Thread: Sharing the peace felt like war Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025847
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
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?
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
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.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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!
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
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?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
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.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-ŕ-jour (# 17717) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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!
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
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?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
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.
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
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.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
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.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
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.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
(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 ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
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?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
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.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
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.
Posted by argona (# 14037) on
:
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.
Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
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.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
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.
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on
:
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.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
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)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
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.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
The introduction of the 'give the peace'thing was one of the final straws that completed my move to atheism from CofE.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
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.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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)
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
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.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
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.
Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on
:
*paedo not pardon
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
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...!
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
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.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Anathema sit.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
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...!
Why? Give it a try!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
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...!
Only because the extraverts have the loudest voices.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Do any of you visit France ? And if so how do you cope ?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
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.
Meh, I've told people that I can't be RC because I hate holding hands during the Lords Prayer. Obviously that is not the only thing holding me back, but the unapologetic introvert in me enjoys the reaction I get.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do any of you visit France ? And if so how do you cope ?
Yes - and I do (arms length as always)
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do any of you visit France ? And if so how do you cope ?
Yes - and I do (arms length as always)
They don't grab you in a bear hug. In reality, you hardly touch the other person when doing the right/left kiss type of greeting. I'm not sure I would advocate for that at the Peace but if people had half the finesse that the French do when greeting, it would go a long way.
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
I have highly developed peace avoiding skills because due to the madness physical contact makes me so stressed out that I can become ill as a result of it. I sit as far from other people as I can and during the peace I kneel, curl up into the smallest ball I can and concentrate on wishing peace on other people and giving 'I'm happy for peace to be with you but don't touch me' vibes. There is one lady in the congregation who makes a habit of tapping me on the shoulder during the peace despite the fact I've asked her not to and explained why several times. That I find really offensive. Surely people can understand that although they might find it appropriate to hug and fondle with their promiscuous paxing, I find it horrible, disturbing and it literally causes me nightmares and panic attacks.
[Edited in the hope of gaining some vague coherence]
[ 19. June 2013, 17:12: Message edited by: chive ]
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
Doublethink - I've been to France. When I'm there, I do as the French do. . When in Rome ...
The charming and effusive European kiss on both cheeks is elegant, and not to me in the same category as a bear hug from a stranger during the Peace.
Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
There is one lady in the congregation who makes a habit of tapping me on the shoulder during the peace despite the fact I've asked her not to and explained why several times. That I find really offensive. Surely people can understand that although they might find it appropriate to hug and fondle with their promiscuous paxing, I find it horrible, disturbing and it literally causes me nightmares and panic attacks.
I remember being taught at some church-related course long ago that not everyone is comfortable with touching, so it is better to be mindful of this and always ask for permission before proceeding to give someone a hug (this goes for praying with someone as well). It's about respecting one another's wishes and preferences. I don't understand why this is not taught to everybody in churches as being a matter of love and respect for one another. Surely hugs and kisses are not the only way of expressing Christian love and peace to one another, sometimes not doing so can be just as valid an expression as well.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Spot on. I find shaking hands OK, but hugs should always be asked for first. I don't want to hug strangers in any case.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I can remember a time before this custom was introduced. It's often awkward, can be uncomfortable and feel forced as people ignore you or lunge at you with outstretched hand: this is likely to be the only contact you have with them throughout the entire service, and at the end you then revert to politely not knowing each other, gather up your things and leave.
The whole thing feels quite artificial. It might feel more natural if you knew anyone in the congregation but mostly you don't. I regret to say it's one of the things that puts me off going. The handshake is enough, but hugging strangers in these circumstances would feel like false intimacy.
I was once faced with giving the peace via a handshake to a young man on my right who'd been vigorously biting his nails throughout the service, so his fingers were still wet with saliva, and an old man who'd been wiping his nose on the back of his hand. There is nothing you can do except beam warmly and plunge right in, reminding yourself it's only body fluids, you have them too, and making a mental note to wash your hands thoroughly when you get the chance.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Latex gloves might do the trick?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
At my church, we have a fairly small (around 50 people) and very close-knit congregation. The only person who tries to hug me apart from my friends from uni is our priest and I have no problem with being hugged by him - but I still rather dread sharing the peace because 50 people wanting to shake my hand still feels like a lot!
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Maybe this is because I can't remember too many Other Times, but I thought the Peace had ancient roots—but people are talking about times before it was introduced? Forgive me my ignorance, but does anyone know when/why (in a philosophical sense, rather than a Googleable one) it was included in so many liturgies across so many traditions, to the point that I might be forgiven for thinking it was just part of how Things Are Done?
And might the fact that it is "new" contribute to so much awkwardness and uncertainty about how to approach it—might there be some hope for figuring out how to do it in, oh, another 250-odd years?
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on
:
So hang on a minute. Does all of this mean I can't try and grab someones arse during the peace?
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
I hate when the Peace goes on too long (as some others on this thread do). When I'm serving at the altar I avoid more than minimal peace-passing because I have duties to attend to at that point in the liturgy. When I'm in the pews I'll sometimes greet the few people around me, then sit down and start browsing through the bulletin.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I have a less severe form of what Chive has and on a good day I can cope with a hug. Even then if caught off guard I am likely to physically flinch. When I was bad I could go literally into fight or flight mode at the suggestion.
At one point I quite deliberately sort out ways of sharing the peace without touching so as to be able to be constructive and safe.
It was this that started first ever thread in Hell. Hell was governed by different rules in those days.
What I appreciated then was getting the idea that touch is negotiated. If someone ignores a no touch sign, then they are prioritising their desire for touch over your wishes. Yes that can be abusive, just as with-holding tough can also be, but both these are extreme. That is not to say that they do not occur, Chive's post indicates they do.
My policy these days is normally to clearly indicate that I want a hand shake and deliberately choose places that give me more personal space. The second gives me time to prepare if nothing else.
Jengie
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
a young man on my right . . . his fingers were still wet with saliva, and an old man who'd been wiping his nose on the back of his hand. . . it's only body fluids, you have them too, and making a mental note to wash your hands thoroughly when you get the chance.
If you have a scratch or cut on your finger, or if you momentarily forget and absent-mindedly wipe your eye, washing your hands will be too little, too late.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Do any of you visit France ? And if so how do you cope ?
Just fine. I've also been to nude beaches. We neither need to be French nor nude to share the peace peaceably (nor both at once).
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
a young man on my right . . . his fingers were still wet with saliva, and an old man who'd been wiping his nose on the back of his hand. . . it's only body fluids, you have them too, and making a mental note to wash your hands thoroughly when you get the chance.
If you have a scratch or cut on your finger, or if you momentarily forget and absent-mindedly wipe your eye, washing your hands will be too little, too late.
I regularly sit next to someone who pulls a little bottle of hand sanitizer out of her purse after the peace. She offers it to me every time, too, and I always wonder if sharing hand sanitizer is sanitary.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
We'll be gargling with Listerine next before sipping from the chalice, I imagine.
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on
:
Maybe you should get your own? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
So hang on a minute. Does all of this mean I can't try and grab someones arse during the peace?
It's cool, as long as it is a sign of Christian love, between Christian brothers and sisters. If the person whose ass you grab feels uncomfortable, they should pull you aside into a private room and ask you to not do it again.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Apologies in previous post, that was not the "first ever hell thread" but "my first ever hell thread".
Jengie
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
I have really mixed feelings about all of this. I like a good tight hug with my close friends and relatives, but there is a man in my church who greets me (and others) with a hug and I find it discomforting. He only hugs women, which is a bit odd, although i do not believe there is anything sexual in it. I usually turn sideways, so he puts his arm around my shoulders and gives me a squeeze, but then he leaves his arm there, and sometimes strokes it up and down my arm absentmindedly. I am sure readers of this will suspect he is copping a feel, but honestly I think he is well intentioned and does't realise how it makes me feel, so I just put up with it
Maybe he should bear my possible feelings in mind and defer to them, but it is just as easy or hard for me to defer to his express intentions isn't it?
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
In all of this, there seems to be a problem that boils down to a poor understanding of the purpose of the Peace as a liturgical action. In fact, I'm a bit uncertain about it myself.
So, what is the point of the Peace?
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
IMaybe he should bear my possible feelings in mind and defer to them, but it is just as easy or hard for me to defer to his express intentions isn't it?
Actually as both Chive and Jengie have indicated this isn't always the case - and I'm adding my
experience to theirs. After I was raped the peace made attending church incrediby difficult.
It's easier at the church I go to now as it's smaller and I feel more comfortable with the people, partly because they are more aware of possible boundary issues.
Huia
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I regularly sit next to someone who pulls a little bottle of hand sanitizer out of her purse after the peace. She offers it to me every time, too, and I always wonder if sharing hand sanitizer is sanitary.
Tangent alert
I visited a church recently where at the Eucharist, there were two hand washings before the consecration, a liturgical one with water and a ceremonial little towel, and then another one with a little bottle of medical squirt.
Theologically, which one is the 'real' one?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
The whole thing feels quite artificial. It might feel more natural if you knew anyone in the congregation but mostly you don't. I regret to say it's one of the things that puts me off going. The handshake is enough, but hugging strangers in these circumstances would feel like false intimacy.
The whole point of the Peace, surely, is to demonstrate togetherness with all God's people (at least those gathered in that place at that time). If we restrict it to those whom we know personally, or worse, smile at some, shake hands with others and hug others, depending on how well we know them, it makes nonsense of the ceremony.
Of course it is symbolic, and therefore should not be any more effusive than necessary. If the congregation's style is simply to respond 'and also be with you' (or equivalent) to the priest's greeting, that's fine. Shaking hands is a common gesture that no-one surely can object to, even if they would rather not. But hugging, unless everybody is happy with it and knows each other well, should be a no-no.
I imagine that the priest in the OP lulled herself into a false impression, because of the retreat context, that it was an intimate congregation where hugging would be appropriate. No prophet doesn't say whether she hugged everyone but at least that would be consistent; to select one or two arbitrary victims would be quite wrong.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
He only hugs women, which is a bit odd, although i do not believe there is anything sexual in it. I usually turn sideways, so he puts his arm around my shoulders and gives me a squeeze, but then he leaves his arm there, and sometimes strokes it up and down my arm absentmindedly. I am sure readers of this will suspect he is copping a feel, but honestly I think he is well intentioned...
That's what one man at church was doing to me - "absentmindedly" stroking my arm. Then one day we were alone in a room and he - no question he crossed the line! But because everyone wrote off his usual behavior as "absentminded" and "well meant" no one believed me. Not a rape, but I don't go to that church anymore - and have since then have met several other women who don't go to that church because of him.
As to runny noses, coughing into hands, biting nails and wet fingers - the hand sanitizer bottle between the peace and receiving the bread sounds like a great idea. On various threads people insist "no one gets sick from other people's germs at church" but how do you know that when most diseases take more than an hour to develop symptoms and there's no reason to think church buildings are exempt from normal germ theory.
As to the peace being unfriendly to visitors - one church a friend took me to, everyone went all over the room greeting friends. I was left alone. Finally realized it wasn't going to end any time soon, went out, used the rest room, read the bulletin boards, saw that a few other people had left to fetch and sip a cup of coffee. When I wandered back in my friend stopped by briefly to say "did I tell you the peace here takes at least twenty minutes?"
A different woman must have been warned, she was sitting abandoned, knitting.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
the hand sanitizer bottle between the peace and receiving the bread sounds like a great idea.
How about little personal lavabo bowls in every pew? Much more liturgically correct.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
For me, the Peace equals a good time to take a potty break, or eminate my best 'Rosary Lady - I don't do that shit' vibes. However, I tend to go to BCP Communion Services because (a) I prefer the BCP and (b) it has the added bonus of no peace ceremony.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
What a relief to read this thread and realize that there are so many others who have trouble with the over-effusive, over-huggy, over-long peace.
Some things I've noticed in the past 10 years or so (2 parishes):
-- when people start hugging in a parish -- and moving all around the church to do this -- the practice spreads, involving larger numbers of people and taking up more time and energy. This was a factor that led to my distancing myself from one parish and eventually becoming a member of another. Now it's starting in the new parish as well. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
-- when I reach out to shake hands, smiling and making eye contact, I find that some people go for the hug anyway. Perhaps they think I do not feel worthy of being hugged, so they have to try harder?
-- I know that there are those who think that the protracted, huggy peace is a wonderful, Christian thing to do. Perhaps they also think that the more of it they do, and the more enthusiastically, the more Christian they are? On the other hand, I have noticed that many people seem to seek out special friends, family, etc., for the hugging, ignoring others in the congregation they do not know (or like?). Better to be democratic and extend one's hand to everyone ... within reasonable distance, at least.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
In response to the why and when of the Peace: My understanding is that it's supposed to ritually demonstrate that, post-confession and absolution, and before the Eucharist, the assembled are reconciled and at peace with one another; that people have left their interpersonal frictions at the foot of the Cross and are prepared to receive Holy Communion together as one body. I suppose it's somewhat analogous to the Orthodox Lenten practice of actively asking forgiveness of each person in the church with whom one wronged or with whom one has had difficulties.
As far as the when -- I can't speak for the others here, but in my corner of Lutherland it began in the 70's during the heyday of the liturgical renewal movement. Before that time the "The peace of the Lord be with you always" and the congregational response (which I seem to remember was "And with thy Spirit"...everything old is new again) were purely verbal.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
In response to the why and when of the Peace: My understanding is that it's supposed to ritually demonstrate that, post-confession and absolution, and before the Eucharist, the assembled are reconciled and at peace with one another;
Aha, so we should be seeking out enemies and people we dislike, instead of family and friends to shake hands with. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
In response to the why and when of the Peace: My understanding is that it's supposed to ritually demonstrate that, post-confession and absolution, and before the Eucharist, the assembled are reconciled and at peace with one another; that people have left their interpersonal frictions at the foot of the Cross and are prepared to receive Holy Communion together as one body.
This seems a very reasonable and worthy explanation. I wonder how many people actually think about the point of the ritual as they're doing it, though! There must be plenty who don't, otherwise there'd be none of that 'only greeting friends' silliness.
I think it goes to show how important it is to think about why we do all the rituals and activities in the practising of our faith, otherwise we're just like the newcomers in the (apparently fictional!) experiment with monkeys being taught not to reach for a banana.
As an aside regarding that monkey experiment, I liked the observation (made here) that 'an experiment whose goal is to point out how people will blindly believe what they are told is repeatedly referenced as fact without a proper source'.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
At my church, we have a fairly small (around 50 people) and very close-knit congregation. The only person who tries to hug me apart from my friends from uni is our priest and I have no problem with being hugged by him - but I still rather dread sharing the peace because 50 people wanting to shake my hand still feels like a lot!
Imagine though that instead of 50 people queuing up to shake your hand, no one (or very few do so). Do you feel included or excluded - and what does that say about the eucharist that follows?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
In response to the why and when of the Peace: My understanding is that it's supposed to ritually demonstrate that, post-confession and absolution, and before the Eucharist, the assembled are reconciled and at peace with one another; that people have left their interpersonal frictions at the foot of the Cross and are prepared to receive Holy Communion together as one body. I suppose it's somewhat analogous to the Orthodox Lenten practice of actively asking forgiveness of each person in the church with whom one wronged or with whom one has had difficulties.
I understand that but why wait until then to do it? Why not at the beginning of the worship or even before you meet together?
Surely the default for believers is to be at peace with one another. If there's something that breaks that peace, then it is best addressed as soon as possible and peace restored. The sign of peace ois given then - why repeat it?
As you rightly say, until recent years the standard response to "peace be with you" was a verbal one. The sign of peace was a 1st century form of greeting in a war torn environment. Arguably we're not in the same position today, such that giving a sign of the peace is a cultural irrelevance: it has no meaning or context.
I'd reiterate my belief that peace isn't soemthing you do, it's a condition you are. If you have to be told when to show it or be given a context to do so, I'm not convinced (personally) that reflects Christ's intentionality.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
At my church, we have a fairly small (around 50 people) and very close-knit congregation. The only person who tries to hug me apart from my friends from uni is our priest and I have no problem with being hugged by him - but I still rather dread sharing the peace because 50 people wanting to shake my hand still feels like a lot!
Imagine though that instead of 50 people queuing up to shake your hand, no one (or very few do so). Do you feel included or excluded - and what does that say about the eucharist that follows?
I would feel perfectly included and reading to receive the Eucharist - as others have said, a BCP service has no peace, so why would no peace at a CW service make a difference to the Eucharist? In any case, the priest has said 'peace be with you' and the congregation has responded with 'and also with you' presumably, which is peace enough for me.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The sign of peace was a 1st century form of greeting in a war torn environment. Arguably we're not in the same position today,
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Surely the default for believers is to be at peace with one another. If there's something that breaks that peace, then it is best addressed as soon as possible and peace restored. The sign of peace ois given then - why repeat it?
...I'd reiterate my belief that peace isn't soemthing you do, it's a condition you are. If you have to be told when to show it or be given a context to do so, I'm not convinced (personally) that reflects Christ's intentionality.
Hear hear. Speaking as a Christian who's really unfamiliar with the Peace ritual, I find it odd and somewhat uncomfortable. I'm taking note of people's various strategies to avoid hugging strangers and similar physical contact that they find awkward!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]I would feel perfectly included and reading to receive the Eucharist - as others have said, a BCP service has no peace, so why would no peace at a CW service make a difference to the Eucharist? In any case, the priest has said 'peace be with you' and the congregation has responded with 'and also with you' presumably, which is peace enough for me.
Ok how about if 50 people queue up to shake your hand but ignore a visitor off the streets, sitting at the back, who has personal hygiene issues?
If there's no "peace" in the BCP service why is it used in CW? What's good enough for one is surely good enough for the other
[ 20. June 2013, 10:00: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The sign of peace was a 1st century form of greeting in a war torn environment. Arguably we're not in the same position today,
I can understand confused. Why "disappointed?"
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
I visited a church recently where at the Eucharist, there were two hand washings before the consecration, a liturgical one with water and a ceremonial little towel, and then another one with a little bottle of medical squirt.
Theologically, which one is the 'real' one?
Slightly worried now that you might have been visiting one of our churches, as this is exactly what I do. I don't know which one is 'real', but I pray during both.
If I had the courage to ask it of our servers, I would have a bowl of warm water, soap, a proper towel and actually wash my hands, dispensing with the 'squirt' entirely, which is what +Michael Perham recommended when I was training.
anne
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
We have the Peace at our place in the RC position, to wit, just before Communion. Our organist knows that, after a minute or so, she is supposed to start playing the Agnus Dei, at which point all return to their places..... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Personally, I could do without exchanging the Peace, but, if I'm acting as Deacon, I do (just) have time to greet any newcomers/visitors, and this does seem to be appreciated. No hugs, though, no, indeed not!
Ian J.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
In all of this, there seems to be a problem that boils down to a poor understanding of the purpose of the Peace as a liturgical action. In fact, I'm a bit uncertain about it myself.
So, what is the point of the Peace?
It isn't mateyness amongst the congregation. It is the peace of THE LORD that is being passed on, not a sort of 'I wish you peace' wish from one person to the next.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If there's no "peace" in the BCP service why is it used in CW? What's good enough for one is surely good enough for the other
Cranmer cut out the peace because it had evolved into as superstition - people kissed something called a 'pax brede' - a sort of plate. They probably thought that the action conveyed some sort of good luck.
However, the kiss of peace is a biblical mandate which reflects the practice of the very early church. quote:
Greet one another with a holy kiss
Rom 16:16 Also 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:2, 1 Thess 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
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.
Meh, I've told people that I can't be RC because I hate holding hands during the Lords Prayer. Obviously that is not the only thing holding me back, but the unapologetic introvert in me enjoys the reaction I get.
I've never seen that at any French church.
I always associate holding hands during the lord's prayer as an evangelical practice and i refuse to do it.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Same here - though one or two of our people hold up their hands in the orans gesture whilst saying the Lord's Prayer. Nowt wrong with that, ISTM, but I thought the lifting up of the hands was the trad gesture in the Middle Ages at the elevation of the Host, no?
Ian J.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Cranmer cut out the peace because it had evolved into as superstition - people kissed something called a 'pax brede' - a sort of plate. They probably thought that the action conveyed some sort of good luck.
I've always rather liked the idea of the pax-brede. Kiss, wipe, pass on.
Just remember the "wipe" bit. And no tongues.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
We have the Peace at our place in the RC position, to wit, just before Communion. Our organist knows that, after a minute or so, she is supposed to start playing the Agnus Dei, at which point all return to their places.....
Yes, we do that too. It's a dash back to the music stand. I've been known to 'wave' the peace to people.
I'm not much of a hugger either; especially awkward with people you don't know. A hand-shaking peace, however, is perfect for visitors. Surely it's a good way of including strangers in the service. I've never had anyone ignore me when visiting other RC churches.
quote:
Originally posted by Leo
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:Meh, I've told people that I can't be RC because I hate holding hands during the Lords Prayer. Obviously that is not the only thing holding me back, but the unapologetic introvert in me enjoys the reaction I get.
I've never seen that at any French church.
I always associate holding hands during the lord's prayer as an evangelical practice and i refuse to do it.
We used to do that once in a blue moon (the previous priest did have a slight evangelical bent). I have to say I didn't mind, but no one moaned if you didn't want to do it. It cut the length of the peace down considerably as you just wished peace to the two people you had hold of. Much better than a group hug.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I can understand confused. Why "disappointed?"
That we are still in a 'war torn environment'. Literally for many countries, but a divided society even in the UK. So a strong reason for celebrating the Peace, whatever the practical issues.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
One way of keeping the Peace "liturgical" is to share it out starting with the celebrant and radiating out, each person receiving the Peace from one person and then giving it to one person. Good luck switching to that, though, if the tradition has been that each one greets everyone else.
In a Solemn Mass, we follow a formal process in the sanctuary while the faithful in the nave do whatever they like. The celebrant passes the Peace (bow, embrace and words, bow again) to the deacon and then the subdeacon, the deacon passes it to the MC, the MC bows across the sanctuary to send it via airmail to the crucifer and then greets the thurifer, and it goes down the line to the last torchbearer and acolyte.
At Low Mass the celebrant and server do this, and the people greet those near them and wave to the others. Or travel if they wish.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I always hated the peace as it is in the Novus Ordo, something akin to holding hands during the Lord's Prayer (fortunately something that never happened in our parish). Enough to make a person sick.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
One way of keeping the Peace "liturgical" is to share it out starting with the celebrant and radiating out, each person receiving the Peace from one person and then giving it to one person. Good luck switching to that, though, if the tradition has been that each one greets everyone else.
That is theologically dodgy IMHO. It's suggesting that God's Peace is the preserve of the Church and the clergy, and can only be mediated through them. Whereas greeting each other recognises the presence of God in Christ within every person.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Same here - though one or two of our people hold up their hands in the orans gesture whilst saying the Lord's Prayer. Ian J.
Yes - I have often seen that in continental Europe.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
It is certainly not a general custom in France for people to hold hands during the Our Father.Of course there might be some places wher it is a custom but certainly not usual.
It is however very common for individuals to hold their hands in the orans position during the recitation of the Lord's prayer.This follows the custom of the priest at the same time.
France is the country where this practice is almost universal.In other countries,including the UK you will see isolated individuals who for a variety of reasons will do this.
Holding hands at the Our Father is something which I personally associate with German Lutherans
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
I'm not sure that I am terribly popular at our current parish, but to worsen matters I have spent two years trying to shorten the peace from ten minutes of checking up on the grand-children (or, more likely, great grand children) and discussing wool prices in Patagonia to about a minute (which I think is 30 seconds too long) of greeting those in one's immediate vicinity. I announce the offertory hymn - but there's no guarantee my musician(s) are not deeply ensconced in chatter about Mexican arum lilies 3/4 of the way down the nave.
One of my predecessors - who is still there - believed everyone should say hello (or peace, perhaps) to everyone. They would then sing the offertory hymn. They would then sit down while the offertory was taken and, er, offered ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
He reintroduces this when ever he is rostered on ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
. Which is quite often as this is a two centred parish and I have ex-parish duties as well.
But I digress from the peace as war,
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Offering or sharing a sign of peace with the people nearest to you is one thing - OK, not my preference but fine.
Meandering around the church, glad-handing all and sundry like some politician on the stump is, IMHO, not what the peace is or should be.
When was it decided that The Peace was in fact a chance to catch up on gossip, share news, book diary dates?
Announce the Peace, share with those either side, maybe behind and before, then get on with the liturgy - you can see your mates after.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Which leads me to ask: how appropriate is it for the clergy to give instructions, as in "Peace be with you" ("and also with you"), then saying "please share the peace with those immediately near you", or "please greet those around you with the peace of Christ, but please don't move from your place/pew".
I'm kind of uncomfortable with that because it disrupts the flow of liturgy, but the peace as shared can do this disruption already, though not done by clergy.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
One way of keeping the Peace "liturgical" is to share it out starting with the celebrant and radiating out, each person receiving the Peace from one person and then giving it to one person. Good luck switching to that, though, if the tradition has been that each one greets everyone else.
That is theologically dodgy IMHO. It's suggesting that God's Peace is the preserve of the Church and the clergy, and can only be mediated through them. Whereas greeting each other recognises the presence of God in Christ within every person.
Fair enough. But I got the idea from the Order of Julian of Norwich, where it's done that way, so take it up with them.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Meandering around the church, glad-handing all and sundry like some politician on the stump is, IMHO, not what the peace is or should be.
I agree in theory. Even more, in theory I would detest the way the Peace is done in my present parish: everybody (thank God it's a small congregation) gets up out of their pew and walks around down one aisle and up the other. The pews have doors which makes it even more confused. No long conversations, but everybody makes sure they greet everyone else.
Yet somehow it works. It does justice to the very varied make-up of the congregation (from retired judges to asylum seekers) and seems to say 'we're all in it together'. Many other aspects of the liturgy (or lack of liturgy) make me cringe, but not this.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Which leads me to ask: how appropriate is it for the clergy to give instructions, as in "Peace be with you" ("and also with you"), then saying "please share the peace with those immediately near you", or "please greet those around you with the peace of Christ, but please don't move from your place/pew".
I'm kind of uncomfortable with that because it disrupts the flow of liturgy, but the peace as shared can do this disruption already, though not done by clergy.
I used to worship somewhere where the minister often said "We greet our immediate neighbours with the sign of peace" or words to that effect. I always wanted to shout out "But who is my neighbour?"
If the peace is before the offertory then can't it just be drawn easily to a close by beginning the offertory hymn? Granted there are other issues if it's in the "Roman" position.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
There have been times when it has been important to me to share the peace with a certain person in the congregation. But I'm basically a handshaker, even with my parents because I don't want to treat them differently to others. Though tertiary meetings can be an exception, but we are brothers and sisters there.
Carys
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Meandering around the church, glad-handing all and sundry like some politician on the stump is, IMHO, not what the peace is or should be.
I agree in theory. Even more, in theory I would detest the way the Peace is done in my present parish: everybody (thank God it's a small congregation) gets up out of their pew and walks around down one aisle and up the other. The pews have doors which makes it even more confused. No long conversations, but everybody makes sure they greet everyone else.
Yet somehow it works. It does justice to the very varied make-up of the congregation (from retired judges to asylum seekers) and seems to say 'we're all in it together'. Many other aspects of the liturgy (or lack of liturgy) make me cringe, but not this.
That makes sense to me.
The peace is not merely a 'liturgical act'. Indeed, saying that would deny what all liturgy is supposed to be about. It's about the peace of Christ being shared among his people. Even if we don't all love each other as much as we should or could, it's saying we know we should wish we did. It is neither only vertical, nor only horizontal.
It also spoke, when it was introduced, against the prevalent notion which preceded it, and which, alas, I'm old enough to remember, that one scuttled into church at 8 am on a Sunday morning once a month and 'made my Communion'.
I think I'd probably say that those who resent having to shake hands with all these nasty people are the ones who most need to. Those like the woman in the OP who most have the urge to drape themselves emotionally over everyone else, are the ones who would most benefit spiritually from restraining themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Anne
Slightly worried now that you might have been visiting one of our churches, as this is exactly what I do. I don't know which one is 'real', but I pray during both.
If I had the courage to ask it of our servers, I would have a bowl of warm water, soap, a proper towel and actually wash my hands, dispensing with the 'squirt' entirely, which is what +Michael Perham recommended when I was training.
Put like that, I think until you can make that change, it's the squirt one that's the 'real' one. If the 'liturgical' one is physically superfluous, it's liturgically superfluous as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger
Same here - though one or two of our people hold up their hands in the orans gesture whilst saying the Lord's Prayer. Nowt wrong with that, ISTM, but I thought the lifting up of the hands was the trad gesture in the Middle Ages at the elevation of the Host, no?
I agree. Why not? The whole notion that there's a right and wrong way of doing everything, that all must worship with synchronised and identical movements, and that these are either 'right' or 'wrong', may be how the 'Great Leader' is worshipped in North Korea, but has no place in any Christian Church.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
IMaybe he should bear my possible feelings in mind and defer to them, but it is just as easy or hard for me to defer to his express intentions isn't it?
Actually as both Chive and Jengie have indicated this isn't always the case - and I'm adding my
experience to theirs. After I was raped the peace made attending church incrediby difficult.
It's easier at the church I go to now as it's smaller and I feel more comfortable with the people, partly because they are more aware of possible boundary issues.
Huia
Yes, I take your point. I wa speaking for myself and realise that for some it is too hard for them to overcome their problems with physical touching, in which case of course the "touchers" should defer and if they will not, despite polite warning as in Chive's case, i would hope the church leaders would be willing to reinforce the message.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
My issues with the peace are due to anxiety, not me not liking the other people at my church.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gextvedde:
So hang on a minute. Does all of this mean I can't try and grab someones arse during the peace?
HAHAHA you made a joke about sexually harassing someone instead of giving them Christ's peace! What a droll substitution!
In such circumstances you may find yourself being greeted with improvised liturgical words and gestures such as "Fuck off, creeper."
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It is certainly not a general custom in France for people to hold hands during the Our Father.Of course there might be some places wher it is a custom but certainly not usual.
It is however very common for individuals to hold their hands in the orans position during the recitation of the Lord's prayer.This follows the custom of the priest at the same time.
France is the country where this practice is almost universal.In other countries,including the UK you will see isolated individuals who for a variety of reasons will do this.
Holding hands at the Our Father is something which I personally associate with German Lutherans
Of about eight French churches I have attended, only one featured worshippers with their hands in the orantes position. I have only run into paternoster hand-holding in TEC churches, and I fear that I was very audibly rebuked for having the "wrong attitude" when I did not join in.
I cannot begin to enumerate the times when the Peace was the occasion for a general social exchange in the congregation, sometimes lasting for 3-5 minutes. I can count the two times I was butt-squeezed during the Peace (once by a female, and the other time by a male, so I suppose that this was equal-time low-level sexual harassment) as well as a boob-mashing of a very insistent manner. I have always found the custom of the Peace false and troublesome (and spiritually distracting, but maybe it's me) in Canada and the US, but somehow it is genuine and natural in Spanish-speaking or French-speaking places.
In Canadian and US churches, I try to avoid it through seating myself in difficult-to-reach places. Combined with a lack of enthusiasm, this often works.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
What I find more embarrassing than sharing the Peace is the expectation that, if a small group says the Grace together, we should gaze meaningfully into each others' eyes instead of keeping our heads bowed prayerfully or making the sign of the cross. I don't want to prolong the tangent, except to ask if anyone else has come across this practice and does anyone know its provenance?
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Try coming to a non-conformist church and finding them not doing it. A friend, now departed to glory, used to refer to it as the "windscreen wiper grace", because the practice is actually to turn your head so quickly you do not catch anyone's eye.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What I find more embarrassing than sharing the Peace is the expectation that, if a small group says the Grace together, we should gaze meaningfully into each others' eyes instead of keeping our heads bowed prayerfully or making the sign of the cross. I don't want to prolong the tangent, except to ask if anyone else has come across this practice and does anyone know its provenance?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[runs screaming from the building]
[edited for a bizarre breakage of scroll-lock...]
[ 21. June 2013, 13:31: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What I find more embarrassing than sharing the Peace is the expectation that, if a small group says the Grace together, we should gaze meaningfully into each others' eyes instead of keeping our heads bowed prayerfully or making the sign of the cross. I don't want to prolong the tangent, except to ask if anyone else has come across this practice and does anyone know its provenance?
Whether you like it or not, it's very widespread.
It derives from the notion that the words are a prayer that we will all go forth with the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, and that we are all praying this for each other.
You may disagree with that way of expressing this notion, but it is hardly surprising that people might understand the words that way.
Tangent alert again, and nothing personal
Every time one hears discussion about funerals, somebody grumbles, entirely reasonably, about the inappropriate popularity of 'I did it my way'. I wonder whether most of us who post on this board should leave an instruction for a different version of the song to be sung when we go,
'Everyone else should have done it my way'.
Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on
:
Oh now you're talking! I attended an area meeting of parish reps last night which concluded with The Grace. From my position looking down the room from the 'top table' where I was sitting in order to minute the meeting, I witnessed the two different styles at close quarters. 50/50 split between those still, eyes closed and hands clasped as opposed to room sweeping, crinkle eyed grinners!
Obviously I was in the open eyed half so as to witness the variations, but I am perfecting a technique whereby I look around the gathering but in a manner that avoids meeting the eyes of anyone present!
Not sure how I first became aware of the alternative manner of sharing The Grace. I must have detected some diversion that distracted me from my observance of the traditional style but now I feel anti social if I keep still and close my eyes. Yet at the same time I am uncomfortable with the intimacy of looking into a semi strangers eyes whilst grinning like a loon! Obviously I need therapy or a stiff drink in order to undo my innate Britishness
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What I find more embarrassing than sharing the Peace is the expectation that, if a small group says the Grace together, we should gaze meaningfully into each others' eyes instead of keeping our heads bowed prayerfully or making the sign of the cross. I don't want to prolong the tangent, except to ask if anyone else has come across this practice and does anyone know its provenance?
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [runs screaming from the building]
You guys are honestly that threatened by mere eye contact? Wow.
And, yes, I know I've been kvetching about overly huggy-feely Peaces ... but the above doesn't bother me at all. In the right context, of course. My home group did this very thing last night. We stood up after a time of prayer, joined hands and shared the Grace with each other. A small group of folk who have known each other for years. A safe space.
It's just EYE CONTACT, fellas! Nobody's gonna jump on you and start doing weird things to ya. Not in my church or on my watch, anyhow.
[ 21. June 2013, 13:32: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No, not threatened, just find the whole "looking around at other people whilst saying the grace" thing unbelievably, toe-curlingly, embarrassing, weird and bizarre.
[ 21. June 2013, 09:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, not threatened, just find the whole "looking around at other people whilst saying the grace" thing unbelievably, toe-curlingly, embarrassing, weird and bizarre.
It's all right Laurelin. He's a bloke. We're just made that way.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I think all this touchy-feely, let's-be-nice-to-each-other-even-if-it-kills-us stuff is a side product of that vile modern heresy that the other people around me in church are my friends. I find the Quakers admirable and wonderful people, but I believe their one big mistake was calling themselves Friends. Jesus and Paul got it right: those other folk in church are our sisters and brothers, not our friends. Like sisters and brothers, we're stuck with them, and while we're commanded to love them, nobody says we have to actually like them.
Ooh. That's got all my Friday feeling out of my system. I feel much better now.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
A lot of the people in my church are my friends. That doesn't make me want to hug them, or catch their eye during the peace, any more than if I didn't know them from Adam. Friends do these sorts of things because they want to at a time when they want to. Not when the huggy touchy-feely twonk at the front thinks they should.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... the huggy touchy-feely twonk at the front ...
That should go in the Ship's Dictionary as the definition of "liturgical president".
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
You folks know avoidance maintains anxiety right ?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What I find more embarrassing than sharing the Peace is the expectation that, if a small group says the Grace together, we should gaze meaningfully into each others' eyes instead of keeping our heads bowed prayerfully or making the sign of the cross. I don't want to prolong the tangent, except to ask if anyone else has come across this practice and does anyone know its provenance?
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [runs screaming from the building]
You guys are honestly that threatened by mere eye contact? Wow.
And, yes, I know I've been kvetching about overly huggy-feely Peaces ... but the above doesn't bother me at all. In the right context, of course. My home group did this very thing last night. We stood up after a time of prayer, joined hands and shared the Grace with each other. A small group of folk who have known each other for years. A safe space.
It's just EYE CONTACT, fellas! Nobody's gonna jump on you and start doing weird things to ya. Not in my church or on my watch, anyhow.
I find eye contact very uncomfortable, to the point of physical discomfort.
[ 21. June 2013, 13:32: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
I think that when it comes to the peace, the person offering the sign should assume in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that the correct sign is a handshake.
I love hugging, but I will only hug people if I am firstly willing to hug them, and secondly and most critically, they are willing to hug me. If the second doesn't apply, the first is irrelevant.
Different churches I have attended do different things for the Peace. The vast majority expect the Peace to be shared in the immediate vicinity only, with limited leaving of pews - only a small minority of particular, usually small congregations adopt the "share as widely as you wish" style. Both require someone to pull it to a close with the next line of liturgy or announcing the next hymn before it gets entirely out of control...
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, not threatened, just find the whole "looking around at other people whilst saying the grace" thing unbelievably, toe-curlingly, embarrassing, weird and bizarre.
This is a New Thing isn't it? We also had a priest who wanted us to hold hands, the right palm facing down and left facing up to signify (I may have it backwards) that we support and are supported or something while saying the Grace. I didn't feel very supported by it myself. I was always looking above the heads of the others and trying to consider if the Grace actually meant anything to me personally in this context, I presume God got it. It was sort of a let's be a Borg hive mind of prayer.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I mentioned the eye-contact Grace thing because it made me realise that I feel the same discomfort with it that others feel about the Peace. So any attempt to coerce people to participate in either, beyond their comfort zone, is not on.
However what both customs, ISTM, are trying to do is to affirm the importance of our horizontal relationship with each other when we meet to worship God ('vertically', if you will forgive the bizarre geometry). In other words, the immanent (God with us) is as important as the transcendent (God the Wholly Other).
But if people are using their discomfort with physical expressions of these liturgical moments as an excuse to deny the importance of the 'horizontal' dimension of worship, let them be anathema. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
As far as I know no-one is. If anything, for me the awkwardness of these practices detracts from the reality of the horizontal component.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I find eye contact very uncomfortable, to the point of physical discomfort.
I think it works both ways. I would feel pretty disconcerted, to say the least, if somebody was avoiding eye contact with me on a date (for example). But if somebody doesn't want to catch my eye during the saying of the Peace or the Grace, that's a different matter. I wouldn't feel offended or put out, I would respect their boundaries.
But I deliberately make eye contact with - for example - shop assistants, to let them know that I realise I'm engaged in a social contract with a human being, not a robot.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You folks know avoidance maintains anxiety right ?
What's that got to do with finding a liturgical practice intrusive and fake?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
A number of people on this thread are saying that touch makes them uncomfortable / panicky for a variety of good reasons (eg PTSD) - avoiding touch (within legal cultural limits) will be likely to maintain and increase this anxiety in the long term.
That is rather different from the second group of people, who are effectively saying they find it over effusive / tacky.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I find the Quakers admirable and wonderful people, but I believe their one big mistake was calling themselves Friends. Jesus and Paul got it right: those other folk in church are our sisters and brothers, not our friends.
So John 15:15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SyNoddy:
I feel anti social if I keep still and close my eyes.
I am too busy making the sign of the cross to be able to touch anyone.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
One way of keeping the Peace "liturgical" is to share it out starting with the celebrant and radiating out, each person receiving the Peace from one person and then giving it to one person. Good luck switching to that, though, if the tradition has been that each one greets everyone else.
That is theologically dodgy IMHO. It's suggesting that God's Peace is the preserve of the Church and the clergy, and can only be mediated through them. Whereas greeting each other recognises the presence of God in Christ within every person.
Fair enough. But I got the idea from the Order of Julian of Norwich, where it's done that way, so take it up with them.
When the Peace was merely words sung between priest and people, it was preceded by the celebrant kissing the altar - which suggests that the idea was precisely that the Peace was the preserve of the clergy to give to the laity.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
I have a dim recollection - very dim as I was only about 10 at the time - that when it was first introduced the Peace was quite orderly. The minister passed the peace to the folks in the front pews and it was passed back, and out in an orderly manner. It took about a minute, and I did not mind it in the least.
Enter next ass. curate who liked to go walkabout (unfortunately not in the Australian sense) and the thing rapidly degenerated into a gab-and-grab fest, though North of England reserve tended to curb the grab element. I began to hate it thoroughly, and still do. It isn't a liturgical action, its a tea break in the liturgy (and no damn tea either!)
PD
[ 21. June 2013, 17:00: Message edited by: PD ]
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You folks know avoidance maintains anxiety right ?
And the middle of mass is the best time for exposure therapy?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... I began to hate it thoroughly, and still do. It isn't a liturgical action, its a tea break in the liturgy (and no damn tea either!)
But PD, aren't you an Archbishop? Doesn't that mean you can abolish it? Or are there some things not even an Archbishop can do?
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I simply omit the Peace.
Plenty of opportunity before and after the service to hug.
And no phony pretence involved.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
There's precious little opportunity in our society for people to know the comfort of touch with another person that isn't perceived as threatening or sexual. It is a great blessing that we have this opportunity without either of those connotations.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
I don't know what sharing the peace entails for others, but in my experience it is just a question of shaking hands with those around you and saying 'Peace be with you'. I quite like it - it's a way of making social contact in quite a structured way, where you're not wondering if you're doing it wrong, or what you should say, or if you're interrupting anyone. And if I'm new to a church, I find it helps me feel more comfortable and more accepted into the group.
Eye contact isn't necessary - you can just fake it by looking at the wrinkles round someone's eyes, and they think you're giving eye contact.
I never actually know what 'the peace' is supposed to be though. Is it supposed to be some tangible thing that we are handing round? I tend to see it as jargon, and I see the shaking hands as a way of people welcoming each other and expressing good wishes. Which they might not do otherwise, as people in England are so often reserved.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SyNoddy:
Oh now you're talking! I attended an area meeting of parish reps last night which concluded with The Grace. From my position looking down the room from the 'top table' where I was sitting in order to minute the meeting, I witnessed the two different styles at close quarters. 50/50 split between those still, eyes closed and hands clasped as opposed to room sweeping, crinkle eyed grinners!
Obviously I was in the open eyed half so as to witness the variations, but I am perfecting a technique whereby I look around the gathering but in a manner that avoids meeting the eyes of anyone present!
Not sure how I first became aware of the alternative manner of sharing The Grace. I must have detected some diversion that distracted me from my observance of the traditional style but now I feel anti social if I keep still and close my eyes. Yet at the same time I am uncomfortable with the intimacy of looking into a semi strangers eyes whilst grinning like a loon! Obviously I need therapy or a stiff drink in order to undo my innate Britishness
One of the nice things about the BAS in Canada is that it brought into use (as a doxology after communion) a bit of (I think) Ephesians -- the bit that starts: "Glory to God, whose power working in us can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine: to him....."
THis works brilliantly as a replacement for the Grace after just about any meeting.
John
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What I find more embarrassing than sharing the Peace is the expectation that, if a small group says the Grace together, we should gaze meaningfully into each others' eyes instead of keeping our heads bowed prayerfully or making the sign of the cross. I don't want to prolong the tangent, except to ask if anyone else has come across this practice and does anyone know its provenance?
In (British) Methodist churches it's routine to say the Grace with eyes open, looking around and trying to catch everyone's eye. It doesn't just happen in small groups, but at the end of ordinary church services.
Interesting to know that Anglicans find it rather distasteful!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
A number of people on this thread are saying that touch makes them uncomfortable / panicky for a variety of good reasons (eg PTSD) - avoiding touch (within legal cultural limits) will be likely to maintain and increase this anxiety in the long term.
And a church is the place to sort this out?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Well yes, ultimately. In fact, if you were doing a graded exposure - it is one of the few life situations where you could experience touch in a really safe space, time limited.
Posted by PD (# 12436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... I began to hate it thoroughly, and still do. It isn't a liturgical action, its a tea break in the liturgy (and no damn tea either!)
But PD, aren't you an Archbishop? Doesn't that mean you can abolish it? Or are there some things not even an Archbishop can do?
I have been in a blissful peace-free zone for the last 20 years, but my annual trip to the British Isles leads to occasional flash backs. I have to grit my teeth and worship with the Resolutions A, B & C brigade, most of whom seem to be ardent Anglo-Catholics. My liturgical preference is old-fashioned Central, but at least if there is a sharing of the peace in a Spiky Shack it tends to be not too effusive. When I am back in Lincolnshire I find Evensong very useful as the local parish has gone AffCath as I can dodge the mid-morning Parish Mass!
PD
[ 22. June 2013, 04:34: Message edited by: PD ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well yes, ultimately. In fact, if you were doing a graded exposure - it is one of the few life situations where you could experience touch in a really safe space, time limited.
Not always safe. Peace is sometimes used as a cover for inappropriate touching.
Then there's the painful arthritic hands problem, peace definitely unsafe because some people will grab yours even if you didn't offer a hand.
And there are people who just plain don't like to be touched by non-family, and never did. Call them reserved. Not everyone is made to be an extrovert!
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Any form of touching sends a message.
Here in Jerusalem, I observed that Arab men tend to be physically affectionate with one another. When greeting, they might kiss each other on their cheeks. Conversely in conservative Arab culture, physical touching between men and women, even among spouses, in public is taboo.
In North America, however, men who kiss each other on their cheeks = gay. Also, flirting between men and women in public is much more acceptable and seen as part of courtship.
There was one poster a few months ago who wondered why North American Christians no longer shared the kiss of peace the way Scripture details it. I'm betting that the first century Christians did not shake hands, but kissed each other on their cheeks as Arabs do today. However, the cultural context is vastly different.
Hugging perhaps is ambivalent as a message. There are some people who will hug just about anybody. On the other hand, I myself don't hug my family members (which doesn't mean I don't love or care for them, it means I express my love in other ways). So, for me, hugging a stranger or even an acquaintance during the Peace feels weird.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In (British) Methodist churches it's routine to say the Grace with eyes open, looking around and trying to catch everyone's eye. It doesn't just happen in small groups, but at the end of ordinary church services.
Ah, the Meerkat Blessing. Baptists do it too.
Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on
:
This comic song sums up how lots of people feel about sharing the peace. Enjoy!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Then there's the painful arthritic hands problem, peace definitely unsafe because some people will grab yours even if you didn't offer a hand.
And there are people who just plain don't like to be touched by non-family, and never did. Call them reserved. Not everyone is made to be an extrovert!
How do all these people manage in normal social situations? Shaking hands is expected in so many contexts, not just, or even mainly, church ones.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
There's precious little opportunity in our society for people to know the comfort of touch with another person that isn't perceived as threatening or sexual. It is a great blessing that we have this opportunity without either of those connotations.
Aren't you fortunate (no cynicism). For people like Chive, Huia and me it is never like that and there is a hint of violence against us. We would like it to be different, desire it to be different but we can no more help our life experiences than fly to the moon.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineC:
This comic song sums up how lots of people feel about sharing the peace. Enjoy!
Duly BookFaced.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Fineline -
I quite agree with your comments on the Peace as a social thing. Evangelicals won't agree with me, but symbolically it represents Matthew 5.23-24 "So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift."
Generally it represents the reconciliation of the members of the Body of Christ at the eucharist.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well yes, ultimately. In fact, if you were doing a graded exposure - it is one of the few life situations where you could experience touch in a really safe space, time limited.
Not always safe. Peace is sometimes used as a cover for inappropriate touching.
Then there's the painful arthritic hands problem, peace definitely unsafe because some people will grab yours even if you didn't offer a hand.
And there are people who just plain don't like to be touched by non-family, and never did. Call them reserved. Not everyone is made to be an extrovert!
I like sharing the peace as an introvert, not as an extrovert. This is because it's one of the few occasions where I do get to touch anyone.
In the mainstream churches I've been to hugging during the peace or otherwise isn't that common, except between close friends. It must be disagreeable to be faced with an unwelcome hugger - although it was a very 'huggy' clergywoman who got my mother to attend church again after many years, so I'd be reluctant to say hugging at church should be avoided altogether.
Where I live the mainstream churches have quite small congregations, so sharing the peace is presumably a less stressful experience for those who are affected by the problems mentioned above. And perhaps smaller, more elderly congregations are more understanding of these problems. (E.g. most attenders will probably have a touch of arthritis themselves.)
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Then there's the painful arthritic hands problem, peace definitely unsafe because some people will grab yours even if you didn't offer a hand.
And there are people who just plain don't like to be touched by non-family, and never did. Call them reserved. Not everyone is made to be an extrovert!
How do all these people manage in normal social situations? Shaking hands is expected in so many contexts, not just, or even mainly, church ones.
I never shake hands with anyone. To be honest it rarely comes up, maybe I don't move in the same social circles as you.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Yes as Chive says
Personal touch is rare for me. Shake hands if I need to after church and in other formal situations where it is part of the ritual. I rarely initiate a hug, my everyday body language says no and my experience says someone who does not negotiate patiently with me over personal touch is NOT TO BE TRUSTED.
Oddly if some will negotiate I am often willing but to assume you have permission is a red flag unless you are family.
Jengie
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Then there's the painful arthritic hands problem, peace definitely unsafe because some people will grab yours even if you didn't offer a hand.
And there are people who just plain don't like to be touched by non-family, and never did. Call them reserved. Not everyone is made to be an extrovert!
How do all these people manage in normal social situations? Shaking hands is expected in so many contexts, not just, or even mainly, church ones.
Aware that research shows that between 30-50% of the population does not wash between visits to the toilet, I have long avoided handshaking, whenever one could do so to avoid offence. Standing at a distance, holding objects or parcels in one's hand, waving or bowing, are all useful strategies.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Adding that I never avoid the peace, I just always dread it.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Fineline -
I quite agree with your comments on the Peace as a social thing. Evangelicals won't agree with me, but symbolically it represents Matthew 5.23-24 "So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift."
Generally it represents the reconciliation of the members of the Body of Christ at the eucharist.
That's exactly why if it is done, it should be done BEFORE the eucharist "leave .... and go and then...." Don't even presume to come to the altar with a problem going on: if there isn't a problem then there's peace and you don't need to do it.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well yes, ultimately. In fact, if you were doing a graded exposure - it is one of the few life situations where you could experience touch in a really safe space, time limited.
I'd respectfully point you to the facts that abuse happens in church contexts too.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Then there's the painful arthritic hands problem, peace definitely unsafe because some people will grab yours even if you didn't offer a hand.
And there are people who just plain don't like to be touched by non-family, and never did. Call them reserved. Not everyone is made to be an extrovert!
How do all these people manage in normal social situations? Shaking hands is expected in so many contexts, not just, or even mainly, church ones.
I never shake hands with anyone. To be honest it rarely comes up, maybe I don't move in the same social circles as you.
Agree - and outside church it is very rare to have ten or more people come up and shake hands within the space of a minute - unless you are an insincere politician.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well yes, ultimately. In fact, if you were doing a graded exposure - it is one of the few life situations where you could experience touch in a really safe space, time limited.
I'd respectfully point you to the facts that abuse happens in church contexts too.
Not generally in the middle of a service in front of witnesses - besides which this is a discussion of a liturgical practice rather than criminal behaviour.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
I don't mind shaking hands with those next to me as a sign. I don't like at a weekday service when everyone thinks they have to shake everyone else's hand. I try not to but then feel pressured to because everyone else is!
Far worse is at Sunday mass when it becpmes a free for all, and sometimes the priests carry on wandering around when the laity gave up quite a while before.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well yes, ultimately. In fact, if you were doing a graded exposure - it is one of the few life situations where you could experience touch in a really safe space, time limited.
I'd respectfully point you to the facts that abuse happens in church contexts too.
Not generally in the middle of a service in front of witnesses - besides which this is a discussion of a liturgical practice rather than criminal behaviour.
I am afraid it does Doublethink, it is normally part of a bigger thing but it is the small insidious crossing of boundaries that looks benign of itself but actually is part of a far bigger pattern. The victim is far less likely to make a fuss when it happens as part of liturgy as well.
Jengie
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I have an idea.
Find a sympathetic person or two in the congregation and explain your difficulty. Then when it's time to share the peace, hold on to them and look as thought you're having a deep and meaningful interaction with them. Other people will skirt around you hoping to shake your hand, but because you're so engrossed in your interaction with this one person time will run out and everyone will have to sit back down before they've touched you.
This probably won't work in a church where the peace takes up a whole lot of time.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
Fantastic suggestion!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
That is a wonderful suggestion! As I mentioned, our church has a relatively small congregation, so you don't get given a choice - you have to share the peace with *everyone*! We are quite bossily friendly.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That is a wonderful suggestion! As I mentioned, our church has a relatively small congregation, so you don't get given a choice - you have to share the peace with *everyone*! We are quite bossily friendly.
Plan B: Use the time to try signing people up for church committees and volunteer opportunities. They will catch on quickly.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Then there's the painful arthritic hands problem, peace definitely unsafe because some people will grab yours even if you didn't offer a hand.
And there are people who just plain don't like to be touched by non-family, and never did. Call them reserved. Not everyone is made to be an extrovert!
How do all these people manage in normal social situations? Shaking hands is expected in so many contexts, not just, or even mainly, church ones.
I've been trying to think when is the last time I shook hands with anyone outside church?
It seems to be a gesture reserved for meeting a stranger at the start of a social or business one-on-one conversation. Even most of those, there's no handshake - not with the bank teller or restaurant waiter, for example.
The start of a conversation that does not follow ritual wording can easily include "sorry, I can't shake hands, arthritis." Also usually handshakes are with one or two people, not 20, a huge difference in the amount of physical strain.
But what intrigues me is the contrast between the societal handshake as the start of a conversation between strangers, vs handshake as the whole of a brief encounter with people you already know and would not formally shake hands with in real life because that would be distancing them.
Maybe a formality distancing existing relationships is why the peace comes across as stilted (to some of us), and why some people prefer to hug if they already know you?
Thinking out loud.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well yes, ultimately. In fact, if you were doing a graded exposure - it is one of the few life situations where you could experience touch in a really safe space, time limited.
I find myself feeling 2 ways at once about this. First, that you're right, it could be a place for graduated exposure.
But the second way I'm thinking about it is that it may well distract from the point of the liturgy which about prayer and god and all that stuff.
I'm also considering the extension of the exposure to others with the eye contact version of the Grace, and the additional hands holding practice we're seeing. It also may well steer towards social things, like working out eye contact.
This whole discussion has me realizing that, if there's a scale running from 0 to 10, with introversion in worship at 0, and extroversion in worship at 10, I'm running at about a 4. I'm okay with short, focussed greeting: "peace be with you", "peace of Christ" (the two most common phrases I hear), with a handshake, and not wanting a full factorial that requires all must greet all others in the pews. Everyone gets to "do" the two on either side, and perhaps 2 or three in pew in front, and the same behind, and we're back from this brief commercial/greeting interruption into our regularly scheduled liturgy.
Thus:
Rule #1, don't leave your place in the pew to mingle cocktail party like.
Query:
How to enforce or otherwise make happen?
Query #2:
How to let people just do the eyes open or closed/not looking at others in the Grace, against the current fashion of lovingly gazing around the room?
[[Here I sit considering tomorrow, and what it will be like! Well, I guess it'll be just fine if there's no Shine Jesus Shine or She Flies On!!]]
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Fineline -
I quite agree with your comments on the Peace as a social thing. Evangelicals won't agree with me, but symbolically it represents Matthew 5.23-24 "So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift."
Generally it represents the reconciliation of the members of the Body of Christ at the eucharist.
That's exactly why if it is done, it should be done BEFORE the eucharist "leave .... and go and then...." Don't even presume to come to the altar with a problem going on: if there isn't a problem then there's peace and you don't need to do it.
Ah. I didn't know it was supposed to represent reconciliation. But thinking about it, in my experience, I think it is generally done before the eucharist. I can't think of an occasion when it's been done after.
What do the evangelicals believe about the peace? In my experience, evangelicals don't do the peace - at least, at all the evangelical churches I've been to. It's the Anglicans and Catholics who do it.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
What do the evangelicals believe about the peace? In my experience, evangelicals don't do the peace - at least, at all the evangelical churches I've been to. It's the Anglicans and Catholics who do it.
I'm evangelical(ish) and, as far as I recall, have only come across the Peace when I've been at Anglican services. I had no strong opinion either way about the Peace until this thread, really. However, taking part in this discussion has made me think it's a pretty tokenistic nod towards unity and reconciliation, which tends to cause more trouble than it's worth - in terms of the potential for anguish in those with social anxiety issues and the like, and the possibility of excluding certain people.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
However, taking part in this discussion has made me think it's a pretty tokenistic nod towards unity and reconciliation, which tends to cause more trouble than it's worth - in terms of the potential for anguish in those with social anxiety issues and the like, and the possibility of excluding certain people.
Maybe it's different for me because I'm on the autism spectrum, but while I often find social situations quite difficult, I find sharing of the peace to be relatively easy and straightforward. All you have to do is shake hands with people and say 'peace be with you'. Even growing up going to evangelical churches, shaking hands was something I learnt to do there - even though we didn't share the peace, the people greeting you at the door always shook your hand, and the pastor would shake your hand before you left. I find staying for coffee in the hall after the church service to be a lot more socially difficult and confusing and awkward than sharing the peace.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Maybe it's different for me because I'm on the autism spectrum, but while I often find social situations quite difficult, I find sharing of the peace to be relatively easy and straightforward. All you have to do is shake hands with people and say 'peace be with you'.
Except it seems that shaking hands and saying 'Peace be with you' isn't always the limit of what's expected! If it were, then fine - but apparently some people are keen to hug any- and everyone at the Peace, even those who are giving pretty clear 'don't hug me' non-verbal signals...
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Except it seems that shaking hands and saying 'Peace be with you' isn't always the limit of what's expected! If it were, then fine - but apparently some people are keen to hug any- and everyone at the Peace, even those who are giving pretty clear 'don't hug me' non-verbal signals...
Ah, yes, that makes sense. Once we had a preacher who encouraged us to give each other a holy kiss. Most of the congregation were quite sensitive to whether this would be appropriate or welcome, but there is one guy who doesn't have a very good awareness of boundaries and appropriateness, and he had a big crush on me, so he came bounding over to me in delight, all excited that he could give me a kiss, and completely not reading my non-verbal 'No, I don't want a kiss - go away!' signals. Churches often seem to have such people though - people who don't fit in anywhere else because of their lack of social understanding, but are accepted at church because church has to accept everyone. And I think it's good that they are accepted, especially because I am also someone who has difficulty understanding social cues. But at the same time such people can make you uncomfortable, and not just during the peace.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Ah, yes, that makes sense. Once we had a preacher who encouraged us to give each other a holy kiss. Most of the congregation were quite sensitive to whether this would be appropriate or welcome, but there is one guy who doesn't have a very good awareness of boundaries and appropriateness, and he had a big crush on me, so he came bounding over to me in delight, all excited that he could give me a kiss, and completely not reading my non-verbal 'No, I don't want a kiss - go away!' signals. Churches often seem to have such people though - people who don't fit in anywhere else because of their lack of social understanding, but are accepted at church because church has to accept everyone. And I think it's good that they are accepted, especially because I am also someone who has difficulty understanding social cues. But at the same time such people can make you uncomfortable, and not just during the peace.
I'm a regular church visitor, and I'm afraid that the churches that purport to be the most welcoming tend to be not the best at accommodating for special needs and challenges. There is often a leadership vibe of:
"You should not be looking in books, but looking up"
"You should be all about hugs and kisses at the peace"
"You should be a social butterfly"
The heart is in the right place, but it just pushes the old American feeling that louder and more social is better than quiet.
I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised, for the people that congregations and bishops identify as good candidates for ordination probably tend to fall into that American social ideal more often than not.
In my own Lutheran context, seminary worship tends toward the principles I mentioned above. It's no wonder that this would eventually make its way to the churches.
Unfortunately, this effort at personality realignment is ultimately doomed to fail. We are all different, and we all have our own preferences and needs.
Rather than wasting energies trying to change people into something they are not, why not spend that energy trying to meet people where they are?
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
The heart is in the right place, but it just pushes the old American feeling that louder and more social is better than quiet.
A church I used to belong to in another state seems to be doing very well but comes across through its website as having become a church of extroverts. Not that it was a church of introverts before, but now it looks like everyone's got a maniacal smile and is just running around doing all kinds of great stuff.
Which is terrific, but I hope if I get up the courage to go and visit, it'll still be the place that welcomes all including me, the most introverted person I know (or just about). Not that I never smile or do anything...oh well, I'll just leave it there.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
Which is terrific, but I hope if I get up the courage to go and visit, it'll still be the place that welcomes all including me, the most introverted person I know (or just about). Not that I never smile or do anything...oh well, I'll just leave it there.
I hear ya. A not insignificant number of suburban churches in a certain Midwestern Episcopal diocese have a bit of an issue with a ridiculously long and conversational sharing of the peace. One place in particular (after almost eight minutes) actually used the altar bell to call people back to order. To make matters worse, they didn't even use the bell at the consecration! One would think that a visitor giving up and sitting down to flip absentmindedly through a hymnal would be a Major Red Flag, but apparently not. It was not all drama; I was truly uncomfortable and exasperated.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I find staying for coffee in the hall after the church service to be a lot more socially difficult and confusing and awkward than sharing the peace.
Same here.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Had the usual nomadic interval during the Peace at our place yesterday.
Waited 2 full minutes after Peace was pronounced before giving full verse playover (6 line verse plus 2 line refrain) then start on the FIVE verses.
People were still wandering about in the middle of verse 2. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Result: in small village church with fewer than 70 congregation offertory procession didn't start till the hymn had finished.
Shambles
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Result: in small village church with fewer than 70 congregation offertory procession didn't start till the hymn had finished.
Shambles
In situations like this I'm at a loss as to why it's considered inappropriate or bad form (or whatever the reason is!) for someone to say 'Could everyone please find their seats again, please'. I know it interrupts the 'flow' a little bit, but isn't that preferable to the people leading the service getting annoyed / upset / distracted by the delay that enthusiastic Peace-sharing causes?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Well, I've certainly done that - or given a quick instruction beforehand for folk not to roam too widely.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
The usual cue here (we use the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, so the Pax is just before the Agnus Dei - don't get me started on how much I despise that) is for the celebrant to simply intone the beginning of the Agnus Dei. People tend to get the message. Sadly this only works reliably at Low Mass, because for some reason we've decreed that everything at the Sunday Mass is to be preceded by pointless organ introductions.
On a marginally tangential note, I'd so much prefer it if the peace could be confined to the versicle and response (V: The peace of the Lord &c R: And with thy Spirit), as is liturgically sound, the priest half turning to give it, such that his back is not to the sacrament. Then both introverts and liturgical geeks - everyone except the huggers, in fact - is happy.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In (British) Methodist churches it's routine to say the Grace with eyes open, looking around and trying to catch everyone's eye. It doesn't just happen in small groups, but at the end of ordinary church services.
Ah, the Meerkat Blessing. Baptists do it too.
Haha! Never heard that before.
Anglican Morning Prayer (Church of Ireland) can - and in my case always does - conclude with saying the Grace. And all our church meetings end with it, too. However, I was always taught to say it eyes closed in my early days.
I have noticed with a few of my Methodist friends that they've found it necessary in prayer meetings etc, to tag the Grace onto the end, even when it's clear that the final prayer was the final prayer. A kind of liturgical compulsion/tic, as in no gathering is properly sanctified unless someone has said it?
I don't always close my eyes these days, but I have to admit I hate the catching people's eyes and grinning inanely bit and would rather not do it if I can avoid it. I can understand 'sharing the Peace' might involve shaking hands or greeting others in some way. Liturgically it is something we 'do' to one another. But the Grace isn't. It's something we pray for ourselves and with others. So I'm not sure why the eyeball rolling mad grinning is supposed to come into it.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Anselmina
I think it's mostly a question of what people are used to. I've never had an issue with sharing the Grace in this way. But then, my thing in recent years has been to look for more mutual engagement in worship, and since there's so little of it otherwise I'm happy to see the Grace performed in this way. In fact, that's probably why I'm also happy with sharing the Peace.
No, I've never come across that reference to meerkats either!
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The usual cue here (we use the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, so the Pax is just before the Agnus Dei - don't get me started on how much I despise that) is for the celebrant to simply intone the beginning of the Agnus Dei.
I've been known to start the Agnus Dei myself if I think there is an excess of faffing about. (Admittedly at a low mass with only a few people present.)
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
My friend at church hates the 'peace' ritual and has been known to say 'pieces of eight or piece of biscuit' in protest. I can understand where she is coming from as the whole ritual often turns into what might be called a love in. I always understood that you only greeted the people either side of you, not every Tom, Dick and Harry. It always takes so long that it disturbs the flow of the service and I could probably nip out the back and grab a cup of tea during the break. As for strangers kissing me - no thankyou! ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
I wouldn't have given the lady a second opportunity, but just moved away in the other direction.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
My friend at church hates the 'peace' ritual and has been known to say 'pieces of eight or piece of biscuit' in protest.
This did make me smile ! But I think it's a little egocentric and ignorant, too. People who grab or kiss or do inappropriate stuff at the Peace are wrong because they're making an exchange of Christ's peace between believers all about themselves. And I'm afraid your friend, imo, is falling into exactly the same trap. But in her case her inappropriate behaviour is making fun of a liturgical ritual and dragging her co-worshippers into her mockery of it.
If she doesn't like the Peace she doesn't have to do or say anything - she can politely ignore it as many people do. She doesn't have to go out of her way to take the Peace of Christ and make a joke out of it. Maybe everyone she does this with finds it hilarious. But there might be those who, genuinelly sharing the Peace of Christ with her, are a little insulted by her response or approach. That's what I mean when I say she's making it all about herself: precisely the same reason why all those bear-huggers and bottom-grabbers are such a pain.
Of course, if she's just being mischievous between friends, I guess she could argue that Jesus is in on the joke and doesn't really mind.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
That does seem like an example of the sort of naff jokeyness that's often indulged in especially by clergy who are embarrassed by any kind of liturgical solemnity. I wonder what the reaction to this (or any other sort of frivolous exchange) is on the part of the presiding minister?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Amen, Sister Anselmina, you sure preach it as it is, praise the Lord.
(Just been to see James Baldwin's play The Amen Corner at the National Theatre, London, and the linguistic register is quite easy to slip into. It was wonderful with the London Community Gospel Choir giving their all.)
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
Reminds me of that hymn ' keep us in one unbroken peace'
What was the hymnwriter thinking of?
I've always got an image of smashed crockery whenever that hymn comes up!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0