National Working Group on
Worship
Theology
& Discipleship
Paper
No.3
LITURGICAL
DRESS IN THE UNITING CHURCH
A
paper by Robert Gribben for private circulation through the Assembly Commission
on Liturgy
1. Human beings and their vesture
1.1 Humankind has always dressed up for festive occasions, and has
celebrated special roles or special people with distinctive forms of dress or
decoration. In Australia, we have the ancient example of our aboriginal people
as well as the (now modified) ceremonies of the Crown and the courts.
1.2 In the Uniting Church, we have a broad heritage - from the
formal dress of a Moderator of the established Church of Scotland with his lace
cuffs, to the variety of clothes worn by clergy, to the best Sunday suit of a
lay preacher in an outback church.
l
.3 There is the old adage "what we wear reveals who we are". So does
what we choose not to wear. A building also, with white-washed walls and painted
biblical texts, is making just as much statement about what its community
believes as an ornate Gothic chapel dripping with gold decorations In many
parts of our history. The church has rejected one form of dress (or
architecture, or music, or words) only to adopt another, which has itself become
fixed in time1.
This is part of our humanity, part of our self-communication, and part of
the power of symbol2. Since it is a "given", we should think
clearly about what we wish to say in what we wear (and build, and sing. and say)
in the Uniting Church in Australia. Otherwise our message will be confused and
confusing.
2. An over view of history
A brief survey of the history of ecclesi2stical dress may clear the
way to make some decisions for today.
The biblical
background
2.l In Jesus' day, Jewish religious leaders wore distinctive dress
- otherwise Jesus could not have made comments on those for whom dress (or
position) alone was important3. It is equally likely that Jesus
adopted the customs of his culture e.g. the wearing of the fringed prayer-shawl4.
The High Priest clearly looked magnificent in his robes, the ephod, the
breastplate and headgear5 and it said something about his role in the
worship of the Temple.
2.2 None of the disciples whom Jesus called belonged to the
priestly or Levitical caste6 who were entitled to wear distinctive
dress. The link with Jewish liturgical dress was thus broken in the new
Christian community. The tax-collectors, the fishermen, the soldiers, the
merchants. masters and slaves rich and poor, men and women, were recognizable by
their dress, which was distinctive of their work or their position.
2.3
The emergence of the Church as a group separate from its parent Judaism
was accompanied by a good deal of tension, as biblical scholars are now
discovering. The texts of the Christian scriptures reflect this (and provide the
basis for later Christian anti-semitism). For instance, the church in
proclaiming itself the New Israel thereby claimed the inheritance of the Temple.
By the third century, preachers were using the image of "sacrifice"
(the central part of Temple worship) to interpret what Jesus had done on the
cross, and what the Holy Supper commemorated. So, curiously, the church both
claimed to be different from Judaism, and at the same time took over the
terminology and some of the practices of Judaism. Thus, the word
"priest" was soon applied to those who held certain offices in the
emerging "ordained" ministry. And in the longer term, some of the
forms of dress belonging to the temple priesthood7 found their way
"back" into Christian use. Probably no-one thought about these things
in a deliberate way - they simply developed in the way they always do in human
communities.
The early church
2.4 It seems likely that a major development in dress took place
when the emperor Constantine permitted (and later encouraged) the Christian
Church to come out hiding into the sunshine of imperial favour. The meeting
place for worship changed from the house to the basilica, with far reaching
effects on how Christians worshipped. Bishops, for instance, now people of rank
somewhat equivalent to a magistrate, began to wear forms of dress which showed
their status. The basic form of dress in the empire was the tunic, usually white
(Latin: tunica alba, hence alb). It appears to have been worn
without a girdle, to emphasize the vertical lines of the garment.8 Senators and others wore a sash of distinctive colour over it, or
signified their position by some other form of decoration - and the clergy
followed the local customs.
2.5 These styles of dress were never uniform, nor especially laid
down in law or custom. But it seems clear that Christians adopted a form of
white robe to clothe the newly-baptised in as they emerged from the water; it
was not "clerical dress", because everybody wore it, but for the new
Christians it symbolized a fresh start, a new belonging.
2.6 The clergy did wear the white tunic, however (they too had been baptised!) and they wore a sash over it according to their particular ministry.
It appears that priests wore the sash over their shoulders, hanging down equally
on either side9;
and deacons wore it over the left shoulder and tied at the right hip.
2.7 There were further elaborations which need not concern us in this
paper. They included the "overcoat” (shaped like a "poncho"
with a hole for the head) which was intended to keep people warm and dry, but
which became more format and is the ancestor of the "chasuble"10
and "cope", and various forms of headgear.
2.8 The origins of the Reformation are in Western Europe, so only the
styles worn in the Roman Catholic Church, concern us. It is characteristic of
Roman culture that such things are subject to rules and regulation. Rome likes
uniformity. By the Reformation, not only was every item of clothing worn by
clergy carefully detailed in canon law, it was also immensely complex in design
and rich in decoration, especially in the wealthy bishoprics.
2.9
The Reformers reacted in different ways to this complexity. Luther declared such
things to be adiaphora, things indifferent, and wore the vestments (or
didn't wear them) as the mood took him. More deeply, however, he understood how
such familiar customs affect the way people worship, and he did not wish to take
such aids from the people whom they helped. He certainly did not ban the
sacramental vestments.
2.9
Calvin and other reformers who had no monastic or clerical background did reject
the mediaeval vestments because of their association with certain understandings
of the sacraments and the ministry, which they rejected. They conducted worship
wearing ordinary street dress. But it so happened that most if not all the major
leaders of the Reformation were university graduates and indeed Doctors of
Divinity, and their street dress (in an age when you could tell what people did
by what they wore) was a long black robe. Again, the design varied with the
university, but it made a very suitable garment for the role of leadership of
worship, plain and dignified. Street dress became liturgical dress.
2.l0
The English (Anglican) Reformation retained a good deal of the ceremonial
vestments of the past; the Scots, influenced through Knox by Calvin, rejected
them. Thus the Presbyterians, and the Independents (Congregationalists) who were
associated with them in the Westminster Assembly (1645) established the
tradition, which we largely received in 1977.
Academic
variations
2.l1
The Church of England had a strong connection with the universities of Oxford
and Cambridge, and academic custom also influenced later clerical dress (most
clergy were graduates of those universities). By the 18th C, the
mediaeval vestments were not usually worn; the clergy would wear cassock and
surplice11
for services. For choir offices (Morning and Evening Prayer) they added academic
hood and scarf. Both these latter vestments had s functional origin, that is,
the need to keep warm in unglazed church buildings. The hood slowly developed
different designs and colours according to the university and the degree of the
wearer; the scarf12
similarly
became a separate vestment, associated with academic dress. Later, scarves were
sometimes decorated with heraldic or collegiate devices. Out of this tradition
grew the "Force Chaplain’s" scarf with a crown and military
decorations, and the special scarves worn by recent Moderators of the General
Assembly and Presidents of the Conference.
2.11.l It must be noted that the scarf, while it happens also to be
a sash worn around the shoulders, in fact has no connection with the stole, and
has no necessary connection with worship or its leadership or with the
sacramental ministry. It was worn (together with hood and gown, and with the
white "bands" which were academic neckwear13)
equally by clergy, academics and lawyers.
2.l2
In the early days of Methodism, leaders who were Anglican priests (such as John
and Charles Wesley) wore Anglican liturgical vestments according to the custom
of the time, including cassock and surplice. They also wore the street dress of
Anglican clergy, sometimes modified for riding! Lay leaders simply wore their
best clothes, which by the l9th C included a black frock cost and white cravat.
2.13 The l9th C saw another attempt to adopt the dress of ordinary people
for the leadership of worship. But ordinary people certainly understand that the
leadership of worship is no casual task, and they tend to choose the best dress
available to them as non-clerics, and that is frequently a formal or
conservative form of dress, i.e. not worn in ordinary life. Women preachers
tended to wear plain, dark dresses (cf. the young Wesleyan preacher Dinah in
George Eliot's novel Adam Bede). In fact, every attempt to borrow
"lay dress" soon fails because of the human propensity to formalize,
and the process must begin again.
2.14 In the late 19th and early 20th C, as part of the Protestant
churches attempt to establish themselves as churches equal in ecclesiastical
status to Anglican and Catholic bodies, Protestant clergy again began to adopt
older forms of dress14. They reached back into the Reformation and restored the black gown,
often in the form of an academically neutral "Geneva gown"15.
It became accepted for hoods (and eventually, bands and scarves) to be worn, as
a sign of the ministry based on [the study of] the Word. They followed (recent)
Anglican custom and adopted the "Roman collar", which is street dress,
not liturgical (Roman vestments normally cover up neckwear16).
2.l5
In the 1960s, all such traditions were open to question - though few people were
aware how often (and unsuccessfully) change had been tried before. The result
has been chaos. There are those who have adopted forms of dress from other
traditions with little regard to their historical background or symbolic
meaning. Others have sought new forms of non-distinctive dress finishing up
(for men) with the business suit, collar and tie, an eloquent symbol of the
social status of the middle-class church17.
At the same time, lay worshippers ceased to wear their "Sunday best”;
women and girls threw away hats and gloves, men and boys wore casual clothes -
and in some cases, their minister followed (or led). But in every case, the
"new" form adopted will have its own message - and it is not
necessarily the message the church wishes to convey about its teaching or its
ministers.
2.16
Some good thinking was done on this question on the eve of union in 1977 - by a
committee which bore the name of "Working Group on Paraphemalia and
Titles"18.
But the Assembly shifted away from adopting regulations, partly because there
was already such a variety, partly because there were three different traditions
to be considered, and partly because they did not wish to legislate on
“matters indifferent". The result was further chaos - each did what they
wished.
2.17
However, "guidelines" were produced, and have been reissued with
slight modifications since, and they deserve the attention of the church19.
2.18
We need perhaps to understand that there are different kinds of ecclesiastical
vesture, not all of which apply to the Uniting Church's use. There is
"liturgical dress", i.e. dress worn specifically during worship, which
is the focus of this paper. The Uniting Church recognizes only one form of this
dress, worn at “The Service of the Lord's Day", a service both of Word
and sacrament. When on Sunday we do not celebrate the sacrament, we wear the
same vesture. Other churches distinguish between "choir offices"
(Morning and Evening Prayer, or nonsacramental services in general - para.
2.11 above refers), and the sacraments - and they wear different dress at each.
(They may even change vestments during the service!) This becomes obvious on
ecumenical occasions, when the UC clergy wear what other churches recognize as
sacramental (especially the stole) and Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox wear
what is suitable to a non-sacramental occasion. A third form is street dress,
i.e. for clergy, which hardly now exists in the Uniting Church since we do not
seem to distinguish between formal and informal occasions. In this we reflect a
particular contemporary Australian culture20.
3.
The UCA Guidelines
The
1992 guidelines suggested the following:
3.1
the "freedom of ministers of the Word, deacons and other leaders of worship
to choose whether or not to wear liturgical dress" is recognized by the
Commission.21.
3.2
that the recommended basic garment is the white alb22,
worn with or without girdle or cincture.
3.3
that stoles in liturgical colours or blue scarves may be worn; the former only
by ministers of the Word and deacons. Stoles (but not scarves) are also worn in
distinctive ways: hanging down the front by ministers of the Word, and over the
left shoulder and joined at the right hip for deacons (see also para. 3.9).
3.3
- significantly the last item - that the customs of the former churches were
"honoured". Ministers could continue to wear the black gown (hood
etc.)23,
but not a mixture of the previous tradition with the new forms (e.g. hood with
alb- see also below, para. 3.8).
3.3.l
This garment has the attraction of being simple, plain [and thus suited to a
Reformed church), and ecumenical (used universally by other churches, east and
west, and thus a good symbol for the uniting church). It lacks any associations
with the establishment, the law courts, academic attainment or civic
distinctions. It can also be worn by men or women24, by ordained or lay (the latter because of its baptismal association
25). For this same reason, it should be white.
3.3.2
The alb is an all-enveloping generously cut garment, which reaches to the
ankles, with reasonably open sleeves. (Cassock sleeves are close-fitting, like a
suit-coat.) Whether it is closed at the front in the style of a double-breasted
coat, or simply put on over the head is a matter of personal design preference26.
It is best made of pure white material, which points to its basic symbolism (see
3.7.1.)
3.4
The alb may be secured by a girdle (more formally known as a cincture) around
the waist. This is a matter of individual taste. At least part of the original
idea of an alb was that its lines were free-flowing, and did not reveal the
shape of the person underneath. It is an unnecessary addition to wear girdles of
different colours. Whatever symbolism the girdle may have (see below, 3.11) its
significance is not seasonal!
3.5
A pectoral cross or other Christian symbol27
may be worn as desired. This undoubtedly arose from recent
"charismatic" custom. Again ecumenical (or at least
non-denominational) and on the grounds that the cross is not a symbol confined
to bishops!
3.6
Over the alb28,
a minister of the Word or deacon may wear either a scarf or a stole.
3.6.l
The scarf is a strip of plain material, some l8-20 cm [7 l/2"] in width,
gathered into pleats at the neck and hanging down to about knee length or
slightly lower, and without fringes. The Uniting Church recommends blue as its
colour. The Uniting Church logo, and/or a symbol of the office held or
organization or council represented, or a form of the cross may appear on either
or both sides at the bottom.
3.6.2
The scarf did not originate as a vestment with liturgical or sacramental
significsnce29.
It
has been adapted as a sign of office in the Uniting Church, worn equally by lay
or ordained, by presidents, moderators and chairpersons, by lay preachers and
deaconess and candidates for the ministry. There are already a wide variety of
designs. (It follows from the above that a scarf should not be made in the same
colours as the liturgical sessons30)
3.6.3
The stole is a strip of material, either plain or patterned (e.g.
brocade) in colours appropriate to the seasons of the church's year. It is
usually cut to fit at the neck (i.e. without pleats), and is usually narrower
than a scarf. Uniting Church stoles seem to be wider at the front 31
than those of other churches, probably because we have shown more concern to add
other features to the message of the liturgical colour itself Universal
Christian symbols, appropriate to the season, may be added or worked into the
stole, either at chest height or near the bottom. It is never appropriate to use
the UCA logo on a stole (or pulpit or altar cloth) because it is a
denominational sign, whereas the stole pertains to the universal gospel and
common ministry.
3.7
The adoption of a patten of liturgical colours means that the primary thing is
the symbolism of the colour itself32.
Strictly speaking, no decoration is necessary. But there are some nuances, which
artists and designers may wish to consider:
3.7.1
The high feasts of the year are Easter and Christmas. Both are symbolized by
white, but both may be richly decorated (e.g. with gold). The primary mood is
rejoicing. In the language of symbol, white may stand for joy, glory, purity.
White is also used to mark other feasts of Christ, namely his annunciation (25
March), his baptism, and transfiguration (in the time after Epiphany), the
Trinity (by derivation; a doctrine revealed in Christ), and his kingship (last
Sunday after Pentecost). All Saints' Day (Nov- 1) uses white; it is Christ who
is revealed in his saints.
3.7.2
The preparatory seasons for these two feasts are marked by the use of violet or
purple. For Lent, the association is with the purple robe worn by Jesus at the
mocking; it is a royal robe after the manner of the suffering servant. There is
a tradition that it is a red-purple. There is another tradition that the stole
be made of sack-cloth. Advent has a different mood, or rather two moods. There
is the expectation of the birth of the Christ-child; but more profoundly there
is the expectation of the coming of Christ at the Last Day, with the theme of
judgement. Symbols for either may be used - e.g. the Bethlehem star, or Alpha
and Omega, or a crown.
3.7.3
In the Uniting Church, the symbolism of the colour red has been confined to the
fire of the Holy Spirit. (Is it necessary to add flames in the design?) It is
thus used on the Day of Pentecost. It is also used on "other specific days
in the life and witness of the church and of the congregation" which
includes confirmation, ordination, induction and commissioning. In other
traditions, the symbol of blood is also used e.g. in Passiontide (Passion/Palm
Sunday and Holy Week, including Good Friday), and for commemorations of martyrs33.
3.7.4
Green is used for all other days, for "ordinary time". This probably
derives from green being the simplest and most available vegetable dye in
ancient days. It is an accessible symbol for growth, under the Holy Spirit, and
therefore appropriate for the long season of Sundays after Pentecost34.
3.8
The 1992 guidelines do not envisage the wearing of academic dress with anything
but the traditional black (or scarlet or other) robes. There may be times and
places (e.g. processions at Church-related academic institutions) where it is
entirely appropriate for suitably qualified Uniting Church ministers to wear
such robes. But the guidelines envisage the alb and scarf/stole worn for the
leadership of worship as freeing the ministry from former signs of rank and
attainment. To wear a hood with an alb is to mix traditions; it is like wearing
a top hat with working overalls.
3.9
By ecumenical tradition, ministers of the Word (as equivalents of priests or
presbyters) have worn the stole over the shoulders hanging down straight on
either side of the body, and deacons have worn it sash-wise, over the left
shoulder and tied or looped at the right hip. Uniting Church deacons, however,
should not merely tie the stole at the hip, as if expecting it to be undone and
re-arranged on the analogy of other churches when deacons become priests; the
join should be designed as integral and permanent.
3.l0
A comment should be made about symbolism is general.
3.l.l
First, few symbols are universal. Certainly the significance of colour varies
from culture to culture (e.g white, in India, is s sign of mourning).
3.l.2
Secondly, many symbolic things begin as purely functional. This is the nature of
symbol: certain things in human experience are ordinary at one level, and
profound at another- e.g. eating and drinking, lighting a lamp, the use of oil,
certain gestures and postures. Symbols take us from the earthly to the heavenly,
from the temporal to the eternal. They open the eye of faith.
3.l0.3
Thirdly, symbols attract to themselves various secondary meanings, layer after
layer of them in some cases, but these are neither universal nor necessary, and
they are open to change and reform. The church first used candles, for instance,
because they prayed at the end of the working day; the single candle was seen as
s sign of the light of Christ. Later, they lit the liturgical books on the altar
in dark churches; two candles illuminate both open pages; but soon two candles
began to call to mind the two natures of Christ. And so on. One needs to be
careful with the simple attribution of meaning to a symbol. The truth is in the
eye of the beholder, and it is not an absolute truth. It may need to change in
order to live in a new situation.
3.11
How far should all this be taken? We in the Uniting Church have a natural
aversion (so this writer believes) to elaboration and legalistic detail. The
primary test of what we wear (as in other aspects of ministry) is whether it
helps the congregation to participate in the worship of God. We, of ell
churches, ought not to get involved in discussion, about what is
"correct”. On the other hard, by giving up the natural desire to choose
for ourselves, and adopting a common practice, we may gain a great deal in
affirming the particular calling of ministry, and in declaring the esPrit-de-corps35
of the Uniting Church. Overall, it should be noted that no-one who chooses to
wear liturgical dress is required to wear all of it. The alb worn alone is an
eloquent symbol. A pectoral cross may in fact say more than a stole.
3.l2
The purpose of this paper is to provide the background against which Uniting
Church people may decide whether to were distinctive liturgical dress, and if
so, what. It is intended as a general guide to those who want to know how to
make such vestments. It is based on the conviction that few people decide such
things by reason and logic: like all symbols, dress affects us at a level deeper
than the intellect. It is also the writer’s view that until people know what
is involved is such decision, they are bound by what is familiar - and that may
be very limiting and partial. Only when we know what we are doing are we free to
do it - that is the real nature of discipline, the positive nature of church
law.
Perhaps
the contemporary English poet, John Heath-Stubbs, has got it right 36:
I
have no personal objection
if you wish to put on singing robes:
At a ritual you don't wear work-a-day clothes.
But the surplice and chasuble, or the Geneva gown
Are nothing more than the Sunday best
Of
a Byzantine gentleman, or a Renaissance scholar;
And any clergyman, I suppose, would look pretty silly
If he walked down the street in them.
So under
existing social conditions
You had better think over this matter of your costume
With a certain perspicacity.
Few
books contain more of a mixture of romantic myth and history than those on
ecclesiastical vesture. They are usually written by enthusiasts, or by those who
make them. One of the few solid historical accounts is the Gilbert Cope article
cited in footnote l. There are few studies, which touch on the traditions of the
Reformation and their developments. Some Reformation theologians have written
liturgical theologies which mention the issue - but they are dated: e.g.
Jean-Jacques von Allmen, Worship:
Its Theology arid
Practice Oxford. l965. pp 27lff and Richard Paquier, Dynamics of
Worship, Fortress, l967, pp l35ff.
One
book to be used with caution is: Janet Mayo, A History of Ecclesiastical Dress,
Batsford, l984.
The
various books by Beryl Dean reveal the skill of the doyenne of English
ecclesiastical embroidery.
On
symbols:
George
Ferguson, Signs and Symbols in Christian Art, Oxford, 1954 and subsequent
editions;
W.
Ellwood Post, Saints, Signs and Symbols, SPCK, 1964 etc.
Thomas
Albert Stafford. Christian Symbolism in the Evangelical Churches,
Abingdon, 1942.
Robert Gribben
y
1993
1
The Swiss Reformed theologian, J.-J. von Allmen suggests that historically there
have been three "fresh starts" in celebrating worship in ordinary lay
garments, and each time what was "ordinary' soon became "special"
(or "lay" became "clerical"), namely the early church, the
reformation, and the l9th century. See
his Worship its Theology and Practice, p. 272ff. Gilbert Cope, in his
important article "Vesture" in J.G. Davies, A Dictionary of Liturgy
and Worship. SGM, 1972 (1st edn.) p.350, notes the "political"
significance of vestments as the focus of protest and reform.
2 Para. 3.10 below gives a more extended consideration
of symbol.
3.
e.g. Mark l2 38-40 "Beware of the scribes. who like to walk around in long
robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces…”
4.
So Luke 8:44, where the woman with the hemorrhage touches the "fringe"
of his clothes, which may suggest a prayer-shawl.
5.
See Exodus 28 for the vestments of the priesthood.
6. Possible exceptions include Levi (Matthew), or
members of the Sanhedrin such as Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea.
7. Strictly speaking, temple garments as such were probably not adopted
(though some think the bishop's mitre developed from the Jewish high priests
hat), but presumed biblical or Jewish liturgical meanings were transferred to
the Christian clergy vesture.
8. For details, see Gilbert Cope, art. cit., p 366-7
9. Under a chasuble, it was customary for priests to wear the stole
crossed over the breast; as an external vestment, it always hung down vertically on both side This later is the
universal custom for bishop.
10. Other variations on this outdoor cloak are the tunicle,
dalmatic, and rochet; worn by sub-deacons /crucifers, deacons and bishops respectively.
11
The surplice is a generously cut alb, made ample to fit over bulky and warm
garments, e.g fur-lined cassocks, in the cold climates of northern Europe, Other
variations include the short cotta, worn by some servers in Roman and Anglican
Churches.
12 The scarf appears to have its origin in
academic dress, derived from the mediaeval hood. If may have developed from the
long tail (liripoop) of certain hoods. In any case, scarf and hood are probably
separated parts of the same garment, and they go together. At the Reformation
the scarf became part of the choir dress of Anglican clergy worn over the
surplice (as is the hood).
13
The bands are the end of neckcloth left hanging out after tying. Like most form
of dress, they became formalized. Until the time when people stopped wearing
neck-cloths as normal clothing, the bands were tied on or inserted into the top
of the cassock. They are still required as graduation dress at Oxford and
Cambridge: and barristers wear the same item.
14 In architecture, Protestant churches began to build
in the Gothic style, as distinct from the Classical.
15 In Australia, a "preachers gown was available,
which was a bell-sleeved academic gown, supposed not to be the gown of any
particular university. The American academic gown, which closes down the front,
was brought back by many post-graduates of American seminaries. In each case,
the design happened to be simple and dignified, suited to the role.
16
The "Roman collar" may be an atrophied form of the neckcloth. It was
intended to make a Roman priest recognizable in the street, especially
in England when
he was banned from wearing the soutane. The "ritualists” following the
Oxford Movement were probably responsible for Anglicans borrowing it.
l7
The influences were not only those of "secularisation", but of other
contemporary movements such as the "charismatic renewal" and tele-evangelism.
Television general no doubt made its impact.
18
Based in Queensland it was convened by the Rev Frank Whyte.
19 The "Paraphemalia" working group submitted
a Report to the Joint Constitution Council (of the Uniting Church in formation)
on 2nd September l975. Basically it recommended the use of the alb and a blue
scarf. I have no record of any action taken on it by the Council. A
"position paper' written by me was prepared and circulated through the
Assembly Commission on Liturgy about 1979 (my copies have no date). The paper
described the proper use of traditional dress (black gown etc.), but recommended
alb and blue scarf or stoles in liturgical colours. The Commission adopted the
suggested guidelines and this seems to be the document which influenced those
who adopted the new forms of dress. A modified form was produced by the
Commission in l983. It added the suggestion of a pectoral cross. The issue was
discussed again in l992 by the new Commission based in Queensland, but no major
modifications were made. The present guidelines were dated 11th
November 1992.
20.
See Gilbert Cope,
art. cit. P. 365
21.
This is in line with the church's view of authority (e.g. on the use of
particular liturgical books). It perhaps underestimates the impact on
congregations of what is worn by ministers. It may be a secondary matter, but it
is one of the most notable aspects of public leadership, visible on the most
frequent occasions when ministers are professionally at work.
22.
It is assumed that the garment will be plain. i.e. without decoration.
Certainly, modern Roman albs (as with their ancestors') occasionally have some
embroidery at the sleeve or hem. Women (and some men) may indeed prefer to break
the starkness of the white, but in our tradition, plainness is surely
preferable, stark or not. Is the Uniting Church ready for elaboration?
23 The cassock is mentioned as an example of the earlier
tradition: some Presbyterians and Methodists had adopted it as a basic garment.
It had the advantage of being plain and suitably clerical-looking [though its
use was not confined to the clergy). Obviously in warn weather such a garment is
unnecessary and uncomfortable; but it may well continue to have a use; and
practically an alb sits well over it. If there is any value to formal clerical
street-dress (e.g. a moderator on ecumenical occasions), the cassock (perhaps in
blue rather than black) is still a
candidate.
24. This is no mere sociological point. The
Scottish theologian T.F Torrence argues that “At the altar the minister or
priest acts faithfully in the name of Christ,
the incarnate Saviour, only as he lets himself be displaced by Christ,
and so fulfils his proper ministerial representation of Christ at the
Eucharist in the form of a relation ‘not I but Christ’, in which his own
self, let alone his male nature, does not come into the reckoning at all."
He draws the conclusion: "It is surely, partly at least, for that reason.
that the celebrant wears vestments [which have no reference to his sex), for he
does not act in his own significance, or in his own name, but only in the name
of God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit It is rather in the office or
"persona" with which he is clothed to act in Christ’s name that the
representation of Christ is to he recognized, not in the self of the celebrant
and certainly not in his male nature". See his The Ministry of Women,
The Hendsel Press, Edinburgh, 1992, p 12. We may ask if Torrence would extend
this point to lay persons presiding at worship. This question raises the whole
issue of what ordained ministry in the Uniting Church means. At the time of
writing this is not clear.
25
Anglicans are also used to seeing various lay ministers (organists, Choirs.
Servers etc. ) in a surplice - a development of the alb.
26
The inherited design was worn under other
garments such as the Chasuble, hence the invention of the 'Ecumenical alb"
in Europe, designed for wear as an outside garment. The traditional
neck-covering. The amice, is often incorporated into the design of the alb to
cover whatever form of collar is worn underneath.
27
The 1992 guidelines add the adjective simple"
28
Note "over the alb". There is no foundation for the practice of
wearing a scarf or stole over streets dress. It understands the nature of
special dress (why wear the secondary garment without the primary?) and it looks
odd. See also para 3.8.
29
See paras
2.11 and 2.11.1 above.
30
The l992 guidelines also provide for
the particular decoration for a moderator and president, and notes that some
presbyteries have designed alternative colours for use by their office-bearers.
31
In the Eastern Orthodox development, the sides of the stole actually meet across
the chest and are sown together, leaving a hole for the head. The Orthodox do
not usually add symbols (by applique etc. ) however; crosses and iconic motifs
may be woven into the material itself.
32
See Uniting in
Worship.
Leaders Book. pp 141-44
33
This is odd, and probably reflects the influence of charismatic thinking in the
mid-70s - that is, the work of the Holy Spirit is over-emphasized. White is
designed for Baptism – correctly in this writer’s view, since Baptism
incorporates a person into Christ (=white). 1t is also suggested for Marriage,
presumably on the biblical grounds that marriage is a symbol of the love of
Christ for the church (not, one hopes, on the sentimental parallel of the
bride's dress!). But surely the symbolic argument also applies to other uses:
confirmation has no meaning other than that of Baptism, so the use of red to
symbolize the work of the Spirit is misleading, since the Spirit is not
differently active in confirmation than in Baptism: and the setting apart for
various ministries has at least as much to do with Christ’s self-offering on
the cross (red symbolizing blood) and with the Holy Spirit (fire). The symbolism
of red (like other symbol) is not simple.
34
As we come of age in Australia there is a case for some variation of the
universal colour scheme (“universal" historically really means western
and European). We could start by seeking out greens, which, in contrast to
English or Irish greens suggest our native eucalypts. The desert also produces a
characteristic red and red-brown which might be used in stoles for Lent (the
temptations of Jesus in the desert always appears in the Lenten gospels) or
Advent (one Sunday at least of which focuses on John the Baptist, the desert
prophet). But we need to think carefully about how to balance the local and the
universal, the denominational and the ecumenical.
35
I have deliberately not said "unity', in case that implies that uniformity
is its symbol. Outside the strict canons of the Roman Church - which are now in
practical disarray - it is impossible to get a bunch of clergy to wear anything
uniform. One can only hope that they wear garments which are recognizably of
their tradition and that they wear them with dignity. The Uniting Church will
probably slowly develop a "style” as we become a distinct church. It is
too early to tell.
36
John Heath-Stubbs. The B/ue-Fly in His Head. Oxford l962; this
section is from a longer poem dealing with the use of English grammar, Ars
Poetica III.
Return
to Background Papers Page