Church conversations

ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
edited November 2024 in Heaven
The interesting. The edifying. The baffling.

The unusual? At the church steps after the service at a church I visited yesterday.

"Thank you, Father."
"Hello. I noticed you didn't take Communion."
"Oh. Um. Well. There's a history there, Father! *nervous laugh*"
"Oh. You seemed to know the responses. Where are you from?"
...


While being taken aback at the time to be asked that question, and straightaway, clearly Communion is central to him and a key ritual in one's faith. Thinking on it after I left the church grounds, it did make me pleasantly disposed to him. As did him asking a few questions while other poor parishioners queued behind me, no doubt longily waiting for their tea and biscuits.

Comments

  • RockyRogerRockyRoger Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    He clearly has a pastoral heart. Treasure this. Such is not to be taken for granted!

    The only exchange I had yesterday with Father M (a lovely, but awkward, man) was how slowly and well I had read the lessons of the day. Was this a back-handed compliment? I can stammer quite badly in face to face conversation.

    Blessings XX


  • RockyRoger wrote: »
    He clearly has a pastoral heart. Treasure this. Such is not to be taken for granted!
    Interesting. My reaction was exactly the opposite—I would find it extremely off-putting for a minister/priest I didn’t know to open the conversation with “Hello. I noticed you didn’t take Communion.” In my mind, that would only be appropriate later in the conversation, after one has identified oneself as Orthodox or Catholic or whatever. “Ah, I noticed you didn’t take Communion, and that explains why.”

    Different strokes for different folks, I guess.


  • RockyRoger wrote: »
    He clearly has a pastoral heart. Treasure this. Such is not to be taken for granted!

    The only exchange I had yesterday with Father M (a lovely, but awkward, man) was how slowly and well I had read the lessons of the day. Was this a back-handed compliment? I can stammer quite badly in face to face conversation.

    Blessings XX


    Don’t assume it was backhanded—more likely he was delighted not to have someone galloping through and mangling half the sentences as they did so!
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    He clearly has a pastoral heart. Treasure this. Such is not to be taken for granted!
    Interesting. My reaction was exactly the opposite—I would find it extremely off-putting for a minister/priest I didn’t know to open the conversation with “Hello. I noticed you didn’t take Communion.” In my mind, that would only be appropriate later in the conversation, after one has identified oneself as Orthodox or Catholic or whatever. “Ah, I noticed you didn’t take Communion, and that explains why.”

    Different strokes for different folks, I guess.


    That was my reaction, too. I'm afraid I would have politely told the minister to mind their own business, or words to that effect.
  • It depends on the context of course.

    I would have found it a bit intrusive too, but then RR knows the guy and we don't and it could have been an offer of pastoral support.
  • Talking to visitors at the church door is a very important ministry but difficult to do well. Some people who come are desperate to talk, others want to slip in and out anonymously. The "welcomer" needs to have good antennae to sense which is which (and everyone in between).
  • Talking to visitors at the church door is a very important ministry but difficult to do well. Some people who come are desperate to talk, others want to slip in and out anonymously. The "welcomer" needs to have good antennae to sense which is which (and everyone in between).

    Yes. I recall my father's one visit to the local Baptist church. Their attempts to be friendly and welcoming were interpreted as being nosey and intrusive and he never went back.
  • After the funeral, a friend of the family:
    'You seemed to believe what you were saying.'
    'Thank you.'
    A thought afterwards: I wonder whether that was a compliment?
  • Welcoming is a difficult task, indeed.

    Nevertheless, it really is not the priest's business to ask why someone who is a visitor or newcomer doesn't receive Communion. If s/he sees a regular communicant refraining, maybe over several weeks, then a discreet pastoral enquiry might be appropriate.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    After the funeral, a friend of the family:
    'You seemed to believe what you were saying.'
    'Thank you.'
    A thought afterwards: I wonder whether that was a compliment?

    I took a funeral at which one of those attending was a media figure (a nephew of the deceased), well-known for being anti-religious. At the door they simply said, "Well spoken".
  • We overheard this comment on our way into church, many years ago. The minister had been including passing references to "married sex" as a good thing / part of God's plan / a blessing / etc into a number of services and two elderly widows in the congregation had clearly had enough.

    Elderly widow 1. "I really hope his wife has put out this week."
    Elderly widow 2. " If she hasn't, it's not for want of him hinting."
  • Have you left out a word or two? Widow 1's question doesn't seem to make sense to me. Sorry.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    He clearly has a pastoral heart. Treasure this. Such is not to be taken for granted!
    Interesting. My reaction was exactly the opposite—I would find it extremely off-putting for a minister/priest I didn’t know to open the conversation with “Hello. I noticed you didn’t take Communion.” In my mind, that would only be appropriate later in the conversation, after one has identified oneself as Orthodox or Catholic or whatever. “Ah, I noticed you didn’t take Communion, and that explains why.”

    Different strokes for different folks, I guess.


    That was my reaction, too. I'm afraid I would have politely told the minister to mind their own business, or words to that effect.

    Umm, if the call of the Father is to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments (as specified in a Lutheran call), then it is his business, though I do not think it would be a good time to discuss why a person may or may not have taken the sacrament at the church door--maybe in a follow up visit (if the Father is so inclined).
  • @Baptist Trainfan um, do you not know what "put out" means? Widow 1 was hoping the pastor's wife had had sex with him.
  • Graven ImageGraven Image Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    "You have done something different with your hair, and I could not take my eyes off it, and I forgot to listen to your sermon." From then on, a choir member who had overheard the remark started saying, "Bad hair day," when he liked my sermon. ( It was just a short haircut, nothing strange or unusual)
  • NicoleMR wrote: »
    @Baptist Trainfan um, do you not know what "put out" means? Widow 1 was hoping the pastor's wife had had sex with him.
    No, never heard the phrase used in that way. If I'm "put out" it means that I'm annoyed by something that someone has said or done.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    NicoleMR wrote: »
    @Baptist Trainfan um, do you not know what "put out" means? Widow 1 was hoping the pastor's wife had had sex with him.
    No, never heard the phrase used in that way. If I'm "put out" it means that I'm annoyed by something that someone has said or done.
    It means both, depending on context and depending on whether used as an adjectival phrase (“Were you put out?”) or as a verb phrase (“Did you put out?”).


  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    NicoleMR wrote: »
    @Baptist Trainfan um, do you not know what "put out" means? Widow 1 was hoping the pastor's wife had had sex with him.
    No, never heard the phrase used in that way. If I'm "put out" it means that I'm annoyed by something that someone has said or done.
    I'm with @Baptist Trainfan on this one. I've never heard of it used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. It must be a regional expression.


  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited November 2024
    Not regional, though possibly a little dated. Certainly I've been aware of the usage for 50+ years.

    Anyway, conversations in the church porch. It is the 1970s and I am wearing a hand-sewn maxi dress composed of patchwork. Pastor's Wife: 'It must be great to have the skill to make it. And the nerve to wear it'.
  • I thought it was an Americanism
  • Twangist wrote: »
    I thought it was an Americanism
    Well, in this thread it was a Scot who reported hearing it while walking into church “many years ago.”

    The Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn’t indicate that it’s a regional usage, which it normally does when appropriate.



  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    I've heard of "put out" down here in the Antipodes; can't recall if it was in British or American tv programmes but I thought the former. May be wrong

    edit: we have the other usage mentioned too; I think it is more common
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I’ve heard or been aware of the usage for a long time - since I don’t know when.
  • We overheard this comment on our way into church, many years ago. The minister had been including passing references to "married sex" as a good thing / part of God's plan / a blessing / etc into a number of services and two elderly widows in the congregation had clearly had enough.

    Elderly widow 1. "I really hope his wife has put out this week."
    Elderly widow 2. " If she hasn't, it's not for want of him hinting."

    🤣
  • It was about twenty years ago, maybe a bit more, and memorable partly because the NE Man and I both thought "put out" was a bit crude for an elderly widow talking about her minister's sermons!

    The church had run an Alpha course, which included Nicky Gumbel banging on about the Joys of Married Sex. I suspect the minister may have been inspired by that and horrified if he'd realised that some of the congregation were assuming he'd hit a dry spell!

    There were also videos by some bloke in a cardigan giving advice on Christian parenting who also thought Married Sex was wonderful. It seemed to be quite the thing at the time.
  • I am reminded of the old joke. Two bishops were talking about premarital sex.
    Bishop one: 'I didn't have sex with my wife before we married. Did you?'
    Bishop two: 'I can't remenber, ..... what was her maiden name?'
    Back to the topic .......
  • :naughty:

    ITTWACW!
  • We overheard this comment on our way into church, many years ago. The minister had been including passing references to "married sex" as a good thing / part of God's plan / a blessing / etc into a number of services and two elderly widows in the congregation had clearly had enough.

    Elderly widow 1. "I really hope his wife has put out this week."
    Elderly widow 2. " If she hasn't, it's not for want of him hinting."

    I can think of several elderly women parishioners in my current place who would roar if I shared this with them!
  • We overheard this comment on our way into church, many years ago. The minister had been including passing references to "married sex" as a good thing / part of God's plan / a blessing / etc into a number of services and two elderly widows in the congregation had clearly had enough.

    Elderly widow 1. "I really hope his wife has put out this week."
    Elderly widow 2. " If she hasn't, it's not for want of him hinting."

    I can think of several elderly women parishioners in my current place who would roar if I shared this with them!

    Oops! I meant roar with laughter...
  • JLBJLB Shipmate
    Can I go back to the original question, PLease?
    Which churches would assume that everyone walking through the door was a commumicant? Our village Anglican church gets a variety of visitors including those who who may be coming to take a very tentative look at "Church" and whom we would not expect to wish to receive communion, as well as ones who do, and are welcome.
  • Certainly not ours (Church of Scotland / Presbyterian). We are a "wee cuppies" church, with trays of bread and wine passed along the pew, so the minister would have no idea who took communion and who didn't.
  • JLB wrote: »
    Can I go back to the original question, PLease?
    Which churches would assume that everyone walking through the door was a commumicant? Our village Anglican church gets a variety of visitors including those who who may be coming to take a very tentative look at "Church" and whom we would not expect to wish to receive communion, as well as ones who do, and are welcome.

    A good question. Certainly the C of E is supposed to be the church for everyone, and (as I said earlier) it's none of the priest's immediate business to ask why someone s/he's perhaps never seen before didn't receive Communion.
  • To give my thinking (and I admitted I was taken aback at first), his saying I knew the responses probably indicated to him I was Anglican (or at the very least familiar with its liturgy); not an assumption here in Oz. I understand the reaction from those here, I do, I wouldn't ask*, but I'm trying charitably as I can to look on people's actions and seek out an explanation. But I understand those saying it should not be done. Some part of me wants to go back next week and see what conversation arises then!

    Thank you for your stories.


    * not a priest; if a misguided bishop got into his head to ordain me into holy orders I'd be burnt to a crisp instantly by lightning to prevent it happening...
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    JLB wrote: »
    Can I go back to the original question, PLease?
    Which churches would assume that everyone walking through the door was a commumicant? Our village Anglican church gets a variety of visitors including those who who may be coming to take a very tentative look at "Church" and whom we would not expect to wish to receive communion, as well as ones who do, and are welcome.
    Not everyone walking through the door, but certainly everyone coming up to the communion rail who looks as if they know what they are doing. If they look uncertain or doubtful I will discreetly ask if they want to receive, and if they are a small child who might just be copying their parent/carer, then I will discreetly check with adult.

    I take the view that the very occasional person who receives without knowing what they are doing isn’t going to come to harm, whereas to cause fuss or embarrassment for someone at that moment is quite likely to be a stumbling block in whatever faith journey they may be on.
  • I'm learning a lot from this thread. Being an 'upfront' sorta person I have to realise others are not like me and I must be more aware in conversation of their sensibilities. Mrs RR calls this 'Listening to the Holy Spirit'.

    Oh well, better late than never!
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    I think it can be difficult. I know I sometimes want to go to church and get out without engaging, and at other times am happy to chat. I suppose a "Good morning" and leaving it to notice the reaction of the visitor or infrequent attender may be helpful. Not sure.

    When I returned to worship (after 9 years!) earlier this year the priest at a new parish asked one of the parishioners to take me to the hall for tea. I appreciated that, but could see others may not. A priest in another city I once lived in invited me to lunch at his place, with assorted other singles or those he thought may benefit. He never seemed put out when I said I couldn't make it, but did appear a little disappointed. I am a bit of a loner so sometimes such things, though appreciated, are a bit much.
  • Commenting on someone not communicating in RC circles would be a massive "No,no."
    There are assumptions about sin preventing reception that are deeply ingrained in RC psyche. It would be like asking "Aye, aye .... what have you been up to then?"
  • Absolutely agreed with Alan29. But I did laugh out loud at RR's story of the two bishops.
  • Back to the OP: I would be upset to be asked such a question in public. It may be a reasonable question for a pastor to ask in private.

    As I understand it, there are churches which will deny the Eucharist to non-members (while happy to accept money in the plate). If I encountered that, I would be much more upset.
  • As I think I said earlier, it would be a reasonable question for a pastor to ask in private if, for instance, the person concerned was a regular communicant who had abstained for (say) several weeks...

    Strictly speaking, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches restrict communion to members, and I believe clergy often make this point during a service.
  • In my last church, the place (literally) next door was a RC church. We used to worship with them on Easter Saturday and, before the service, the Priest (with whom I got on well personally) explained his regret at not being able to offer me Communion.

    This happened in reverse in an ecumenical setting where I was presiding, where a RC Permanent Deacon explained how he was unable to receive the Sacrament from me.

    IMO it's a crying shame that the meal which is supposed to unite us does the exact opposite.
  • The greater unity is the unity of love and understanding shown in these two cases in the regret expressed by both the priest and the deacon that a communal understanding of the mystery of the Church impedes the reception of the sacrament in two bodies which are not in full communion with each other.
    As a tangent perhaps RC speak calls the Saturday of Easter week Easter Saturday. The Saturday which is the Vigil of Easter is called Holy Saturday. What is in a name ?
    What is in a Sacrament ?
  • Forthview wrote: »
    The greater unity is the unity of love and understanding shown in these two cases in the regret expressed by both the priest and the deacon that a communal understanding of the mystery of the Church impedes the reception of the sacrament in two bodies which are not in full communion with each other.
    I’m not sure I’d characterize that as a “greater unity.” I get that it is the RC perspective. One reason I’m not RC is because I think it is not a perspective with which I agree.


  • Forthview wrote: »
    The greater unity is the unity of love and understanding shown in these two cases in the regret expressed by both the priest and the deacon that a communal understanding of the mystery of the Church impedes the reception of the sacrament in two bodies which are not in full communion with each other.
    As a tangent perhaps RC speak calls the Saturday of Easter week Easter Saturday. The Saturday which is the Vigil of Easter is called Holy Saturday. What is in a name ?
    What is in a Sacrament ?

    Not sure I understand the first paragraph. For me the Eucharist expresses a unity that isn't there, so for my part I don't communicate in other denominations' churches.
  • I wish we could all communicate in one another's churches too, but it's not my call to make that so.
  • Give it time. If nothing else, the final persecution will force us all back into unity.
  • Alan29 and Nick, what I put down clumsily was that both the RC priest and the RC deacon expressed regret. In the hopefully distant past (which,of course I remember) the priest and the deacon would simply have said 'you are not RC so you can't communicate at our altar' Of course it would equally have been the case that no Baptist would have wanted to communicate at an RC altar.
    Surely the 'regret' expressed shows an understanding that we are really all one BUT we still have different understandings of what is meant and understood by the word 'Church' and the word'Eucharist'
Sign In or Register to comment.