What do you wear to church? Are you a suit and tie, a blazer and slacks, or a jumper and Levis man? Are you a smart dress, a casual skirt, or a nice trousers woman? Shoes or trainers? Heels or flats? Hats used to be de rigueur for women in Wales, while one of my elders once wanted to tell a visiting teenager to remove his baseball cap (I stopped him - though if it had been a Yankee cap I would have chucked the lad out myself!). Do you dress up or down? Do you do it for yourself, for the congregation, for the minister, for God? Are you being considerate, respectful, stylish, or merely vain?
And here’s a thought. Might our church dress code even imply a sartorial theology? Do dresser-uppers think of God as the Holy One in an evening suit to whom they must bow in due reverence? Do dresser-downers think of God as a Dad with whom they can relax? Do greys suggest a dour deity, bright colours a dancing deity? Perhaps coming in “filthy rags” would suggest a sola gratia God.
And me? To be honest, I wear a suit because, when I started my ministry, I presumed it was expected of me. For a while I wore a dog collar, but my wife Angie wore me down with her mocking laughter - “It just isn’t you!”; now it’s just a tie around my neck (though always 100% silk!). I wear a gown - because it was given to me by someone special. It’s a black Genevan gown, so it also links me with my Reformed tradition, with its emphasis on the minister as preacher and teacher. It’s also useful for concealing an unironed shirt - and it looks great with a tan! On the other hand, if I suffered from dandruff . . .
As you can see, the reasons and motives behind what we wear to church are complex. We can certainly read too much into them. And, of course, God is not interested in what we wear as such, in the fashion statements we make, in the images of ourselves that our clothes project, which (as an editor of Vogue once proudly confessed) are more about illusions than truth. God looks into your heart, not your wardrobe.
Yet our Lord himself wore threads that some soldiers thought worth gambling for. And what Rowan Williams once said to a group of primary school children about his own elaborate liturgical gear may strike a chord (or a corduroy!): we should think of worship as going to a party, and when you go to a party you dress differently (Rowan adding that clerical dress is hardly more bizarre than the outfits you see Saturday night clubbers wearing).
For me that’s the bottom (hem)line: God is different, special, so however we normally dress, perhaps we should dress differently for church - up or down, but special. On the other hand, if you come as you are, that’s cool: there are no dress police patrolling the temple entrance.
Anyway, I’m off to an Anglican induction service, where, on behalf of the United Reformed Church, I’ll be giving the right hand of fellowship and welcome to the new vicar. I was told I could “robe”, but there’ll be enough folk there in fancy dress, so I’ll just be jacket-and-tying it - and stepping out in a new pair of shoes!
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Richard 04.19.07 at 5:45 pm
I’m tempted to ask if anything other than your tie is in silk, Kim.
But I won’t…
Eugene McKinnon 04.19.07 at 5:53 pm
I’m with you on this one Kim. My pastor shed his gown a few years ago and is now a major fashion victim. The benefit of having a gown and collar (if you prefer) is that it is consistent irregardless of the ages. It visibly symbolises how despite the changes arising around us Jesus is yesterday, today, and forever. I also believe that it indicates that we are slaves to Christ and to the people of God.
dh 04.19.07 at 6:10 pm
Kim, I’m Anglican as well. What diocese are you? Mine is the Ugandan diocese.
Richard 04.19.07 at 6:24 pm
I thought you were in the USA?
dh 04.19.07 at 8:39 pm
Yes I am in the US but we have a covering by the Anglican Archbishop from Uganda due to the the disagreements with the current theology of the Anglican church.
dh 04.19.07 at 9:09 pm
I’m sorry it is the Kampala dicocese of Uganda. Here is the examples and reasons from our website:
http://www.christchurch-op.org/sites/site-559/refs/e17d4186-7f00-0001-3d06-5fa630177bbf.pdf
Richard 04.19.07 at 11:02 pm
I guessed that really. And to be honest, I can’t think of anything less Anglican.
dh 04.20.07 at 2:47 pm
Wow Richard, that seems very attacking to me of my church. I guess from my position the Anglican church as a whole outside of these other diocese’s have moved away from Anglicanism so I would say that the majority of Anglicanism IS less than Anglican. I don’t think the Anglican church 100 years ago would agree with the 75 million Anglicans position. I think they would side with the 2.5 million of the outer diocese. It is a matter of what true Anglicanism really is and for me that is sticking to the foundations of God’s Word as opposed to being influenced by every wind, whim and philosophy that goes against it. But that is just me.
Richard 04.20.07 at 10:26 pm
I suppose it was an attack, but I it’s my view that what the Ugandan bishop is doing is schismatic. If you don’t like what the Anglican church is you should leave. But don’t pretend that you can simply make up the discipline of the church to suit yourself. And that’s what you are doing.
Kim 04.20.07 at 11:12 pm
I agree with Richard. The spirit of early north African schismatic Donatus has evidently moved south to the Uganda diocese. It’s the same old story: the holiness of the church is contingent on the holiness of its members; “impure” bishops contaminate the church, acting as carriers of the sins of the world, which are highly contagious; and sacramental hygenic exclusiveness is de rigueur. Augustine, of course, rejected the Donatist package in no uncertain terms. History repeats itself as farce.
BD 04.21.07 at 4:04 pm
When did you become an Anglican DH?
Quote: ” Also, Pastor Jerry Johnston is my pastor and a very good one I might add. I just don’t what thebig deal is Bene.”
DH September 22, 2006
Jerry Johnston is a televangelist in Kansas at First Family Church.
http://www.ffc.org/
Eugene McKinnon 04.21.07 at 4:52 pm
In DH’s defence,
How can one belong to a diocese that ignores the Scriptures, but uses every trick in the magisterium to persecute those who hold to the truth of the Word of God and cannot in good conscience be under an openly gay bishop. It may be Donatist, but I doubt that Augustine would serve under a gay bishop.
However, as for me and my house I will content to be Presbyterian.
Kim 04.21.07 at 5:23 pm
Hi Eugene,
Persecution? Well, there are certainly self-righteous and intolerant liberals about, but the folk they “persecute” - their very lives are not put at risk the way gays’ lives can be - particularly, of course, in Africa.
And as for ignoring the Scriptures - that’s unfair, Eugene. At the very least - and as you know - it begs the hermeneutical question. Again, for some liberals (like Richard Holloway) what the Bible says about human sexuality is unimportant, but there are plenty of folk (like Rowan Williams - and me too) who are not liberals, who regard the Bible as authoritative, but not in such a way that a contemporary sexual ethic can be read out of it “neat”, and indeed in a way that is not inimical to, and indeed is supportive of, same-sex relationships. I certainly don’t want to pursue the issue (I blogged my butt off on it over at F&T, and we’ve discussed it here on Connexions), just to insist that conservative evangelicals don’t have a monopoly on being “scriptural”.
And Augustine - well, he wouldn’t have served under a woman either, now would he have?
However, my brother, for all our differences we are united in your last statement.
Wood 04.22.07 at 2:29 pm
Kim, I’d like to see more from you on the subject of what I shall call “neo-Donatism”. It fascinates me.
Kim 04.22.07 at 6:07 pm
Hi Wood,
Yes, (neo-)Donatism fascinates me too. Here are some interesting points to consider.
(1) Donatism was a schism, not a heresy; that is to say, the controversy wasn’t credal, it was about ethics and ecclesiastical order.
(2) Morality and polity came together over the question of cultic purity. The Donatists were exceedingly counter-cultural, arguably quasi-Manichean, because they saw the world as hostile, demonic, particularly in the form of the state. Bishops who had sinned by collaborating with imperial authorites during persecution - traditores - were not only polluted, they were pollutants whose sacramental presidency was totally compromised. So Donatists had both a very clericalised concept of the church and an ethics of filth to go with it. It was these two beliefs that Augustine particularly had his sights on because they undermined the solus Christus: for Augustine Christ alone, not bishops, constitutes the unity of the church; and Christ alone, not Christians, constitutes the holiness of the church.
(3) Donatists also had an obsession with martyrdom. They had a victim mentality (though they could certainly say that just because they were paranoid didn’t mean that the Catholics weren’t out to get them - they were, ultimately, alas - and with Augustine’s sanction - with violence): hence their fierce sectarianism.
(4) Donatists were not only morally puritanical, they frowned upon aesthetics as such, and strongly resisted the growing Catholic practice of decorative painting in churches, to which they reacted by whitewashing the walls of their own sanctuaries.
(5) And here’s an interesting one for you: the most radical - and obstreperous - Donatists, the Circumcellions, were known for their customary chant, bellowed and endlessly repeated in worship, “Deo laudes! Deo laudes! Deo laudes!.
I’ll leave others to draw contemporary comparisons. What interests me most is the psychopathology of (neo)Donatism. When I use the term, it is mainly to refer to a “theology of taint”. You find it in Anglo-Catholics who resist the ordination of women, particularly because of their role as eucharistic presidents; in conservatives who condemn homosexuality (knowingly or not) on Levitical grounds - the “Yuk” factor - and who reject appeals to love and justice; and in evangelicals who will not hobnob with non-evangelicals because the latter are not “sound” and will lead the faithful “astray”.
I hope that’s provocatively helpful.
Oloryn 04.22.07 at 7:36 pm
For some reason, this brings to mind Scott Ross’s experience shortly after his conversion in the mid-60’s (no doubt in hippyish dress):
I think there’s actually a fairly difficult balance on this issue, one characterized by G. K. Chesterton’s “collision of two passions apparently opposite”. On the one hand, we may have to dress so as not to offend some who tend to judge by appearances (e.g. 1 Cor 10:32,33 or 2 Cor 6:3, 8:21). On the other hand, we have direct commands that we are not to judge by appearance (John 7:24, James 2:2-4). Human nature seems to either focus on the first and fail the second, or focus on the second and fail the first.
blonde 04.22.07 at 11:31 pm
I think the comments have gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off the original post. I don’t want to get into controversial theology or gay bashing, but answer the original question. I dress up for church because I was brought up that way. I also dress up to go to a drinks party at friends of my parents, or to an interview - ie to something that is important and deserves a bit of respect. I don’t condemn people who wear jeans to church, by any stretch, and have even done so myself - but although I can subscribe to the “abba, father” closeness I also feel some degree of respect and awe and “difference from the daily round” is appropriate when dealing with God. Just my happorth.
alice x
Oloryn 04.23.07 at 1:23 am
I think the problem is that the real balance on this is another one of Chesterton’s ‘collision of two passions apparently opposite”. I call it one of the great paradoxes of the faith - The Almighty, Omniscient, Holy and Exalted One of the Universe (and beyond the universe) aims to have a personal, one-on-one, intimate relationship with each one of us, if we’ll let Him (and on His terms). We have difficulty taking in both sides of that at the same time, and so tend to focus on one or the other at a given time. You should be able to have two people sitting side by side, one caught up in the Greatness and Holiness of God, and the other caught up in the Abba Father Love aspect, and both being in genuine Worship.
dh 04.23.07 at 5:45 pm
BD, I became a Anglican (Ugandan diocese) because it was such a long drive to First Family. I don’t understand this Donatism/Augstinianism thing. I have always been a big Augustine fan and for me there is no difference between Bishops/head of a denomination and priests/pastors. So for me the Donasticism thing really is just an attack from you toward me.
Richard, I believe the right response is to get the Anglican church back to what it WAS as opposed to leaving. I commerate those who stand for what true Anglicanism is as opposed to “giving in” to a new Anglicanism that really isn’t Anglicanism. Maybe the majority of Anglicans need to leave by recognizing that it truly isn’t Anglican let alone Biblical to support what they support?
dh 04.23.07 at 6:01 pm
To be honest I’m more non-denominational Evangelical and for me it is the beliefs as opposed to the denomination that is the issue. For me I support First Family and my Anglican church equally. It just happens that I go to my Anglican church and an Anglican. As long as a church believes in the foundations of the Christian Faith and support the Bible and Scripture for what it says then I see no serious difference between Anglican and First Family. Anglicans may believe in losing their Salvation but I don’t seperate from it in that I believe they weren’t Christians in the first place or that we can’t know without a shadow of a doubt who is a Christian. We can get an idea of that based on how accurate the response is to what Scripture says about Salvation (Our Faith in Christ alone, etc. I said all that on previous posts) but the heart of the issue is where 100% for sure is unable to be obtained.
dh 04.23.07 at 7:10 pm
Additional clarification: Many people accept Christ in their minds but not in their hearts and that is the reason some believe you can lose your Salvation. I say they had head acceptance as opposed to head and heart acceptance. Those who accept with their head and heart will not lose their Salvation.
BD 04.23.07 at 7:16 pm
DH;
In September 2006 you said you were with First Family Church.
Are you saying you took part in the vote at Christ Church?
Are you are telling us you are willfully and knowingly going to a church that has been happy to break covenant, theological and geographical boundaries with the TEC and accept theft and encroachment by bishops.
Are you saying you fellowship with believers willfully rejecting congregationalism?
Are you a member in good standing at Christ Church?
While many can understand North American conservative Episcopalians are not too clued in about Global South Primates agenda and beliefs, there are no longer any excuse not to know.
Nor is there any excuse not to know about the ACC/IRD involvement. The Washington Diocese has made the ACC/IRD agenda and financing for this rebellion and pillage known for some time.
Richard is correct.
There is little Anglican about what Christ Church has done.
BD 04.23.07 at 7:33 pm
Richard and Kim, it might be a very good time for you two, Joel and Ivan also if they can, to do some clear theological explaining.
DH’s niave victim stance on a Methodist blog is getting annoying.
“For me I support First Family and my Anglican church equally.”
I believe DH. I believe he sees no problem with his position.
dh 04.23.07 at 10:39 pm
What theft are you talking about when it took Christ Church over $3 million to be able to reject being Episcopal and accept being Anglican under the Ugandan diocese. I didn’t vote but I supported what the pastor and bishop agreed when going with the Ugandan diocese in the first place. How can Christ Church be anti-Anglican when the Anglican church has gone away from its Anglican beliefs? Also, why should people who have attended the Episcopal/Anglican church long before I attended be forced to not be something they have been for years just because some people want to be anti-Anglican and support views and theology that go against what Anglicanism has been for years? To disregard other people who attend my church who truly are victims in this mess as being “niave” does nothing to promote balance that you so readily desire or at least say you desire. I see the rebellion and pillage by the 75 million Anglicans who go along with the head leadership of anti-Anglican beliefs as opposed to the 2.5 million who stand by the previous views of centuries of Anglicanism of the current Ugandan diocese and other diocese’s within the Anglican church who don’t standby the Archbishop of Canterbury in his views which are truly anti-Anglican. How can one be Congregationalist with people who are going against Scripture? I thin kthat is the issue and explains a little as to the why’s and hows of Christ Church doing what it had to do.
With regard to “pillage” and the like of Global South Primates and “victim stance” I personally support and think my Bishop from Uganda is wonderful. Do any of you realize that the previous Bishop before the one now was martyred by Idi Amin? Come on people some support for a group that had attrocities placed on it by an evil dictator as Idi Amin needs to have more support than you are currently dismissing.
To say I’m “niave” is really getting old. I wasn’t the one who started this I only was making conversation about myself in saying I’m Anglican as well with regard to Kim. It was only when Richard said ” can’t think of anything less Anglican.” If that wasn’t said I think it would have been a more “enjoyable” conversation but when someone questions the level of my church’s “Anglicanism” what response would you expect?
dh 04.23.07 at 10:41 pm
That $3 million was paid to the Episcopal church headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to not be Episcopal not to the Ugandan diocese so what “theft” are you referring to or what I appear to see being dismissed, BD?
BD 04.24.07 at 1:20 am
The communion.
dh 04.24.07 at 2:17 pm
and that is legitimate. Stealing $3 million dollars from my church so it can leave as opposed to letting them leave without having to pay I believe is the “stealing” you are talking about.