"Mom, Why is Pastor Chris a Princess?"

It seems like every time I wear my robes, I get kidded (explanation: it's only been over the past year that I've begun wearing my robes for special services and occasions).  I've been called a 'gigantic marshmallow', the 'Michelin Man', 'really pretty', and a number of other things .  But what happened yesterday afternoon took the cake!

Following our final worship service yesterday, we held a special service in order to consecrate one of our leaders as a lay pastor in our congregation.  As I stepped forward to begin the service, one of the children turned to his mother and asked, "Why is Pastor Chris a Princess?"

Pretty funny, huh?  Kinda cute, don't you think?  But the comment was also innocently honest, and reminded me that SO OFTEN, I take the simple things, the little things, the common things for granted as I seek to minister and serve God's people.  All too often I let teachable moments slip past me.  And yesterday, the Lord used a precious, pure, and honest child to point out that often there are probably adults in our congregation who may also be wondering 'why' the pastor is dressed like a princess!

Ours is a post-Christian culture, and many of our people grew up never having been exposed to church stuff (like robes!).  It's not that they don't like robes -- it's actually quite the contrary (really!). Surprizingly, I'm noticing that the wearing of robes seems to 'lift' the significance of what we're doing -- whether it's baptizing/dedicating an infant, performing a wedding, or conducting a special service like yesterday's. Maybe it's because robes seem to accentuate the fact that a sacrament or ritual is being performed (i.e. something considered holy).  Yet despite all this, I can't forget the likelihood that many people (and children!) remain clueless about the symbols, vocabulary, and practices of our faith.

I guess Princess Chris had better get busy.

Comments

[Rev. Fr. Stan]

maybe you just need robes that arent as puffy. Get an alb from Autom and hang a stole around your neck. No one will say you look like a princess then. They might say Jedi, but not princess.

I think that if your robe could also be used as a mu-mu then its time to pull it all back in.

Or, just get a wand with a star on the end and just go with the whole princess thing. You'll have a big childrens church in no time. And you can use your own robe for the flannelgraph!

Whats good about Orthodox robes is that they look very sci-fi. And, as we all know, sci-fi is mostly for males. but they are shiny enough for kids.

[dave]

Chris-
I think you hit on an important topic. Not only do we need to educate people in our post-christian society in the symbols, vocabulary and practices of our faith, but we also need to teach the significance of those. We can teach the "what's" and the "how's", but if we can't connect the "why's" along with them, then we risk coming off as a dinosaur close to extinction.

[Chris]

"Or, just get a wand with a star on the end and just go with the whole princess thing. You'll have a big childrens church in no time. And you can use your own robe for the flannelgraph!"

LOL!!! I love it, Rev. Fr. Stan. Now I know why I chose those velour panels (and I thought they were only for holding my stoles in place when needed)!

[Chris]

"Not only do we need to educate people in our post-christian society in the symbols, vocabulary and practices of our faith, but we also need to teach the significance of those."

Yep, Dave. You're right.

For many churches though, this represents a paradigm shift away from a "seeker" approach which deliberately ommitted much of this.

[Carlos]

I serve a church where the danish cassock with ruff, surplice, stole and casuable (expanation) used to reign supreme and now the alb is taking over. Some of the people find the alb less then flattering (nightgownish) while the cassock is heavy and uncomfortable winter or summer (too cold outside, too hot inside). Nothing beats the cassock though, for really festive occations.

What does work is using gowns to every service. People get used to the garments more quickly. A bit like getting used to the clergical collars. Now what I REALLY want to try out is a killer Hawaiishirt with clergical collar. That should be able to raise a few eyebrows.

[Andii Bowsher]

It's probably worth remembering too that ceremonial robes are part of televisual culture: just look at programmes like "Buffy..." and see such things used as part of the ritual actions of at least some groups. We should also recall that -at least in the UK- things like weddings often see people wearing things that they would be very embarrassed to wear to work or to a meal out [morning suits in extravagant cloths and colours, for instance], so it's not like our culture has lost the idea of special clothes for special occasions. What I do think we need to do is to be prepared to think about what we do wear in the light of the wider cultural vocabulary relating to clothes. For example, I think that the cassock/alb still has resonances of religious orders and has been adopted by some 'new' religous groups for ceremonial purposes.

Practicality and context comes into it too. I used to lead a eucharistic service where the communion table was about 30cm [12"] off the floor and where I knelt using a prayer stool to preside and the other participants sat around -many on bean bags and floor cushions. My cassock-alb was positively dangerous in that context as well as being overdressed. So I tried to dress in a way that was both 'serious' but relaxed, in this case I opted for black trousers and a black roll-neck sweater over which I put a stole [which I usually put on at the start of the service as a signal that we were getting underway].

[Kevin]

One of the things lacking in the modern church is "reverence". Now, I am not syaing that we can't use the sanctuary for a fellowship hall for a pot luck dinner. But, I would never have dreamed of running in the sanctuary when I was a young child. Someone... anyone... would have snatched me up by the hair of the head and made sure I didn't do that again.

I miss some of the symbols and practices of the past that made me enter the sanctuary with an attitude of worship. A robe, a clerical collar, a choir (not a "praise band!") all can call us to an attitude of reverence and worship.

[Chris]

"What I do think we need to do is to be prepared to think about what we do wear in the light of the wider cultural vocabulary relating to clothes."

Andii, you're right. Our church's "invite card" has a pair of comfortable denim pants on the front, with the words "Church Clothes" written across the top. Although I am beginning to wear the robes for special occasions, I prefer to wear common clothing the rest of the time. Do you feel I'm wise to do so? I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts.

[Gina]

LOL

I've mentioned this before on your blog, but I get similar feelings from our wearing of veils. It's so beautiful, such a visual reminder of the clothing of the church by our Lord (I get choked up when I think of this). As well as a tactile and visual reminder of what we are gathering to do.

[Gina]

P.S. Fr. Stan, you know you love those "man muu-muus". ;)

[Carlos]

I've always been a fan of dressing up for sundays. I mean, really, what's the point of having a holy God and not look nice when going to meet in his or her house?

Yes, Chris, I think you'd be wise to lead with example here, the holy space becomes more festive when the minister wears churchgarments. The flock will accept and follow, because it's "church".

[Judy]

Hi Chris, I feel the same as Carlos in regard to adding to the occasion by the addition of a sacred symbol. I happen to be the new lay pastor that Chris consecrated Sunday, and I requested that he wear the robe. The event was very special to me and I really wanted it to seem as sacred and holy to those who joined in sharing it with us. Thanks Chris for taking that little "hit" for me. You're a real "Prince." (:)

[fdr]

To be slightly off topic, but the subject was broached.....

There is a tension, between wanting people to be comfortable in the house of God, and wanting to foster and nurture a sense of respect and "awe" for the Holy.

I think the key to this, as in all areas, is to be "hard on ourselves, and easy on others."

We Orthodox of course highlight the "sense of awe." Many Orthodox churches require men to have long sleeves, and women to have knee length or longer skirt, and head covering. "Sunday Best" is a given. YET, they then wonder why they don't get "repeat visitors." If your a woman, and your told your not welcome because your not dressed appropriately.......

On the other hand, my more "modern" Antichian Orthodox Church, has young ladies coming for communion w/ bare midriffs and exposed cleavage. This is not apporpirate either, and is a huge and sensitive problem for my pastor to deal with.

I say, we who are intitiates remember that we are in God's holy presence when we worship.....but that we are graceful and kind to those do not know better.

fdr

[Fr. Stan]

Concerning clothing:

BTW: Yes, even though because the collar is a uniform I do wear the black, in my heart my natural dress would be the Hawaiin Collar :) Now for the heavy stuff.

Its interesting that in the Aramaic Lords Prayer the phrase is read: "As in Heaven, so also on the Earth". So its important to teach on being an earthly reflection of heavenly things. Robes, incense, and so on are ALL scriptural reflections of Heavenly things. they had tunics at the time of Christ and the pagans had other kinds of clothing, but God established robes, not business suits for his worship. and they had a kind of business suit back then. Even lapels!

Modesty, not fashion should be the theme for young ladies and men. Not sensual clothing. Ridiculous modernist arguments aside. A lady can look *pretty* without looking trashy.

[Fr. Stan]

FDR said: "On the other hand, my more "modern" Antichian Orthodox Church, has young ladies coming for communion w/ bare midriffs and exposed cleavage. This is not apporpirate either, and is a huge and sensitive problem for my pastor to deal with."

I believe modest dress may already be covered in your catechism. If so, then the priest needs to direct parents to enforce that at all times, not just in church.

Obviously, clothing and headcoverings ARE big deals because of what they represent. The Headcovering DOES represent submission to spiritual authority. Paul says that explicitly. And that is why they are hated.

The robes represent covering your nakedness with Christ. That is a representation of being clothed with Christ. The White robes represent martyrdom which is death of self. Washing your old life away to live a life that is dictated by God and not your flesly desires. And that is why they are hated.

Nakedness and sensual clothing is a submission to the sinful desires of the lower animal nature of the Flesh. Its about self-power and self-exaltation. So its the opposite message of the Gospel because its effect is to tempt people into the slavery of sin. And that is why it is loved!

"Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God."

[Fr. Stan]

This is a true story:

Addai and I used to go to this Pentecostal church. And normally they are very conservative on dress. You can come in looking like a whore your first time, but after that you better have a dress :)

Anyway, there was this couple that was having a battle royale night and day. the wife was very built and played lots of games on the husband and the husband was very immature, insecure, and did his thing too.

So she would wear these dresses that were modest-ish, except that almost the whole front was cut out of them. I'm not sure how they stayed in! So you couldnt help but stare. So everyone was staring at her, which she loved, and he hated. I stared, Lord forgive me!

But frankly, a stripper would have worn more clothing to a church. So it became very akward because the whole situation was an attention magnet. I dont know how the pastor didnt look at her the entire time from the pulpit. And I dont know why the ladies didnt corner her.

All the young guys tried not to stare. not too long anyway, but you really couldnt help it. It was like the Seinfeld episode where George stared too long, but worse because it was in real life and at church. So you could get busted for being lustful, even if you were being activley enticed!

To this day I have never seen dresses like that again.

[Gina]

>>Many Orthodox churches require men to have long sleeves, and women to have knee length or longer skirt, and head covering.<<

Is this an Old Believer church or something?

The Copts are pretty accepting. No one has to wear a veil unless you're taking a communion, even the regulars, and women wear pants. Usually dressy, but the youth sometimes wear jeans. I've never seen anything risque', but I imagine Egyptian fathers would put the smackdown on such things anyway. :)

[Mark Eberly]

Maybe we all should go back to biblical dress. I mean, way back to the garden. You know, birthday suits and all. Well, maybe that is what the woman in Fr. Stan's story was trying to do (getting busted at church for lusting, that's funny! It sounds like a good idea for a video project.). Well, maybe we shouldn't really go THERE. Then again, maybe our other sins (overeating, etc.) might be harder to cover up.

Most of the comments about clothes and collars and robes really reflect cultural values (some of which have been adopted by the religious folk). Did God really dictate a specific robe for the high priest because it reflected heaven or did God use common practice of the time to set a part a particular style of dress? The first "holy" outfit was a set of animals skins. Since God made those, maybe we should too. Ties, dresses, coats, pants... Euro-American culture. Robes... middle eastern culture. (although I think the orthodox tradition seems to have much deeper meaning than most of us Protestants).

"Nakedness and sensual clothing is a submission to the sinful desires of the lower animal nature of the Flesh"
Maybe sensual clothing because it is clothing that makes a statement. But nakedness itself, I don't but it.

Lastly, wearing the robe is symbol (as many have said). The right reason was because Judy found it extremely meaningful and powerful for Chris to do so as she consecrated herself for ministry. Amen! Hallelujah!

Oh well, this is the last... maybe some of us just have mu-mu envy and we should just get over it or see a therapist.

In Christ,
Mark

PS Chris, maybe you should rename this the Princess Blog and someone can make a movie.

[Liam]

I grew up in an conservative evangelical church where as a member of the (liberal - which was a label we didnt embrace) youth group who all sat on one side of the church (the kind of generational relationship in most churches) and I used to stand up for dressing however you liked in response to older people in the church, this being said I was fighting for the right to wear jeans and a t shirt instead of a business suit.

Anyway not being hugely old now, Im involved in a church plant where Im doing things up the front and one sunday it seems I wasnt wearing appropriate clothing (My Jeans had a bit of wear and weren't smart enough)

And my point in arguing for all these is that when I went to that church as I was growing up, I went before I became a Christian, and the fact everyone around me was wearing business suits (even though for most of them it was the only time in th week when they would) just allowed me to disconnect, and regard them as phoneys (even though as I grew up some of them ended up being some of the most respected people in my life)

Clothing for me was a barrier to the gospel (along with the hardness of my heart and a whole string of other things) But I feel like when I read the gospels all I see Jesus doing is making the kingdom accesible to the down trodden, and condemning religion (see the beatitudes).

God sees me when I talk to him in the shower so I dont thing he needs me to get dressed up to meet with me in church. Real reverence and awe is in the heart and the was that is before God, not how I look on the outside.

Obviously Im not denying that its a pastoral problem when a" stripper would have worn more clothing to a church", this was obviously a character and marriage issue.

For me if anything now that Im involved in ministering or however you like to describe it on sundays I would try and be smart to come under the authority of the leaders in the church that require that, but if anything I would dress less smartly than the religion in me wants to dress, so that if someone came in they could look and say look theres a normal person, someone whose genuine!

This is what has lacked so long, a feeling of openess that were not perfect, a genuine real spirituality and these are the things I think that make the Gospel credible and accesible.

Just some thoughts
Blessings
Liam

[fdr]

FSI believe modest dress may already be covered in your catechism. If so, then the priest needs to direct parents to enforce that at all times, not just in church.
True, but when you are a new priest you have to pick your battles. My point is, it is not a very easy position to be in, not that there isn;[t a standard to be striven for.

Gina:Is this an Old Believer church or something?
No. Some jursidictions are more liberal then others, as are some parishes. But generally, you would rather be properly attired in a Serbian or ROCOR parish, and are more likely to get away with being "casual" in an GOA or Antiochian parish.....with perhaps the rest in between or varying more from parish to pariish....

[Andii Bowsher]

We seem to have seen a lot of the case for formal sanctuary wear. Let's recall that the issue is also of what kinds of cultural inferences are made by whom about what is worn. One person's 'transcendance' is another's "distance". Robes can bespeak bad news for the person who needs to receive and indwell the message that God accepts and loves them 'as they are' or that the gospel can be expressed and lived in their culture. Holey [vs holy] jeans can bespeak bad news for those who need to grab hold of the otherness of God and the beauty of holiness. I can't find it in my heart to 'anathmatise' either approach, only to contextualise. Both seek, at their best, to witness to some aspect of God; and at their worst to misrepresent God. And the difference is very often the context.

God looks at the heart and honours the reverence of dressing up or the intimacy of dressing down. God sees us in both modes anyhow, and loves us in both modes and naked! Our decisions on what should be worn need to be informed by the values that we would be expressing in our cultural setting, which means that, provided our heart is right before God, we are really dealing with the issue of what our clothing is likely to convey to other humans on any particular occasion.

I would not wear anything but my cassock and surplice to a normal funeral, because not to do so would be read as making a statement and that statement, I judge, is most likely to be thought to be somewhat disrespectful to the deceased and to the chief mourners. On the other hand, I can conceive of situation when that might not be the case but in any case, dressing in a way that does not disrespect the main human actors in the liturgical drama, would be one of the primary drivers of the decision. Even the relatively unchurched would probably see it in that kind of way. On the other hand, for more ordinary occasions, they would probably find too much formality off putting...

[Fr. Stan]

Andii said: "On the other hand, I can conceive of situation when that might not be the case but in any case, dressing in a way that does not disrespect the main human actors in the liturgical drama, would be one of the primary drivers of the decision."

I thought that liturgy is an order of worship, and that in worship we yield ourselves of our own tastes to please God with our Worship. If it isnt worship, then what is it? A Drama?

God inhabits the praises of His people. From an orthodox perspective our worship is a participation in Heavenly worship since God inhabits it. And in heaven they wear robes.

Intimacy is not an issue in worship, because the purpose of our worship is not our own amusement or comfort. That woulndt be worship, that would be entertainment. Intimacy is a product of worship that is genuine. And intimacy with God yields comfort.

We are, in a sense, entertaining God with our worship and the sacrifice of our daily lives. An expression of our faith is worship, since that is the purpose of humanitys creation.

If it were merely an expression of a cultural onus, then there would be no Charismatic gifts. We would just be performing worthless ritualistic magic.

[Gina]

Ties, dresses, coats, pants... Euro-American culture. Robes... middle eastern culture.
No, that's not so. At Euro-American universities, they also recognize the honor of an occasion using robes. High school graduations, weddings.

Clothing for me was a barrier to the gospel (along with the hardness of my heart and a whole string of other things) But I feel like when I read the gospels all I see Jesus doing is making the kingdom accesible to the down trodden, and condemning religion (see the beatitudes).
I hear these sorts of assertions often at places like The Ooze, regarding Jesus' "condemnation of religion." Please show me where he condemned the Jewish religion? In fact, he condemned its misuse, and revealed its essence in himself, but he most emphatically did not condemn religion.

Regarding "barriers to the gospel"- people are always going to misunderstand your motives at times, no matter what you do. People can look at the youth pastor in torn jeans and think, "what a phony." Sort of how you feel when you hear white suburban kids rapping. :) You can be genuine in a robe or veil, or fake in jeans and a t-shirt.

I think a difference may be in what we perceive Sunday worship to be about. If there is no sacrament, then there's no need to treat it as something different- it's just a meeting.

[Chris]

"You can be genuine in a robe or veil, or fake in jeans and a t-shirt."

Oooo! Gina, you rock!

[Andii Bowsher]

Andii said: "On the other hand, I can conceive of situation when that might not be the case but in any case, dressing in a way that does not disrespect the main human actors in the liturgical drama, would be one of the primary drivers of the decision."
I thought that liturgy is an order of worship, and that in worship we yield ourselves of our own tastes to please God with our Worship. If it isnt worship, then what is it? A Drama?
God inhabits the praises of His people. From an orthodox perspective our worship is a participation in Heavenly worship since God inhabits it. And in heaven they wear robes.

Lot's to unpick here. "liturgy" etymologically comes from "laos" and "ergon"; the people's work. I pointed out that I was talking about the human actors. The metaphor of drama is not uncommon in Christian liturgical circles and also in anthropology. Perhaps this is not the place to talk more about that but to flag up that there is more to say with a lot of theological reflection to it. It may not be your preferred theological take, but that's another thing again. I say that not to justify but to explain somewhat.

I had also said prior to the bit quoted, that God looks at the heart and pleasing God was therefore not a matter of what we are/not wearing, primarily.

I agree about participation in the heavenly worship, but I'm not sure I can go all literalist on the robes thing. Whose robes? RC? Orthodox? Lutheran? MarThoma? Coptic? Ethiopian? [a question which is like asking which language we should be using, is it not?] ... I think that may be missing important points. God inhabits the praise of his people, not the cut of our cloth.

I repeat: I do not think God is worried as much as we sometimes are about cloth, colour or cut. Our attitude to God is surely more important followed by our relationships with our siblings in Christ [to which my point was related], followed by our right relatedness to the world around us. Those things are a piece with participating in God and the worship of God, surely?