NATIONAL
WORKING GROUP ON WORSHIP
Theology &
Discipleship
The Uniting Church in Australia
Paper No 2
A STATEMENT ON LITURGICAL DRESS
TO WEAR - OR NOT TO WEAR
There is a saying which runs - 'What we
wear says something about what we are'. This becomes very
meaningful when, in times of need at home, at an outdoor event,
or at a hospital we look for and welcome the fireman, the St
John's Ambulance Brigade member or the nurse - each clearly
identified by what he or she wears. Even in the day of jeans and
unisex wear, dress is still useful in helping us to determine the
gender of the wearer when that is important. When it comes to
ministerial attire it is argued sometimes that those who lead
worship should wear only their customary clothing so as to
identify with the whole congregation. There is an impossibility
in this whatever the good intentions. It will be inevitable that
the female worship leader in her attire will not be able to
identity thereby with the males in the congregation - and vice
versa. So there is a case to be made for attire which is not
distinctive to either gender. The symbolism involved in this way
is a declaration-of essential inclusiveness and not of
differentiation by class or gender.
Within the life of the Uniting Church we
are coming to understand and make informed use of a number of
Christian symbols. In some of our churches we are accustomed to
choir members and the organist putting on choir robes. Their
individuality laid aside, they take up the role of 'team'
dedicated to leading congregational praise. On the other hand,
while 'motley' may be the only garb for Shakespeare's fool in "As
You Like It" this certainly does not mean that a variety
of attire among choir members casts them in the role of fools or
renders then incapable of singing in tune or making 'a joyful
noise to the Lord'. So the use of liturgical dress is encouraged
within the Uniting Church, but remains an optional matter.
At the same time the wearing of
liturgical dress points to seriousness of purpose and the
conscious adoption of a role of special responsibility - when a
choir dons its robes, or a minister puts on alb and scarf or
stole before stepping into the church for the service on the
Lord's Day, a wedding or a funeral. This preparing of oneself for
the responsibilities ahead, as liturgical dress is put on, is
shown in some denominations where special prayers are said as
each item is donned, prayers which remind the wearer of whose
he/she is and what lies immediately ahead. This is not customary
in the Uniting Church but being reminded visibly by what is worn
and by the actions of putting it on, evokes a renewed
consciousness that, beyond all else, the wearer is called to be a
servant of the Lord.
A MARK OF SERVICE - NOT OF STATUS
That some say treat liturgical dress as
a mark of superior rank or status clearly runs contrary to all of
this. The temptation to so misuse such attire will be there
always. But infatuation with rank or status is not restricted to
those who wear liturgical dress. All of us should be aware of
what we are doing and saying when we do or do not wear liturgical
dress. Inevitably it will say something about us and there will
always be the risks, as there is with our preaching, that what is
heard is not what we intended by what we said or did.
Those charged to proclaim the gospel always need to hear it themselves. The informed and sensitive wearing of liturgical dress is one way in which they may be confronted with at least one aspect of the gospel, as they prepare to lead worship. No where is this summed up more succinctly than in Jesus' response to those who sought special status and to be ranked above their fellow disciples. So, in Mark 10: 41-45 we are reminded of our essential servant role, and of the need to avoid 'lording it' over others if we are to be followers of him who came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
The various items of liturgical dress
used in the Uniting Church had their origins in common articles
of dress in the Roman Empire - along with some marks of rank. In
the course of time these items gathered to themselves 'religious
meaning' to the point where secular origins were forgotten or
discounted.
So the alb, which provides attire
common to everyone charged with liturgical leadership
responsibilities, was seen to echo the 'white robes' of
Revelation 3:4, 6:11 and 7:9, 13 and 14, those worn at Baptism in
the first centuries of the Christian church.
The scarf and the stole
have their widely accepted origins in the yoke which, though easy
(Matt 11: 29 and 30) remains a symbol of service.
The pectoral cross or symbol
points to whose we are and serve, while the girdle reminds
us of that truth which is to be found in Christ and is ours, like
all else, be grace alone (see John 1: 14 and 17 and Ephesians
6:14 and 2:8-10).
But beyond such connections liturgical
dress stresses the 'servant role' of those who lead worship. They
are distinguished not by varying idiosyncratic dress which stress
self-effacing service, rather than self-aggrandisement.
BEFORE THE UNITING CHURCH
Before union in 1977 ministers and other leaders of worship in the three uniting denominations varied
in their practice. Amongst most, but not
all ordained ministers, a black gown (often termed a Geneva gown)
was commonly worn, as was the 'clerical collar' with or without
'preaching bands'. These items were combined by some with
cassock, scarf or stole, and/or academic hood. It would appear
that the scarf had its origin in a garment called a 'tippet' and
certainly was in common use among Protestant ministers since the
days of the Reformation. Originally black in colour, it was
devoid of fringe or any ornamentation. The stole is of more
ancient lineage and, in the colours of the liturgical year, was
associated with the celebration of the sacraments. Both scarf and
stole, in their origins, related to ordained ministers.
The fact that some form of liturgical
dress was common among ordained ministers, and in a minimal way
among 'home missionaries', meant that it came to be related to
the ordained and/or pastoral ministry. Few, if any, lay or local
preachers adopted such liturgical dress nor, on the whole, did
deaconesses.
Prior to union one of the preparatory
committees set up by the Joint Constitution Council was termed
the 'Paraphernalia Committee'. It was charged with preparing
recommendations on such things as:
( i) Certificates and forms to be used in the Uniting Church
( ii) a symbol and motto for the Uniting Church
(iii) liturgical dress.
It was the recommendation of this
committee that the 'ecumenical alb' - in white or
off-white - should replace the black gown. It was to be worn
without the addition of an academic hood, by ministers of the
Word, deaconesses and lay pastors. Stoles in liturgical colours
were to be worn only by ministers of the Word. Where a blue scarf
with the Uniting Church in Australia symbol at each end was
preferred, deaconesses were to wear one of a lighter shade of
blue to that of ministers of the Word. Chairpersons of
Presbyteries, moderators of Synods, and the president of the
Assembly were to wear a scarf of a deeper shade of blue, suitably
embroidered with the name of the council over which he/she
presided. It was suggested further that as an identifying means
the moderators' scarf should have, as the background to the
Uniting Church in Australia symbol, a panel of silver cloth, and
that of the president a panel of gold cloth.
Lay pastors were to wear the alb, but no
Scarf. No recommendation was made for the liturgical dress of lay
preachers, probably on the assumption that old customs would
continue.
SINCE 1977...
In hindsight it is clear that while
stoles were reserved to ministers of the Word and so could be
understood as a sign of ordination the scarf served both
as the latter (in the cases of ministers of the Word and
deaconesses, and now deacons) - and as a sign of office
for chairpersons, moderators and presidents - somewhat as did the
scarf once worn by presidents of Conference in the Methodist
Church.
So there was from the outset some
ambiguity, not to say confusion, about the significance of the
scarf.
In addition it was seen apparent that
there was virtually no shade differences in the blue scarfs
available commercially, and so no distinction was made between
those worn by deaconesses and presidents, e.g. as far as colour
was concerned.
The first president of the Assembly
chose to wear neither an ecumenical alb nor the recommended blue
scarf, but his doctor's academic gown and a specially designed
scarf of greater symbolic and aesthetic appeal than that
recommended by the committee.
Subsequently, when lay persons were elected as chairpersons, moderators and president, they chose to wear scarfs of office with or without gowns or albs. Such scarfs had a designatory function and ceased to have any necessary relation to lay or ordained 'status'.
THE GUIDELINES OF 1984
To reduce confusion and help
understanding the Commission on Liturgy, in 1984, issued a
statement on liturgical dress, which included the following
guidelines for those who wear such dress.
(13) The scarf is a strip of material of
even width, gathered at its centre into a narrower width.
The
gathered section is placed across the
back of the neck and, as with the stole, the scarf hangs to knee length.
Usually the scarf is made of plain
material (not brocade), it is not fringed and not embroidered
with
symbols. However, since the blue scarf
is a distinctively UCA vestment, it may beer the UCA logo or
other appropriate emblem, eg badge of a
synod, presbytery, school or church organisation.
(14) A pectoral cross (one hung around
the neck) appropriately may be worn with an alb, with and
alb
and stole or scarf, or simply with
street dress.
In the UCA, in contrast to the episcopal
churches, the wearing of pectoral cross does not denote that the person holds a
particular office. It therefore may be worn in worship by ministers, deaconesses, lay pastors, lay
preachers and other leaders of worship.
(15) In brief, the recommendations of
the Commission on Liturgy are:
[a] That an ecumenical alb, a UCA
scarf, and a pectoral cross appropriately may be worn by
all
leaders of worship.
[b]
That liturgical stoles should be worn
only by ordained ministers of the Word.
THE 1992 STATEMENTS
The decisions of the 199I Assembly
required some additions to the 1984 guidelines, so that clause l5
(b) above, should mow read:
b. That liturgical stoles should be worn
only by ordained ministers of the Word and deacons.
And there should be a new clause:
c. A scarf should be worn around the
neck and hang free in front. The same should apply to a
stole w hen
worn by a minister of the
Word. Where a deacon wears a stole it should be worn
diagonally over the left
shoulder and fastened at the
right hip.
Faced with requests for further guidance
the Commission throughout 1992 prepared a series of drafts, and
in November of that year decided to issue:
i) a succinct set of guidelines and a
list of design norms for liturgical dress in the Uniting Church.
ii) this statement to provides a
rationale and historical background.
and
iii) to have for reference purposes a
longer statement with full historical detail, references etc.
which statement
would be of particular use to theological
educators and libraries.
February 1993