Using TLC’s What Not to Wear and Bravo’s Queer Eye for the Straight Guy as models, I’m developing a television pilot program this spring for CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network). I envision a cadre of Christian cosmopolitans – similar to the “Fab Five” – whose mission field is fashion-challenged clergy – aren’t they all? Dandies meet dowdies!
Okay, I’m being facetious here. There’s no television pilot in the works, but I urge men of the cloth to closely examine their cloth, determining whether it’s “for glory and for beauty” (Exodus 28:2) – the purpose behind the “holy garments” of the Levitical priests. Moses received these sartorial instructions from the Lord:
You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him for my priesthood. These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen. (Exodus 28:3-5).
Does God actually care about what his ministers wear? It would seem so. The twenty-eighth chapter of Exodus is devoted entirely to how the priestly garments are to be made, down to the minutest details. For instance, the elaborate construction of the breastpiece rivals any attire from Versace or Valentino:
You shall make a breastpiece of judgment, in skilled work. In the style of the ephod you shall make it—of gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen shall you make it. It shall be square and doubled, a span its length and a span its breadth. You shall set in it four rows of stones. A row of sardius, topaz, and carbuncle shall be the first row; and the second row an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond; and the third row a jacinth, an agate, and an amethyst; and the fourth row a beryl, an onyx, and a jasper. They shall be set in gold filigree. There shall be twelve stones with their names according to the names of the sons of Israel. They shall be like signets, each engraved with its name, for the twelve tribes. You shall make for the breastpiece twisted chains like cords, of pure gold. And you shall make for the breastpiece two rings of gold, and put the two rings on the two edges of the breastpiece. And you shall put the two cords of gold in the two rings at the edges of the breastpiece. The two ends of the two cords you shall attach to the two settings of filigree, and so attach it in front to the shoulder pieces of the ephod. You shall make two rings of gold, and put them at the two ends of the breastpiece, on its inside edge next to the ephod. And you shall make two rings of gold, and attach them in front to the lower part of the two shoulder pieces of the ephod, at its seam above the skillfully woven band of the ephod. And they shall bind the breastpiece by its rings to the rings of the ephod with a lace of blue, so that it may lie on the skillfully woven band of the ephod, so that the breastpiece shall not come loose from the ephod. So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel in the breastpiece of judgment on his heart, when he goes into the Holy Place, to bring them to regular remembrance before the Lord. And in the breastpiece of judgment you shall put the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be on Aaron’s heart, when he goes in before the Lord. Thus Aaron shall bear the judgment of the people of Israel on his heart before the Lord regularly (Exodus 28:15-30).
If you could not make it through these fifteen verses of fashion design, you are probably one of those clergymen who thinks a brown leather belt can be paired with black patent shoes. If you regard the colorful yarns and stone engravings as garish or the rows of precious stones as gratuitous, you are missing the point. This breastpiece is more than sensual display. It is about tribal identity, cultural memory, and spiritual function. Above all, it is about the fashion designer: Yahweh. The House of Heaven, if you will, demands that the ministers of Yahweh are clothed in garments befitting of His royal authority over Israel.
I dare to question a scholar who argues that the fashion industry began in the Renaissance: “Fashion is usually thought to have started in this period, as a product of developments in trade and finance, interest in individuality brought about by Humanist thought, and shifts in class structure that made visual display desirable, and attainable by a wider range of people.” I contend that fashion originated when “a kingdom of priests” were dressed for Yahweh (Exodus 19:5-6).
Fast forward to the twenty-first century. Where are the holy garments in the priesthood? I cringe when Evangelical pastor Rick Warren sports a floral camp shirt at the pulpit, which looks appropriate for a sunny afternoon of barbecuing – not a Sunday morning of preaching. Of all the clerical clothing in Protestantism, Anglicans deserves the highest encomium, followed by Lutherans and Methodists. The vestments of bishop N. T. Wright look regal in an ornamented chapel.
We Protestants rightly eschew couture craftsmanship for clergy when we reject sacerdotalism and affirm egalitarianism, owing to the New Covenant. Martin Luther’s words resound in To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation:
The pope or bishop anoints, shaves heads, ordains, consecrates, and prescribes garb different from that of the laity, but he can never make a man into a Christian or into a spiritual man by so doing. He might well make a man into a hypocrite or a humbug and blockhead, but never a Christian or a spiritual man. As far as that goes, we are all consecrated priests through baptism, as St. Peter says in 1 Peter 2:9, “You are a royal priesthood and a priestly realm.” The Apocalypse says, “Thou hast made us to be priests and kings by thy blood” (Revelation 5:9-10). The consecration by pope or bishop would never make a priest, and if we had no higher consecration than that which pope or bishop gives, no one could say mass or preach a sermon or give absolution.
I wonder, however, if there’s another condition that motivates Protestants to eschew “garb different from that of the laity,” a condition that should be rectified rather than justified. Clyde Kilby calls it “the aesthetic poverty of Evangelicalism.” Remember, the holy garments of the Levitical priests were “for glory and for beauty,” which is repeated twice in the text: at the beginning and at the end of the sartorial instructions (Exodus 28:2, 40). Aesthetically impoverished Evangelicals misconstrue “for glory and for beauty” as “for glamor and for beauty.” When fashion is designed for glamor, the audience is many. When fashion is designed for glory, the audience is One, hence the Levitical priest wore a turban with a plate of shining gold on which were engraved the Hebrew words for “Holy to YHWH” (Exodus 28:36).
Let’s begin this fashion “make-better” modestly. Fruit of the Loom should produce linen boxer briefs to the cover the naked flesh of the clergy, as the Lord instructed Moses (Exodus 28:42-43). The other garments will need to be fashioned in the closet of our imagination.
February 9th, 2010 | 9:17 am | #1
It is for this reason that I so respect the vestments of my priest (I am Orthodox). I have a hard time with pastors who stand up on a Sunday in jeans and flip-flops as I have seen this happen. I don’t know if they do this to be more accessible to the members of the church, but I believe it detracts from a service.
February 9th, 2010 | 10:10 am | #2
So close and yet so far. The clothes designed for tabernacle and temple worship were specifically designed for those worship systems. It’s not a matter of them looking regal, it’s a case of symbolism (eg. the priest’s ephod, with the 12 stones representing the 12 tribes).
What symbolism is right for a minister today? Well, it’s something to be thought through properly, probably not Hawaiian shirts, but also unlikely to be as ‘regal’ as the higher Anglican, Catholic and Eastern outfits.
Thanks for raising the issue.
February 9th, 2010 | 10:26 am | #3
God has made us all priests (1 Pet 2:5-9; Rev 1:6).
What should we all wear?
February 9th, 2010 | 10:33 am | #4
Just to be clear, I think it’s perfectly fine to dress up for church on Sunday. I take it as an expression of honoring God. But there’s nothing wrong in coming to worship in everyday dress, either. As I mentioned in the post on church facilities, we worship a God who is at the same time glorious, beautiful, majestic, transcendent, humble, immanent, and common.
I don’t think there is any mention in the NT of Jesus or his apostles wearing anything that set them apart in any way.
February 9th, 2010 | 11:04 am | #5
I think what Luther is talking about (isn’t he always?) is those who believe that the adornment of the minister or the priest reflects his greater righteousness. No, in the New Testament, the priests of God have the one white robe of righteousness given them by Christ.
On the other hand, neither Luther nor the Lutherans operated on a regulative principle of worship, which in practice seems to have mandated neckties for clergymen (at least until we all got Purpose). The historic alb, stole, and chasuble make the pastor a walking advertisement for the church year (right now, green for the life and growth of Epiphany) and show that the ministry he has been given by God is something special; it is the ministry of stewarding the mysteries of God, of forgiving sins. It’s not his ministry nor is it his righteousness that he gives out in preaching and the Sacraments, but since it is a particular and God-given office, there is good reason to mark it and adorn it, in the same way that we beautify our altars, pulpits, and fonts with special paintings, carvings, flowers, paraments, etc. We’re not all policemen, but I don’t get angry that I can immediately identify a policemen who’s on duty. Where God has not commanded specific vestments, as for Aaron, we are free, but Luther wore the historic vestments of the Western Church and also renewed the teaching of the priesthood of all the baptized. Vestments and traditional, Biblical Protestantism don’t have to be and in Lutheranism aren’t in conflict.
February 9th, 2010 | 11:11 am | #6
Ah yes, the good old days, when all the clergy wore onions on their belts, which was.. oh nevermind.
This argument would be a lot more powerful if it could cite some NT reference from Jesus or one of the apostles instructing people on how to look. The only examples of “fashion” being addressed that I can recall off hand were issues of modesty (women’s head cover, etc) and pride (flashy Pharisees). Is there any like Paul advising Timothy to make sure he looks sharp because of issues related to glory and beauty? It would be interesting, but I sure can’t remember any.
February 9th, 2010 | 11:39 am | #7
Is there any particular reason we can’t leave this up to the local church? After all, what is appropriate in one community may not be so in another. So at the church I attend in DC, if the pastor were to wear flowered shirts, shorts, and flip-flops it would seem out of place and possibly even distract from the Gospel. On the other hand, if I went to church somewhere else he could be just as distracting in a suit and tie(stereotypically Southern California would be the example, but any area heavily populated by college students and hippies would work just as well).
BTW, “onions on their belts” is a fashion that should definitely come back. Those go well with floral shirts and ties :)
February 9th, 2010 | 11:44 am | #8
Fun trivia fact: Richard Mather (1596-1669, grandfather of the famous Cotton Mather) was fired when it was discovered that he hadn’t worn a surplice for the entire fifteen years of his ministry. His superior said that “it had been better for him that he had gotten seven bastards” than not wear the “proper” vestments…Which perhaps gives us a system of measurements for judging pastoral attire, though I’ll leave that for wiser men than myself to sort out the details :)
February 9th, 2010 | 1:55 pm | #9
“The House of Heaven, if you will, demands that the ministers of Yahweh are clothed in garments befitting of His royal authority over Israel.”
Other than this statement, authority makes no appearance in this discussion. Distinctive garb is often symbolic of the presence of authority. Think of police or military uniforms. Imagine if a police officer wore an Hawaiian shirt on the job. We would think it amiss. He certainly would lack the commanding presence needed to do the job. I fully affirm the priesthood of all believers, but not everyone is called to an office in the institutional church as such. Why should we expect a minister of word and sacrament to look like “one of the guys” (or gals, in some cases)? Clerical garb is symbolic of the office.
February 9th, 2010 | 3:52 pm | #10
I will repeat my earlier question: What did Jesus or his apostles wear that marked their “office”?
– other than a towel wrapped around his waist to wash the disciples’ feet, that is…
February 9th, 2010 | 3:56 pm | #11
Matthew 23:1-10
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.”
February 9th, 2010 | 4:29 pm | #12
Mr. Schultz, is it your intention with the posting of this Bible verse to say that Christian clergymen who wear traditional Christian vestments are hypocrites and Pharisees?
February 9th, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #13
Rev. McCain,
No, not at all.
I’m just sharing what Jesus said about the dangers of seeking titles and recognition as a professional holy person. I think it’s a good reminder in this discussion, and should factor into our humble reflection on why we want to wear ecclesiastical garments.
February 9th, 2010 | 4:38 pm | #14
So, you are not opposed to clergymen wearing vestments or other clothing that identifies them as clergymen?
February 9th, 2010 | 4:44 pm | #15
Rev. McCain,
I think I’ve made my thoughts clear:
There a good, biblical reasons — in other words, ones other than “aesthetic poverty” — for not wearing special clothing as a vocational minister.
February 9th, 2010 | 4:55 pm | #16
Whatever is not of faith is sin. If Pr. McCain wears clericals all day every day and showers in his chasuble and believes that it makes him holier than I am as a layman, then it’s sin. If he’s doing it to say, “Come here and hear about Jesus’ atoning life, death, and resurrection for all your sins; I’ve been authorized by the church to tell everyone about it and to give out his forgiveness through preaching and the Sacraments,” that’s something else altogether. That’s faithful, something the Pharisees were not. There’s a world of difference between a shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep, whose heart is wide open to them like Paul, and a hireling who does things to be seen of men. The question isn’t what you’re wearing but whose Word you heed and whether you have the true God. A man can wear a necktie like I do to my job every day and still be a hireling.
February 9th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #17
Mr. Schultz, you didn’t answer my question. Are you opposed to ministers wearing historic Christian vestments? And if so, why?
February 9th, 2010 | 5:06 pm | #18
Rev. McCain, why do you do this? You pin people down and want them to answer your questions as you’ve posed them.
I’ve answered as I could. I’m sorry if that’s not clear enough for you. But I’m also uncertain why it seems so important to you.
If in light of Jesus’ warnings, teaching, and example, you feel led to wear ecclesiastical garments, that’s between you and the Lord. But let’s not assert that others’ failure to do so stems from “aesthetic poverty.”
February 9th, 2010 | 5:07 pm | #19
Mr. Schultz, it’s a simple question. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you opposed to clergymen wearing historic vestments? If so, why? If not, why not?
February 9th, 2010 | 5:23 pm | #20
Yes, he is wearing a chimere, which is part of what is known as “choir dress.” These are not Eucharistic vestments.
February 9th, 2010 | 6:23 pm | #21
Rev. McCain,
Are you opposed to clergymen wearing historic vestments? If so, why? If not, why not?
This wasn’t directed at me, but can I offer a (loosely) Reformed Baptist answer? It’s a short one: No, I am not opposed on two conditions:
1) It doesn’t obscure or distract from the preaching of the Word in the service. (So if we were in a community where someone wearing the vestments took people’s attention off the preaching and put it on the preacher, it would be better to put them away and wear something else.)
2) It is acknowledged that they are being worn for historical and traditional reasons, rather than any supposed Scriptural ones.
Hopefully that gives you an answer, though not from the person you were asking…
February 9th, 2010 | 7:29 pm | #22
Today I’ve learned that
1. Worshiping in a plain building is a failure to bear fruit to the Lord,
2. Not wearing special ecclesiastical garments reflects aesthetic poverty, and
3. Challenging these assertions is tantamount to gnosticism.
February 9th, 2010 | 8:24 pm | #23
I would hasten to add that my priest does not walk around in his vestments on a Sunday afternoon in a casual manner to “show off” that he is a priest. Of course on Saturday evenings at Vespers and on Wednesdays and Sundays he wears his vestments for Liturgy and afterward. But if he goes to a party with other members from the church, you would never know he was the priest; he dresses like everyone else. I am using him as an example because I do not know what the practice is for other clergy who wear vestments in church.
February 9th, 2010 | 8:39 pm | #24
Mr. (Dr.?) Benson,
Where, if at all, do our churches show “the practice of symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty is essential to the reality of God’s presence”? If such practice is absent, why? Have our churches neglected “the demanding reality of YHWH’s holiness” because they conform to “a technological, pragmatic society” rather than challenge it with the superfluities of beauty?
I understand what you’re getting at, and to some extent agree with you. I’m not particularly happy that modern Protestant churches tend to look like 1950s-era Soviet warehouses. (Though, when put to it, I have a hard time justifying spending money, time, or energy that could be spend sharing the Gospel on beautifying preachers and buildings.)
Having said that, shouldn’t the true “symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty” be found primarily in the preaching of the Gospel, our worship, and the proper administration of the sacraments? Isn’t the beauty of a church the declaration of our being forgiven for all our sins by what Christ did on the cross? If so, then the use “clerical garmets for glory and beauty” at its most must be a question subservient to that, which (I think) gets us back to letting local churches decide the answer to that question based on their own inclinations and traditions… Unless I’m totally missing something here?
February 9th, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #25
We do not wear our “clerical shirts” as we call them in my tradition 24/7, and we do not wear Eucharistic vestments outside of the celebration of the Eucharist. The clerical shirt opens many doors and I can’t begin to tell you how many opportunities it has given me to share the Gospel. Walk around in an airport with one one and you better make sure you have plenty of time to get to your plane. Extremely helpful in emergency and hospital situations as well.
February 10th, 2010 | 1:53 am | #26
The greatest liturgical building of the medieval period was the Abbey of Cluny. Most of it was blown up as part of the French Revolution but enough of it remains to still be impressive. A lot of it was paid for by the piety of Alfonso X of Castile. He raised the money by imposing a special tax on his Muslim subjects. Right. Build the great building where the Love of God, freely given to the world, is celebrated and fund it by forcing Muslims to pay for it. Not real impressive. Had a real big impact on evangelizing the Muslims in Spain didn’t it?
I’m with Jeff on the costume business. The Savior of the World didn’t go around in special clothes, instead he apparently dressed like most ordinary men of his day—at least there’s no evidence to the contrary. I think that is what is called a hint.
And it seems that the apostles thought it wasn’t necessary to wear a particular uniform to spread the knowledge of salvation to the world. Looks to me like they took the hint.
A lot of the time, folks wear a uniform to give them authority they wouldn’t have otherwise—which kinda makes sense for folks like judges and professors (who would take judges seriously if they weren’t up on that raised bench dressed in black; and you have to love academic processions, students look in shock seeing their professors in their robes; “Wow, who knew that such a fool could wear a get-up like that”). Firemen wear a particular uniform because it keeps them dry, it’s useful for the job. But one might think that preaching the story of the salvation of the world with the anointing of the Holy Spirit might be authority enough. Guess not. Guess what is needed to push it along a bit are things like red shoes, and lace dollies taken off the arms of my grandmother’s sofa, and a big staff, oh, and lets not forget the hats. Gotta have the hats.
Funny, the only hat the New Testament says much about was made of thorns. And nothing suggests that it was a very “beautiful” one at that–kinda thrown together at the last minute.
If we Evangelicals have anything to give to the church at large it’s things like reminders of how absurd their hierarchies are, and their silly titles, and their precious costumes, and their rituals that can approach almost Confucian complexities. Nope, not necessary. Not wicked. Not sinful. But not necessary.
February 10th, 2010 | 6:34 am | #27
Mr Benson,
Thank you for your article. It is a subject I have researched for some years, and appreciate your thoughts on the topic.
As a student of culture and fashion, I would like to point out that there is also an aspect of vestments that cause a change in the identity of the priest. That sounds strange, so let me explain what I mean: In Ezekiel 44, priests are not only instructed in what to wear, but how to wear it. Ritual purification, sensing, and the avoidance of things that cause one to sweat mean that the Levite that prepares to go before the Altar does not look nor smell like himself. It is only in this specific reignment, having prepared himself in this specific way, that the priest could fulfil his function. Even if all else was done correctly, but he did not have his linen boxers, he would not be fit for the function of priest. The qualification for service was not that he be a son of Aaron, the priesthood is simply the pre-qualification–the taking on of the sacerdalia is what allows the priest to serve.
Likewise, within the Christian traditions that hold a distinction between the priesthood of the consecrated episcopate (Apostolic) and the priesthood of all believers (Common), regulations governing how the (Apostolic) priest dresses are quite common. While I am no theologian, my understanding of these regulations is that they likewise govern the process by which a priest becomes able to serve in that capacity. Taking on the priestly vestments which the Church has made (in glory and beauty), is the means by which the priest comes to act as Christ in the Eucharistic service.
I could not agree more with you that attention should be given to beauty in this dress. And this is not a criticism of the sandal-clad Protestant (after all, the historical footwear of the Church is in their favour). I think that post-Vatican II Catholics and post-Lambeth ’88 Anglicans are at times also in danger of loosing the ‘glory and beauty’ for something more artsy and contemporary (or as you put it ‘glamour and beauty’).
Again, thanks for your insight!
February 10th, 2010 | 10:35 am | #28
Jeff,
It sounds like you could have answered the question with something like this: “No, I’m not absolutely opposed to wearing them. I consider it a matter of Christian conscience, with certain concerns to weigh as we seek the leading of the Spirit. They must not be worn out of a prideful desire for recognition. And those who wear them must not accuse other Christians of ‘aesthetic poverty’ and ‘failing to bear fruit’.”
It sounds like that reflects what you’re saying, and it would have been a direct answer–I don’t see how it was an “unbiblical question”. (Perhaps you thought Rev. McCain was demanding a “Everyone should wear them” or “No one should wear them” answer. I didn’t get that impression.)
February 10th, 2010 | 10:45 am | #29
Jugulum,
How Jeff answered the question was his perogative.
Quit telling people how they could have answered the question.
Are you the self-appointed “tone” police?
February 10th, 2010 | 11:05 am | #30
We all need to stop focusing on how we say things and instead focus on what is being said. There is a tendency in post-modern discourse to permit every single conversation to devolve into what amounts to no more than name calling and a discussion about the style of discussion rather than the substance of the matter. The less we talk about each other, and more we focus on the issues, the better the conversation will be. We can all stand to improve.
Shall we try?
February 10th, 2010 | 11:14 am | #31
TUaD,
My concern wasn’t to police tone–I didn’t say anything about tone. My concern was miscommunication. (I didn’t object to the tone of “unbiblical question”–I suspected that Jeff was misunderstanding the question.) So I sought to grease the wheels of communication.
As I said, it looks like Jeff was misunderstanding the question, and responding out of that. He can now confirm or deny my restatement of his perspective, and my suggestion about how he interpreted Paul’s question. He can consider whether he misread Paul’s question, and whether that affects his answer.
And if my clarification of both sides was on-target, Paul can more easily consider Jeff’s point, and agree or respond. If I wasn’t on-target, maybe Jeff’s response will clear it up.
Do you really think this was a busy-body thing to do?
Paul: I completely agree. Did you think my attempt at clarification fit into that category?
P.S. I posted my comment in reply to one from Jeff, but Jeff’s seems to have disappeared in the meantime.
February 10th, 2010 | 11:32 am | #32
Rev. McCain, I heartily agree with your #34.
Jugulum, yes, you are, at times, a busybody (perhaps unwittingly or unknowingly). And a one-sided busybody at that.
February 10th, 2010 | 11:37 am | #33
To return to the substance of the post. It would seem that the substantial/meaningful comments offered on this post have indicated the following points of view and ideas:
(1) Wearing, or not wearing, vestments is a matter of individual freedom in the Gospel.
(2) They can be worn for the wrong reasons and can be a great danger.
(3) They can be work for proper reasons and can be a great benefit.
(4) We should not accuse those of not wearing them of being unfaithful or uncaring.
(5) We should not accuse those who wear them of being unfaithful or uncaring.
(6) Some believe the money spent on beautiful vestments or beautiful buildings or beautiful art should be spent on other things.
(7) Some believe that money spent on beautiful things brings glory to God and is an expression of worship of God.
Does this capture the substance of the discussion to this point?
February 10th, 2010 | 11:52 am | #34
Actually, Paul did discuss vestments at one point:
as did Peter:
This is of a piece with the holy expanding to all things, as opposed to the holy/common divide of the Mosaic law. If all vestment can be holy, as all food, all containers, all buildings, and all days are now holy, then the principle of wearing clothing to glorify God becomes more about the inner than what it looks like. So a biblical theology that recognizes this isn’t going to apply the levitical dress in a way that requires uniforms for the so-called professional ministers (on the ground that they are the replacements for priests at least in the sense of being the ones paid for ministry) or for the ordinary believer (on the principle of equality). It requires recognizing what Rick Warren wears as being just as capable of holiness and glory to God as what N.T. Wright wears.
February 10th, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #35
Rev. McCain,
I think #37 is an excellent summary of the conversation so far, except for the petty bickering which is best left out anyway :)
And I suspect that most of the controversy is going to revolve around (6) and (7), though I would want to emphasize that there’s more than just money involved, including energy and time. It takes a lot more work and time to build a church with carved beams and arches than just to put of a prefabricated box. And while I don’t speak from experience, I suspect vestments require exceptional attention as well…
But, at the end of the day I think you’re right to suggest that the whole question a matter of Believer’s Freedom, and not something that is explicitly laid out in Scripture.
February 10th, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #36
I make no argument for especially elaborate or flashy garb, merely distinctive, as representing an office. It is, of course, possible for people to seek office for all the wrong reasons. This is what Jesus spoke to in the gospels. Yet if we properly see an authoritative office as an avenue of service to God and neighbour, then to aspire to it is a very good thing indeed.
February 10th, 2010 | 9:45 pm | #37
If you think Rick Warren is a little outrageous, check out Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church at http://www.marshillchurch.org
Look at some of his sermon videos.
February 11th, 2010 | 1:50 am | #38
In my church, the priests wear vestments during church services – I don’t know all the names, but it’s the full formal kit and kaboodle, and it looks beautiful.
Not long ago I started serving at the altar for a weekday mass, so I’m with the priest in the sacristy while he vests, and I have learned a few valuable things about the function of vestments in worship.
First of all, one of the main objectives of having the priests wear vestments is that it helps us look through them toward Christ. No matter who is the celebrant, he wears the same vestments. The point is that we are encouraged to see the priest as the icon of Christ – to look through him and see the Lord.
Second, the particular items that make up the vestments have symbolic meaning, and the priest prays as he vests. I don’t know about other traditions, but our priests pray a prayer that’s based on the passage from Ephesians – about the breastplate of salvation, etc. So getting vested is a prayerful act for the priest.
February 11th, 2010 | 6:58 am | #39
Christopher, your general observation above puts into words my questions as well. I find that my own posts general receive very few comments with perhaps one or two exceptions. Either what I write is completely uncontroversial and generally acceptable or I am not making myself well enough understood and readers are giving up on me. Or perhaps my arguments in favour of my own position are so thoroughly impregnable that no one dares to take me on! :-) I’m not sure which is the most plausible.
February 11th, 2010 | 10:04 am | #40
David, obviously, your third option is the right one.
February 11th, 2010 | 4:30 pm | #41
Mr. Benson (I’d happily confer the title of “Dr.”, but it wouldn’t mean anything coming from me- if it did I’d do it to myself and skip the whole dissertation process…).
Thanks for keeping us focused- I know that I at least tend to wander off topic and float down whatever exciting streams of conversation seem to come up.
To give my best shot to your questions:
Does my church show that “hosting the Holy One is no small, trivial, or casual undertaking”?
Clearly, that’s going to be a question that can only be answered at the local level. For the church I attend, my best answer would be “yes, but we can definitely do it better.”
If I can add an question to your question, what do you think I as an individual member of the congregation can do to help my church do it better? (Or is that something else that can’t be answered without a knowledge of the local church in question?)
Where, if at all, does my church show “the practice of symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty is essential to the reality of God’s presence”? If such practice is absent, why?
Primarily, I hope anyway, this is shown in the regular preaching of the Gospel, the proper administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline. Because quite frankly if it’s not, then we’re not a church.
As far as how this relates to the inward/outward man distinction that you bring up, I would suggest that this applies primarily to the inward man, but should certainly affect the outward man (Re: 1 John). Exactly how this affects the outward man (or the outward shape of church practices) is again something which will vary from person to person and from church to church.
Has my church neglected “the demanding reality of YHWH’s holiness” because it conforms to “a technological, pragmatic society” rather than challenges it with the superfluities of beauty?
I think this is the most difficult of your questions, if only because I’m not sure that “technological” and “pragmatic” are automatically at odds with “beauty.” For example, I don’t think anyone would say that a church has sacrificed its beauty because it uses electric lights or a sound system… And I’m really not sure I can add anything else to that answer. Though I definitely look forward to seeing the answers others give to your question to help straighten out my own thoughts on the topic.
Hopefully that adds to the discussion and is a “talking with” and not a “talking to”, because quite frankly I received many (probably not enough) of those growing up and don’t particularly want to engage in any more of them :)
And re: post #29, “Coyle” is my first name, no “Mr.” necessary :)
Thanks again for your thoughtful blogging!
February 11th, 2010 | 10:07 pm | #42
Mr. Benson,
Sorry to jump on a question that wasn’t meant to be answered- though like you point out, the answers were pretty much “let the local church deal with it,” which maybe isn’t satisfying to some of our more hierarchical friends…
I actually attend a Baptist church (this one, if it matters: http://www.capbap.org ), which is pretty traditionally Reformed. Our services have a loosely Anglican feel (except with longer sermons), and our church structure is elder led/congregation ruled. I’m not really sure where that puts us in terms of “theological or ecclesial tradition.”
Personally, I am largely Reformed, albeit with a hefty Lutheran streak (“believer’s freedom” is my favorite Christian doctrine, right after “substitutionary atonement”).
I welcome a place that practices “symmetry, order, discipline, and beauty” in the architecture and clerical garments
That really is the issue, isn’t it? Figuring out exactly where that fits in with church life. On the one hand, as I think I said in an earlier post, I don’t particularly like that so many modern churches look like they were designed by Soviet warehouse manufacturers. On the other hand, how do you justify pouring time/energy/money into architecture and vestments when those things could all be spent on evangelism, training, teaching and missions?
I suppose if nothing else we should be thankful that we can even have this discussion- there are certainly plenty of Christians around the world who have to worry more about whether the government is going to kick in their door and haul them off to prision than how intricately carved that door is…
And there’s nothing wrong with blogging provocatively :)
February 12th, 2010 | 12:12 pm | #43
I meant that the holy/common divide of seeing the priestly/tabernacle things and the ordinary life things breaks down in the NT. Every day is equally holy, not just special festival days or sabbaths, as Paul says in several places. Every location is holy and suitable for worship rather than just a centralized temple or tabernacle, as Jesus says to the Samaritan woman in John 4. All food is clean, as Jesus declares and Peter and Paul reiterate. There are no special holy silverware items for use in a special holy building (e.g. what some people wrongly call a church) used for special fellowship meals. There are no special seats that have to be used (e.g. pews). Why should we retain the idea that some clothes are special?
That doesn’t mean there’s no purpose for clothing. We should still be clothed, for example, and it shouldn’t be too revealing. But I don’t see why a T-shirt, even one with a rip in the sleeve, or a bright Hawaiian shirt pattern should be any less appropriate for worship than a three-piece suit or dress. There’s something special about worship that takes place corporately, yes. But it’s not as if that’s the only time we worship, and the principle that we should care about our appearance should apply as much during the week when we worship with our lives as it does when we happen to be worshiping corporately with other believers.
February 13th, 2010 | 1:45 pm | #44
Mr. Benson,
I am familiar with Church of the Res., at least by reputation (and by walking past it occasionally). And it’s reputation is quite a good one, we partner with them regularly on various outreach activities and pray for each other (in the good way).
The same with the Falls Church and Christ Reformed Church- I’ve heard great things about both. In fact, it’s really amazing how many great churches there are the DC area. I was completely blown away when I moved out here by the sheer number of faithful options from almost every denomination…
Tell me more about the architecture and clerical garments of your church. If there’s a spectrum with formality on one side (Anglicans) and informality on the other side (Pentecostals), Baptists tend to be somewhere in the middle, right?
Sadly, we’ve reached the limit of my knowledge on this (which seems confined to “let the local church deal with it). I really don’t know enough about either Anglicans or Pentecostals to say exactly where in the spectrum Baptists fall, though I do know that Baptists themselves are pretty varied within the denominations. That’s much more of a “Mark Dever” question than a “Coyle” one :)
Our church’s architecture is pretty straightforward late 19th century Protestant, with one exception. Where most Protestant churches avoided stained glass for theological and practical reasons (it’s hard to read your Bible when the light is filtered through colored glass), our church building had gas and then electric lights, so they went with stained glass windows.
As far as “clerical garments”, Mark preaches in a black robe and powdered wig.
Okay, just kidding :) Suit and tie is pretty much the standard “garment” for preaching at our church (there are a couple of guest preachers who sometimes break the mold- in one way or another- but it’s rare). For baptisms, we use white robes. That’s it, as far as I know…
Thanks for your interest, if you’re ever back East look us up!
I saw on your profile that you live in Denver- can I ask which church you attend there? I grew up in the region and did my undergrad in Laramie, so I know a handful of Denver churches…
And fair’s fair- how does your church show “beauty and glory”? You’ve alluded to it a bit, but (if you’re comfortable with it) I’d be interested in hearing more about how you think these can be practically shown in a real local church, rather than in the more abstract discussion we’ve been having.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact