CEEC HOSTS SERVICES FOR CLERGY
AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO CHRISM MASS SERVICES IN DIOCESES
The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) is inviting clergy to attend an ‘Affirmation of Ordination Vows’ Service as an alternative to the often called ‘Chrism Mass’ held in dioceses on Maundy Thursday.
John Dunnett, National Director, Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), said: “With their ongoing concerns with regards to Living in Love and Faith, we know that many clergy across the country feel in good conscience unable to attend the traditional Chrism Mass service in their diocese. So we are offering two alternative services, in keeping with the Alliance’s construction of the de facto parallel province.”
CEEC invites all clergy who EITHER feel unable to attend the service in their diocese to join us at one of the below AND/OR those who are attending their diocesan service to join us in addition to attending in their diocese to stand with us at this time.
_____________________
ONLINE/ZOOM SERVICE ON TUESDAY 15 APRIL AT 12 NOON
This will be led by Bishop Julian Henderson and Bishop Keith Sinclair.
Please click the button below to join the service – no need to book.
_____________________
IN-PERSON SERVICE ON WEDNESDAY 16 APRIL AT 19.30 IN LONDON AT ST JAMES THE LESS, PIMLICO, SW1V 2PS
This will be led by Bishop Pete Broadbent.
This is being coordinated by LonDEN (London DEF) but clergy/lay people are welcome from other dioceses.
No need to book – simply turn up.
Schism is a very terrible thing.
Agreed. Look how they love one another.
said the Roman Catholic to the Anglican
We no longer live in the 16th Century….or do we?
Conservative Evangelicals organising their own Chrism Masses must surely be proof of the ecumenical nature of the Church of England.
I do not think in their understanding of the sacrament they will be organising their own Chrism Mass or even Chrism Eucharist as part of the nub of the problem is that to Conservative Evangelicals any public event held at Diocesan level that uses the word Mass or even the word Eucharist is unacceptable to them, they will only accept it if the words Holy Communion or Lord’s Supper is used and I think Conservative Evangelicals will not accept any form of public Sacramental worship that involves blessings of Oils as they do not recognise Healing as a Sacrament, Confirmation… Read more »
Another amputation within the Body of Christ. Once traditional Catholics went their own way we all lost something on the one occasion when priests model the collegial nature of their ministry and gather, with the deacons, around their bishop and she speaks directly to them.
While I’m conflicted about the renewal of vows – unlike the blessing of oils, a novelty – yet sitting just once a year in my mother church with some who think and act very differently from me was a powerful reminder of the messy reality of the Church. Kyrie eleison.
Thanks for your reply, very good
There was a time about 50 years when we seemed to rub along with our differing perceptions. One of our local VERY evangelical neighbours was positively enthused about collecting Oil of healing from the Diocesan Chrism Mass. The Epistle of St James was thought scriptural at that time (pace Luther).
I am sure we were happier to find reason to work together rather than seek out reasons to exclude ourselves…and that happened in both directions.
Have we joined in the business of de-platforming people if they offer a perception or use terminology which is not identical to our own?
That’s precisely not what they are doing…
“as an alternative to the often called ‘Chrism Mass’
How truly dreadful.
It’s strange. I have not been following the history of this. But it seems that Bishop Broadbent is fine with women bishops, but not with ordained same sex partnerships.
How does he distinguish these two cases? On the basis of scripture, reason, or tradition?
Perhaps he could become a flying bishop for those who disapprove of gay people.
Perhaps he could just retire and live quietly somewhere?
I thought +Pete had retired. Clearly he wants to do more than tend the garden!
Yes, that was my point! I think it would be better if retired church leaders shunned further limelight.
I may be wrong, but wasn’t +Pete one of those Conservative Evangelicals who was commissioned to be (effectively) flying bishops last year by the big posh schismatic churches in the City of London.
He blessed some ‘overseers’ at a commissioning service for right-wing conservatives at All Souls Langham Place. +Broadbent once had a reputation as an anti-monarchist.socialist (he once described His Majesty and Princess Diana as “Big Ears and the porcelain doll“). It’s strange how he has become a cheerleader for the Trumpian wing of the Church.
The pathway via homophobia and transphobia to the far right is a well-trodden one (and, one might hazard, “paved with good intentions”).
Broadbent is not unusual in this: David Watson, Michael Green, Nicky Gumbel, Ian Paul, Andrew Goddard, Amy Orr-Ewing, Jill Duff…
A good scholarly paper–it wouldn’t be that hard to do–could show all the places where appeal to “on the basis of scripture, reason, or tradition” occurred as some sort of Anglican touchstone over the past five centuries. I suspect even Hooker–who didn’t speak of them as equal independent sources for anything–would be stunned at the mid-twentieth century launch of something he mentioned in passing. And never deployed by him in any systematic fashion in Laws, in the manner now being suggested.
As for Bishop Broadbent, I suspect he has thought and prayed hard about his position.
This really is a new one on me. A schismatic online/zoom Act of Worship. Glad that a) I’m a technophobe and b) I don’t live in London so I won’t be tempted to join in either. Quite what +Broadbent thinks he’s up to having managed to serve with relative collegiality for some years is beyond understanding.
What’s so difficult to understand about so called revisionist bishops breaking their oath to uphold the doctrine of the church? What is beyond understanding is the idea that they can renew their oath whilst continuing to break it. Think about it.
What’s so difficult about understanding that: 1. the whole LLF process was a discernment work by the whole church and agreed by tortuous synodical process? Continually trying to pin this all on a group of ‘revisionist’ bishops is a compete distortion. And 2. faithfully upholding the doctrine of the church is not, and never has been, an inflexible, uncritical allegiance to an unchanging, historic set of beliefs, set in stone forever. That too needs thinking about.
1, True, but it’s the revisionist bishops who will be renewing an oath that they themselves have broken, and continue to break.
2.Also true, but there is a process of changing church doctrine, Canon B2, to try to preserve unity.
Defining the specific doctrine of Church of England per se is a bit like trying to nail a jelly to a wall.
I think it was Archbishop Michael Ramsey who said that the doctrine of the Church of England was that of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church.
One supposes progressives would be less happy with that thought than conservatives.
I don’t think that is necessarily the case.
Nasty word that, ‘doctrine.’
Was it not ++Fisher who said that the C.of E. had no doctrine of her own?
That depends on whether your premise reflects the reality of the situation. I just don’t agree.
Remind me, which bishop was suspended from ministry for saying that the present Prince and Princess of Wales’ marriage would not last seven years? Next month William and Kate will celebrate their fourteenth wedding anniversary.
I’m sure someone will know … do any of these retirees (with pensions, I’m sure, though it is of course a complete coincidence that they played (more or less) by the rules when still in stipendary ministry) enjoy a license of any sort in the C of E? If so, one trusts that their bishop/s will be withdrawing same. (Grins ruefully.)
All three are honorary assistant bishops, Broadbent in London, Henderson in Chichester and Sinclair in Manchester. You can find them in the Church of England’s official National Register of Clergy, although you will need to know that Sinclair’s first name is Gordon.
The National Register of Clergy … something sensational to read on the train, to quote Wilde.
Why not believe them that they are sincere in their belief that the Church of England stands on the brink of a precipice? You don’t have to agree. Instead you accuse them of keeping the rules until there was no financial risk to them, suggesting that they love money, not the church. I have never met any of them, but I suspect that if they loved money then they might have chosen a different career. There really isn’t much personal upside in spending your retirement taking a very unpopular position that brings social disgrace. I think they (a) believe that God… Read more »
Being loved by a small clique has its attractions, even if it means being given the cold shoulder by others (“social disgrace” is surely stretching it), compared with fading into obscure dotage. It is, however, not particularly courageous to discover one’s principles only once one’s personal finances are secure. It’s understandable, but it’s not courage.
He’s been pretty consistent to be fair, unlike the revisionist bishops who have betrayed their oath to uphold the doctrine of the C of E.
So just a matter of hours after I, once again, sought to challenge and engage in discussion with you on your views of doctrine and bishops you simply repeat your name calling again. You seem quite unable, or unwilling, to accept the possible integrity of any theologist/doctrinal viewpoint other than your own, and your own particular conservative tradition. So I am really not sure what you are hoping to achieve here at all. Just attaching pejorative labels to people is not usually a helpful way of encouraging a change of viewpoint. So I think I will leave it.
I misread the notice for the 16 April service as “In Prison”….
As a former conservative evangelical, I’m surprised they see the need.
Chrism masses used not to be universal in the C of E. When I was a curate in Bradford (1980s) the diocese didn’t hold one. In fact, I’ve never attended one.
I had never heard of them, but then I am not a member of the clergy.
The Maundy Thursday Chrism service was a wonderful and happy occasion for a very united and joyous, albeit diverse, gathering of Southwark Diocese in the early 1970s.
Some insisted on wearing black scarves, but heigh ho, we were all together collegially with our very diverse bunch of bishops.
I would be very surprised if the Diocese of Bradford had none at all. Currently life is full of surprises and deep disappointments,
Bradford Diocese definitely didn’t have a chrism mass in the late 1980s when I was there. I was cathedral chaplain so would certainly have known. It was largely an evangelical diocese, and the cathedral didn’t have reserved sacrament either.
Why shouldn’t clergy have worn black scarves to the Southwark chrism service? It’s traditional clergy dress.
The Chrism Mass is,of course, a eucharistic celebration, where most clergy, by a very large majority would wear a stole, so yes black scarfe and hood is traditional, but not the norm, even I suspect in the ex diocese of Bradford, where the eucharist is concerned.
Black scarf and hood used to be traditional even for communion services – certainly among evangelicals, but I think more widely, too. Didn’t stoles come in with the Oxford Movement in the latter 19th century? When I was at Wycliffe in the mid 80s, many of my fellow students vowed never to wear a stole on any occasion. It was a bit of a joke that most of us used much of our robing grant to buy books, since the only robes we needed were cassock, surplice, scarf, and hood. That was what we wore for eucharists at Bradford Cathedral,… Read more »
I think with the development in recent years of a movement of open Evangelicals, many Hood and scarf evangelicals started wearing Albs and Stoles for Sacramental celebrations and retained Hood and Scarf for Non Sacramental functions, some of them even started wearing full Eucharistic Vestments, when officiating in Churches outside their traditions that wore vestments. Alb and stole certainly seems to cross the boundaries of churchmanships and is seen as an Ecumenical form of Vesture and in recent years we have seen Church of Scotland and Methodist Ministers as well as Roman Catholic Priests wearing Alb and Stole, or wearing… Read more »
Are there any websites or resources explaining what albs, stoles, hoods, scarves etc are, which might help us laymen to follow this debate.
Thank you
Try Wikipedia. I’ve copied part of an article below, it’s pretty comprehensive.
Might it also be helpful to understand the symbolism of the eucharistic vestments? Surely this remains useful, no matter which of the “three churches” one belongs to?
https://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/VestingPrayers.html
Yes, it’s a recent development. When I was ordained deacon in 1987, I thought cassock, surplice etc were the only robes I’d ever wear. In my second curacy (evangelical charismatic), clergy wore cassock alb and stole. By my third post, in a parish of moderate churchmanship, I was in cassock alb, stole, and chasuble. I bought my own stoles in stages over the latter half of the 90s. I think this progression has been reasonably common among open evangelicals – except those who wear only street clothes, and conservatives who stick to cassock and surplice. One aspect of the ordination… Read more »
I really don’t want to get deeply into the dressing up box but you may find the odd stole around before schism really took off.
Can’t speak for Bradford. More interested in inclusion of traditions rather than building walls of churchmanship.
Bridges are better
Saw a service from Bradford Cathedral fairly recently and it was cassock/alb and coloured stoles. Think I’m right in saying that Bradford Cathedral was/is a Parish Church Cathedral and the patrons were Simeon Trustees. Bath Abbey is also Simeon Trustees and they are full vestments. Lots of churches here (Bristol) are jeans, trainers, woolly jumpers which don’t reflect any liturgical colour.
Yes, Bradford is a parish church cathedral, and if I remember rightly has only been a cathedral 100 years or so. You’re right about Simeon Trust, too. I think cassock alb and stole is now pretty general, and TBH I think the change is a good one.
It is also rather traditional to wear a stole at a sacramental service .
Sad about Bradford Cathedral though.
Southwark Cathedral was a very happy place for all comers. Still is.
From Wikipedia: ‘During the English Reformation, the stole, along with most other sacramental vestments, were removed from the Church of England.[5] The Oxford Movement began an interest in pre-Reformation worship, and eventually the stole (along with other vestments) were revived among Anglo-Catholic clergy. Though today, it is not uncommon for a Low Church priest to wear a stole with choir dress, stricter ones may still object to its use, and wear the tippet instead. This re-introduction of the stole continued to cause concern even in the 20th century. During the 1950s, the Bishop of London, William Wand, and the Bishop of Oxford, Kenneth Kirk, refused to ordain any candidate to the priesthood… Read more »
Jolly good….let’s move on!
The Alliance is broader than conservative evangelicals.
In the Diocese where I currently serve, this will be nothing new. Most of them haven’t attended the Chrism Mass for all the years I’ve been here!!
We already regularly have a separate Chrism mass led by the Bishop of Fulham (this year on Tues 15 April at St Andrew’s Fulham) – for those who can’t affirm their ordination vows alongside female clergy. Which is truly insulting. How many more will we have in the future? This is not so much schism as shattering…
I’m astonished there isn’t a quiz at the door to check that you’re “sound”. Were I a bishop (and this is one of many reasons I’m not) I’d be considering accepting the invitation to all clergy and encouraging as many as possible to show up in Pimlico on the 16th and smile politely from the 8th row of pews. If Pete Broadbent conducts a seemly service then the unity of the church has been affirmed in spite of the attempted schism; if he chooses to make it a platform for the “Alliance”‘s gripes then he will have embarrassed himself by… Read more »
I once attended the induction of a new vicar in a FiF parish in my deanery. It was amusing to see all the FiF clergy jockeying to avoid having to process next to me.
You are charitable in calling this “amusing”. To me it sounds childish and pathetic.
Processions seem to be unfashionable these days, more often than not we were expected to amble out of the vestry and find ourselves a seat somewhere! My colleagues would often be still gossiping or on their phones as the first hymn started. Their footwear had obviously been chosen for comfort rather than clerical style. I once said “brown boots!?!” to a colleague but he couldn’t see a problem. My polished black Oxfords were considered over formal, even eccentric.
Your talk of processions brought back to me a Cathedral procession. I was grouped with all the other Rural Deans. We had been assigned one of the ,vergers to lead us in with his magic wand. He took one look at us and said ” I had hoped to be leading a more senior group!” The hiss from the assembled RDs, expressed our feelings at his comment. I can’t recall any brown shoes though.
At an Affirming Catholicism meeting in the months before the vote,a leading opponent of women priests turned up. There was no jockeying to avoid being next to him, he was straightforwardly told by a woman deacon to ‘f’ off!
That deacon was out of line. Whatever our disagreements, we should be courteous.
This Chrism Mass is being held at St Andrew’s, Holborn (not St Andrew’s, Fulham): https://www.sswsh.com/news.php
I’ll be at St Paul’s. Recent development or not, I do love the Chrism Mass:
Blest by the sun, the olive tree,
brought clusters of fair fruit to birth,
whose ripeness now we bring with prayer,
Lord Christ, redeemer of the earth.
Eternal King, look down and bless
the oil your servants offer here,
and may it be a lively sign
which all the powr’s of darkness fear
which all the pow’rs of darkness fear
I think it’s St Andrew’s Holborn, rather than Fulham, at 11am. Yes, not only insulting, but I imagine it could be psychologically harmful to women priests. To me it’s also just creepy. I remember a conservative evangelical priest in Tunbridge Wells telling me with a straight face that when women were simply priests it was fine for him, because he didn’t need to have any dealings with them. But once they became bishops he could no longer avoid interacting with them, and this was clearly distressing to him. The use of language is interesting, as ever with the two groups… Read more »
“the Alliance’s construction of the de facto parallel province.”
This is a very curious wording that appears claim something it cannot deliver. The Alliance is an association of individuals and it cannot construct another Province of the Church of England, parallel or otherwise. In any case a “parallel province” has no meaning.
De facto means acting as if there is and has.
It seems bizarre enough that a service introduced by Pope Paul VI to address disciplinary failings among RC clergy became so swiftly popular among Anglicans anyway. That CEEC should be following in the same direction is extremely entertaining. In Newcastle Diocese I was always delighted that Bishop Alec Graham blessed the oils at an early morning service in the cathedral and that was that. Definitely no Diocesan Eucharist to reaffirm ordination commitments.
Why can’t we have more reasonable and sensible bishops like Alec Graham? One of Runcie’s suffragans in the St. Albans diocese becoming a considerable Bishop of Newcastle. He was a wise and pastoral Warden during my time at Lincoln Theological College.
As indeed it was in the Diocese of London when I attended in the early 1970’s – at All Saints Margaret Street at 7.30am, the service being called Solemn Mass of the Chrism; celebrated by bishop Robert Stopford. No reaffirmation of vows, and the blessing of the oils intermingled with and after the canon of the Mass.
I believe that when Graham Leonard was Bishop of London he required his clergy to attend renewal of ordination vows at St Paul’s on Maundy Thursday on their canonical obedience.
But since when was any “renewal of ordination vows” legally or canonically required?
There might have been enough said and written about just what canonical obedience means for a postgraduate thesis to be written on the topic (perhaps one already has). Whatever it means, it goes beyond conformity to legal requirements. I believe that readers of TA who are so minded will be able to confirm that for themselves from web sources. I am of course aware of the dangers of drawing on one particular source to the exclusion of others, but in preparing this post for TA I found the below, from the Henson Journals for 1923 [1], particularly helpful. ‘[Canonical obedience] is… Read more »
“he required his clergy to attend renewal of ordination vows”
Perhaps it makes me a bad person, but when a married couple annouce a vow renewal my first thought is “which of them had the affair?” Richard II says that “Not all the water in the rough rude sea / Can wash the balm off from an anointed king”, and surely the same applies to vows?
Don’t people renew their baptismal vows on Holy Saturday? And marriage vows can be renewed in church.
Clergy in the Church of England do not take ordination vows. That language has been carelessly taken from the RC Chrism Mass as instituted by Paul VI. The RC Chrism Mass is significantly different from Anglican versions in that there is a much greater sense of real disciplinary scrutiny.
Thank you. Are you happy with ‘ordination promises’?
Thank you for mentioning this. This is why I don’t participate in this part of the service in my Diocese other than to pray. I go every year, more out of a sense of duty than anything as the Bishop seems to value it and sends out a very pointed invitation, and boycotting it isn’t a hill I choose to die on. But I don’t robe – I sit in the congregation – and I don’t do all the standing up by order of ministry to say the words. My view is I made particular promises at my ordination as… Read more »
I’m with you both on the renewal of vows and the ecclesiologically unaware way in which they have multiplied. But “having no interest” in “pretending to be some kind of great big dysfunctional Diocesan ‘family’ as my Bishop insists on calling our collegial existence”.
Thou hast set my feet in a large room: isn’t this the C of E’s calling? And the reason why factional masses/HC’s on Maundy Thursday feel so painful?
“I believe that when Graham Leonard was Bishop of London he required his clergy to attend renewal of ordination vows at St Paul’s on Maundy Thursday on their canonical obedience.” I was ordained by Graham Leonard and served my title in the Diocese as well as other posts. He certainly didn’t make attendance a matter of obedience and those services of blessing the oils and renewing ordination vows took place in the Episcopal areas during his time as Diocesan Bishop. I was Deacon at one of them in Ealing and hosted another in the Parish when I was incumbent under… Read more »
Thank you Andrew for this correction. I had in my mind when I posted that not only the statement apropos of the annual renewal of priestly vows but also an accompanying photo. I have found the photo in the Peart-Binns biography of Bishop Wand of London but not any mention of canonical obedience. So thank you again. It is a healthy forum in which mistakes can be pointed out and acknowledged. If there is any clarification in my mind of what I was previously thinking I will post it. I met Graham Leonard twice, once in England and once in… Read more »
The renewal of ordination vows can detract from the blessing of the oils, a rite which in my lifetime has helped recover holy oils from being ‘something for Father’ to setting them in front of the parish – all the more so when the oils are presented by representative lay ministers at that evening’s Maundy Thursday Eucharist. On seeing the oils aumbry with its glass cruet in Tewkesbury Abbey, I resolved to sweet-talk my PCC into getting a faculty, raising the money and installing near the font a glass-fronted and back-lit aumbry. Alas, life’s cares and my poor advocacy got… Read more »
“feel in good conscience unable…”
Ah, those delicate fee-fees. Nothing, in heaven or on Earth, may come before them! [But to dignify them as “conscience”? People die for those. In this case, you’ll just have to use Zoom…]
What, or who, in. haaven or on earth. Is a fee-fee?
Feelings. Especially when delicate.
The the Kenya Churches Handbook 1984 is a wonderful illustration of our congenital ability to fall out with one another; more, our ability to fall out with one another. The most tragic entry is the double entry under “Ruhe Holy Ghost Church”, one of the thousands of Kenyan denominations. It is a double entry because two churches claim the same name. Originally they were one, but guess what they fell out about? The doctrine of the Trinity? The divinity of Christ? The nature of the Eucharist? Something important, surely? No. They fell out over the question of whether their… Read more »
I suspect that, like the Great Schism being about the filioque, there is a bit more to it.
We are all viewing current events and those of the last few years through a lens. From one side of the lens, it looks like a splinter group within the Anglican church is producing increasing division. Those looking through the lens have badged them Conservative. From the other side of the lens, it looks as if a major part of the church is being unfaithful to its historical doctrines and thereby eroding the credibility of the Church. Those they are looking at have been badged revisionists. The revisionists through the lens see a small divisive group being unable to accommodate… Read more »
May I suggest that you cast aside the lens that leads you to think that PLF is progressive or inclusive? It is a minimal token directed at gay people, a stone given in place of bread. The fact is that many people with conservative views elsewhere in the communion have been able to live with gay couples getting married in church, and others have had the courage of their convictions and left. Only in the CofE do they seem to rend their garments over a half-measure but never actually have the courage to do what their rhetoric must surely demand… Read more »
It is not a half measure, there is no sustainable legal distinction between civil marriage and holy matrimony. If the C of E wish to bless the civil marriage of SSC then that is the same as Holy Matrimony and Canon B2 should be used to change church doctrine. But at the moment by insisting on Canon B5 the unethical revisionist bishops can’t be trusted on PLF.
That’s the point, though. Marriages are not blessed via PLF. That’s why I call it a half-measure. The blocking minority of homophobes may be the primary reason why nothing better is on offer but cowardice on the part of bishops is also a factor. What’s unethical is denying married couples the opportunity to solemnise their relationship in church based on a prejudices of a minority.
‘The Prayers of Love and Faith are offered as resources in praying with and for a same-sex couple who love one another and who wish to give thanks for and mark that love in faith before God. To celebrate in God’s presence the commitment two people have made to each other is an occasion for rejoicing. The texts are offered to express thanksgiving and hope, with prayer that those who are dedicating their life together to God may grow in faith, love and service as God’s blessing rests upon them.’
Clearly blessing SSM
Clearly (and explicitly) not.
People in SSM are not explicitly excluded from PLF that’s the point. Thus PLF makes SSM and Holy Matrimony indistinguishable in any meaningful sense.
Eh? That makes no sense. You’re saying that unless you refuse to bless same-sex couples at all (even if you’re explicitly refusing blessing of their relationship) you’re somehow blessing their marriage? Even the Pope isn’t so paranoid as to claim that.
A church blessing of a same sex marriage which has been performed in a legal non-church context. Very close to a same sex church marriage, but not the same.
Is the difference worth going to war over?
Could someone explain how clergy dressing up in robes etc advances the gospel? So many comments about what should be worn, and about ceremonies but not about salvation through faith in Christ, our Risen Saviour.
Can someone explain how evangelical ministers dressing in jeans and T-shirts to get down with the kids advances the gospel? Abolishing ceremonies is not about salvation through faith in Christ, our Risen Saviour.
How does this (in the light of Simon Eyre’s comment above) help cast aside the lens and truly try to understand one another better.
Dressing down may attract the younger generations to attend services, those attending services may also feel more comfortable. I didn’t mention abolishing ceremonies. Once again you have failed to read the comment and simply displayed your prejudices. Typical of you.
I think the idea that ditching vestments will make any positive impact on young people attending church has been tested to destruction. But it was never about that – it’s simply that you don’t like vestments so want rid by any means available.
I couldn’t care less about vestments. If people want to dress up to lead a service they can.
If you couldn’t care less, why are you bothering to comment about people wearing vestments? It was you who raised the question.
I read your comment about “dressing up” carefully. You don’t like liturgical vestments and have simply displayed your prejudices. Typical of you.
As Jay-Z sings, clothes not necessary.
https://youtu.be/j6G1uwe20wg?si=PBah6UvQNWYBUiUJ
I think we’re talking about no more than a different form of ‘dressing up’ (not my phrase). Church ‘garb’ seems to reflect that worn by the ‘leadership group’ of whichever society nurtured a given tradition. Thus Byzantine court dress (eucharistic vestments) mediæval monasticism and universities (Benedictine-style hood), legal robes (Geneva gown), C18 formal gentleman’s attire (trad Methodism) and the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship business suit all connote ‘leadership.’ If informal is the new formal, then we’re simply substituting another stylised dress code for another, are we not? Personally, I wear my black overalls and whichever vestments the church I’m… Read more »
Were you two separated at birth?
I think this American clergy robes website answers your question well
https://clergywearshop.com/a-complete-guide-to-clergy-robes/
Scripture is very explicit about these things. Sounds as if you wouldn’t have fitted in very well in ancient Israel.
I dont think any of us would have fitted in. We would have to dispose of all knowledge and reason gained over the last 2 millennia.
I don’t live in the ancient Israel, and temple worship and animal sacrifices ended with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
‘I don’t live in the ancient Israel, and temple worship and animal sacrifices ended with Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.’
I’m not suggesting otherwise. But why do you think scripture required them to wear very specific clothes if it is just ‘dressing up’ as you put it.
Temple worship and animal sacrifices did not actually end with the Crucifixion. They continued for a few more decades until Roman soldiers captured Jerusalem. We may consider the two events to be close in time, but those who lived between 30 and 70 might not have thought the same.
Well that was Bob’s comment not mine. But I think the point he was making was that we don’t do that as Christians these days.
Yes. What to make of all this? The three named Bishops are clear supporters of Women’s ordination and the Vicar of St James Pimlico is the Reverend Lis Goddard! They cannot be characterised as holding views similar to the slave trade or encouraging violence against women …or can they ?