Clare wrote

Obviously, when I walk into a church I’m very guarded of my physical boundaries, but that also means I’m more aware of the issues/problems than many. Here are my comments.

Another had written:

I’ve been asked to spell out some boundaries for door stewards. This may involve me in some conflict (so what’s new?) I am wondering if any Congregation has already developed some sort of code which would save me having to develop one myself.

Clare’s response

I’m intrigued. When you say you’ve “been asked”, does that mean your parish council has initiated the idea?

Netfriend:

Some of the issues to be addressed are physical contact with worshippers. Our door stewards typically greet worshippers with a handshake at the door. Well and good. Sometimes they also give a kiss if they know the person. These things have so far not led to complaints, but other things have.

Response:

While I wouldn’t complain at being offered a handshake because I know it’s a usual, almost automatic, thing, I do mostly refuse. My standard response is “I’m sorry, but I don’t shake hands in church”. That’s an inordinately difficult thing to say, because of the fact that many people infer rudeness from the refusal to do something that is generally considered a social nicety. So I’d suspect there are some “silent objectors” – people who are uncomfortable, but feel less sense of justification for taking the stand.

At the same time, I do acknowledge the difficulty of framing a guideline. After all, to be a welcomer necessarily means making the first move, whether that be holding out one’s hand for a handshake or whatever. Lindsay made a valid point about it being “on invitation only”, and that’s the way it should be, but how does one invite without making the invitee feel like they have no option? For hugs, etc, it’s fine – a simple “would you like a hug?” should suffice. For the initial handshake it’s not so easy.

Netfriend:

For example, taking a person’s arm and leading them to a pew. (I would suggest offering an arm and accepting if it is declined). Some older people see this as chivalry, or appropriate for the feeble. Bear in mind that some of our worshippers are a bit doddery and might like an arm. Hmm.

Clare:

Again, the invitation: “would you like a hand to your seat?” is simple. (I re-read that, and thought it had better be rephrased!!!)

Netfriend:

Then we have the hugs.

From my point of view, an absolute no-no unless there is sufficient personal relationship between hugger and huggee to justify it.

Then we have the touchy, feely people. Hands on the back and arm, etc.

Clare:

Again an absolute no-no unless specifically invited. Not only because touchy feely people are being disrespectful of others’ boundaries, but because many abusers disguise their initial/public approaches as touchy-feely. There are countless instances of proven abusers where people in the social network involved said “I knew he was a touchy-feely sort of person, but I thought that’s as far as it went”.

Netfriend:

Sometimes it seems appropriate, and sometimes it feels like its not right. How do you draw the line? How do we keep each other honest?

Clare:

I think that’s probably the bottom line question. And the only “prescription” I can suggest would be that of openness and accountability. That is, all physical contact is open (publicly declared) and accountable (can be called into question by anyone).

Netfriend:

There is an authentic warmth in my congregation that expresses itself in physical ways. There is the danger that this will be abused.

Just do me a favour and point me to the completed document with policy rationale and prescriptive behaviour, will you?

Clare:

Well, if I had to summarise all I’ve just said in rules, it would be something like this:

1. You may offer a handshake, although if the other person refuses, you must respect that.

2. If you think a hug or a kiss may be appropriate, you must ask first: “is it ok to give you a hug?” with each and every person, each and every time.

3. If a hug, a kiss or any other form of physical contact is offered and accepted, any member of the congregation who sees it has a right to (or maybe even is obliged to) mention it to a member of parish council, who may (should?) then follow it up with the huggee to check the contact was approved by them.

4. Any relationship between a door steward and another that is acknowledged by the parties to be close enough for regular hugs should be made known to the council and the names recorded.

5. A sign in the church foyer that says “In this church we respect your physical boundaries. If someone offers you a form of physical contact, you have the right to say no” would encourage people to hold others accountable. It may also add “if someone gives you physical contact without asking first, we welcome your complaint”.

6. If a parishioner would always like assistance to get to their seat, they can make that known to the door stewards, with the proviso that they have the right to specify any individual from whom they do *not* want such help.

A couple of extra things: as you can imagine, refusing handshakes gets much more difficult when passing the peace is routinely accompanied by a handshake. If that’s so in your parish, it should be considered along with all this. Also, this may all sound very “strict rules and regulations” kind of stuff, but I think it will take a time of strict rules to make people realise that traditional patterns a)

didn’t respect others’ boundaries, and b) facilitate situations where abuse can be disguised as “social friendliness”.

Clare Pascoe Henderson

http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org

Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia

Related Articles:

• Pastor Burnout Statistics
• Stress and Burnout in Pastoral Ministry: A Prologue
• Leadership for success
• Tribes: we need you to lead us
• Becoming a leader of no reputation

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.