The Corporatization of Ecclesial Language (and Fashion)
Is anyone else bothered by the way our denomination (and others like us) have "de-ecclesial-ized" our terminology when it comes to church hierarchy? Why have we replaced "bishop" with "District Superintendent" (and in that case, why not "district/regional manager?"), and "Archbishop" with "General Superintendent"? I mean, I KNOW why, historically (anti-Catholic backlash, etc - same reason we don't like incense and liturgies), but what does this imply, theologically?
It really follows, then, doesn't it, that we'd come to expect our pastors to wear snappy suits, rather than vestments, and talk to us like motivational mangerial types, rather than proclaim the gospel of the Word like the prophets and priests of God Almighty they are charged to be.
(And, on a pragmatic note, let us not forget: clerical robes, after the initial investment by either the church or the individual pastor, are MUCH cheaper, simpler, easier to maintain, etc, than having a closet-full of $500 suits, dozens of shirt+tie combinations, etc...)
But is this really as problematic as I oftentimes thing it might be? And is it totally unrealistic to think that we'd ever change this? Or does it even matter? Maybe I think this is a bigger deal than it really is.
It really follows, then, doesn't it, that we'd come to expect our pastors to wear snappy suits, rather than vestments, and talk to us like motivational mangerial types, rather than proclaim the gospel of the Word like the prophets and priests of God Almighty they are charged to be.
(And, on a pragmatic note, let us not forget: clerical robes, after the initial investment by either the church or the individual pastor, are MUCH cheaper, simpler, easier to maintain, etc, than having a closet-full of $500 suits, dozens of shirt+tie combinations, etc...)
But is this really as problematic as I oftentimes thing it might be? And is it totally unrealistic to think that we'd ever change this? Or does it even matter? Maybe I think this is a bigger deal than it really is.
posted by Brannon Hancock | 10:37 AM
6 Comments:
Obviously you are correct in your assertion that the "de-ecclecialization" of our church is attributed to our blatant anti-Catholic ideas. I would be led to believe that this is the main, if not only, reason we have changed the language and garb of the elder.
Theologically, it makes me think of the Protestant elevation of the priesthood of all believers. In the traditions where the clerical robes are utilized, one knows who is a member of the clergy and who is not. In our tradition, where we talk about the priesthood of all believers, a pastor dresses like most any other person in the congregation. Now within this context we have the debates about costs of suits, and why we wear suits to church at all. I, for one, do not wear suits to church simply because I do not have the money to buy them, let alone have them cleaned! With regards to price, you are correct in stating that the clerical robe is cheaper.
I like the fact that I can just look through a congregation and know who is in charge and who I can go to for questions and problems, simply by opening my eyes.
In regards to the language of church administration, I think we have, first of all, attempted to run as far away from anything Catholic as possible, and secondly, I think the American Protestant Church just mimics Corporate America. It is a managerial system of administration, and not only that, but it is a democratic system of government, which mimics our nations government.
Is it problematic? As with most all things, it can be problematic, but there is much grey area. I would love to see the clerical garb being utilized in our church during my lifetime, but as with most of our discussion on this and other blogs, it will take years to see anything we talk about come to general accepted fruition. That being said, I think the problem comes when a pastor thinks he has to have the $500 suit so as to look the part. This plays into materialism, which is a sin if indulged too far. It can hurt the pastor struggling to buy the suit, and his family who might need that money for other things. Anybody know of a church that budgets for "pastor's clothing"? If we expect the pastor to wear the "garb", then why not give him the money to purchase it?
I personally like the clerical garb of the liturgical church, but I also think of Jesus' closet of clothes. He owned what he wore and that's it. Probably a bigger deal than we need to make it, no?
By the way, we said the Apostle's Creed this morning in worship.
In jeans and a t-shirt,
Joseph
I had the thought while reading your response, J., that it's funny how things are moving (in postmodern/emergent and even some mega-church, e.g. Rob Bell, Greg Boyd, the dude that's been the news recently for "renouncing Republican politics") away from snappy suits and toward jeans and flip-flops and flannel shirts. More cost effective, to be sure, but I would argue no less "showy" in many ways: it's still a "costume"/uniform put on to make a certain impression. It's still "pretensious" to a degree, EVEN IF this is the way that pastor's personality and style would lead him to dress normally.
The point, often missed, about clerical vestments, is that they are meant to take the attention AWAY FROM the person underneath the garments and point beyond to the status of the office (priest/bishop as "icon of Christ" in the eastern tradition). Although they are fancy, often even gaudy, they are meant to be "other-worldly" and not-mundane: not the clothes we'd wear around the house or to do anything else for that matter.
But like most things, Protestants, following their Reforming forebears, have missed the point. (Although I readily admit that it was because, at the time they were "reacting" and reforming, the Catholics were sorely guilty of missing the point to a dangerous and sinful extreme.)
Brannon,
You are certainly correct that within the Church of the Nazarene there has been, and in many places there still is, very strong anti-Catholic sentiment. (This sentiment is not just a Nazarene phenomenon, but can be found in comparable proportions in other similar evangelical denominations.) I also abhor this anti-Catholicism in our church and I share your preference for the title of "bishop" rather than district superintendent, and I tend to think of my district superintendent and general superintendents as bishops and archbishops (even though they themselves don't see themselves that way).
But I'm not certain that you've fully explored the historical reasons why vestments and the traditional titles have disappeared. I don't think you could produce any convincing evidence that these losses in our heritage stem from anti-Catholic sentiments.
Early Nazarenes, particularly those in the East (Association of Pentecostal Churches), had a serious problem with the role of a bishop based on their experiences in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Many holiness separatists had left the M.E. Church because of what they perceived to be persecution of holiness advocates within the church by bishops who were opposed to the holiness movement. Methodist bishops who were opposed to the holiness movement would make life extremely difficult for pastors and congregations that advocated the experience of entire sanctification by, for example, appointing non-holiness pastors to churches with large holiness constituencies. Those who left the Methodist Episcopal church to form independent holiness congregations vowed that they would never be a part of a church that had bishops with that kind of authority, and many of them were passionately congregational in polity. This sentiment is the reason the Church of the Nazarene allows more autonomy (although not a LOT more) to the local congregation than the United Methodist Church does (particularly with respect to the local congregations' freedom to choose the pastor they want instead of having pastors appointed by the bishop). You will also want to note that, although American Methodism has always used the term bishop (against the wishes of John Wesley, who as a good Anglican priest supported the episcopacy in the Church of England--and therefore was comfortable with both the term and the idea of "bishops"--but did not want to undermine the Church of England by setting up a separate denomination), Methodists do not use the term archbishop. You will also note that the Wesleyan Church also uses the terms "district superintendent" and "general superintendent" instead of bishop, for many of the same historical reasons.
Vestments have never been used widely in the Church of the Nazarene (although there are a few pastors who do wear vestments) because of our populist and revivalistic roots. Although many United Methodist ministers now wear vestments, this was not the case in the late nineteenth century when the various antecedents of the Church of the Nazarene were leaving the Methodist Episcopal Church. So vestments were not a part of the Methodism out of which the Church of the Nazarene emerged. Furthermore, with a particular appeal to the poor, early Nazarenes were interested in both making the poor feel comfortable in their churches and in not wasting limited money resources on having fancy buildings and furnishings--and this philosophy mitigated against having ministers who wore fancy clothes (and this is also the root of the legalisms against wearing jewelry). It is true that early Nazarenes didn't have much appreciation for liturgical worship (nor did the strand of Methodism out of which the holiness movement emerged), and chances are that if they had been more liturgically-inclined they would have used vestments. But I don't think you can chalk this up to anti-Catholicism per se. The low appreciation for liturgy has more to do with an interest in allowing the Holy Spirit freedom to sweep through services--a characteristic of the revivalism that was part and parcel of the holiness movement.
If you ever get a chance, try to track down Jesse Lee's 1810 book "A Short History of the Methodists in the United States of America beginning in 1766, and continued till 1809, to which is prefixed a brief account of their rise in England in the year 1729" (you may have to look in a Methodist university library and read it on microform). Jesse Lee was a very early Methodist minister and this is one of the earliest historical accounts of the beginnings of Methodism in America. Of particular interest is his account of the selection of Asbury as a "bishop" and the responses of Thomas Coke and John Wesley, as well as the logic that lay behind the American Methodists' choice to use the term bishop. But you will be equally interested in Lee's fascinating account of how the new bishop, Francis Asbury, having just been given the title "bishop", showed up at a small Methodist church in full ecclesiastical garb befitting a bishop. The story is hysterical, and Asbury never again tried to wear the kinds of vestments Anglican bishops would normally wear. I think you'd find the same response in the early Church of the Nazarene if a district or general superintendent were to show up in ecclesiastical vestments (and it would have nothing to do with attitudes toward Roman Catholicism).
I did a quick search at NNUs Wesley Center for Applied Theology. They have Jesse Lee's book "A Short History..." online at: http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/0101-0200/HDM0118.PDF.
I'm not sure what Lee meant by "short" the text has 232 pages.
Thanks for finding that Jesse Lee book online, Hal. And it turns out that my memory was slightly off--it's been five years since I read Jesse Lee's stuff, and it appears that I slightly misremembered.
Jesse Lee's "Short History" is a classic, and it does give us a lot of information about early Methodism, including some of the issues I mentioned above. Lee's book documents the following items:
(1) The term that Wesley used (and intended American Methodists to use) was "superintendent." See p. 52 in the link Hal provided above (this is the page number in the PDF file at the Wesley site, NOT the page number in the original publication), which quotes Wesley: "I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury, to be joint superintendents, over our brethren in North America." The title "superintendent" was used during the first three years of organized American Methodism following the 1784 Christmas Conference (cf. pp. 54, 55, 71 in the PDF).
(2) Two back-to-back paragraphs (on pp. 60 and 61 of the PDF) address issues raised earlier in this discussion. The first regards liturgy, referring to the "Sunday Service" (a shortened form of the Book of Common Prayer prepared by Wesley for use by American Methodists). The Church of the Nazarene is certainly heir to the sentiment expressed by Jesse Lee in this paragraph:
"At this time the prayer book, as revised by Mr. Wesley, was introduced among us; and in large towns, and in some country places, our preachers read prayers on the Lord's day: and in some cases the preachers read part of the morning service on Wednesdays and Fridays. But some of the preachers who had been long accustomed to pray extempore, were unwilling to adopt this new plan. Being fully satisfied that they could pray better, and with more devotion while their eyes were shut, than they could with their eyes open. After a few years the prayer book was laid aside, and has never been used since in public worship."
(3) The following paragraph mentions vestments. Note that the title "superintendent" is still being used, not "bishop," so the reference is to Asbury and Coke:
"The Superintendents, and some of the Elders, introduced the custom of wearing gowns and bands, but it was opposed by many of the preachers, as well as private members, who looked upon it as needless and superfluous. Having made a stand against it, after a few years it was given up, and has never been introduced among us since."
(4) On p. 72 of the PDF, Jesse Lee tells us that it was in 1787 that the term "bishop" came into use, and he also tells us its origin:
"This was the first time that our Superintendents ever gave themselves the title of Bishops in the minutes. They changed the title themselves without the consent of the conference; and at the next conference they asked the preachers if the word Bishop might stand in the minutes; seeing that it was a scripture name, and the meaning of the word Bishop, was the same with that of Superintendents.
"Some of the preachers opposed the alteration, and wished to retain the former title; but a majority of the preachers agreed to let the word Bishop remain; and in the annual minutes for the next year the first question is, 'Who are the bishops of our church for the United States?'"
Given that it is one of the only primary documents recounting the very early years of American Methodism, Jesse Lee's "Short History" provides an invaluable window for us to look back. However, apparently I was not remembering correctly when I mentioned the story about Asbury wearing full episcopal vestments. That story is not in the "Short History."
I believe that story is instead in either Minton Thrift's "Memoir of the Rev. Jesse Lee, with Extracts from his Journals" or in Leroy Lee's "The Life and Times of Jesse Lee." Unfortunately, I don't have access to either of those titles right now. However, I did find a reference to the story in Asbury's "Journal" on the Wesley Center website. Go to http://wesley.nnu.edu/holiness_tradition/asbury_journal/vol_I/1asbury_ch14.htm and then search for "black gown, cassock, and band". This will lead you to the passage in the "Journal" that alludes to this event. The way Asbury's "Journal" is provided on the Wesley Center website can be very confusing, and it appears that the quote I'm referring to actually appears in a footnote in the published "Journal," and NOT in Asbury's "Journal" itself. At any rate, the footnote says:
"Jesse Lee, who had not attended the Christmas Conference, came from Salisbury and joined Asbury here. The party now consisted of Asbury, Henry Willis, Woolman Hickson, and Lee. Asbury was wearing 'black gown, cassock, and band,' and Lee objected to this dress as unbecoming to Methodist simplicity. Asbury laid it aside and seldom wore it again. Strickland says he wore gown and bands when he dedicated Cokesbury College, but Smith denies this. (Lee: Life and Times of Jesse Lee, 149; Strickland: The Pioneer Bishop, 163; Smith: Francis Asbury, 89, 94.)"
Hope this clears some things up and also sheds some new light on our loss of liturgy and vestments . . . .
I'm seeing this old post because of some apparent glitch in the feed (they all showed up as "new" recently in my reeder). Anyway...
I'm curious... What makes the word "bishop" a more spiritual or religious translation of the Greek "episkopos" and "superintendent" more secular or corporatized? Is it just tradition?
What makes the "traditional" clerical vestments spiritual? Weren't they just carried over from earlier times? Protestant vestments derive from Reformation-era academic robes, don't they? Nothing inherently spiritual about that. I'm not sure where the earlier vestments came from, but it's not like they were God-ordained... unless you reach all the way back to the OT priesthood, which seems to be a bit theologically problematic.
Just some thoughts from a pastor on a Tuesday afternoon...
Post a Comment
<< Home