Ship of Fools: On the Wearing of Clericals

Thread: On the Wearing of Clericals 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=026131

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Do any of you who regularly wear clericals have spouses who don't like them? Or maybe they're ok with them when "on duty", but don't like them for "off duty" dress occasions? Have you pulled out your clergy shirt to wear to a funeral (one that you're attending, but have no leadership role in), and your spouse ask you to wear a tie instead? How do/would you handle that?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

This doesn't seem like Eccles material - to clarify, Barefoot Friar, you are asking about personal issues relating to use of clerical garb outside of worship?

Given that you are looking for personal advice, I think All Saints is the best place, so hold on to your hats! ( or birretas)

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :

If the question is directed at women as well as men (not worn a tie since school) then it depends if I'm in role or not. I didn't wear clericals at my father in law's funeral or burial of ashes as I was there to support my husband and children. My husband is fine with it although it takes longer to get out of the house in mufti as I have to work out what goes with what rather than the security of workwear which is just one colour!

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Not a cleric nor married to one, but I suspect nothing is more off-putting to those outside the Church than clerical garb. Its ridiculous. Maybe some women get off on the sight of a man in clericals (all perversions are catered for in the church, it seems). Women look particularly daft in them.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
...all perversions are catered for in the church...

Oh that this were true!

* * * *

I think clericals can be very useful as a badge of office although they can also be a shield to hide behind - I think it depends very much on the individual.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Or Corporate Dress as we say nowadays.

Time was, everyone dressed the part for their job or profession or station in life. Clothes were an important signifier. There were tensions, particularly in the area of social aspiration, hence sumptuary laws.

But in our modern, democratic, stretch fabric world, the ossified elements - cassocks, gowns, wigs, robes - of various groups have become incongruous.

The options seem to either be to soften towards a version of the uniform which is nearer to 'ordinary' clothes or - my preferred option - go for it in spades with extra gold tassels.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I have to temper my ontological imperative on occasion for the sake of mutual relations. But mostly I am a priest by calling and vocation, so I will dress like one.

Apparently I am a husband too, sigh.

Family BBQ civies. Most everything else clericals. (though clericals are not ALWAYS the right thing)

My wife wants it to be a job so that boundaries are clear, I want it to be a vocation.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
My wife wants it to be a job so that boundaries are clear, I want it to be a vocation.

Thank you for this neat summary of the dilemma I have faced for more than thirty years.

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

My daughter is a nurse by calling and vocation. She has known she is a nurse since age 4. She is always a nurse but she doesn't wear her uniform when, for example, visiting a relative in hospital or care home.

Unless that relative was in her professional care when she was on duty.

Being ordained within a church system is just one expression of the vocation of all Christians. It can require wearing a particular uniform while on duty but wanting to wear it at private occasions with no official role seems odd to me.

Wasn't there a Trollope character whose wife had to call him by his church title even in bed? An Archdeacon I think.

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

sorry, posted via quote rather than edit.

Was trying to add, that she wouldn't wear her uniform taking the children to the park, but might if she was dropping them off at school and didn't have time to go home and change.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

And yet I am called to the whole parish, all the time, a visible presence. I knew what I was doing. The question is not how I become less visible but how all Christians become more visible.

Your daughter may not wish people to stop her in the Co-Op and ask medical advice. I am happy to be stopped anywhere to talk about God.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

My immediate reaction to that is that if priests were less visible, then other Christians might be able to become more visible.

Maybe every Christian who is happy to be stopped anywhere whatever they are doing and asked about God should be able to wear clericals [Smile]

My daughter frequently finds herself in the middle of some medical emergency when off duty and out of uniform, most recently at a road accident, and then she does what she can do as a medical professionals until the professionals on duty arrive.

[ 02. September 2013, 08:30: Message edited by: Thyme ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Deleted the duplicate for you.

Archdeacon and Mrs Grantly. I don't think she 'had' to call him that; addressing your spouse formally was conventional enough in that era.

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

Thank you! Regarding the Trollopian Archdeacon, yes, you are right, but as someone mentioned earlier, it is a good thing that we have moved on from that convention.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Are we not back to the clergy/laity divide thingy.

Clerical garb seems to be restricted to those churches which divide clergy from laity. Dressis a means of emphasising the divide.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

I don't have a spouse to express a view but there is still a balance to work out.

Recently I attended the funeral of the mum of key lay person in our circuit. The clerical staff had got to know the mum as meetings were held at her house where her daughter was caring for her.

So I knew mum through role as minister and was representing my role as well as myself so went in the collar, my colleagues, except the one leading, didn't.

I attended the ordination service of friends, and didn't wear the collar although I noted some not involved in the action did.

I wear the collar for formal occasions on duty, when it would be useful for people to know/identify me by role and when I have been to or going to one of the above.

I find it strange to attend an all ministers meeting and people come in collars - we know we are all ministers as that's why we are here.

I know I am a minister as a vocation regardless what I wear. And in a rural area I am recognised in the community anyway.

On the other hand I have not seen the local vicar without her collar. And that is part of who she is as much as my mixed approach is part of my personality and identity as minister and human being.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Are we not back to the clergy/laity divide thingy.

No, I am ordained my wife is not. (Stop trying to make a pastoral thread into a huge issue). Division is only created by those who enjoy creating division. We are all equal we are not all the same. We are not all the same parts of the body of Christ.

quote:
Clerical garb seems to be restricted to those churches which divide clergy from laity. Dressis a means of emphasising the divide.

So that would be the vast majority then, sigh.

And to be clear, wearing clericals is not THE ANSWER, I was asked my opinion I gave it, I qualified it. Again I recognise is faults.

Though I will never forget walking down our High Street with my Baptist minister friend and him noting in a slightly surprised voice that "everyone seems to know you." Being a good soul I did not pull a face and go "DUHHHH!"

Arguments about the priesthood of all, the ministry of all inherent in our baptism and the calling of all are to be had. I have explored my calling and am comfortable in it. Some it seems are not.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Sometimes it not even about clericals. I am called to mind of a dinner with a clerical friend. He was in civilian clothes. I, on the other hand, while still in civvies, was wearing a rather nice purple shirt with a rather nice cross over it. Someone turned to us, and commented that one of us was a cleric. My clerical friend said "Why yes, how did you know?" and he replied that the purple shirt and cross were a dead giveaway. I was quite chuffed. Good thing I wasn't wearing my all white outfit. [Big Grin]

Please note that no names have been mentioned to spare blushes. [Biased]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Neither a cleric myself, nor married to one, but I've heard enough stories of valuable pastoral encounters that priets have had in passing with taxi drivers/ people in shops/ etc because they were recognised as clerics by their dress, to believe that distinctive clerical street garb is in general a good thing. Pyx_e is as wise on this point as he is on pretty much everything else.

BTW when Ken Leech was curate of St Anne's Soho in the 60s and spent a lot of time in all-night coffee bars, he found that wearing his collar was actually an ice-breaker becuase people would be curious to know whether he was a 'real vicar'.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I was in a diocese whose standing order # 102 stated of synod "clergy to wear clericals". I asked for a definition thereof in the light of the archbishop's penchant for bappo collar and tie.

I am not normally in agreement with the archbishop of Sydney, but on this occasion, where the synod did not vote in houses (except at an electoral synod) a silly piece of plastic made F8ck all difference to proceedings. When we did have an electoral synod I wore said silly piece of plastic, and made one speech - to shaft the guy whose silly rule it was.

Ironically and hypocritically in my forthcoming appointment I have accepted the bishop's demand that I wear a collar whenever I am on duty. I will. Though I'm not sure if I'm on duty when in bed with kuruman.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Clerics in my family (of both sexes) have adopted a code:

own parish - wear clerical
but if in parish and off-duty it can be non-black
out of parish at a church event - wear clerical
out of parish at family event - wear mufti unless asked to 'perform'
ALWAYS when flying alone - more likely to be up-graded

So, own child's wedding in your own parish - clerical morning dress. Funeral of nephew or niece elsewhere - shirt and tie.

If you're surprised at the last, so was I until I flew with clerical uncle, father and obviously pregnant female cousin: the chaps were offered upgrades, not me and pregnant cousin.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Thank you all for the input. Pyx_e and L'Organist especially. After this current event is over I'm going to discuss it with her and work something out we can both agree to.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

BTW when Ken Leech was curate of St Anne's Soho in the 60s and spent a lot of time in all-night coffee bars, he found that wearing his collar was actually an ice-breaker becuase people would be curious to know whether he was a 'real vicar'.

Though Fr Leech is on record more recently as not seeing the point of clericals and never (or very rarely) wearing them.

It might be just a personality quirk on my part, but just as I find officiating in worship without any sort of clerical vesture uncomfortable, because it draws attention to myself, I feel uncomfortable in a clerical collar outside of very specific church contexts for the same reason. Paradoxical I know.

Now I'm retired I hardly ever wear a collar. But even in parish ministry I frequently didn't, and I have never had eyebrows raised when I introduced myself as 'the vicar'. I'm not sure that people noticed. I admire priests like Pyx_e who can cope with being the public face of the church in streets and supermarkets, but I don't think it is the only way to be a priest or to have an effective ministry.

But to pick up one of the points in the OP, when I attend funerals even without officiating I will tend to wear a black suit and dog collar, at least among people who know me to be a priest. Mainly because they might think I was pretending not to be, but also because I have very few other formal clothes.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I wear clericals. My husband has no objection. He might object to being turfed out of the sitting room for a meeting, the constant ring of the telephone, or my spending too much time with other people and not enough with him. But he doesn't object to the clericals. I find them useful for the same reasons as Pyx_e does, and my parishioners concur.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Not a cleric nor married to one, but I suspect nothing is more off-putting to those outside the Church than clerical garb. Its ridiculous. Maybe some women get off on the sight of a man in clericals (all perversions are catered for in the church, it seems). Women look particularly daft in them.

Why does an ordinary shirt (or indeed t-shirt nowadays), usually black, with a small white tab look so ridiculous? [Confused]

Are you thinking of vestments? Even a cassock doesn't look that strange, not that you see many clergy wearing them as streetwear outside of church functions. Many female clergy just wear a clerical dickey underneath ordinary women's clothes.

And I can assure you that people outside the church really don't care about them - there are many, many more things that puts them off church.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Sorry Jade, I just think it all looks ridiculous, men or women. Particularly women, probably because it's still a bit unusual to see a women cleric (please don't start a feminist rant at me, I am sure the women clerics are every bit as good, or better than the men, and the more of them the better I say)

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Sorry Jade, I just think it all looks ridiculous, men or women. Particularly women, probably because it's still a bit unusual to see a women cleric (please don't start a feminist rant at me, I am sure the women clerics are every bit as good, or better than the men, and the more of them the better I say)

Lol.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I'm not going to start a feminist rant at you (Why would I? It isn't the place to discuss women in the clergy, that being Dead Horses, and you've made it plain that you support female clergy anyway). I see lots of female clergy but that might be a location thing - they tend to be in MOTR-to-high Anglican churches. I'm just puzzled as to why an ordinary shirt with a small white tab looks so strange and ridiculous! I just can't grasp what the tab changes so much - I'm guessing that you wouldn't think that men and women in plain black ordinary shirts look ridiculous. I do think that clergy should have a 'uniform' that helps people know who they are and clerical shirts do that - but the actual difference between a black clergy shirt and a black ordinary shirt is very small. If you're talking about garish coloured clerical shirts, I am with you all the way though [Biased]

Black only please, or blue for hospital chaplains (looks less forbidding). Evos can keep their pastel blue and stripes.

Vestments can indeed look ridiculous (especially very personalised ones) but they are not worn as streetwear.

Re the OP, L'Organist's solution sounds very sensible.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Why is it necessary for a cleric to tell the world what s/he does by wearing special clothing? (Can I use she to embrace both sexes without being called to hell?)Either people know that she is the vicar/priest/minister or she can do what everyone else does and introduce herself as vicar etc if that is relevant to the interaction.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

For the same reason that other jobs have uniforms.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

There are certainly some jobs where it is useful to be able to identify a person as being the holder of a position.For example, when my father was dying in hospital over 8 weeks earlier this year, it was very difficult to distinguish the doctors on the unit from eg others visitors, physiotherapists etc because they no longer wear white coats. Some staff wear name badges identifying themselves (although this does not seem to be universal, at least in the hospital where my father was) but it was not always easy to read the name badge without my reading glasses on. In other circumstances, I can see where a uiform is necessary eg paramedic, fire fighter, police officer. Presumably at church services/functions almost everyone knows who the cleric(s) are (any visitors can work this out during the course of the service/event, or ask someone if they really need to know). Outside the church building, why is it necessary to readily identify a cleric? In the event of a street/public place tragedy (eg someone collapsing on the point of death), presumably a passing cleric would stop to help as would anyone else and might well identify herself as vicar of St Shiptus or wherever. Presumably though the passing cleric would not impose her ministrations on the dying person without a specific request from that person or from someone else close to the dying person. I cannot envisage any emergency situation where it would be necessary to identify a cleric with the same degree of urgency as would apply to eg a paramedic.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

would love to belong

You've shot yourself in the foot: ANYONE could

quote:
... identify herself as vicar of St Shiptus or wherever...

but without the clerical collar how to know?

As Jade said, uniform can be useful.

What exactly have you against clerical uniform?

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Presumably the cleric can say "I am the vicar of St Shiptus"

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

BTW when Ken Leech was curate of St Anne's Soho in the 60s and spent a lot of time in all-night coffee bars, he found that wearing his collar was actually an ice-breaker becuase people would be curious to know whether he was a 'real vicar'.
Though Fr Leech is on record more recently as not seeing the point of clericals and never (or very rarely) wearing them.

True enough and I never saw him in them when I knew him slightly 20-odd years ago. But then he was not in parish ministry.
wltb: It all depends on your model of ministry and indeed of church, doesn't it? If it's primarily congregational, what you say may hold (although a Baptist minister once told me that he only wore clericals when not with his congregagtion, on the grounds that 'my flock know me' but others would not): if it's territorial, which is the CofE model (and that of some others), there's much more reason for wearing a uniform because not everyone to whom you might minister will know you.

[ 02. September 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

And I am Grand Duke Alexei Nikolaievich

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Well, there might be a point in impersonating a Grand Duke (better table at a restaurant?. But why would anyone want to claim to be the vicar of St Shiptus when they aren't?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

I can see that if one is lost and confused and would love to belong, the implicit claim of clericals--that here is someone who does belong (to this particular people) and is not too lost and confused to be of help to anyone in a particular parish--could be either comforting or (as in this case) really annoying.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Tonsure. Bring back tonsure. Then we can tell who the clergy are when they are at the beach too!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Well, there might be a point in impersonating a Grand Duke (better table at a restaurant?. But why would anyone want to claim to be the vicar of St Shiptus when they aren't?

That's a bit of a red herring, isn't it? It's not so much about detecting impostors as about being able to detect the real thing, especially if you need her.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Tonsure. Bring back tonsure. Then we can tell who the clergy are when they are at the beach too!

Ah, but Celtic tonsure or Latin tonsure?

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Would this tonsure thing work for female clerics? If not, it would surely be sexist (sorry if this comment should be on Dead Sheep)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've noticed that Anglican clergy wear their collars far more often than the Methodist clergy I'm familiar with. My last (Methodist) minister wore a collar on Sunday mornings, but rarely on other occasions. I suppose he wore it for pastoral visits.

The local Baptist church has an assistant pastor who doesn't wear a collar in church, but apparently wears it when he's out and about in the hope that it'll give rise to conversation!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I don't see why women couldn't be tonsured - it's part of becoming a nun in Buddhism and Christian nuns usually have their hair cropped short. I don't think it was being seriously proposed though [Biased]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

On the other hands, if the female cleric has children at primary school it could be a useful way of ensuring she didn't get infested with their nits [Smile]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Albertus I know CofE clergy who say the same thing – basically the more somebody knows them the less likely they are to wear clericals.

As I grew up around a CofE church we had an older vicar who wore clericals all the time, ok I never saw him on holiday, but otherwise rain or shine he wore clericals. We used to joke that he must have worn them in bed.

Wltb it’s not in the emergency situation that clericals are important as the visible uniform, it’s the other conversations and meetings which the collar starts, that are an important point of a CofE vicar wearing them for the times when s/he is out and about. I know clergy who say it often starts a conversation and it is also the familiar/reassuring uniform when knocking at strange doors.

A tangent but I used to be in parish with a strong RC base, the RC parishioners used to moan that the nuns didn’t wear the habits anymore, so they didn’t know who they were!!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

Wltb it’s not in the emergency situation that clericals are important as the visible uniform, it’s the other conversations and meetings which the collar starts, that are an important point of a CofE vicar wearing them for the times when s/he is out and about. I know clergy who say it often starts a conversation and it is also the familiar/reassuring uniform when knocking at strange doors.

Absolutely right. Lots of (OK anecdotal) evidence for that.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Albertus I know CofE clergy who say the same thing – basically the more somebody knows them the less likely they are to wear clericals.

As I grew up around a CofE church we had an older vicar who wore clericals all the time, ok I never saw him on holiday, but otherwise rain or shine he wore clericals. We used to joke that he must have worn them in bed.

Wltb it’s not in the emergency situation that clericals are important as the visible uniform, it’s the other conversations and meetings which the collar starts, that are an important point of a CofE vicar wearing them for the times when s/he is out and about. I know clergy who say it often starts a conversation and it is also the familiar/reassuring uniform when knocking at strange doors.

A tangent but I used to be in parish with a strong RC base, the RC parishioners used to moan that the nuns didn’t wear the habits anymore, so they didn’t know who they were!!

quote:

what's strange about the doors in your neck of the woods then? Are they unhinged?

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

I am an NSM/SSM, and my paid job is a suit and tie job. I think the tie is even more ridiculous than the 'piece of plastic', but it is part of God's sense of humour that five days a week I wear a tie and at least one other day I wear a clerical collar...

I have worn clericals to the office, but it has always been a little uncomfortable as people don't really seem to know whether they're dealing with Mr RPM or Rev RPM (not too many clerics wander the corridors of government). Back home I wear clericals for services and for parish events: Mrs RPM tends to remind me to wear a collar for some more informal events when she thinks I should be visible as the curate. After some 8 years in this position, I'm still trying to find the right balance: in the meantime, I should probably stick to what my wife tells me!

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

I understand that when our bishop officiated at his daughter's wedding, he did so in full episcopal fig., then scuttled into the sacristy and emerged in a morning-coat to join the procession down the aisle.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

While I come from a liturgical background and would wear the collar while in seminary I hated it. I stopped wearing it towards the end of my second year of seminary. The funny thing of it was, I never got admonished for not wearing it. In fact, you could spot me in the graduating pictures of my seminary class--I was the only one wearing a tie, all the others had collars.

I think there is more to vocation than what I wear. Vocation is seen in what I am doing: caring for the poor, witnessing for my Lord; preaching, and the like. Vocation knows no boundaries, it is a part of living. What I wear is immaterial to what I do.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Not necessarily, not for everyone. As we have seen, clericals can be precisely a way of ensuring that vocation knows no boundaries, by making that vocation visible to all.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
I understand that when our bishop officiated at his daughter's wedding, he did so in full episcopal fig., then scuttled into the sacristy and emerged in a morning-coat to join the procession down the aisle.

I imagine him having a props assistant and dresser back there to get him from one costume to another in double-quick time.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
I understand that when our bishop officiated at his daughter's wedding, he did so in full episcopal fig., then scuttled into the sacristy and emerged in a morning-coat to join the procession down the aisle.

A friends Husband married their daughter in full robes, then changed to be 'dad' for the reception. HE marked thechange in role from priest to dad somewhere between church and 'do.'

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
would love to belong

You've shot yourself in the foot: ANYONE could
quote:
... identify herself as vicar of St Shiptus or wherever...
but without the clerical collar how to know?

As Jade said, uniform can be useful.

What exactly have you against clerical uniform?

You can buy a clerical shirt on the internet for a start. There's no law against anyone buying or wearing one: ,I've got one and no questions were asked. In fact in one coastal town in Devon a guy did just that. Everyone knew him there but just imagine if he moved somewhere else.

Secondly I shouldn't a uniform to prove who I am. The way I behave and/or my character should demonstrate it.

Thirdly some people may be attracted to clerical garb but an awful lot are put off by it (those who have been abused in churches as children or adults for example). A lot of people's opinion is driven by what is reported or by the way it's reported: cassock wearing vicars are more a figure of fun I popular culture than they are a source of comfort. In this case, culture drives reaction/response.

Fourthly - and this is sad - the collar is an attraction to a certain kind of wearer. They love the kudos it brings and the fact that they are different. They might claim to want to be a servant but they fall a bit short of the mark cos they're a bit caught up in the uniform.

Yes I do have a collar and in certain circumstances - visiting prisons, hospitals late at night it can bring a certain amount of recognition. In most other circumstances I don't wear it and won't wear it - but then again my view of ordination to the priesthood is rather low: I believe we're all ordained at conversion and if the "priest" is to wear a uniform, we should all do it so people can see all the possibilities of help around them!

Mind you Mrs EM does think I look nice in my black shirt and collar .... so perhaps another reason to dig it out?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
I understand that when our bishop officiated at his daughter's wedding, he did so in full episcopal fig., then scuttled into the sacristy and emerged in a morning-coat to join the procession down the aisle.
A friends Husband married their daughter in full robes, then changed to be 'dad' for the reception. HE marked thechange in role from priest to dad somewhere between church and 'do.'

He's always both dad and priest - so why the fuss?

If he can switch roles like that, then I'm not entirely sure he qualified to do either

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And you are of course both a minister of religion and the husband of Mrs EM. But when you and Mrs EM are enjoying yourselves in bed, are you there primarily in your capacity as minister or as husband? And when you are administering the sacrament to her (if you do), are you doing so primarily as husband or as minister? It is perfectly in order to switch the role which you primarily emphasise at any given time- and as I hope my examples sugeest, there are times when it would be rather inappropriate, if not downright kinky, not to.

Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
I understand that when our bishop officiated at his daughter's wedding, he did so in full episcopal fig., then scuttled into the sacristy and emerged in a morning-coat to join the procession down the aisle.
A friends Husband married their daughter in full robes, then changed to be 'dad' for the reception. HE marked thechange in role from priest to dad somewhere between church and 'do.'
He's always both dad and priest - so why the fuss?

If he can switch roles like that, then I'm not entirely sure he qualified to do either

Because, even if not ontologically possible, sometimes you want your Dad just to be Dad.

(though I had a civil ceremony so none of that problem)

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And you are of course both a minister of religion and the husband of Mrs EM. But when you and Mrs EM are enjoying yourselves in bed, are you there primarily in your capacity as minister or as husband? And when you are administering the sacrament to her (if you do), are you doing so primarily as husband or as minister? It is perfectly in order to switch the role which you primarily emphasise at any given time- and as I hope my examples sugeest, there are times when it would be rather inappropriate, if not downright kinky, not to.

Well it's a post modern world and if it's true for you (laughs) ......

Oops got that a bit wrong didn't I. Administering the sacrament isn't quite how Baptists see it - more like sharing Christ with friends and blessing/being blessed. I don't administer more than anyone else does.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Fair enough! I mistook your denomination, but imagine yourself in a role that is specifically ministerial (in your own church or another), and you see my point.
I think, BTW, that Charles Kingsley and his wife did play submission games that had a bit of a priest/ penitent element. But then I do think that that's a bit kinky (if you are actually a priest).

[ 03. September 2013, 09:38: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

On the subject of clergy identifying themselves, I'm reminded of the moment in one of Alan Bennett's Talking Heads monologues:

quote:
This [vicar] was a young fellow in a collar and tie, could have been anybody.... I said, 'How do I know you're the vicar, have you any identification?' He shoves a little cross round the door. I said, 'What's this?' He said, 'A cross.' I said, 'A cross doesn't mean anything. Youths wear crosses nowadays. Hooligans.' ... I was still a bit dubious, then I saw he had cycle clips on, so I let him in.

Clericals (in the sense of a plain, dark, fairly formal outfit, with a plain dark shirt with white clerical collar) are an admirable thing. Like any uniform, they identify you (without having to resort to crosses and cycle clips). What's more, they identify you from a distance - so if someone wants either to talk to you or avoid you, they can. They also - when worn without flashy or colourful accessories - are the opposite of power dressing: they conspicuously fail to say that you can afford more stylish or expensive clothes than whoever you happen to be talking to. They're a good way of avoiding questions like, "What shall I wear today?" or "Does this shirt go with these shoes?" They're plain, modest, and, like Coco Chanel's little black dress, appropriate for any occasion.

Do I wear clericals on duty (as a hospital chaplain)? Absolutely. Do I wear them when officiating in church? Yes. Do I wear them while walking down the street to and from work? Yes. Would I wear them to a family funeral where I'm not officiating? Well, I wore clericals to both my parents' funerals, because I knew my being ordained had made them very proud and happy. Would I wear them to go to the cinema or do some gardening? No. I wear them in any situation where I think it appropriate I should be identifiable as a priest, bearing in mind that that isn't what I do, it's what I am.

(Clericals also have the advantage that, if you habitually wear them when on duty, you become invisible when you're wearing "ordinary" clothes. I've stood within ten feet of people who know me well, and they've looked right through me because I wasn't wearing clericals. Works for nurses too, apparently.)

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
I understand that when our bishop officiated at his daughter's wedding, he did so in full episcopal fig., then scuttled into the sacristy and emerged in a morning-coat to join the procession down the aisle.
A friends Husband married their daughter in full robes, then changed to be 'dad' for the reception. HE marked thechange in role from priest to dad somewhere between church and 'do.'
He's always both dad and priest - so why the fuss?

If he can switch roles like that, then I'm not entirely sure he qualified to do either

I think Albertus answered that one - sometimes it is about the focus of which role is uppermost. You attend your daughter's wedding as a dad, you officiate as a priest.

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
I should probably stick to what my wife tells me!

Always good advice.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Last night before retiring for the evening, Mrs. Barefoot and I had a quick discussion about when to wear clericals. I proposed essentially what L'Organist suggested, and she quickly accepted.

Thanks again for the helpful suggestions.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

My extended family has this debate between an Anglican priest (who wears clericals) and a URC minister who hates them. I remember the Priest arriving at a family dinner on a Sunday straight from work and being crticised by the Minister for the garb. Minister's spouse pointed out that Priest had come from work.

MInister sees them as a barrier and clericalist whereas Priest (and that's where my sympathies lie) sees them as a uniform and an identifier. I remember on one occasion being a pub with the priest and being accosted by someone else in the pub who asked 'are you nun?' which led to a very interesting conversation about faith that wouldn't have happened with the collar.

I suspect if Priest were going to a funeral of someone in the family on the side of the Minister would not wear clericals if not doing something to maintain the piece though their instinct may well to dress formally for that occasion (which is clericals).

Personally, I find the idea of a priest in a tie weird, because if the occasion is formal enough for a tie, it's formal enough for clericals

Carys

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
I understand that when our bishop officiated at his daughter's wedding, he did so in full episcopal fig., then scuttled into the sacristy and emerged in a morning-coat to join the procession down the aisle.
I imagine him having a props assistant and dresser back there to get him from one costume to another in double-quick time.

Wouldn't that be a couple of vergers?

Carys

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I was once in a group who were being trained to lead discussion groups. There were two priests in the group who wore clerical collars. The woman training us suggested to them that they not wear clericals to the training sessions because other people might hesitate to argue with them.

The next session one priest came in a sport shirt, but the other wore his collar. When it came time for him to practice leading the discussion, he firmly steered it to the place where he thought it should go. It was a great way to make sure that no one confronted him with ideas he'd never considered.

Moo

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If he can switch roles like that, then I'm not entirely sure he qualified to do either

Er, what? We're always switching roles. When I used to be a fire fighter I didn't say Mass in a breathing apparatus. Nor did I make love in it - not in ecclesiastical robes, either. When the liturgy of marriage is over the liturgy of party begins.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Last Sunday in August was the local Pride Prade. Our parish had a banner for the first time and we marched with the other Anglican parishes. Our rector had to search for a clerical collar -- I don't think I've ever seen him in one before -- because he wanted to make the point that he was clergy, and that clergy were marching in the parade. One or two other priests were also collared, but most -- 6-7 -- preferred to be unidentifiable.

So I guess if you want people to know you're ordained, wear it. But be careful about why you want people to know you're ordained. There are bad reasons as well as good ones.

JOhn

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
...When I used to be a fire fighter I didn't say Mass in a breathing apparatus. Nor did I make love in it - not in ecclesiastical robes, either. ...

What opportunities you have missed! There are people who pay good money to be able to do that sort of thing.

[ 06. September 2013, 04:00: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by rexory (# 4708) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Though I'm not sure if I'm on duty when in bed with kuruman.

Only if the phone goes! [Big Grin]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
My wife wants it to be a job so that boundaries are clear, I want it to be a vocation.
Thank you for this neat summary of the dilemma I have faced for more than thirty years.

What of the vocation to marriage?

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

Neither a cleric nor married to one, but wanted to third Albertus and Pyx_e's points about the use of clericals.

Walking to church one evening, I saw the priest from a neighbouring church, who had agreed to stand in for ours while he was away, crossing a busy city road in a scarlet cassock with matching biretta. It was a wonderful sight. Priests should be immediately recognisable. Yes, if we're believing Christians, we may well need to identify them as quickly as we would a police officer or medic.

And if they represent an oppositional consciousness - which I think they arguably do in 2013 Britain, regardless of political orientation - then all the better that they do it conspicuously, unignorably. Both to embolden those of us who share that oppositional consciousness, and to remind and attract others.

[ 06. September 2013, 20:31: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
My wife wants it to be a job so that boundaries are clear, I want it to be a vocation.
Thank you for this neat summary of the dilemma I have faced for more than thirty years.
What of the vocation to marriage?

I wear a wedding ring, I strive to be faithful and loving, I can't do it without God's grace .....

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Pixie, do you utter profanities at home or from your pulpit(is that the right word in Anglicanism or should it be altar?). Just wondered how you reconcile your vocation with what you do on here (not of course that you are not fully entitled to say on here exactly what you want) . How would you answer a charge of hypocrisy from one of your delightful parishoners? Genuinely like to know.
Love and a big hug
Wltb

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

uh-oh

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
small farting noise......

Anyone else hear that? Dammit I can hear farting noises. Zap you been giving your dog cheese again?

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Is that the best you can do Pixie?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

No.

But to be honest you don't come close to deserving my mediocrity never mind my best.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

You're a man of few words, Pixie, most of them Deeply Profound.

Do you think the Church of England should be disestablished?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Start a thread in the right place and maybe I will tell you.

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
You're a man of few words, Pixie, most of them Deeply Profound.

Do you think the Church of England should be disestablished?

well, that was a conversation stopper. Hosts, can we close off this thread now? I think its done.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Enough, already.

Instances of C8* violations will be notified to the Admins.

All of you just step away from the keyboards.

*look it up, WLTB.

Firenze
AS Host

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Thanks Florence, I'm done here. Don't want to break The Rules. Apologies for any violations on this thread

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Hosts, can we close off this thread now? I think its done.

Outwith your posts, it's a perfectly valid and interesting discussion on the semiotics of clothing in the life of clergy. I see no reason whatsoever to close it.

Firenze
AS Host

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

No worries Flo.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
No worries Flo.

And another courtesy we use is to employ either a Shipmate's name or the initials thereof. But I expect you knew that.

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
How would you answer a charge of hypocrisy from one of your delightful parishoners?

The charge itself would be hypocritical, and I've never met an Anglican unbalanced and/or Pooterish enough to waste people's time in that way. Have you ever met any Anglicans? Have you ever met any Christians?

[ 06. September 2013, 22:40: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
... if you habitually wear [clericals] when on duty, you become invisible when you're wearing "ordinary" clothes ...

Especially in secular situations. One of my colleagues in the choir said that she spent ages wondering who the vaguely-familiar-looking gentleman she saw at the airport was until it dawned on her that it was the (then recently-elevated) Bishop, but in mufti.

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

LOL! I had a similar experience. I left early morning prayer with a friend. The church was in the sort of neighbourhood where it is common to encounter the homeless/drunks/mentally ill wandering around at that time.

So there was this scruffy looking bloke across the road waving and grinning like a maniac...

So we ignored him. I am well practised in street smarts in these situations.

Several days later I realised it was the Diocesan Bishop ( a Lord, not just your common garden variety Bishop) who I met regularly at another church. I apologised to him claiming bad eyesight [Hot and Hormonal]

He had been on his way to an early dentist appt at a surgery in the area.

But although I didn't wear a uniform, I did have to wear smart business clothes at one point, and several times went completely unnoticed by colleagues in shops etc when in my casual 'baglady' clothing.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Walking to church one evening, I saw the priest from a neighbouring church, who had agreed to stand in for ours while he was away, crossing a busy city road in a scarlet cassock with matching biretta. It was a wonderful sight.

Wonder is one word: bizarre is closer to the mark for most non Christians. Most would probably see the biretta and cloak as fancy dress and not uniform. Shirt and collar ok, anything else probably posing.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Walking to church one evening, I saw the priest from a neighbouring church, who had agreed to stand in for ours while he was away, crossing a busy city road in a scarlet cassock with matching biretta. It was a wonderful sight.
Wonder is one word: bizarre is closer to the mark for most non Christians. Most would probably see the biretta and cloak as fancy dress and not uniform. Shirt and collar ok, anything else probably posing.

Partly, But that is because we have allowed these things to become a figure of fun by becoming parodies of our self. I don't hear too many people giggling when Desmond Tutu wears fancy dress, or when El Papa wears his, because they have grown into the mana (dignity) these garments can convey. Can - not ipso facto do, but can.

I have to say, though, as an observer of his blaséness the immediate past archbishop of Sydney, Mr Jensen conveyed, that a collar or collar and tie struggles to convey any message beyond "I sell used cars"

[ 07. September 2013, 08:31: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Walking to church one evening, I saw the priest from a neighbouring church, who had agreed to stand in for ours while he was away, crossing a busy city road in a scarlet cassock with matching biretta. It was a wonderful sight.
Wonder is one word: bizarre is closer to the mark for most non Christians. Most would probably see the biretta and cloak as fancy dress and not uniform. Shirt and collar ok, anything else probably posing.

You're assuming that 'most non Christians' would respond to clericals as your kind of Christian responds. My experience is that non-churchgoing Christians, secularists, and people of other faiths are either not bothered by a person in clericals or else downright pleased to see one.

[ 07. September 2013, 08:36: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

I remember the vicar of a village church in Essex coming along to the local pub after Sunday morning service still dressed in his cassock. Nobody batted an eyelid.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

As ever most of the no-vote here is from a section of the church which "protests too much." It is not that they don't get it, it's that they don't want to.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

A tangent but I used to be in parish with a strong RC base, the RC parishioners used to moan that the nuns didn’t wear the habits anymore, so they didn’t know who they were!!

I know my nuns at church: they're old and they're Irish!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Walking to church one evening, I saw the priest from a neighbouring church, who had agreed to stand in for ours while he was away, crossing a busy city road in a scarlet cassock with matching biretta. It was a wonderful sight.
Wonder is one word: bizarre is closer to the mark for most non Christians. Most would probably see the biretta and cloak as fancy dress and not uniform. Shirt and collar ok, anything else probably posing.
You're assuming that 'most non Christians' would respond to clericals as your kind of Christian responds. My experience is that non-churchgoing Christians, secularists, and people of other faiths are either not bothered by a person in clericals or else downright pleased to see one.

My experience here suggests that there is a divide between English Canada and French Canada. In the latter, the response is about equally split between benign ("I didn'ny t know that they still did this") and hostile. In the former, generally curious with a certain amount of looking-away-quickly, although people of other religions tend to view clerical dress favourably. I did have a Jewish friend ask, when seeing a priest in cassock, cloak and Canterbury cap at a funeral, if that was a Lubavitcher Anglican.

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

In my tiny remote rural Australian village, nobody wears clerical dress.
Not me, the Uniting Church woman minister.
Nor the Catholic or Anglican priests.
Nor the Assembley of God minister, not that AoG usually do.
Nor the nun, for that matter.

On my part, UCA clericals are rare. As for the priests, some do and most round here don't. Even the Anglican bishop...
Something about Oz maybe?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Yes, but you get to drive a distinctive, easily identifiable car, if I recall correctly.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Rowen

Maybe in a small village everyone knows who the different clergy are anyway, so they have no need to announce themselves by wearing special clothes.

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Yes, but you get to drive a distinctive, easily identifiable car, if I recall correctly.

Oh yeah, my car is a huge four wheel drive, supplied by the denominational body that put me here, covered with enormous and distinctive logo stickers.
Everyone knows me and where I go and how I drive... Especially in the small towns I frequent.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

You lucky so-and-so!
Or wait! Maybe there are drawbacks to having an easily identifiable car.

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

When we lived in Orkney, the Church of Scotland clergy were easily identifiable by their standard-issue dark-blue Ford Fiestas ...

... and in some cases, by their appalling driving. [Devil]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

CofE Bishops used to have to drive British-manufactured cars--generally Rover 75s, IIRC; sometimes Ford Sierras.

There's a German expression meaning 'to drive like a pastor,' that is, like Jehu.

[ 09. September 2013, 16:18: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

The German pastor I know certainly lives up to that!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0