Clerical Hang-ups!

Those of us who read the Telegraph each day may have noticed an article about a Report called "Clergy Robes and Mission Priorities". Which person or organisation that commissioned the Report is unclear, but reference is made to over four decades of certain types attempting to change the rules regarding the vesture during the liturgy of the Church, and presumably the clerical collar.

Needless to say each of these attempts stems from a particular mindset that wishes to smash the Church and rebuild it in its own image. I have seen three decades of this type of activity and at every turn the arguments are based upon the same personal hang-ups that individual clergy have. Appeals are made to "relevance in the modern age" and yet isn't it strange that the same types are always banging on about post-modernism? As Fr Austin Farrer stated, "Those who are wedded to the spirit of age are certain to be widowed in the next."

The article in yesterday's Telegraph, if accurate, shows us yet another ploy, but still stemming from the same selfish desire.

Apparently, "Garments such as the cassock and surplice are a form of "power dressing" which reinforce class divisions and prevent the wearer getting the Lord's message across." The author calls on the Church of England to allow ministers and parishioners to decide what dress code is appropriate. "The existing law, which makes robes obligatory for all, belongs to a bygone world. In the 21st century Anglican ministers must at last be given the freedom to decide their own clothing, in consultation with their congregations, based on their local setting," he said. "Robes can be a barrier to mission, a hindrance rather than a help." "Robes can be a form of power dressing - they can reinforce the divisions of a stratified society, where deference to rank and authority is key," he said.

Isn't this all simply so old hat? In the 1980's these types were all wearing similar sweaters at the altar, and prior to that would be wearing a suit and tie. This desire for modern fashion rather than the attire proper to one's office is also based on a grave misunderstanding. Vestments are designed to obscure the individual. When I stand at the altar it isn't important that Ross Northing is standing there; what is important is that a validly ordained priest is standing there. The problem is , of course, that those who write these sort of reports and make these sort of appeals have little or no understanding of the priesthood and so often see themselves as managers of local mission agencies. In reality, as priests they are there to stand before God on behalf of the people. As priests they stand as wounded healers, sinners in need of redemption, and men who are all to aware of their own unworthiness to stand in such a position. Vestments are never worn to elevate the individual and as the chasuble is placed on one's shoulders the burden of what a priest is taking up is all to apparent. It is for that reason that we pray the vesting prayers. Those prayers keep is earthed in humility and the nature of what we are about to do: "Restore to me, O Lord, the stole of immortality, which I lost in the transgression of my first parent; and although I be unworthy to draw near to your sacred mysteries yet may I obtain everlasting joy." "O Lord you have said 'My yolk is easy and my burden light', enable me to bear it so that I may obtain grace."

The best riposte I ever heard to all this humbug was by a priest in the Welsh Valleys who at the height of the miners strike in the mid-1980's recalled having to pass the pit-head every morning on his way to say Divine Office in Church. Every morning as he went past wearing his clerical collar and a suit he endured the cat-calls from the picket lines. He remarked that "It was very tempting to go home and change into mufti, and to come back pretending to be incarnational."