quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Have you ever experienced anything like this? Had your usual reaction to the peace completely upended?

---

quote:

---

And whatever might be going on that caused this for me?

---

quote:

---

I don't think it would have happened at the Sunday service, which is more orderly, and where I'm protected by the pew from the rushers-about. This midweek service is conducted in an ad hoc chapel with chairs, and I always go into the peace a little fearfully at this service (I remember weeks and weeks in the past, when they were all aggressive huggers, of trying to hold people off with a straight arm, and being overwhelmed and hugged anyway). And all that fear seemed to rush back at me today, even though all my recent evidence is that it wouldn't be like that. But still I didn't want to stay, not even to stand and shake hands, which the rational part of my brain was telling me was all that would happen, and the rest of me was speaking back to that part of my brain and saying I don't even want to do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:


So, some questions:

Have you ever experienced anything like this? Had your usual reaction to the peace completely upended?

And whatever might be going on that caused this for me?

---

Since you asked--

IANAP, but your reaction sounds very similar to my reactions right after I've gone through major hell psychologically. Things I used to be able to endure are suddenly unendurable. Like having a psychic bruise you can't bear people to get near. Take the unusual over-reaction as a sign that you are still healing, and be gentle with yourself.

And start plotting out strategic toilet breaks.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The peace isn't my favorite part of the liturgy either. I wish it could be confined to shaking the hand of the person next to you, smiling, saying "peace," and then being seated. Alas, every church I've served has been a touch feely parish that reveled in the passing of the peace. Changing that wouldn't be worth the effort or even possible. So, I wade into the congregation making sure to shake hands with everybody and hugging those who insist on being hugged.

However...

At my last parish, one of the wardens had two very attractive daughters. Both were older than me but by less than 10 years. The older one lived in another town and only came to church when her family visited her parents. When she did come to church, it was her purpose to hug and occasionally kiss everybody she knew. The first time she hugged and kissed me on the cheek I thought, "This touchy feely thing isn't always bad." Next time, she came to me, held out her hand, and said, "I know you don't like hugs." True enough in most cases. Couldn't very well say, "No, but in your case..."

Not the purpose of the peace, I know.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I'm hugging Beeswax for certain if ever we meet -- okay not! I am on the same page about it. Announcing "Peace be with you" and the people responding "and also with you", is sufficient. You get 4 to 6 handshakes or greetings max. It should not be a social time, and it often is.

I think I posted in the past about a clergy who thought everyone should be hugged, and she nabbed the first time, and it troubled me throughout the balance of the eucharist and thereafter. I avoided it subsequently initially by avoiding the next one (it was at a church committee multiday thing), though did the hand out thing after. It is distracting when you must think about avoiding someone when thoughts should be elsewhere. A commandment along the lines "thou shalt not burden others with thy person" is required I think.
 

---

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
At my last parish, one of the wardens had two very attractive daughters. Both were older than me but by less than 10 years. The older one lived in another town and only came to church when her family visited her parents. When she did come to church, it was her purpose to hug and occasionally kiss everybody she knew. The first time she hugged and kissed me on the cheek I thought, "This touchy feely thing isn't always bad." Next time, she came to me, held out her hand, and said, "I know you don't like hugs." True enough in most cases. Couldn't very well say, "No, but in your case..."

Not the purpose of the peace, I know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor," c. 150-215
"And if we are called to the kingdom of God, let us walk worthy of the kingdom, loving God and our neighbour. But love is not proved by a kiss, but by kindly feeling. But there are those, that do nothing but make the churches resound with a kiss, not having love itself within. For this very thing, the shameless use of a kiss, which ought to be mystic, occasions foul suspicions and evil reports. The apostle calls the kiss holy.

When the kingdom is worthily tested, we dispense the affection of the soul by a chaste and closed mouth, by which chiefly gentle manners are expressed.

But there is another unholy kiss, full of poison, counterfeiting sanctity. Do you not know that spiders, merely by touching the mouth, afflict men with pain? And often kisses inject the poison of licentiousness. It is then very manifest to us, that a kiss is not love. For the love meant is the love of God. “And this is the love of God,” says John, “that we keep His commandments;” not that we stroke each other on the mouth."

---

 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Thanks, all for sharing your experiences and ideas.

Enoch, thanks for the advice to talk to my rector. I don't usually react or notice the kind of overly emotional feely talking invasion you're describing, but I'll keep reflecting on what you've said.

Bostonman, my attitude towards the peace is usually pretty much like yours, which is why this was so surprising to me. I've occasionally avoided the peace at the midweek service before by strategically needing to visit the bathroom, but never with such an unexpectedly visceral reaction.

Lamp Chopped, I think you've pinpointed it. I hadn't realized how much trauma there is under the surface, both from things that happened this spring, but also stretching back years (this spring was like the eruption of a lot of stuff that I now see had a long history, in more ways than I realized at the time) but now that you've raised it as a possibility, I'm, like, "Oh! Yes!"

As you suggest, I'll be kind to myself, and I'll just plan to nonchalantly need to visit the bathroom right around the middle of the service. Oh my, that's right when the peace happens? What a coincidence!
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Good luck with that one. If you get tired of the bathroom, I find that a heavily bandaged finger or hand works well, or an arm in a sling. Alternately, cough into a hankie and say, "I really don't want to give anyone a bug."

More seriously, though--you can let it be known that your doctor prefers you not to get too close to others due to medical problems (trauma IS a medical problem) about which you'd rather not go into detail, being a very private person and not wanting to burden others with your affairs, don't you see? That's no lie--I'm sure your GP/shrink/whatsit would advise avoiding the situation. And once you get it firmly into the heads of the worst offenders that there are mysterious unknown medical reasons (fragile bones? radiation therapy? who knows?), you can live in peace again.
 

---

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
I'm sure there was a huge thread on this subject about 6 months ago, but I can't find it.

As I think I said at the time, I'd ban it tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Good luck with that one. If you get tired of the bathroom, I find that a heavily bandaged finger or hand works well, or an arm in a sling. Alternately, cough into a hankie and say, "I really don't want to give anyone a bug."

More seriously, though--you can let it be known that your doctor prefers you not to get too close to others due to medical problems (trauma IS a medical problem) about which you'd rather not go into detail, being a very private person and not wanting to burden others with your affairs, don't you see? That's no lie--I'm sure your GP/shrink/whatsit would advise avoiding the situation. And once you get it firmly into the heads of the worst offenders that there are mysterious unknown medical reasons (fragile bones? radiation therapy? who knows?), you can live in peace again.

---

[off topic] I love the Ship. [/off topic]
 

---

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

...As you suggest, I'll be kind to myself, and I'll just plan to nonchalantly need to visit the bathroom right around the middle of the service. Oh my, that's right when the peace happens? What a coincidence!

---

It's either that, or take up playing the organ!
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Hmmm.

I understand both the people who want to be huggy and the people who don't.

You could always say "peace be with you" to your immediate neighbors and then kneel down and pray silently for the rest of the time.
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
From my experience with other postures of "I am not participating at this time", that would lead to concerned hands on my shoulders and being talked to for twice as long to check that I'm OK, along with perhaps a "Oh, I just need to give you a hug quickly, because I see that you don't want to participate extensively right now."

Whoops, is my cynicism showing?

Thankfully (and rather amazingly, come to think of it), no-one has followed me out the door and down the hall when I've escaped that way. Hey, I'm feeling better already: thank God for small mercies like this.

That's interesting: the peace at this service, while a big hullaballoo in which everyone tries to greet everyone else, is actually perceived by people as being strictly circumscribed in space and time (that is, besides not chasing me down the hall, also no-one ever tries to catch up on the missed peace after the service. Phew).

[ 05. September 2014, 22:14: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 

---

Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on :
 
I like the passing of the peace too. But though I am in general a touchy huggy person I do as I was taught as a child and stand still and shake the hands of all those in arms length. Without walking anywhere.

I don't really mind if other people want to wander about though. (My congo has large number of people from Carribbean & Africa and now that permission seems to have been given to be a bit less strait laced they have embraced the wandering about with gusto.)

What I loathe though as it seems so liturgically wrong is when epode will hug or kiss the people they know well and shake hands with those they don't. It's the passing of a sign of peace, not a meet and greet.

And for those who live without partners or children it may be the one bit of physical contact with another human being.

(Sorry AR, think sidetracked from your OP. Sorry to hear about your experience, others have posted sensible responses, I hope they help. Your rector sounds like she will be understanding.)

[ 05. September 2014, 22:50: Message edited by: Yangtze ]
 

---

Posted by Cameron PM (# 18142) on :
 
My parish priest views it as some sort of annual treaty of Versaille renewal so it's absolutely "imperative" that he hops up and down through the church shaking hands with the women and the willows. It's just not my style. I don't know why I wasn't at peace before shaking hands.

I just don't do it, plus, I'm the organist as well so I just glance over and nod at my aunt or my cousin this and that, then start an air.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Yangtse:

quote:

---

What I loathe though as it seems so liturgically wrong is when epode will hug or kiss the people they know well and shake hands with those they don't. It's the passing of a sign of peace, not a meet and greet.

---

I enjoy a touchy-feely peace, too. But I understand hugging people whom you know would welcome a hug from you and giving a little space to those whom you don't know as well. If I don't know their tolerances, I'll offer a gentle hand, a greeting and a smile. I know that there are those like folks up-thread for whom a little contact goes a long way. The only thing I'd have trouble with would be someone picking and choosing only their friends to greet warmly while giving really cursory greetings to others.

Another thing that bugs me is to receive the peace from someone who won't take a moment to look me in the eye while doing so, but is already looking past me to find their friends. Those folks often seem to be the types that mistake the peace for coffee hour and a chance to catch up on the latest.
 

---

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :
 
I do not like the service screeching to a halt so everyone can make the rounds. I especially dislike the hugging. I find it invasive and over the top. A handshake with the people next to me and behind and in front of me is plenty. I've gone to several churches (ECUSA) and all of them have made a big production out of the peace. I am not a touch-phobic or unaffectionate person but I do not like feeling forced into sharing affection I may not feel.

It wasn't like this in the ECUSA churches I attended growing up in the dark ages (1960s). The rector said "The peace of the Lord be always with you" and the congregration responded "and also with you." That was sufficient then, and IMO is sufficient now.

I'm between churches. I'd like to find one where the peace doesn't devolve into a meet and greet, as was stated up-post.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Thank goodness that it's not part of our liturgy and/or practice. We have many abused (and one or two abusers ) in the church and given some of the comments from women on this and other threads, I think that the peace can amount to an invitation of groping for some people. Mrs M who is a very kind, gentle and pastoral soul, hates the matiness of it all.

I absolutely abhor it (I don't welcome invasion of my personal space anyway) and I think it's theologically suspect. You shouldn't even get to church if there isn't peace between you and someone. Show the sign if you must when you first meet, not halfway through a liturgy.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
I take what's said above about avoiding it - but it is very hard and some people are very persistent. I've found that sitting head down in prayer and/or reading the bible is no deterrent to hardened peace givers.

A gropers charter? perhaps. But it can mean an unsafe environment for some, and rejection for others which makes them feel that God doesn't care if the church doesn't. Who's gonna hug the tramp, the family who are very "different", the single older man, the stranger, the prostitute .... yep we have them all.
 

---

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I am one of the churchwardens and we sit at the back, so having passed the peace with those around me I go and stand at the back table where the elements are waiting to be brought up. Thus I can avoid the general free-for-all and make sure two people (if not we as churchwardens) are ready to take up the elements.

If people approach me then I will smile and respond, but I've given up joining in the scrum. My fellow churchwarden generally disappears into it. What is irritating me more and more is that people (including the clergy) are still chatting and greeting when the organist starts playing the next hymn...so I start singing loudly!
 

---

Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
I try to sit somewhere at least three pews away from anyone else although that's easier during a weekday mass. I call this my peace exclusion zone. I then kneel with my head in my hands during the peace. I try to simultaneously give off 'deeply prayerful' and 'don't fucking come near me' vibes at the same time. I've also spoken to the more promiscuous paxers in the congregation and told them never to touch me.

Yes, that may be overkill but I cannot handle the peace. I have PTSD. Being touched by strangers freaks me out. Not in an 'I don't like this' way but in a 'this will probably cause a panic attack and leave me so shaken I won't be able to go to work tomorrow' way.

I understand the point of the peace but I just can't cope with it and if a congregation is really inclusive as opposed to just mouthing of about it they need to learn that people have their fuck ups, disabilities, oddnesses etc and they should respect it.
 

---

Posted by Abigail (# 1672) on :
 
As the most introverted of introverts I probably should hate the whole idea of the peace, but when done in a reasonable way I do quite like it these days. When I first started attending church 20 or so years ago I really couldn't cope with it at all and would sit in my seat, eyes down, unable to move. I gradually progressed to standing up and smiling, though still rooted to the spot, and then slowly found myself able to join in in the 'expected' way.

These days, due to the way things are done at my church (which I have described here - http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=007970;p=5#000202 - if I've done it correctly) I endure it rather than enjoy it.

But the point above about it possibly being the one bit of physical contact with another human being is a good one - that's pretty true for me and although I often feel awkward with physical contact there are times when I really welcome a hug during the peace.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
One easy solution is to go to a Latin (Tridentine, 1962er, Extraordinary, Old Usage, ...) mass. The sign of peace will then be this happening up front in the sanctuary, and only this.

Interestingly though, the peace has been an occasion for strife forever, and the Tridentine "blink and you will miss it" solution was actually a break with tradition to restore some sanity. A short and (as far as I know, and I do not know much about liturgy and history...) accurate summary is given here.

Personally, I'm all for the reintroduction of kissing a pax-brede!

The one good thing I have to say about the modern "handshakes with everybody in reach" pax is that children from about four to twelve years old tend to love it, and that it often is pretty much the only time they get engaged with mass.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
From my experience with other postures of "I am not participating at this time", that would lead to concerned hands on my shoulders and being talked to for twice as long to check that I'm OK, along with perhaps a "Oh, I just need to give you a hug quickly, because I see that you don't want to participate extensively right now."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I'm usually the Crucifer at church, so it tends to be quick handshakes with the Rector, accolytes etc.

---

What? You don't do liturgical embraces?
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I'm usually the Crucifer at church, so it tends to be quick handshakes with the Rector, accolytes etc.

---

What? You don't do liturgical embraces?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
How did this detested piece of the service come about? Has it always been in services or is it a modern thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
How did this detested piece of the service come about? Has it always been in services or is it a modern thing?

---

It's a modern thing that was suddenly inflicted on us at some point during the era when I'd stopped going to church. I came back and found it in place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I'm usually the Crucifer at church, so it tends to be quick handshakes with the Rector, accolytes etc.

---

What? You don't do liturgical embraces?

---

What the [insert Hellish language of choice here] are liturgical embraces?

---

It's certainly not something that merits that kind of language!

Look here at 57:13 through 58:00 and LEARN!
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I wonder sometimes about the reach of culture in this. In anglophone churches the default seems to be uneasiness which can manifest itself in over-eagerness; but in Spain and in Portuguese congregations in Canada, I have found the Peace is exchanged in a warm and non-threatening manner. I am concluding we just can't do it.

Normally I attend an 8.30 or 8.00 where it is much less likely to happen and, when it does, it is usually without the coffee-hour aspect. Sitting a distance from others helps. Still, small children really like it, and don't seem to bring agendas of insanity to it, and somehow bring the grace which adults simply do not seem to be able to do.

And even this getting-on-in-years males has twice been groped during the Peace. This is one of the most inappropriate venues for being butt-squeezed. While I am impervious (while angry) to such things, knowing that there are everywhere parishioners who have had bad experiences, I cannot imagine the distress this must cause them. It seems to be rather more widespread than we would like to think and clerical friends of mine have experienced inappropriate over-enthusiasm.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Pox tecum! from IngoB's link!

My practical prophylaxes and responses to mashers during the Peace are these.

1. Take a place at a distance from the crowd.
2. Don't position myself with my back to the wall or where I can't step back from the masher.

3. I never allow the masher to hug me, even if it turns awkward for both of us. I can't be hugged if my hand is stuck straight out at their torso.
4. If the masher attempts to maneuver past my hand to consummate the "wrestler's clinch," I move my out-thrust arm and hand to intercept them.
5. If that doesn't work, I step back.

6. If in a parish not my own, after I have shaken the hands of those immediately surrounding me, I sit down.
7. Each and every time—without exception—I sit down after I have shaken hands.
8. Even if I see another person hot on the heels of my most recent hand-shaker, I still sit down. Even if it's the priest.
9. Then I stand up to greet this new potential masher.
10. The act of standing up actually clears space around me. I'm in motion, generally in the direction of the one approaching me; they can't approach too closely until I've finished unfolding my body to a standing position. By that time my hand is well extended, protecting my personal space.
11. This repeated standing up and sitting down for each identifies me as someone slightly odd; it sets people a little off balance.

12. If I'm a regular at the parish, I tell those I'm closest to (definitely not the repeat masher-huggers) that I prefer to only shake hands.
13. Then when I merely bow to those I've spoken to, they get the point and stop approaching to shake my hand and bow back.
14. The mashers will never get it.
15. I don't really care if they take offense.

16. I fortunately am acolyte at a parish where the liturgical kiss is performed similar to Amanda B. Reckondwythe's and IngoB's links. This ceremonial is easy to bear because the only body touching is two hands on the corresponding elbows, and two hands lightly on the corresponding upper arms. We must be 'Russian', for we are of the two-bob variety, while the 'Greeks' in Amanda's video bob once only.

17. And, with Augustine the Aleut, I always greet children. Always before the adults who may be milling around. It sets the adults in their secondary place and reduces the potential for mashing behavior.

[ 06. September 2014, 16:44: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
What is going on when I am using words from international conflict like "detente" in my description, and The Silent Acolyte has to have a 17-step procedure to deal with it? I usually find the Pauline epistles frustrating and difficult to understand, but gosh we could use a strongly worded missive from St. Paul on how to express the idea that we are at peace with each other.
 

---

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
Doesn't St Paul already tell us to respect scruples that we do not share?
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
I'm not sure that helps us here. To try it in Pauline language:

If I hug someone who doesn't want to be hugged, do I not then offend their scruples? But if I refuse a hug from someone who thinks hugging is important, do I not then offend their scruples? So whether I hug or whether I do not hug, someone's scruples are offended. Ah, wretched self, who will deliver me from this body of contradiction?!
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
Indeed, what is going on?

The reasons are manifold:

1. There is a manifest lack of awe in worship today. We treat the synaxis, the divine service, sacred mysteries, the holy supper, the transcendent conversion of mundane things into Holy Things—have I made my point?—as though we were at a school assembly, a sporting contest, parade.

These, now, are the only times when we civically assemble. Inaugurations are out: we gather around the tee vee in our bathrobes to watch the leader of the free world assume office. But then, we don't even gather around the tee vee any more. We solipsistically gaze into our hand-held devices in an omphaloskeptic haze of unknowing.

As a society we know longer how to gather, let alone gather with reverence. But, we sure know how to tweet and text like demons.

2. We provide inadequate, nay, appalling training for priests, who behave no better than their flock, for they, too, have rent and gas bills to pay and so descend to the vulgar lever of the ones they are called to instruct (vide supra for conclusive testimony).

3. There is a general debasement of social intercourse, where policemen whom I have never seen before and will likely never see again, address me by my Christian name, when I can only reply saying, "Officer", or by using the surname displayde on their uniform. It is becoming a society where every one is supposed to be friendly and welcoming.

4. When we don't capitulate to this agressive 'friendliness' we are treated as a kook, asocial at best, sociopathic at worst, when seen it's probably wise to take the children in hand.

5. But, woe betide the person who merely touches a child in their charge on the shoulder, the priest or layperson who comforts a grief-stricken parishioner with a welcomed hug in a private moment of consolation or counseling.

Then the entire apparatus of the "Safe Church" and "Protect the Children" Culture comes swiftly down on the offender like the Hammer of God.

Touching behavior we would not tolerate, that the culture views as positively criminal, in schools, hospitals, in the rector's office, in counseling settings, we embrace with an ignorance of the spiritual damage the behavior wreaks.


ETA: AR, "Whether I hug..."

Two emoticons in one day!

[ 06. September 2014, 19:31: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I don't think anyone actually likes it. From reading the thread it seems most folks put on fixed grins, offer a quick handshake to a few people roundabout and mutter "peace be with you".

---

Not many people like going to the dentist, either. But it is an important discipline. The peace is a powerful reminder that there is a coming time when resentments will end, that those we hate we will one day learn to love (even if they went on earth to Westboro Bappo) and that there will be that reconciliation that is eternal and beyond comprehension.
 

---

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
Those of us 'of a certain age' can emulate the (probably mythical) elderly lady whose response to 'Peace be with you.' was 'I don't do that sh*t!'

They'll think you're a crank, but maybe they already do anyway.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
An important discipline, indeed, Zappa. Yet, I still break out in rousing song:

quote:

---

We will, we will, we will not be smooched!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I usually find the Pauline epistles frustrating and difficult to understand, but gosh we could use a strongly worded missive from St. Paul on how to express the idea that we are at peace with each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
I don't think anyone actually likes it. ... If it were scrapped tomorrow I don't there would be many tears shed in my church and probably from many others.... Has it always been in services or is it a modern thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at Ariel. Because strangers are invited to come to church today, we are in more need than in Paul's day of trying to greet and hug as many people as possible during the peace, so they feel welcome? Something else? Genuinely confused here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
An important discipline, indeed, Zappa. Yet, I still break out in rousing song:

quote:

---

We will, we will, we will not be smooched!

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at Ariel. Because strangers are invited to come to church today, we are in more need than in Paul's day of trying to greet and hug as many people as possible during the peace, so they feel welcome? Something else? Genuinely confused here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
An important discipline, indeed, Zappa. Yet, I still break out in rousing song:

quote:

---

We will, we will, we will not be smooched!

---

---

Yes, to be fair, I don't do infiltration of personal space very well, and as for the vigorous rubbing of some available part of my body while looking lovingly into my eyes, bring me a bucket.

But just an enacted reminder a brief hey, this separation isn't all there is ... I think we need that. Even if I personally would prefer hoi polloi to stay out of my life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
It's the falseness of it that gets me. You turn up for a Sunday service, there's a bunch of people you don't know and may not have seen before or have never exchanged a word with, suddenly in the middle of the service you're expected to get up and warmly shake hands or embrace them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The5thMary:
Every single time I see the title of this thread, I find myself singing, "I fled the peace today, oh boy..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
How did this detested piece of the service come about? Has it always been in services or is it a modern thing?

---

It's a modern thing that was suddenly inflicted on us at some point during the era when I'd stopped going to church. I came back and found it in place.

---

It's actually very, very old, because it's a liturgical bit that's shared between the Eastern and the Western church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Deano, I can't speak for your church, but as a general statement, I'm afraid you are quite wrong. When the peace was first introduced in about 1970, there was quite a lot of resistance to it. There still is some, as evidenced by this thread, but resistance seems to have become now rather a minority grouse. Gradually, mainly over the period 1970-90, it became accepted and then popular. One of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is the way when it, along with the cup, was suspended during the scare about swine flu' there was a lot of complaint, and a lot of ostentatious hand-shaking and hugging when people were allowed to resume it again.


What Autenrieth Road and Chive are talking about is something quite different.

---

Yes I agree with Enoch here I think. Deano it was first introduced sometime in the 1970s although as Leo says liturgically in the mid-60s.We used just the versicle and response but when we introduced it in the 1980s I think there was a lot of resistance and I mean a lot. However yesterday's innovation became today's tradition (!!) and if it were left out there would be quite some comments - not half!
I must admit I didn't like it at first but now I've got used to it and there have been times in my life when I have greatly appreciated
What I really don't like about it is when the Peace becomes a 'how's your chilblains' moment. I honestly think that is an abuse. A simple handshake is sufficient with 'peace be with you'. In fact I think you could omit the handshake and just say 'peace' to the person near you. You certainly do not have to go walkabouts round the church which is what happens all too often at times. It is comparatively restrained in our place but there are churches where it's not.
The organist does have a role here - IMO! - and that is to start playing should it start getting a bit silly!

 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
This post has taken me several days to prepare.

First, I am another person who has left the building during too friendly acts of receiving the peace. Now before the charismatics think this is something they get right. The only time I have screamed while trying to escape was during a Charismatic service. The worship leader had just said "Please turn and give your neighbour a hug".

Second, an individual has a visceral reaction to people touching them is a known phenomena particularly common amongst people who have been abused. Although there are other categories of people who find touch difficult. I got this information from a trained counsellor who actually used me to demonstrate the reaction. He did not touch me but made to and I flinched.

Thirdly I am well aware that people do signal do not touch, people therefore can learn to read it in a number of cases. This is about body language. Thus it is possible within the confines of the Peace and without holding a conversation to negotiate whether to hug someone or not.

Given this context I have come to realise that forcing on someone physical contact during sharing of the Peace is abusive. As if you are a normal person, capable of reading body language and you over-ride someones expressed desire for limited contact (none or restricted), then you are putting your desires before that of the other person. What is more you may well be doing it in a way that exacerbates prior experiences of abuse.

What I am asking is, that people, who are into public displays of physical affection, pay attention to who the other person is. Please do not assume that your desire for a hug is going to be affirming for everyone else. For People like you it will be, people with other stories and personalities may well find it threatening.

This is not an anti-peace rant, when I was in a more sensitive state I collected ways that the peace could be shared that would not put me at risk. Anything from passing an olive wood dove around to singing a song while holding hands with others in a circle.

The peace is important, make sure you are sharing it, not just using it as an excuse for self gratification. You can hug, shake hands or use other form of contact appropriately if you remain attentive to the other person.

Yes it goes both ways. Even in my worst days if I felt someone's need for a hug was more important than my need to not be touched, I would not only allow the hug to happen, I would instigate it. This was exceptional and would not have happened during the sharing of the peace.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The5thMary:
Every single time I see the title of this thread, I find myself singing, "I fled the peace today, oh boy..."

---

Oh thank God it's not just me.
 

---

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
What Jennie Jon wrote (each nuanced paragraph).
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Jengie Jon, thank you for what you posted. I've been thinking that one of the odd things about the peace is that people can be so oblivious to social cues that I think they would usually pick up on in other contexts.
 

---

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Jengie Jon, thank you for what you posted. I've been thinking that one of the odd things about the peace is that people can be so oblivious to social cues that I think they would usually pick up on in other contexts.

---

There is no doubt in my mind that this is true. People have no clue.

Only solution is to toughen up your skin. Make a plan. Protect yourself. And laugh it off with whatever phrase you need. I say, "Bless your heart!" to myself when I have to implement my strategy to deflect someone.

Shouldn't need that advice for anything at church but we do.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I think I've said before that at our place (Anglican A-C), we have The Peace immediately before Communion i.e. in the Roman position. This means that the organist (or computer operator if the organist is away) can give peeps just enough time to greet/shake hands with their neighbour before we start singing the Agnus Dei.

Works fine, because there simply isn't time to wander around the church, though there is time to briefly include visitors/newcomers. Personally, I wish we could do away entirely with the exchange of The Peace (at a weekday Mass, I now stay seated, in an attitude of prayer), but that's unlikely under our present Roman-inclined regime!

Ian J.
 

---

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
I don't like it in that position though, mainly because it is a precursor to Communion and the danger is in having a free for all just before Communion, which I don't think is on really

It's not entirely RC though. Apparently in the Ambrosian rite the Peace is before the offertory as we do it........and I think they still do it in Milan Cathedral
 

---

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The5thMary:
Every single time I see the title of this thread, I find myself singing, "I fled the peace today, oh boy..."

---

Oh thank God it's not just me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

Well, AIUI the liturgical justification for it is that it is a (symbolic) reconciliation before receiving communion. So it would need to be at the beginning rather than the end.Or of course you could leave it where it is and people could just ditch the huggy-wuggy touchy-feely crap and comport themselves with some dignity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I actually wondered about people on the autism spectrum and then realised that probably the last thing they were likely to do was go around giving random hugs.

However, I can believe with some learning disabilities this might be a problem. However someone who cannot do body language quite often signals that simply by the oddity of their own body language. So we are forewarned and probably would place them in the same category as children.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

There are a lot of reactions to the passing of the peace, and of course we are all entitled to feel the way we feel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
So it would need to be at the beginning rather than the end.Or of course you could leave it where it is and people could just ditch the huggy-wuggy touchy-feely crap and comport themselves with some dignity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
YMMV, but I wouldn't want to be embraced by some bloke I didn't know.

Also, my objection is that the handshake or hug aren't demonstrations of real friendship. Unless you know the people, it only offers the illusion of friendliness for that brief moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
YMMV, but I wouldn't want to be embraced by some bloke I didn't know.

Also, my objection is that the handshake or hug aren't demonstrations of real friendship. Unless you know the people, it only offers the illusion of friendliness for that brief moment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:

There are a lot of reactions to the passing of the peace, and of course we are all entitled to feel the way we feel.

---

Yes.

If we abolish the peace the dear lady I met in Church last Sunday would miss out in a big way. Her husband died last year, she has no family.

She had a tear in her eye as she said to me 'I love the peace, it's the only time anyone ever touches me'.

The friendly touch of others is a deep need most of us has.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
What has friendliness or even friendship got to do with sharing the Peace of Christ? These threads increasingly get on my goat with an apparant insistence - and abhorrance of the idea that it's all about being 'nice' and 'friendly' or being touched or not touched by other people, or shaking hands with them and so on.

It's not about any of these things principally. It's not even principally about me as one participant, or my fellow worshipper as the other participant. It's about whether Christ has been permitted to introduce his Peace into an act of fellowship and worship. It's as important as that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
On the other hand, if we abolish it then those likeme who cry and suffer anxiety every Sunday of our lives at the thought of doing it will be free. How do we trade off one person's misery against another's? (in all seriousness)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
On the other hand, if we abolish it then those likeme who cry and suffer anxiety every Sunday of our lives at the thought of doing it will be free. How do we trade off one person's misery against another's? (in all seriousness)

---

why go to Church if it's not to interact with the Church community? We may as well stay at home and put a DVD on!

If the Church community made me cry I wouldn't be seen dead there!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Like I said, we make sure we are aware of other people, read their body language and only touch those who wish to be touched.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
Sad but true - and it can work both ways across the genders (as hinted earlier I often used to get lingering rubs from women that left me faintly nauseated. But I'm just weird like that*).

A holy handshake should be it. But it should still be ... for reasons Anselmina and others have stated.

*to be honest I don't get hugs at all. If I want to be momentarily cemented to pulpous body parts I'll buy squishy animals ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Anselmina, I don't know how to make sense of what the peace is about. I mean, I understand it's to mean that we're at peace with each other, or Christ's peace is present, or however you want to put it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm not normally a holdout from the peace by any means. I'm perfectly happy (apart from strange exceptional occurrences like the OP) to shake hands with people, and say "peace be with you", and I don't find that greeting (either the handshake or the words) to be shallow or superficial.

But when people talk about what the peace is really for, I find myself wondering, is my usual reserved manner, of shaking hands with those near to me (and with others who approach me) too frosty, I wonder? Does the fact that I don't particularly need or want to greet everyone present mean that somehow I'm rejecting Christ's presence, or showing myself to be not properly "in love and charity with my neighbours", as the phrase from our liturgy has it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

We're all made differently, and have different levels of tolerance for personal contact. I think that's okay.

---

Absolutely.

At our Church you see all sorts during the peace. Those who sit dowm, hands in prayer, eyes closed, clearly signalling 'no touch!'. The 'quick handshake' people. Those who rush round and try to greet everyone in the place. The 'find my mates and have a conversation about plans for tomorrow' people. The intense folk who like deep, meaningful eye contact. etc etc.

I shake the hands of those either side and anyone else who comes up to me, but I don't move from in front of my chair.

Then I sit down think of all the bugs we have just shared - hands being the best microbe carriers there are!
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Boogie:
* shake the hands of those either side and anyone else who comes up to me, but * don't move from in front of my chair.

Then * sit down think of all the bugs we have just shared - hands being the best microbe carriers there are!

---

Yup, me too, and the next step is to take a piece of "bread" in those newly bugged with everyone else's bugs hands and put the now well bugged bread in your mouth. Sometimes * think * should carry hand sanitizer to church to use after the peace.

One church * visited the peace went on for so long (20 minutes or so, apparently every week the peace was a social occasion) * was quickly abandoned by pew mates running around the room to greet friends, * wandered off to the toilet room, then thought about joining others who were getting coffee. If * visit again * 'll bring my knitting or some letters to write. But my hands were clean after the peace with just a few brief neighbors and then the restroom break.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Not a bad thing for most of us to share a few bugs- good for the immune system.
 

---

Posted by thwarted_thurifer (# 16177) on :
 
It's just not Brit*** though, is it? We'll be expected to talk to people on Buses next!

It's optional! Let's have a set month to ditch that and the acclamation after the consecration, and then weigh up if we think it's better or worse?
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Was really thinking about the Communion rather than the Peace- a courteous bow to those immediately around you would do very well for that.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Hands should be shook before and after the service, not during. And it smacks of gestures. And how does the colour Black figure into this? No black, no future.

THREAD CLOSED

SPK, Eccles Ruling Elder (pro tem)
 

---

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
REOPENED

As counting clerk of this council, * do hereby proclaim and declare that this thread shall be open, provided that all advice is directed towards how to leave these dens of mid-service handshaking and seek refuge at one's nearest Calvinist shack.

No ballots were spoiled in the making of this post.

/s/ Autenrieth Road
Junior Breadcrumb Pro Tem
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0