|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bye bye vestments?
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Growing up in a traditional low church in Sydney, the rector vested in black cassock, white surplice and black scarf for all services in the church - and for many at places like nursing homes and hospitals. Those were the days when the usual pattern was for Morning and Evening Prayer, with Communion once a month, all 1662 BCP. That was the standard throughout the diocese, and remains so in the churches in that tradition even though almost all would now have a Communion each week.
The strict Moore College approach, that of the present Dean and what is now apparently a dwindling band, does away with vestments. I gather that most of the time a rector would wear a suit, or at least a sport jacket and tie. The "Stole Parishes" have cassocks and stoles as a minimum, many adding copes. Chasubles are still banned in Sydney and that seems unlikely to change in the next decade at least.
At a recent funeral service for a retired bishop of the CESA, the family asked that clergy vest; the Dean said that they would not. On hearing this, our new Archbishop said that he would be vesting and invited all other clergy attending to do so.
Usual practice elsewhere in Aust is alb, stole and chasuble for Eucharists, choir dress on other occasions.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
Hosting
On the whole it's probably best if all contributors to the thread leave hosting matters to hosts. It's kind of of the standing order of things and the only matter in which hosts have de jure authority.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
Karl,
One good advice,please remain Always polite and do not use ugly words.
It must have been a wonderful view, a priest in jeans and t-shirt celebrating the Eucharist.
The recent Christmas Midnight Eucharist from Westminster Abbey produced a much better picture.
Swearing has always been acceptable on the Ship. It's fine not to like it but not fine to tell grown adults off for it.
/Hosting
--------------------
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
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
Anyone care to blog "A Year Without Vestments"?!
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Ken - I'm not thinking purely of vestments when I said that evangelical and charismatic Anglican clergy are borrowing things from other denominations ... although my thoughts did include that.
I'm suggesting that they're borrowing a whole load of other things besides and that some of them are suffering from Vineyard envy and think that if they dress casually and try to look 'cool' they'll grow their congregations.
That might be true to a certain extent but it makes a lot of them look like prats.
I think there are regional differences, though. Up here it seems that many evangelical clergy sit loosely by vestments and so on. In London, where you are, it sounds different.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Charismatic-lite worship-band-led services existed in the CofE at least as long ago as the mid 70s. I know, because I went to some. I even strummed my guitar in some. They were probably very rare, and almost certainly almost never the main Sunday worship of a parish (though I'd not be surprised if there were a handful somewhere). So that sort of thing was not a borrowing from Vineyard or NFI or anywhere else, because they were also developing it at the same time, it was part of a general move towards that way of doing worship across many evangelical churches. It never went as far in the CofE as other denominations, it remained and remains a minority pattern of worship in the CofE, but it probably became the majority style among the Baptists and I'd guess 100% in some other denominations. But it's something that was developing on both sides of the Atlantic and in many denominations at the same time. Not invented in one place and borrowed elsewhere. But its as authentically Anglican as any other kind of liturgy is.
And remember that is the second wave of the Charismatic Movement in non-Pentecostal churches. There was a previous wave in the 1950s and 1960s with historical roots within Anglicanism going back to the 20s and 30s.
Also back then there was a significant minority of Anglican evangelicals who never wore vestments (and never used candles or incense or seasonal colours) because they thought those things were evil Popish deviations. That's almost died out now. (Though even back then most such Anglican evangelicals probably used cassock and surplice and scarf, or just possibly Geneva gown and preaching tabs, for all main services, Communion or not). I've know ordinands and curates who had arguments with the Bishop because they wanted to refuse to wear vestments at their ordination. I think that is rarer than to used to be.
My memory of these things only goes back to the early 70s. But at that time there were already outdoor summer meetings and weeks where the worship was moving towards what we then called "Jesus Rock". And there were travelling multimedia shows like Jimmy and Carol Owens "come together". And there were the "rock operas" like Godspell and Superstar. So younger Christians at any rate were already used to that kind of music with Christian lyrics.
And maybe more importantly the sit-round-in-a-circle and strum-guitars-and-sing-choruses kind of after church youth group or CU meeting was already decades old, so many Anglican priests and Baptist ministers alike were familiar with it. So it was quite natural that such things would start to appear in Sunday morning public worship. It developed in parallel across all sorts of denominations, it wasn't invented in one place and borrowed by others. The Anglicans and Methodists were probably minor players compared with the Baptists, at least in England, but it happened everywhere. Even a few Roman Catholic parishes.
That is no weirder than robed choirs and pianos turning up in the 19th century, or wind bands in the 18th, or madrigals and motets in the 16th.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clotilde
Shipmate
# 17600
|
Posted
As I understand it vestments are relatively new in the Church of England / Anglican communion, part of their increasing popularity probably came about with a growing higher view of priesthood.
As I understand it it was only in the 19th century that the surplice became more common. (But I may be wrong on that - sorry!). Whatever didnt clergy remove the surplice top preach?
Now that is slightly in decline it seems inevitable how the clergy dress will also change.
I take it the requirements by church law apply only to official liturgy of the Church of England (thats what I'm, thinking of, not other Anglcian churches).
--------------------
A witness of female resistance
Posts: 159 | From: A man's world | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I broadly agree, Ken. I'm not saying these things were 'invented' elsewhere and imported - there were equivalents developing across the board at roughly the same time - and yes, I'm completely with you on the existence of an almost pre-charismatic movement charismatic movement in the 1950s ...
I also agree that, broadly speaking, opposition to liturgical colours and so on has waned in evangelical Anglican circles ...
However, our vicar insists on having plain white candles for the Advent candles because the coloured versions 'aren't in the Bible' - and Advent candles per se ARE?!
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'd also suggest that the influence of some of the newer groups has increased in CofE circles in recent years - although thanks to New Wine, HTB and Alpha I think the Anglican charismatics have recovered a sense of purpose and feel that they're back in the driving seat to some extent ...
For instance, when I came into evangelical Anglican circles from an increasingly post-evangelical/emergent style of Baptist church (with some Vineyard leanings) I was horrified to find how prevalent Bethel influence was. I wasn't expecting that at all.
I was slightly less surprised to find dodgy Zionist and pre-millenialist style beliefs - partly because the local evangelical Anglicans have scooped up fundies from failed independent churches - and partly because my own mum-in-law has all manner of whacky views in that direction and she's been Anglican all her life ... with involvement in the early days of the Anglican charismatic renewal.
I can only speak as I find and I find that a lot of evangelical Anglicans are not as 'Anglican' as they should be ... or I'd like them to be ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The same applies at the more Catholic end of the Anglican spectrum, of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
As I understand it vestments are relatively new in the Church of England / Anglican communion, part of their increasing popularity probably came about with a growing higher view of priesthood.
Vestments were worn up to the Reformation and way after it.
They never stopped in royal churches - I have seen a display in St. George's Windsor, albeit of copes rather than chasubles for a couple if centuries.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Charismatic-lite worship-band-led services existed in the CofE at least as long ago as the mid 70s. I know, because I went to some. I even strummed my guitar in some. They were probably very rare, and almost certainly almost never the main Sunday worship of a parish (though I'd not be surprised if there were a handful somewhere). So that sort of thing was not a borrowing from Vineyard or NFI or anywhere else, because they were also developing it at the same time, it was part of a general move towards that way of doing worship across many evangelical churches. It never went as far in the CofE as other denominations, it remained and remains a minority pattern of worship in the CofE, but it probably became the majority style among the Baptists and I'd guess 100% in some other denominations. But it's something that was developing on both sides of the Atlantic and in many denominations at the same time. Not invented in one place and borrowed elsewhere. But its as authentically Anglican as any other kind of liturgy is.
You're quite right, Ken, of course. By the same token, the use of vestments such as alb and chasuble, and the rediscovery of the classical shape of the eucharistic liturgy, are not so much borrowings from Rome or anywhere else, but signs of the growing convergence between churches, in the Liturgical Movement. Just as only a few loonies suggest that Roman Catholics who use vernacular liturgy or gothic chasubles are 'borrowing from the Anglicans'. Every church is evolving; of course we learn from each other but that doesn't (necessarily) imply that we turn our backs on our own tradition.
The big divide is between those Christians for whom the Eucharist is the main focus of worship, supplemented by ordered prayer such as the daily office, and those for whom it is effectively a sideline. Insofar as we have an 'Anglican tradition' it is expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and clearly implies the former, however imperfectly that was realised in practice. Sadly after the high point of the Parish Communion movement in the middle of the last century, this is waning again.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... However, our vicar insists on having plain white candles for the Advent candles because the coloured versions 'aren't in the Bible' - and Advent candles per se ARE?!
That gets a
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ken will have to excuse me, because I'm becoming a born-again liturgist.
After three decades of charismatic and charismatic-lite worship - and about 15 to 17 years of an increasingly liturgical/sacramental approach to worship that's been running alongside that - I'm losing all patience with the former in favour of the latter.
Not that I'd seek to deny anyone else their worship songs and choruses, their small groups and pietistic practices - but I'm increasingly only comfortable with a worship pattern that focuses around the eucharist and liturgical calendar with a daily offices and so on leading up and away from that central action ...
Vestments aren't essential, of course, but they make sense in that kind of context. As do liturgical colours and all the rest of it.
Here I stand, I can do no other ...
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
That's all wonderful - my real moan is with those who are saying that evangelicals are No True Anglicans and want to kick them out and send them to some other denomination.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
The question of identifying the person responsibe is made easier by vestment wearing. The priest or lay person sitting in the pews at a communion service are not responsible for the service in the way the person officiating and clearly identified is, will there be enough wine? are people able to partake if they want to? are the children part of the service? etc?? I know analogies can be difficult but when I get in a bus I assume the girl in the uniform knows where to go, how to drive etc, and that others have checked her out.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And remember that is the second wave of the Charismatic Movement in non-Pentecostal churches. There was a previous wave in the 1950s and 1960s with historical roots within Anglicanism going back to the 20s and 30s.
Or even earlier. A.A. Boddy (Vicar at Monkwearmouth) was a leading Pentecostal pre-WW1. After the War his influence waned and Pentecostalism became much more of a Free Church thing, not to return (IMO) until folk such as Michael Harper and the Fountain Trust got into it. Dennis Bennett (US Rector) had a huge impact with his book "Nine o'clock in the morning" written, I think, in the early 60s.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's all wonderful - my real moan is with those who are saying that evangelicals are No True Anglicans and want to kick them out and send them to some other denomination.
That is part of what I was trying to say. The low church Anglicanism in which I grew up in Sydney during the 1950s and early 60s was still very much in the Anglican tradition - clergy vested (simply) in a traditional manner, the 1662 BCP was all but universal usage and overall the diocese was in a valid thread of Anglicanism.
The strict Moore College is not in that tradition at all. The only Anglicanism it represents is the extreme puritan wing that flittered briefly across the Anglican scene in the 1630s and 40s, leaving Anglicanism entirely under the Commonwealth.
--------------------
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 Roselyn:
The question of identifying the person responsibe is made easier by vestment wearing.
My experience of my own church and several others I've visited over the years tells me that 'Hello, my name is ABC and I'm the senior pastor / minister / on the leadership team here at XYZ church. You're all very welcome.' does the job just fine. No need for vestments at all, for identification purposes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
This "Hello I'm ABC is stated at the beginning of a service by a service leader who may or may not be the celebrant of the Eucharist. it's a sacramental responsibility not just a meeting running one,
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, SCK, is that it's all down to context. No-one is expecting the guys or gals in your church to be vested.
Our local vicar experimented with wearing a name badge - like one of those conference badges you get, a transparent plastic wallet/pouch into which you insert a name card and which fixes onto your jumper or jacket with a clasp or safety pin.
He started wearing that instead of a dog collar. It simply made him look ridiculous. I used to tease him about it.
So he reverted to wearing a dog collar at the more traditional 9am service then tore it off as soon as the service was over as if he had a burning white-hot iron band around his neck ...
Some posters here have said that they like to see vestments for identification purposes but I think that's a minority view. Most people who go in for vestments do so for a variety of reasons ... mostly aesthetic it seems to me.
If you're Orthodox, though, they don't even think about it - from what I've been told - it's simply something they do, it's part of the furniture, it's been that way for 1600 years or so and they ain't gonna change it now ...
So I s'pose the reasons could be categorised as follows:
- We've always done it this way, why change?
- It helps add to the aesthetic impact and also fits with the liturgical flow and calendar - colours for particular seasons and so on.
- It can aid identification, if that's how you want to use these things.
- It denotes the sacramental aspect of what's going on.
All of which seem fair enough reasons to me.
The other valid objections I can think of are:
- It looks old-fashioned and may put people off so let's wear 'normal clothes' which may put some people off and not others (in which case you;re back to square one).
- It drives a wedge between the leaders and the laity and promotes clericalism (but then, it's not as if these aspects are unknown in circles which don't go in for vestments ... I've come across far more 'authoritarian' forms of doing church in some non-vested circles).
- They aren't mentioned in the NT (but then neither are bicycles, guitars or sound-equipment).
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I used to have strong views about vestments until I realised that the evangelicals aren't going to be sneaking into my vestry at night and stealing my chasuble.
I'm not planning to visit an evangelical church on one of my Sundays off, take notes and then put in a complaint under the CDM that the vicar celebrated the Eucharist in a dog collar. And I'm pretty sure that most Archdeacons would not thank one for drawing that fact to their attention. So since the de facto position is that they can get on with it, the principled thing to do is to make it the de jure thing. If the plan was to forbid the rest of us from frocking up then, yeah, absolutely, war to the knife. You wrest my chasuble from my cold dead hands, and all the rest of it. But either we have one standard of dress, which would satisfy no-one, or we allow a degree of variation. From a strict Catholic point of view Surplice and Scarf for the Eucharist is as unsatisfactory as Suit and Collared Shirt. Either we ought to insist that everyone wears a Chasuble, maniple and stole or leave it to individual clergy consciences.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The notes in Common Worship - e.g. about the role of a deacon, the appropriateness of the priest, rather than another minister, saying the Greeting, Collect etc - as distinct from the instruction 'the [episcopally-ordained] president must say the Eucharistic prayer' are surely a good model. The former don't go as far as saying, 'if you don't follow these rules the liturgy is invalid and you are not a proper Anglican' whereas the latter does.
Surely rules, or suggestions, about vestments should be in the first category. It is 'appropriate' that officiating clergy should wear distinctive vesture; it is in line with centuries of tradition etc etc (all the other arguments that have been rehearsed on this thread.) But it is not essential. And there are contexts where it might not be appropriate. The people in those contexts and parishes are the ones to decide.
What would be wrong would be to use the lack of vestments to indicate a theological position at variance from Anglican teaching. That as we all know is extremely broad, but it does have limits. There is a thread about 'fiddleback' chasubles in the C of E: most people AFAIK don't attach any particular significance to them, but they have been used in the past (as other non-theological trivia like referring to the vicarage as a 'presbytery') to imply that those using them are 'true Catholics' unlike the rest of the Church. In the same way, the minority of charismatic evangelicals who spurn Anglican traditions and liturgy are in danger of suggesting that they only are the 'true Evangelicals' (or even the true Christians). Common sense and respect for different traditions should prevail.
[ 05. January 2014, 15:32: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
This "Hello I'm ABC is stated at the beginning of a service by a service leader who may or may not be the celebrant of the Eucharist. it's a sacramental responsibility not just a meeting running one,
This may be the case (I don't think it is, but I know many do) but your comment and my response were about vestments being important for the identification of who is leading / presiding. And I think the argument that they are important for this specific purpose is easily refuted by the existence of many churches at which it's easy to see who the leader / presider is despite their not wearing vestments.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Common sense and respect for different traditions should prevail.
I agree, if you're talking about mere personal preference (regarding, for example, music styles). But my whole point is that I think vestments aren't just a matter of personal preference; I think they're unhelpful. Primarily for the first two of Gamaliel's reasons noted above:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
- It looks old-fashioned and may put people off so let's wear 'normal clothes' which may put some people off and not others (in which case you;re back to square one).
- It drives a wedge between the leaders and the laity and promotes clericalism (but then, it's not as if these aspects are unknown in circles which don't go in for vestments ... I've come across far more 'authoritarian' forms of doing church in some non-vested circles).
I wonder if there's any research looking at what people who aren't involved in a church think of vestments. I ask because I clearly am guilty of making assertions here; that vestments are obviously a turn-off for un-churched people. It seems obvious to me that they must be, but I could be wrong!
As for the second point, I wouldn't use the phrase 'drive a wedge'; that's too strong. For me, vestments send the message that there are two different groups of people in a church service - those providing and those receiving. Which, of course, totally jars with my concept of what church gatherings should be like. But for those people whose idea of a church service is that one goes primarily to receive from God via other people, and not to help those others receive from God, then I understand how vestments sit well with 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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
SCK posts: quote:
I wonder if there's any research looking at what people who aren't involved in a church think of vestments. I ask because I clearly am guilty of making assertions here; that vestments are obviously a turn-off for un-churched people. It seems obvious to me that they must be, but I could be wrong
I provided some anecdotological research above-- I have encountered nothing which suggests that it makes any difference to unchurched people (but it does seem to for some of the churched). The idea that there is anything at all happening at worship which speaks to them in any way is perhaps the greatest stumbling block. That the worship leader wears an odd outfit does not seem to be a factor at all and I did raise the question. Child abuse and the history of residential schools are the only specific issues which came up aside from music (an even divide between preferring classical music and contemporary music).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, vestments send the message that there are two different groups of people in a church service - those providing and those receiving.
But when an unrobed preacher is proclaiming the Word of God, or a reader is reading it, or a solo musician is performing, at that time they are providing and others are receiving. In the total life of the community of course all contribute and all receive in different ways, and no one person or group are the 'providers'. Vestments are simply a traditional way of marking out the distinctive roles of certain people within a particular act of worship. And as has been said often on this thread, of emphasising their role and minimising their individual personality.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My impression, South Coast Kevin is that most non-churchy people don't give a flying fart about what people wear in church services - whether leaders or otherwise.
Our vicar once cited the instance of a teenage lad who comes to our church who told him that he wouldn't come if 'there was a man in a frock' there. Conversely, I've spoken to people here who hardly ever darken the door of a church who think it's reprehensible that this vicar doesn't go in for clerical dress.
I don't think you can blame low levels of church attendance in the UK on whether or not leaders or choirs or anyone else wears a distinctive form of dress. It's a peripheral issue to that extent.
I notice that in quoting the objections I listed, you also quoted the caveats and objections I raise against those objections ...
I'm mindful of what Christ said to the people of his own day, 'I sang and dirge and you did not mourn, I played the pipe and you did not dance.'
There are lots of reasons why people don't attend church. Clergy vestments aren't a big issue one way or another on this one IMHO.
We keep coming back to this thing about you - South Coast Kevin - finding it harmful. OK, so you think it's harmful. I used to think the same but I don't any more.
Other people here find it helpful - either for sacramental reasons or because - whether you or I like it or not - they feel it helps with identification.
Get over it already.
Some people have a more sacramental theology than you do. What are you going to do about it?
I used to have a less sacramental approach than I do now. I now have an increasingly sacramental approach. Are you going to try to stop me or dissuade me?
No, of course you aren't.
So why make such a big deal out of this? Do you really believe that the use of vestments is preventing millions of Christians across the world from 'hearing from God' in some way?
As for this:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For me, vestments send the message that there are two different groups of people in a church service - those providing and those receiving. Which, of course, totally jars with my concept of what church gatherings should be like. But for those people whose idea of a church service is that one goes primarily to receive from God via other people, and not to help those others receive from God, then I understand how vestments sit well with that.
No, no, no, no ...
Ken accused me of not properly reading what you'd been writing on this thread when I teased you earlier with the parody based on the use of guitars.
Have you not read what Trisagion and others have been trying to say?
Trisgion doesn't believe that people primarily go to church to receive from God through other people but that it is Christ who is offering himself to us through the Eucharist. There's a subtle different. Sure 'other people' are involved - they're the medium, if you like, through which Christ is ministering Himself to us and through us.
The same principle applies in a house-group or any other context ... if someone shares a 'word' or a testimony or helpful remarks based on their study of the Bible then I presume you would say that Christ is ministering to you through those people? Yes?
Fine. So how is this any different? If Christ can minister to you in some way through someone's testimony then why is it such a leap to believe that he might also do that through someone administering the sacrament .... ?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It's as if you're saying that it's ok if it's informal and laid-back but somehow it immediately becomes compromised if it isn't.
How does that follow?
As for 'helping others to receive from God' - isn't that what however is administering the sacrament is doing? Or the person helping with the car park or brewing the tea, cleaning the toilets, handing out hymn books or operating the PowerPoint projector (if that's what happens) or whatever else is done?
I went to a communion service this morning. People were, presumably, receiving from God through the sacrament. How could I 'help them to receive from God' in that context when it was already being done ... if I can put it that way?
You're making it sound as if the only valid form of church gathering or meeting is one where there's some kind of informal sharing of ideas and encouragement. I'm all for that, but that's only viable, it seems to me, in a small group context.
Are all our gatherings meant to be of groups of up to a dozen people at most?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's all wonderful - my real moan is with those who are saying that evangelicals are No True Anglicans and want to kick them out and send them to some other denomination.
There are evangelicals and there are evangelicals, aren't there- just are there are catholics and catholics and I suppose liberals and liberals. If it don't look like a duck, don't quack like a duck, don't walk like a duck....
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
SCK posts: quote:
I wonder if there's any research looking at what people who aren't involved in a church think of vestments. I ask because I clearly am guilty of making assertions here; that vestments are obviously a turn-off for un-churched people. It seems obvious to me that they must be, but I could be wrong
I provided some anecdotological research above-- I have encountered nothing which suggests that it makes any difference to unchurched people (but it does seem to for some of the churched). The idea that there is anything at all happening at worship which speaks to them in any way is perhaps the greatest stumbling block.
Indeed you did, and thank you. Anecdotes are helpful, but I'm wondering how one could do a proper sociological investigation into the difference vestments make regarding the 'weirdness' of how a church experience comes across to a complete newcomer. Then there's also the ongoing effect - does having the minister etc. wearing vestments really send that provider / receiver message which I think it does? Could one investigate that in a way which goes beyond anecdote? Hmm...
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But when an unrobed preacher is proclaiming the Word of God, or a reader is reading it, or a solo musician is performing, at that time they are providing and others are receiving.
That's true, but is it as simple as that? I mean, at a typical formal service does everyone with a serving role wear vestments? Readers, all the musicians, ushers, people serving any refreshments there might be? My guess would be 'No', which means vestments aren't simply about who is providing. Anyway, why is it even important or useful to distinguish between those providing at a given service and those who aren't?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... Our vicar once cited the instance of a teenage lad who comes to our church who told him that he wouldn't come if 'there was a man in a frock' there. Conversely, I've spoken to people here who hardly ever darken the door of a church who think it's reprehensible that this vicar doesn't go in for clerical dress. ...
Glad to hear this young man is attending though sad about the others.
It's my suspicion that a lot of people will raise almost any excuse they can pluck out of the ether, from vestments, to no vestments, from child abuse in Eire to the previous vicar but three didn't visit my granny when her hamster was ill, to justify to themselves that they don't want to go there. Whether this is because they aren't interested or they don't want to encounter God if they can possibly avoid him, is another question.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, SCK, but imagine if someone attended a classical music concert for the first time, say.
They might be puzzled to see the conductor in a dinner-jacket and bow-tie or whatever he's wearing. They might be puzzled that the blokes and the women in the orchestra are wearing particular attire.
But that won't be the only - or necessarily even the main - criteria they use to evaluate the experience.
I must admit, I find it very odd when certain charismatics - and I don't mean you - complain that vestments and so on might put newcomers off and then proceed to all gabble away in tongues in front of newcomers and visitors - as if they're not going to find that as rather bizarre behaviour.
Sure, some people may find this attractive - 'Look, these people have some kind of mysterious supernatural ability ...'
But others will think they're nuts.
Has anyone ever done a sociological study to find out what percentage of visitors to charismatic services are either attracted or put off by the incidence of charismata?
All we have to go on is anecdotal evidence.
The growth of charismatic churches, I would suggest, isn't primarily down to charismata but lots of other reasons ... and I've known growing charismatic churches where they have vestments and so on and others where they 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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Anecdotes are helpful, but I'm wondering how one could do a proper sociological investigation into the difference vestments make regarding the 'weirdness' of how a church experience comes across to a complete newcomer.
The difficulty is knowing what is perceived as "weird" (= bad) or as "other" (= good, perhaps). One person's "meat" may be another's anathema.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But when an unrobed preacher is proclaiming the Word of God, or a reader is reading it, or a solo musician is performing, at that time they are providing and others are receiving.
That's true, but is it as simple as that? I mean, at a typical formal service does everyone with a serving role wear vestments? Readers, all the musicians, ushers, people serving any refreshments there might be? My guess would be 'No', which means vestments aren't simply about who is providing. Anyway, why is it even important or useful to distinguish between those providing at a given service and those who aren't? [/QB]
Some but not all of those would be robed* at our place. Basically if you process in at the start you're robed. Interestingly that didn't include the vicar this morning who gave the notices in clericals and went and led the Sunday school service. Today the procession, IIRC had 30 people in it (plus robed organist and second verger so 32 in robes). Its formation was, crucifer and 2 acolytes in cassock albs; 7 choir boys, 9 choirmen and director of music in blue cassock and surplices (1 probationer not yet in surplice); 2nd crucifer and 2 acolytes again in albs; 2 administrants in cassock albs; preacher, ordained in cassock alb and stole; verger in black cassock and gown; 3 sacred ministers vested so cassock albs tunicle, dalmatic and chasuble. Members of congregation came up to read and lead intercessions, as it happened none of them were serving so they were all in street clothes, but if rotas coincide or choir are reading then they would be robed. I've read twice recently, once when on duty as verger once when not. Sidesmen who welcome on doors tend to be smartly dressed but never robed. Servers and administrants and subdeacons are on a Rota and will be robed some weeks and not others. There were I think 128 people present (if my memory and maths serve) so 32 of 128 is a quarter robed. Does that seem less divisive?
Carys
*There seems to be some confusion about whether we're using vestments in the strict sense of chasuble, dalmatic, tunicle, cope or more generally talking about wearing robes, e.g. cassock or cassock album
--------------------
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
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Not that I'd seek to deny anyone else their worship songs and choruses, their small groups and pietistic practices - but I'm increasingly only comfortable with a worship pattern that focuses around the eucharist and liturgical calendar with a daily offices and so on leading up and away from that central action ...
[/QB]
Well, but just because you started to like this type of service at this point in your life, doesn´t mean you´d probably liked it when you were younger.
IMO, evangelical "hands in the air" worship is more atractive to younger people and people who are new to the church. However, it gets boring after sometime, so its quite natural that many evangelicals "move up the candle" after some years.
The thing is, there are thousands of people who have become christian via evangelical/charismatic churchers, who probably wouldn´t if they had been presented only to traditional churches. Maybe they are not "the best" christians out there, but it still means more people in the church (which is desparately needed if the church doesn´t want to die).
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Oh yes, don't get me wrong, I agree with that Gorpo.
I've said all along that I didn't 'get' liturgical or sacramental style services when I was younger - which is why I was drawn into more charismatic style 'hands-in-the-air' services.
If you'd have met me 30 to 25 years ago, that's what you'd have found. An evangelical charismatic who was suspicious of vestments and so on and who would have probably sounded rather like South Coast Kevin does now.
I'm sure I sounded a lot more like that when I first started posting aboard Ship. Some Shippies might remember that. Others will have successfully erased it from their memory banks ...
I certainly remember finding Carys's posts puzzlingly liturgical and sacramental in tone - whereas now I don't consider them at all exotic.
Not because I'm worshipping anywhere that goes in for as much ceremonial as she describes, but simply because I'm more comfortable with the ceremonial and the symbolism than I would have been back in the day.
I don't know how old South Coast Kevin is, but in my mind's eye I have someone aged between 25 and 35 ... single and without a family. When I was in that bracket I thought along very similar lines.
Which is why I keep saying that context is everything and that the reason South Coast Kevin thinks it's so 'obvious' that the non-churched are going to find vestments off-putting is purely and simply because he's judging it from his own criteria - ie. his own faith tradition and emphasis, his particular demographic and so on.
Working class Afro-Caribbeans don't find vestments off-putting. Neither, by and large, would they respond to the kind of 'organic' church style that Viola and others have proposed.
White working class people, I submit, would have mixed views on vestments. Don't forget that in Anglo-Catholic parishes in the East End of London, vestments, colour and spectacle were justified on missiological grounds because their proponents believed they would attract people whose life were lacking in colour, glamour and brightness ...
I've known a few rather left-wing and almost Communist type blokes who grew up in the East End between the Wars. They had a surprisingly positive view of the influence of the church in those areas - both for the Salvation Army and for the slum-priest Anglo-Catholic parishes. Sure, their influence has been romanticised to some extent but what these guys remembered wasn't the robes and the vestments but that they were genuinely trying to help people, teaching people to read, encouraging kids to do well at school, visiting widows and orphans in their distress ...
Rather than worrying what 'messages' we may or may not be conveying through our public worship, perhaps we ought to be concentrating on what we do for our fellow human beings the rest of the time ...
I don't see how vestments of the lack of them influences that one way or another.
--------------------
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
It all seems to depend on what we think 'worship' is and what (or who) we think it is for.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmmm ... hence the other threads in Purgatory and Kerygmania about worship and its purpose ...
I suppose my take is that worship is 'for us' insofar as it trains us to have a godward aspect to our lives that should influence how we behave and relate to one another 24/7.
But it should also be Godward and not overly anthropocentric. I think one of the issues I have with an over-emphasis on the mutual encouragement and support aspects (not that they are unimportant) is that they can easily become very anthropocentric and 'needs' orientated.
I've noticed in churches which have regular 'altar calls' and so on for people to go to the 'front' and be prayed for/ministered to etc etc that it ends up with the same people responding over and over again and a kind of dependency culture developing.
That can happen with or without vestments.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Working class Afro-Caribbeans don't find vestments off-putting. Neither, by and large, would they respond to the kind of 'organic' church style that Viola and others have proposed.
Some of the Afro-Caribbean churches have vestments and some don't, so it's perhaps not possible to generalise. It might be more common in the African churches.* However, among the mainstream churches the Baptist Church has the highest percentage of black attenders, and that's hardly the most vestment-friendly denomination.
Regarding 'organic church', most of the ones in the UK seem to be founded in in well-heeled, homogenous areas, so it's obvious that they won't be very multicultural. Yet many Afro-Caribbean Pentecostals of the Windrush generation will have experienced house church worship, because that was how most of the black-led Pentecostal churches started life in the UK. (I think this is also true for the African churches started later.) There is also some nostalgia about this era among people of a certain age. So although the theology of organic church won't be familiar, some its practices may well be.
Organic churches apparently exist all over the world but in their western incarnations they do seem quite culture and class bound. I've come across a couple of American websites that highlight the challenges of race and culture in their organic church and small group set-ups. It's a topic that surely deserves more attention.
*For those who are interested, there are some interesting and colourful photographs of black (and some white) ministers in vestments in Roy Kerridge's book 'The Storm is Passing Over: A Look at Black Churches in Britain'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley S Chappell
Shipmate
# 4186
|
Posted
Absolutely spot on that some people who think vestments are off-putting for newcomers don't seem to realise that gabbling in tongues, off beat banging of tambourines and waving arms in the air might be even more off putting.
There was a palpable sigh of relief at one christening I attended when the congregation was finally able to sing a hymn they knew ('All Things Bright and Beautiful') instead of the succession of guitar dirges that preceded it. The vicar was wearing a cassock and surplice but the service had the full charismatic trimmings.
Overall I don't think dress matters as much as liturgy. My own limited observation suggests that many people expect a vicar to 'look like a vicar'; - usually in cassock and surplice - something that the slum parsons of old understood well. I don't think this style of dress is perceived as odd or offputting; it's just 'what those religous blokes wear' and marks out the wearer as having at least some sort of official capacity.
A question for traditionalists - until 1838 (I think) it was compulsory for a parson to preach in a wig, like a barrister. Did anyone bemoan the abolition of clerical wigs and when did they finally disappear? Nobody would seriously propose bringing them back, yet at the time I believe it was a burning issue much as clerical dress is today.
--------------------
ALMIGHTY God, the fountain of all wisdom, who knowest our necessities before we ask, and our ignorance in asking.
Posts: 477 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Gamaliel, remember that myself and S Bacchus are in our early twenties - but then I think some of us are 'born old', I think I was
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley S Chappell:
Absolutely spot on that some people who think vestments are off-putting for newcomers don't seem to realise that gabbling in tongues, off beat banging of tambourines and waving arms in the air might be even more off putting.
Speaking as one of the main people who's been saying vestments might well put off newcomers, I'm happy to say gabbling in tongues, inept music and physically demonstrative engagement with God might also be off-putting! But this thread is about vestments, so I've been focusing on vestments.
For me, there always needs to be an objective (as best we can) analysis of our church practices. Unless we think a certain practice is explicitly commanded or forbidden by God then ISTM we have to ask the questions 'is it helpful?' and 'what below-the-surface messages does this practice send?'. (There are probably more questions; those two spring to my mind instantly.)
Is it helpful - does this practice help us to engage with God, to hear from him, to devote ourselves afresh to following him, to equip each other for works of service and so on?
What messages does it send - we might say that we believe all sorts of different things but do our practices harmonise with and accurately reflect those beliefs? As I've said on vestments, for those who think of the church service as people going to receive something from others (or rather from God via others) then I understand the wearing of special clothes. Those wearing vestments are the ones doing the providing (or facilitating the providing from God, I should say), while the rest of us are there to receive. But I don't think church services should have that provider / receiver division so I don't like the idea of vestments.
--------------------
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
But then there's a provider/receiver relationship or transaction going on in any church gathering - however people are dressed.
If someone in your church 'provided' a testimony or a 'word from God' - however that is understood - then they are in provision mode and everyone else who isn't currently 'providing' is in receiver mode.
I can't see any way around that. Nor that it particularly has a huge bearing on the issue of vestments in and of itself ... although I can see what you're getting at.
--------------------
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:
But then there's a provider/receiver relationship or transaction going on in any church gathering - however people are dressed.
If someone in your church 'provided' a testimony or a 'word from God' - however that is understood - then they are in provision mode and everyone else who isn't currently 'providing' is in receiver mode.
I'm glad I'm making myself a bit clearer now but it seems I'm still not managing all that well! If someone provides a 'word from God' then, yes, they are providing (God is providing through them...) and others are receiving. But my point is that two minutes later, someone else will be providing (God will be providing through someone else...) and they will be receiving. All can - should - provide, all can receive.
ISTM this is different to the typical vestmented service (and of course many services where vestments aren't worn), with the people wearing the vestments being in the role of provider (or channel of God's provision) and those not wearing vestments being in the role of receiver.
--------------------
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
Sure, I can see that but all I'm suggesting is that this isn't how it's inevitably seen among those traditions which go in for vestments.
As I've mentioned upthread, from what Orthodox people have told me they simply accept it as part of the way things are, the way things are done. They don't have any great issue with it, nor do they particularly put their priests and clergy on a pedestal ... although it can look that way to 'Western' eyes.
I s'pose for my own part, if I know I'm going to a communion service - irrespective of whether vestments are worn or not - that is what I take to be the primary focus for how God is ministering to me - as it were - at that particular time. It's not the only way, but it's the primary way at that point.
Were I to attend a non-eucharist service, then other, non-eucharistic elements and aspects are what become the primary focus.
Does that make any sense?
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I attend one of two evangelical parishes - one charismatic, one "open" perhaps (I'm not an expert on the distinctions) and vestments are worn in neither. In the non-charismatic parish the vicar/associate vicar wear a dog collar and a suit. However there was one Sunday morning where the children's pastor preached and she was in a short denim skirt with leggings underneath. In the charismatic one it's casual dress through and through. I wasn't even aware that their style of dress was against any official rules.
I guess the parishes that I attend would give many around here heart attacks!
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
ISTM this is different to the typical vestmented service (and of course many services where vestments aren't worn), with the people wearing the vestments being in the role of provider (or channel of God's provision) and those not wearing vestments being in the role of receiver.
That's an oversimplification to the point of being misleading. (Not that I'm criticising you for it, SCK, because your experience of robed clergy might have been in untypical contexts). In a typical Anglican or Catholic eucharist, apart from welcomers/sidespeople and other 'backstage' personnel, there will be one or two unrobed people who read the scripture passages, there will probably be another who leads the intercessory prayers, a couple who bring the bread and wine to the altar. The lay ministers who help the priest to administer communion, usually at least one and probably more, are also unlikely to be robed in most places. In some churches servers who assist the priest in the sanctuary may be unrobed too. And where lay people are robed in those roles, that is arguably a way of breaking down the clergy-laity divide.
What the general catholic (small c) tradition emphasises is that the eucharistic gathering is a representative gathering of the whole church, not just the local congregation. Hence there is a president (not a provider) who by his/her ordination represents the wider church. Special vestments are a traditional way of indicating this but no-one would claim that they are essential.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But then there's a provider/receiver relationship or transaction going on in any church gathering - however people are dressed.
If someone in your church 'provided' a testimony or a 'word from God' - however that is understood - then they are in provision mode and everyone else who isn't currently 'providing' is in receiver mode.
I'm glad I'm making myself a bit clearer now but it seems I'm still not managing all that well! If someone provides a 'word from God' then, yes, they are providing (God is providing through them...) and others are receiving. But my point is that two minutes later, someone else will be providing (God will be providing through someone else...) and they will be receiving. All can - should - provide, all can receive.
ISTM this is different to the typical vestmented service (and of course many services where vestments aren't worn), with the people wearing the vestments being in the role of provider (or channel of God's provision) and those not wearing vestments being in the role of receiver.
As someone whose job involves being robed & a 'provider' though generally an offstage one (setting up, operating the sound system making sure the right person is in right place at right time), I like going to another church (eg the cathedral) and 'just' being a receiver and being able to focus on worshipping God. Being a 'receiver' is not a lesser rôle.
Also SCK, you haven't answered my question about fact about 1/4 of those present were robed
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Seekingsister, in my experience casual dress is more common right across the board these days, apart from people who might be robed up for whatever reason ... because they're serving in some way or in the choir etc ...
Meanwhile, I can understand South Coast Kevin's concerns but no longer find them an issue - it's only an issue if you find it an issue ...
Or if your expectation of church is that of some kind of chip-in session where people chip-in with comments, contributions and so on one after another. I'd have argued that at one time but no longer see any warrant for it.
It seems to me that in 1 Corinthians the apostle Paul was trying to get over-zealous people to shut the .... up as much as anything else ...
@Jade Constable - yes, as a crusty and grumpy old git, I am aware of your tender years. If I'm not mistaken, Carys is pretty youthful too and she's always liked liturgy and vestments and so on. It's definitely not an 'age thing' necessarily - my own teenage daughters quickly got bored of contemporary worship and so on when they were growing up. My youngest will play the bass guitar or an acoustic guitar in church services at times but she finds the worship songs and choruses to be embarrassing and cheesy ...
I'm not saying they prefer Gregorian chant or Stanford, the Sarum Rite or whatever else, but there's nothing in the conventional contemporary repertoire that seems to scratch where they itch ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Seekingsister, in my experience casual dress is more common right across the board these days, apart from people who might be robed up for whatever reason ... because they're serving in some way or in the choir etc ...
One advantage of robing is that you can be as casual as you like underneath but not be distracting I the service.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Jade Constable - yes, as a crusty and grumpy old git, I am aware of your tender years. If I'm not mistaken, Carys is pretty youthful too and she's always liked liturgy and vestments and so on..
Approaching 35 these days, but back in the day when you joined I was a mere 22 and glad of the ship as a place where there were others who found liturgy helpful in a deepening Christian life because I was in a physical place where such things were for mere churchgoers not proper Christians.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - I remember that, Carys. Was it really that long ago?
Incidentally, your comments back then helped me shift from the kind of Pharisaical position I was emerging from ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes - I remember that, Carys. Was it really that long ago?
Apparently so, a friend I originally met on here though she no longer posts said the other day that we'd known each other for 14 years. My initial response was that can't possibly be true, but I started posting on the Godly Fear board in late1999...
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Incidentally, your comments back then helped me shift from the kind of Pharisaical position I was emerging from ...
Thanks, glad to have been of use.
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
