|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Giving the sign of peace
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
I think passing the peace is a good thing, and I also think that no one should feel that they have to physically touch or be touched.
Even if no one in your church has ever seen the namaste greeting, no one can shake your hand while you are doing it. I can't imagine anyone trying.
ETA: Yesterday at the exchange of the peace I took the opportunity to speak to a man who was in the church for the first time in months; he had suffered a heart attack. It seemed right to tell him how glad I was to see him in the context of the Eucharist.
Moo
[ 30. July 2012, 12:28: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Evensong I am glad no one at my church casually dismisses my difficulty with the peace. In the past I have avoided church because people could not understand the difficulty I had, so it was easier, though isolating, not to go.
I submit that in small minority of people there is a pathological inability to exchange the peace (be it Autism, trauma at physical touch, paranoid hypochondria etc)
But in the vast majority, there is no earthly reason why exchanging a handshake and a few words should render people unable to attend church.
It's a pathetic excuse.
In fact, it's no excuse at all.
[ 30. July 2012, 12:34: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In some churches, if you look as though you're deep in prayer everyone else will leave you alone. Surely this is an excellent way of preventing people from pestering you during the peace.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Evensong I am glad no one at my church casually dismisses my difficulty with the peace. In the past I have avoided church because people could not understand the difficulty I had, so it was easier, though isolating, not to go.
I submit that in small minority of people there is a pathological inability to exchange the peace (be it Autism, trauma at physical touch, paranoid hypochondria etc)
But in the vast majority, there is no earthly reason why exchanging a handshake and a few words should render people unable to attend church.
It's a pathetic excuse.
In fact, it's no excuse at all.
It is an excuse, but usually for a deeper reason, some of which I outlined in my post at the beginning of the thread. It may be that the individuals in question haven't delved introspectively as to exactly why it bothers them. And it doesn't have to be a syndrome before it becomes a problem for people. For some, it is a step-too-far in a series of imposed liturgical changes.
I understand that for many people it is very meaningful. I would hope that they understand that for others it is meaningless and disruptive, even if not more problematic. If it appears to be compulsory, and it often does, this compounds the problem.
Curiously, I have found the passing of the peace in Spanish and French churches to be more natural and much less fussy. In the vast majority of anglophone churches I have attended (80%), it is a social event and, the more social it is, the more certain it will be that the visitor will be ignored at the coffee hour.
As far as hugs go, I will note that I have twice been butt-squeezed by huggers, so shipmates should not be distressed that I prefer the 8.00 service where this is not likely to be a danger.
(I did try PeteC's namaste approach and two times out of four, found my hands grasped anyway).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Evensong I am glad no one at my church casually dismisses my difficulty with the peace. In the past I have avoided church because people could not understand the difficulty I had, so it was easier, though isolating, not to go.
I submit that in small minority of people there is a pathological inability to exchange the peace (be it Autism, trauma at physical touch, paranoid hypochondria etc)
I submit the minority is much bigger than you think, and that the reason you think it is so small is because such people often do not want to draw attention to themselves.
As one I find it scarily common how often I come across others with similar problems and mine are mild.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huia:
[qb] It's a pathetic excuse.
In fact, it's no excuse at all.
That's a harsh judgment call from someone who calls themselves postmodern - especially when you cannot (in this context) discover the actual reasons behind individuals' reluctance to participate in the peace.
You may be fine with others invading your personal space - ands that's fine for you as it helps your worship. Others don't appreciate this invasion and would rather stay at home than face it. If they aren't forced tpo take part by over zealous individuals, their worship can be enhanced too.
Why should they be forced to dip out because the church culture presupposes a desire for involvement? Want an exchnage - fine, stand up. Don't want it? Sit still and pray but don't anyone break into that.
What did we used to do before showing a sign of peace was popularised? Why did we change?
The answer to the first part is - we did nothing. Why did we change - because the liturgy told us to. If we wanted to show the peace we would (?should) have done it before new forms of liturgy were popularised. Why be made to do things when we should be allowed a choice as reasonable adults?
I'd lose 20% + of my congregation if we introduced the peace - not because of theology but because of aversion and (past) abuse. Do you really want to condemn these suffering peoiple anymore evensong?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
Because I'm a naturally reserved person, I find the passing the peace quite uncomfortable. The thought of moving all round the church as some do is something I avoid like the plague and I tend to stay where I am and only greet those either side of, in front and behind me. I would really rather that this ritual wasn't included in the church service, preferring that it took place after the service as it seems to be too much of a social chit chat at our church these days.
Our usual greeting is "Peace be with you". Some years ago when at church with one of my young children I was highly amused when she asked why people kept saying "Piece of biscuit".
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
When I'm giving the peace, I'll always try to discover if the other person is uncomfortable with touch. In that case I'll just give a nod while saying "The peace of Christ."
I admit that my perception isn't always perfect, but I'm hoping it works most of the times.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You may be fine with others invading your personal space - ands that's fine for you as it helps your worship. Others don't appreciate this invasion and would rather stay at home than face it.
Since when has a handshake an a small exhange of words ever been an invasion of privacy?
It's what we do when we meet new people for God's sake! It's a standard cultural norm!!
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd lose 20% + of my congregation if we introduced the peace - not because of theology but because of aversion and (past) abuse. Do you really want to condemn these suffering peoiple anymore evensong?
Twenty percent of your congregation are averse to social conventions and have suffered from past abuse?
Son of a bitch. That's one seriously wounded congregation you have there.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Evensong I am glad no one at my church casually dismisses my difficulty with the peace. In the past I have avoided church because people could not understand the difficulty I had, so it was easier, though isolating, not to go.
I submit that in small minority of people there is a pathological inability to exchange the peace (be it Autism, trauma at physical touch, paranoid hypochondria etc)
I submit the minority is much bigger than you think, and that the reason you think it is so small is because such people often do not want to draw attention to themselves.
Can you stipulate a reason for a pathological inability to participate in standard social norms for the vast majority of people?
Bugger the "I want to be alone when I worship" syndrome.
Christianity is about others as much as it is about ourselves.
If you have a theological aversion to an exchange of peace then you need to rethink your theology.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[QUOTE]
1. Since when has a handshake an a small exhange of words ever been an invasion of privacy? It's what we do when we meet new people for God's sake! It's a standard cultural norm!!
2. I'd lose 20% + of my congregation if we introduced the peace - not because of theology but because of aversion and (past) abuse. Do you really want to condemn these suffering peoiple anymore evensong?
Twenty percent of your congregation are averse to social conventions and have suffered from past abuse?
Son of a bitch. That's one seriously wounded congregation you have there.
1. It might start as a handshake but who knows where it goes from there? For some even a handshake is a step too far. Social norm? perhaps for you and I but not for some.
2. Please don't use such offensive language. Yes 20% is the figure - depression, autism, aspergers, prostitutes, abused etc etc. Many introduced to the church by those who work alongside the people that the rest of society wants to kick out.
[ 30. July 2012, 13:43: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think passing the peace is a good thing, and I also think that no one should feel that they have to physically touch or be touched.
This
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. Please don't use such offensive language. Yes 20% is the figure - depression, autism, aspergers, prostitutes, abused etc etc. Many introduced to the church by those who work alongside the people that the rest of society wants to kick out.
Fair enough.
In that situation special rules would apply.
But we're talking in general here, not in hard core abused and unusual congregations.
[ 30. July 2012, 13:47: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
2. Please don't use such offensive language. Yes 20% is the figure - depression, autism, aspergers, prostitutes, abused etc etc. Many introduced to the church by those who work alongside the people that the rest of society wants to kick out.
Fair enough.
In that situation special rules would apply.
But we're talking in general here, not in hard core abused and unusual congregations.
Every congregation I've been part of has its fair share of people. Lots keep it hidden until one day it emerges to someone they can trust, like men who have been abused.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Our oldest son has Aspergers. He had difficulty at first shaking hands properly. He would pump hand up and down repeatedly and jerkily. The passing of the peace has provided him with an opportunity to learn to shake hands properly.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
What I do find a pain in the ass is when the peace becomes a great song and dance effort: when it can detract from the focus of the Eucharist itself. It is a communal ceremony, but its ultimate focus is up to God and then down to us. The "horizontal" dimension - between us - depends on aforesaid "vertical" dimension.
That says it perfectly for me. If everyone would stick to Silent Acolyte's rules (if only they were nailed to the door) all would be well, but the churches I've attended in recent years have let this thing become horizontal in the extreme. A few people seem to think they would be remiss if they didn't shake every hand in the congregation and ask about every persons' and their relatives' health. When I was church treasurer I would also get the Walmart receipts,and explanations about them, at that time.
I don't hate being hugged but I don't particularly like it either and to think that the touching is keeping some people from church sounds like The Peace just isn't worth it to me. Can't people who are starved for touch go to the coffee hour, Thursday Bible Circle or anything else more social? Surely church can be "Us and God," with the congregation trying to achieve something vertical together, the way we do with music.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'd lose 20% + of my congregation if we introduced the peace - not because of theology but because of aversion and (past) abuse. Do you really want to condemn these suffering peoiple anymore evensong?
Twenty percent of your congregation are averse to social conventions and have suffered from past abuse?
Son of a bitch. That's one seriously wounded congregation you have there.
That's a pretty agressive response.
I'd say my congregation would have the same reaction as Mark's. Not because of "past abuse" or any pathology but just because a lot of people don't like that kind of thing.
To accommodate these perfectly natural and normal differences in social expectations and comfort levels we have a number of different kinds of services on Sunday mornings. Each service has its own conventions around activities such as this.
At the informal services, for example, everyone is expected to participate and the service involves a number of activities where people move around, talk to each other, volunteer for demonstrations, answer questions, and do things. The sign of peace is a normal part of that service. At the more formal services no one is asked to do anything other than the liturgical responses, prayers and singing.
To each his own. I do not think that people who go to one service or the other tend to be more wounded.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
May I suggest that you try substituting a pax-brede instead of the now-usual handshake? This is a small silver plate (although another substance might work) inscribed with an image of the pelican in her piety (again, another image might work, although I'm attached to this one). During the peace, the people come forward to venerate this item by osculating it. Its use has fallen slightly out of favour since the peace was extended from the sacred ministers to the whole congregation, but it should work wonderfully in a small church and is far less likely to degenerate into a social hour (which, I agree, is something that must be avoided at all costs).
A completely obscure ritual that means nothing to most people.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What did we used to do before showing a sign of peace was popularised? Why did we change?
The answer to the first part is - we did nothing. Why did we change - because the liturgy told us to. If we wanted to show the peace we would (?should) have done it before new forms of liturgy were popularised.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I just want to clarify that before the action of shaking hands, kissing etc, was added (or restored depending how you look at it) and made popular in recent years, there was always the sharing of the Peace in the liturgy - at least in Anglican circles.
The priest would say: 'the peace of the Lord be always with you', and the people would respond, 'and also with you.' And for a lot of us that was it - but it was still the sharing of the Peace. At every communion service.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
41 years ago is new for the C of E. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Actually, i am still astonished that this thread exists. the sharing of the peace was reintroduced into the C of E in 1971 with Series 3 - FORTY-ONE years ago. The Op makes it sound as if it is something new.
I recall the introduction of the sign of peace from the mid-1970s into the late 1980s. The continuing un-ease among some might suggest that its reception is a challenging process (ecclesiastical speak for it hasn't taken the way we expected).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The continuing un-ease among some might suggest that its reception is a challenging process (ecclesiastical speak for it hasn't taken the way we expected).
Ten years ago we made a small change in the way that we celebrate communion. It hasn't taken either. Maybe there's a lesson there.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
It's a good reminder that we should not partake of Communion unless we are at peace wi one another, and an opportunity to make peace with anyone in the congregation with whom we have - shall we say - failed to have peace. I was once badly let down by a chap in my university Christian Union. Very occasionally the CU would take Communion together, and at one such meeting the said chap approached me to share the peace. It was impossible, in that setting, for me to refuse his gesture but at the same time, it enabled him to absolve his conscience for what he had done without ever having to apologise to me for the hurt.
Now, of course I am commanded to forgive him and with the help of God have done so, but the sharing of the peace was inadequate in and of itself to achieve proper reconcilliation between us.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
While I might not express myself so bluntly, I'm rather inclined to agree with Evensong on this one. I certainly agree with Leo.
I accept there may be a few people who have genuine personal difficulties with the peace, just as there are a few who cannot eat ordinary communion bread or wafers. The rest of us need to accommodate this.
Nevertheless, apart from those with genuine disabilities, I can't help thinking that the rest of us have had a great many years to get used to the peace, that not many now really do still grumble about it, and those that do are thinking 'I come to church to meet my(sic) God, not these other nasty people who smell, and of whom He cannot possibly approve'.
Ask the other question. Suppose it were suddenly to be announced that the peace will be abolished from Septuagessima 2013. Do you really think it would quietly slip away?
As for the pax-brede, however charmingly antiquarian that custom may have been, it seems to have died out at the Reformation, among recusants just as much as among conformists. Can anyone really imagine such an insanitary custom catching on?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
The vicar recently just said after the words introducing the Peace 'and for those who wish to, you may offer a sign of peace'. There was an amused tittering, and some shared the peace and others didn't. It seemed a good compromise.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
In answer to Lucydog's earlier question, I think shaking hands, in the Western world, is the norm at the peace.
Obviously there are people, who, for various reasons, find it not their cup of tea. I, myself, don't find this a problem.
I think Evensong seems to be way off target on this one. Who knows what mental, or other, problems prevent some people shaking hands? Does it matter? You have to look at the purpose of the Eucharist.
I think TSA and Twilight have brought up good reasons for keeping the peace short, simple and to its original purpose.
Amos is right: there are still services held suitable for non handshakers.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[QB
If you have a theological aversion to an exchange of peace then you need to rethink your theology. [/QB]
Hilarious. And utter twaddle, of course.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The fullness of the Gospel is expressed in both transcendence and immanence of God.
The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.
If you think that's twaddle then I recommend a different religion.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The vicar recently just said after the words introducing the Peace 'and for those who wish to, you may offer a sign of peace'. There was an amused tittering, and some shared the peace and others didn't. It seemed a good compromise.
Maybe it is just a matter of perspective.
After all the peace sign (as opposed to the sign of the peace) means something completely different depending on which way round you view it.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucydog
Apprentice
# 15116
|
Posted
I'm NOT saying the practice is new. What I said was
'There are many people who support the church .... who don't come and worship - though they did in the past. A couple of times I've asked them why and the answer has been they they really dislike exchanging a sign of peace (i.e. handshake).
If this board is closed to people who might be new to the CofE and it's ways, and so might ask what others may see as stupid questions, it would be nice to be told in advance.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
The comment was made to me by an Anglican that her objection to the Peace was that everyone rushed around hugging and kissing each other within the in group, possibly shook hands with the others and then completely ignored anybody who's hand was shaken after the service.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
In a church I used to worship in, we asked alot of people why they didn't come to church.
Many said the times of the services don't fit my work/family commitments. I.e Sunday and weekday mornings, so we started a weekday eveninbg service - but none of them came
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In a church I used to worship in, we asked alot of people why they didn't come to church.
Many said the times of the services don't fit my work/family commitments. I.e Sunday and weekday mornings, so we started a weekday eveninbg service - but none of them came
The same is true in churches I've been involved with - and it's got nothing to do with whether they like sharing the Peace or not, 'cos we rarely do it.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The fullness of the Gospel is expressed in both transcendence and immanence of God.
The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.
If you think that's twaddle then I recommend a different religion.
But so does sitting facing other people during worship, does you church have static pews in rows? Does your church deliberately move the communion table into the nave of the church for communion? In other words there are more than one way of doing this and to say if you don't do it the way I like you are not a Christian is not a good idea.
Jengie
[ 31. July 2012, 08:17: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In a church I used to worship in, we asked alot of people why they didn't come to church.
Many said the times of the services don't fit my work/family commitments. I.e Sunday and weekday mornings, so we started a weekday eveninbg service - but none of them came
The same is true in churches I've been involved with - and it's got nothing to do with whether they like sharing the Peace or not, 'cos we rarely do it.
I read somewhere that many people don't want to give the real reason why they don't want to go to church. Maybe they don't want to cause offence. Or there may be a residual guilt that they ought to go even though they don't want to, and so it makes them feel better if they state a reason that's more or less out of their control, or that puts the onus onto someone else to deal with the problem.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In a church I used to worship in, we asked alot of people why they didn't come to church.
Many said the times of the services don't fit my work/family commitments. I.e Sunday and weekday mornings, so we started a weekday eveninbg service - but none of them came
The same is true in churches I've been involved with - and it's got nothing to do with whether they like sharing the Peace or not, 'cos we rarely do it.
I read somewhere that many people don't want to give the real reason why they don't want to go to church. Maybe they don't want to cause offence. Or there may be a residual guilt that they ought to go even though they don't want to, and so it makes them feel better if they state a reason that's more or less out of their control, or that puts the onus onto someone else to deal with the problem.
I suspect the real reason is quite simply that they do not want to, and for most people all the other reasons are just excuses.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.
True, and the extension of the peace into a loud chatty social gathering is a symbol of how secular we all tend to be and how hard it is for us to get into a spiritual state of mind.
quote:
Enoch: ...and those that do are thinking 'I come to church to meet my(sic) God, not these other nasty people who smell, and of whom He cannot possibly approve'.
More likely we're worried that we smell. Here's my brain during the Peace: "I wish I'd washed my hair this morning. Oh there's Jean! I hope her knee transplant went okay. Yes, my husband's trumpet intro was a little loud, I'll tell him you suggested a mute. Oh Margorie, it's so nice to see you. (Damn! It's Maryanne! It's her sister who's Marjorie!) Thanks for the receipt, John! (Uh oh. Does this go in Sunday school supplies or Children's choir? I'll have to run after him the second church is over.) Oh great. Mr. Castle's coming for his Sunday squeeze. I wish someone would tell him I'm married to the trumpet player and that's why I sit by myself."
All this would be bad enough if it stopped there but I will now spend the rest of the service thinking about how I called Maryanne by the wrong name and wondering how best to apologize.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The fullness of the Gospel is expressed in both transcendence and immanence of God.
The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.
If you think that's twaddle then I recommend a different religion.
I still can't figure out what your first sentence means, nor how it connects with any of this discussion, but that may be me.
While I might agree with the theory of your statement about the symbolism of the peace, my experience of it is that is a symbol of exclusion with a whiff of hypocrisy-- the idea that it is a sideways action of God is very much at odds with how I have seen it in action. Your suggestion that those who are not on message find themselves another religion is what? an example of passive aggressive liturgical politics which damns those who are not on the programme?
I understand those who find value in it; I simply ask for respect for those who have an different experience.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
More likely we're worried that we smell. Here's my brain during the Peace: "I wish I'd washed my hair this morning. Oh there's Jean! I hope her knee transplant went okay. Yes, my husband's trumpet intro was a little loud, I'll tell him you suggested a mute. Oh Margorie, it's so nice to see you. (Damn! It's Maryanne! It's her sister who's Marjorie!) Thanks for the receipt, John! (Uh oh. Does this go in Sunday school supplies or Children's choir? I'll have to run after him the second church is over.) Oh great. Mr. Castle's coming for his Sunday squeeze. I wish someone would tell him I'm married to the trumpet player and that's why I sit by myself."
None of that is an argument against passing the Peace. It's a good warning against turning it into something it's not meant to be.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucydog:
I'm NOT saying the practice is new. What I said was
'There are many people who support the church .... who don't come and worship - though they did in the past. A couple of times I've asked them why and the answer has been they they really dislike exchanging a sign of peace (i.e. handshake).
If this board is closed to people who might be new to the CofE and it's ways, and so might ask what others may see as stupid questions, it would be nice to be told in advance.
Lucydog:
Welcome to the CofE. I hope you find grace, truth and peace within its walls. I welcome you as an Australian cousin. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Your question is not a stupid one: far from it.
The heatedness of the discussion attests to that.
No questions are closed in the CofE - nor the Ship. Therein lies a big part of their Grace.
I may have missed it, but did you ever ask these people you questioned why a handshake and a short greeting ( a standard social, cultural, western norm when meeting new people ) could cause them to abandon the body of Christ?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The fullness of the Gospel is expressed in both transcendence and immanence of God.
The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.
If you think that's twaddle then I recommend a different religion.
But so does sitting facing other people during worship, does you church have static pews in rows? Does your church deliberately move the communion table into the nave of the church for communion? In other words there are more than one way of doing this and to say if you don't do it the way I like you are not a Christian is not a good idea.
The changes in liturgical space you note are good changes that express something of the presence of "God with us" but they are by far the softer option to greeting the face of Christ in a fellow human being.
Who said the Gospel was easy?
I never said that if you cannot or do not engage in the peace you are not a Christian.
That is not my call. That is God's call.
I did say that if you cannot recognize the Christ in the Other, or recognize that people, community, humanity, the body of Christ (whatever you want to call it) are an integral part of the Gospel, then you are missing a large part of it.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The peace is the symbol of the sideways action of God in the world in loving our neighbor and being in community with each other.
True, and the extension of the peace into a loud chatty social gathering is a symbol of how secular we all tend to be and how hard it is for us to get into a spiritual state of mind.
I was reading some homework on sacramental theology today and there was a line that said:
abusum non tollit usum.
"abuse renders not proper use empty".
One of my earliest priests told us once during the liturgy that the peace was not a social occasion.
In my opinion, leaders of congregations need to reiterate this every now and then.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
More likely we're worried that we smell. Here's my brain during the Peace: "I wish I'd washed my hair this morning. Oh there's Jean! I hope her knee transplant went okay. Yes, my husband's trumpet intro was a little loud, I'll tell him you suggested a mute. Oh Margorie, it's so nice to see you. (Damn! It's Maryanne! It's her sister who's Marjorie!) Thanks for the receipt, John! (Uh oh. Does this go in Sunday school supplies or Children's choir? I'll have to run after him the second church is over.) Oh great. Mr. Castle's coming for his Sunday squeeze. I wish someone would tell him I'm married to the trumpet player and that's why I sit by myself."
All this would be bad enough if it stopped there but I will now spend the rest of the service thinking about how I called Maryanne by the wrong name and wondering how best to apologize.
Welcome to the messiness of the Incarnation (and that's a good thing btw. It brings heaven and earth together).
Your example is precisely what it embodies.
It is in the both everyday (immanence) and the extraordinary (transcendence) that we encounter God.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Because I'm a naturally reserved person, I find the passing the peace quite uncomfortable.
Because I'm a naturallly reserved person uncomfortable talking to new people, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to make contact with others - it's not superficial even if I never get to know the others any more. Small talk at parties is far more superficial than this holistic acknowledgement of the other's value.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I did say that if you cannot recognize the Christ in the Other, or recognize that people, community, humanity, the body of Christ (whatever you want to call it) are an integral part of the Gospel, then you are missing a large part of it.
Not only that, but St Paul implies that if we don't discern the Lord's body in each other we won't meet him in the sacrament either.
Essential preliminary to receiving communion: being in love and peace with our neighbours.
Optional expression of this: symbolic gesture which can vary according to culture and traditions.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...Welcome to the messiness of the Incarnation (and that's a good thing btw. It brings heaven and earth together).
Your example is precisely what it embodies.
It is in the both everyday (immanence) and the extraordinary (transcendence) that we encounter God.
But this is not what most people mean by the "Incarnation." What you describe seems to be the element of eternity that we should discern when we take Communion.
But the Incarnation is nothing more and nothing less that the Word being made flesh and dwelling amongst us.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
What I mean is that, sure, many of us believe that the bread and wine do indeed become the body of Christ - but we mean the living Christ who is already Incarnate - he doesn't "become" Incarnate during Eucharist.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
I'm a great enthusiast for the Peace, as part of the primitive liturgy of the church. However in Lucy's situation, a small country church, I can see it may cause more awkwardness than anything else, and may be probably best omitted.
We attended a parish eucharist at a country church some years back, and when it came to the peace, the priest, probably aware of possible embarrassment, invited people to greet their friends and families, thereby excluding strangers such as ourselves.
It was greatly to the credit of a man in the pew in front that he turned round and shook our hands.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
We attended a parish eucharist at a country church some years back, and when it came to the peace, the priest, probably aware of possible embarrassment, invited people to greet their friends and families, thereby excluding strangers such as ourselves.
It wasn't Royston Vasey by any chance? "This is a local church for local people"
[ 31. July 2012, 15:57: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
May I suggest that you try substituting a pax-brede instead of the now-usual handshake? This is a small silver plate (although another substance might work) inscribed with an image of the pelican in her piety (again, another image might work, although I'm attached to this one). During the peace, the people come forward to venerate this item by osculating it. Its use has fallen slightly out of favour since the peace was extended from the sacred ministers to the whole congregation, but it should work wonderfully in a small church and is far less likely to degenerate into a social hour (which, I agree, is something that must be avoided at all costs).
A completely obscure ritual that means nothing to most people.
I know. Isn't it wonderful?
Seriously, however, I like this idea. It means that people don't have to touch one another and it's more significant than a handshake. Personally, I think that there should be some kissing at the Kiss of Peace. It's time for people to get over their Northern European reserve and remember that Christianity is at its heart a Levantine-Mediterranean religion. It shouldn't be too great a leap: extravagant 'air kissing' seems to be an increasingly common form of social greeting amongst young persons of both sexes.
--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.
Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
