Thread: Robes or none - evidence, please? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024890
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
This isn't a question about the merits or otherwise of clergy/readers wearing robes, but rather a request for evidence, if there is any.
Like many Ministry Teams, we have a debate brewing on whether we should wear robes. The argument being put forward is that robes are alienating to the young, to 'fringers' at Family Services, and to non-Anglicans attending our services because we are the only english-speaking church in our neighbourhood. 'Reasons why people don't come' are notoriously slippery and prone to handy excuses anyway, but these justifications for not robing sound to me like a 'standard argument' which could be (and is being?) applied anywhere.
I'm assuming that 'out there' somewhere there is a body of evidence - results of surveys etc - to back up the case against wearing robes on these occasions. The only such survey I can personally remember was done by an evangelical youth organisation in UK a few years ago: I seem to remember the outcome was that responders didn't mind robes being worn as long as they were clean and well-ironed(!),but preferred colourful robes to dull old black and white!
Not being interested in this discussion until recently I've obviously missed out on a key area of my liturgical education: please point me in the direction of the evidence and research (not just the arguments please!)that is the foundation of the change that seems to be happening. Thank you!
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
I doubt there is much research on this subject, Oferyas. If you think how a minister dresses in church is only a matter of personal or congregational preference, then "for those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like". And in that case, I'd say don't wear them. There's no point dressing up just because you like dressing up - unless in your church it's a matter governed by canon law, in which case I'd say keep the rules.
If, on the other hand, it's something that has significance in the way you "do church", then the question to ask is, "Is this something we can stick on the list of things that are negotiable?" And if it is, then what else is on that list?
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I haven't seen any research at all but a few years ago, somebody said something to me to me here on the ship, that seemed quite sensible.
They said that people outside of the church expect that we will wear strange clothes and use strange language, the trick is getting people into church in the first place.
I don't see how what we wear makes any difference to those outside - once they are in, of course, we may repel or attract by what we do. However it seems to me to be a lot less about what we wear, than how we treat people once they are in.
I think robes are more of an issue to those inside the church than those outside..
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
They're one of those issues that make it easy to deflect away from what's really going on. Are we inviting people to come? Are we making them welcome when they arrive (neither suffocating them nor ignoring them)? Are we providing events that people might actually want to come to or are we just doing what we've always done? And so on... but the answers to those things might actually be quite challenging. Much easier to blame it on the minister's cassock-alb.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I doubt that there is very much hard evidence. The conversations I have over wine/coffee at confirmation services tend to be about people coming to faith because they discovered Christians were normal human beings and that an encounter with Jesus Christ was transformative. They discovered this via a number of routes, one of which some adduce as "church wasn't so weird and about dressing up" and others adduce as "I found that the ceremonial and the dignity of the worship led me to the mystery of God". So - mixed economy.
Of the 100+ churches I look after, about 20 or so don't wear robes at one of their main services, and when I go there, I don't either. That's their culture, and people are finding faith, God, worship, ministry and discipleship there. But that's also happening in most of the other 80. (The non-robers are all growing numerically, spiritually, and in relation to their community). The luxury of London is that our parish churches are so close together that nearly everyone has a choice about where to worship.
There are none of them that have discarded robes completely - funerals and marriages are obvious contexts where they would be foolish not to meet residual expectations.
I'd be interested to see any research - anecdotally, it would appear to me that the important questions are not the external cultural questions about how we dress people, but the absolutely crucial issues about a sense of the numinous/meeting with God - and whether this is a place where the Christian faith is found to be true and real among the people who worship there. In my experience, catholic, evangelical, charismatic and MoR shops all do that. With or without robes.
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
Thank you for these thoughtful answers. This is starting to sound like one of those things 'everybody knows is true' by some kind of miraculous insight....
My foggy memory says the survey I remember was done by ?'British Youth for Christ'? - does that jog any memories?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
As to the attitude of the young towards a robed group or order, a great deal would depend on how well the young robe-wearers are trained and encouraged in esprit-de-corps. Acolytes in one church may be very slipshod and lackadaisical, and in another act with precision and panache. I daresay in the second situation, they would be happy and proud to put on their robes, and others would be eager to join.
When I have the opportunity, I point out that robes are historically the mark of literate and civilized people. We've had times before when the only people who wore robes were to be found in church chancels and sanctuaries, because the church itself was an outpost of civilization surrounded by barbarism. From what I can see, such times may be returning. It is certainly true already in some neighborhoods.
It is probably true that black cassocks are not the most attractive. I'd like to put acolytes and choristers in red robes, especially when the dedication of the church makes it appropriate. Then explain that red stands for courage: some armies have worn red uniforms so that blood will not show.
Hence, bare statistical data drawn from a large population and making no effort to take such intangible factors into account means little.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
My argument for robes is that no matter how old you are, it's fun to play dress-up.
Which is how I now have a cassock and a surplice and an alb.
No, I don't wear them all at once.
Of our current crop of Eucharistic Ministers (who also double as acolytes and there's always at a bare minimum 3 serving of a Sunday), we've got three lifetime Piskies, a handful who migrated over from other churches (yo), and four who have never been Christian until they wandered in our doors. My team this last weekend ranged in age from 65 to 27, hairstyles ranged from a buzz cut (again, yo) to dreadlocks, tattoos were plentiful underneath the robes, and gender expression was exclusively female, which irks me sometimes and tickles me at others.
Honestly, though, it doesn't matter what you're wearing. If your group isn't open and welcoming, people aren't going to feel welcomed.
[ 23. August 2012, 00:44: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I came to the conclusion LOOOONG ago that when a clergybod says "clergy robes put people (especially young people) off", they really mean "I get embarrassed by wearing them." I have certainly never seen any genuine research that would indicate robes are a significant problem.
YES - there ARE some people who, for one reason or another, find robes a distinct obstacle. But there are (IMHO) just as many people who find their vicar unrobed equally objectionable. And I'm still talking about people outside the church who may or may not become enquirers and so on. In fact, I could even go so far as to say that I know of more people who were put off by a non-robing vicar than by a robing one. For quite a lot of people outside the church community, it's about assumed expectations.
In my experience, most people (even of the youthful persuasion) don't give rat's arse about the fact that someone is robed. What they really care about is whether they are welcomed, cared for, and paid attention to. And you can do that no matter what you're wearing.
One other comment... If you decide NOT to robe, you still have to make a considered judgement about what you will wear. Because it will all say something about you and the church - and people will take what your clothing says both positively and negatively. So will you wear suits and ties? "Preacher's jumpers" from M&S? T shirts and shorts? Everyone of those will give a message that may not be the message you intended!
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
As to the attitude of the young towards a robed group or order, a great deal would depend on how well the young robe-wearers are trained and encouraged in esprit-de-corps. Acolytes in one church may be very slipshod and lackadaisical, and in another act with precision and panache. I daresay in the second situation, they would be happy and proud to put on their robes, and others would be eager to join.
When I have the opportunity, I point out that robes are historically the mark of literate and civilized people. We've had times before when the only people who wore robes were to be found in church chancels and sanctuaries, because the church itself was an outpost of civilization surrounded by barbarism. From what I can see, such times may be returning. It is certainly true already in some neighborhoods.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It is probably true that black cassocks are not the most attractive. I'd like to put acolytes and choristers in red robes, especially when the dedication of the church makes it appropriate. Then explain that red stands for courage: some armies have worn red uniforms so that blood will not show.
I think that a more important consideration is that the priest(s) and server(s) should all wear the same colour cassock. So, unless the priest is a cardinal or a chaplain to HMQ, both should wear black.
I've noticed a disturbing trend in certain MotR Anglican churches, were servers are seen as 'doing their own thing' rather than acting as appendages of the celebrant assisting him (or her) in offering the salutary sacrifice. It's interesting, but perhaps unsurprising, that there are parishes where the priest and servers seem as one despite the fact that the latter habitually number over a dozen,* whilst in others a team of even two servers seems superfluous to the action.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
... Like many Ministry Teams, we have a debate brewing on whether we should wear robes. The argument being put forward is that robes are alienating to the young, to 'fringers' at Family Services ...
There is something profoundly wrong if you are even considering the question. Worship in the Anglican tradition, especially the for the Eucharist, has proper vestments. Their use does not depend on what any young people, non-Anglicans or any others may think.
American Episcopalians, of which I am one, tend to think this kind if question about vesture as bizarre. I know that sort of question might arise among Evangelicals in England and in an Australian diocese or two, but I would not at all be surprised if there is no real research data to support the practice other than perennial notions about vestments which rise from nothing more than skewed Protestant views.
*
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on
:
The one thing regarding robes that will put me off a church is if the choir dresses the male singers differently from the female ones. Even if the church in question doesn't actually have outdated attitudes towards women, it's quite a jarring visual, especially if the men are wearing "classic" cassocks & surplices, but the women are wearing frilly cuffs, girly collars and head coverings.
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
There is something profoundly wrong if you are even considering the question. Worship in the Anglican tradition, especially the for the Eucharist, has proper vestments. Their use does not depend on what any young people, non-Anglicans or any others may think.
Mr Rob, how I wish it were that simple! 'Anglican tradition', even in the geographical spread reflected in responses to this thread, may have 'proper vestments' (at least for the Eucharist) - but cannot agree on what those vestments actually might be! The actual reality of what you will see in any given church seems to depend in varying degrees on parish custom (which was new once!), rules or customs of the wider church, the preferences of the incumbent, and the resources available when you open the cupboards in the vestry!
Almost every Sunday service from Common Worship apart from the Eucharist is some permutation of A Service of the Word. The Canons and rubrics are silent on what distinctive vesture (if any) should be worn by the leader of this service: hence the debate!
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I suspect the reason some people are suspicious of clerical vesture is that they are suspicious of clericalism. Unfortunately, an act of worship needs some sort of president unless it is a very small and informal gathering where everyone knows their part; in practice, someone is going to be the focus of attention like it or not. If that person is robed, the attention is diverted from their personality to their representative role. If unrobed, they need to draw attention to themselves by 'being a personality' in one way or another, which paradoxically is much more 'clericalist' than when the ordained figure represents the whole community.
My neighbouring parish, years ago, was an LEP shared between three denominations. Each of their ministers wore (or not) the vesture that he (it was always he at that time) preferred. I was invited to preach and asked what I should wear, and was told, 'whatever you usually do'. Which was kindly meant but confusing. And in that case vesture was seen as the personal taste of the minister concerned, rather than the sign of his representative status as that church's minister.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I suspect the reason some people are suspicious of clerical vesture is that they are suspicious of clericalism. Unfortunately, an act of worship needs some sort of president unless it is a very small and informal gathering where everyone knows their part; in practice, someone is going to be the focus of attention like it or not.
I agree you need someone to preside over a meeting (as a sort of master of ceremonies) but this person need not be the focus of attention. You could easily (and I think should) have several people leading parts of a church service; some leading music, others doing drama, some reading, some giving a talk, others leading a time of reflection etc.
I don't have evidence for the effect of robes (so I'm sorry for this off-topic diversion!) but for me it's a theological / ecclesiological issue; in my view there's nothing special or different about the one presiding over a church gathering so they shouldn't be marked out as different from those who are not presiding over that gathering.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If that person is robed, the attention is diverted from their personality to their representative role. If unrobed, they need to draw attention to themselves by 'being a personality' in one way or another, which paradoxically is much more 'clericalist' than when the ordained figure represents the whole community.
Sorry, I don't see how this has to be the case. An unrobed person should simply be able to draw attention to themselves by virtue of the fact that they are holding the microphone, standing at the pulpit or whatever. Do we need someone to be wearing a special outfit in order for them to get our attention in other aspects of life, or is the church gathering context unique in this regard? I'm confused...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think, South Coast Kevin, that those who advocate robes and so on tend to do so for aesthetic reasons as much as anything else - as well, of course, as indicating that something 'special' or holy is going on - which many will consider to be the case, particularly in relation to the eucharist.
I think Pete173 has made a very sensible contribution to this discussion. Our vicar eschews robes and keeps telling me that it's because it puts people off - yet I know people in our small town who don't come to our parish church precisely because he doesn't wear robes and they fear that it might become too happy-clappy.
Whether they would come if he got togged up is a moot point, though.
Personally, I quite like robes and so on but then I'm gradually going higher up the candle. It all depends on context. I was happily part of a Baptist church which had a very casual dress code. It met in a hired hall and the aesthetics, musical style and so on was all fine in that context.
Personally, I find that kind of approach appropriate in a Baptist or Vineyard context but less so in an Anglican one - but that might just be me. I can't quite put my finger on why I think like that, but it all just feels a bit more 'forced' and deliberate in an Anglican setting somehow and less 'authentic' than it would be at your church, say, or a similar independent outfit.
Interestingly, Orthodox priests tell me that members of their congregation contribute more to the prayers/worship etc than they ever found to be the case when they were Anglican vicars (prior to crossing the Bosphorus).
I used to be sceptical of this, but lo and behold, at our very low evangelical parish on Sunday a lay reader led the (non-eucharistic) service dressed very casually and every single thing that was done or said was done or said by him apart from the scripture readings and the intercessions. The rest was a complete monologue.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
South Coast Kevin: I think the difference in attitudes might stem from different priorities. For me, as for most Christians in the broad catholic tradition, worship is primarily the Eucharist in which the whole community is drawn into the self-offering of Christ. Whether or not one believes that the president needs to be a priest given special powers, or simply the spokesperson for the assembly, s/he has a specific role which particularly involves pronouncing the words of thanksgiving over the bread and the wine, breaking the bread, and offering it in communion. It is important that the minister in this context appears as anonymous and undistracting as possible.
Traditional vestments might well be distracting to someone who is unused to them, but a congregation soon gets accustomed to seeing them as the norm; the important thing is that the same robes are worn whoever is presiding. If the minister is always going to wear dark suit and clerical collar, or golf shirt and chinos, that becomes a uniform just as much as alb and chasuble. If, depending on the individual and/or their whim, it's T-shirt and jeans one week, formal suit the next, collar or no collar... well, that is distracting.
The alternative, characteristic of free evangelical/ pentecostal worship, doesn't need a 'president' as such, just someone to act as MC/compere as it were. So what they wear is less significant. I hope I am not trivialising this style of worship, with which I am not familiar: it's not dismissing its content or spiritual value to suggest that its form is more akin to a variety or chat show than liturgical worship as traditionally understood. Is that a fair comment?
[ 23. August 2012, 11:33: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
I am glad to belong to a church,where the presiding priest is wearing the chasuble, since he is representing Christ at the altar,
Furthermore, the assisting altar servers male and female are robed in cassock and surplice.
I lke the symbolism in the Christian Worship,colours,candles, incense and the sign of the cross.
I have my serious doubts that people are really put off by a robed priest,whether male or female.
It is good to see that vestments are currently worn in the English cathedrals, it shows the catholicity of the Church of England.
I suppose that low church people do not the appreciate the beauty of the christian worship.
Are these Evangelicals in fact not heirs of the Puritanical tradition of the Reformation ?
Thank God that the Catholic Revival.the Oxoford Movement has enriched the Anglican Worship in so many ways.
We dress up, as we are to meet the King of Kings in the Eucharist.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
In my experience, most people (even of the youthful persuasion) don't give rat's arse about the fact that someone is robed. What they really care about is whether they are welcomed, cared for, and paid attention to. And you can do that no matter what you're wearing.
I’d agree with all that Oscar says in his post. But there’s something that matters more than being friendly, important though that is (and different people will find different things friendly or off-putting).
And that is being convincing. And we can’t play at that. If the minister gives the impression that s/he doesn’t believe in what’s going on but is only doing things to convince others, then you’re on to a loser.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It all depends on context. I was happily part of a Baptist church which had a very casual dress code. It met in a hired hall and the aesthetics, musical style and so on was all fine in that context.
Personally, I find that kind of approach appropriate in a Baptist or Vineyard context but less so in an Anglican one - but that might just be me. I can't quite put my finger on why I think like that, but it all just feels a bit more 'forced' and deliberate in an Anglican setting somehow and less 'authentic' than it would be at your church, say, or a similar independent outfit.
Yep, I'm sure you're right. Context and expectations weigh heavily on both sides of this discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
South Coast Kevin: I think the difference in attitudes might stem from different priorities. For me, as for most Christians in the broad catholic tradition, worship is primarily the Eucharist in which the whole community is drawn into the self-offering of Christ. Whether or not one believes that the president needs to be a priest given special powers, or simply the spokesperson for the assembly, s/he has a specific role which particularly involves pronouncing the words of thanksgiving over the bread and the wine, breaking the bread, and offering it in communion. It is important that the minister in this context appears as anonymous and undistracting as possible.
And I'd say the same about the minister in my context, which means I'd expect them to wear their regular clothes. For me, this would make the minister as anonymous and undistracting as possible but, as per Gamaliel's comments, I know it's all about what we're used to. You'd find casual clothes off-putting, I'd find robes likewise!
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The alternative, characteristic of free evangelical/ pentecostal worship, doesn't need a 'president' as such, just someone to act as MC/compere as it were. So what they wear is less significant.
Fair comment, IMO, but I still balk at language like Utrecht Catholic's of the priest representing Christ at the altar. I'd say we all represent Christ as the bearers of God's image in the world; the priest is truly - IMO, of course - no different from anyone else in the congregation and thus should not be singled out by e.g. the wearing of a different type of clothing.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
It occurs to me, reading this thread, that an interesting research topice might be "Are the robes/vestments perceived to do what they are intended to do?"
First, of course, you'd have to decide what they're intended to do.
I remember when I was in training at St Stephen's House, we got together from time to time with the other Anglican colleges in Oxford (and yes, we did call it "inter-faith week" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) for study and worship. One time, our Principal decided that he would vest for Mass in church, saying the vesting prayers aloud. It made the point that in Catholic tradition the vestments have acquired symbolic meaning, and their use is accompanied by prayer. The near-universal reaction from visiting students was, "We thought you just liked dressing up. Now we know it actually means something, we've changed our minds."
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
South Coast Kevin writes:
quote:
Sorry, I don't see how this has to be the case. An unrobed person should simply be able to draw attention to themselves by virtue of the fact that they are holding the microphone, standing at the pulpit or whatever. Do we need someone to be wearing a special outfit in order for them to get our attention in other aspects of life, or is the church gathering context unique in this regard? I'm confused...
They might be able to draw attention to themselves by holding a microphone etc, but it doesn't help the rest of us, who might be trying to figure out what is going on. I have been in two situations of this sort: 1) where an unrobed (golf shirt and shorts) stood at the front of the steps near the pulpit and spoke for about 15 minutes. We were informed at the coffee hour that this was the sermon; 2) attending a beachside Eucharist where there were several main figures, one of whom turned out to be the celebrant, which I was able to figure out by the epiclesis. Apparently, if one is part of the rector's in circle, or one of the parish' regulars, and not a visitor, you know what is going on. If not, then... be confused.
Over the years, I fear that most of the unrobed I have encountered were using personality to establish their presence and, possibly as Grouch suggests, might have been uncomfortable with their role. By your mileage may vary.
As far as the OP goes, I have never run into any research on the topic. I suspect that a researcher would run into lots of variables on account of region and ethnicity (e.g., would a Coastal Salish congregation, used to robing for community ceremonies, produce a different result than with the golf club denizens of North Vancouver?) and they would need to be careful about their assumptions in wording the questionnaire-- as can be seen by the posts on this thread, most of us come to the OP carrying a fair bit of baggage.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Yes Context is important and wider context in this case. My understanding is that non-RC churches in France operate in a very different one to in England. It plays out quite strongly in the desire to differentiate from Roman Catholicism. How this works out if practice I do not know. I can see being in a black cassock and Genevan gown as a rather clear statement of not being Roman Catholic.
Jengie
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I'm sure that context is important. The original OP asked for evidence and anecdote rather than an argument as to whether they should or should not be worn.
I am a great lover of costume (and that includes religious robes) in all walks of life.
It was always a disapointment in a previous age to see Shakespeare done in ordinary dress. This is now post-Harry Potter where most young people were enthralled by robes and mysticism and meaning and the biazzre. Let's go for it!
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
The alternative, characteristic of free evangelical/ pentecostal worship, doesn't need a 'president' as such, just someone to act as MC/compere as it were. So what they wear is less significant. I hope I am not trivialising this style of worship, with which I am not familiar: it's not dismissing its content or spiritual value to suggest that its form is more akin to a variety or chat show than liturgical worship as traditionally understood. Is that a fair comment?
Not sure it's quite fair. I think there is a role of presiding, irrespective of dress, which is there in most Christian worship. At Spring Harvest, leading 4000 people in worship in a Big Top, we continually discuss how we "hold" the presidency role in order precisely not to be a celebrity culture but in order to facilitate people's encounter with God the Trinity. Vesture can, in some traditions, help that process, but it's also the charism of "gubernesis" - of "steering" people through worship which is the internal gift that is needed in leading worship. And you're right, there is a danger that informality detracts from encounter with the living God. But so can formalised ritual. We need to be self aware in order not to be in the way!
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
They might be able to draw attention to themselves by holding a microphone etc, but it doesn't help the rest of us, who might be trying to figure out what is going on. I have been in two situations of this sort: 1) where an unrobed (golf shirt and shorts) stood at the front of the steps near the pulpit and spoke for about 15 minutes. We were informed at the coffee hour that this was the sermon; 2) attending a beachside Eucharist where there were several main figures, one of whom turned out to be the celebrant, which I was able to figure out by the epiclesis. Apparently, if one is part of the rector's in circle, or one of the parish' regulars, and not a visitor, you know what is going on. If not, then... be confused.
Oh dear! My solution would be for the preacher and celebrant in these two cases to explain who they were and what they were doing. With the casually-dressed preacher, for example:
'Hello, My name's Carla and I'm here to give a talk about Paul's letter to Philemon today. Before I start, let's pray.'
That's all it needs, isn't it?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
They might be able to draw attention to themselves by holding a microphone etc, but it doesn't help the rest of us, who might be trying to figure out what is going on. I have been in two situations of this sort: 1) where an unrobed (golf shirt and shorts) stood at the front of the steps near the pulpit and spoke for about 15 minutes. We were informed at the coffee hour that this was the sermon; 2) attending a beachside Eucharist where there were several main figures, one of whom turned out to be the celebrant, which I was able to figure out by the epiclesis. Apparently, if one is part of the rector's in circle, or one of the parish' regulars, and not a visitor, you know what is going on. If not, then... be confused.
Oh dear! My solution would be for the preacher and celebrant in these two cases to explain who they were and what they were doing. With the casually-dressed preacher, for example:
'Hello, My name's Carla and I'm here to give a talk about Paul's letter to Philemon today. Before I start, let's pray.'
That's all it needs, isn't it?
Yes, it would have been. I agree entirely. I would have thought it would have been a no-brainer. Ditto with the beachside celebrant. In both cases, they seemed a bit surprised that there were people present whom they did not know personally-- while I have only cited two instances, I have been at other non-vested events where much was assumed. Vestments are great code for the visitor or the casual observer.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And you're right, there is a danger that informality detracts from encounter with the living God. But so can formalised ritual. We need to be self aware in order not to be in the way!
That's probably all that needs to be said. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Except: who decides what the 'tradition' is going to be? An Anglican church where the vicar unilaterally (or with a few supporters) decides to ditch robes is a different situation from somewhere like SCKevin's place where (presumably) it has never been a tradition. And as one of the reasons for wearing vestments is to symbolise the continuity of tradition across the church and across the ages, at least some regard ought to be given to wider church norms.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
They might be able to draw attention to themselves by holding a microphone etc, but it doesn't help the rest of us, who might be trying to figure out what is going on. I have been in two situations of this sort: 1) where an unrobed (golf shirt and shorts) stood at the front of the steps near the pulpit and spoke for about 15 minutes. We were informed at the coffee hour that this was the sermon; 2) attending a beachside Eucharist where there were several main figures, one of whom turned out to be the celebrant, which I was able to figure out by the epiclesis. Apparently, if one is part of the rector's in circle, or one of the parish' regulars, and not a visitor, you know what is going on. If not, then... be confused.
Oh dear! My solution would be for the preacher and celebrant in these two cases to explain who they were and what they were doing. With the casually-dressed preacher, for example:
'Hello, My name's Carla and I'm here to give a talk about Paul's letter to Philemon today. Before I start, let's pray.'
That's all it needs, isn't it?
Yes, it would have been. I agree entirely. I would have thought it would have been a no-brainer. Ditto with the beachside celebrant. In both cases, they seemed a bit surprised that there were people present whom they did not know personally-- while I have only cited two instances, I have been at other non-vested events where much was assumed. Vestments are great code for the visitor or the casual observer.
I agree absolutely with Augustine here as I have been in a similar position - I had occasion to visit my old church a little while ago (which has changed quite a bit since I was a member) and had no idea who was who. The sermon was given I think by a lay reader, but nobody was introduced, and everyone was casually dressed, including a man I assumed to be clergy because he did the prayers. Had I not been a regular churchgoer I'd have been completely bewildered.
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on
:
With regard to robe or not to robe is not only a matter of good taste but perhaps even more a matter of faith as seen in St.Stephen's House Oxford.
When the priest puts on his vestments, he says the appropriate prayers.
If you believe to meet Christ in his sacrament.you will do your best to make God's House as beautiful as possible.
This shows the love for our Creator.
Read in the BCP, Psalm 26, vs.8
"Lord I have loved the habitation of thy House, where thine honour dwelleth ".
Beautiful words and still relevant for today's world.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
With regard to robe or not to robe is not only a matter of good taste but perhaps even more a matter of faith...
Steady on there, are you suggesting people who don't go in for wearing clerical clothing are lacking faith compared with those who do?
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
If you believe to meet Christ in his sacrament.you will do your best to make God's House as beautiful as possible.
This shows the love for our Creator.
I think this comes from a theology strongly influenced by the Old Testament, with all the detail of the Temple's decoration and the robes of the high priest. I think the New Testament indicates God's House is now you and me, his followers; not a building. I see nothing in the NT about making buildings as beautiful as possible...
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I see nothing in the NT about making buildings as beautiful as possible...
Why do you need a directive from the bible to tell you to do something which is a natural human instinct? I'm all for simplicity in worship, and if to you that includes ordinary clothes instead of robes, fair enough. But not to strive to do the best, in architecture, in furnishings, in the way we dress and speak, seems rather less than Christian to me. It doesn't just apply to 'church', by the way; why should we (or God) put up with the second rate in anything?
Most of us don't manage to achieve much more than second rate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Francis of Assisi was positively obsessed by personal poverty and lack of personal adornment. But he was very keen on looking after churches.
The church is you and me, in one sense. That doesn't mean that we have to be scruffs, or the place where we meet a dump.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
On one level, South Coast Kevin, I think there's a kind of 'minimalist' thing going on within certain strands of Protestantism. What is the minimum we have to do? 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ ...' What is the minimum we can get away with in terms of (tick as appropriate):
- Structure
- Liturgy
- Decoration
- Vesture
- Insert aspect of choice
Now, my reservations about vestments and priesthood and so on and so forth were once as deep-set as yours ... but having knocked around with people who set a great deal of store by these things I certainly don't find that they have a correspondingly diminished sense of their own role or contribution or that they somehow aren't 'included' as much as the bloke in the fancy dress or the people in the choir etc.
There's a certain amount of Protestant pre-supposition behind a lot of this. That guy is wearing a robe, therefore he thinks he's special, therefore he is undermining the priesthood of all believers ...
He may be, he may not be. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that not everyone will have the same reactions to robes and so on as you will - either because they don't have the same 'baggage' or don't carry the same interpretations about what is going on.
I know it's a different thing, but I remember a few years ago a Greek Orthodox Shipmate - who didn't hang around long, if I remember rightly, she wasn't one of the regular Orthodox posters - observing how she'd once seen a group of US evangelists haranguing a crowd of Greeks at an Orthodox shrine for their 'idolatory.'
The Greeks were both offended and non-plussed. It had never occurred to them to regard their iconography in that way. They interpreted the outburst as an attack on their country and their religion. Which any of us would have done in their shoes.
With all of this stuff, whether we favour more informal or 'casual' forms of worship (and I mean no value judgements there) or go in for bells and smells we are all engaging in learned behaviour. It's like drinking beer for the first time or drinking tea and coffee for the first time - we gradually acquire a taste for it - or else we don't.
I don't know about you but I didn't 'take' to Spring Harvest style or Vineyard style or contemporary charismatic evangelical style worship straight away. Far from it. I had to become acclimatised to it. I had to learn the ropes.
The same thing applies with any form of worship - be it robed and vestmented or Hawaiian shirted and shorted.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I see nothing in the NT about making buildings as beautiful as possible...
Why do you need a directive from the bible to tell you to do something which is a natural human instinct?
I just think it's a misdirection of our resources, that's all. I'm not saying our church buildings should be plain boxes with no interior decoration, just that I'd put the emphasis on other issues, in particular the question of how to get everyone involved in the life of the church and growing in faith.
Utrecht Catholic was using the Bible to justify making our church buildings beautiful and I think the Bible as a whole (i.e. including the New Testament) instead shows God to be relatively unconcerned with what we wear when we gather, and with the decor, architecture etc. of the buildings in which we gather.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
There's a bit of a paradox here. I agree that the priority should be as you suggest; but the exhortation in the hymn to 'worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness' is difficult to obey, for many of us, unless we also see the Lord in the holiness of beauty. It works both ways. And beauty, art, design, are all gifts of God.
I wouldn't mind worshipping God in a plain brick box. What would irk me would be seeing clutter, peeling paint, badly designed furniture and so on, because the people who are responsible for such things are insensitive to their surroundings.
[ 23. August 2012, 17:48: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
This is also a cultural question as the church is in France. You need to say "protestant" and you also need to deal with nostalgic English emigrants. So I have been doing some googling. Protestant might be said by not wearing robes or it might be said by wearing very clearly protestant robes e.g. black geneva gown, cassock and bands. I have done some googling, it is not easy, the Reformed do not seem to like having photos taken during worship so pretty sketchy.
My tentative conclusion is that the Genevan gown over a cassock is rather more frequent in the Eglise Reformee than in the URC at least if pictures are anything to go by. They do not go in for the multicolour scarves and other more colourful vestments although some do seem to use mufti.
So I suspect the answer probably should be
Cassock, surplice and scarf would seem to me a way to position yourselves quite clearly to both constituents.
Jengie
Posted by Ancilla (# 11037) on
:
quote:
Posted by South Coast Kevin
the priest is truly - IMO, of course - no different from anyone else in the congregation and thus should not be singled out by e.g. the wearing of a different type of clothing.
But what would ‘dressing like everyone else’ look like? As Oscar the Grouch said:
quote:
Posted by Oscar the Grouch
So will you wear suits and ties? "Preacher's jumpers" from M&S? T shirts and shorts? Everyone of those will give a message that may not be the message you intended!
I don’t know what your congregation is like, Oferyas, but if you have a diverse congregation in terms of race, age and social background, there might not be an obvious default option. Unexamined assumptions that everyone at church will be a certain type of person (class and culture wise) could be far more offputting.
I’m very much with Angloid on this one, that the vestments are a way of saying ‘it’s not all about me / my personality’. Whereas ‘normal’ clothes are an expression of individuality – precisely NOT about being ‘no different from anyone else’. I’m speaking particularly as a woman here, because I guess there’s a greater range of female clothing – I’ve been known to turn up to church in a low-cut top, spike heels and a trilby, but I wouldn’t lead a service in that!
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
... I'd put the emphasis on other issues, in particular the question of how to get everyone involved in the life of the church and growing in faith.
In some circumstances traditional church buildings might well be a means to get people involved, or a means of evangelism. Varies by situation and culture and expectations.
I think its possible (no stronger than that) that we may have turned a corner in our western European cultures on that. For a lot of modern history those buildings have been a bit of a drag on Christianity, at least in this country. They are a financial burden to the worshippers, and they reinforce the common mental association between churches, especially the established church, with money and wealth and political power and dead tradition. So its put people off Christianity.
But things have changed. Christianity is now a minority interest. Most people have nothing to do with it. Its generally assumed that its old-fashioned, boring, stick-in-the-mud, socially conservative, authoritarian, and generally on the way out sooner or later. In the new situation our traditional buildings might well work as a reminder that we are still here. They also stand to mark us out as different from the centres of worldly power (well at least Gothic ones do - the neoclassical style is still just about functionally available to government and business)
Buildings have symbolic functions as well as space-filling ones. They are messages, more than they are machines for living in, or even for praying in. We might do well to have buildings that tell people about Jesus and about God even when our other voices are not heard.
And if times are going to get harder for Christians (no idea if they are or not, but if they are) then the physical presence of the buildings might be of some use. A means to an end.
(Of course if times get really hard, persecution and so on, then things flip over again and you want to hide...)
quote:
Originally posted by Ancilla:
I’m very much with Angloid on this one, that the vestments are a way of saying ‘it’s not all about me / my personality’. Whereas ‘normal’ clothes are an expression of individuality – precisely NOT about being ‘no different from anyone else’. !
That's what it looks like from the inside. To someone who wanders in with no background, who hasn't learned the ropes, a man standing up at the front wearing robes and speaking while everyone else sits down in normal clothes and keeps quiet, certainly seems to be saying"look at me I'm different". Clothes are messages as much as buildings are.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Steady on there, are you suggesting people who don't go in for wearing clerical clothing are lacking faith compared with those who do?
They characteristically lack the faith in the historic Episcopate and the three-fold ministry that another churchman might have. It's not as though this observation would start an argument. Some of them go out of their way to ridicule holy orders as a vain and fond invention.
quote:
I see nothing in the NT about making buildings as beautiful as possible
What Angloid said. You carefully specified NT as though that is all that matters, but we have plenty in the O.T. that commands, and commends, the beauty of the temple. We also continue the tradition of singing the psalms composed to be sung in the temple. That imples that we need suitable places to sing them in.
We are left with the fact that substances like gold and marble exist, that God created them, and presumably that he pronounced them good along with the rest of His creation. So we must ask what their proper use should be. I see three basic choices: (1) we can leave them in the ground (and try to forget that they are part of the goodness of creation); (2) We can leave them all to rich folks to indulge their vain elitism in private palaces (in other words, encourage them in fatal conceits-- another very strange way to consign things that we call good); or (3) we can use them in part to embellish buildings and furnishings that can be enjoyed by everyone. There is no doubt in my mind which of these three possibilities is the most Godly.
As Luther put it with regard to music, "Why should the devil have all the good tunes?"
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancilla:
I’m very much with Angloid on this one, that the vestments are a way of saying ‘it’s not all about me / my personality’. Whereas ‘normal’ clothes are an expression of individuality – precisely NOT about being ‘no different from anyone else’. !
That's what it looks like from the inside. To someone who wanders in with no background, who hasn't learned the ropes, a man standing up at the front wearing robes and speaking while everyone else sits down in normal clothes and keeps quiet, certainly seems to be saying"look at me I'm different". Clothes are messages as much as buildings are.
Priests are different. The Church teaches that ordination is a sacrament that brings about an ontological change 'thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek'.
Lay persons serving liturgically are not ontologically different from other laypersons, but they are deputized to fulfill certain distinct roles, all of which amount to assisting the celebrant. It is therefore fitting that they, too, should adopt a distinctive dress when fulfilling these roles.
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on
:
The vast majority of my friends and acquaintances are atheists, agnostics, or fallen away Christians. For none of them is the wearing of robes a factor in the fact that they do not visits churches, it's a rejection of Christianity and of social attitudes which they think are part of it.
My fallen away friends do not avoid churches because they wear robes rather than normal clothes or because the buildings are not plain and utilitarian, it's because they see Christianity as retrograde, oppressive, encouraging of ignorance, and patriarchal. Not wearing robes does nothing to change the issues which are at the heart.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Priests are different. The Church teaches that ordination is a sacrament that brings about an ontological change 'thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek'.
Some denominations teach that. Don't, please, universalise what is not a teaching of all denominations - and is certainly not a teaching required to be believed within the Church of England. And please don't make the leap of logic that suggests that one needs to dress in a particular way in order to demonstrate that one is priest in the Church of God. There's a complete non sequitur between an internal call to ministerial priesthood that is recognised by the Church and the wearing of particular clothes.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And please don't make the leap of logic that suggests that one needs to dress in a particular way in order to demonstrate that one is priest in the Church of God. There's a complete non sequitur between an internal call to ministerial priesthood that is recognised by the Church and the wearing of particular clothes.
If we were simply arguing from reason, then I would agree that the one does not necessarily follow the other; there is, however, a very strong argument from sacred tradition. Also, in the Church of England, some form of specifically clerical dress is required by the rubrics for the celebration of the Eucharist, although this can take the form of surplice, tippet and hood, which is really a form of academic dress.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
And the Melchisedek verse is about Jesus, and about him not being part of the OT priesthood, The writer to the Hebrews has been traduced enough by decontextualised misquoting.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Priests are different. The Church teaches that ordination is a sacrament that brings about an ontological change 'thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek'.
Your church might teach this but mine doesn't! As pete173 said, please don't presume that what your church teaches is the case with all churches. In fact, may I suggest we stop saying 'the Church' when what we mean is 'the Catholic Church' or 'the Anglican Church' or whatever?
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I see nothing in the NT about making buildings as beautiful as possible
What Angloid said. You carefully specified NT as though that is all that matters, but we have plenty in the O.T. that commands, and commends, the beauty of the temple. We also continue the tradition of singing the psalms composed to be sung in the temple. That imples that we need suitable places to sing them in.
I specified the New Testament because of how Jesus and then the first of his followers totally redefined what worshipping Yahweh God means and how to go about it. Now I'm not saying, for example, we must meet in homes because that's what it seems the early church did. I'm saying let's see what they did and only deviate from that when we have good reason.
I see in the NT a redefinition of 'worship' as being submission to God in all things, 'offering our bodies as a living sacrifice'. I also see all Christians having something active to contribute when we gather together for mutual encouragement and support. IMO one or a few people wearing special clothes sends a message contrary to what the NT records as the pattern of the early church gatherings. So I think it's a bad idea.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And the Melchisedek verse is about Jesus, and about him not being part of the OT priesthood, The writer to the Hebrews has been traduced enough by decontextualised misquoting.
It has also bee associated with the ordained priesthood in the Christian Church since ancient times — as, for instance, if the office for the feast of a confessor. It is no use trying to understand the spiritual meaning of Scripture if one ignores its context with the the liturgical life of the Church. Scripture, after all, is shaped by tradition and not vice versa.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
You're attempting to school a Bishop on scripture and tradition? Fabulous.
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
You're attempting to school a Bishop on scripture and tradition? Fabulous.
As Our Lord commanded and taught us: 'preach the gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:15). I understand that two Quakers once tried to convert the Pope, so there have been tougher cases, although perhaps none that have been successful.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
One other comment... If you decide NOT to robe, you still have to make a considered judgement about what you will wear. Because it will all say something about you and the church - and people will take what your clothing says both positively and negatively. So will you wear suits and ties? "Preacher's jumpers" from M&S? T shirts and shorts? Everyone of those will give a message that may not be the message you intended!
Out here on the Left Coast, aloha shirts are popular.
Whatever it is that is "not a robe" is generally very specifically chosen to "send a message". If only "we're not like those stuffy people down the street". In that way a suit and tie or aloha shirt is as much as a "robe" or "vestment" as a dog collar, Geneva gown, or a chasuble. People should *not* kid themselves.
Personally I like the whole "formal vestments" thing because it makes it Not About Me/My Personality, It's About God when presiding/preaching. I will note that I live and worship in an ... interesting ... urban area, so it's always useful to know that someone hasn't just wandered off the street and commandeered the mic.
As a somewhat related note, when I am working a food event, I always put an apron on even if I'm not actually planning on handling food. I joke that it's my badge of office as much as much as the stole or the clerical collar are for clergy, but mostly why I do it is because it helps identify my role and points me out as "someone who can help/answer questions" to visitors.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
There is something profoundly wrong if you are even considering the question. Worship in the Anglican tradition, especially the for the Eucharist, has proper vestments. Their use does not depend on what any young people, non-Anglicans or any others may think.
Mr Rob, how I wish it were that simple! 'Anglican tradition', even in the geographical spread reflected in responses to this thread, may have 'proper vestments' (at least for the Eucharist) - but cannot agree on what those vestments actually might be! The actual reality of what you will see in any given church seems to depend in varying degrees on parish custom (which was new once!), rules or customs of the wider church, the preferences of the incumbent, and the resources available when you open the cupboards in the vestry!
Almost every Sunday service from Common Worship apart from the Eucharist is some permutation of A Service of the Word. The Canons and rubrics are silent on what distinctive vesture (if any) should be worn by the leader of this service: hence the debate!
By "proper vestments," I didn't mean the use of Eucharistic vestments as such, but that the Eucharist was deserving of highest honor in relation to the use of any robes.
I didn't say that everyone had to be agreed on the style, material or the cut of sacred vesture, but merely that the robes were part of Anglican tradition. In that sense of Anglican tradition the canons, the rubrics and church history are not silent. But all those facts must be given added weight in the absence of anything more than a hunch or discomfort or personal preference to do without vestments.
*
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
My understanding of sacramental priesthood is the opposite of (S)pike’s. The baptized are the body of Christ, the high priestly people of God to “offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”. When that sacrifice is expressed congregationally in Eucharistic worship, they choose one of their number to articulate that priesthood and represent themselves.
Since the liturgical priest unites the local congregation with the wider church throughout history, by virtue of their Episcopal ordination rather than any personal qualities, it is perfectly appropriate that s/he wears something to show their representative and symbolic nature.
What I don’t understand is the protestant view of ministry, which seems to mean that clergy are wiser and holier than the rest of us. Which is why in MW they seem to go on and on and on in their sermons.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And the Melchisedek verse is about Jesus, and about him not being part of the OT priesthood, The writer to the Hebrews has been traduced enough by decontextualised misquoting.
It has also bee associated with the ordained priesthood in the Christian Church since ancient times — as, for instance, if the office for the feast of a confessor. It is no use trying to understand the spiritual meaning of Scripture if one ignores its context with the the liturgical life of the Church. Scripture, after all, is shaped by tradition and not vice versa.
The wilful incapacity of those who wish to assert a sacrificing priesthood to understand the thrust of the theological argument of Hebrews is breathtaking. The argument, should they dare to listen to it, is that Jesus is superior to angels, to the paradigmatic characters of the OT - Moses in particular, and to the OT sacrificial priesthood. The Aaronic strand has been set aside, and this is indicated by the understanding that Jesus is the heir of different priesthood, from Melchizedek, a man out of left field. He becomes the sole priest, no longer offering sacrifices, and enabling through his death a new covenant, once for all guaranteeing access to God. He abolishes sacrifices. We need no OT priesthood, no intermediaries, no intercessors, no representation. That's the plain meaning of the text.
Using a text liturgically out of context to mean that which is actually opposite to the intention of the author's argument doesn't make it true. Unless you're a postmodern! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
At which point, let's draw a line under the priesthood/Melchizedek tangent and return to the OP question about robes and attracting people to church. Thank you for your cooperation.
seasick, Eccles host
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Ven Bede's got it right.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
You're attempting to school a Bishop on scripture and tradition? Fabulous.
Ah the age of deference hasn't passed.
Posted by Ancilla (# 11037) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ancilla:
I’m very much with Angloid on this one, that the vestments are a way of saying ‘it’s not all about me / my personality’. Whereas ‘normal’ clothes are an expression of individuality – precisely NOT about being ‘no different from anyone else’. !
That's what it looks like from the inside. To someone who wanders in with no background, who hasn't learned the ropes, a man standing up at the front wearing robes and speaking while everyone else sits down in normal clothes and keeps quiet, certainly seems to be saying "look at me I'm different". Clothes are messages as much as buildings are.
Ken - I've only been officially 'on the inside' for about four years. I started going to church in my twenties, and I've always felt more comfortable with robed clergy. In any case, it’s surely the fact that one person is standing up and speaking (which is the same in church as it is in many other contexts in life) which makes the distinction.
It's this point that does it for me:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
What I don’t understand is the protestant view of ministry, which seems to mean that clergy are wiser and holier than the rest of us.
One thing that this whole debate illustrates is that exactly the same feature of worship can mean opposite things to different people (it’s the same with versus populum / ad orientem celebration) So perhaps what really matters is telling - or better showing – people what it is you are trying to express.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
What I don’t understand is the protestant view of ministry, which seems to mean that clergy are wiser and holier than the rest of us. Which is why in MW they seem to go on and on and on in their sermons.
I think there are rather protestant views of ministry. Certainly in Methodism, we don't hold that clergy are wiser and holier than anyone else. Some protestant traditions would reject the notion of clergy altogether. But all of that would need a thread in Purgatory!
[Host hat not on...]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
But in Protestant churches its quite common for all sorts of lay people to have a go at preaching, not just "The Minister". Including in many evangelical Anglican churches. Which changes the symbolism round entirely. Makes it more about shareing ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm sure there are churches where one superhero preacher preaches every sermon, but I don't know where they are round here and I haven't been to one for over thirty years.
On the other hand Catholic places tend to reserve preaching for the ordained clergy. Often the same bloke who is doing the Communion. So you get a much stronger dose of "Father Knows best".
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I've preached at mass in my time.
As seasick said, perhaps we should get back to the OP.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Pondering on my earlier (and excellent) posting, I tried to put myself into the shoes of someone who had no real experience of churchgoing--- this is more common than we think and many of my friends have never been in a church except for an occasional wedding. In most cases, the worship leader's actions normally indicate their role-- viz., they are standing at the front, speaking, or doing ritual stuff.
However, what they wear is not meaningless. If they are in mufti, office clothes (suit & tie) convey one message, the ubiquitous golf shirt another. After decades dealing with bureaucrats and academics, it is the suit and tie which I find less forced, but business casual (to me) suggests that the person is up to something and that I must keep an eye out. Other friends have the opposition response, so perhaps a non-robed cleric conveys different messages with the same outfit, and is likely unaware of this.
I recall attending Holy Trinity, Trinity Square, Toronto, with a friend. The preacher was in collar and business suit with the celebrant in a meso-American woven chasuble. Asking her what she thought of what they wore, she said that the sermon was confusing (and it was), but that he should realize that a Harry Rosen sale suit from 1982 was distracting. There was no comment on the chasuble, nor on the albed assistant.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
You're attempting to school a Bishop on scripture and tradition? Fabulous.
As Our Lord commanded and taught us: 'preach the gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:15).
Given that all verses after verse 8 in mark 16 are later accretions/corruptions of the text, I am not sure what this has to do with chasubles.
When Jesus did the so-called Great Commission in Matthew, was he wearing as cope of as chasuble? And are we allowed to disregard what he commanded if he wasn't wearing a maniple with said vestment?
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I particuarly like those Christus Victor pictures and crucifixes which show Our Lord in a chasable and stole.
I have seen one where he is just wearing a stole (perhaps a low church Christus Victor) but the stole is crossed over the breast (old rite).
Perhaps a topic for elsewhere?
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
I particuarly like those Christus Victor pictures and crucifixes which show Our Lord in a chasable and stole.
I have seen one where he is just wearing a stole (perhaps a low church Christus Victor) but the stole is crossed over the breast (old rite).
'just wearing a stole'??
I hope it was quite a wide one! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
I looked in on this thread when there were only three postings: I now wish I had maintained an eye on it and responded earlier as so many good points had been made.
To give a biased observation from within a Diocese where the overwhelming 'norm' is to not wear any distinctive dress in worship, including the Eucharist (which is not Anglican style in any degree), though the Dean wears suit, tie and geneva gown:
Having attended over a number of years a variety of services in the diocese, when in a church which I haven't been to before I find myself playing the "spot the minister" game - the bulletin lists the staff, but you have no idea of whose who. The service seems to be confused and dijointed for someone not in the know by virtue of being a regular attendee. When there are a multiude of worship leaders (though in my humble opinion there is only ONE chief celebrant in the eucharistic setting) the 'guess who is' expands, especially as they rarely ever give their name, designation and purpose.
I too share the opinion of those who have said that non-robed 'cergy' are more likely to dress for their personality are very much correct - suit and tie on one person, open neck shiort and shorts on another - and act individually, rather than corporately. A good vestment - whether alb or cassock based - covers a 'multitude of sins', and uniformity meaves at least a visual sense of cohesion.
Our community clergy, eucharistic assistants and servers - male and female - all wear albs, with the intent of showing that we are all part of the operating whole, hence too why clergy and servers all gather at the altar for the Great Thanksgiving, and receive communion together before distributing to the rest of the body of Christ.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
... To give a biased observation from within a Diocese where the overwhelming 'norm' is to not wear any distinctive dress in worship, including the Eucharist ... though the Dean wears suit, tie and geneva gown:
There's only one diocese that could be in the entire Anglican Communion, and throw in the Porvoo Communion for good measure.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
As has been pointed out, much of our vestment tradition comes out of the Old Testament traditions, but the Roman Court also had influence on the vestments.
For me vestments are one thing that connect us with previous generations of Christians, and I would hope will be carried on into future generations.
The biggest challenge to vestments came from John Calvin and the move to de romanize the church. Since then there has been a tension between full vestments or casual dress. Most churches will find themselves somewhere in that continuum.
When I supply the pulpit at a liturgical church I will use vestments appropriate to that community. If I preach in a non liturgical setting I will usually wear just a suit and tie. But if I am in an outdoor setting, I tend to be more casual.
One of the things I like about using vestments is the ability to change the colors according to the liturgical year. I like good designs on stoles and even chasubles--adds so much to the total worship experience, in my book.
I agree with a previous poster who pointed out most of his non worshiping friends are not staying away because of how we dress. I think it has more to do with a perceived hypocrisy between what we preach and what we do. That and the mistaken notion that all Christians are represented in the likes of some fundamentalist tv evangelist.
Rather than arguing about whether to vest or not to vest, we should explore effective ways of getting the Word out and living up to that Word.
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Rather than arguing about whether to vest or not to vest, we should explore effective ways of getting the Word out and living up to that Word.
Bingo. Here's the correct answer.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
... To give a biased observation from within a Diocese where the overwhelming 'norm' is to not wear any distinctive dress in worship, including the Eucharist ... though the Dean wears suit, tie and geneva gown:
There's only one diocese that could be in the entire Anglican Communion, and throw in the Porvoo Communion for good measure.
And with all the fuss a while ago about whether dioceses that were 'gay friendly' to bishops should be in or out of the Anglican Communion, I can't remember any discussion as to whether that diocese, with its sui generis views on so many topics including possible lay celebration or celebration by deacons, should be in or not. A far more pressing question I would have thought.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
@sebby. There's actually been quite a bit of discussion about this and veiled references at Lambeth to discussion of eucharistic celebration by the unordained were specifically about Sydney. This is not the sort of thing which elicits commentary by the secular press which may be how Sebby missed it, but those who are really interested can dig up quite a bit on Australian church legislation-- until Sydney comes out of the closet on its practices, there's not a lot which can be done. An unkind friend tells me that some folk in Sydney have been grateful for the pastoral necessity argument used by some proponents of SSBs/SSMs whereby people can do what they wish without the canonical changes which excite a wider public. However, his opinions may simply be scurrilous comment.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Thank you. It does seem rather silly that gay or not gay should be a defining feature of first degree Anglicanism, yet avoidance of the Lambeth Quadrilateral, or unAnglican practices should go unremarked or ignored in such discussions.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0