|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bye bye vestments?
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
But there are loads of things God apparently commanded in the Old Testament that Christians no longer think apply. For a start, there are many elements of OT practice that Jesus, Paul etc. explicitly repudiated. We Christians can't use solely 'it's in the Old Testament' as a basis for anything, can we?
I am not arguing that the commandments on priestly attire apply to Christians. I am arguing that those passage are evidence that there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing priestly vestments.
Do you think God commanded Aaron and his sons, and all Israelite priests thereafter, to sin?
But it is possible to suggest that the destruction of the Temple, prophesied by Jesus, and the end of the Temple priesthood means that God intended the end of such priestly accoutrements and the inauguration of His Son as High Priest of a different way of worshipping. After all, another key part of Temple worship was animal sacrifice and Christians never took that up again after the fall of Jerusalem.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I haven't read the whole thread - my apologies if I am seen to be disrespecting your hard work and thought...
...I am with those who regard vestments as important.
I myself wear vestments. They are not based on 4th century Roman dress but upon 19th century military Victorian uniforms (seriously updated, I have to say.
We in TSA, see that our uniforms are signs and symbols. To use the language of the church, we would say that our uniforms and our flags are 'sacramentals'.
I have every sympathy with those who feel that the ritual and practice of the Eucharist goes better if the whole occasion is enacted visually with vestments, etc.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, the sheer extent of the detail in the OT regarding the high priestly garments does rather baffle me! Anyway, in the OT the priests clearly were some kind of intermediary between God and the people as a whole. But that arrangement is set aside in the NT, God now interacting with all people directly (although with the community of God's people still being immensely important; I'm no individualist).
The birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus all signalled a change in how God deals with people, so some things (many things, ISTM) which God formerly commanded are now outside of his will. I'd put wearing vestments down as one of these things.
If you only want to argue that vestments do not properly symbolize the relationship between God and humankind, then whatever. Your completely subjective opinion is duly noted, but frankly I don't much care.
But you've argued that it is clearly against the moral law to wear vestments. So go for it. Where does Jesus forbid wearing vestments?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, the sheer extent of the detail in the OT regarding the high priestly garments does rather baffle me! Anyway, in the OT the priests clearly were some kind of intermediary between God and the people as a whole. But that arrangement is set aside in the NT, God now interacting with all people directly (although with the community of God's people still being immensely important; I'm no individualist).
The birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus all signalled a change in how God deals with people, so some things (many things, ISTM) which God formerly commanded are now outside of his will. I'd put wearing vestments down as one of these things.
If you only want to argue that vestments do not properly symbolize the relationship between God and humankind, then whatever. Your completely subjective opinion is duly noted, but frankly I don't much care.
But you've argued that it is clearly against the moral law to wear vestments. So go for it. Where does Jesus forbid wearing vestments?
Nowhere. He wore the talith wherever he went; you'd think if was against it he would have made a point of not wearing it as a witness to its non-necessity.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
... But you've argued that it is clearly against the moral law to wear vestments. So go for it. Where does Jesus forbid wearing vestments?
Has he argued that? I thought he was saying that,
earlier - vestments are a distraction that get in the way of our apprehending Christian truth, and
now - vestments belong to the old covenant nor the new one.
My own views are rather more similar to those expressed by Gamaliel. But if I've understood SPK correctly, neither of those renderings are saying vestments infringe moral law in the way that, say, theft or adultery do.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nowhere. He wore the talith wherever he went; you'd think if was against it he would have made a point of not wearing it as a witness to its non-necessity.
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nowhere. He wore the talith wherever he went; you'd think if was against it he would have made a point of not wearing it as a witness to its non-necessity.
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".
The hem of his garment. Not sure of the wording but I believe the original phrase refers to those stringy bits on the hem of the shawl that Jewish men still wear. The fact that the woman with bleeding touched these as he walked through the village suggests that it wasn't just worn in the synagogue on the Sabbath.
[ 01. January 2014, 16:12: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".
"Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her haemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, ‘Who touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.'" Luke 8:43-45
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".
"Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her haemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, ‘Who touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.'" Luke 8:43-45
Yes indeed: 'fringe' - better than 'hem'.
Must remember that Jesus wore 'Jewish clothes'
[ 01. January 2014, 16:14: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".
"Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her haemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, ‘Who touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.'" Luke 8:43-45
Yes indeed: 'fringe' - better than 'hem'.
Must remember that Jesus wore 'Jewish clothes'
Thank you to all who contributed to this comment. I love learning new things.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you only want to argue that vestments do not properly symbolize the relationship between God and humankind, then whatever. Your completely subjective opinion is duly noted, but frankly I don't much care.
But you've argued that it is clearly against the moral law to wear vestments. So go for it. Where does Jesus forbid wearing vestments?
I'm trying to argue something more than simply a subjective view (I hope my argument is sturdier than simply 'I don't find vestments necessary or appealing'), but I would hesitate to use such language as 'clearly against the moral law'.
As I've said, I think the New Testament shows vestments to be (a) unnecessary, and (b) an impediment to an accurate understanding of the nature of the community of new covenant people. So I do think all churches should avoid using vestments, but I'm smart enough to realise that suddenly getting rid of vestments would cause much confusion and hurt for people (clergy and non-clergy) who are very used to them.
EDIT - And as for Jesus wearing vestments of a sort, he was simply wearing what rabbis would be expected to wear, no? Jesus followed Jewish ceremonial procedure (well, most of it!) but the early Christians decided that wasn't necessary for people wishing to follow Christ.
[ 01. January 2014, 16:25: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So I do think all churches should avoid using vestments, but I'm smart enough to realise that suddenly getting rid of vestments would cause much confusion and hurt for people (clergy and non-clergy) who are very used to them.
Maybe we should learn to be flexible and be more discerning as to when to wear them and when not.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I'm trying to argue something more than simply a subjective view (I hope my argument is sturdier than simply 'I don't find vestments necessary or appealing'), but I would hesitate to use such language as 'clearly against the moral law'.
Whether you like the language or not, arguing that vestments are against God's will in the Bible is arguing that wearing vestments is immoral.
quote:
As I've said, I think the New Testament shows vestments to be
Where?
quote:
(a) unnecessary,
No one thinks vestments are necessary, and we've said so more than once already. Are you even reading our posts?
quote:
and (b) an impediment to an accurate understanding of the nature of the community of new covenant people.
Then you're proffering subjectivities, since symbolism is inherently subjective. Symbols, in the end, are what people choose to make of them.
quote:
EDIT - And as for Jesus wearing vestments of a sort, he was simply wearing what rabbis would be expected to wear, no? Jesus followed Jewish ceremonial procedure (well, most of it!) but the early Christians decided that wasn't necessary for people wishing to follow Christ.
Ah, did they? Where did you get that?
[ 01. January 2014, 16:33: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Zach82 - I am reading your posts but I'm obviously having a major communication failure with you. Apologies for my part in that but I'll stop here. Anything more I say would just be repeating myself so I'll spare everyone the trouble.
--------------------
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
South Coast Kevin, please don't take your bat and ball home. I, for one, am interested in your comments - even if I don't always agree with them.
What I would say is that I do believe that you are making more out of this issue than it warrants. I'm afraid.
Mudfrog is by no means a high sacramentalist nor someone who would set aside the concept of the priesthood of all believers, yet he can see the value of these things ... as long as they aren't fetishised in some way. I think, whatever our churchmanship, we'd all agree that some aspects of ritual, vestments and so on can become ends in themselves and become quite harmful.
I've met RC and Orthodox priests who'd acknowledge as much about aspects of their practices if they're taken to an extreme in 'popular piety' of one form or other. There's always that danger.
I'd suggest that, along with much else, it's a question of right use not non-use.
By railing against these practices in an iconoclastic way, I'd suggest that we might often be imbuing these things with even greater significance than their proponents hold.
It's like the example from 1930s Russia where the Soviet authorities would sometimes put icons on 'trial' and then machine gun them to pieces in front of the peasantry. They thought that this was a way of getting through to the ignorant and superstitious peasants and re-educating them ... all it did was reinforce the veneration and importance that these items held in the popular imagination.
If these painted panels were so important that the authorities were going to destroy them, then surely they contained intrinsic value and pointed beyond themselves to important figures and heroes of the Faith ...
You see what I'm getting at?
As it happens, there's also a contextual aspect. I have no problem whatsoever with Mudfrog's uniform and flags, 'sacramentals' and so on ... I may tease him at times but I hope he realises that it's not meant in a 'wrong' way.
I fully accept the 'validity' of those offices, rituals, ceremonies and insignia etc in that particular context. Just as I'd accept the validity of what goes on in your Vineyard context.
That doesn't mean I'm a wishy-washy, anything-goes type ... it's simply to acknowledge that symbols and so on have meaning and power ... and we're surrounded by them at all times - on coins, on designs, in branding and much else besides.
All these things are 'human' constructs - but we are human beings. We are sensory and physical beings so it's no surprise that there are going to be sensory aspects to our worship - be it change-ringing church bells at a village parish, a Salvation Army brass-band, guitars and tambourines or robes and vestments or whatever else.
--------------------
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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's also not hard to find extremely detailed descriptions of priestly garments.
In the Old Testament, of course. I think that's a significant point.
For a Marcionist, perhaps.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
EDIT - And as for Jesus wearing vestments of a sort, he was simply wearing what rabbis would be expected to wear, no? Jesus followed Jewish ceremonial procedure
So what's the difference between that and Anglican priests wearing what they are expected to wear? They are following Anglican ceremonial procedure.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
Mr.South Coast Kevin,please note that
Catholic,Orthodox and many Anglican Christians believe not only in the Holy Scripture,but also in the Tradition of the Church.
This Tradition tells us about the development of the ministry and the sacraments of the Church.
Furthermore,I would advise you and other readers to read C.E.Pocknee's book :
Liturgical Vestiture,its Origin and Development.
Fr.Pocknee was a well known Anglican Liturgist and he provides a lot of interesting information
about vestments in this publication,which was published by Mowbrays in 1960.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
References? I can't remember anything in the NT describing what Jesus wore at any time, especially anything he wore "wherever he went".
"Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years; and though she had spent all she had on physicians, no one could cure her. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his clothes, and immediately her haemorrhage stopped. Then Jesus asked, ‘Who touched me?’ When all denied it, Peter said, ‘Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you.'" Luke 8:43-45
Yes indeed: 'fringe' - better than 'hem'.
Must remember that Jesus wore 'Jewish clothes'
Thanks for that - but doesn't this depend on translation, 'fringe' vs 'hem'? And while it describes one incident, it still doesn't say that Jesus wore this all the time? Thirdly, even if the first two are true, are these any more than everyday Jewish clothes - even if clothes for an observant Jew or a teacher - rather than 'priestly vestments', which is the issue we started on?
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
South Coast Kevin, please don't take your bat and ball home. I, for one, am interested in your comments - even if I don't always agree with them.
Thanks , Gamaliel. I just meant I give up with Zach82, who (ISTM) keeps asking me to explain things I've already been trying hard to explain. The dialogue between him and me doesn't seem to be going anywhere constructive.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All these things are 'human' constructs - but we are human beings. We are sensory and physical beings so it's no surprise that there are going to be sensory aspects to our worship - be it change-ringing church bells at a village parish, a Salvation Army brass-band, guitars and tambourines or robes and vestments or whatever else.
I'm completely fine with their being sensory aspects to our connecting and meeting with God (whether we're talking about in church services or any other aspect of life). Physicality is tremendously important, I agree with that.
But specifically on vestments, I think they're bad news for the reasons discussed at length above. I don't like the underlying premise that some people are allowed / qualified / permitted / use-what-word-you-like to do certain things in a church service which the rest of us are not and, even given this premise, I still don't really see the merit of those people wearing vestments.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
EDIT - And as for Jesus wearing vestments of a sort, he was simply wearing what rabbis would be expected to wear, no? Jesus followed Jewish ceremonial procedure
So what's the difference between that and Anglican priests wearing what they are expected to wear? They are following Anglican ceremonial procedure.
Hmm, good question. I suppose Jesus was a rabbi so he did what rabbis did. But then he also did some rather un-rabbi-ish things like letting (probably) a prostitute wash his feet... I don't know, really! But Anglican ceremonial procedure has changed over the years, in some minor ways and occasionally some rather more major ways. So I guess the vestments thing could change, either to make them more simple (or more ornate!) or even to abolish them altogether.
Utrecht Catholic - thanks for the recommendation but I don't have ready access to lots of theological books. Is there something online you could point me towards, perhaps? I'm particularly interested in how early the adoption of ceremonial vestments was, as I've read that they only came into use in (from memory) the 3rd or 4th century.
--------------------
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
Thing is, whatever Jesus did or didn't wear, that's neither a justification for vestments nor a preclusion of them.
Jesus never rode a bike. Nor ate a pizza.
Everyone accepts that a distinctive clerical garb didn't come in until around the 4th century.
In some minds this is associated with what they see as the Constantinian captivity of the Church ... ie. increasing worldliness, material power and nominalism.
So anything that apparently crept it at that time - sacerdotalism etc - is bound to be viewed with suspicion.
Our views on that, whether the developments from the 4th century onwards were good, bad or indifferent - or a mixture of all - will depend on our theology, tradition and churchmanship.
In South Coast Kevin's case, he clearly believes that vestments are a tangible and visible sign of almost everything he believes to be wrong with the Christian church ... not that he's singling individual clergy or congregations out for censure.
He really does believe that if church could be reconfigured in some way that fits with his particular understanding of the NT - a highly romanticised one IMHO but there we are - then it would be far more effective than it apparently is.
Whether he's right or wrong on this point, I respect his right to hold these views ... but I'd be lying if I didn't say I believed them to be touchingly naive.
--------------------
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
Again, I can see what you're getting at, South Coast Kevin but having worshipped in churches where they don't have vestments and in churches where they do, I don't have a big issue about the whole thing.
I neither feel more 'empowered' or less empowered whether I attend a service where vestments are worn or one where they aren't. I try to assess each on their own merits, as I've said above.
Of course, I don't always succeed as I'm inevitably going to have criteria that is informed by whatever tradition I belong to or have imbibed.
You've imbibed from a radical Anabaptist style tradition with some Quaker input a wee while back ... so it's inevitable that you're going to be suspicious of things that the rest of us aren't fazed about.
If all churches suddenly agreed tomorrow to ditch the use of vestments - or the concept of a sacramental priesthood (where that exists) - I don't see how that would automatically, in and of itself, make the world a better place.
There are people doing good stuff who belong to churches with priests and vestments and so on and there are people doing good stuff who don't.
You're the one who - rightly - makes the point about worship being a daily/weekly activity and not just something for Sundays. I don't see the presence of absence of vestments making any great deal of difference to the way people do or don't behave for the rest of the week.
I can't speak for Mudfrog, but I suspect that when he meets up with other church leaders in Newcastle he'll see aspects he admires and aspects he deplores. The same with the rest of us.
What I don't see is how Mudfrog would perform his duties as a Salvation Army officer any more effectively or differently if he decided to wear a polo shirt and chinos rather than a Salvation Army officers uniform. Given the high regard in which the Salvation Army is popularly held, I'm sure he receives many positive comments - as well as many opportunities to share his faith - as he goes about his business dressed the way he does.
The same might equally apply to a clergy person from a denomination where they go in for vestments.
I really don't think it's an issue to get hung up over. People aren't going to hell because of it.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
So Kevin, would your ideal encompass a cloakroom by the entrance to whatever space you are using for worship, in which every (baptised) person would slip on over their day clothes a nice white floor-length garment (rather like a Laudian surplice, but let's not call it that because surplices are (shudder) vestments)?
That would roughly be consonent with some of the ideas and, I think, some of the practices, of the early church, and would perfectly embody the theology you've just described. The advantage over letting people wear their day clothes is that wearing day clothes means you can tell they're different, roughly who has money and who doesn't (unless someone is deliberately dressing down, which is both condescending and a bit deceitful), who does what and so on -- all of them divisive in the worst case.
And it is the worst case you seem to be assuming for those who care about vestments.
In any case, I distrust those who want to get back to the simplicity of the first century church -- those people were no better than we are, and no closer to what God wants, if we believe that the Holy SPirit continued active in God's people after, say 90 AD (why not 150? why not 33? Why not 324? etc.) The idea that the earlier the better and if we could only get back to the way it was then all would be well has always struck me as a romantic fable or nonsence, akin to the folly of those in the 19th century who believed that gothic architecture was more holy than any other, because they believed the middle ages were the apex of christianity.
John (definitely not posting as a Host)
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that we all of us 'read back' into the pages of the NT whatever we want to see ... to a certain extent.
So, for instance - and I'm not knocking iconography - the Orthodox and RCs will have pious legends about St Luke painting the first icon of the Virgin Mary in order to bolster the later practice of iconography. You can defend iconography, it seems to me, on other grounds than having to 'invent' (if that's the right word) some kind of extra-1st century precedent.
On the other hand, those of a more 'restorationist' or Anabaptist persuasion will read into the pages of the NT their idealised version of church. Anyone who read Arthur Wallis's polemical 'The Radical Christian' back in the day will remember how his imagined time-machine visit to 1st century Corinth or Ephesus read rather like his own particular fellowship in togas.
They even had worship-choruses led by lyres rather than guitars ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The whole thing bore no resemblance to what 1st century worship would have looked like.
It's difficult to reconstruct exactly what a church service would have looked like in the 1st century, but there are some clues. It certainly wouldn't have been the lovely, laid-back Californian style event that Vineyard types fondly imagine it to have been.
I'm all for small groups, experimentation and the kind of things that SCK is interested in exploring - there's room for that. I can see how those small group things that Viola and others are talking about could work - but within existing or developing structures ... not in some kind of blissful and glorious isolation from 2,000 years of Christianity.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. I've 'presided' at communion services in both 'restorationist' house-group and Baptist settings and I'm not ordained, nor was I an 'official' leader of any kind. I didn't wear vestments.
I'm no longer in a setting where I would be allowed to 'preside' at communion. Do I feel disempowered by that? No, I don't.
There might be other things that bug me or feel that I'm not listened to - but that's different and I'd suggest that wherever I was - whether in SCK's church, Mudfrog's Salvation Army Corps, a cathedral, an RC parish or a Coptic one ... or a Quaker Meeting House ... wherever I was there'd be issues or problems of some kind or other. That's inevitable. That's because we are human.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
So Kevin, would your ideal encompass a cloakroom by the entrance to whatever space you are using for worship, in which every (baptised) person would slip on over their day clothes a nice white floor-length garment (rather like a Laudian surplice, but let's not call it that because surplices are (shudder) vestments)?
Hmm, I kinda like the idea! Mind you, the point isn't that we should all look the same, it's that we shouldn't judge people based on externalities (such as the clothes they're wearing). Maybe everyone putting on a special white robe for a church service would be like gouging your eye out if it causes you to sin; addressing the problem on the surface but not actually transforming the inner being (and therefore not actually being a helpful thing to do).
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
In any case, I distrust those who want to get back to the simplicity of the first century church -- those people were no better than we are, and no closer to what God wants, if we believe that the Holy SPirit continued active in God's people after, say 90 AD (why not 150? why not 33? Why not 324? etc.) The idea that the earlier the better and if we could only get back to the way it was then all would be well has always struck me as a romantic fable or nonsence, akin to the folly of those in the 19th century who believed that gothic architecture was more holy than any other, because they believed the middle ages were the apex of christianity.
John (definitely not posting as a Host)
But hold on. We take the New Testament as the basis for how we should behave towards one another, don't we? 'Love your neighbour as yourself... love your enemies' and so on. Tradition (and all churches have tradition, I'll readily acknowledge that) then builds on the Biblical material, but it all starts with the Bible, doesn't it? If that's the case, why shouldn't it be the same with how we meet together as communities of Christians? That's why I keep banging on about the New Testament, because it's our source guide for the new covenant between God and people.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Thanks , Gamaliel. I just meant I give up with Zach82, who (ISTM) keeps asking me to explain things I've already been trying hard to explain. The dialogue between him and me doesn't seem to be going anywhere constructive.
For starters, you could cite the biblical passage where Jesus forbids the wearing of vestments, which you insist is in the New Testament somewhere. I entirely understand your views, I assure you. I want you to back them up.
[ 01. January 2014, 19:00: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Other people take the NT just as seriously as you do, South Coast Kevin.
Are you telling us that the Ananias and Sapphira incident in Acts 4 is some kind of blue-print we should follow?
It's the principles, of course. We should treat each other as equals and as people made in the image of God.
I don't see how the use or non-use of vestments affects that.
Some people wearing vestments might act bastardly. Some people who don't wear vestments might do the same.
Throughout this debate, those Christians who do employ vestments of one form or other have said over and over and over again that they don't see it as a badge of worthiness, holiness or special status - but some see it as a mark of 'differentiation' in functional terms.
Yet, for reasons best known to yourself you have refused to believe them or take what they're saying at face-value.
The 'status' thing is in the eye of the beholder, here, it seems to me. You are embuing these things with divisive significance in a way that the practitioners themselves aren't.
Can't you see that?
It's as if the conversation is going like this:
Vestment wearer: I don't see these vestments as introducing any divisiveness at all. They denote function and add to the sense of 'colour' and 'occasion' in our worship.
South Coast Kevin (hands over ears): La la la lah ... I'm not listening. Vestments aren't in the NT and are wicked and divisive. I don't care what you or anyone else says, that's what the NT teaches ...
Vestment wearer: Can you give me chapter and verse for that?
South Coast Kevin: La la la lah ... I can't hear you. The NT teaches that we should meet for mutual encouragement and edification. Vestments cut across that. They suggest that certain people are special ...
Vestment wearer: But I'm not special, I'm the same as everyone else ...
South Coast Kevin: No you're not ... you're wearing vestments. Therefore you are being divisive and think you're special ...
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Throughout this debate, those Christians who do employ vestments of one form or other have said over and over and over again that they don't see it as a badge of worthiness, holiness or special status - but some see it as a mark of 'differentiation' in functional terms.
But for most people who'll be wearing vestments at a church service, it is about special status; that they are allowed to lead Communion while everyone else is not. (Or have I misunderstood?)
My problem is twofold: firstly, I don't think some people should be allowed to do certain things in a church service while others are not (at least in the automatic sense of 'You're ordained, therefore you can do this thing; you're not so you can't').
And secondly, even if one accepts the ordination thing, I don't see the need for those people to wear vestments. They are an ancient relic that sets some people apart as different, whereas the New Testament says Jesus' followers should relate to each other as equals, with 'one another' being the defining notion of how the community of believers should operate.
I'm not intending to attack the specific people who wear vestments. It's the system and the messages that system sends. And no, I don't think Christians would suddenly be transformed and empowered if vestments were abolished overnight. Any change in attitude would surely be slow and gradual.
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin - you're arguing that vestments are all about setting people apart and that your churchmanship says that shouldn't happen because it makes for inequality and for differences between church life and normal life.
Now, there are a lot of churches around that don't use vestments in the UK now. Some of them are growing, some of them are not. But the other growth area of worship is cathedrals where vestments are worn. So it seems to me that your argument about the otherness and setting apart of vestments doesn't stand up universally.
Like most things in worship, some people obviously find the more formal worship helpful as a way of getting nearer to God and/or finding a way into faith and others don't. Trying to insist that something is wrong when obviously a number of worshippers find it helpful and a way of finding Christianity is as helpful as others insisting that all churches have to hold their worship in a certain way.
Surely the whole point of worship and churches is to enable people to learn about God and to support their faith. Putting obstacles in the way of that aim by insisting on the one right way and shutting down other ways in is surely unhelpful to your fellow Christians.
[ 01. January 2014, 19:50: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
My problem is twofold: firstly, I don't think some people should be allowed to do certain things in a church service while others are not (at least in the automatic sense of 'You're ordained, therefore you can do this thing; you're not so you can't').
Unsubstantiated opinion.
quote:
And secondly, even if one accepts the ordination thing, I don't see the need for those people to wear vestments. They are an ancient relic that sets some people apart as different, whereas the New Testament says Jesus' followers should relate to each other as equals, with 'one another' being the defining notion of how the community of believers should operate.
Another opinion.
quote:
I'm not intending to attack the specific people who wear vestments.
Saying that they are disobeying the will of God and comparing them to slave owners constitutes an attack.
quote:
It's the system and the messages that system sends. And no, I don't think Christians would suddenly be transformed and empowered if vestments were abolished overnight. Any change in attitude would surely be slow and gradual.
More opinions. Hohum.
Are you going to explain how you know what God wants, or are you going to continue pretending there is a "communication issue" when the only real "issue" is your habit of speaking for God without any basis in Scripture?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin, why not exercise the charitable option? ie. take what people say at face value?
If I see vestments these days I think, 'Ah, right, something 'holy' is happening and these coloured vestments are one way of helping me focus on that.'
Does that help?
I don't think, 'Look at that bastard in the vestments he/she is doing something I can't do ...'
As Trisagion said upthread, liturgy and all is all about Christ working in and through us.
It's Christ, ultimately, who is meeting me in a church service. Vestments can act as a 'visual aid' towards an understanding of that.
I've cited two instances - one Orthodox, one Anglican - where I 'felt' that to be the case in a very visceral way.
That neither recommends nor precludes the practice or course. But at least try to understand it rather than writing it off simply because it doesn't accord with your particular tradition's approach to the NT.
--------------------
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
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Dear South Coasst Kevin try a Myers Briggs or some other personality chart. You may realise that things that convey meaning to you are different from things that mean something to others. The things are not important as long as they provide a method of communication. I believe God is clever enough to use many different channels, sounds, pictures, words etc. All you need do is make sure your "things" are open to Him.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Like most things in worship, some people obviously find the more formal worship helpful as a way of getting nearer to God and/or finding a way into faith and others don't. Trying to insist that something is wrong when obviously a number of worshippers find it helpful and a way of finding Christianity is as helpful as others insisting that all churches have to hold their worship in a certain way.
Surely the whole point of worship and churches is to enable people to learn about God and to support their faith. Putting obstacles in the way of that aim by insisting on the one right way and shutting down other ways in is surely unhelpful to your fellow Christians.
My own preference is for informality but I'm not really arguing in favour of that here; it's specifically the wearing of vestments that's my focus. It's got to be possible to have a formal service (with lots of stimulus for all the senses, as that's been noted as very helpful and important for some people) without vestments being part of that, hasn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
South Coast Kevin, why not exercise the charitable option? ie. take what people say at face value?
If I see vestments these days I think, 'Ah, right, something 'holy' is happening and these coloured vestments are one way of helping me focus on that.'
Sure, that's fine. I don't think vestments are a completely negative thing! But IMO the negatives of vestments outweigh the positives so I think it would be best for church services not to feature them.
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Dear South Coasst Kevin try a Myers Briggs or some other personality chart. You may realise that things that convey meaning to you are different from things that mean something to others. The things are not important as long as they provide a method of communication. I believe God is clever enough to use many different channels, sounds, pictures, words etc. All you need do is make sure your "things" are open to Him.
Oh sure, I know people engage with God and feel his presence through many different activities and approaches. I think I mentioned upthread that I do have some of the sensory 'pathway'; music often really moves me and makes me aware of God.
But these 'pathways' come with their own issues and complications, which we need to be aware of. And I think the wearing of vestments sends messages that are contrary to the teaching in the New Testament about what churches - communities of Jesus-followers - should be like and how they should gather together.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
And I think the wearing of vestments sends messages that are contrary to the teaching in the New Testament about what churches - communities of Jesus-followers - should be like and how they should gather together.
The teachings of Jesus are not a matter of subjective feeling. Cite your sources.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin, descriptions of the very formal services with vestments and all are that they highlight the numinous and divine. And many people find that deeply moving and helpful.
You sound as if you're concentrating on incarnational theology and insisting that everyone else has to do this, and that because you don't like vestments you're saying they are unhelpful for everyone.
Now, I'm sure you'll agree that God has both numinous and incarnational aspects. Different people will find concentrating on different aspects more helpful. And you're basically insisting here that those of us who find the numinous and mysteries of faith can't have that in our worship because it doesn't suit your ideas of what is suitable.
In my work I deal with challenging teenagers, and look for the Christ incarnate in them day to day. What I need to recharge me in worship is the numinous.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Dear South Coasst Kevin try a Myers Briggs or some other personality chart.
What a rude way of stating such a patronising attitude.
quote:
You may realise that things that convey meaning to you are different from things that mean something to others
BUT THAT IS THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The signs and symbols that mean one thing to insiders, to those of us "in the know", do not neccessarily mean the same thing to the secular majority.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But ken, against that argument is the increase in cathedral worship. If cathedral worship wasn't increasing, you and Kevin would have a point, but that fact suggests that more people than you think find vestments and that imagery a helpful way to worship, both insiders and outsiders.
[ 01. January 2014, 23:18: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
In any case, I distrust those who want to get back to the simplicity of the first century church -- those people were no better than we are, and no closer to what God wants, if we believe that the Holy SPirit continued active in God's people after, say 90 AD (why not 150? why not 33? Why not 324? etc.) The idea that the earlier the better and if we could only get back to the way it was then all would be well has always struck me as a romantic fable or nonsence, akin to the folly of those in the 19th century who believed that gothic architecture was more holy than any other, because they believed the middle ages were the apex of christianity.
John (definitely not posting as a Host)
But hold on. We take the New Testament as the basis for how we should behave towards one another, don't we? 'Love your neighbour as yourself... love your enemies' and so on. Tradition (and all churches have tradition, I'll readily acknowledge that) then builds on the Biblical material, but it all starts with the Bible, doesn't it? If that's the case, why shouldn't it be the same with how we meet together as communities of Christians? That's why I keep banging on about the New Testament, because it's our source guide for the new covenant between God and people.
But the New Testament says precious little about worship, and much of what it does say is contradicted by other things it says.
Even if it were true that there is a single picture of blessed simplicity -- and it is not true -- doesn't the fact that we're 1,950 years further along, that a lot of water has passed under the bridge and that people have radically shifted in their assumpstions and cultural reality from what the New Testament says about the worshipping community mean anything?
You seem to suggest that what was meaningful to a bunch of people back then must somehow be equally meaningful today to people who share almost nothing of their way of life and their cultural assumptions. That essentially wipes out all of history and just about everything human beings have learned since 33 AD.
People have been trying for ages to recreate New Testament worship -- countless reformers have discerned what they think it looked like -- and countless reformers have disagreed about that. It never lasts more than a decade or two before reality creeps in -- that just possibly some of what has happened since then is the work of the Holy SPirit and reflects new realities about society and the world we live in.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But ken, against that argument is the increase in cathedral worship. If cathedral worship wasn't increasing, you and Kevin would have a point, but that fact suggests that more people than you think find vestments and that imagery a helpful way to worship, both insiders and outsiders.
The recent increase in cathedral attendance is perhaps one percent of one percent of the population of England.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
South Coast Kevin, descriptions of the very formal services with vestments and all are that they highlight the numinous and divine. And many people find that deeply moving and helpful.
You sound as if you're concentrating on incarnational theology and insisting that everyone else has to do this, and that because you don't like vestments you're saying they are unhelpful for everyone.
I feel I've said this already, but your last sentence is the wrong way round. I think vestments are unhelpful therefore I don't like them. I do take your point about highlighting the numinous and divine but presumably vestments aren't a necessary part of this. Like with formality in our church services, I'd have thought highlighting the numinous, the 'other-ness' of God, is perfectly possible without vestments...?
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
But the New Testament says precious little about worship, and much of what it does say is contradicted by other things it says.
Even if it were true that there is a single picture of blessed simplicity -- and it is not true -- doesn't the fact that we're 1,950 years further along, that a lot of water has passed under the bridge and that people have radically shifted in their assumpstions and cultural reality from what the New Testament says about the worshipping community mean anything?
I just think we should let what the New Testament says about Christian community and relationships inform the way we do our church services / gatherings. ISTM the NT is very strong on all Christians being equal before God and one another (no slave or Greek etc., love one another, consider others' needs more highly than your own, the Son of Man came to serve... and so it should be among you, etc. etc.) so how we meet together as church should reflect that.
AFAICT there's no suggestion in the NT that special clothes were worn when Christians met together, and it seems vestments were only introduced in maybe the 3rd century. What prompted this innovation? Did it reflect new cultural / societal realities in a way which is true to the NT principles of equality and mutuality? I don't think it does, and because there's no NT suggestion of vestments I think we need a very strong justification for having them now.
I'm not saying our church services should precisely mirror the NT examples (two problems with that - there is indeed pretty scanty evidence in the NT of what actually happened in church services; and, like with all the behavioural instructions, we need to distinguish between cultural, for-the-time instructions and those given for all time). But I am saying we should introduce novelties with caution, always keeping in mind what the NT does say about the purpose of church services and the kind of things that might take place at them.
--------------------
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
Kevin, for the millionth time, no-one here is saying that vestments are 'necessary' - any more than they are saying that flowers are necessary or a particular type of altar cloth (or even an altar) is necessary.
What people who go in for these things are saying is that they're nice to have for a variety of reasons - aesthetic, symbolic, etc etc.
You seem to suggesting that it's ok for churches to have symbolic elements, physical features and gestures of various kinds - candles, art, whatever else - just so long as they don't have vestments.
You seem to suggest that almost anything and everything is permissible apart from vestments.
Just because you misunderstand their use doesn't mean that everyone else does.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Speaking entirely for myself, when eating out at somewhere posh, I prefer to be able to identify the Head Waiter/Maitre d'. At a pub, this doesnt't matter so much - the person behind the bar is in charge. Restaurant or pub for a celebration is a matter of choice - neither is ;right' or wrong. Does it really matter to God?
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think guitars should be banned. They are unhelpful. The fact that someone is playing a guitar in worship disenfranchises me, it is divisive.
I can't play the guitar therefore I feel excluded and disempowered from that particular aspect of worship.
Not only do I find guitars unhelpful but I strongly believe that they are unhelpful for everyone else. If we are going to use guitars then we should have a strong NT warrant for doing so.
We don't find guitars in the NT. Therefore we shouldn't use guitars.
Bongo drums are less divisive. Anyone can bang a bongo drum without having to learn complicated chord structures. Therefore bongo drums are more in keeping with the NT and are acceptable for use in worship.
In fact, any other form of musical instrument is fine for use in worship apart from guitars because I say so ...
C'mon, SCK, this parody echoes your argument quite accurately I think.
@Ken - so the proportion of people attending cathedral services is small compared with the UK population as a whole. Sure. The proportion of people attending any form of church service is small compared to the population as a whole.
So what?
That neither contradicts nor affirms Curiosity Killed's observation which is purely that some people find vestments and so on helpful and others don't.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You seem to suggesting that it's ok for churches to have symbolic elements, physical features and gestures of various kinds - candles, art, whatever else - just so long as they don't have vestments.
I'm saying that I'm not against symbolic elements, physical features etc. in and of themselves, but specifically with vestments there are problems which IMO mean their use is more hindrance than help.
I'd hope to weigh up any other church service 'feature' by the same criteria as I'm using for vestments; if it's not explicitly commanded or forbidden, does it fit with the overall tenor of what the NT says church services and relationships among Christians should be like?
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Speaking entirely for myself, when eating out at somewhere posh, I prefer to be able to identify the Head Waiter/Maitre d'.
The church is not somewhere posh in that sense.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Speaking entirely for myself, when eating out at somewhere posh, I prefer to be able to identify the Head Waiter/Maitre d'. At a pub, this doesnt't matter so much - the person behind the bar is in charge. Restaurant or pub for a celebration is a matter of choice - neither is ;right' or wrong. Does it really matter to God?
I think this parallel between eating out and going to a church service neatly highlights the problem with this whole discussion. Eirenist, just based on your use of this analogy you seem to be suggesting that we go to a church service in order for someone (the people wearing the vestments) to provide something for us. Whereas my understanding is that we all go to share together on an equal footing. You used the analogy of going out for dinner; I think a potluck dinner or bring and share picnic more accurately captures the NT sense of what should happen when God's people gather together.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think guitars should be banned. They are unhelpful. The fact that someone is playing a guitar in worship disenfranchises me, it is divisive.
I can't play the guitar therefore I feel excluded and disempowered from that particular aspect of worship.
Not only do I find guitars unhelpful but I strongly believe that they are unhelpful for everyone else. If we are going to use guitars then we should have a strong NT warrant for doing so.
We don't find guitars in the NT. Therefore we shouldn't use guitars.
Bongo drums are less divisive. Anyone can bang a bongo drum without having to learn complicated chord structures. Therefore bongo drums are more in keeping with the NT and are acceptable for use in worship.
You could learn to play the guitar, or some other musical instrument. Your church leadership allowing you to contribute musically is based on (their estimation of) your musical skill, not on some externally applied status which some people think produces an ontological change in you, thus making you fit to contribute musically.
Or, if you aren't musically minded, you could bring some other offering, maybe a meditation exercise, a poem, an encouraging word, an idea of a project that people could get involved in to serve the local community. I agree that our services shouldn't be dominated by music as this does disenfranchise those whose skills lie elsewhere and who engage better with God in other ways.
Guitars aren't mentioned in the NT but is there any argument based on the NT for not using them? I'm arguing against vestments because of explicit things the NT says (albeit, not as explicit as 'Do not wear special clothes').
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'm saying that I'm not against symbolic elements, physical features etc. in and of themselves, but specifically with vestments there are problems which IMO mean their use is more hindrance than help.
for you and maybe for some other people, but we're already a very long way into a lot of churches not using vestments, there is a wide choice of churches that people can attend without vestments used, famously in Sydney.
For those churches that still use vestments, many people do find them helpful, and if you're trying to remove something helpful surely you're putting obstacles in the way of people?
Your services would send me screaming to the hills and stop me attending church. When the CU at university told me church was Holy Trinity Brompton with no alternatives I didn't go for 13 years. But I defend your right to worship in a way you find helpful. I just find it a bit distressing that you're not giving me that option.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
C'mon, SCK, this parody echoes your argument quite accurately I think.
It bears no resemblance to his argument at all. Have you even read his posts? I don't really agree with him on the Regulative Principle, but at least I think I have read and understand what he is saying.
quote:
That neither contradicts nor affirms Curiosity Killed's observation which is purely that some people find vestments and so on helpful and others don't.
Who on earth has disagreed with that here?
There seems to be a complete disconnect on ths thread between the one and a half of us who are skeptical about vestments in Christian worship and the five or six others who are horrified by the idea of not using them. Kevin finds no support for them in the NT, which is not surprising, as there is none, and is following a rather mild version of the venerable old Regulative Principle of Worship, which is what you need to argue against if yo want to engage with his actual points rather than condemning imaginary straw men as at least four posters have been doing. I wear the bloody things when asked to, but recognise them as rather nerdish and fanboyish and definitely an in group thing, and off putting to a lot of people. Which they clearly bloody are. But all anyone else is doing is repeating irrelevant trite platitudes at length.
I mean, we could do with upgrading our rhetorical armouries here. If what passes for an argument is making statements that don't contradict what your opponent said, or with which your opponent actually agrees, then there isn't really much point!
I'm tempted to think that some posters here ought to get out more. And spend less time with Christians. Or with Anglo-Catholics, anyway.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Your services would send me screaming to the hills and stop me attending church. When the CU at university told me church was Holy Trinity Brompton with no alternatives I didn't go for 13 years. But I defend your right to worship in a way you find helpful. I just find it a bit distressing that you're not giving me that option.
Hmm, okay... *Tries to take a step or two back from dogmatic position*
In this discussion, I'm trying to remain focused on the specific question of vestments rather than on all the wider points about what church services should / might be like. And I've tried to explain above why I think vestments are a bad idea.
I know plenty of people like them, and a few even consider them necessary (i.e. that a service without vestments is lacking in some significant way). I'm not saying I'd ban vestments - that would rather cut across my concept of how church should operate, that anyone would have the power on their own to do such a thing! - but I do think they are unhelpful and problematic. As I've been trying to explain. I know you and many others disagree, though, so carry on. Obviously - you're not going to change what you do because of what some bloke on the internet is saying!
EDIT - Cross-posted with Ken. Thanks, man...
[ 02. January 2014, 10:34: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The problem is, SCK, that we can all look at other church services and find something that isn't in the NT and point to it has having no Biblical* or NT justification. Picking on vestments, which have a long history in the church and date from when many of the early Eucharistic services and their features were formalised is possibly not one of the best ones to choose. The NT is very sketchy. Some of the ideas as to how early services were run come from traditional observances in the Orthodox church believed to be earlier than the written histories and to date back to the early church.
Some of the earliest features of services were the very early hymns - there are a number around from the 3rd and 4th centuries that can be found translated into English in NEH (New English Hymnal) which I like singing as they help me feel rooted in a faith that goes back millennia. But I have had my ear bent after a service where they feature by any number of people who hate them - and give different reasons why.
HTB which I gave as an example doesn't use vestments for normal services. I'm not sure what happens for the Eucharist. And I know it's not the lack of vestments that means I struggle to find any worship in the services I've attended at HTB whilst I get something from mass at the Brompton Oratory† but a whole lot of other factors.
* And as you know, vestments are even dodgier to prove no Biblical justification as there's OT justification.
† RC and next door, and being CofE I can't receive the sacrament
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
