s/o physical greetings etc. in church

[SKL]

The church I normally go to (when I go) tells everyone to shake hands and greet each other early in the service.  This was not a thing in any church I had attended before, and I really hate it.  I used to come late to church to avoid it, but then they started moving it later in the service.  UGH.  They quit it during Covid and I hoped it wouldn't come back but ... back it came.

Apparently some other churches are even more physical.  I want to understand why that is considered desirable.

First of all, some people don't like being touched by people outside their close family.  Secondly, some might say it's asking for trouble when you normalize people touching folks of the opposite sex when they are married/committed to someone else [or even if they aren't].  Thirdly, does this really accomplish anything?  Why do we have to do this?

I am considering  looking for another church if I ever resume attending.  Although I like things about the church, I don't feel connected there ... all that forced touching apparently didn't do its job, LOL.  If anything, it accentuated the fact that even after all these years, the majority of people are still so distant that I feel awkward shaking their hand.

[This might just be me ... but being a single mom, I do have the additional concern of not wanting anyone to think I'm "on the prowl" looking for a nice church-going man.  If I go to church, it's to briefly escape mundane thinking and rise above it.  Not to wonder how so-and-so's wife might be looking at me.]

Edited August 19, 2023 by SKL

[Farrar]

This is not an uncommon element of worship at a lot of churches to have a physical element like a handshake be part of the greeting or the passing of the peace. The church I grew up in had that. In a totally different denomination, the church where my mother worked as children's minister also had a version of it. One of the churches my grandparents attended in another state had a version as well. I've also been to churches that don't do this. Just saying... it's not uncommon. 

As to why it's desirable, human connection in lots of forms can be an integral part of spirituality. We're all very alert in this day and age to abuse and consent, which is good. Not to mention germs. But there's also something to be said for things that foster human connection and a brief handshake or hug can absolutely be one of those things.

But if it's not you, it's not you. And that's okay. You should be in a spiritual community where you feel comfortable and at home.

[ktgrok]

Thoughts...

My church says to "greet one another as you feel comfortable" and specifically says in the bulliten and usually out loud that some will be more comfortable with a wave or holding peace sign (during covid everyone used the peace sign or elbow bump instead of shaking hands). If you don't want to shake hands you just preemptively wave or nod and people get it. 

That said, are you seriously saying that shaking someone's hand is somehow flirting or implies interest in a sexual relationship or something? Sure, I'm against making out in the sanctuary, but exchanging normal handshakes like you would with a business colleague isn't likely to lead anyone down a path of sin.  It is a normal greeting for our society. 

In other communities a normal greeting may be a hug, or a kiss on the cheek, and I wouldn't think those are flirting either if they are the typical greeting of the community. 

But no one should feel forced into physical contact if they have sensory or other issues that make such contact uncomfortable. I'm kind of sad that just quickly shaking hands has become so uncomfortable for so many - human contact is such a basic human need, and I can't help but think that there is something to be gained in a young person shaking hands with people of different ages and backgrounds - feeling the callouses and cuts on the mechanic's hand, feeling the paperthin skin of the elderly woman, etc. In Jesus's time people kissed, now we find a hand shake too much. So I think shaking hands is good for us if we are not truly just miserable from it. And if we are, people should be compassionate and follow our signals to just wave instead. 

[maize]

There are plenty of churches that don't do greetings as part of the service; if greetings detract from your church experience you'd probably be happier attending a different church.

Human touch can be an element of community-building; I'm one who appreciates touch--I'd be quite happy to hug everyone every day. But I understand that lots of people feel differently. I have one son who very much does not like hugs--or to be touched by other people in general--and I respect that. I would hope that a religious community would be able to respect and accommodate individual preferences regarding physical contact as well.

[knitgrl]

There's an old New Yorker cartoon this reminds me of. There are two couples that have spent an evening together and now they are are saying goodbye and hugging. And the caption reads something like, "I miss shaking hands."

[SKL]

To be clear, I don't think shaking hands is a sexual thing, but the whole touch and closeness thing makes me extra aware of how men's wives etc. are looking at me.  I guess it's part of the attitude that single moms are probably less moral than married women.

[ktgrok]

Ok, so it turns out I feel more strongly about this than I realized, lol....enough to pull up some articles about it. 

This one comes from my own spiritual background and in reading it I learned that at the time of my baptism the church did NOT pass the peace! It was added back into the liturgy with the 1979 prayer book, and I was baptized in 1976. I was obviously too young to remember a time when we didn't. In my own experience, I remember at one small church I attended the priest would leave the altar and shake hands with EVERY person there, because he said before communion he needed to be sure he was right with everyone, just as Jesus said. https://www.stgeorgescalgary.com/who-we-are/we-are-anglican/pages/what-is-passing-the-peace

This is from a Presbyterian church, it goes into the "holy kiss" greeting and states (which I also agree with) The passing of the peace has been a central element of the Christian tradition almost as long as there has been a Christian tradition. https://www.fpch.org/blog/the-passing-of-the-peace-symbolic-or-sacred-by-nelson-steinert#:~:text=The passing of the peace has been a central element,the majority of Paul's letters.

From a reformed tradition -This was my favorite as far as just the modern and yet timeless meaning of shaking hands and how our bodies reflect and also shape our thoughts. https://www.reformedworship.org/article/march-2011/passing-peace

"Post-game handshakes are a time-honored tradition. Little League baseball players, traveling soccer teams, and NCAA athletes never miss this ritual of sportsmanship. During the game they “fight,” engage in “battle,” “conquer,” or suffer “defeat.” But at the end of the day athletes are not at war. By a simple hand gesture, athletes declare that they are at peace.

Communal practices like post-game handshakes are simple but profound in meaning and significance....

Christian worship is filled with profound actions: heads bowed in prayer, arms raised in praise, standing in reverence during a Scripture reading, coming forward to give an offering. One ancient and significant gesture in worship is the passing of the peace. Passing the peace is a tradition rooted in Scripture that embodies our identity as peacemakers (Matt. 5:9; 2 Cor. 5:20) and trains ours hearts, hands, and tongues in the ways of peace."

(sorry about wonky font size...I need more coffee to figure out how to fix it)

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by ktgrok

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, SKL said:

To be clear, I don't think shaking hands is a sexual thing, but the whole touch and closeness thing makes me extra aware of how men's wives etc. are looking at me.  I guess it's part of the attitude that single moms are probably less moral than married women.

Ok, if you are at a church where people think single moms are immoral you likely need a whole different church. Handshakes or no handshakes. Cause that's a horrid vibe to be feeling. And I get that likely no one said it out loud, but I also know what it is like to pick up on icky vibes. Hugs. 

[Murphy101]

We have the exchange of peace which is an optional thing that the priest can omit if he wants and some do during flu season.

I do the mini head now with hands together and a smile thing. I’m sure everyone just assumes I’m a germaphobe and I’m good with letting them think that.  However, I also go all out for my people in my pew. So I give them all a big hug and maybe a kiss on the forehead or cheek and by the time I’m done with my people, there’s no time to do more than make eye contact and smile at the people in the pew in front of me. 

[Bootsie]

I have attended church services in which a very simple "passing of the peace" is observed, with a brief time of a handshake and a "peace be with you" and "also with you" exchanged with a couple of people nearby.  I have also attended church services with a more prolonged passing the peace where the minister and members intentionally greet a wide range of people, making sure that everyone is included.  This ancient ritual can be powerful.

I also attended a church that adopted a "passing of the peace" which seemed more like a cocktail hour--People talked to people that they knew "Oh Sally, how did you like the party last night...  It was so late when we got home, it was hard to get up this morning...  Did you talk to Betty about going shopping this Thursday..  Oh, great, let's have lunch, too..."  Those outside the social circle often stood awkwardly watching and visitors felt like outsiders.  I found that detracted from the worship service rather than adding to it.  

[Farrar]

9 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I have attended church services in which a very simple "passing of the peace" is observed, with a brief time of a handshake and a "peace be with you" and "also with you" exchanged with a couple of people nearby.  I have also attended church services with a more prolonged passing the peace where the minister and members intentionally greet a wide range of people, making sure that everyone is included.  This ancient ritual can be powerful.

I also attended a church that adopted a "passing of the peace" which seemed more like a cocktail hour--People talked to people that they knew "Oh Sally, how did you like the party last night...  It was so late when we got home, it was hard to get up this morning...  Did you talk to Betty about going shopping this Thursday..  Oh, great, let's have lunch, too..."  Those outside the social circle often stood awkwardly watching and visitors felt like outsiders.  I found that detracted from the worship service rather than adding to it.  

The church I grew up in could be like that. When my mother was on ministerial staff, it drove her nuts and she tried to get it changed but with only a little success. I think she got them to move it to an earlier part of the service so it felt a bit more like settling in and less like a huge interruption of the service.

But this brings up something that's also in the OP, which is that I've really observed that in groups and out groups are a huge problem for churches. It's honestly why we left our church when my kids were little. It was nearly impossible to "break in" and after several years of participating, trying to get more involved, there was a money Sunday where people talked about what a deep meaning the church had for their families and we looked at each other and were like, it just doesn't do that for us. And we ended up leaving. So not exactly the goal of the fundraising. I think churches have to fight HARD against the tendency to rely on just a few members and to end up with lots of cliques. And some churches just don't try very hard. I can imagine that the passing of the peace could be a major highlight of who's in and who doesn't quite fit if it has a more informal touchy part.

[HomeAgain]

Touch is a love language. It indicates a close relationship, which some churches want people to assume they have with each other.  Kind of the 'fake it till you make it' mindset of 'if we touch, we will be kinder to each other.'

 

I say bollocks and it's quite uncomfortable for me to be in those situations.  I don't like people touching me unless I initiate it (children are an exception). I have to say it was one thing I did appreciate in my Catholic upbringing- there's much less forced touch (handshakes are more customary) in the churches I have gone to than in Protestant-based churches.

[Faith-manor]

My issue is that every church I attended as a child was forcible contact. The announcement from the pulpit was "Hug each other in the name of the lord" or similar jazz like that. Adults forced children and teens to have physical contact. It was like being pawed on by a gazillion people and you were not allowed to say no because it was considered disrespectful to your elders. And the creepy men would rub your back while they "hugged" you. Handshakes would have been preferred, but even then, these were not the business quick hand shake things because the creepy people lingered and gave you the willies. 

OP, it is kind of judgemental to assume that people are so starved for physical affection that the church must fill this gap or even should fill this gap. Do you really know that when people arrive on Sunday morning that they are so deprived in their lives of personal contact within their own family or inner circle of friends that this is necessarily a public good that should be thrust upon them in a worship service in order to be emotionally healthy? That is really a major leap.

My parents were very close with us. We had lots of hugging, grandparents that lived two blocks away and cuddled us, aunts and uncles whom we all hugged hello and goodbye. Very close family friends who were kind and loving, and everyone hugged. We were an affectionate family. The idea that people need this from a whole bunch of people they may or may not know well at church for a worship setting is, I think, quite a startling conclusion that everyone is starved for affection and the church must therefore provide it. 

Just because it is a tradition to do it, that doesn't mean it is good.

People need physical affection. They need it from people with whom they have a trusting relationship, family, very close personal friends. They don't need it from a crowd in a public place, and I don't really know how putting people on the spot and forcing them to either acquiesce in order to fit in or not participate and then ostracizing them is a very loving thing to do. The ostrasizing is absolutely a thing.

Sure there are probably people who are living alone or in families whose physical contact is unhealthy. But that doesn't mean crowdsourcing affection is appropriate either.

Surely there is some way to have a greeting time in which people can simply chat, smile, wave and not feel forced into unwanted physical contact without then being "the odd duck" and on the outside with the church goers who are happy to handshake, hug, whatever with each other.

 

[Bootsie]

I think there is a spiritual impact on the person offering a sign of peace as much as there is to the recipient.  I am an introvert and not much of a "physical touch" kind of person; it is much more comfortable for me to sit quietly in my world during a church service.  But the passing of the peace forces me to greet those I do not know (the homeless, those who do not look like me, those who I think are unclean...) as equal brothers and sisters in Christ.  It also pushes me, when I am holding a grudge or am angry at someone, to push me to pray for God's peace for them.  

[Indigo Blue]

I have all kinds of mixed feelings. I’m introverted, and I don’t initiate a hug very often (outside of my family). Sometimes I make myself, but I do actually care and want them to know that. It’s just more of an insecurity about myself, I guess, that I don’t confidently go up without any inhibitions and hug people the way some people do. The church we are at now has lots of hand shaking and hugging. One we have been visiting has very little. 
 

Having said that, I do see where it can be uncomfortable for some or a lot of people. I especially don’t like it during flu season. 
I’d be fine without doing it. 
 

There is a man at our current church (not the same man I posted about) that grabs everyone and bear hugs them. Then he kisses the women on the cheek with a loud smack. Although it’s socially uncomfortable, I get none of the same vibes I got from that other man’s hand on my shoulder. The bear hug guy squeezes the breath out of me and wears very strong cologne that I smell on me for the rest of the day. For some reason, he stopped going around doing that lately. Maybe his wife made him stop. I do think that he should not be doing that. I DO think that men just need to stop touching women in church. 
 

I visited a super modern church with an awesome live band, movie theatre style seats, and fancy sound/lighting. No one knows I’m even there. The only person greeting is the one man who stands outside and greets you as you walk in. Otherwise, you are completely invisible. Complete opposite end of the spectrum. 
 

I think at any Southern Baptist church you’ll have lots of touching and hugging. There’s a lot less in the Methodist one we are visiting. 
 

But gee…..there’s a whole new problem there. When they do communion, the pastor pulls a tiny wad of bread off one big loaf and hands it to each person. Each person dips their bread in the same cup. They line up to get the bread. Everyone’s hands are touching during the bread exchange and then it goes to their mouth. We don’t participate because I am gluten free. I’m so relieved. 

 

[ktgrok]

17 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

My issue is that every church I attended as a child was forcible contact. The announcement from the pulpit was "Hug each other in the name of the lord" or similar jazz like that. Adults forced children and teens to have physical contact. It was like being pawed on by a gazillion people and you were not allowed to say no because it was considered disrespectful to your elders. And the creepy men would rub your back while they "hugged" you. Handshakes would have been preferred, but even then, these were not the business quick hand shake things because the creepy people lingered and gave you the willies. 

OP, it is kind of judgemental to assume that people are so starved for physical affection that the church must fill this gap or even should fill this gap. Do you really know that when people arrive on Sunday morning that they are so deprived in their lives of personal contact within their own family or inner circle of friends that this is necessarily a public good that should be thrust upon them in a worship service in order to be emotionally healthy? That is really a major leap.

My parents were very close with us. We had lots of hugging, grandparents that lived two blocks away and cuddled us, aunts and uncles whom we all hugged hello and goodbye. Very close family friends who were kind and loving, and everyone hugged. We were an affectionate family. The idea that people need this from a whole bunch of people they may or may not know well at church for a worship setting is, I think, quite a startling conclusion that everyone is starved for affection and the church must therefore provide it. 

Just because it is a tradition to do it, that doesn't mean it is good.

People need physical affection. They need it from people with whom they have a trusting relationship, family, very close personal friends. They don't need it from a crowd in a public place, and I don't really know how putting people on the spot and forcing them to either acquiesce in order to fit in or not participate and then ostracizing them is a very loving thing to do. The ostrasizing is absolutely a thing.

Sure there are probably people who are living alone or in families whose physical contact is unhealthy. But that doesn't mean crowdsourcing affection is appropriate either.

Surely there is some way to have a greeting time in which people can simply chat, smile, wave and not feel forced into unwanted physical contact without then being "the odd duck" and on the outside with the church goers who are happy to handshake, hug, whatever with each other.

 

Ok...so I was responding with the assumption we were talking about hand shakes as the standard, not hugs as the standard. I do agree that a hug is more problematic as far as intruding on people's comfort zone. I think even an introvert can, assuming no ASD or OCD or immune system problems, handle a brief handshake and the symbolism is important enough to push through and make the effort as a gesture of peace and brotherhood. 

A hug is more than I would ask someone to "push through" given it is not the customary greeting among Americans.  And I certainly would never force a child to hug someone they didn't want to hug. A handshake? I'd not force them, but I do encourage them and usually even my toddlers were happy to partake in that. 

[Indigo Blue]

Some of the men who shake my hand squeeze too hard. It really hurts, and the bones in my hands are pressed painfully together. 

[ktgrok]

5 minutes ago, Indigo Blue said:

Some of the men who shake my hand squeeze too hard. It really hurts, and the bones in my hands are pressed painfully together. 

yikes!!!! I think it is TOTALLY appropriate to say, "Ouch!" loudly if that happens! Someone needs to teach them how to shake appropriately! I even warn my kids as they get older to be extra gentle when shaking elderly people's hands due to arthritis. 

[SKL]

28 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

OP, it is kind of judgemental to assume that people are so starved for physical affection that the church must fill this gap or even should fill this gap. Do you really know that when people arrive on Sunday morning that they are so deprived in their lives of personal contact within their own family or inner circle of friends that this is necessarily a public good that should be thrust upon them in a worship service in order to be emotionally healthy? That is really a major leap.

 

 

I wasn't thinking that at all.  Off to see what part of my OP said any of that.

[MercyA]

A denomination in my area--attended by one of my friends--includes a "holy kiss" in their services (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26). Women kiss women on the cheek and men kiss men. I have also seen Amish people doing this at their church services. It's not for me. 😉

And as I mentioned recently, the pastor of a local church said during the pandemic: "Hug those around you to show you're not afraid!" 🙄😠 

I don't think anyone should be mandating handshakes or hugs or any physical contact, especially now. If there is going to be a mandated greeting time (also kind of weird IMHO), I like what Katie's church bulletin says: "Greet one another as you feel comfortable."

[mellifera33]

Handshakes were standard when I was a kid, then a new pastor came in and wanted to hug everyone as they exited the sanctuary. He went in for my dad and dad jumped back, shocked. Hugging was the standard at the church I attended when I was a young adult, and I got used to it, but it was a small church without anyone who was weird about it or creepy. At my current church, they offer buttons at the door indicating your personal space preference. It started after covid, but I think it's a great idea at any time.

[SKL]

So should I try to train myself to welcome the touching in order to improve my spiritual experience?

I understand the idea behind this, but I think that if you never touched others in church until age 40+, it's different from if it was your tradition from birth.  Also, I think it's different if, as an adult, you have a background with the people you're being asked to touch.
 

Don't most churches have new(er) people coming and going all the time?  I think it's unrealistic to believe that you can hug new people into closeness.

As for "just handshakes" - I mean we have to do that in business too.  I don't like it, I tolerate it through the awkwardness.  I don't think it makes me feel closer to anyone.  If anything, some people's handshakes make me distrust them iykwim.

[regentrude]

I don't attend church, so this is a bit of a tangent. I think that the way human touch has become taboo in our society is unfortunate and harmful. Evolutionary,  touch has played an important role for bonding and social connections and for psychological well-being. I do not see the development to make every touch about germs or sex as a positive thing. I wish it were more normalized to hug, lay the hand on another's shoulder, etc. Might be healthier for humans.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by regentrude

[Indigo Blue]

I love naturally occurring closeness and touch. There are many things about church that feel to me like a form of social control, not just the expectancy of physical greeting. I agree that closeness is good for people. It’s so complicated. 

[Indigo Blue]

Also, I would feel a bit odd wearing a button that implied “don’t touch or hug me”. Not saying it’s a bad idea. I just think it’s complicated given that everyone has different preferences and feelings. 

[Pawz4me]

26 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

yikes!!!! I think it is TOTALLY appropriate to say, "Ouch!" loudly if that happens! Someone needs to teach them how to shake appropriately! I even warn my kids as they get older to be extra gentle when shaking elderly people's hands due to arthritis. 

Please teach them to be gentle with people of all ages. Various types of AI arthritis can strike at any age. 

I'm not a church goer, but when we did both DH and I hated the forced greeting time. We're introverts. DH prefers not to be touched by people outside our family; I need to really get to know someone and feel comfortable around them before I'm comfortable with touch. I totally understand that some people benefit from it, but I'm not convinced benefit to one group should be prioritized over discomfort to another group. And it seems that no matter how it's worded there is a certain amount of stigma when people make it known they prefer not to be touched. I doubt there's a way to satisfy everyone. If I were inclined to go back to organized religion it would definitely be one reason I'd hesitate.

[ktgrok]

37 minutes ago, MercyA said:

If there is going to be a mandated greeting time (also kind of weird IMHO), I like what Katie's church bulletin says: "Greet one another as you feel comfortable."

To clarify, it is NOT supposed to be a regular old time of greeting. The point is to offer each other peace, and show friendship and solidarity before communing together, as indicated in the articles I posted. 

7 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Please teach them to be gentle with people of all ages. Various types of AI arthritis can strike at any age. 

I'm not a church goer, but when we did both DH and I hated the forced greeting time. We're introverts. DH prefers not to be touched by people outside our family; I need to really get to know someone and feel comfortable around them before I'm comfortable with touch. I totally understand that some people benefit from it, but I'm not convinced benefit to one group should be prioritized over discomfort to another group. And it seems that no matter how it's worded there is a certain amount of stigma when people make it known they prefer not to be touched. I doubt there's a way to satisfy everyone. If I were inclined to go back to organized religion it would definitely be one reason I'd hesitate.

I wonder if people have become more bothered by handshakes because we don't use them all the time? Like, if we grew up where were shaking hands regularly in day to day life would they still be as bothersome? Or do they feel odd because we don't do it much?

[rebcoola]

Our church has a greeting time its not my favorite but a lot of people just give a little wave rather than a handshake or hug. The rows are short like 7 seats so often your row is family or people you know well and you greet the row behind or in front of you not really conducive to a lot of physical touch.  Its after the music but before the service when they release kids for class so days im feeling introvertie I slip out with littlest.   

 

[Catwoman]

Personally, I think the whole handshake/hug/forced greeting thing feels incredibly phony. I'm an extrovert and I don't have any phobias about touching or being touched by others, but when I used to attend church, I had no interest in plastering on a big smile and shaking hands with people I didn't even know, just because I happened to be sitting near them at Mass and the priest said it was time to do the stupid greeting thing. It felt forced and it felt fake.

And hugging strangers or accepting hugs from strangers? 

NO. 

JUST NO.

[Pam in CT]

Sort of OT, but, I've grown to really love the end-of-yoga-session namaste. Folded hands, eye contact with each person individually, a sort of nod/ individual acknowledgment, and no contact.  It accomplishes the one-one acknowledgment/ "I see you, you individually, and recognize your humanity" that I agree with @Farrar  is important to building connective tissue between people and within organizations & society... but doesn't involve touch or (for me at least) any of the other landmines that pp have identified.

I wish we did it outside yoga, but thus far it hasn't cottoned on...

[Catwoman]

10 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

To clarify, it is NOT supposed to be a regular old time of greeting. The point is to offer each other peace, and show friendship and solidarity before communing together, as indicated in the articles I posted. 

I wonder if people have become more bothered by handshakes because we don't use them all the time? Like, if we grew up where were shaking hands regularly in day to day life would they still be as bothersome? Or do they feel odd because we don't do it much?

I understand the point, but I still think it feels forced and fake. 🙂 

I grew up shaking hands with everyone and it was also always the standard greeting in social and business situations as an adult, and I was always fine with it. But the idea of being in church and having an assigned time to shake hands with random people sitting near me always seemed silly. 

[Farrar]

I think that many of our rituals that used to work well as connective social tissue feel forced. New one also feel forced because they're new. Is the fix to force them and push past the discomfort? Or to discard them? Or a little of both? I don't have the answer fully, but I do feel like all rituals feel forced to some extent until they get ingrained. I think making that happen in our society that's so fluid, changing, mobile, etc. is a huge challenge. But not having connective social rituals is also not good for us as a society. Which, again, is not to say that handshakes in church are some great value we should fight for. I mean, whatever. Just that along with the discomfort and the other issues, I think you have to draw back to that question.

[Catwoman]

50 minutes ago, SKL said:

So should I try to train myself to welcome the touching in order to improve my spiritual experience?

I understand the idea behind this, but I think that if you never touched others in church until age 40+, it's different from if it was your tradition from birth.  Also, I think it's different if, as an adult, you have a background with the people you're being asked to touch.
 

Don't most churches have new(er) people coming and going all the time?  I think it's unrealistic to believe that you can hug new people into closeness.

As for "just handshakes" - I mean we have to do that in business too.  I don't like it, I tolerate it through the awkwardness.  I don't think it makes me feel closer to anyone.  If anything, some people's handshakes make me distrust them iykwim.

I understand how you feel. 

I don't think it made me feel closer to anyone, either. Maybe it's different in small churches where everyone knows each other very well -- but I can see that being particularly awkward if you're seated near to someone you really don't like, yet you feel obligated to smile and shake their hand and pretend to like them. 

And I am totally anti-hugging when it comes to people I'm not already close to. I'm certainly not letting some rando at church hug me. That would feel very weird and like an invasion of my personal space.

 

[Kidlit]

I feel like I'm a senior church-goer --that I've seen it all.  I am also a friendly introvert.  I don't enjoy anything "forced" at church at this point in my life.   We attend a large church where we're usually not missed when we are absent.   I just smile and nod when told to shake hands or fist bump or whatever--that, or busy myself in my pew as an avoidance tactic. 

[Pawz4me]

25 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

 

I wonder if people have become more bothered by handshakes because we don't use them all the time? Like, if we grew up where were shaking hands regularly in day to day life would they still be as bothersome? Or do they feel odd because we don't do it much?

We left organized religion about twenty years ago, and I'm certainly old enough (60) to have grown up with hand shaking. It's not handshakes that bother me, it's the forced/coerced nature of it in a big group that makes it seem so wrong.

[Kidlit]

2 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

We left organized religion about twenty years ago, and I'm certainly old enough (60) to have grown up with hand shaking. It's not handshakes that bother me, it's the forced/coerced nature of it in a big group that makes it seem so wrong.

I don't mind the physical contact, either.  It just feels phony to me, and phony is the hardest thing for my personality.

[regentrude]

re forced/coerced/phony:
why do folks consider the handshaking as more coerced/phony than any other rituals that are customary in the respective community, like standing up when the gospel is read, singing along with the hymn, communal prayer? In each instance, you are compelled to perform a physical action that may or may not feel uncomfortable to an individual; you can choose to abstain (but might draw attention to yourself in doing so);joint participation is considered valuable for the fellowship. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by regentrude

[Murphy101]

The sharing of peace is not a greeting time in the Catholic Church. Don’t know about other places. That’s usually before or after mass in the vestibule/commons areas.

But also.  Culture and tradition DO matter in forming social bonds. I am often in uncomfortable to me situations where the expected behavior of a group is not my natural or desired or native inclination.  I tend to associate with lots of different people, often strangers, whose backgrounds are very different from mine or simply unknown to me. And it is my obligation to overcome that to connect with those in that group barring some obvious moral issue.  Or to accept that I’m choosing to not connect with them if I prefer to maintain my personal comfort zone instead. 

It may feel awkward or forced but that’s also part of the communal ritual of connecting socially with others.  The most basic premise of such customs is to overcome that to make connections is a sign of sincere effort that should be appreciated even if not done perfectly.  Otherwise, people are forever outsiders with no accepted opening available to them.

No one ever has to touch me or even speak to me if they don’t want to. If I put a hand out, they can nod or whatever instead.  But that is a gesture of an unspoken wall being put up. In every culture and in every tradition. And it’s okay to do that. But it’s unreasonable to also expect that the other party should pretend the boundary wall wasn’t put up. I won’t have any hard feelings to them for it. But I’ll respect it and likely not feel comfortable approaching them first at the next encounter.

I’ve seen this play out my entire life no matter the occasion or place. I’m curious no one else has or that they think any church would be any different.

[Catwoman]

10 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

We left organized religion about twenty years ago, and I'm certainly old enough (60) to have grown up with hand shaking. It's not handshakes that bother me, it's the forced/coerced nature of it in a big group that makes it seem so wrong.

 

7 minutes ago, Kidlit said:

I don't mind the physical contact, either.  It just feels phony to me, and phony is the hardest thing for my personality.

I agree completely. 

If I want to socialize with people, I can handle that on my own, thank you. It's hard to imagine that forced socialization actually leads to lasting relationships, especially in large churches with multiple services, where the odds of ever sitting next to the same people again are pretty slim.

It feels so insincere to me, and although I know it's supposed to be "optional," it would feel incredibly rude not to reciprocate. 

Except for the hugging. I would probably physically recoil if a stranger tried to hug me, and being in a church would not change my reaction. 

[Faith-manor]

9 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I understand how you feel. 

I don't think it made me feel closer to anyone, either. Maybe it's different in small churches where everyone knows each other very well -- but I can see that being particularly awkward if you're seated near to someone you really don't like, yet you feel obligated to smile and shake their hand and pretend to like them. 

And I am totally anti-hugging when it comes to people I'm not already close to. I'm certainly not letting some rando at church hug me. That would feel very weird and like an invasion of my personal space.

 

I agree.

I would love the namaste ritual. That would be awesome!

For the record, I am a very huggy, physically affectionate person within my family and with closest friends. My dear friend Cordelia and I always hug a greeting and goodbying. But the difference is, she is my dear friend, we know each other so well, and we are a safe person for each other.

Handshakes are okay, especially if they are quick, gentle, businesslike. But you always have people who linger and practically turn it into hand holding, the people who crush your hand, or the people who put a hand out and everything in their body language screams they don't like this but feel compelled to join in, and then it just makes me queasy to take their hand, but it is offensive if I don't. Since covid, I am just really shy with that now. It isn't like the pandemic is over despite what the bobbleheads in Washington say.

So ya. Namaste rituals would be so welcome to me because it can feel very warm and friendly without am invasion of hands and arms that makes me uneasy.

I think this is a serious issue. More than many realize. We are after all a country that apart from obviously having people who have anxiety in large groups, other with sensory issues, also have a rate of 1 out of 3 women and children who have experienced sexual crime. That is A LOT of people for whom a greeting that involves physicality can be a flight or fight response. I think about that a lot. And again, I am someone who absolutely loves physical affection. But from my husband, my kids, my sister, my grandkids, Cordelia, etc. Not from people in public spaces even if I know them.

 

[Indigo Blue]

5 minutes ago, regentrude said:

re forced/coerced:
why do folks consider the handshaking as more coerced than any other rituals that are customary in the respective community, like standing up when the gospel is read, singing along with the hymn, communal prayer? In each instance, you are compelled to perform a physical action that may or may not feel uncomfortable to an individual; you can choose to abstain (but might draw attention to yourself in doing so);joint participation is considered valuable for the fellowship. 

I like the idea of fellowship and being a Christian. It is a good thing to me. It’s complicated because individual churches each have a personality of their own, and  I may or may not feel comfortable with what is expected from the church whether it’s from the pastor or individual parts of the church. It’s what a church’s interpretation of what is right and what one should do that I find that I don’t always align with. I feel comfortable in a more accepting church as opposed to one that is legalistic, dogmatic, and claims their way is the right way. I suppose it’s very difficult to find the perfect place to attend. One does have to be willing to see that no place is going to be perfect, I suppose. 
 

When messages feel damaging and condemning, I don’t feel it’s good fellowship at that point. I don’t know. It’s hard. 

[Indigo Blue]

3 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

We are after all a country that apart from obviously having people who have anxiety in large groups, other with sensory issues, also have a rate of 1 out of 3 women and children who have experienced sexual crime. That is A LOT of people for whom a greeting that involves physicality can be a flight or fight response.

This. 

[Kidlit]

15 minutes ago, regentrude said:

re forced/coerced/phony:
why do folks consider the handshaking as more coerced/phony than any other rituals that are customary in the respective community, like standing up when the gospel is read, singing along with the hymn, communal prayer? In each instance, you are compelled to perform a physical action that may or may not feel uncomfortable to an individual; you can choose to abstain (but might draw attention to yourself in doing so);joint participation is considered valuable for the fellowship. 

I think for me in the case of standing for reading, prayer, or whatever the ritual is--it's not as personal as invading someone's space.  Also, I can opt out of any of these, and often do when it's a forced response. (I attend a charismatic church which doesn't mean I'm opting out of some sort of liturgy, but instead, some in-the-moment appeal.). 
 

I don't know. My feelings about church are complicated.

[Clarita]

My love language is touch, but I also get into fight or flight mode when touched (past traumas). On the one hand touches tell me that a person is there for me and I quite enjoy it (a comforting way). The trouble is I also flinch at touch. Generally I've dealt with it by making clear signs that I do not want to be touched at times and speaking candidly and openly about my issues. Well-intentioned people don't really have issue with it. 

It doesn't involve wearing a button that says don't touch. It's keeping my hands folded in front of me or staying seated during the greeting time.  If people are concerned they come and ask me what's going on and I just tell them. I also usually shift my body to the side to receive hugs from people whom I want to hug but I'm not comfortable with a full frontal hug. 

I've usually been to churches where touching and mingling during service happens, it's actually kind of weird to me and detracts from the worship if there was zero mingle time. I really feel like the community is a big part of why we are in the church building, otherwise to me it feels like I could have just watched/listened to the service from the comforts of my home.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

I don't attend church, so this is a bit of a tangent. I think that the way human touch has become taboo in our society is unfortunate and harmful. Evolutionary,  touch has played an important role for bonding and social connections and for psychological well-being. I do not see the development to make every touch about germs or sex as a positive thing. I wish it were more normalized to hug, lay the hand on another's shoulder, etc. Might be healthier for humans.

FTR my not liking touch is not about germs or sex.  I just don't like it.  I can't remember a time when I liked it, even from my parents.  Exception being much younger kids (my youngest siblings, kids I babysat, my own kids) ... and guys I dated and liked very much.  I have a brother and a kid like that too.

I don't know exactly how to define this ... it's just a part of some of us.  It is a huge adjustment to tolerate another person's touch.  It takes me out of myself, and not in a good way.

Edited August 19, 2023 by SKL

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Pawz4me said:

... no matter how it's worded there is a certain amount of stigma when people make it known they prefer not to be touched.

Yes!

[ktgrok]

You know, I realized it probably helps that I don't attend packed to the gills churches. It is easy enough to position yourself far enough away from people that you can wave rather than touch. 

[Faith-manor]

I think part and parcel of this is that our culture has become so "me first" and seems to not be in tune or perceptive of other people's body language. "I want to shake your hand. I want to hug you." And that is the whole thought, thus it is done in a way that makes it hard to not participate. I mean, I have given incredibly overt body language that says, "Please don't touch me." Moved out of the way, waved before they got to me and then went on to say Hi to someone else, cringed, moved backward, and have literally been pursued by people determined to do what they want. Which I get, if they are a touch person who wants it wherever they can get it, and that is also a thing and a need, then they are going to fulfill that against the wishes of others if not paying attention. I think maybe we need more sensitivity training or something. Most people aren't selfish, obnoxious people. I think it is just a lack of being taught to tune in to the body language and facial expressions of others or those senses being dulled from living in a culture that is so pro "me first". Without consciously going against our culture, we just move blindly along with it and conform regardless. Very much so on church culture.

So maybe that is an issue.

But of course, there are justs so many differences. Like my sister's father in law doing the " beezus" or however it is pronounced in France. She warned me ahead of time, and let me know the cultural practice, why it exists, how the older generation reacts to people who do not understand and welcome the tradition, etc. She also said that my brother in law talked to his dad about how this can be super uncomfortable to Americans, and that IF I allowed him to do it, he better keep it super formal. Brother in law also said he would be happy to call his dad and tell him, "Absolutely no" if I would prefer that. I didn't necessarily like the idea of it, and was dreading it a bit, but his father was hosting me for dinner, doing all the cooking, and lived alone so he was REALLY enthusiastic about hosting me. I decided I would live through it.  He did follow his son's advice and it was pretty almost business like which is NOT what I had imagined. So I was inwardly uncomfortable but managed through.  It was also an interesting study in cultural differences. Not one time did I ever see French people, even ones who clearly knew each other well and appeared to be family or very close friends, greet each other or part with a hug. Always the beezus thing. So as an outsider, I wondered if hugs were considered very highly intimate. No idea. Here any kind of kiss, even a peck on the cheek that isn't between family members is just a big ole screaming no no, and even I don't want even the hint of one except from Mark or to give one on the cheeks of my baby grandson who is the most kissable thing in the  whole universe! 😍

[Grace Hopper]

4 hours ago, Farrar said:

This is not an uncommon element of worship at a lot of churches to have a physical element like a handshake be part of the greeting or the passing of the peace. The church I grew up in had that. In a totally different denomination, the church where my mother worked as children's minister also had a version of it. One of the churches my grandparents attended in another state had a version as well. I've also been to churches that don't do this. Just saying... it's not uncommon. 

As to why it's desirable, human connection in lots of forms can be an integral part of spirituality. We're all very alert in this day and age to abuse and consent, which is good. Not to mention germs. But there's also something to be said for things that foster human connection and a brief handshake or hug can absolutely be one of those things.

But if it's not you, it's not you. And that's okay. You should be in a spiritual community where you feel comfortable and at home.

I get this and in my experience in the Catholic Church, the “passing of the peace” was good - one handshake passed along to the person next to you, a simple chain reaction. 
 

What makes me uncomfortable is breaking up the service with a meet and greet after a time of singing. There’s no organized shaking of hands, or a mantra to bless upon one another, but kind of a dash around to say hello to one’s friends followed by a quick scurry back to seats. I am thankful my home church dropped that a few years ago, I found it disruptive to worship and study. I do appreciate that we have an area for fellowship over coffee where people can meet and linger for conversations before and after service. 

[ktgrok]

21 minutes ago, Grace Hopper said:

I get this and in my experience in the Catholic Church, the “passing of the peace” was good - one handshake passed along to the person next to you, a simple chain reaction. 
 

What makes me uncomfortable is breaking up the service with a meet and greet after a time of singing. There’s no organized shaking of hands, or a mantra to bless upon one another, but kind of a dash around to say hello to one’s friends followed by a quick scurry back to seats. I am thankful my home church dropped that a few years ago, I found it disruptive to worship and study. I do appreciate that we have an area for fellowship over coffee where people can meet and linger for conversations before and after service. 

oh, that second thing I would find annoying.