|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Sign of Peace - Why?
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
My two cents:
We're supposed to be gathered in church as a community - if not a family. Is it really so horrible to share the Peace of Christ via a brief handshake with your brothers and sisters in Him? We are continually being told that one cannot be a Christian on one's own - does that not apply to those who seek to set up a barrier around themselves during a service such that no-one else can get near? If there's someone (anyone) in your church family who you're not prepared to even shake hands with, is that not a problem to be solved rather than a foible to be tolerated, or even encouraged?
If Christ Himself came back to earth and turned up at your service, would you shake His hand and greet Him warmly? If you would be prepared to adknowledge Him in that way, there can be no excuse for refusing to adknowledge His image in your fellow congregants.
To me, the Peace is a key part of Christian worship. It is the one part of a service that clearly demonstrates that we are gathered as the Family of Christ, rather than as a disparate band of unrelated individuals who just happen to be in the same place at the same time. It's what makes us a congregation rather than an audience.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Nope. It's Holy Communion which does that, not the peace. It might have worked in ancient times but now it's just a piece of sentimentalist, stomach churning rubbish, used as an excuse to do all sorts of stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the peace as it was meant to be.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Marvin puts the case well and I would agree with that it is an important part of Xn worship but I have rarely in Anglican circles (albeit in North America) experienced it as such. Let us be blunt and honest: it has become a social intermission and little more.
Other shipmates have made practical suggestions on how it might better fill its liturgical function and I would desperately hope that clergy are reading this thread and taking up these suggestions. My unhappy experiences have driven me to seek out services (usually the early morning ones) where the Peace is absent or minimal in its presence. It seems that I am not the only one.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Nope. It's Holy Communion which does that, not the peace.
I disagree. In my experience people frequently walk up to the altar rail without even looking at anyone else, keep their head bowed when there other than to look at the elements being presented, and head directly back to their pew. Hardly an example of familial unity - we may as well be queueing at the supermarket checkout!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
How far The Peace goes depends on local custom, of course.
Where things are more formal, it is confined to one's neighbours in the pews. At a church where I am a regular, I don't mind circulating in a free-for-all; but where I am a visitor, I remain in my pew and allow others to come to me. Under certain circumstances I keep up chatting briefly with what's going on as I circulate, but I try not to. The more formal side of me takes over, so that I make no more intimate embrace than a mere hand-shake.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Nope. It's Holy Communion which does that, not the peace.
I disagree. In my experience people frequently walk up to the altar rail without even looking at anyone else, keep their head bowed when there other than to look at the elements being presented, and head directly back to their pew. Hardly an example of familial unity - we may as well be queueing at the supermarket checkout!
One faith, one baptism, one altar under a bishop. There is unity.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If Christ Himself came back to earth and turned up at your service, would you shake His hand and greet Him warmly?
In all honesty, probably not. I mean, I'd be really pleased he was there and everything, but I'd struggle to hold his eye. Seriously, it's not just walls we're conscious of building around ourselves just at church, the main reason at the age of 32 I've only ever had one long term relationship is because I just can't deal with people on that level (and then I met a girl who was prepared to put the time in and then it was great - you can probably imagine quite how devastated I was a couple of years later when it ended). Since then (4 years ago), nothing at all. Again.
I accept that not everyone is like me (thank God), but there are those of us out there who for some deep psychological reason just can't do it. And not being able to do it and trying to sit it out just makes it worse. It's better just not to go in the first place sometimes. It may well work for most people - good for them - but it's divisive in a way that choice of hymnal (for example) just isn't because it causes actual mental pain and trauma for that minority.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The problem of what do do during the Sign of the Peace is presumably easier to deal with in churches where Communion doesn't happen every week. Methodists, for example, only have it once a month. And because their churches are usually smaller and more modern, it's easier to slip out of the room and wait in the foyer or the toilets until the handshaking is over. This might eventually be noticed, but if you have a quiet word with the minister or senior church steward to explain why you're doing it, it should soon cease to be of interest.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I disagree. In my experience people frequently walk up to the altar rail without even looking at anyone else, keep their head bowed when there other than to look at the elements being presented, and head directly back to their pew. Hardly an example of familial unity - we may as well be queueing at the supermarket checkout!
Well, it is a holy moment, and it seems appropriate to be able to focus on what one is receiving, and there's a long tradition of the practice of "custody of the eyes," wherein one maintains focus partly by not allowing distractions of seeing who else is there, who's wearing what, who's looking particularly attractive today, who's paired up with whom these days, who's having more or less trouble walking than they did last Sunday, etc.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
Well, it is a holy moment, and it seems appropriate to be able to focus on what one is receiving, and there's a long tradition of the practice of "custody of the eyes," wherein one maintains focus partly by not allowing distractions of seeing who else is there, who's wearing what, who's looking particularly attractive today, who's paired up with whom these days, who's having more or less trouble walking than they did last Sunday, etc.
I agree. Which means that it can't also be a focus for congregational unity in fellowship. If everyone there is focusing exclusively on the sacrament, they cannot at the same time be focusing on their relationship with each other. It follows that a separate part of the service should be dedicated to said fellowship, and that part is the peace.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
For once (hyperbolically once*) I agree with Marvin. The one bishop, one baptism stuff might be a representation of unity, but it doesn't really demonstrate the family-relationships within that unit if we don't have a moment to look at each other and shake hands. (I can do without the kisses and hugs though).
* - as in much more than once but seems like once
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Well - read all the posts and contributed my own two-pennorth
I'm going to stay in my loft and strike up the hymn when I think the P***e has gone on long enough.
You can ask me if I want a cutting from your clematis after the service.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Remember that this may be the only time some parishioners are touched by another human and that feeling uncomfortable is not a good reason to deny people the comfort this can give,
Can be a not so good experirnce if hand being shaken is conne4cted to eyes busily seeking out next person to greet
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
At one church I used to go to for a regular midweek service, the issue for one man was skin-to-skin contact. Obviously he had discussed this with his priest because someone came up with a solution - he always wore leather gloves to church. Then, when it came to the peace, he was able to shake hands with his gloved hand - problem solved. All the regulars knew why he did this and accepted it, but it also wasn't too strange for visitors to experience. I was already used to shaking a gloved hand because of someone in the congregation, when the peace was first brought in, who always had a gloved hand due to a serious war injury.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Can be a not so good experirnce if hand being shaken is connected to eyes busily seeking out next person to greet
I remember going to a Silent Eucharist at Greenbelt one year and sharing the peace silently made me notice this tendency in myself but I still struggle with it.
Maybe a silent peace would help at the chitchat
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Remember that this may be the only time some parishioners are touched by another human and that feeling uncomfortable is not a good reason to deny people the comfort this can give,
Can be a not so good experirnce if hand being shaken is conne4cted to eyes busily seeking out next person to greet
I agree with both points. Regarding the second one, I find this behaviour to be most apparent at a church where you don't know many of the people. It doesn't give a very good impression at all.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
feeling uncomfortable is not a good reason to deny people the comfort this can give,
Yes but that's putting all the "blame" and responsibility for not being able to do it back onto me/others that struggle with it isn't it? "This is something you have to do because their need is greater than yours." Frankly, that's an awfully big assumption to make - and ignores the fact that really people aren't *choosing* not to do it - they can't, and they get judged for it because they're not being "nice" to the people who only get to touch someone once a week...
Entirely selflessly I could of course just grin and bear it, but if we laid our souls bare, I wonder sometimes if the hypothetical person would do it if they realised the pain they were inflicting was potentially greater than any comfort they were getting in the process? At the moment, this line of argument is applied only to the refusers when in fact it cuts both ways.
This is no-win on either side, which is why I still think it's a damaging and divisive thing to be doing, albeit for the most noble of reasons. I agree entirely with the post up thread:
"The Peace of the Lord be always with you."
Cong: "And also with you."
Is (assuming we go wild for a second and take you as being plural rather than a singular response to the Priest alone - and hey, we make crazier mental leaps...) quite enough in my opinion.
People that want to touch each other and have a chat can do so after the service, no one is stopping them. But at the moment we are making a small number of casualties through our actions every Sunday - one side getting offended, and the other disablingly anxious. I wasn't aware that we went to church to hurt people, but one way or the other, that is what offering a sign of peace does. In the great scheme of things it probably matters less than a whole host of dead horse issues that inflict pain and damage on a variety of sectors of congregations, but the pain is real for the sufferers none the less - and I think there's a regrettable tendency to want people to just "man up" and get on with it.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
This is no-win on either side, which is why I still think it's a damaging and divisive thing to be doing, albeit for the most noble of reasons. I agree entirely with the post up thread:
"The Peace of the Lord be always with you."
Cong: "And also with you."
Is (assuming we go wild for a second and take you as being plural rather than a singular response to the Priest alone - and hey, we make crazier mental leaps...) quite enough in my opinion.
Yes, I agree with this. Doing the Peace this way would also, I think, reduce the awkwardness felt by people like me who have been Christians many years but are part of churches that don't do the Sign of Peace.
Personally, I wonder if it isn't actually a divisive, unnecessary thing (certainly done for the most noble of reasons, mind you!) for the reasons expressed upthread; sometimes newcomers or people not well-known in the church are left looking on at everyone else greeting one another enthusiastically, and sometimes people are embarrassed or offended by the expectations of sociability and physical contact.
IME churches can be welcoming without having a Peace ritual, and it's also possible to address the points about physical contact and reconciliation in a non-ritual way.
ISTM rituals like the Peace can easily lose their power, so we end up doing them because 'that's what we do at this part of the service'. Or am I barking up the wrong tree - do most people actually find the Peace a significant, helpful practice which reminds them of the need to be in good relationship with one another?
--------------------
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 Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
Well, it is a holy moment, and it seems appropriate to be able to focus on what one is receiving, and there's a long tradition of the practice of "custody of the eyes," wherein one maintains focus partly by not allowing distractions of seeing who else is there, who's wearing what, who's looking particularly attractive today, who's paired up with whom these days, who's having more or less trouble walking than they did last Sunday, etc.
I agree. Which means that it can't also be a focus for congregational unity in fellowship. If everyone there is focusing exclusively on the sacrament, they cannot at the same time be focusing on their relationship with each other. It follows that a separate part of the service should be dedicated to said fellowship, and that part is the peace.
For my money, I don't associate the artificial forced smiles and handshaking rituals of "the peace" in any way with fellowship with other members of the congregation. The latter would have to involve something meaningful and real, like going down the pub or for a walk on the moors or something. For me, this ritual just highlights that there actually isn't much interpersonal relationship between many members of the congregation so this excruciatingly embarrassing and fake ritual has to be invented in order to pretend that there is.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
For me, this ritual just highlights that there actually isn't much interpersonal relationship between many members of the congregation so this excruciatingly embarrassing and fake ritual has to be invented in order to pretend that there is.
If that were the case in a given church it would hardly be a reason to stop doing it. It's worth continuing to feel uncomfortable until the lack of interpersonal relationship is fixed.
(For what it's worth my smile is usually genuine, and sometimes I don't smile and that also seems to be OK)
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
For me, this ritual just highlights that there actually isn't much interpersonal relationship between many members of the congregation so this excruciatingly embarrassing and fake ritual has to be invented in order to pretend that there is.
If that were the case in a given church it would hardly be a reason to stop doing it. It's worth continuing to feel uncomfortable until the lack of interpersonal relationship is fixed.
(For what it's worth my smile is usually genuine, and sometimes I don't smile and that also seems to be OK)
Not worth it for me. When I'm at a shack that does it (God be praised neither my previous one nor my current place do) I start dreading it from about half way through the sermon. Even where there is genuine interpersonal fellowship it still seems silly - I don't interact with people in a meanginful manner to order.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
In my shack(s) there is a great deal of hand shaking (and even hugging) that goes on when people arrive and also after the service when refreshments are available.
Why then have a handshake or a hug to order during the middle of the service? It simply embarasses many.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's worth continuing to feel uncomfortable until the lack of interpersonal relationship is fixed.
Only if you're implying causation, and that somehow by forcing people to do it over and over again they will grow to want to do it. That's right up there with an inverse of the Ludovico Technique in A Clockwork Orange. If it's being trained into people then the results are not a free-will expression of fellowship but a conditioned response.
Meanwhile, for those who struggle with it (to a degree more than dislike), it continues to be more akin to the alleged famous edict of the Imperial Japanese Navy:
"The beatings will continue until morale improves"
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
I do think the extended peace feels almost like a mid-term break in some Anglican churches and it thererfore loses its significance and meaning. Catholics seem much more discplined.
I want to share this from St Martin-in-the-Fields who have just begin a new way of sharing the peace which adds an additional perspective:
An Open-Handed Peace At St Martin in the Fields the Disability Awareness Task Group have suggested that we explore a new way of sharing the Peace. So until Advent we are using an “Open-Handed Peace”. We stand with hands out, palms upwards, for another to place their hands gently and carefully on ours. Why? For some people a hug is horribly invasive, for another with arthritis, or with damaged or swollen hands and arms, the traditional handshake is extremely painful, especially if vigorous! Besides, we become so accustomed to shaking hands that we no longer experience it as a way of receiving the other. So please join us for an open handed peace today and extend the welcome of Christ to the other whose presence we value
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I do think the extended peace feels almost like a mid-term break in some Anglican churches and it thererfore loses its significance and meaning. Catholics seem much more discplined.
I want to share this from St Martin-in-the-Fields who have just begin a new way of sharing the peace which adds an additional perspective:
An Open-Handed Peace At St Martin in the Fields the Disability Awareness Task Group have suggested that we explore a new way of sharing the Peace. So until Advent we are using an “Open-Handed Peace”. We stand with hands out, palms upwards, for another to place their hands gently and carefully on ours. Why? For some people a hug is horribly invasive, for another with arthritis, or with damaged or swollen hands and arms, the traditional handshake is extremely painful, especially if vigorous! Besides, we become so accustomed to shaking hands that we no longer experience it as a way of receiving the other. So please join us for an open handed peace today and extend the welcome of Christ to the other whose presence we value
So, it's slower, and feels instinctively like it's going to take even more care and thinking about (which I totally get is the whole point, btw). However, that's SMITF crossed off my list of occasional London stop-offs until Advent and if that was explained to me at the beginning of a service (either on the sheet or by the vicar) it would be my cue to turn around and walk straight back out. Replacing an awkward handshake with full immersion of the palms of both my hands - in what possible world is that *less* invasive? I see that it's better than a hug, but then hugs and huggers I just avoid anyway. This is like "let's go out and destroy the coping strategies people have come up with in the last few decades"...
FWIW, it looks like a good way of addressing the problem that it can degenerate into an unthinking observation, so 10/10 for that. It doesn't however address the underlying question about whether *anything* should be done other than the verbal priest:congregational exchange, rather than *a better something* -
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It doesn't however address the underlying question about whether *anything* should be done other than the verbal priest:congregational exchange, rather than *a better something* - [/QB]
I only worship there midweek where the peace is relatively subdued - ie a raise of the hand or a nod to those closest - but my understanding is that this was part of a recent review of liturgy, and the majority of consultees wanted the peace modified rather than dopped altogether.
I have noticed at some parishes that even when just the verbal exchange takes place - without the formal invitation to greet - that some people still do it.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Only if you're implying causation, and that somehow by forcing people to do it over and over again they will grow to want to do it.
I'm not implying that shaking hands once a week will fix a lack of community, but stopping doing something because it highlights a lack of community is a bit like turning off the car dashboard because the "low oil" light is annoying. It might be, and leaving the dashboard on isn't going to fill up the oil by itself, but it really doesn't seem to be an appropriate response.
If you and Karl find the process unbearable and are always going to find the process unbearable I'm sympathetic and agree that such views should be taken note of. But that personal argument is a different argument from the one that says it shows up our lack of community and therefore should be stopped.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andromeda
Shipmate
# 11304
|
Posted
I have to say this thread is a huge revelation to me. I had no idea people were so uncomfortable with the peace. It's one of my favourite parts of the service, particularly when I don't really feel like I know many people in a congregation and feel too nervous or inhibited to make small talk after the service. The enforced, structured interaction does enable me to feel connected to my fellow attendees. I actually enjoy seeing a congregation greet each other in this way.
However I will be more mindful of the distress it could be causing to those who seem to hang back a bit at this point. I had no idea.
(Some of you would positively HATE the church I used to go to! - non anglican, charismatic, prone to spontaneous instructions to 'turn to the person next to you and pray together about X' and all kinds of other unexpected frights)
--------------------
In this world you’ll have trouble. But cheer up! I have overcome the world.
Posts: 57 | From: South Wales | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an introvert myself I still have a residual resistance to sharing the Peace. Therefore it's all the more important to be forced out of my instinctive isolation.
Why?
Because church isn't all about me.
Ah, so the church is for extroverts. I get it now.
This is the same crap they teach in seminaries now. Translated: introverts are selfish, introverts are wrong, introverts are bad for the church. We must change them. Because they never greet anybody else ever.
The shaking of hands during the liturgy is, quite simply, not essential. It's a modern rite with a modern cultural agenda. That said, most people, including myself, have no problem with it until it becomes a free-for-all.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm an introvert who appreciates sharing the peace, but that's because, for me, churchgoing is about community. And community doesn't always come naturally to me. But I'm not hugely sacramental, so just taking the bread and wine wouldn't be enough.
It shouldn't be difficult for churches to make arrangements to accommodate attenders who don't want to do the handshaking thing. For example, they could sit in an attitude of prayer, which would be taken as a sign that they should be left alone. But the willpower to explain and institute a simple change like this would have to be there, and churches don't like change.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Ah, so the church is for extroverts. I get it now.
I get that distinct feeling when I look at websites of a couple of churches I used to attend. Maybe it's what they're choosing to show on the site, but from the photo galleries one would think a lot of time is spent smiling maniacally in big happy groups. Nothing wrong with that, but I feel like I'd stand out with my sad-looking "resting face." ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As an introvert myself I still have a residual resistance to sharing the Peace. Therefore it's all the more important to be forced out of my instinctive isolation.
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Why?
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Because church isn't all about me.
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Ah, so the church is for extroverts. I get it now...Translated: introverts are selfish, introverts are wrong, introverts are bad for the church. We must change them. Because they never greet anybody else ever.
That's a bit of a leap from what Angloid said. I'm sure Angloid could equally point to areas where extroverts are challenged by an element of the service to do something they are not comfortable with, given the chance.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Indeed. Another introvert chiming in to say how helpful I find sharing the peace. It's not my default reaction to look for the presence of God in other people, but I know He's there. So, I'm grateful that the Church brings this to my intention daily in the liturgy, because I might miss it otherwise and end up being irreverent towards one of the ways God is present in our midst.
I have a good friend (ordination classmate actually) who's been described as an "extrovert's extrovert." It was interesting to discover that he prefers a pre-Mass announcement to keep a minute of silence before the opening hymn, whereas I prefer a pre-Mass announcement to introduce yourself to some of your fellow worshipers. Both of us wanted the liturgy to point us to the manifestations of God we find harder to find on our own.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
An Open-Handed Peace At St Martin in the Fields the Disability Awareness Task Group have suggested that we explore a new way of sharing the Peace. So until Advent we are using an “Open-Handed Peace”. We stand with hands out, palms upwards, for another to place their hands gently and carefully on ours.
I really like this idea.
But I disagree with what some people are suggesting, that sharing the peace is an extrovert thing. I am more of an introvert, and I find sharing the peace, when it's just shaking hands (not hugs), to be meaningful, and a way of connecting with people that I would find hard in an informal situation. I don't find it easy to approach people and to do small talk. So having an actual ritual, where I know what I'm supposed to do, and it simply involves shaking hands and saying 'Peace' and looking at the person, is very helpful for me, especially in a new church where I don't know people yet. I'm sure it's not supposed to be like this, but it's kind of like an ice-breaker.
I do like the idea of holding out hands for others to put their hands on top though. That is a gentle sort of contact, and gives each person more control and more time. Although I think if I was at that church for the first time, I'd be confused whether I was supposed to be standing with my hands out or putting my hands on someone else's hands. With a handshake, you both do the same thing, so you don't have to wonder who does what.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
I admit to disliking it, and it's part of the reason why I don't usually go to a Sunday service. Besides, it's false: you sit there surrounded by people you don't know, who don't speak to you and you don't speak to them, suddenly for half a minute you're all smiles and handshakes, then you ignore each other again for the rest of the service and leave separately. What it doesn't do is engender any sense of community. It comes across as hugely contrived and frankly quite pointless. We never used to have it and I wish they'd scrap it.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I admit to disliking it, and it's part of the reason why I don't usually go to a Sunday service. Besides, it's false: you sit there surrounded by people you don't know, who don't speak to you and you don't speak to them, suddenly for half a minute you're all smiles and handshakes, then you ignore each other again for the rest of the service and leave separately. What it doesn't do is engender any sense of community. It comes across as hugely contrived and frankly quite pointless. We never used to have it and I wish they'd scrap it.
That's just it...there are plenty of people who shake hands and chat easily during the service who persist in being nasty and selfish the rest of the week, and plenty of introverts who go off from the service to do the Lord's work quietly and without seeking praise, thanks, or acknowledgement.
This little ritual moment is an attempt to inculturate a message that extroversion is the church's ideal, and that introversion is a problem to be fixed...at least, that's the way it is presented in the overwhelming majority of churches. To add insult to injury, some of these purported fellowship-friendly churches, such as my own, will poo-poo the sharing of a common cup.
"There are many gifts..." Stop holding up some over others.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
People are imbuing too much into the Sign of Peace. It's a ritualized gesture at a particular moment in the service with a particular meaning. If the socializing is going overboard its the fault and misunderstanding of that particular congregation an not the ritual and should be brought up with the celebrant or at the next parish liturgy meeting. It's not a value statement about extroverts vs. introverts unless someone wants to read that into the ritual, and again if it comes off that way it says more about the congregation or the complainer than about the rite itself.
If one is an extreme introvert and one finds this extremely difficult then joyfully take up your cross. Today you may have to shake hands with the guy in the pew. Tomorrow you may have to touch a leper.
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
This little ritual moment is an attempt to inculturate a message that extroversion is the church's ideal, and that introversion is a problem to be fixed.
I think you're reading too much into it. Many people seem to struggle with sharing the peace and identify with varying degrees of introversion, but nevertheless can see arguments for doing it besides favoring the extroverts.
I'm not denying there is an argument to be had about how useful the practice is, but reading an attempt to inculturate into it seems to presume bad faith to me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Did an experiment today: after the Peace was pronounced I waited until I reckoned more than 50% of the congregation were in their own pew - so we had a 4 minute (FOUR!) hiatus in the middle of the service.
PP not happy - have assured him we'll now have a maximum of 20 seconds in future.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
But it's not a 'hiatus' - it's part of worship. I do agree that 4 mins seems a bit long, though I suppose it depends on the circumstances.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
This can be covered by a bit of careful leading - i.e. a firm instruction from the front to share the Peace just with the people immediately beside and around you.
And there is absolutely no need to meet and greet - just saying "The Peace of the Lord ..." is quite sufficient.
[ 27. October 2013, 15:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
People are imbuing too much into the Sign of Peace. It's a ritualized gesture at a particular moment in the service with a particular meaning. If the socializing is going overboard its the fault and misunderstanding of that particular congregation an not the ritual and should be brought up with the celebrant or at the next parish liturgy meeting. It's not a value statement about extroverts vs. introverts unless someone wants to read that into the ritual, and again if it comes off that way it says more about the congregation or the complainer than about the rite itself.
If one is an extreme introvert and one finds this extremely difficult then joyfully take up your cross. Today you may have to shake hands with the guy in the pew. Tomorrow you may have to touch a leper.
Well said!
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
This little ritual moment is an attempt to inculturate a message that extroversion is the church's ideal, and that introversion is a problem to be fixed.
I think you're reading too much into it. Many people seem to struggle with sharing the peace and identify with varying degrees of introversion, but nevertheless can see arguments for doing it besides favoring the extroverts.
I'm not denying there is an argument to be had about how useful the practice is, but reading an attempt to inculturate into it seems to presume bad faith to me.
Not exactly....it doesn't take a great deal of work to find a church where post facto defenses have been overlaid onto this ritual. Heck, they are all over this thread.
I'm not calling for an end to this liturgical practice; I'm just calling it like it is, and not as it has been charmingly imagined. The work of the church continues outside, in the world around us.
Pancho is partially right...people read too much into it, but it is the ardent defenders who have invented theology behind it who do so. They might as well just call it what it is in many churches: a free-for-all exhibition of socialization.
Don't be so quick to blow off your introverts...we are the ones who really run the church.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
This can be covered by a bit of careful leading - i.e. a firm instruction from the front to share the Peace just with the people immediately beside and around you.
And there is absolutely no need to meet and greet - just saying "The Peace of the Lord ..." is quite sufficient.
Agreed. This was done tonight at an evangelical evening service (I hadn't been before) and it was done very sensibly and sensitively. In rather surprising contrast to the forced Peace with the entire congregation in my usual A-C church.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Don't be so quick to blow off your introverts...we are the ones who really run the church.
What I blow off is the whole notion that the world divides into introverts and extroverts such that it could possibly be meaningful to say which group runs the church.
I also blow off the notion that I (or anyone else for that matter) is being defensive in their support of the peace. You say you call it like it is, I'm not sure I agree with your analysis.
Having said that I'm currently at a church which doesn't do the peace (well, has done once in the last 6mths) and I'm perfectly happy with that.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I've never understood where the peace ritual came from. In my younger days we never did such a ritual, but then it suddenly appeared without so much as a by-your-leave. How come we managed for centuries without it and now it seems to be important to the liturgy? I dislike it and wish it would go away. Maybe it should be optional in the way that making the sign of the cross and kneeling to pray are.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Too right. Perhaps those of us who'd rather not, thanks, could hold a service book in our hands, like the folks not receiving the Eucharist?
[ 28. October 2013, 09:27: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I've never understood where the peace ritual came from. In my younger days we never did such a ritual, but then it suddenly appeared without so much as a by-your-leave. How come we managed for centuries without it and now it seems to be important to the liturgy? I dislike it and wish it would go away. Maybe it should be optional in the way that making the sign of the cross and kneeling to pray are.
Yes, it used be just a versicle and response when I was growing up. Now, it's much more, and I for one value it. But it must be kept to a simple greeting "Peace be with you" and not a chat session about the bargains this week at the supermarket. The only times you can go beyond the greeting are to add a short "at this time of great sadness" for someone recently bereaved, or "at this time of great joy" on the birth of a child or grandchild. No congratulations for an exam success, no commiseration about a damaged bumper bar. They are matters you can deal with at coffee.
And for those who find the physical contact difficult or distressing, do what some in our congregations do. Press your hands together, fingers under your chin, and give a slight bow before your greeting. The physical contact is avoided in a manner which can't give offence to the other.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
