READER N. writes:

There are a number of things in the modern church that are appalling, and one of them is applause. I first encountered this back in the 1990s at a friend’s wedding in a Protestant “Bible-church.” Upon completion of the ceremony, the pastor turned to the rest of us and said, “May I present, Mr. and Mrs. R. J.,” which seemed a bit odd, but the burst of applause that greeted this was stunning.

Why is applause in any Christian church heresy? Because applause is a sound that people make in order to send the following message:

“I am pleased with your performance for me.”                    

If there is any other message conveyed by applauding, I have not seen or heard or read of it. Now, this statement is sufficient for you and many others, but I am writing for a larger audience.

The point of any Christian church service, be it Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Coptic or any other should be obvious: to glorify God. Christians are required to gather as a body, to sing praises to Him who created us, to hear the Word of God read aloud, to confess sin, and oh yes, to praise Him. These requirements are met in different ways by different branches
of the earthly church, and I am not going to get into those issues.

The point I’m beating into the ground is this: a Christian service is not entertainment, in fact that is one of the things that various reformers through the ages have warned and railed against. Everyone in the church service is to be a participant rather than a spectator.

Bach famously wrote on all of his music “Solo Deo Gloria,” and that is what every Christian service is to be about: the glory of God, and only that. Weddings, baptisms, and so forth are all church services. Solemnizing a marriage before God is to whose glory? Not to the fallen sinners participating in it.

Applauding an offering in song or music reduces that offering from something done for the glory of God to mere entertainment. The same is true of applauding any homily or sermon; edification in the word of God is not entertainment. Anything worth applauding doesn’t belong in a Christian church service, frankly.

One church that I visited last year combined a brief moment of greeting visitors and those congregational members who had been away with all the routine announcements, and this was done at the very beginning of the worship service. So the mundane announcements & greetings were performed in a sense before the sacred began. I think that is the best way to deal with such things, although most churches nowadays insert them into the service after offering, thereby effectively ending services right there.

And that brings up another heresy, one which I’ve mainly seen in Roman Catholic and Episcopal churches: pausing in the middle of the service to “Greet each other in the peace of God”. This immediately breaks all sense of the sacred as people wander about, shaking hands, and talking of worldly things such as “Who’s bringing the hot dogs to the Sunday School picnic?,” followed by a lot of chatter, followed by the leader of worship asking repeatedly for everyone to sit back down and be quiet again. It takes everyone’s mind away from God and puts it right down to earth. Those with children have to go through the routine of getting their minds right all over again.

It ain’t Solo Deo Gloria, that’s for sure.

Laura writes:

There is something more heretical than applause: the idea that nothing done in a church can be heretical.

                                                                            — Comments —

James N. writes:

I think brief applause for the couple at a wedding (if the priest announces them as “Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so”, after the nuptial blessing), is not heretical.

The points about the focus and purpose of Christian worship are well-taken, however, like any well taken points they can be taken to excess. Applause for the couple is, in my opinion, an outpouring of communal love (which community has just been asked to witness vows) and is quite appropriate after the blessing and before the recessional.

Laura writes:

Applauding the couple is not to show that they have performed well, but a form of congratulations. It doesn’t seem as out of place and wrong as other examples of applause in church do.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

No clapping in church, ever, is my opinion. Maybe in those big-box churches it’s okay; traditional Catholics, traditional Anglican and Orthodox will understand what I mean.

The first time I saw this was at a wedding in a Catholic church in 1982. The just-married couple was presented and everybody applauded. I felt ashamed.

Please correct me if I’m disremembering, but the crowd in the cathedral actually applauded during the delivery of the eulogy for Princess Diana. I was in shock. I think this was edited out in the video if you were wanting to see for yourself.

Since we are on the topic of behaviour in churches, if I had any say in the matter, brides would not be permitted to wear those strapless, sleeveless gowns that have been de rigeur for the past several years. The first time I saw a bride dressed this way, I was speechless (unusual for me). In desperation, I recently looked up “modest wedding gowns” on the search engine and I got 491,000 results. So it’s not just me! Also, some brides and grooms and the whole wedding party are now dancing wildly down the aisle to the altar to loud, fast dance music.

I feel like such an old sourpuss ’cause I just seem unable to get with the programme.

Kimberly writes:

I can see where whooping and cheering vocally would be annoying during mass. But I know of a priest near me who gives the most touching homilies you can imagine, always so well put, and he stands right in front of us without anything to read from at all. He really has a gift for preaching and his church is totally packed every Sunday, just because everyone is anxious for the chance to be inspired by one of his homilies. He had over 6,000 people at in that church for Christmas (spread through the several masses)! I disagree with the comment that anything worth applauding for should not be in the homily, because of what I have seen in this priest, and because that just seems sour. Maybe the people shouldn’t applaud- maybe they should allow his breath-taking words to do just that and that alone, in silence. I understand why they do it though; it’s a burst of gratitude! I have clapped for him with a big smile many times and have never felt disconnected from God for doing it. It feels like we’re a room full of happy children that are very proud of, and grateful to our father for teaching us so well. It doesn’t strike me at all as something that takes away from God’s glory. I think He must be very pleased with this priest.

Paul V. writes: 

I am just now reading Ven. Bede’s The Ecclesiastical History of the English People and even making allowance for exaggeration his account of the holiness of the clergy and devotion of the people in general, including the nobility, is a chastening experience, enough, if one were a medieval, to make one weep. There were also pagans in neighboring districts whose rituals and codes were full of vitality, natural love of custom and kin and their gods. They eventually adopted Christianity because of the holiness of its clergy and the result of that holiness — understood simply but emphatically as practicing what one preached — in the people. The doctrine behind it was understood as the cause, and as such holy (not mutable) and the criterion by which Christians, clergy and laity, should be judged. 

The wedding entrance dancers are our pagans; they dance with real drive (the videos I’ve seen) and obviously considerable practice to bring something stunning and unforgettable to an important ceremony. Within their circle it will not soon be forgotten. The Christian side (I speak as a traditionalist Catholic; prayers go up for holy priests at every public rosary) is tepid, and when not, with little practice to back it up, numb to anything beyond a 1950s vision of family life, and so forth and so on. Children slip away, or at least keep a foot in both camps. Family’s are somewhat larger than the average – not to be sneezed at. I think of an abstract painting. If I were to bring a stranger along, I would have to explain it totally, going back perhaps to St. Bede. 

As for the dancers, if you think they are banal, you haven’t plumbed the depths. If you need an explanation, go back to “Cheers,” a vision outside the family of an ideal family. Makeshift, of course: no children. And so our pagans are makeshift, waiting for they don’t know what. But they do know what they are not waiting for. I saw one video of a cascading entrance that was close to a series of genuflections, somewhat slower than the beat of the music, a processional faster and more deliberate but not unlike that of the school boys in Vigo’s “Zero for Conduct.” Innocent despite the lack of innocence. 

Agreed, no clapping in church.

Laura writes:

I have not seen the wedding dancers yet. It’s a new phenomenon to me.

Daniel H. in Seattle writes:

About a year ago I first started making a serious effort to get back in touch with the church of my youth and of my ancestors, the Episcopal church. I attended a Sunday service at the closest parish to my house, which happens to be the largest Episcopal church in my state. For the sermon, we had a “guest speaker.” The guest speaker gave a political speech about Israel and Palestine (I’ll give you two guesses which side he took, and your first guess doesn’t count). At the end of this rally-type speech, the congregation leapt to its feet, as one, and thundered out a standing ovation.

To say I was appalled is to put a back-formation on it, using the emotions I have now. At the time, all I can remembering is feeling stunned. The complete inappropriateness of the speaker’s topic astonished me, but when everyone lurched forward in unison to show their approval, I got a chill down my spine. This was not the house of God anymore, but of someone else. I sat on my hands during this applause, mainly because I found it profoundly inappropriate but also because I disagreed with his political position.

Ah! But you see? There they had me already! By having this kind of thing in church, they were forcing me into their political world whether I wanted it or not. I didn’t come to church to display my position on the Israel-Palestine question, but by refusing to applaud that’s essentially what I did. When everyone assents, you must assent too or you are conspicuous for your lack of assent. Your lack of assent ends up being more attention-getting and seemingly prideful than their fervent applause. And in fact, during the Peace of the Lord immediately following the “sermon” and applause, the woman just behind me gave me a dirty, disdainful look and refused to shake my hand.

Needless to say, I haven’t been back to that church, though it is “mine” both in terms of family tradition and geographical proximity. It was such a horrible experience. Such are things in these, our times.

Laura writes:

That is stunning.

Kilroy M. writes:

I have no intention of being offensive, but I believe that what Kimberly is experiencing is not religious awe but simple sentimentalism. Christians (liberal and conservative alike) often get “touchy feely” confused with the spiritual catharsis of prayer. While it’s mostly the liberals that see the “touchy feely” to be a “connection” to God, I am not suggesting that Kimberly is a Christian liberal. I am, however, suggesting that she is manifesting an aspect of religious liberalism. I concede that the priest of which she write is charismatic and I accept his sermons are inspiring. But that does not justify the allowance of the banal into religious ceremonial worship. Clapping is banal. I refuse to entertain the argument that it is not. No matter what people say about whether they “don’t feel disconnected from God” while doing it. I am sure the happy-clappers at my parish feel wonderfully “connected” but I do not when they express themselves in this loud and crass way. Their disregard for me is a sign of utter arrogance and is itself quite offensive on their part. Moreover, in relation to James N’s correspondence: while a wedding ceremony without applause does not harm the substance of the ceremony, applause at the end of a Mass objectively does (as per my above explanation). The simple and logical step would be to reject the practice entirely so as to avoid the hair splitting and when and where it is and is not OK. I will also add this: I have often recited the Litany of the Saints in Latin, word for word, because saying it this way enhances the sacral experience – I recite it without pause (I whisper) and then at the end, I just stop, close my eyes, and listen to the silence. The presence I feel in that silence… that is the exact opposite of the rendered discomfort felt in the tempest of applause after a sermon. I know which is Divine, and which is something altogether different.

Laura writes:

Well said.

Applause is incompatible with awe. It may not be incompatible with happiness or jubilation or community fellow-feeling, but these can all be expressed outside of church. If there were many places we could go to approach God in silence and humility then clapping in church, which is only one example of the general degradation of the liturgy, wouldn’t be significant. But there are not other places. I agree with Kilroy that those who are unbothered by clapping or the Kiss of Peace or a party atmosphere in church need to be sensitive to those who are and who find it impossible to worship with noise.

I am sure the priest Kimberly mentions is a gifted speaker. But if people are flocking to that church because of him, then something is seriously amiss in their understanding of religious worship. 

Kimberly writes:

When I see people very diligently trying to discover what kind of prayer they are experiencing and so completely wrapt up in their prayers that they seem afraid to stir, or to indulge in a moment’s thought, lest they should lose the slightest degree of the tenderness and devotion which they have been feeling, I realize how little they understand of the road to the attainment of union. They think that the whole thing consists in this. 

St. Theresa of Avila (Interior Castle, pg. 116). 

I chimed in about this particular priest, not because I disagree with the concept of clapping in Church being somewhat heretical, but because the sour stance being taken on the matter, and the stench it has of some silly fear. The tone I got from Reader N.’s original post made me think of the mean looks on irritated faces that all bolt around the first second a baby whines in the mass. For me, as a mother with little ones (although I don’t bring them to mass yet most of the time), this is more distracting and irritating then the noise of a baby. I am all for reverence and respect toward God. But something that worries me every bit as much as the liberal Christian’s “touchy-feely” nonsense is the lack of charity in many conservative Catholics. There is no patience in being so uptight that these things can actually rob you of your peace. Should we try to put a stop to something disrespectful? Yes. But should we judge these probably ignorant, well-meaning people as arrogant and insensitive? I think that’s taking it too far. 

I wish we didn’t say “Peace be with you” and shake hands in the mass. I have never liked that. I am irritated by clapping in Church the majority of the time. St. Louis De Montfort is as strict and reverent as can be, but one of his 14 rules for being a “Friend of the Cross” is not to scandalize the weak, for the sake of charity. So let’s just keep in mind that there is no need to lose patience with these things. Especially because that burst of passion on the matter may be all you’ve got, and now it’s wasted. Use your passion for the action of putting an end to the problem, and God willing, it might make a real change.

It has occurred to me that many people might go to that church for that priest particularly. The music is also excellent. What’s wrong with looking for inspiration? It’s only wrong if we let it drag us into sin when God chooses not to grant it. That church is packed every mass, every Sunday, and he doesn’t give every homily. There isn’t clapping in every mass. As far as I can tell, it’s a legitimate Catholic mass every time, and the people come consistently. It seems like a good thing to me.

Laura writes:

No one said it was not a legitimate Catholic mass. It is.

Secondly, no one equated clapping to the sound of a baby crying. Those who object to voluntary clapping would not automatically object to a baby crying, which is involuntary. That’s an entirely different form of noise. It seems unfair to accuse us of disliking babies.

There is an elderly man who sits near me at church on Sundays who has some kind of digestive disorder that causes him to belch frequently during the mass. It wouldn’t occur to me to be annoyed, though I do notice it and it is a distraction. I don’t expect to be so absorbed that I am unaware of any external stimuli. Perhaps I can stand his belching or a baby crying more than clapping , because the first two are not exciting. Clapping is a form of excitement and there is nothing private about this form of excitement. St. Theresa says the whole of spiritual life does not consist of contemplative prayer. This is correct. But some of it does. Even without clapping, the mass does not offer the opportunity for complete immersion in prayer. And, while it is wrong to make such a fetish out of silence the one doesn’t allow for normal human sounds and interruptions, it is also wrong to unnecessarily disturb the moments of relative calm which allow people to gather their thoughts and direct them toward God.

You cite St. Louis de Montfort as saying it is not right to lose patience with the standards of others. But, at the same time, you are exasperated by what you say is an excessive love of silence. You are impatient of this and call it indulgent and spiritually greedy to want silence. You consider it more virtuous to be open to distractions. So both sides are losing patience. There must be some authority we can appeal to. I don’t know much about the Church writings on this subject but I do know the value of silence and reverential calm in a church has been upheld by tradition. That is one authority we can appeal to. Clapping is a very recent innovation.

There are places in this world where one can go to clap. But there are very few places where one can go and be in a silent crowd.

Regarding the priest, I meant only that the priest himself should not be the center of the show. 

Please follow and like us: