|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bye bye vestments?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
So I heard a rumor that there is a possibility that the C of E may finally allow what already happens in some places: priest leading worship without any vestments (which usually means in a suit or more casual street clothes).
Does this have any chance of actually happening? Is it a good or bad thing? Even if you personally do not like it, should it be allowed since it is happening anyway and enforcing the rule against it would be even worse?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I'm old-skool enough to agree with the observation that vestments serve a purpose in taking attention away from the person at the front and redirecting it to the liturgy. When I was assisting with worship I welcomed the opportunity to wear an alb precisely because it allowed me (as opposed to what I might be saying or doing) to stay in the background.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
I'm sure it will happen - because it does already. I have always tried to convey to my evo jesus-is-my-mate friends that at least a stole would be nice, but they don't seem to get it. I'm kinda sad they want to look like Baptists when the history God has given us is so bright, vibrant and full of colour and symbol and meaning, but whatever floats their boat, I guess.
Here's hoping they don't ultimately turn the tables and do a Sydney - where chasubles are illegal.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Surely there's something between "Jesus is my mate" and "If I don't wear the right scarf it's not going to work"?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm old-skool enough to agree with the observation that vestments serve a purpose in taking attention away from the person at the front and redirecting it to the liturgy.
I've come across this argument a fair bit (on the Ship and in real life) and, while it's the argument used in favour of vestments that makes most sense to me, I still don't really get it.
Do people really find it a distraction if the 'person at the front' is wearing unobtrusive, inoffensive regular clothes rather than vestments? I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if someone moving from a church where the priests etc. wear vestments to one where civvies are worn does find it distracting for a while, but I'd have thought that would just be due to the unfamiliarity.
I'd be interested to hear from people who have experienced this change and don't have a 'higher' theological reason for preferring vestments. Did you quickly get used to the fact that the people at the front were wearing regular clothes? Or did it keep on distracting you away from focusing on God and what was going on in the service?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
I agree with Zappa. It's not a matter of if, but of when.
It's actually quite silly how people rationalize things like this. We've got to keep it real...we've got to make it like everyday life...we've got to appeal to the youth, etc. etc. Yet the simple fact remains that we're asking them to believe some pretty unbelievable things that other people don't believe. No amount of simplification is going to cover up that.
Is it a far stretch of the imagination to believe that people might actually want a bit of flair, mystery, and/or ritual in their religious observance? See here for some food for thought. Other searches of 'evangelical' and 'liturgy' will produce more.
From my own experience, we had a pastor try wearing a suit for a couple weeks. He wore ugly ties. He looked like a used car salesman (not sure if that translates across the ponds...it implies a disreputable character in America.) Our worship had morphed instantly from communal and transcendent to sales pitch. (By the way, not one of us said anything. You see, we all instinctively knew he was baiting us, and nobody took the bait. After about two months, he gave up.)
[ 27. December 2013, 20:58: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Do people really find it a distraction if the 'person at the front' is wearing unobtrusive, inoffensive regular clothes rather than vestments? I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if someone moving from a church where the priests etc. wear vestments to one where civvies are worn does find it distracting for a while, but I'd have thought that would just be due to the unfamiliarity.
I was at my snake belly low church of origin a while back. Some time into the singing of songs about Jesus a bloke in blue trousers and a sweat-soaked blue shirt wandered out and said some words about Jesus doing something at the last Supper. The sweat patches under the dude's arms were about half a square metre each (he wasn't small). How I wish he'd at least worn an alb to cover up his Thermodynamic Failures.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
The sweat patches under the dude's arms were about half a square metre each (he wasn't small). How I wish he'd at least worn an alb to cover up his Thermodynamic Failures.
OK. I wasn't there. Maybe I wouldn't have been there. But I can't see the theological objection? Just an "I don't want to hang around people who sweat" objection.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cosmic dance
Shipmate
# 14025
|
Posted
I don't know about theological objections, but surely the point of wearing vestments is to draw attention away from the personality and to focus on the role. For women priests it is particularly liberating to wear an alb. No-one is going to comment on your choice of outfit that day and how flattering - or not - it may be. No-one can criticise your dress-sense. You don't have to choose matching shoes. (That just leaves your hair, your make-up, your figure...)
--------------------
"No method, no teacher, no guru..." Van Morrison.
Posts: 233 | From: godzone | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
You don't have to choose matching shoes.
I know you mean matching shoes to outfit. That said, I had a pastor (who also happened to be female) who more mismatched flip-flops to church one day.
Suffice it to say that the shoes should match each other! Under her alb, it was very obvious...
Alas, sanctuary slippers have gone the way of the dodo.
[ 27. December 2013, 21:32: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In the British Methodist Church a dog collar is standard for the clergy, but they have a choice of colours and styles to wear with it. I've never understood why some of them wear one colour or style rather than another. It just seems to be down to personal preference. Most of the time it's a lay preacher in the pulpit anyway, and they wear what they like, usually something sombre.
In churches that don't bother with any vestments I've occasionally been distracted by what the preachers are wearing. But then again, when I worship with the CofE I find their formal gear a bit distracting as well. Some people look better in that stuff than others.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
I've worshipped mainly in churches where a large number of people are robed - choir, servers, vergers as well as priests so robes really work well because there are lots of people in the uniforms. I suspect where only the minister robes it feels weirder and more of a barrier.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
But I can't see the theological objection? Just an "I don't want to hang around people who sweat" objection.
Zappa's saying that if this guy was wearing vestments then his 'thermodynamic failure' ( ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) wouldn't have been so visible and, thus, so distracting. I take the point but presumably people can still look sweaty while wearing vestments; you just won't be able to see the under-arm sweat patches!
quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
For women priests it is particularly liberating to wear an alb. No-one is going to comment on your choice of outfit that day and how flattering - or not - it may be. No-one can criticise your dress-sense. You don't have to choose matching shoes. (That just leaves your hair, your make-up, your figure...)
I've added the italics to highlight the fact that vestments don't solve the problem we're talking about, although they might reduce it. But I'm still wondering - would most people gradually just get used to their 'up the front' people wearing regular clothes, if they made the change from vestments?
In fact, I wonder if it's possible to reverse this entire argument - when Jackie is at the front giving a talk, I kind of want to be reminded that it's Jackie, with her experiences and talents. I don't want her to be wearing special vestments that seek to obscure the fact that she is Jackie, turning her into a generic, anonymous bringer of God's message. God works through real people, each of whom have their own style of speaking, tone of voice, dress sense etc., and I think we should celebrate that.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
In what way is it more accessible, less clerical, less divisive and more like everyone else to lead worship wearing a suit, clerical shirt and clerical collar, than to wear cassock and surplice or whatever?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
In fact, I wonder if it's possible to reverse this entire argument - when Jackie is at the front giving a talk, I kind of want to be reminded that it's Jackie, with her experiences and talents. I don't want her to be wearing special vestments that seek to obscure the fact that she is Jackie, turning her into a generic, anonymous bringer of God's message. God works through real people, each of whom have their own style of speaking, tone of voice, dress sense etc., and I think we should celebrate that.
I hear what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree. It can become a cult of personality so fast. I have lived through this in my own congregation, where people come specifically because it is Jackie's church, to hear Jackie speak. Everything else--the Holy Sacrament, the mission of the church, yadda yadda--is secondary, tertiary, or of no import at all to some people. Here are actual quotes I heard frequently for a couple years, and still occasionally hear (name changed, obviously):
"Jackie IS First Lutheran Church." (Yikes!)
"I don't think pastors should ever leave." (Double yikes!)
"I've stopped going to church because Jackie left us."
"There is nobody like Jackie." (Well, duh, but there are other good people.)
The cult of personality seems to become even more magnified with robe-less churches. America has all sorts of mega-churches that have languished without their Big Draw leaders. Robert Schuller (a robe wearer, strangely enough) and the Crystal Cathedral are a large public example of this.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Whatever the celebrant/officiant is wearing is a vestment and is making a statement. IF he is wearing (as I have seen) a golf shirt and beige trousers (aka chinos), s/he is making about the importance of being seen as fitting in a golf and country club. If there is a business suit, s/he sacralizes the authority of that class. If in academic and bands, he borrows from the status of a scholar of the 18th century. If in a chasuble, then s/he reaches back into Roman times.
It's never neutral. Ever. Vestments always signify-- the question is what.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
It can become a cult of personality so fast...
I wholly agree that the cult of personality is a horrible thing, and I cringe at those comments you noted! Do vestments mitigate against this, though? You might well be right to say that there's more risk of the cult of personality with non-vestmented (so to speak) churches but I wonder if this is merely a correlation, with some other factor lying behind.
I suppose if one's concept of a church service is that there's a script to be followed (I don't mean that offensively, honest!) - the liturgy, Eucharist etc. - then the identity of the person / people carrying out the prescribed actions doesn't matter. But if the church service has some sharing of personal experiences, even if this is nothing more radical than a sermon, then the identity of the front-people begins to matter. I'll resist the temptation to carry on any further along this tangent...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
It can become a cult of personality so fast...
I wholly agree that the cult of personality is a horrible thing, and I cringe at those comments you noted! Do vestments mitigate against this, though? You might well be right to say that there's more risk of the cult of personality with non-vestmented (so to speak) churches but I wonder if this is merely a correlation, with some other factor lying behind.
SCK,
Baring the base layer (alb/cassock-alb/surplice), the vestments would normally belong to the church rather than to the person. Particularly the chasuble, cope or dalmatic and matching stole (some people wear their own stoles). The form of vestment (alb-and-chasuable/suplice-and-scarf/..) is at the direction of the Church wardens and the PCC - not the incumbent. So yes, I think it does to an extent counter some of the personality cult undercurrents.
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 602 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cosmic dance
Shipmate
# 14025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I suppose if one's concept of a church service is that there's a script to be followed (I don't mean that offensively, honest!) - the liturgy, Eucharist etc. - then the identity of the person / people carrying out the prescribed actions doesn't matter.
Its about more than "following a script" SCK. It is about anonymity and humility, putting aside your personal preferences and style in order to be able to point to something greater than yourself without the distraction of "my identity" with which everyone is so besotted these days. Even when preaching and sharing personal experiences, it's still about pointing to God.
Having said that, I have seen some of the most horrendous attempts to 'individualise' vestments.
For example. collars with little flowers and bits of bling stuck to them, pectoral crosses on persons who were not Bishops, floral Doc Martins with alb and,my best yet, tan cowboy boots with cotta, lace a metre deep.
--------------------
"No method, no teacher, no guru..." Van Morrison.
Posts: 233 | From: godzone | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think it's a question of what you're used to. I don't especially think of 'anonymity and humility' when I see a CofE priest in robes and whatnot. I just think that the individual concerned is dressed in accordance with their faith tradition.
Context is everything. I know of clergy from other traditions who only wear a dog collar so as NOT to be 'anonymous', e.g. when they're out and about, and want to be visible to strangers who might need their help or advice.
As for 'humility', when clergy from more modern denominations choose to wear dog collars or any other distinctive clothing among folk who already know who they are, I see it as a sign that they're trying to look more respectable. They want to present themselves as being on an equal footing with clergy from the more historical churches. This is understandable, but it's not exactly humility.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm largely faceblind, and I like vestments because it keeps me from asking the pastor, "So, is this your first visit to St Whatsit?"
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cosmic dance
Shipmate
# 14025
|
Posted
I guess I'm thinking of an ideal world instead of the real one....
Surely its about intention, what is in the heart? If you understand that you are in 'holy orders' then you are obedient to what is the prescribed manner of dress for a certain occasion. Sometimes, that requires humility. Clergy who cheerfully discard their vestments because they have a better idea, seem to me to be missing the point.
I cannot speak for people from other denominations who want to make themselves appear 'holy'.
--------------------
"No method, no teacher, no guru..." Van Morrison.
Posts: 233 | From: godzone | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
I admit it's probably a preference thing, but I have climbed the candle in the end because vestments give colour, vibrancy, majesty and to some extent a certain "otherness", a sacred solemnity to the dramas of worship.
By and large gum chewing, sneaker-wearing, designer or other jeans-donning and a Jesus is really groovy tee-launting just don't. Nor, as noted above, does the used car salesperson look. Nope ... when I worship I worship something out of this world, and the silly clothes help me reverberate in that otherness ...
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Context is everything. I know of clergy from other traditions who only wear a dog collar so as NOT to be 'anonymous', e.g. when they're out and about, and want to be visible to strangers who might need their help or advice.
I think you've missed the point. It's no being anonymous in the blend into the crowd sense - it's being anonymous in the sense that it doesn't matter whether you're John, Dave or Katie - you're the priest, being the priest.
And that's exactly what putting the dog collar on and going out in public does. If someone comes up to your dog collar wearer in search of help or advice, they're not doing it because "hey, that's Dave - he's a really nice bloke, I heard him preach once", they're looking for the Revd. Mr. Whoever.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
"Finally"? But at least some have been doing without for at least - well I don't know how long, but I'd guess fifty years or more and I'd not be surprised at much more. And from my own experience I know that vestments are more commonly used in the CofE than they were in the 1970s and 80s. Most if not quite all evangelicals now seem to wear something in the vestment line when celebrating Communion, often cassock, surplice, and stole; and at least some wear albs which would have been anathema to their spiritual ancestors a generation ago.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
There are so many professions where a uniform is accepted as the norm eg police, military, fire service, ambulance officers, hospital staff etc etc that I can't see what the objection is to using vestments in church. The uniform gives a certain respect to the office undertaken and in church enables one to look beyond the individual. I know that I felt distinctly uncomfortable on visiting a church to find that the minister turned up to take the service in dirty gardening clothes with no attempt to look tidy. Surely it is disrespectful to the congregation and to God to treat a church service as no more significant than digging in the garden.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Most if not quite all evangelicals now seem to wear something in the vestment line when celebrating Communion, often cassock, surplice, and stole; and at least some wear albs which would have been anathema to their spiritual ancestors a generation ago
Whereas in this hemisphere they are jettisoning them as fast as they can
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The anonymity argument is one also used to justify wearing wigs and robes in court; a barrister is to be seen as one carrying out a role rather than a litigant. Even with the limited vesting we usually do, it is easy to see who is the president, who the deacons and sub-deacon, the liturgical assistants and the servers. They are seen as those performing different liturgical functions and not Sarah, Michael and so forth.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I suppose if one's concept of a church service is that there's a script to be followed (I don't mean that offensively, honest!) - the liturgy, Eucharist etc. - then the identity of the person / people carrying out the prescribed actions doesn't matter.
Its about more than "following a script" SCK. It is about anonymity and humility, putting aside your personal preferences and style in order to be able to point to something greater than yourself without the distraction of "my identity" with which everyone is so besotted these days. Even when preaching and sharing personal experiences, it's still about pointing to God.
Sorry, I still don't get it! But I think this very much arises from my sense of what a church service is or should be, and unless / until that changes then I'm bound to consider vestments to be unnecessary at best.
Briefly, I see a church service as a community of Christians coming together to share from their recent experience of God, bringing an encouragement, a prophecy, an insight from the Bible, a song, a prayer etc. As such, we are all equals and so I wouldn't want any of the people to be marked out as different by the wearing of vestments.
I thoroughly agree that the church service is about humbly pointing one another towards God, but I think whatever help vestments give towards this is outweighed by the 'them and us' division* and the contribution vestments make towards church being seen as something old-fashioned and irrelevant.
*Even if your robed people are the most welcoming, kind, unassuming, collaborative people in the world, the very fact that they are wearing special clothes marks them out as different, and that fundamentally cuts across my concept of church.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poppy
Ship's dancing cat
# 2000
|
Posted
I'm no fan of choir dress as I'm very tiny and there is no way that surplice does me any favours in the style dept but what it does is tell people I'm the vicar which as I do a lot of funerals is quite important. My church is large so we get all the local funerals where more than 150 are likely to turn up and I've noticed that in a big building you have to be in uniform to be seen. I saw one of my evangelical brethren do a funeral recently and he did it very well, but you had to hunt around visually to see him as he was in a grey suit and clerical shirt so pale you couldn't see the collar. The poor chap blended into the background completely.
It does seem to be a churchmanship thing round here. My town is full of ministers as there are lots of churches, mostly of the independent evangelical and charismatic type, but as the minister are not identifiable to anyone but their own congregations as they don't wear the uniform. I do wonder if those churches that are more congregational, if you come to our church you know that our minister is Ben so he doesn't have to dress differently, are the ones that are happier to ditch vestments. Or maybe that is a complete red herring.
--------------------
At the still point of the turning world - there the dance is...
Posts: 1406 | From: mostly on the edge | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
/qb]
Briefly, I see a church service as a community of Christians coming together to share from their recent experience of God, bringing an encouragement, a prophecy, an insight from the Bible, a song, a prayer etc. As such, we are all equals and so I wouldn't want any of the people to be marked out as different by the wearing of vestments.
*Even if your robed people are the most welcoming, kind, unassuming, collaborative people in the world, the very fact that they are wearing special clothes marks them out as different, and that fundamentally cuts across my concept of church.
To be honest, I don't think the issue would be about robing at these type of liturgically lite services, where vestments are not generally worn. The point is that the CofE is a Eucharistically-centred Church where 95% of those attending will be celebrating the Holy Communion on Sunday mornings, where vestments -regardless of composition - provide continuity and have always been part of the Church's norms. Dispensing with vesture for the Eucharist implies a casualness which jars with the great mystery and gift from God.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Most if not quite all evangelicals now seem to wear something in the vestment line when celebrating Communion, often cassock, surplice, and stole; and at least some wear albs which would have been anathema to their spiritual ancestors a generation ago
Whereas in this hemisphere they are jettisoning them as fast as they can
I suppose this is due to influence from newer denominations? It must be a challenge to maintain these traditions in countries where the churches that have become or are becoming more culturally and numerically dominant don't bother with them.
This isn't the case in the UK. Despite the influence of much newer churches, the CofE still remains the supreme representative of 'the Church' in English culture. In fact, I'd say that the dominance of the CofE has increased. My guess is that as we go through times of great change people will appreciate the traditional CofE vestments more.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Poppy:
I do wonder if those churches that are more congregational, if you come to our church you know that our minister is Ben so he doesn't have to dress differently, are the ones that are happier to ditch vestments. Or maybe that is a complete red herring.
I think this is probably a lot to do with it. Take my church; if you come to a Sunday service you probably don't need to know who the senior pastor or any of the other leadership team are. And if you do, you can ask someone - ask the people doing the drinks, ask the person you came with, if you came alone ask the friendly person who (hopefully!) has greeted you and made you feel welcome.
In my understanding of church (I know others have different understandings!) it's really not that important for the minister to be identifiable at any given church gathering. And, like I said, if you do need or wish to know then it shouldn't be difficult to find out.
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
Dispensing with vesture for the Eucharist implies a casualness which jars with the great mystery and gift from God.
All I can say is that I don't get this implication. For me, vestments imply something different, something special about those serving and in my concept of church anyone can serve because we all have the same status before God and with one another.
On the 'vestments have always been part of the Church's norms', if you mean the Church of England then fine but so what? Maybe the C of E has been doing something unnecessary all this time. If you meant the Church in the wider sense, then my question is how far back in time do we have evidence for vestments? I've read stuff claiming they were introduced in the (I think) late second or third centuries as Christian practice became more formalised and ritualised, rather than from the beginning of the Christian faith. Of course, this wouldn't mean wearing vestments is wrong but it would weaken the continuity argument.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Two thoughts:
1. Until this year, I was an NHS Trust Ambulance-person, and so I wore the standard green uniform whilst on duty. This, of course, clearly identified me and my profession to The Public, but also helped me to act professionally, IYSWIM (the patients saw the reassuring uniform, rather than the person wearing it!). In a church setting where there is a script (as SCK puts it - rather well, IMHO), and people acting in professional roles, then vestments identify those roles - quite apart from helping to lift us into the realm of the numinous, as Zappa points out.
2. I gather that the idea of those in Synod who would like vestments to be optional is to give the clergy/worship leaders more street cred. Our Vicar was given a zebra-striped Onesie (sp.?) - complete with tail - for Christmas, and such garments are popular in this corner of The Lord's Vineyard. I have therefore urged him to wear it at our next Family Mass..... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Two more thoughts:
3. We now have a monthly Mass in the lounge of a large sheltered housing development (newly-built) in our parish. This is celebrated alternately by our Vicar wearing cassock-alb and stole (no maniple or chasuble), or by our retired PTO priest in collar and clerical shirt (he is of the Evangelical persuasion). Horses for courses - it's an informal setting, although we use the basic Common Worship Order 1 - and, given that those attending are from various denominations, seems to me to fit the bill. In our more formal and traditional parish church setting, however, the lack of vestments would seem (IMHO) to look odd.
4. The Lutheran churches in Sweden and Denmark, for instance, seem to manage quite well without cohorts of servers in alb/cassock/cotta/surplice or whatever, even though the priest might wear alb/stole/chasuble (including some nice fiddlebacks in Denmark). Their Sunday Eucharists appear to be quite formal - with a script - but with minimalist ritual.
Ian J.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Even with the limited vesting we usually do, it is easy to see who is the president, who the deacons and sub-deacon, the liturgical assistants and the servers.
In the Church of England maybe a third of parishes are markedly Anglo-Catholic. The rest of them
won't have robed deacons and servers and evangelical parishes - almost as numerous - will mean something very different by "server" anyway.
Even most AC parishes won't have a robed subdeacon from one patronal festival to the next. Most Anglicans probably wouldn't recognise a subdeacon if one bit them on the bum.
It seems pretty obvious that if most members of a congregation are wearing normal clothes but one person, or even two or three are dressed up in shiny robes, then those robed ones are far from anonymous. They stand out, they draw attention to themselves, they look more important than everyone else. The idea that they are anonymous is a piece of nerdview, something only an insider could think, something you learn or are taught through many years of churchgoing. Any walk-in visitor with little or no church experience would think the opposite.
Also vestments are not the "uniform" of clergy in our culture. You only see them at Communion and even then only in some denominations. Most people never go to those services. If there is a recognisef clergy uniform it is the dog collar.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bene Gesserit
Shipmate
# 14718
|
Posted
I grew up in a fundie church where the pastors wore ‘civvies’ most of the time – it was rare to see clerical collars except at funerals.
After a gap of many years, I’ve occasionally attended Anglican services, at a Cathedral, and I really do appreciate the liturgy and the formal vestments of the Dean, other ministers and choir. I’d really miss seeing them formally robed.
--------------------
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Posts: 405 | From: Flatlands of the East | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
Robes/vestments started to be abandoned over 30 years ago by clergy and congregations in the CofE who wanted to go down that road. Any ruling about that being made at this moment in time, I suspect will be in name only and that the various clergy and congregations will carry on as before with what they are used to.
I am used to vestments as the norm, but I do experience worship where the officiating minister is unrobed - more often non-eucharistic worship, but on occasions, the service is a Eucharist.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
ALL the Scandinavian Lutheran churches have retained the use of the chasuble, however the Danish Church does not use the stole.
With regard to the Church of England,the chasuble has been widely accepted certainly in the cathedrals,where ,even incense is often used, far more than thirty years ago.I was deeply impressed with the beauty of the Midnight mass from Westminster Abbey a few days ago.
Can anyone imagine that the dean would celebrate and preach in civil clothes.?
THE EUCHARIST is a Royal Banquet,so proper dress is expected.
I regard the attitude of Evangelical clergy for not wearing robes for liturgical services as odd and without any respect for Our Lord and its people.
Let us be glad that the use of liturgical symbols is growing instead of declining.
Furthermore,in the bulk of the Christian church,Eastern Orthodox,and Roman-Catholic, the use of vestments is the rule and not an exception.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
If you don't wear robes of some kind what do you wear?
And whatever you choose will identify you with some of the laity and set you apart from others.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
SCK, your concept of church then is different from the CofE because only ordained priests may preside at the Eucharist. The priestly function here, as across the universal church is not something that anyone can just do. I appreciate that some may disagree with this but there are other churches which have different doctrines.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
One problem for a traveller or a visitor in places where the celebrant is in civvies is to a) identify them and b) figure out what is going on. One of the few times I have encountered this in TEC churches, it was far from clear. If one is a regular worshipper with the congregation, this is clear, but if one is a visitor, it is far from the case and just confirms to one that one is not an insider.
I fear that I must recall an event some years ago when a seminarian who had not been introduced to the 8.30 congregation at Saint Vartan's and who, in a golf shirt and khaki trousers, proceeded to stand in the middle of the aisle and deliver a sermon. His presentation was not that coherent and one of the sidesmen, simply assuming that he was one of the odd folk who occasionally ramble into a downtown church and express themselves, quietly escorted him to a seat. Talking with him afterward, he expressed his surprise, so I just told him that he was dressed like a $750/day consultant, and in Ottawa we get a lot of them wandering around talking about mission statements.
I have not read the arguments for this measure but it sounds to me as if it is an attempt to make an ecclesiological point through using irregular vesture when they were unable to make it liturgically.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think I've had this out with ken before ... it may well be the case that evangelical Anglican clergy are more likely to wear robes and so on where here is - but it certainly isn't the case round here.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'll admit ... I'm on my way up the candle. I like candles, I like robes, I like tat.
It's not that I'm against clergy/ministers/leaders who don't go in for this sort of thing - it's all to do with context.
I'd no more expect leaders in the Vineyard, for instance, to tog themselves up with albs and so on than I would Anglican clergy to go round in Hawaiian shirts and chinos - although many do, unfortunately - and look like complete prats.
A new church leader or some Baptist leaders and so on don't look ridiculous in polo-shirts and jeans etc - but vicars do. They just do.
Take it from me.
Meanwhile ...
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Briefly, I see a church service as a community of Christians coming together to share from their recent experience of God, bringing an encouragement, a prophecy, an insight from the Bible, a song, a prayer etc. As such, we are all equals and so I wouldn't want any of the people to be marked out as different by the wearing of vestments.
I thoroughly agree that the church service is about humbly pointing one another towards God, but I think whatever help vestments give towards this is outweighed by the 'them and us' division* and the contribution vestments make towards church being seen as something old-fashioned and irrelevant.
[/QB]
Well, that presupposes that we see some kind of 'division' and are putting leaders on a pedestal. That doesn't tend to happen in more liturgical, sacramental traditions, it seems to me. It's more in the eye of the beholder - 'That guy/gal is wearing a cope or robe - they must think that they're better than everyone else ...'
As for 'recent experience of God' - what the heck does that mean? We're all different in how we might 'experience' or apprehend God and some of us and some traditions aren't that fixated with experiences ...
I'm not particularly interested in 'experiences' per se, still less shouting them from the housetops and telling everyone else about them ...
Sure, I've had a very vatic and experiential/affective approach to my faith in times past and I wouldn't write all these things off ... but I don't see why these things should be the focus of what we do when we gather for worship. Sure, they build the sense of community, but whether they necessarily put the focus in the right place ie. Godward - isn't always easy to determine.
'Bringing an encouragement ...' We can do that in all kinds of ways. Why build it into the liturgy so formally ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
'A prophecy' - which presupposes that what's being said or shared IS actually a prophecy. Nine times out of 10 in my experience it's anything but. Anyone can fling a few pious thoughts together and claim divine imprimatur for it.
'An insight from the Bible' - sure, providing it's not some daft tangent or subjective interpretation.
'A song' - we've got hymn books for that ...
'A prayer' - sure, you may do that extemporarily if that's your bag or you can pray along with the set prayers in the liturgy. What's the big deal?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
As some one inclined to wear vestments in a Methodist context, I tend to keep them at present for best - as in part they are outside the tradition of many of the places I have care of. However I do find that they help remind me that I am doing something out of the ordinary.
One of the folks at church, when another person was checking about something I was wearing came out with a very true line for me: "It's just a fancy boiler suit"
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Context is everything. I know of clergy from other traditions who only wear a dog collar so as NOT to be 'anonymous', e.g. when they're out and about, and want to be visible to strangers who might need their help or advice.
As to the above, out in the street I do wear a collar, this is not so that I am recognised, it is so that the role is recognised. Thus adding to point already made that it is the wearing of a uniform.
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
If you don't wear robes of some kind what do you wear?
And whatever you choose will identify you with some of the laity and set you apart from others.
What happens when my church meets together is that (as far as I can tell) everyone wears more or less their normal clothes. So if the person leading the service normally wears jeans and a casual shirt / blouse, that's what they'll be wearing. If a floral print dress is their usual style, then that'll probably be their Sunday morning outfit.
I don't really get your point about the leader / minister's clothes identifying them with some people and separating them from others. We all have our own clothing preferences; it's just part of being human. Would you say a minister with long hair is likely to identify more with laity who also have long hair than with those whose hair is short? I'm sure you and indeed most people can can easily rise above such surface considerations.
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
SCK, your concept of church then is different from the CofE because only ordained priests may preside at the Eucharist.
Oh yes, I realise this! Maybe I should duck out of this thread as vestments are a total non-issue at my church (i.e. there's no chance of anyone dressing up like that).
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
One problem for a traveller or a visitor in places where the celebrant is in civvies is to a) identify them and b) figure out what is going on. One of the few times I have encountered this in TEC churches, it was far from clear. If one is a regular worshipper with the congregation, this is clear, but if one is a visitor, it is far from the case and just confirms to one that one is not an insider.
Well yes, but this problem is easily solved by people introducing themselves. For example: 'Hello, I'm Bob and I'd like to welcome you to our service this morning. We'll be singing some songs and hymns in a moment, along with readings from the Lectionary. Then Carla, our assistant pastor, will be bringing some teaching.'
Adjust the wording to suit and, hey presto, people know at least the basics of what's going on and who's who. Surely this is childishly simple, and removes the need for vestments to identify who's leading / presiding.
Gamaliel, may I humbly suggest we don't derail this thread with another back-and-forth about the merits or otherwise of those church service activities I mentioned? It's not the main point of the thread; I was just trying to illustrate where I'm coming from with my comments about vestments undermining my conception of everyone in the church being equal.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Gamaliel, may I humbly suggest we don't derail this thread with another back-and-forth about the merits or otherwise of those church service activities I mentioned? It's not the main point of the thread; I was just trying to illustrate where I'm coming from with my comments about vestments undermining my conception of everyone in the church being equal. [/QB]
Fair enough - I apologise if I derailed things and am happy for it to get back on track.
The point, though, is that it's all about context. You've already said that no-one in your church is going to dress up in vestments. Fine.
But you seem to have this expectation that because your church doesn't go in for liturgical dress and so on then somehow those churches which do go in for these things are losing out - either on the priesthood of all believers or opportunities for people to 'share experiences' or whatever it happens to be ...
Of course, there are those who might argue that it's the other way round and that your church is somehow missing out - on a sense of reverence, mystery, the numinous ... or whatever it happens to be.
I wouldn't suggest that you are missing out, any more than I'd suggest that churches that don't do the things your church does are missing out either.
Most people go in their 'normal dress' to church these days ... it's only older people or people from particular ethnic minority communities who dress up smart and posh ... have you ever seen Afro-Caribbeans or Nigerians going to church? They dress up and bling-up a heck of a lot more than your average predominantly white congregation of any churchmanship.
Our vicar doesn't dress up at all. He'll wear a dog-collar and jacket at the 9am more traditional service - but often with a patterned shirt so that you can't actually see the dog collar.
He immediately rips this off and gets into open-necked shirt and slacks mode for the more informal 11am service.
This pisses me off big time. Why doesn't he just go the whole hog and join a Baptist church or a Vineyard church and stop farting around?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The point being, that I wouldn't mind in the least if he dressed like that in a Baptist church or a Vineyard church - because that would be 'authentic' within those particular traditions/expressions of church.
What bugs me is the conscious and almost contemptuous tugging off of the dog-collar before the more informal service starts - as if this is the 'real' service - and the general refusal to wear any form of clerical dress unless the Bishop happens to be around ...
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
I don't mind what people wear provided it's authentic and fits their tradition and belief system.
What irritates me is self-conscious attempts to flout convention on the grounds of trying to be cool or relevant - or else the rather self-conscious adoption of tat.
Tat is fine if it emerges from within the tradition, but if it's consciously adopted in order to show how much of a liturgist/sacramentalist you are then it's just as bad as the opposite tendency of trying to look cool in a check shirt and slacks.
A plague on both these houses.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
