|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sharing the peace felt like war
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I went to a church retreat. About 40 people attended. As often happens in small groups where there is a daily eucharist, most people will share the peace with nearly everyone else. Which I suppose is rather nice (?)
The priest, a woman probably in her late 60s, had the idea to grab my hand and kiss my cheek, and did so. The second eucharist she celebrated (there were several other priests who celebrated other ones), she tried to repeat that. My thought was to limit this to a handshake, but she muttered something that sounded negative as she tried to hug me and went on to the next person. I get that this may be her thing. My thought was "bitch". -- Clearly the confession should have followed the peace for me!
I am not someone for hugs or kisses with people not of my close friendship, or family. Not being of extremely touchy-feely persuasion, though I think, within the average.
Am I right for being offended? I didn't raise it on the retreat evaluation form, and now I feel I should have. I wondered later if others might have felt similar off-put and also failed to mention it. Do you think I should raise it now? I am trying to separate out that this woman is clearly not my cup of tea from the likelihood she is someone else's from the likelihood is that no-one has mentioned it to her directly and she could be harmful.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Your priest should have had an up-to-date workshop on boundaries. When it comes to the sharing of the Peace, different people have different comfort levels.
I am uncomfortable with doing anything beyond a handshake with anyone who I don't know or who I'm just a passing acquaintance.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
I keep my right elbow tucked into my side and my hand extended. If someone attempts to hug me, they get my left hand on their shoulder and a bit of a push back or a full out push. Despite this, some still attempt to maul me and the clergy are the worst offenders. It drives me nuts.
Definitely send a follow-up to your evaluation even it if is in an email to someone you know who will add it anonymously.
Everyone deserves to have boundaries respected. Let me guess, does she also squeeze your hand when she gives you the bread, thereby passing on every single possible bacteria and germ from every other hand?
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
In the Toronto Anglican diocese (IIRC, you're a Western Canadian Anglican?) such behaviour could constitute a misconduct* charge. In a church-sponsored setting, if someone makes it clear that touching or a particular kind of touching is unacceptable, the "toucher" must refrain from touching.
If your diocese has a similar policy, then you certainly should raise it, either with her or her bishop, or with the person in the diocesan office who deals with misconduct complaints. She needs to know that people can be uncomfortable with the touching, and she does not have the right to force it on the unwilling. She could lose her licence over it.
*These are often referred to as "sexual misconduct", but there doesn't necessarily have to be a sexual element to it. Some people (and I'm with you on this) just don't like to be touched even in a non-threatening way by strangers or casual acquaintances.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
I have occasionally found myself in an unwanted embrace from a priest wishing that I had the guts to start yelling "I NEED AN ADULT! I NEED AN ADULT!" to get the message across.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
The peace has always been my least-favourite part of a Eucharistic service because of my own discomfort with it. However, I wouldn't be offended, I would just have a quiet word with the priest in question. Everyone is used to a different way of sharing the peace and she may have never met anyone uncomfortable with a kiss on the cheek from her (or at least anyone who mentioned their discomfort with it). A handshake is obviously far safer, though!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
I have never been fond of the peace/gossip as commonly practised. When the pax is shared between priest and servers in my parish, the form is to grasp forearms and, with a reverent inclination of the head, give the peace (with the response 'and with thy Spirit, of course). This is much more seemly, it seems to me, than a handshake, with all the secular confusion that entails. There is also very little scope for embarassing touching.
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
Let me guess, does she also squeeze your hand when she gives you the bread, thereby passing on every single possible bacteria and germ from every other hand?
Why on earth would a priest be touching your hand (let alone squeezing it) at the administration?
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
During the Anglican Peace ,( when it's called to do so that is), I've always found a light touch in joining of hands quite adequate .
No need for the bone-crushing macho squeeze, or shake til your elbow rattles bit.
Hugs and kisses ? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Close friends and family for me also I'm afraid.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
As a priest myself, my rule is to wait for the other person to initiate anything beyond a handshake. Anything else is just asking for trouble.
Our gang doesn't usually pass the Peace, unless there's a Solemn High going on. And even then, it's confined to the altar party in the usual "Love ya babe--Mean it--Let's do lunch" fashion.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
I would complain. The peace should be the most quotidian, prosaic moment of the service, and she's made it weird and exceptional. I'd say there's a strong likelihood that others have not mentioned it because she's the priest. The muttering under her breath also, if nothing else, suggests she has her priorities confused.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The peace... My thought was to limit this to a handshake, but she muttered something that sounded negative as she tried to hug me and went on to the next person.
Am I right for being offended?
Yes. You absolutely have a right to as limited an encounter as you want. Huggers need to offer a hug, not impose one; and clergy need to teach congregations to ask and offer but respect differences in space/touch needs not impose. quote:
I didn't raise it on the retreat evaluation form, and now I feel I should have. Do you think I should raise it now?
Yes. Unless the issue is raised by someone, how will she ever know to change behavior? Send a polite but clear note to whoever collected the evaluation forms or sponsored the retreat or to the person who violated your legitimate boundaries. (You might get back a "I'm theologically correct, you're wrong" but at least they'll have been told. Most likely, you'll get no response.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
I keep my right elbow tucked into my side and my hand extended. If someone attempts to hug me, they get my left hand on their shoulder and a bit of a push back or a full out push. Despite this, some still attempt to maul me and the clergy are the worst offenders. It drives me nuts.
Definitely send a follow-up to your evaluation even it if is in an email to someone you know who will add it anonymously.
Everyone deserves to have boundaries respected. Let me guess, does she also squeeze your hand when she gives you the bread, thereby passing on every single possible bacteria and germ from every other hand?
Oh dear, I did open this up didn't I!
She did "THIS is the Body of Christ, broken for you no prophet", with some sort of squeezy thing after making what I took to be a sign of the cross with the bread grazing my palm. I also noted the the "THIS is the gospel of Christ", which was articulated in a way to provide a sense of "the words I've just said, not the ones you might otherwise know". But I thought my state of mind beforehand coloured all my perceptions so tried to dismiss them.
What really bugs me is that I normally can go with the flow. I have acted as lay assistant to many priests over time, been lay chaplain to visiting bishops in our little parish -- my point being that I can accommodate, do and have. It's when the acts of the people interfere with what the thing is supposed to be about and lead my heart and mind astray...
Oh bloody hell! I really hate feeling this way about liturgy and eucharist, and that's what is so troubling about it!
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
It doesn't sound like you did make it clear that you didn't like it. If you had gone to her after the first time and asked her not to do it with you again, and she still did, then fair enough to complain. Otherwise I think it's an over reaction.
Most people here defend Christians being nasty to one another in the Hell board, but if someone tries to be nice to you in a way you didn't appreciate, you're up in arms about it. That's you generic, not you no prophet
[ 18. June 2013, 20:08: Message edited by: moonlitdoor ]
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The peace has always been my least-favourite part of a Eucharistic service because of my own discomfort with it.
I used to dislike it emotionally but grit my teeth and get through it somehow. Now I'm actively disliking it because my hands are getting older, and can ache for 24 hours afterwards. Gotta be a better way.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I should note, that this was in a neighbouring diocese. I do know some of the attendees, but not well, and there is no-one I could be comfortable with a personal chat with. Yes, I am in a western diocese, and no, this would not be taken as a sexual or other boundary violation type of misconduct. I am certain it would result in trouble if I advanced it officially. I'm a older white male etc. I's only want the behaviour not to occur to me and people like me at the most.
It seems that the think so far is that I should do something, except that I have this pseudo-proverb in my head: "it is very easy to talk your way into trouble, and much harder to listen your way in". I'm going to listen to all of you some more.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
It doesn't sound like you did make it clear that you didn't like it. If you had gone to her after the first time and asked her not to do it with you again, and she still did, then fair enough to complain. Otherwise I think it's an over reaction.
What, exactly, do you think "complaining" is other than "making it clear that you didn't like it"?
It sounds like you're saying "Well, you didn't tell anyone you didn't like it. So now, by no means let anyone know you didn't like it." Which would be... nonsense, yes?
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
It doesn't sound like you did make it clear that you didn't like it. If you had gone to her after the first time and asked her not to do it with you again, and she still did, then fair enough to complain. Otherwise I think it's an over reaction.
So it's No Profit's fault for allowing the hug to happen? No. You don't get to make people uncomfortable until they ask you to stop.
In many diocese these days, there is a specific policy on physical contact, and under that policy, hugging by priests is (in my experience) discouraged. It makes some people uncomfortable. It might cause someone who only got a handshake while seeing someone else get a hug wonder what they did wrong. It's just good practice to seek consent before making physical contact beyond a handshake with another person (and I won't even be offended if you don't want to shake my hand). It's far less awkward than making someone else come up and ask you not to do it again.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
posted by St Deird
What, exactly, do you think "complaining" is other than "making it clear that you didn't like it"?
The difference is about who you are making it clear to. If No Prophet is in a position now to contact the woman herself and say that he didn't like it, that's the same as if he had made it clear to her at the time. If he fills in a form about the event which gets circulated to all and sundry in authority, that's not the same.
No. Og King of Bashan, I certainly didn't say that No Prophet was at fault. It's not always necessary for there to have been anyone at fault, but if there was a fault it was hers. That doesn't mean he has to make a complaint about it. I think I heard somewhere that we are allowed to forgive people their faults if we want to.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
I find using the Namaste gesture at the sign of the peace precludes any attempt to shake hands or something.
I try to be quick on the draw with this, and I must say that it works best if I get it in first.
On slower days, if I have to shake hands, I do it quickly and efficiently.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
the form is to grasp forearms and, with a reverent inclination of the head, give the peace
The so-called liturgical embrace. Liturgical ways are best.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
(Cross posted, in reply to Moonlitdoor)
I can see what you are saying about complaining after the fact. Yes, saying something to the person directly is probably a more positive way to go about teaching handsy priests to mind their own personal space than getting them into trouble with the diocese.
That said, you really shouldn't be putting someone into a position where they have to tell you that they are uncomfortable with the way you are touching them. Especially if you have been trained not to. It is hard to come up to someone who is just trying to be friendly and say "what you consider to be a friendly gesture makes me uncomfortable, and I would prefer that you not do it." That's why the ball is in the priest's court- it is best to start from the assumption that you shouldn't hug anyone and go from there, rather than to put someone into an awkward spot.
[ 18. June 2013, 21:07: Message edited by: Og, King of Bashan ]
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think it likely that the priest was giving a gesture of sisterly love, and she may well be embarrassed to know that you took offence at it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have been uncomfortable with it, but I do question your reaction of 'bitch'? If you didn't hear what she said, it may well have been something kind.
I do think that the conversation should have been had with her, and still should. As others have said, it's important for her to find out that boundaries vary and that rather than enjoying the experience of a friendly hug or kiss, some cringe at it. If there is a way of speaking to her gently about it, that's favourite in my book. Complaining about her or sending an email or letter which can be misconstrued due to lack of tone may return chagrin for chagrin and do nobody any good.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
You may disagree, but could I suggest a different way of looking at this?
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
... Am I right for being offended? ...
You don't like people intruding into your personal space, projecting their emotional presence at you. Nor do I. But is this really a moral issue, one of 'right' and 'wrong'? Was she trying to get off with you? I doubt it, or you would have mentioned it.
Or was she just more expressive, more touchy feely than you are - or, for that matter, I am?
Did she, after her own lights, mean well? Is this her way of expressing brotherly and sisterly love, even if you experienced it as gushing and intrusive? Or was she overtly and deliberately conveying a message that people who are expressive as she is, are good, and people who are more reserved, like you, are bad?
I think unless you know objectively that it was the latter, you have to give her the benefit of the doubt.
quote:
I didn't raise it on the retreat evaluation form, and now I feel I should have. I wondered later if others might have felt similar off-put and also failed to mention it. Do you think I should raise it now?
No. Not unless she was trying to come on to you or was overtly suggesting you are a bad person for not being like her.
It's not the territory of the retreat evaluation form. Unless your culture is different, that's more about whether the beds were clean and the talks were clear.
At the retreat, it might have been helpful to her own ministry to have approached her privately and said 'look, you may not realise this, but I find the way you greeted me a bit emotionally intrusive; it makes me feel uncomfortable'. If she is a good priest, she might have found that helpful, and so might you. However, that opportunity has passed. I think you must now bite your tongue.
Unless either of the two rather extreme conditions I mentioned do apply, Lothiriel and Og are completely wrong in seeing this as a disciplinary matter. That is not how we are supposed to love one another.
quote:
I am trying to separate out that this woman is clearly not my cup of tea from the likelihood she is someone else's from the likelihood is that no-one has mentioned it to her directly and she could be harmful.
Don't you think 'harmful' is a bit over the top? She's not your cup of tea. That doesn't make her a bad person, any more than it makes you a bad person for not being like her.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
Honest question that I wonder about whenever this topic comes up; does anyone actually like the whole "sharing the peace" thing, or does the weird huggy/pawing/grabbing/squeezing/how-are-you-meant-to-respond-or-act thing freak everyone out to some extent?
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Honest question that I wonder about whenever this topic comes up; does anyone actually like the whole "sharing the peace" thing,...?
'Fraid so. Experience here was that when it was temporarily banned because of the 'flu pandemic that never was, there was widespread and vociferous grumbling, followed by exuberant hand-shaking and hugging when churches were allowed to resume it again.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
Let me guess, does she also squeeze your hand when she gives you the bread, thereby passing on every single possible bacteria and germ from every other hand?
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Why on earth would a priest be touching your hand (let alone squeezing it) at the administration?
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Oh dear, I did open this up didn't I!
She did "THIS is the Body of Christ, broken for you no prophet", with some sort of squeezy thing after making what I took to be a sign of the cross with the bread grazing my palm.....
Lily Pad scores in one!
Vade Mecum, there is a practice among priests, to take the wafer in their hand, touch their fingers into your palm, and, rather than releasing the wafer without touching your hand, close their hand over yours in a clasping motion squeezing your hand by the fingers with the wafer in-between. It is mostly done when receiving standing.
It is certainly not sanitary or a healthy practice. I do not find it endearing or comforting or whatever else I am supposed to find it.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Honest question that I wonder about whenever this topic comes up; does anyone actually like the whole "sharing the peace" thing,...?
'Fraid so. Experience here was that when it was temporarily banned because of the 'flu pandemic that never was, there was widespread and vociferous grumbling, followed by exuberant hand-shaking and hugging when churches were allowed to resume it again.
I'm very social and generally look forward to the Peace. I do not want to be hugged and I certainly do not want clergy to presume they can hug me.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Honest question that I wonder about whenever this topic comes up; does anyone actually like the whole "sharing the peace" thing,...?
'Fraid so. Experience here was that when it was temporarily banned because of the 'flu pandemic that never was, there was widespread and vociferous grumbling, followed by exuberant hand-shaking and hugging when churches were allowed to resume it again.
Oh yes. During the swine flu thing we were instructed, not advised, to avoid even touching hands during the peace. Almost everyone ignored this and carried on as normal.
I enjoy and value the peace, see it as an expression of community in Christ. My own habit is to take the hand lightly and make definite eye contact. The only thing that ever bothers me is when the other person is instead looking around for the next sharer, but even then it's not a huge issue. I've never been hugged or kissed, though I know this happens and in some congregations, is normal. If I found that unsettling I'd speak to the person concerned, but not complain elsewhere. It's as near to a dead cert as a deceased certainty that it's well meant.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
I look back with a wistful sigh to the way the Peace was done in the Episcopal Church when I was a girl (early to mid 1960s):
Rector: The Peace of the Lord be always with you.
Congregration: And also with you.
That was it.
No hugging, kissing, hejiras around the nave greeting everyone, and generally turning the whole thing into a kaffee klatsch.
While I am (or can be) a warm and friendly person, I do not like hugging people who aren't family and personal friends, and I was quite happy with the low-key Peace that I grew up with.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I realize after reading further responses that I didn't do what I might have - talk to her shortly afterword for two reasons. First, I would have had to seek her out and take time away from what I was there for. Second, she made me more uncomfortable than I care to think about. The last time I did something like this, I had about 16 hours too much time spent on it (okay that's a perception of burdensomeness).
In the second eucharist, she did mutter something negative for certain, and I'm not projecting on this one nor creating a false impression. I was startled enough to not recall the words, and I could recreate the sense of them, which was negative in tone. I can separate out the difference in my general feelings lack of affinity for her and her behaviour. It's how I've been successful in self employment.
I'm liking Pete's suggestion of the namaste greeting, except that I always hear it like a 10 year old might: "I'm nasty". Which might actually be okay except I'm not (I've also been to yoga where you're supposed to say that and Ohm). Which is partly why I didn't raise hell about it.
Yes, Lilypad, you get a gold star and 15,000 airmile points. Perhaps we know the same person.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Just as a sidebar comment: When I was being trained for lay ministry, our pastor-mentor told us ix-nay on any sort of touchy-feely improvisations during the distribution, and even argued against the practice of addressing some communicants by name, noting that that can feel exclusionary to someone new, someone whose name we've forgotten, etc.; that these sorts of things put the "All are welcome here" around the Lord's table in question.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
We just shake hands with those in the same area as we are4. As I am duty server that means altar oarty & choir, goning into the congtrgation can be time wasting.
As for how the host is distribated priest places on my crossed palms saying the body of Christ.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I'm liking Pete's suggestion of the namaste greeting, except that I always hear it like a 10 year old might: "I'm nasty". Which might actually be okay except I'm not (I've also been to yoga where you're supposed to say that and Ohm). Which is partly why I didn't raise hell about it.
I think Pete is saying that you make the gesture, not actually say "namaste". You just say "The peace of the Lord" or "Peace be with you" as normal. We have a lady in our church who does this and it works fine for those of us who know her. There's often a moment of awkwardness when someone who doesn't know her wants to shake her hand.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
...and even argued against the practice of addressing some communicants by name, noting that that can feel exclusionary to someone new, someone whose name we've forgotten, etc.; that these sorts of things put the "All are welcome here" around the Lord's table in question.
But, sidebar to the sidebar: if there's only one new person, and you can remember their name (unusual circumstances, to be sure!), then, in the right setting, one might use it. Granted, I've only been in the right setting once (Evening Prayer with Eucharist following at St. Anne's, Annapolis), but it was the thing I'd put in the "being in Heaven" section of a MW report, and what I've remembered three months later. Still, I agree with the principle.
As for the Peace...gah. It's the part of the service I use to remind myself why I should never, ever be allowed anywhere near a worship committee, and why the Holy Spirit kept me far, far away from any early Church council or Church Father status—I would have banned and anathematized the unholy shit out of anyone who advocated its inclusion, especially if I knew it'd still be around 1,600 years later. But there are some people who, even if I wish they'd be a bit more reserved about it (okay, a lot more), even if I wish that they could remember that this is a solemn liturgical rite and that coffee is only 25 minutes away, do get as much out of it as I do from the chanting of dry old formulaic litanies. In the end, it's not my decision—and, no matter what I may think while waiting for people to stop conversing, it shouldn't be.
But, that being said, could those people who see church as a Great Lovefest of sharing the overwhelming niceness of Christ lay off the hugging and sharing for the sake of us who have much stronger and more extended boundaries? The eye of the Body of Christ doesn't get to excise the bits of the liturgy that give such joy to the hands and fingers, but sticking fingers in eyes is something best left to the Three Stooges. The Peace is not an invitation to impose one vision of Christian love on those who would prefer to experience it in a somewhat more restrained way.
And yes, I realize that the Ship skews a bit introverted, and that even the most ardent devotees of Wee Cuppies amongst us tend to at least appreciate a higher and more "by the book" style of worship, even if it's not our own tradition. I also realize that Internet discussion boards are generally bad places to look for people who shoot from the hip and eschew overwrought analysis in favor of bold actions. I even realize that, unlike armchair theologians (yes, even armchair theologians of liturgy), ministers tend to be a bit more extroverted, bold, and action-focused, which for those of us who are introverted, timid, and contemplative, can present issues. So, here among God's Frozen People, joyful exuberance might be appreciated less than it might in other quarters.
But, even allotting for all that...can we please stop with the forced hugging?
[ 19. June 2013, 07:16: Message edited by: Ariston ]
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Honest question that I wonder about whenever this topic comes up; does anyone actually like the whole "sharing the peace" thing,...?
'Fraid so. Experience here was that when it was temporarily banned because of the 'flu pandemic that never was, there was widespread and vociferous grumbling, followed by exuberant hand-shaking and hugging when churches were allowed to resume it again.
Weird innit? I reckon that if the collected wisdom of Anglicans on the SoF had revised the liturgy it'd be out. I know I see it coming much the same way as lying in bed on a weekday morning I see 7am approaching. With an urgh.
One of the positive elements of my churchgoing over the last few years is neither my current nor previous church does this wretched thing.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I don't like hugging or kissing at the sharing of the Peace. Except with my Mum perhaps because that feels quite natural and right. A warm handshake with a few folks in the immediate vicinity is quite adequate to symbolize what's going on, imo.
So, no prophet, you're quite right to feel put out if someone kissed you uninvited. Kissing, even as a social 'hello/goodbye' thing for a lot of us is still very intimate and restricted only to the chosen few. She chose herself to be one of your few, and that was wrong.
Unfortunately, some people do impose their ideas of what 'must' happen at such community moments, and for the Peace, in particular, it can be a real space-invader.
At college we had a huge session about this which ended up focussing on one gentleman who insisted on giving everybody huge, full-body bear hugs every time the Peace came up. He couldn't get the idea that while that was fine for him, the recipient was also allowed to have an opinion on what happened to them, too. And if they didn't want that, they should be respected.
Having said that, I personally dislike it when those who have something against sharing the Peace express their dislike of it, by making me feel like a leper; turning away, screwing their face up, nose in the air, look of disgust etc. It's as equally non-conducive to holy communion preparation as being squeezed to death or hugged.
If we can't manage a frigging handshake for the sake of sharing the Peace of Christ, with the brother or sister of Christ beside us, for pity's sake let's don't make them feel like they've just dropped out of a cat's backside. Just keep your hands folded in front of you and smile (if you're capable of it). And if someone does approach you to shake hands, don't freak out as if you've just been propositioned for sex. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Honest question that I wonder about whenever this topic comes up; does anyone actually like the whole "sharing the peace" thing, or does the weird huggy/pawing/grabbing/squeezing/how-are-you-meant-to-respond-or-act thing freak everyone out to some extent?
I like it when it's restricted to a handshake. I'm generally an introverted antisocial git, but I appreciate the human contact, especially if it's in an unfamiliar church.
But I don't do hugging. I don't even hug my close family, let alone strangers ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
The first time she shouldn't have assumed a hug, even in the 'we are on retreat together and getting to know each other more over breakfast etc mindset.
I am touchy feely and living alone value the occasional hug but I would rather the handshake come hesitate, eye contact, arms slightly raised silent question and answer before a hug.
And when on the second occasion the body language is clearly against being hug and you are already there then you should back off immediately and if anything is muttered it should be sorry.
No-one has the right to impose themselves on another's personal space, and if you can't work out the silent body language then it should be verbal, or just don't.
At the end of an emotional visit, particular with those who have limited touch moments, I may ask about a hug. Just as I ask/suggest but don't impose a prayer before I leave.
Even then there is a power/status thing that means some may feel obliged to say yes even when they don't want it, and I try to be aware of that (and I know many are quite capable of saying no firmly too).
Pastoral touch can be important, but it is also a minefield.
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
The introduction of the 'give the peace'thing was one of the final straws that completed my move to atheism from CofE.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The introduction of the 'give the peace'thing was one of the final straws that completed my move to atheism from CofE.
There must have been a heck of a lot more to your conversion to atheism than that, SusanDoris. That seems a pretty thin straw to break the camel's back.
Having said that, I do not like huggy-feely Peaces myself ... and I'm a charismatic-lite, open evangelical Anglican who has no objection to the Peace per se. But the Peace in my church has turned into an irritating love-fest that goes on way too long ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) and I keep on grumbling to my vicar and fellow lay ministers about it. Most of them see my point.
It's excluding. Running around greeting folk you see every single bloody week is NOT welcoming to visitors. A friendly handshake really should be sufficient, both for visitors and people you know well. As for big, soppy, bear-hugs from some sweetly beaming Christian brother or sister whom I hardly know ... no thank you. That's neither biblical nor appropriate. Hugs are for my family and closest friends.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And if someone does approach you to shake hands, don't freak out as if you've just been propositioned for sex.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
No Prophet, I understand and agree with your discomfiture and I am astonished at any spiritual leader who mutters negative somethings at people in their congregation. Not good form. Not good form at all.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
Just sounds like this old lady was trying to be friendly and you thought she was a bitch?? How is that reasonable? We are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ.
Now I personally have never been molested by an old woman because I either attend a Prayer Book parish where there is no Peace or conservative Anglo-Catholic circles where we are reserved in our manners - so perhaps you would feel better in that environment?
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
It's excluding. Running around greeting folk you see every single bloody week is NOT welcoming to visitors.
I'd not thought of this angle but you're right. And isn't a key part of Christian fellowship that we should be welcoming to newcomers and those on the fringes of the church community? If,in reality, the Peace excludes such people then perhaps it's not serving its purpose...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Just sounds like this old lady was trying to be friendly and you thought she was a bitch?? How is that reasonable? We are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ.
I used that defence last time but the magistrate was having none of it.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
Funny how nobody in this topic has mentioned our Lord Jesus Christ:
"And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."
I suppose our Lord would be called a pardon here for being too familiar with these little children.
This woman was not coming onto you, she was just showing Christian love. I think it's disgusting and absurd that this should result in any sort of disciplinsry procedure.
"Judge not and he shall not be judged."
"Love thy neighbour as thyself."
Would the Lord of all love rebuke someone for "invading" his "personal space"? Please.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Laurelin
You are right, of course! But I might have continued to attend services occasionally, whether this would be considered hypocritical or not, because I loved to sing.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I suppose our Lord would be called a pardon [paedo] here for being too familiar with these little children.
Would you please credit people with holding their views in good faith, rather than bringing in insinuations like this? You may disagree with things people say, and that's fine, but can't you at least start with the working assumption that people hold their views sincerely?
Back to the topic, are you saying that anything goes in contexts like the Peace? Would you be happy if someone said 'Peace be with you', then kissed you on the mouth (or did something even more intimate)? If that would, in fact, be too familiar for you then you're simply drawing your line in a different place from others on this thread; the difference in views is merely quantitative.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Honest question that I wonder about whenever this topic comes up; does anyone actually like the whole "sharing the peace" thing, or does the weird huggy/pawing/grabbing/squeezing/how-are-you-meant-to-respond-or-act thing freak everyone out to some extent?
I'm with other on this: I'm not one for my space being invaded by other people. Tbh I'm a bit diffident about hugging my own children and in my (pre marriage) family it was never considered, let alone done.
I don't think it's a practice that is visitor friendly. There are always people in the congregation who are out to "let's see how many we can hug" as well as those who don't get greeted much at all. Perhaps for them the lack of response only serves to exacerbate the way they feel about themselves - isolated, unworthy.
There are also those who tbh seem a bit creepy. The arm slightly resting slightly too close to comfort and for longer than necessary; the fixed smiles; the "this is what we do" setting.
As for people coming into church for the first time, goodness knows what they must think. Where else is there this indiscriminate type of intimate social contact? A disco after a few drinks perhaps?????
My current place of worship doesn't do the peace in the manner mentioned. Visiting another church (where I know no one) fairly recently, I was engulfed in the peace (did they think I was a possible new member?) despite not getting up or looking up but keeping my head in the pew bible. It was intrusive - they just wouldn't leave me alone thinking perhaps there was something wrong with me. Pity really, the service had been very good up til then.
Giving a sign of peace was culturally relevant in the time of Christ, I don't see it as having any cultural relevance at all now. I'm someone who still shakes hands - so I'm not standoffish - and that's about as close as I want to be to most people.
In any event, I'd question why you'd want to put "the peace" in the service anyway. If you've got to that point and aren't at peace with someone, a handshake or (shudder) a hug isn't going to change much. A sign perhaps of resolve but that's about it.
For me, peace making is not event driven but life driven. Peace isn't about what I do, it's all about what I am. You shouldn't contemplate IMHO gathering with others if you have an issue to sort out with anyone - get it sorted first. If you feel you have to do it in that way in public in a service, then you possibly you don't understand what peace is (or you've got a teensy bit of the "look at me" gene acting up).
If the peace is shared as the OP suggests then concerns should be addressed. Firstly to discuss the idea of persoanbl space, then the off colour remarks at the Eucharist. You might want to throw in a discussion about whether the peace is appropriate at all in a service/public setting. The passage of time isn't relevant, stop others experiencing similar hurt by meeting the individual(s) concerned.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The introduction of the 'give the peace'thing was one of the final straws that completed my move to atheism from CofE.
There must have been a heck of a lot more to your conversion to atheism than that, SusanDoris. That seems a pretty thin straw to break the camel's back.
Yes I was puzzled by that. I'm not sure I can see why somebody wanting to shake hands with you proves God does not exist or even clinches something you've been suspecting for some time. As sequiturs go, it has a fairly high negative rating.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40
|
Posted
True Enoch there were probably other - more major - things but it can be a pretty minor thing that sets you off
I'm old enough to remember when the peace was first introduced - and you know what? Everybody hated it! Now if you tried to do without it World War 3 would probably break out...!
--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen
'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10
Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
