February 28, 2007

No matter how you dress it up...

Victoria Weinstein, a Unitarian Universalist minister [obviously outside of the bounds of evangelicalism] who goes by the handle PeaceBang, has launched a fashion blog to encourage the "defrumpification of the American clergy." And in a recent Boston Globe story, Weinstein says that even though fashion isn't the greatest concern for clergy, it still matters.

I read the article and I would like to put a spin on this.

Though Weinstein's advice is decent, especially to her target group of women ministers, her comments have implications. And I'm sure Weinstein's aim is not to cause any overt controversy, but it raises some interesting questions...one I've heard on more than one occasion.

"Anyone who is in a position of leadership has to consider what image they're projecting...they will not be willing to hear us in the same way if we look like we walked out of 1972."

Absolutely. But the underlying statement here is "there is an accepted way to dress and if you don't dress that way, than you are projecting the wrong image."

What is the litmus test? Should there be? To me, the only 'test' is context. Consider your context and dress appropriately. If you minister in an urban area with neo-hippies, you may need to dress like you stepped out of 1972.

And what version of 1972 does she mean? Frankly, the business casual look of the 80's & 90's were the polyester suits of the 70's. But I guess by frumpy, she is not talking about that version of the 70's.

"...the problem with frumpiness isn't so much aesthetic as it is a problem of looking as though you are not paying attention to the world and that you are not part of today's world."

Maybe if you are dressing like a white collar business person for a twenty-something crowd.

The word 'frumpy' gets thrown around with the more casual look young people take. And again, in those contexts, they actually are paying attention to the world they live in.

Isn't dress a non-essential? And further, isn't a mandate on what dress is appropriate for worship extra-biblical [outside of the need for modesty]?

I see dress just like I see worship style. If the Bible does not forbid it, we have freedom to choose the best expression of it in our context as we honor the people in that context.

There seems to be an element of elitism related to the idea of one way to dress for worship. And frankly, for those that elevate it as a matter of contention, to me, it masks a deeper problem...they think that God cares about our outer appearance and that that appearance can hinder our worship of Him.

My friends, that is not the Gospel.  God cares about our hearts not our habiliments...

[HT: Church Marketing Sucks]

Brad Andrews
By Brad Andrews
Feb 28, 2007 7:34:32 PM

2 Comments

Robin Edgar

" God cares about our hearts not our habiliments. . ."

Well said Brad. You are absolutely right. Of course in that many U*Us are atheists they care not a whit about what God cares about.

"And I’m sure Weinstein’s aim is not to cause any overt controversy. . ."

Don’t be so sure of that Brad. Rev. Victoria Weinstein, aka Peacebang, has a bad habit of making outrageous statements that cause overt controversy. She deleted several of the more outrageous and controversial posts of her Peacebang "persona" just prior to the publication of the Boston Globe article. There are still a number of Peacebang posts that are of a controversial nature. Like this one by oh so "Christian" U*U minister Rev. Victoria Weinstein.

http://peacebang.blogspot.com/2005/01/please-pray-for-this-man.html

You might want to Google - Peacebang sodomy fantasy - to find evidence of a controverial post that she "memory holed" when the Boston Globe article was published.

As Rev. Weinstein says, "Anyone who is in a position of leadership has to consider what image they’re projecting. . ."

Posted by: Robin Edgar | March 01, 2007 at 09:12 PM

Pastor Nancy

Amazing timing! I am preparing for a message on 5/6/07 based upon Eph. 4:17-24, entitled: "The Makeover that really matters". It will be ironic in my congregation because I was the subject of a 'not-so-extreme makeover' sponsored by our Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper. I took lots of ribbing about it - but the truth of the matter is that while I do not feel 'frumpy' or terribly self-conscious about my clothes with people my age or older. I DO worry that my "mom-clothes" will be an obstacle for my younger hearers. I know those with whom I have a relationship will overlook my clothes (if I'm wearing something particularly 'old'), but, if the students or 20-somethings do not know me, I worry that they may disregard the message because my visual image may not connect with them/their world. My goal: get out of the way and let Christ speak...whatever it takes -

Posted by: Pastor Nancy | May 02, 2007 at 01:40 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Complexifying the Liturgy As we plan weekly worship here at Fuller Seminary, the worship interns and I have been talking quite a bit lately about three persistent and related problems. The first problem is theologically inspired boredom: we are growing weary of planning and leading the same twenty minutes of “opening exercises” every week. The dominant feature of our pre-sermon worship time is a significant chunk of music interspersed with words of welcome and perhaps a prayer or two. In the past months we’ve worked hard at intentionally selecting congregational songs that have cultural breadth, theological depth, and liturgical clarity. Still, the logistics of the service (including the architectural shape of our space) leave us with a default organizational ordo with which we are increasingly uncomfortable. It is an order that feels not blessedly simple but distressingly simplistic: songs (led by a group from the right hand side), followed by a sermon (preached by a professor from the left hand side). The other problems we’re struggling with are thematic coherence and sacramental expectation. The seminary professors who are asked to preach each week are notoriously tardy in selecting the Scripture and theme for their sermons. Thus, the chapel staff is left to plan the preparatory worship time (singing) with no clue about what we’re preparing for. This is problematic because for some in our worshiping community, the sermon is perceived as the primary locus for encountering God. The musicians, then, feel this burden: the music we sing must serve that encounter or risk total irrelevance. Or something even worse. For others in our community, music itself has taken on sacramental qualities. For these folks the primary means by which the gracious promises of God in Jesus Christ are made tangible and real is in congregational song. Like it or not, that is a lot of freight to haul with two guitars and three chords. We are keenly feeling the need to find a better way to manage expectations for meeting God in worship. In response, we have begun to experiment with an alternative ordo for our weekly gatherings. It is an arrangement that better reflects the history of campus-based worship, and one for which sacramental expectations are spread out over a broader palate of liturgical actions. What we are considering, essentially, is abandoning the songs/sermon ordo in favor of a more complex, though no less mnemonic pattern. Rooted in the structure of daily prayer followed for centuries by the precursors of academics, the medieval monks, it has four parts rather than two: praise/psalm/proclamation/prayer. Services begin with an acknowledgment of who God is, and the natural response to that knowledge, praise. Of course, praise can be fittingly expressed in a number of ways; music is just one of many options. The psalm and proclamation follow. In them we are seeking neither scriptural ground for our expressions of personal piety, nor applicatory fodder for individual exercises of Christ-like devotion. Scripture isn’t a devotional McNugget. Instead, we hope as a community in the Word to receive...
PREVIOUS POST
Congregational Imagination As we've been living in the midst of house renovations, I've been thinking about congregational imagination. A congregation's imagination is reflected in many ways: how it shapes and reshapes its worship space, how it shapes its re-telling of biblical stories and its own congregational stories, the kinds of people who are welcomed and who feel at home, and the kinds of cultic practices it considers normative. I had a pretty clear sense of the congregational imagination of the church in which I served as music director for over twenty years. The congregation had a sense of the dramatic, and this was reflected in its development of the worship space. It loved to take unusual angles in its retelling of biblical stories; it was not unusual to have worship feature a potter's wheel in the centre of the sanctuary and liturgical dance, though not frequent, was welcomed as part of normal (rather than “special” or “different”) worship. I am now in a new congregation, and am still in the process of learning the scope of its imagination. The congregation's imagination cannot, of course, be completely separated from that of its leadership. There is a kind of conversation that begins early in a pastor's (or other leader's) tenure, as congregation and pastor listen to one another, and develop what you might call an “image bank”, that treasure house of story, metaphor, symbol, visions and images with which it expresses its communal identity. Dorothy Butler Bass, in “The Practicing Church” (Herndon Virginia: The Alban Institute, 2004) writes (p.5) that “…the pastoral imagination works in tandem with…the congregational imagnination, the imagination of God's people in community.” She says (p. 47) that “(f)or their entire history, Christians have invented, recreated or adapted traditions when old patterns no longer hold sway. Thus, fluid re-traditioning is an expression of the theological imagination, as biblical tradition is lived out in community, and is an ancient practice of faith that connects Christians to their ancestors.” Part of what allows a congregation's imagination to develop is trust; trust between its leaders and the people, and among the members of the congregation. Trust is key, since imagination is a risky thing: it invites to see things differently, to try different ways of acting, and to be ready to see that God is “doing a new thing” in its midst. I have seen congregational imagination flourish and develop, becoming richer as it grows; I have also seen it shrink and wither as trust erodes and a congregation becomes fearful, wary weary, and finally unable to imagine its future or re-imagine its past. One area of congregational imagination that fascinates me is how a congregation plays. In a way similar to watching a family at play in its own home (renovated or not!), how a community celebrates when it doffs its ceremonial or denominational garb is often the congregation at its most revealing.

RonRienstra

The Typepad Team

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments