Are We What We Wear?
March 15, 2006
The world we live in is generally not a place were people can wear (or
not wear) whatever they like whenever they like, wherever they like. As far as I am able to observe, today's culture doesn't really struggle
with various and appropriate standards for dress -- especially in the
business world.
.
FDR's recent comment on my post, "Why is Pastor Chris a Princess", has got me thinking about clothes -- what we choose to wear to our worship services and gatherings, and what we choose not to wear:
.
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.
He goes on to say that:
I think the key to this, as in all areas, is to be "hard on ourselves, and easy on others."
Which leads me to the following questions: "Are we what we wear?" To what extent does is what we wear an expression of who we are, what we value, where we've been, and where we're headed?
And those questions lead me to an entirely different set of questions: Why did God provide such detailed instructions in the Old Testament concerning the robes of priests? Why did Jesus apparently wear an expensive robe? Apart from cultural peculiarities, why does Paul draw a connection for the Corinthians between earthly attire and what it says to angels?
And finally, we obvioulsy live in the age of Individualism -- what impact has this had on the Church's standards and guidelines for dress in the modern world? Does none of this matter anyway? Or are there lessons to learn, and if so -- what are they?
.
Photo credit: Google images
Are we what we physically wear? I will say 'no'. Thoughts that come to mind are two fold. Jesus looks at the heart not the outward appearance.
and while 'vestments' and 'professional christian clothes' can be teaching tools and make a point, they are only images of the reality that we are naked and poor, unless clothed in the Garments Christ provides.
God's Peace
LYB
Seraphim
Posted by: Seraphim | March 16, 2006 at 07:04 AM
Clothes really do lay bare the fact that western individualism is a Myth [in the Roland Barthes sense of a story that hides an ideology]. The ideology says we are individuals entire unto ourselves. The story we tell ourselves is that we wear clothes to express ourselves. This is not really true, though, is it? -We wear clothes for other people. For clothes to express 'us', we need to have other people who will receive and correctly-enough decode the message that the clothes encode. So clothes-wearing is an inescapably social exercise as soon as you get beyond simple 'personal climate control'.
So the reality is that we wear clothes as a dialogue with those around us. Sometimes that dialogue will involve similarity [chorus: "Yes, we are all individuals" -to take a phrase from 'Life of Brian'] and sometimes we assert degrees of dissent from those around us. Most of the time we are fine tuning ourselves on a scale between conformity and dissent.
My question then is about what dimensions of conformity and dissent are being played out in churches and how do those relate to the mores of the host culture[s]? But I don't really think that individualism truly exists, especially in the matter of clothes.
Posted by: Andii Bowsher | March 16, 2006 at 09:40 AM
Clothes were an expression of our aspirations in the Victorian and early-Industrial eras. The advent of the middle class, saw regular Joes dressing up for church in order to impress and demonstrate that they were "moving on up!" Prior to that, most just wore the other set of clothes, the one's they hadn't been wearing in the field all day. The rich, of course, have always used clothing to differentiate themselves; the extravegance and delicacy of the attire demonstrated visibly that they didn't have to labour like the poor.
Don't see how too much has fundimentally changed. Clothes still express aspirations for many.
Posted by: Bald Man | March 17, 2006 at 06:46 AM
It is said that in America Levi's dont show your prosperity. Its how many pairs you own that do.
I agree that rugged individualism is just a fantasy. If people liked it then why do we keep building so many cities? If its good for adults then why isnt it good for babies? Yet, we know that babies taht dont get stimulation fail to fully develop and have serious problems later in life. Even other mamals have the same problem.
If you want to be a rebel then you need lots of tatoos and piercings and edgy clothing from the mall. Shirts that say "Daddy's little Slut", or "Hail Satan" (with skulls and flames on the cuffs, of course). Then you can be a rebel and a loner. Just like everyone else!
Imagine the horror when you go to church as a total rebel to establish your autonomous individualism and then you see another guy with the same tatoo and "Hail Satan" t-shirt. Wouldnt you just die from embarrasment?
Posted by: Fr. Stan | March 17, 2006 at 08:43 AM
What we wear is simply a way to express ourselves, or maybe an extenstion of ourselves. And I have to strongly disagree those who say that we are not individuals. Sure, we were created to live in community, and there has been an overemphasis on individualism, but that doesn't negate the fact that we are individuals. We are individuals in community.
Posted by: Benjy | March 17, 2006 at 11:29 AM
There is something to be said for the message that the clothes we wear sends. Aside from writing on t-shirts. We judge, and are judged, based on clothing and outward appearance. You may know nothing about the girl with her hair dyed black, dressed all in black with silver jewelry and purple eyeshadow, but I bet you are going to at least instinctively and initially form an opinion about what kind of person she is and how trustworthy she is.
I find the ceremonial robe question particularly interesting. In churches that use them, generally the priest or minister wears the robes and the rest of the population is dressed in "normal" clothes. A distinction perhaps to who is performing the ceremony and who is observing. I have had occasion to go to churches for weddings and funerals and the like, and I must say that the robes of the priests disturb me. Not because they where them, but that they are the only ones. Like they are elevated above the observers as they alone officiate.
Perhaps that is because in many of the circles I have gathered in or observed, all of those taking part wore ceremonial robes, or none did.
The only variation I have personally noted in this was a question of whether or not anything was to be worn under them. A moot point, since nobody was planning on checking.
Posted by: Wanderer | March 17, 2006 at 07:40 PM
Robes have a litrugical function, they aren't simply 'church drag'. At least that's the case in traditions which emply them as part of an ancient liturgical worship.
Posted by: Ray | March 18, 2006 at 07:15 AM
What's more interesting in some ways are the discussion about what is 'appropriate' in Church. This seems to imply a compartmentalization of Church par excellence. Something can certainly be said to be more suited to certain occasions, but more 'appropriate'? It's as if you're allowed to dress like whores and gigallos when you're not in Church, but not in God's house! Seesh
Posted by: Ray | March 18, 2006 at 07:17 AM
..It's as if you're allowed to dress like whores and gigallos when you're not in Church, but not in God's house! Seesh
Dont be hatin' the playaz Ray! its HaRd to be a PimP noahdaze
Posted by: Fr. Stan | March 19, 2006 at 06:15 PM
I must say that the robes of the priests disturb me. Not because they where them, but that they are the only ones.
Perhapse the problem is that you dont understand what you are seeing. If you didnt look at it though indivudualist libertarian egalitarianist eyes, then what would you see?
Posted by: Fr. Stan | March 19, 2006 at 06:18 PM
"I find the ceremonial robe question particularly interesting. In churches that use them, generally the priest or minister wears the robes and the rest of the population is dressed in "normal" clothes. A distinction perhaps to who is performing the ceremony and who is observing."
Wanderer, your comments make me think of the "priesthood of all believers". And yet, I'm not so sure we should jump to characterize the scenario you've posed as one of "performer - observer." Perhaps we should consider viewing it differently -- maybe as "leader - follower" or "inspirer - responder"?
Posted by: Chris | March 19, 2006 at 08:02 PM
"Like they are elevated above the observers as they alone officiate."
Again, Wanderer -- why don't all guests in attendance at weddings wear tuxs and gowns? The bride and groom do? Let's all be equal, right?
No. There's something special and set apart about the bride and groom that makes it appropriate for them to dress and BE more important than everyone else in attendance. And the same could be said of the one leading and consecrating their wedding. Is that so far of a stretch?
Posted by: Chris | March 19, 2006 at 08:06 PM