Humanities desk
< August 29	<< Jul \| Aug \| Sep >>	August 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 30

Margaret Mead

I was wondering how many times Margaret Mead stayed in Lake Papakeechie, IN and what did she do/write there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.165.125 (talk) 2014-08-30T08:43:34‎

Misplaced question moved. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the answer to your question are anything except "zero" and "nothing at all"? --Jayron32 01:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This, perhaps? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Hoosier term for "deja vu all over again"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the answer-pair could not possibly be "zero" and "nothing at all", Jayron32. If she never went there, then the second question has a false premise; to put it another way, "nothing at all" is answer from the Nothing-Something-Everything spectrum, which assumes the answer to the first question was non-zero. (It's already the first day of Spring here, which explains Everything. Or Something. Or possibly Nothing.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

If the answer to the first part is "none", then the answer to the second part is either "not applicable" or "the empty set". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, she _did_ go there, and did whatever 20-something girls did in Indiana in 1923. I suspect it involved dinner parties, gramophone records, and (gasp) dancing. Probably not cocktails, though, the Volstead Act being in force at that time. Tevildo (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do people identify the social class of a Christian monk, nun, or cleric?

What is it called when a devout Christian from a wealthy household gives up everything he owns and pursues a monastic life? Would that be the "Nouveau Poor"? What about the cleric who pursues a career of pastoral work and ends up with a lofty bishop title, and people have to address him with respectful, fancy titles? Are these people part of the same social class as their immediate families? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way to put it, but "monk" is shorter. I'd go with whatever title the climber reaches, when addressing him. These people might be part of the same class as their families, if their families did the same things. But unless you're in a caste system, it's not where you're from, but where you go. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is much relevant modern day, but there was once this: Estates of the realm. Beside, though some clergy has tons of cash, most monks and whatnot theoretically don't. I'd always assumed that they lived outside the normal class system inasmuch as it still exists (it totally does). Mingmingla (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case I implied social classes don't exist in "the West", I didn't mean to. Just that social mobility also exists. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, Clerics were really "off to one side" of secular social class (neither nobility, nor commoners... but in a social stratification of their own, with bishops and abbots at the top, and village parish priests at the bottom). That said, through most of European history, bishops and abbots were chosen from the younger sons of the landed elite... so "family connections" have played a role, even within clergy. In the US, the social status of a a priest/pastor/minister has tended to be determined by the social status of his congregation. The more prestigious the social status of the congregation as a whole is the more prestigious will be the social status of it's priest, pastor or minister. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case I implied social mobility is easy, I didn't mean to. Nepotism, tribalism and racism also exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Estates of the realm for the concept of the Three Estates or basic three social classes: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners. American clergymen's status can sometimes be in reverse of the general pattern that you mention, Blueboar; sometimes a clergyman's prominence for whatever reason attracts people of status. For example, Clarence E. Macartney was extremely well known because of his preaching; although it was already large and well known, First Presbyterian Church in downtown Pittsburgh jumped quite a bit in social status when he became their minister. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German peace initiative of 1916

Do we have an article on this? And if not (or even if we do) where can I read more about this? DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We may not have an article about it. Here is a book of primary documents related to the peace offer. -- Cam (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been in reply to a letter by Woodrow Wilson. The "Lansdowne Letter" is indirectly related. AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural terminology

What's the technical term for the vertical board below the sill of an oriel window? (See picture). Bargeboard and fascia board seem to apply to roofs rather than windows. Thanks in advance for your help. Tevildo (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the corbel table, which goes above the corbel (the supporters). 65.24.105.132 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Corbel Table, I'm afraid. Tevildo (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "courses"? Link: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corbel_out 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found an English Heritage listing for a building, 1 Bridge Street, Chester which has a similar feature... "The corner turret has 3 good pargeted panels beneath a mullioned 4-light canted casement" [1]. Also the Ancient House, Ipswich (although they are bay windows rather than oriels proper): "The panels below the bays have pargetted figures representing America, Africa, Asia and Europe". Either English Heritage didn't know either, or they really are just called "panels". Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Panels" will probably do, thanks. I need to complain to my landlord about them, so I didn't want to use the wrong word. :) Tevildo (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, in the Bridge Street photo, is that the old market cross that used to be in the Roman Garden in Pepper Street? When did they move it? Tevildo (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't know - I haven't been to Chester since I was 13. Here is a better photograph though. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It was moved in 1975, according to Chester High Cross. Things don't seem to have changed enormously since my young day - Walton's was there in the early 70's, certainly. Tevildo (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do people receive communion at a megachurch?

Do people ever receive communion at a megachurch, and if so, how do they do it? What about the people who watch church service at home on their TVs? Do megachurches hold any opinion about people who do not receive communion because they are at home, watching the service on TV? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Megachurches are a Protestant phenomenon, and communion is a Catholic ritual. So megachurches don't do communion at all, AFAIK. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many protestant churches do celebrate communion, so you're wrong there. I'd imagine that the larger the church, the more communion servers you'd need. They'd serve it like any other church, there'd just be more people passing out the bread and wine/juice. You can find a full description of the various methods of celebrating communion at the article titled Eucharist; if you know the denomination of the "megachurch" in question, you can find out what they do. --Jayron32 20:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Most mainstream protestant denominations celebrate communion, even if it's not as central to their liturgy as it is in Catholicism. I grew up Methodist, and we had communion once a month. We knelt at the communion rail, and were given a piece of sliced white bread cut into small squares, and a shot-glass of blackcurrant juice. I later went to a (large, but far from a megachurch) non-denominational evangelical church for a while, and communion was very rare, but it happened occasionally. They had a number of servers, probably the elders, bring a basket of small pieces of bread and a cup of blackcurrant juice to the end of each pew, they were passed down the pew and whoever wanted to partake did so. If megachurches celebrate communion, I suspect the latter method would be more likely. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there megachurches' opinions on the inclusion of TV viewers in the Eucharist? 65.24.105.132 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Eucharist notes that the founder of christianity instituted the eucharist by telling the persons present what to do with one loaf and one cup. The 3rd image here shows Pastor Pam Bryan administering communion at Cedar Park Assembly of God, Bothell, Washington. This is a megachurch of 1,412 members. There is no sign of restrictive privacy nor of human blood or pieces of flesh that would result from Transubstantiation. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From your last remark, I suspect that you are misunderstanding Transubstantiation: "The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood, while all that is accessible to the senses remains unchanged" (from the lead paragraph of our article). However, rejection of Transubstantiation was a main issue of the Protestant Reformation, so you wouldn't expect an evangelical Christian to believe in it. Alansplodge (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the bit about "all that is accessible to the senses remains unchanged". I also understand that there were 95 issues that launched the Reformation and none of them concerns communion. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of Protestant denominations do communion, they just don't buy the transubstantiation bit. Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me." That's the part that Protestants honor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A conveyor system could work. Not saying it is or isn't currently used, just an idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of an outdated and clunky idea, now that I think about it. A team of those tiny drone helicopters is probably more the way of the future. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the distant future, Christ's body will probably be transubstantiated and teletransported into the living room (or virtual reality helmet). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Google the subject "communion at megachurch", and you will see various ways the churches handle the obvious logistical issues this ritual would present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. Reformed and Pentecostal churches often celebrate communion by preparing individual glasses of wine and tiny squares of bread which are loaded onto trays/plates and distributed by deacons. Bigger church, more deacons, problem solved. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many megachurches have deacons? Since so many are self-founded and not part of any denomination, I'm left wondering how many of them have no ordained positions and run only with paid staff, including a preacher who's basically just the CEO who talks weekly. To answer the original question, go to http://books.google.com/books?id=s3Yt6Iog2loC (the authors examined a lot of American megachurches, and this book publishes the results) and run a search for "communion". Among the more relevant results is that it's definitely celebrated less often (page 94) and abandoned completely by some (28), and the authors give an example on 97 of a megachurch where communion is functionally replaced by a person operating a little station among many, where you can come and get some if you feel like it. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now have the image of a bunch of guys with trays and paper hats going up and down the aisles of a Mega Church yelling "Body of Christ!... gettchyer Body and Blood of Christ here!"... like beer and peanut vendors at a baseball game. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

That's pretty funny, but how many non-Catholic churches believe in transubstantiation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The various Anglican/Episcopal Churches believe in transubstantiation... and (I think) the Lutherans. These denominations may have subtle differences in the fine dogmatic detail over exactly what occurs during transubstantiation, but the basic concept is there. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, Anglo-Catholics do espouse it, but "mainstream" Anglicans generally don't; Article XXVIII of the Articles of Religion says, "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." [2]. Martin Luther wrote in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520): "Since then it is not necessary to lay it down that a transubstantiation is effected by the operation of divine power, it must be held as a figment of human opinion; for it rests on no support of Scripture or of reason." [3] (p.12) so we can conclude that he was against the idea. Alansplodge (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Orthodox churches believe in something similar if not identical (particulary compared to typical Protestant views). Protestantism is actually the anomaly for downplaying or denying the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the Protestant view is that Jesus' words were symbolic rather than literal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity, note that "transubstantiation" and "Real Presence" are not synonymous terms. Lutherans, for example, believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but prefer the notion of sacramental union to that weird Aristotelian transubstantiation thing Catholics believe in. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That idea reminds me of something that's a big practical matter — open communion is basically the only possible route to take. Closed communion is ridiculously difficult to practice in a megachurch context, although its obscurity in 21st century America means that tons of megachurch leaders are probably completely unfamiliar with the concept. In the latter situation, members of the congregation and outsiders known by the leaders are the only ones who participate; imagine how difficult this would be, especially in megachurches that don't have a concept of formal membership. Excommunication, moreover, would be impossible to practice if anyone can come and get some, although the obscurity of church discipline in 21st century America means that it, too, is probably largely unknown. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it depends what you mean by closed communion?

The Catholic church is generally accepted to practice closed communion with some complexities as per our article. But in a large church, unless you're famous or happened to be recognised by someone, whether you're a divorced and remarried Catholic, a doctor who still performs abortions, or a Hindu or Muslim or whatever rather than a Catholic, or otherwise someone who's denied communion; it's unlikely you'll be physically denied. It's still generally considered a closed communion since it's clear that these people aren't generally welcome to take communion even if it's not something they can easily enforce. (And from their POV, the person is committing a further sin.) In fact, as I understand it, even if you are recognised it's complicated. Particularly if you aren't an extreme case, you may not be denied straight away, instead advised privately to stop approaching. In fact, they may even make that advice public before they start stopping you. See e.g. [4] [5] [6]

Of course being a member in good standing eligible for communion in a megachurch may be complicated. But I imagine it's possible some may restrict it to those who have sufficently ~~helped fund the planes, mansions, personal servants and other components of the preacher's lavish lifestyle~~ tithed.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Churches that don't acknowledge transubstantiation, closed communion would be a nonsense. This video shows a posh Church of Scotland communion (the actual communion starts at 29ish minutes). Normally those too far back to share the cup are given thimble size glasses of wine, (or grape juice/blackcurrent cordial in the Happy Clappy Churches), passed along the pews in special trays that stop them from sliding around. As the deacons are volunteers, and occasionally press-ganged on the spot, there is no theoretical limit to their number. Does this help? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not either nonsense. In many churches, membership in that particular congregation is required, which includes tithing or at least paying some sort of dues in order to support the expenses of the church - one of which is communion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to hear which ones. Here in the UK pretty much all of the protestant Churches that practice communion invite all members of whichever church to partake at the beginning of the rite. Welcoming a Christian who is far from home is a duty, and welcoming newcomers to the neighbourhood is a no-brainer. There is a collection, and communion isn't a three course dinner. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the USA, it's largely smaller independent churches and congregations of smaller, more conservative denominations that practise closed communion or some variation of it; my own church practises a variation, in which a congregational leaders will allow a non-member to commune if they think his faith is similar enough to theirs. I don't know the UK scene, although I expect that the various Presbyterian denominations of Scotland (other than the Kirk) would generally practise some variation of the concept. See communion token — tokens are distributed to members before the communion service, and only people with tokens are allowed to commune. It's theoretically a simple way of practising close communion, although it's not good if you're willing to allow visitors to commune, and someone with a token can of course give it to someone else who wouldn't have been allowed in. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Communion Token isn't even used by the Wee Frees anymore, and I've never heard of them in use during three generations of my family. The article you quote shows they were of mainly historical interest in 1908 (see references). The main qualification for attending a Free Church communion is the stamina to sit through a one hour sermon. Thanks for the information on the USA. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that per our closed communion article, some baptists practice it. And per our Eucharist#Baptist article, baptists don't generally believe in transubstantiation. Similarly our article mentions some Lutheran churches practice closed communion and they don't generally believe in Transubstantiation#Lutheranism either. (I'm lazy to check, but I doubt Confessional Lutheranism are exceptional in believing in transubstantiation. And I'm fairly sure a number of those mentioned under other groups don't believe in transubstantiation either.

As per BB and others, I don't understand why you think closed communion wouldn't occur without believing in transubstantiation. The fact that some Christians may believe that it inviting them to communion is important to "Welcoming a Christian who is far from home is a duty, and welcoming newcomers to the neighbourhood is a no-brainer", doesn't mean all will. Communion can still be regarded as sacramental, or otherwise sufficiently important that it may be reserved for those they regard as sufficiently connected to god, or whatever. It doesn't mean they won't welcome new members (although some may not), simply that they may feel you need to fulfill some requirement before you can partake fully in their service.

As I emphasised, in the particular case of mega-churches, with their frequent emphasis on tithing or donating to the church, and adherance to the prosperity theology, it's possible they may argue communion is something reserved for those who have shown sufficient faith in god by having tithed as much as the church argues is necessary (which may be a percentage perhaps with exceptions for those sufficiently poor). And this could be the case regardless of whether you accept their likely argument that god wants the tithing so the church can do their good work, or you think it's more likely my struck out example.

As I mentioned, they may not do much policing of this policy. However, probably even more so in the case of a megachurch, it's likely faith and believe of adherents and their acceptance of church theology is an important part of how they work. This theology may not be as complicated or extensive as more traditional churches but in the parts they do emphasise, it may still be important. So the members belief that if they want to participate fully they need to fulfill what the church argues is required of them may often be enough.

Yes this may be a lot of 'if's', and I'm not saying it's definitely the case some church has their theology. My point is with over 1300 churches that may qualify in the US alone List of the largest Protestant churches in the United States, it's difficult to rule any possibilities out.

P.S. Even the historic practices would seem to reaffirm the view that there's no particular reason it won't happen without transubstantiation.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment a long time later. At the time I wrote my original reply, I wasn't entirely aware of the difference between Canon 915 and Canon 916 [7]. I sort of read about it, but didn't explore it that well so didn't discuss it at all in my above response. It's not that important but may still be helpful to know. Anyway, the crux of the matter is in the Catholic Churc, there's a specific written difference between who shouldn't receive communion and who should be denied communion. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general response to some of the above comments about closed communion, which seem to boil down to Well, how do they enforce it? For the most part, the answer is that churches don't enforce it. It's not a matter of enforcing it. They invite people meeting certain criteria to the communion table, and not those who don't. That in itself makes it "closed communion". No one's going to check your ID; if you want to sneak in and grab a wafer that's up to you, but you're doing it against their will. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]