Thread: Geometry and the Gospel 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=030468
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
Here's a question that arose in discussion among a small group of friends. There is some original context, but the discussion itself moved far enough away from that that it's probably best if I just present the question that the group arrived at, and let you lot loose on it:
Starting assumption, that was accepted without demur by all present at the discussion: At Mass / Communion / whatever, one should stand and face the Gospel book to the extent that one is able during the proclamation of the Gospel.
Question: Suppose one is holding a small child. How should one now stand? Two plausible answers:
1. Adult faces Gospel, child faces wherever
2. Adult and child combo face the Gospel, on average (so that the line between the Gospel book and the pair bisects the angle between the shoulder line of the adult and the child).
What is "right"? What would you do? Does the age of the child, the angle between the child's and adult's shoulders, or whether the child is asleep alter your answer?
(We all agreed that it was ideal if the adult held the child in front of him, facing out, so that both were facing the same way, but also agreed that that wasn't always possible.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
After how many rounds did the conversation turn to this question? Meaning, exactly how important is this in the grand scheme of things? This sounds like angels dancing on the head of a pin. All air and no incense.
If someone twisted my arm behind my back, however, I'd say the adult should face the gospel.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This sounds like angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Yes, it does, a bit. I'll come back with some more context so you can see how we got to angel-counting, but I wanted to get people's first thoughts before I coloured them with the rest of the discussion.
I'll also happily agree that in the scheme of things this isn't the most important question ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Just get one of these.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Wait, I've got it. You could oscillate back and forth like a floor fan.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Taking account of the current degree of deviation of magnetic from polar north, the angle of sunrise and sunset on the Sunday in question, daylight saving, the difference between ecclesiastical and true east, and the time it takes a man and a half to dig a hole and a half with a shovel and a half when the bath is filling from both taps, I'd say that as a general rule- and this is only a very rough rule of thumb- the adult faces Gospel, draws kid's attention to the Gospeller but doesn't worry if kid keeps looking elsewhere. Unless of course it's in the Southern hemisphere, in which case the situation needs to be partially reversed because the water drains out the other way.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Yes, I'm a bit puzzled by this.
Perhaps this statement will reveal that I am hopelessly wrong in comparison with the experts of the Ecclesiastics Board. Nevertheless, I will say it. Worshipping God is not like doing military drill, a gymnastic display or synchronised swimming.
I nearly made a similar comment on the Holy Week thread when some people got steamed up about when one should kneel or not.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I nearly made a similar comment on the Holy Week thread when some people got steamed up about when one should kneel or not.
Surely the answer to that is, "Follow the custom of the place where you're worshiping"?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
How many extra years of Purgatory will each degree of deviation give you?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I would be more worried about people thinking you are being rude and turning your back on them. Probably not an issue if people see that you are physically less capable of twisting around, or looking after a small child - or at least it shouldn't be.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Besides, does anyone think they can control in which direction a small child faces? (If they're two for example, I'm sure they cover all 360 degrees within 20 seconds.)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Question: Suppose one is holding a small child. How should one now stand? Two plausible answers:
1. Adult faces Gospel, child faces wherever
2. Adult and child combo face the Gospel, on average (so that the line between the Gospel book and the pair bisects the angle between the shoulder line of the adult and the child).
What is "right"?
Well, if it were me, I would face the Gospel book/gospeller to model for the child the appropriate and expected posture. If the child were old enough, I would suggest that he or she face the same direction, being sure to say why we do this.
And if the child nevertheless looked somewhere else, I would place that very low on my list of things to worry about and would simply continue to model.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Um... aren't you automatically facing more-or-less in the right direction? Or are you in the habit of sitting backwards in the pew?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Um... aren't you automatically facing more-or-less in the right direction? Or are you in the habit of sitting backwards in the pew?
In some churches I have been in, the Gospel is read from the center of the nave.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
OK.
I'm completely outside this but if you start declaiming behind people don't you kind of expect to be behind them?
Editing by Garasu. Budggering autocorrect.
[ 04. April 2016, 19:59: Message edited by: Garasu ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
OK.
I'm completely outside this but if you start declaiming behind people don't you kind of expect to be behind them?
If the congregation stands for the reading of the Gospel, and if the Gospel is read from the center of the nave, then everyone turns as necessary to face the reader. For those in the back, this involves little adjustment. Those in the front would need to stand and turn around. Those in the middle would need to turn part-way around.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Adult should remain seated, cradle the child in loving arms, and softly hum "Jesus loves me this I know" or other appropriate tune, thus transmitting to child the heart of the Gospel message in an environment of expressed love that reflects the love of God.
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
If it's our kind of place, then said small child will have masses of sensual stimuli to experience - especially if you're near the 'inside' end of the row. Fancy dress, candles, smoke, maybe singing right in front of them, in the midst of the people not just up at the far end. What's not to anjoy? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Suggestion - at The Peace, take them as close to the altar as you dare)
[ 04. April 2016, 20:50: Message edited by: Qoheleth. ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And the more they see, the better the chance they too will want to be an acolyte, boatboy/girl, or whatever, in a few years' time. And that really is inclusion- small kids doing a genuine job in worship.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
How many extra years of Purgatory will each degree of deviation give you?
The deviation is measured not in degrees but in minutes and seconds.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
This is why I like my congregation's sanctuary. We are in the round, so we all face the Gospel as it is read.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
So, as promised, here's some context and colour.
It was triggered by one of our number relating something that had happened at his church. He had been at his usual place of worship with his daughter (11 months, on the verge of walking, but not quite there). An elderly lady (apparently a bit of a stickler) had approached him after a service, and asked if he knew that he was supposed to face the Gospel. Apparently she wouldn't have said anything, only he usually sits in a pew near the front, so is "on display" to the rest of the congregation, and she wouldn't like him to inadvertently lead someone else astray.
This rather surprised my friend, because he does know which way to face, but it eventually transpired that she had seen him with his daughter on one hip, each facing diagonally towards the Gospel, and so he brought the question to our group of friends to see if we could decide what was "correct".
He supported his case this way: he's a person, and his daughter is a person. If he alone was standing in conversation with someone, he would face them. If he was holding his daughter, and in conversation with them, he would angle away a little so that he, his daughter, and his interlocutor would form an inward-facing triangle (as one naturally would for a conversation between any group of three people).
How, then, should he show appropriate respect for the Gospel? He's a person, and his daughter is a person, equally beloved of God, and so he should position them so that they both faced as close as they could to the Gospel (which was the #2 "average" position in my OP.) He added that he suspected that the elderly lady doesn't really consider children to be proper people, which is why she discounted his daughter in her thoughts.
An alternative viewpoint, offered by others in our group, was that whilst we thought nothing he said was wrong, the expectations for the behaviour of children and adults differ. We consider it reasonable for small children to entertain themselves (reasonably quietly ) through the "boring bits", but would be a bit taken aback to see an adult taking out the morning paper and catching up on the news in the middle of the sermon. From this point of view, where the child faces is less important, and so the adult should face the Gospel.
I was quite attracted by the egalitarian "average position" argument, affirming as it does that children are people, rather than small noisy things that might some day turn into people, but then got distracted by the "leading my weaker brother in the pew behind astray" argument.
Our wives accuse us of overthinking things, and they could be right
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Your wives are right.
The appropriate respect for the Gospel is to listen to it and act on it. That's hard enough to do if you're holding a wriggly child, without burdening oneself or letting other people burden one, with extra obligations. Anything beyond that is pedantic pap.
Your interfering old biddy is also wrong in thinking that if you happen to sit near the front, you have an extra obligation to show other people how she thinks they ought to behave in church.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So, as promised, here's some context and colour.
It was triggered by one of our number relating something that had happened at his church. He had been at his usual place of worship with his daughter (11 months, on the verge of walking, but not quite there). An elderly lady (apparently a bit of a stickler) had approached him after a service, and asked if he knew that he was supposed to face the Gospel. Apparently she wouldn't have said anything, only he usually sits in a pew near the front, so is "on display" to the rest of the congregation, and she wouldn't like him to inadvertently lead someone else astray.
I think that this is utterly preposterous ... form taking precedence over meaning. I can't think that Jesus would have said that (quite the opposite, in fact).
In fact it's the sort of behaviour which makes people - especially parents with children - give up on Church.
And don't give me that, "I wouldn't have said anything, but ..." - that's just an excuse for her to show that she's doing things "correctly" while others aren't. It won't impress God.
[ 05. April 2016, 08:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Perhaps carry an extra pacifier to put in the mouth of such a dear parishioner? Or, if the encounter takes place at coffee hour, plop a cookie/biscuit in her mouth?
When her mouth is thus occupied, lightly ask why she didn't work on keeping *her* mind on the gospel reading.
And *yes*, re overthinking. And *yes*, re whoever basically said to just love the kid.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Perhaps the lady in question meant well. We shouldn't rush to judge her. A concern for decent and orderly worship, and reverence for the Gospel, are in themselves good things, even if our expression of them is sometimes clumsy.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
On quite a number of paintings of the Sermon on the Mount, not all listeners are facing Jesus. For example this one by Rosselli.
(What's so special about the cheese makers?)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Perhaps the lady in question meant well. We shouldn't rush to judge her. A concern for decent and orderly worship, and reverence for the Gospel, are in themselves good things, even if our expression of them is sometimes clumsy.
She very well may have meant well, but it was still a rude thing to do.
Besides, if she was reverently facing the reader as is clearly so very important to her, then how or why was she paying attention to what direction he was facing? It seems rather like chiding someone for not having their eyes closed during prayer.
And yes, the wives are right.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Were you there, then? Do you know this lady? Did you see and hear what she said and how she said it well enough to be sure that what she said was rude rather than, say, merely unfortunately expressed?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Auggghhh, another opportunity to learn charity to the obnoxious. I feel for you. I usually fail abysmally.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Were you there, then? Do you know this lady? Did you see and hear what she said and how she said it well enough to be sure that what she said was rude rather than, say, merely unfortunately expressed?
No, and I don't need to have been there. I didn't say she said it in a rude way. I said it was rude to say anything at all. Regardless of how it was said, regardless of the intent, it is rude to come up to someone after worship and tell them they were doing it wrong. Period.
But then, I was taught that proper church etiquette is to worry about what I'm doing and not what anyone else is or isn't doing.
A concern for decent and orderly worship is little excuse. I fail to see how whether he was facing exactly the right way could possibly have led to disruption or disorder in worship. As for reverence for the Gospel, I repeat that had I been the recipient of her helpfulness, I would have been tempted to ask why she was watching what I was doing rather than reverently attending to the reading of the Gospel—tempted, but I wouldn't have done it.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Were you there, then? Do you know this lady? Did you see and hear what she said and how she said it well enough to be sure that what she said was rude rather than, say, merely unfortunately expressed?
I wasn't there either, and although I've been to my friend's church a few times, I don't think I've ever met the lady in question, so this is second-hand. I can tell you that my friend wasn't offended, and took the lady's comments as well-meaning rather than officious or worse.
And of course neither he, I, nor anyone else thinks that any of this takes precedence over the message of the Gospel, the comfort of his child or anything.
I've taken my own small children to his church a couple of times, and felt perfectly welcome, so I don't think his church has any kind of anti-children vibe.
And yes, I would perhaps agree that the elderly lady is guilty of worrying excessively about form over function (and I tend to think that form and function are very much intertwined - I think I listen better, and take in the message better, if I look like I'm paying attention). So after we had rapidly dealt with "you're in church with the baby - you're doing the best you can and we all know that, don't worry about it" we took to wondering whether there was actually a "right" answer. Don't worry - my friend has his priorities in the right place.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Were you there, then? Do you know this lady? Did you see and hear what she said and how she said it well enough to be sure that what she said was rude rather than, say, merely unfortunately expressed?
I wasn't there on this occasion, but the same lady came to my church once and told me that my children had ruined her daughter's solo by making a noise while the choir were singing. I think your friend was lucky he wasn't told to leave the child at home till it was old enough to stand still and know which way to face.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Perhaps carry an extra pacifier to put in the mouth of such a dear parishioner?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Excuse me, but what big f@cking difference does this make?
There is such a thing as being a little too legalistic. I don't think this is commanded anywhere in Scripture. It is not forbidden either. This is adiophra.
And people want to know why millennials are being turned off by the church. This proves it is not the church, but certain Dudley Do Rights who have no life.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I can't see a way to make this right either, if this lady was commenting on him not facing the gospel correctly while handling a 11 month old child. Children that age are agile, and they control their parents' body posture more than the parents themselves do.
If you're holding a child that age, and you're both facing in the general direction of the gospel, and the child is more or less quiet, that's already a big achievement. I would stay in that position and not move.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Apart from the silly woman’s discourtesy, what she is doing is bring into disrepute the idea of common corporate gestures by the worshipers. Of course where such gestures are practical, which they are not for a babe in arms.
She is also giving ammunition to those who would deny the importance of ritual and gesture at all.
Posted by Dogwalker (# 14135) on
:
You know, you could sit the baby on your shoulders, so you both could face forward. (11 mo may be a tiny bit young for that, but it won't be long.) Is that more respectful?
My feeling is that kids, almost without exception, ADD to the worship experience, by reminding us that we're a family of "all sorts and conditions".
I sure that the woman could find a church full of perfectly behaved retirees somewhere. For a few years at least.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
I suppose that if an adult were to listen to the Gospel in a sitting position when everyone else was standing, let us say because of really bad arthritis in the hips, this person would hasten over at the end of the service to ensure s/he really knew that WE STAND FOR THE GOSPEL.
John
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My wife has arthritis and rarely stands for hymns. Conversely another lady with skeleto-muscular problems sometimes stands up during the sermon.
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Excuse me, but what big f@cking difference does this make?
Well said, Gramps. I have little sympathy for people who get their panties in a wad over things like this. A pleasant memory I have is my (long ago) priest inviting all kids to come up close when the Gospel was read. Didn't Jesus Himself have something to say (or do) about ignoring 'rules'?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
A pleasant memory I have is my (long ago) priest inviting all kids to come up close when the Gospel was read.
In other words he was getting them to participate corporately in a liturgical action.
The objection to having the baby facing the wrong way was that the baby was not so participating.
It was none of her business to criticise the parent on that grounds.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Ain't technology wonderful? It enables people all over the world to read all sorts of things into something that they didn't see or hear and that happened on a whole different continent from some of them, so they can get all het up about it and have a nice warm feeling about how inclusive and understanding they are. This, even though the person who reports the original incident says that the person they heard about it from, who was involved in it, was not offended by it.
Honestly, what a lot of fuss about nothing. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
[ 06. April 2016, 20:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Thing is, Albertus, that this reminds many of us that we have dear friends who are turned off of church and Jesus by assholes being assholes to them at church. So this strikes a chord for many of us. So glad there are some here, like you, to set us straight.
How delicious the irony of judging people for judging people.
[ 06. April 2016, 20:44: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Ain't technology wonderful? It enables people all over the world to read all sorts of things into something that they didn't see or hear and that happened on a whole different continent from some of them, so they can get all het up about it and have a nice warm feeling about how inclusive and understanding they are. This, even though the person who reports the original incident says that the person they heard about it from, who was involved in it, was not offended by it.
This misses the point.
It doesn't matter whether Leorning Cniht's friend was offended or not, though I am glad he wasn't. (And for the record, I don't offend easily, especially when I know that no offense is intended. I tend to laugh or roll my eyes about something like this and then blow it off.)
Nor does it matter whether the lady in question had any intent to offend. I fully accept the perception by those present that she didn't intend to offend.
My point is that there are no circumstance where approaching someone (at least someone not one's own child) after a service of worship and commenting that they did something incorrectly is not rude. At least that's the case where I live, which it would appear is in the same country where the incident in question happened. It's rude, even if well-intended and even if it causes no offense.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
You mean, Mouethief, the way that so many people here, have judged this lady for what you believe to be her judging someone else (even though it looks like the person who was actually there and on the end of this 'judgement' seems not to have thought they were being judged at all)?
Get cross about something that seems wrong to you, that you have seen or heard or experienced, by all means. Get cross about things that seem wrong to you, that you have not directly seeen or heard or experienced, if, having found out as much as you reasonably can about them, they still seem wrong to you.
But do not allow the Devil to tempt you into uncharity against your fellow Christians on the basis of hearsay interpreted by your own assumptions. And I say that as someone who has been guilty of that in the past, and may in my weakness be guilty of it again, but who knows that it is not the way of the Gospel.
And for Nick Tamen, even if something is said with no intention to offend, and indeed it causes no offence, it is rude. Well, he has clearly made his mind up very firmly and so I don't think there's anything I can say to that.
[ 06. April 2016, 21:04: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You mean, Mouethief, the way that so many people here, have judged this lady for what you believe to be her judging someone else
No, no, it's better than that. He's judging you for judging us for judging this lady for judging someone else's behaviour in church. Is that right Mousethief?
If I thought someone was doing something wrong and I knew better, I think I'd at least ask permission to correct them before offering the advice.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You mean, Mouethief, the way that so many people here, have judged this lady for what you believe to be her judging someone else
No, no, it's better than that. He's judging you for judging us for judging this lady for judging someone else's behaviour in church. Is that right Mousethief?
Exactly so.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
I haven't a clue who is right or wrong here, but, were I to attend a service where I was criticised for my behaviour, then I'd would have to give the situation a lot of thought.
Was the criticism justified? If so, then I would have to think I was in the wrong place for worship. Was the criticism not justified? If so, then I would have to think I was in the wrong place for worship.
Of course my scruples have nothing to do with this exact case, although, is it not St Paul who recommends charity towards scruples, and doing all things to edifying?
Perhaps not, wrong site.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I thought the question was about liturgy not manners.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
Sorry.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
If they were in a RC church, it wouldn't happen as they don't reasd the gospel from the nave
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
This reminds me of the Church of Fools. I was asked to read a piece of Scripture there once, and the only way in which everyone could 'hear' me was for me to stand in the middle of the nave.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
My point is that there are no circumstance where approaching someone (at least someone not one's own child) after a service of worship and commenting that they did something incorrectly is not rude.
This statement is manifestly false. If you are in charge of training acolytes, you need to tell them when they make a mistake so that they can try to do better next time. If your intercessor reads out the wrong name for your bishop, you need to point it out so it can be corrected in the script.
I know - you weren't really thinking about that, but about someone commenting on the behaviour of a random congregant. I'm not sure the two cases are entirely disjoint, though.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
My point is that there are no circumstance where approaching someone (at least someone not one's own child) after a service of worship and commenting that they did something incorrectly is not rude.
This statement is manifestly false. If you are in charge of training acolytes, you need to tell them when they make a mistake so that they can try to do better next time. If your intercessor reads out the wrong name for your bishop, you need to point it out so it can be corrected in the script.
I know - you weren't really thinking about that, but about someone commenting on the behaviour of a random congregant. I'm not sure the two cases are entirely disjoint, though.
Fair enough. I was indeed thinking of random congregant approaching random congregant, but I did word it more expansively, so the "no circumstances" was indeed overbroad.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
He's judging you for judging us for judging this lady for judging someone else's behaviour in church. Is that right Mousethief?
Quotes file!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0