Thread: Bad Vestments

With apologies to the queasy stomachs out there, this should provide no end of shock and comment:

Bad Vestments

As one Lutheran blogger described it, "It features the best of the worst vestments, very ecumenically. Spend a few minutes here and you will either be laughing, or crying, or laughing so hard you start crying."

The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!

All vestments are bad vestments.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

1/5th of your pics...

Let's be clear here--not MY pics. Ah'm just sayin' . . .

-----Added 8/31/2009 at 01:20:28 EST-----

Calling Chris Coldwell:

As this thread might raise the question, are copies of your edition of George Gillespie's English Popish Ceremonies still available for sale? Anyone who doesn't have a copy should think to buy one. Definitely the definitive edition.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!

That's no lady, that is Ms. Katherine Jefferts Schori, she is the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Her vestments almost always look like they came from the costume department of some movie studio in Hollywood.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.

Amen!

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.

A.W. Pink on Vestments or "Ornaments" Exodus 33:4-6

Then we read, “And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned”
Here was the first hopeful sign that the people gave. The Hebrew word for “mourn” in this passage means to sorrow or lament. The threat that Jehovah Himself would not accompany them moved Israel to deep contrition. How sad is the contrast presented in Revelation 3! There too the Lord is viewed as not being “in the midst” of His people, but outside (v. 20). Yet Laodicea is indifferent, content without Him (v. 17). When the Lord is no longer “in the midst” of His people, it is high time for them to “mourn.” “And no man did put on his ornaments. For the Lord had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, ye, are a stiff necked people:

I will come up in the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee” (vv. 4, 5). The removal of their ornaments was for the purpose of evidencing the genuineness of their contrition. Outward adornment was out of keeping with the taking of a low place before God. Con- trariwise, external attractions and displays show up the absence of that lowliness of spirit and brokenness of heart which are of great price in the sight of God. The more true spirituality declines, the more an elaborate ritual comes to the fore. All around us Christendom is putting on as many “ornaments” as possible. “And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb” (v. 6).

I proudly wear a Scottish "clergy tartan" pattern stole over my Geneva gown! It's minimal and tasteful, though some of my trouble making friends often threaten to give me one of those LGBT rainbow ones...

Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian

I proudly wear a Scottish "clergy tartan" pattern stole over my Geneva gown! It's minimal and tasteful, though some of my trouble making friends often threaten to give me one of those LGBT rainbow ones...

photo?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian

I proudly wear a Scottish "clergy tartan" pattern stole over my Geneva gown! It's minimal and tasteful, though some of my trouble making friends often threaten to give me one of those LGBT rainbow ones...

photo?

I'll grab my best Peterson pipe, don my garb and have my wife snap a photo sometime. I'm no Osteen, but no Schori either!

Originally Posted by Pergamum

The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!

There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt":

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.

Do Genevan robes count as vestments?

On the adornment issue: if adornment for worship is wrong, then why do many people wear their "Sunday best" to church?

Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.

Do Genevan robes count as vestments?

No. They are academic robes, not clearical vestments.

On the adornment issue: if adornment for worship is wrong, then why do many people wear their "Sunday best" to church?

It's a sign of respect. If you were invited to a formal state dinner, would you show up in flip flops and shorts? If you were going for a job interview with the CEO of a respected corporation, would you show up in a tank top and baggies?

Did Elton John have a yard sale???

Originally Posted by Hawaiian Puritan

There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt"

no pictures please. mixed audiences, here, you know. verbal descriptions are quite adequate.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.

Do Genevan robes count as vestments?

No. They are academic robes, not clearical vestments.

Well, if they are worn in academia, they are academic robes. If they are worn in worship, they are clerical robes.

Originally Posted by Hawaiian Puritan

Originally Posted by Pergamum

The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!

There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt":

"Do you want fries with that?"



I have visions of that creepy King mascot from the Burger King or maybe it was the McDonald's commerical. Man, that dude is creepy.

I wear my Geneva robe every Lord's Day. It is not only historical but has a traditional symbolic meaning among Calvinistic ministers, as well as others. I am wondering why something with such long standing tradition in the Reformed camp has become disdained by some of our brethren?

Yours isn't colored like a rainbow, nor does it have balloons on it, right? Genevan robes are purposely simple, as it should be, right?

Originally Posted by reformedminister

I wear my Geneva robe every Lord's Day. It is not only historical but has a traditional symbolic meaning among Calvinistic ministers, as well as others. I am wondering why something with such long standing tradition in the Reformed camp has become disdained by some of our brethren?

I don't disdain it, actually I often wear a Geneva robe. But lets be honest and call it what it really is. If worn by an academician in the academy, it is an academic robe. If worn by clergy in a worship setting it is a clerical robe. Unless one thinks worship is the academy.

Originally Posted by reformedminister

I wear my Geneva robe every Lord's Day. It is not only historical but has a traditional symbolic meaning among Calvinistic ministers, as well as others. I am wondering why something with such long standing tradition in the Reformed camp has become disdained by some of our brethren?

I agree. I also think Toby is on to something too. I wear a simple red stole over my Geneva robe. I don't think of it as a vestment, nor does anyone in the church. I realize some would, but hey.

Originally Posted by Hawaiian Puritan

Originally Posted by Pergamum

The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!

There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt":

hmm, okay. Does she do birthdays - wait that's not a clown?

-----------------------------

On another note I seen some Presbyterians ministers wear robes with stripes on the sleeve (IIRC) would this be a Geneva robe also?

I just hope that nobody is now gonna say that we should have a Christian equivalent to Mormon underwear...

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.

While OT ceremonial law is abrogated, the idea of wearing rather elaborate clerical garb goes all the way back to at least Moses and Aaron. While I do not care if someone does not (I do not think it mandatory) I would not think I have room to be critical from a direct biblical basis for being critical for a pastor to wear "vestments" so I would call them adiaphora.

The first "bad vestment" somehow reminds me of "The Happy Human", the emblem of Secular Humanists.

OK...now I'm thoroughly confused.

Do presby's wear robes??

I'm a newbie and have never seen anyone do that.

can some one point me to some good info on this whole situation?

thanks,
bob

Originally Posted by historyb

Originally Posted by Hawaiian Puritan

Originally Posted by Pergamum

The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!

There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt":

hmm, okay. Does she do birthdays - wait that's not a clown?

-----------------------------

On another note I seen some Presbyterians ministers wear robes with stripes on the sleeve (IIRC) would this be a Geneva robe also?

The stripes on the sleeves recognize that the person wearing the Geneva Gown has a D.Min or Ph.D or the equivalent-level degree.

-----Added 9/1/2009 at 07:05:24 EST-----

Originally Posted by rpavich

OK...now I'm thoroughly confused.

Do presby's wear robes??

I'm a newbie and have never seen anyone do that.

can some one point me to some good info on this whole situation?

thanks,
bob

Some Presby's wear robes. Though traditionally most if not all Presbyterian ministers wore a simple Geneva Gown in the pulpit with no adornments.

Thanks Ben,
I've seen the pictures but never connected the dots...

Interesting.

Some of the older members will have to tell you why the robe "fell out of favor" in Reformed circles in the last 50 or so years. I myself plan on wearing one when the time comes.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Yours isn't colored like a rainbow, nor does it have balloons on it, right? Genevan robes are purposely simple, as it should be, right?

It's just your basic black robe, without velveteen panels.

The Geneva gown (used always to be worn with bands) is only really now moving towards disuse in this part of Scotland.
I think it has a lot going for it - dignity, simplicity, awareness of the weight of the occasion and the office all seem to be in the wearing of it.
Also I would rather distrust the motivation behind its abandonment in some quarters.

From my understanding the Geneva robe tradition actually stems from the fact that John Calvin, since he wasn't actually ordained, wore his doctoral robe in the pulpit. John Knox liked the idea and took it to Scotland, where it became standard practice (possibly due to the Scottish penchant for understatement and frugality).

In my opinion, there is no qualitative difference between a Genevan Gown and "Vestments." Both serve to set the minister apart from the congregation.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.

While OT ceremonial law is abrogated, the idea of wearing rather elaborate clerical garb goes all the way back to at least Moses and Aaron. While I do not care if someone does not (I do not think it mandatory) I would not think I have room to be critical from a direct biblical basis for being critical for a pastor to wear "vestments" so I would call them adiaphora.

Yes, now that the OT ceremonial law is abrogated, and our great high priest is sitting in glory, where is there any scriptural or confessional support for the pastor drawing attention to himself among the congregation? And for what reason apart from human tradition and for the glory for the one who wears them?

"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom is greater than he." Matt 11:11.

The glory of the priesthood quickly came to an end with removal of the ornaments in Exodus 33. Only the high priest wore vestments or ornaments to foreshadow the high priestly office of Christ which as now been accomplished. I do not see any requirement or allowance for any of the clergy to be drawing glory to themselves. I may be wrong, but I would like to see some scriptural support.

I will come up in the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee” (vv. 4, 5). The removal of their ornaments was for the purpose of evidencing the genuineness of their contrition. Outward adornment was out of keeping with the taking of a low place before God. Con- trariwise, external attractions and displays show up the absence of that lowliness of spirit and brokenness of heart which are of great price in the sight of God. The more true spirituality declines, the more an elaborate ritual comes to the fore. All around us Christendom is putting on as many “ornaments” as possible. “And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb” (v. 6).

I will come up in the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee” (vv. 4, 5). The removal of their ornaments was for the purpose of evidencing the genuineness of their contrition. Outward adornment was out of keeping with the taking of a low place before God. Con- trariwise, external attractions and displays show up the absence of that lowliness of spirit and brokenness of heart which are of great price in the sight of God. The more true spirituality declines, the more an elaborate ritual comes to the fore. All around us Christendom is putting on as many “ornaments” as possible. “And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb” (v. 6).

How "ornamental" is the Geneva gown, though?
Unlike the glad-rags in that hilarious "bad vestments" blog, it doesn't really have that "attractions, adornments, displays" vibe at all. It seems to me more like the complete negation of any sartorial vanity or even individuality, so as to put the office uppermost

*sigh* The Geneva Robe never really caught on with us Baptists, though I do appreciate them. Though I do think Bunyan wore one.

The Geneva gown is to be much preferred over message T-shirts, Hawaiian shirts and jeans in the pulpit (or "on the stage," as has become more common). This is one of the reasons that I went back to wearing a Geneva gown. The pulpit has been so devalued by the church today.

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.

While OT ceremonial law is abrogated, the idea of wearing rather elaborate clerical garb goes all the way back to at least Moses and Aaron. While I do not care if someone does not (I do not think it mandatory) I would not think I have room to be critical from a direct biblical basis for being critical for a pastor to wear "vestments" so I would call them adiaphora.

Brian, the major problem that I see with vestments (and I would distinguish the Genevan gown from vestments) is that too often a form of symbolism is tied to the various pieces which have no justification from Scripture and are thus a violation of the RPW. Of course, this is not a "problem" per se in denominations that do not hold to the RPW (such as those linked in the OP), and in such cases they are rightly adiaphora within those traditions, I suppose. If I am remembering my history correctly, though, this became a problem within Presbyterianism when vestments were imposed upon ministers, whose consciences were bound in such cases. If I am remembering correctly that is quite ironic since Anglicanism does not hold to the RPW but also would not consider them to be "adiaphora" either.

Originally Posted by Curt

The Geneva gown is to be much preferred over message T-shirts, Hawaiian shirts and jeans in the pulpit (or "on the stage," as has become more common). This is one of the reasons that I went back to wearing a Geneva gown. The pulpit has been so devalued by the church today.

I am sorry, but (with all due respect) I dont think we should enforce a dress code on people. I saw it said once that our "outward apperance was a reflection of our inner devotion to God" (ie if we dress up it means we love God more than those who do not dress up). I am pretty sure that is not the attitude here but I dont think we ought to impose standards that are not Biblically mandated on people. I ahve preached in jeans and t-shirt as well as in a suit and I much prefer not having to wear a suit to preach in.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by Brian Withnell

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.

While OT ceremonial law is abrogated, the idea of wearing rather elaborate clerical garb goes all the way back to at least Moses and Aaron. While I do not care if someone does not (I do not think it mandatory) I would not think I have room to be critical from a direct biblical basis for being critical for a pastor to wear "vestments" so I would call them adiaphora.

Brian, the major problem that I see with vestments (and I would distinguish the Genevan gown from vestments) is that too often a form of symbolism is tied to the various pieces which have no justification from Scripture and are thus a violation of the RPW. Of course, this is not a "problem" per se in denominations that do not hold to the RPW (such as those linked in the OP), and in such cases they are rightly adiaphora within those traditions, I suppose. If I am remembering my history correctly, though, this became a problem within Presbyterianism when vestments were imposed upon ministers, whose consciences were bound in such cases. If I am remembering correctly that is quite ironic since Anglicanism does not hold to the RPW but also would not consider them to be "adiaphora" either.

So Presbyterians should not require our pastors to wear this for worship?

Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian

So Presbyterians should not require our pastors to wear this for worship?

There is adiaphora, there is binding of conscience, there is the RPW ... but sometimes there is just bad taste.

Just because the box comes with 64 crayons and the sharpener in the back doesn't mean you have to use all of them at the same time.