many non-churchgoers know that we do it, nor that many would care if they did.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Its not agreeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
And I don't honestly believe that many non-churchgoers know that we do it, nor that many would care if they did.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its not agreeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
I've frequently heard clergy announce the ritual by saying 'And now let us greet one another with the sign of the Peace', or something similar.
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
"I don't want to shake hands with some stranger next to me in Church !"
Jennifer Paterson
and the best response surely ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I've never really understood why it's there. As it is practiced today it's devoid of any real meaning except as an opportunity to socialise during the liturgy, something it was never meant to be.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
as it's practised today, for sure ... but it's the responsibility of theological and pastoral educators to teach that this is an enactment of the in-breaking of the eschatological Reign, and if we can't share the demanding peace of God now we're provisionally fucked in the for evers ...
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
as it's practised today, for sure ... but it's the responsibility of theological and pastoral educators to teach that this is an enactment of the in-breaking of the eschatological Reign, and if we can't share the demanding peace of God now we're provisionally fucked in the for evers ...
But there is no real prospect of it ever being what it's meant to be, never mind all the invented theology surrounding it used to justify its introduction during the liturgical reform. This is reason enough to scrap it (but then I would argue that the whole of the liturgical reform was flawed and thus should be scraped, though that's a subjexct for a different thread).
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've never been in a church where people appeared to be having problems participating in the Peace, but the churches I attend are probably more multicultural than most of the ones mentioned here.
I think this is the nub of the issue. As a British Anglican, my observation is that the combination of British reserve evident at some parishes - which can span the full gamut from indifference to frostiness - combined with an inability to say what we feel to those around can be a toxic mix.
Catholics seem to get it instinctively even though most are probably unaware of the instruction:
"According to the tradition of the Roman Rite, this practice .....signifies peace, communion and charity before the reception of the Most Holy Eucharist. It is appropriate that each one give the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner. The Priest may give the sign of peace to the ministers but always remains within the sanctuary, so as not to disturb the celebration. He does likewise if for a just reason he wishes to extend the sign of peace to some few of the faithful."
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its not agreeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
And I don't honestly believe that many non-churchgoers know that we do it, nor that many would care if they did.
If it be the case that it is not a greeting, but a ritual declaration of acceptance -- and I like that approach -- then somebody had better tell the clergy. I have heard most of the time the "Let us greet one another..." and even "make yourselves known to each other" and "don't forget to greet newcomers." It is hardly any wonder that it gets ludicrous at times.
But Ken is right about what non-churchgoers know. They seem to have an odd mental image of church services composed of snake-handling reality shows merging with scenes from the Da Vinci Code, mixed with a film clip of Pius XII from an Urbi and Orbi blessing from the 1940s.
As I noted above, I think that with the possible exception of the Caribbean, anglophones seem to be culturally incapable of passing the peace without disturbance and incoherence.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I have rarely seen any 'overdoing' of the sign of peace in an RC context.In the UK people generally shake hands with their immediate neighbours.If there is a close relationship they may embrace or kiss.In France,Germany,Italy, Spain
it is much the same.In Eastern Europe and the Middle East people generally bow to their immediate nighbours and that is it.
Sometimes but not often the priest will leave the sanctuary to greet parishioners.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its not a greeting! Its ritual declaration of acceptance!
If it be the case that it is not a greeting, but a ritual declaration of acceptance -- and I like that approach -- then somebody had better tell the clergy. I have heard most of the time the "Let us greet one another..." and even "make yourselves known to each other" and "don't forget to greet newcomers." It is hardly any wonder that it gets ludicrous at times.
I’ve never come across any of that coy, liturgically illiterate, sentimental, patronising, clericalist rubbish before. “Let us offer one another a sign of peace” and then get on with it, treating each individual the same whether or not you know them.
If introduced in that manner and followed by personal gossip, no wonder some here don’t like it. I wouldn’t like that total travesty of catholic liturgy and human relationships.
Common Worship (page 175) says "These words may be added “Let us offer one another a sign of peace”". No alternative is given or even the option of using "similar words". That’s what I’ve always heard. The RC missal has a nearly identical formula.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Venbede may then wish to frequent the Episcopalian temples of central Florida (New Smyrna Beach, Daytona Beach, Orlando) and upstate New York (Schenectady). From there, visits to Ontario Anglican churches in Burlington, London, Toronto, and Niagara can be easily arranged. Indeed, I might perhaps develop a useful second source of income by arranging church tours of such places.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
No need for foreign travel. It's bog standard practice in the C of E churches I frequent.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I was only trying to broaden venbede's range of experience. I fear that an excessive approach to the sop is not my warped imagination, but only experience. Clerical leadership can help limit this but my guess is that many like it and feel that it is a way of increasing lay participation. One rector told me that it is a great way to touch base with parishioners and hear their good news as it's often too busy after the service. Given the apparent exhilaration of many worshippers at this point in the service, I sometimes feel that I am grumpy and warped in not sharing their delight-- but I don't, and will likely continue to seek out the early morning service where it is less likely to take place, or where its impact is minimal.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
Like long Bible lessons, long prayers, the passing of the peace was phased out in the early centuries and I think that it has just about out lived its usefulness again. Nobody knows why except a few clergy and people on the Ship of course. Personally, I think it will nearly impossible to catechize many Anglicans from commenting on each others shoes, jumping right back into a conversation they were having until right before the opening hymn, asking about their holiday, etc.,
Also, there will be one or two in the congregation who will remember their catechesis very well, and will only wish each other the Lord's Peace, but ironically, they will hardly be in love and charity with their neighbour who wishes them "Merry Christmas, love your shoes!" But of course burn in anger because someone wished them Merry Xmas at the Peace. It happens.
Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on
:
Would free gloves help?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
That's beautiful, Ken. I wish I could "like" it, but how to tell the congo it isn't a pre-fellowship meet and greet?
Maybe it is, after all. I suppose that's why we need it.
Or we could revive the pax brede, and kiss it as alcoholic coeliacs do the chalice.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
Ken's right. In my youth, the Peace was a versicle and response, nothing more. The move to a real expression of charity is, for us, one of the great improvements in liturgical practice over the last 30 years. It is not, and should not be, a mere extension of pre- and post-service chat. At our place, it's simple a "Peace be with you" or a slight variation on that. For someone recently bereaved, this can be extended to "Peace be with you in your sorrow"; if there's a new grandchild on the scene this becomes "Peace be with you at this time of joy", more so if the parents are also parishioners. But no more is the accepted rule.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I very rarely encounter raucous exchanges of the sign of peace, and that is likely to be an artifact of the parishes that I make regular homes or choose to visit on occasion. In these places, the peace is exchanged discreetly and relatively soberly, even if warmly (as I think it should be). This even holds true when the celebrant makes a brief foray down the centre aisle.
Of course, in my current parish home, the peace is merely a chanted versicle and response formula between celebrant and congregation, with an actual exchange of the sign of peace only amongst the sanctuary party and any clerics in quire -- using a pax-brede when the celebration is a missa cantata rather than a solemn mass.
I'm not in favour of omitting the exchange of the sign of peace amongst the congregation: when it's done in an appropriately serious and theologically informed manner it is an important part of the entire eucharistic rite, and in itself I would see it as a sacramental rite within the overall celebration of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.
In America, where the Peace becomes a problem seems to be in MOTR places with little understanding or appreciation of liturgy, a distinctly folksy style, and a de-emphasis on theology and on a theologically and liturgically informed laity. It's in these places that the liturgy comes to a screeching halt whilst people crawl all over the pews and aisles in an insistent eagerness to greet, shake hands with or hug everyone they see, and to engage in bits of chit chat, typically with the celebrant and any assisting ministers joining in the fray. This is what I hate, and what will result in my never setting foot in the place again. I'm talking of TEC here, by the way. I've never seen such antics in either ELCA or RC places, though there probably are parishes of those identities where the Peace goes awry.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
I do not think that it be precious to object to (my experiences only, of course, and this may not apply to others) instances of uninvited and unwelcome buttsqueezes, or energetic handshakes accompanied by an enquiry on my opinions over a hockey game. I have tried to temper my distaste for the practice by reminding myself that the abuse of a practice does not mean that it has no legitimate use. And, as I have noted in other posts, non-anglophones seem to be able to carry it off without giddiness and with a feeling of genuine fellowship. In honesty, I have only run into this on rare occasion in Canada and the US.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mama Thomas:
That's beautiful, Ken. I wish I could "like" it, but how to tell the congo it isn't a pre-fellowship meet and greet?
I think sometimes people are asked simply to share the peace with the people on either side of them, and perhaps with those sitting before or behind them. But the minister has to feel confident about introducing this in a church where it's not usual.
I've noticed that when a service is deemed to be overrunning a hymn is often cut from the 'programme'. Well, if it's a Communion service, the minister could leave the hymn alone but reduce the time given for sharing the peace, in the way I've just mentioned.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by Mama Thomas quote:
...how to tell the congo it isn't a pre-fellowship meet and greet?
The Peace had become disruptive at our shack so the PP tackled it by pointing out it wasn't intended to be a general free-for-all, rather a symbolic greeting with those geographically closest to us.
He concluded with something along these lines:
We share Christ's peace with those standing closest to us; meeting and greeting other members of the congregation takes place after the service, either at coffee or just before you leave church if you're not staying for refreshments.
Only one person took offence - but they tend to take offence at virtually everything anyway.
Posted by Abigail (# 1672) on
:
I wasn't going to comment, but...
At my church the peace lasts anything between eight and twelve minutes*. We are encouraged to go and get a cup of tea or coffee and chat with friends or greet someone we don’t know. I’ve even heard "it’s a good time to make new friends"
Sometimes it's hard to get people back and often half the congregation are still chatting during the next song.
We’ve been doing this for over five years now and most people seem to like it. I think it’s completely inappropriate, disruptive, and for someone like me who can’t do "small talk" excruciatingly uncomfortable. And lonely. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
*Yes, I've timed it
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
If you've been there for over 5 years you must have come up with some strategies. What do you do? And have you spoken about your feelings with the minister or lay leaders?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:
I wasn't going to comment, but...
At my church the peace lasts anything between eight and twelve minutes*. We are encouraged to go and get a cup of tea or coffee and chat with friends or greet someone we don’t know. I’ve even heard "it’s a good time to make new friends"
Sometimes it's hard to get people back and often half the congregation are still chatting during the next song.
We’ve been doing this for over five years now and most people seem to like it. I think it’s completely inappropriate, disruptive, and for someone like me who can’t do "small talk" excruciatingly uncomfortable. And lonely.
*Yes, I've timed it
You have my considerable sympathy.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
Ken's right. In my youth, the Peace was a versicle and response, nothing more.
Same here - and we younger ones did furtive handshakes to make up for it.
I now wish that we hadn't encouraged it.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
Ken's right. In my youth, the Peace was a versicle and response, nothing more.
Same here - and we younger ones did furtive handshakes to make up for it.
I now wish that we hadn't encouraged it.
I'm obviously missing something but to me, GeeD's and Leo's responses seem to be utterly opposed to Ken's comment?
[Speaking as someone who loathes the Peace when forced to endure it in ecumenical contexts!]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
Gosh, I'd often thought ken was a Good Catholic without realising it, and now I know for sure.
The open coffin at a funeral (standard Orthodox and West Indian practice) is another example of the opposite of "keeping distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people".
A number of Orthodox here have objected to the peace. Do they object to the open coffin?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
... meanwhile, over in Heaven a poster has admitted to using sanitising hand gel after the SoP
Abigail - I'm amazed you still go to the same church/service: I'd have moved on to pastures more sane long ago.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
Gosh, I'd often thought ken was a Good Catholic without realising it, and now I know for sure.
The open coffin at a funeral (standard Orthodox and West Indian practice) is another example of the opposite of "keeping distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people".
A number of Orthodox here have objected to the peace. Do they object to the open coffin?
Another one of those false dichotomies. Personally, it's not that I object to closness, I object to naffness.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I can't remember if I have yet shared the story I heard from a bishop who had served in the Church in South Africa which is maybe apposite...
He had had to travel to a parish in another part of SA to cover services for another priest, and was quite eager to rush off afterwards again. When it came to the time for the Sign of Peace, the congregation seemed to be taking a long time about it (shaking hands, wandering around, chatting, and all the other things we've discussed in such gruesome detail on this thread). So, he decided to hurry things along a bit and called out in the local language 'Sing! Sing!' to encourage them to move on to the Offertory Hymn.
Except that he didn't, because it turned out that the people in that parish spoke a different dialect from the one he was used to, and what he actually shouted was 'Dance! Dance!'... and the congregation thought this was a great idea and promptly began to dance with each other.
He told us that to this day the churches in that part of South Africa have the tradition to exchange the Peace by the whole congregation getting up and having a big dance. So I'd say that those who feel that their worship is being disrupted by 'too many handshakes' might want to reflect that mileage varies. Or, at the least to count their blessings!
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
We always had the versicle and response - well since about 1967 - but we didn't do the Peace as such until the mid-1980s. Does this mean it's all Margaret Thatcher's fault?
I didn't like it at first but I've got used to it and I think I'd probably miss it if it were left out. It's enough though I think to shake hands with the people nearest you and not go walkabout the church - that's all it is, is passing the Peace of God. Christ's Peace in other words - it's not a social occasion - although I do agree with Ken I think when he points out the incarnational aspect of this
The other thing is - don't foist it on people - if a stranger - let's say - is in church is reluctant to shake hands then just a smile can go a long way........
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
Gosh, I'd often thought ken was a Good Catholic without realising it, and now I know for sure.
The open coffin at a funeral (standard Orthodox and West Indian practice) is another example of the opposite of "keeping distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people".
A number of Orthodox here have objected to the peace. Do they object to the open coffin?
Another one of those false dichotomies. Personally, it's not that I object to closness, I object to naffness.
But why is shaking hands with your brothers and sisters in Christ naff? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I don't like an overly informal/long SoP, but shaking hands with those immediately around you is like Ken says, a reminder of the physicality of the Incarnation.
Posted by Abigail (# 1672) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If you've been there for over 5 years you must have come up with some strategies. What do you do? And have you spoken about your feelings with the minister or lay leaders?
I’ve tried different things at different times. When it started I would just stay in my seat looking disapproving and refuse all offers of a cup of coffee. Then I tried to be a bit more friendly - join in and find someone to talk to, but it always felt uncomfortable. On a really bad day I go outside for a few minutes. Usually I just wander around and smile a bit and go back to my seat before most other people.
Yes, the two clergy both know what I think about it and I’ve discussed it quite a lot with the one I know best. He understands how I feel and is sympathetic, but mine is very much a minority view so nothing’s going to change.
Posted by Abigail (# 1672) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Abigail - I'm amazed you still go to the same church/service: I'd have moved on to pastures more sane long ago.
Well, I do give it a miss sometimes and go to our 9am communion service instead. I quite enjoy the peace there. Everybody shakes hands with everybody else but I have no problem with that. There are usually between about 8 to 15 people there so it’s quite manageable. (However there are other reasons why I don’t want to make that my permanent ‘home’)
[Edit: UBB]
[ 26. January 2014, 04:24: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Garasu, if you read all of my post - not just the small section quote by Leo - you will see that I do agree with Ken. The expression of the Peace now being observed is a great move forward from the simple versicle/response to which I contrasted it.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:
I wasn't going to comment, but...
At my church the peace lasts anything between eight and twelve minutes*. We are encouraged to go and get a cup of tea or coffee and chat with friends or greet someone we don’t know. I’ve even heard "it’s a good time to make new friends"
Holey. Flaming. Moley.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Abigail:
I wasn't going to comment, but...
At my church the peace lasts anything between eight and twelve minutes*. We are encouraged to go and get a cup of tea or coffee and chat with friends or greet someone we don’t know. I’ve even heard "it’s a good time to make new friends"
*Yes, I've timed it
Yikes. Having read this I thought I'd time it at our place this morning. Time between "Let us offer one another a sign of peace" and start of offertory hymn c30secs. But the president and preacher wander through nave sharing peace during start of hymn, though congregant to congregant handshakes tend to stop with start of hymn. But even timing to the point when celebrant shared peace with me (verger) on his way past the soundbooth was only c2.15mins. So nothing like what Abigail describes.
Carys
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Abigail
Trying to be positive about it, eight minutes is a good bit of time to do something useful. If that were me, I'd go to the loo, have a bite to eat (cereal bar, tangerine, cheesy bites, etc., as I don't normally have breakfast before leaving for church), peruse my diary, go to the church notice board and write down any useful information, etc. A younger person would probably check their Facebook account, or Twitter. An anthropologist, artist or poet might go to a hidden spot and observe the scene, for future reference....
I suppose some folk would see this sort of thing as unholy and disrespectful, although I'd see it more as bringing all of our concerns and interests to God's presence and asking him to bless them. But the obvious alternative to all of this activity is to find a secluded corner during this time and simply pray. There's so little time during church services for personal prayer, and I'd appreciate much more. But that's just me!
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It does sometimes seem as if there is something a bit precious in objections to the Peace. An over-fastidious desire to keep distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people. The opposite of an incarnational spirituality.
The Peace is one of those rituals that, like ashing, or footwashing,or Christmas cribs, or the Hail Mary, or Holy Communion itself, provides a sort of immunity to Gnosticism and spiritual elitism.
Gosh, I'd often thought ken was a Good Catholic without realising it, and now I know for sure.
The open coffin at a funeral (standard Orthodox and West Indian practice) is another example of the opposite of "keeping distant from the messy lives or bodies of other people".
A number of Orthodox here have objected to the peace. Do they object to the open coffin?
Another one of those false dichotomies. Personally, it's not that I object to closness, I object to naffness.
But why is shaking hands with your brothers and sisters in Christ naff?
I don't like an overly informal/long SoP, but shaking hands with those immediately around you is like Ken says, a reminder of the physicality of the Incarnation.
That's just more made up theology. Thank goodness I don't have to put up with it anymore. In my last days as an RC I even refused to attend the new liturgy.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's just more made up theology.
It must be so wonderful to be privy to an entirely uncreated theology, as yours must be. I wish I didn't have to sully my hands interacting with other people in order to work out my salvation with fear and trembling! I wish mine had just dropped pure and undefiled from heaven.
But no, my silly God invited us to encounter His magnificent divinity by taking on messy human flesh, and allowed that body to be pierced by our sin, offers it to my unholy lips and declared through His holy word that the ragtag band of followers I fall in with each week can truly be named His body. So, I think I'll reverence that if it doesn't offend you too much.
[ 26. January 2014, 16:35: Message edited by: Hart ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
AO - do you not believe in a physical Incarnation?
How is that made up theology when it's just standard Trinitarian Christian theology? And surely all theology is man-made to an extent?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's just more made up theology.
It must be so wonderful to be privy to an entirely uncreated theology, as yours must be. I wish I didn't have to sully my hands interacting with other people in order to work out my salvation with fear and trembling! I wish mine had just dropped pure and undefiled from heaven.
But no, my silly God invited us to encounter His magnificent divinity by taking on messy human flesh, and allowed that body to be pierced by our sin, offers it to my unholy lips and declared through His holy word that the ragtag band of followers I fall in with each week can truly be named His body. So, I think I'll reverence that if it doesn't offend you too much.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
And further
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
AO - do you not believe in a physical Incarnation?
How is that made up theology when it's just standard Trinitarian Christian theology? And surely all theology is man-made to an extent?
Very droll! I mean applying it to the sign of peace.
[ 26. January 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's just more made up theology.
It must be so wonderful to be privy to an entirely uncreated theology, as yours must be. I wish I didn't have to sully my hands interacting with other people in order to work out my salvation with fear and trembling! I wish mine had just dropped pure and undefiled from heaven.
But no, my silly God invited us to encounter His magnificent divinity by taking on messy human flesh, and allowed that body to be pierced by our sin, offers it to my unholy lips and declared through His holy word that the ragtag band of followers I fall in with each week can truly be named His body. So, I think I'll reverence that if it doesn't offend you too much.
Now that's just silly. If I want to socialise I'll do so apart from the liturgy.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
But the trouble is it's more than socialising. It's sharing God's peace. It is saying "you and I together are working in the service of the already but not yet Reign of peace, love and justice in which we shall share eternally."
More than "nice coffee"
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: I suppose some folk would see this sort of thing as unholy and disrespectful, although I'd see it more as bringing all of our concerns and interests to God's presence and asking him to bless them.
That’s very charitable of you, svit, but the peace is meant to be part of corporate sacramental worship of God revealed in Christ. Getting a cup of coffee for a chat is fine afterwards but distracting at this point.
It is clearly disrespectful to Abigail
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2: But the obvious alternative to all of this activity is to find a secluded corner during this time and simply pray. There's so little time during church services for personal prayer, and I'd appreciate much more. But that's just me!
I can’t imagine there are any quiet corners with all that frenetic socialising going on.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
AO - do you not believe in a physical Incarnation?
How is that made up theology when it's just standard Trinitarian Christian theology? And surely all theology is man-made to an extent?
Very droll! I mean applying it to the sign of peace.
This is what, to be perfectly honest, baffles me. You see, I'm convinced that theology is made to be used; that we should take the data of what ritual praxes we instinctively like and dislike and subject those intuitions to theological reflection in order to discover whether our preferences need to be purified or wherever they're in tune with our professed faith. The church's small-t traditions require the same kind of scrutiny. If you're actually being honest in this thread, it seems that you don't think that. You actually seem to think that theology of incarnation has nothing to say at all ritual practice. You don't like it, you don't find it sufficiently grounded in historical development, therefore it's wrong and any attempt to say otherwise is "made up" or "naff."
Being honest: I think I'd prefer the peace be skipped than that it take up 8 minutes of socializing mid-service, but I don't know if that's my justus or my peccator speaking. It's an optional part of the Roman Rite, so it can hardly be used as an orthodoxy check. But, your bizarre entrenched opposition to it maybe can.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
AO - do you not believe in a physical Incarnation?
How is that made up theology when it's just standard Trinitarian Christian theology? And surely all theology is man-made to an extent?
Very droll! I mean applying it to the sign of peace.
This is what, to be perfectly honest, baffles me. You see, I'm convinced that theology is made to be used; that we should take the data of what ritual praxes we instinctively like and dislike and subject those intuitions to theological reflection in order to discover whether our preferences need to be purified or wherever they're in tune with our professed faith. The church's small-t traditions require the same kind of scrutiny. If you're actually being honest in this thread, it seems that you don't think that. You actually seem to think that theology of incarnation has nothing to say at all ritual practice. You don't like it, you don't find it sufficiently grounded in historical development, therefore it's wrong and any attempt to say otherwise is "made up" or "naff."
Being honest: I think I'd prefer the peace be skipped than that it take up 8 minutes of socializing mid-service, but I don't know if that's my justus or my peccator speaking. It's an optional part of the Roman Rite, so it can hardly be used as an orthodoxy check. But, your bizarre entrenched opposition to it maybe can.
Well, if I was still Roman Catholic and if I had my way I'd abolish the whole of the new liturgy. I am not saying that the theology of the Incarnation can't be applied to the prayer of the Church. I just don't like it being used to justify what is essentially a made up liturgy.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I think here is the crux of the problem.
AO - you realise that ALL liturgy is made-up, correct? It is invented and written by people, it doesn't fall from the sky perfectly formed. If you don't want to use liturgy because it's made up (and fyi the Sign of the Peace is not socialising and you know it), then don't use words or read books or listen to music, because all of those things are made-up too.
(also - very belated to Hart!)
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If I want to socialise I'll do so apart from the liturgy.
Quite. Put it in at the beginning so that you can greet people at the start as you embark on the liturgy, or at the end when it's all over, but having it suddenly interrupt the service in the middle makes less sense.
I mean, who would launch straight into a meeting, then break off halfway to introduce everybody before resuming?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I have read this thread this morning.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the sharing of the Eucharist. To me, the Eucharist is what constitutes community, not the exchange of the sign of the Peace.
Exchanging the sign of the Peace does not necessarily mean I like the other person. And I don't think the peace MAGICALLY fixes broken relationships. There are times when I shook hands with someone and my feelings towards him or her have no dramatically changed. But I think the Peace expresses a hope that even if we are not completely reconciled here, we will be reconciled, somehow, somewhere, not by our own efforts, but by Christ.
[ 26. January 2014, 18:48: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I trust that as an Orthodox, AO, you prostrate yourself before the holy icons and kiss them.
We in the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Reformed and Methodist communions cannot unselfconsciously (and regrettably to my mind) do so. So we have an opportunity for similar physicality during the Kiss of Peace (which your clergy will exchange in any case behind the iconostasis.)
Indeed, socialising is not part of liturgical ritual and takes its part after the liturgy, which abigail's clergy woefully fail to recognise.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I mean, who would launch straight into a meeting, then break off halfway to introduce everybody before resuming?
You wouldn't, of course. But that isn't what the Peace is about. It's about recognising one another as the Body of Christ. St Paul excoriates those who approach the Eucharist without 'discerning the Body of Christ'; that's not just about the real presence in the sacrament (important as that is to many of us), but recognising the assembly as the locus of Christ in our midst.
I always think we should bow to one another as well as to the altar at the beginning of Mass. Maybe if we did that we wouldn't need to share the Sign of Peace, but not to do either seems to be reducing the Eucharist to a quasi-magical rite.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The peace is meant to be part of corporate sacramental worship of God revealed in Christ. Getting a cup of coffee for a chat is fine afterwards but distracting at this point.
It is clearly disrespectful to Abigail
...
I can’t imagine there are any quiet corners with all that frenetic socialising going on.
I'm not as sacramental as you are, I suspect, so eight minutes of socialising as part of the ritual wouldn't offend me for that reason. I'd basically get bored. Also, I'm wondering what has to get cut from the service to allow the SOP to go on for that long. I'd prefer an extra hymn myself. (I'm presuming that this isn't the kind of church where time is of little consequence.)
I'm not sure if Abigail's unease is more theological or psychological, but it would be interesting to know how the ministers at her church justify this eight minutes from a theological point of view. Or are they basically just frightened of upsetting the congregation by encouraging a rethink on what has become a 'custom'?
As for quiet corners for praying - if all else fails, there's always the loo!
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
But the trouble is it's more than socialising. It's sharing God's peace. It is saying "you and I together are working in the service of the already but not yet Reign of peace, love and justice in which we shall share eternally."
More than "nice coffee"
As it should be, Zappa, but as I've noted in other posts, that's not how it seems to work. Its dysfunction in some settings (Lietuvos has pinpointed them) is IMHO sufficiently grave that it borders on the abusive. Unless clergy focus on this and give some leadership, the reluctance of some of us to embrace the Peace is far from a distaste of the incarnational, and I object to some shipmates having described it as such.
Gee whillikers (I decided not to say hell's bells) if the Spanish and French and Argentines can do it, what is our problem? I can't figure it out.
As an aside, I've addressed in my MW how the Peace goes in various places, and I think that this might be interesting in reports generally.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
I'm in a church where the peace isn't shared. I'd argue that there's a good reason for this: if you have to share he peace, then there's a problem. It should be a voluntary act that has significant implications. In most places that share the peace, it's a free for all irrespective of the theology and of the highness or lowness. I'd argue that you should offer a sign of peace to all who you meet on entering the church to worship together which is along the lines of what we look to do.
When I do go to one where it is included in the service, it comes across in 100% of cases as rather twee and forced. Repetition over 20 years plus doesn't seem to have changed this in my observation.
Then, as others have said, there is the potentially abusive nature of it all. Not only those inappropriately approached (could we be said to be encouraging actions that we might see as amounting to disclosure in other circumstances) but those who are inappropriately ignored. In most churches I've been in for any length of time, most people greet a very small subset of people anyway.
I'd also argue that if you are going to "share the peace" you should do so in every service not just those with communion. We need peace at every turn not just when it's on the calendar to do so.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm in a church where the peace isn't shared. I'd argue that there's a good reason for this: if you have to share he peace, then there's a problem. It should be a voluntary act that has significant implications. In most places that share the peace, it's a free for all irrespective of the theology and of the highness or lowness. I'd argue that you should offer a sign of peace to all who you meet on entering the church to worship together which is along the lines of what we look to do.
When I do go to one where it is included in the service, it comes across in 100% of cases as rather twee and forced. Repetition over 20 years plus doesn't seem to have changed this in my observation.
Then, as others have said, there is the potentially abusive nature of it all. Not only those inappropriately approached (could we be said to be encouraging actions that we might see as amounting to disclosure in other circumstances) but those who are inappropriately ignored. In most churches I've been in for any length of time, most people greet a very small subset of people anyway.
I'd also argue that if you are going to "share the peace" you should do so in every service not just those with communion. We need peace at every turn not just when it's on the calendar to do so.
Well, at my church and quite a lot of others, every service does have the Eucharist - but I do see your point. However for me the Peace is a particular kind of symbol/indicator (not sure of the right term - symbol seems a little inadequate) that is inherently tied to the Eucharist and us sharing our lives with each other before we can share in Christ's gift of His life in the Eucharist (clearly this makes more sense with a sacramental view of the Eucharist). To me it is very much in keeping with NT exhortations to receive the Eucharist in the right mindset and without any grudge against one another.
However as you say, there are definitely pitfalls and abuses that it can fall into, and it should be clear at non-Eucharistic services too that we share our lives with each other. I don't know how many RC masses you've been to but they tend to keep the Peace more restrained.
Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm in a church where the peace isn't shared. I'd argue that there's a good reason for this: if you have to share he peace, then there's a problem. It should be a voluntary act that has significant implications. In most places that share the peace, it's a free for all irrespective of the theology and of the highness or lowness. I'd argue that you should offer a sign of peace to all who you meet on entering the church to worship together which is along the lines of what we look to do.
When I do go to one where it is included in the service, it comes across in 100% of cases as rather twee and forced. Repetition over 20 years plus doesn't seem to have changed this in my observation.
Though not universal, I would say that those parishes I have visited that don't exchange the peace have been among the stiffest and unfriendliest I have ever visited. So I don't agree that the absence of the peace necesaarily promotes any more degree of friendship and unity. And people greeting each other before the service can shatter the period of preparation as much as an elongated peace does.
I visited St George Campden Hill near Notting Hill this weekend. The church was packed but the peace was exchanged in the RC way - to the person to the right, the front, and to the left, and over in less than 20 seconds. And a warm welcome at the end of the service. Perfect.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I visited St George Campden Hill near Notting Hill this weekend. The church was packed but the peace was exchanged in the RC way - to the person to the right, the front, and to the left, and over in less than 20 seconds. And a warm welcome at the end of the service. Perfect.
Horses for courses. I too am always relieved when the Peace is shared in a genuine way with those close by but not by rushing around trying to grab hold of everybody. It's far too easy in most congregations for this [a] to turn into a social gathering, as has been noted, and [b] for some people to be overlooked - and they might not necessarily be those who don't want to join in.
However, the church I regularly attend has a small congregation (rarely more than 30) and despite the restriction of pews with doors, everybody, and I mean everybody, gets out of their seat and walks up and down the aisles until they have greeted everyone else. There is no hanging around to gossip, but a handshake or a hug, and a smile. Then we get on with the Eucharist. It works, though I imagine that most Ecclesiantophiles would shrink in horror at the thought. As would I, if I hadn't experienced it. It wouldn't work with a larger congregation but it is fine in the context.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
We do much the same as Angloid has described, with a congregation ranging from 25-40+, albeit in the RC position just before Communion. Our organist knows to strike up with the Agnus Dei after 30 seconds or so!
Works for us, and I for one (along with Father's better half) make sure that any strangers/newcomers/visitors are included.
Ian J.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd also argue that if you are going to "share the peace" you should do so in every service not just those with communion. We need peace at every turn not just when it's on the calendar to do so.
Except that's probably to misunderstand what the Pax is: it's far more likely to be a signaculum or sealing, of what has gone before (i.e. the Paternoster immediately before, and, more broadly, the Consecration itself).
Fr. Hunwicke is quite good on this point in this post about the position of the peace, and has an interesting aside about the sharing of it.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
everybody, and I mean everybody, gets out of their seat and walks up and down the aisles until they have greeted everyone else. There is no hanging around to gossip, but a handshake or a hug, and a smile. Then we get on with the Eucharist. It works, though I imagine that most Ecclesiantophiles would shrink in horror at the thought.
That sounds fine to me.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Angloid, that happens at the smaller midweek services here - where the attendance is 12-24 - you just shake hands with everyone. That actually does feel comfortable and inclusive.
I've been to a few big services where the congregation doesn't move, you just shake hands either side, in front and behind - and that's great too.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Lots of smaller places have gone in for a sort of loop the loop conga of peace-sharing where lines form and everyone gets to everyone. Reminds me of a prep school dance of the "Grand Old Duke of York" ...
whatever. I sneak back to the sanctuary in those places ...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0