Why Vestments?

WHY VESTMENTS?

(Preached 17/1/02 at North Mymms)

For a ghastly moment this week, I thought I would be expected to lead this service wearing jeans and T shirt.

I say this because the General Synod of the Church of England has been discussing Canon 88 which deals with the vestments that are authorised to be worn during divine worship.

In view of the church's current liberal agenda of ‘dumbing down' its doctrine and discipline (now that shows I’m getting old!), I was convinced that it would dispense with the legal requirements to wear vestments.

How wrong I was!

When it came to the vote, both the bishops and clergy voted to maintain the status quo, and the laity, but only just, voted to change the rules.

And so I shall not be shopping for a pair of jeans and a T shirt in the immediate future!

...o0o...

The argument for change was that vestments hinder the work of mission among young people.

It is the old argument I have heard so many times before as regards whether clergy should wear dog collars or not. It is suggested that it creates a barrier.

On the contrary - and don't forget I have worked for fifteen years in the secular environment of the shipping industry, amongst seafarers, and a further three years as an Industrial Chaplain in the ship construction industry, as Chaplain to the Royal Naval Dockyard in Devonport - on the contrary, I would argue that it is a valuable means of identity and can also provide a pastoral opportunity for mission.

I would find it rather deceitful to pretend to be 'one of the boys' and then drop a brick and say that I am a priest. Furthermore, it is amazing the number of people who, when they see the dog collar, will actually engage in conversation - not just to beg for money - but about some personal problem, or to ask one to pray for them.

If the dog collar creates a barrier, it may be a barrier for the person wearing it, because they are not confident in their vocation!!

Anyway, if you got rid of the dog collar, what would you have in its place?

It is rather like the old argument about school uniforms, when pupils want to get rid of their blazers, ties and trousers for an alternative 'unofficial' uniform of T shirts, jeans and sneakers.

...o0o...

Now this is not to say there is no room for change and that clergy dress should stay the same forever.

After all, the dog collar was originally a white cravat. The white all-round plastic dog collar, which I continue to wear, has more or less been replaced by the small white slip-in bit of plastic, which can be easily removed if one wants to do something one should not be doing!!

Again bishops no longer wear frock coats and gaiters - I do not know what Geoffrey Fisher, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, would make of this since he is recorded as having reprimanded Mervyn Stockwood, Bishop of Southwark, for wearing a suit at his first meeting of Bishops.

Even the black clerical stock or shirt has tended to be replaced by a light grey, blue or green shirt in recent years and, now that women have been ordained, fashion has really hit the clerical dress scene, with even more coloured and floral patterned blouses. I need hardly say that I disapprove of this since it tends to focus attention upon the wearer, rather than upon who the wearer represents.

You see I was trained in the tradition whereby clergy always wore their cassocks in the street as their everyday working overalls when in the parish, and a dark suit when out of the parish.

Again, at the risk of revealing my age, I think this is a thing of the past. I note that I am the only clergyman in the deanery who regularly continues to wear a dark suit, whilst most wear sports jackets, jeans and sweaters, and some a collar and tie instead of a dog collar.

So fashions of everyday clerical dress outside the church have changed and will doubtless continue to change in the future.

Even the Greek Orthodox Church, where change is always an anathema, have recently voted to keep their traditional appearance - beard, cassock and hats. However, they may now wear ordinary clothes when "shopping, driving or spending time with their families".

I am personally saddened that the church's visible presence, as represented by the dress of its priests is not always apparent in society nowadays, and I often wonder whether this is a sign of a loss of nerve.

...o0o...

But the debate this week was not about clerical dress outside the church, but inside the church.

As you know, the vestments worn by clergy when performing liturgical and other services, developed from the secular dress of the day. However, when the secular dress began to change in the 4th century, the church's dress did not. Between the 10th century and the 13th century the surplice replaced the alb; the chasuble came to be used exclusively for the Eucharist, and bishops enhanced their importance with mitres and gloves.

The rubric, or rules, in the Prayer Book of 1549, provided for a cope or vestments to be worn at the Eucharist. Though this was withdrawn in 1552, it was restored in 1662. However, the use of vestments declined over the following two centuries before it was revived in the middle of the 19th century. Whilst there was some doubt as regards the legality of their use, this was made clear in the revision of the Canons of the Church of England in 1969.

This states that "the Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversity of vesture".

The Canon lays down that "At the Holy Communion the presiding minister shall wear either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole. When a stole is worn other customary vestments may be added".

And "at Morning and Evening Prayer on Sundays the minister shall normally wear a surplice or alb, with scarf or stole", and "at the Occasional Offices the minister shall wear a surplice or alb with scarf or stole".

I am delighted that this Canon was not amended this past week for three reasons.

Firstly, the vestments of the church symbolise its historic character. For instance, if you look on the wall by the organ at the 14th century brass of William de Kesterne, who was Vicar of this parish between 1344 and 1361, you will note that he wore the same vestments that I wear today, some 650 years later, when he too celebrated the Eucharist.

Secondly, the vestments also symbolise the unity of the Christian church. If you go to a Roman Catholic Church or an Orthodox Church, both of whom account for the vast majority of Christians, you will find the same vestments being worn.

And thirdly, vestments seek to hide the personality of the wearer, so that the worshipper becomes focused not upon the wearer but upon the person the priest seeks to represent at worship. In other words, vestments are not fashion statements to enhance the personality of the wearer. They seek to maintain the objectivity of worship, thereby ensuring that 'Almighty God' does not become ‘all matey God’ in our desire to be relevant. It helps to prevent our worship from becoming trite and banal by maintaining a sense of dignity without pomposity.

...o0o...

And that is what all the visual aids of worship, including vestments, candles, icons, incense, music, ceremonial, bells, are all about - namely the lifting of the heart and mind to the throne of God, where our worship here on earth joins with that of angels and archangels in heaven, and we fall down upon our knees saying, "holy, holy, holy is the Lord, the God almighty." Amen.