The Importance of Being Vested

Photo: Travis Dove for The Boston Globe

This past Sunday, after a visit to the local Episcopal church, I made an observation. The pastor there was a woman, and true to Episcopal form, she was garbed in a black pant-suit and clerical collar. (The fact that there was a female pastor says volumes about their views on gender and Scripture, but since the case from 1 Timothy 2 is clear-cut, I do not wish to spend time on that here.) The thought that occurred to me—and maybe I am not the first to notice this—is that I have never seen a female priest, pastor, chaplain, or bishop that wasn't dressed in full liturgical vesture during the divine service. It doesn't seem to make a difference how liberal the theology or how far removed the worship practices are from tradition; you will still see women clad in albs, stoles, chasubles, and miters. To test whether my observation was too limited to make any broad statements about female clergy in general, I entered some half-dozen Google image searches for "female priest," "female bishop," "woman pastor," etc. I scanned perhaps thousands of images, and noticed only a very few that didn't follow this formula. While this isn't a substitute for empirical data, it at least lends more than anecdotal evidence to my observation.

So, speaking as a human being, I can't help but notice patterns. And I also can't help but ask why this particular pattern exists. In church bodies that place little value on tradition, and even less on Scripture, why is it that so many still adhere to the tradition of liturgical vesture? I think there is an easy answer to this. For starters, liturgical vesture is not just an empty tradition. It is one that has assumed a great deal of symbolism over the roughly 1,800 years that it has been in use. The various parts as a whole symbolize the special calling, responsibility, and authority that God has given to ordained preachers of the Word. It means, "I am acting by God's command and on his behalf." Even many liberal denominations recognize this, and female (so-called) clergy have donned liturgical vesture to give them the semblance of legitimacy and authority, when God has not granted it.

Pastor Ski at St. Peter, Freedom WI

My second question is that if pretend pastors can see the value in liturgical vesture, why are legitimate pastors having such a hard time seeing it? Something is not counterfeited unless it has practical value. While it seems that female clergy are almost universally vested, it is becoming more and more common in confessional Lutheran circles for male pastors to go unvested. And I'm not just talking about the black Geneva gown made popular by the Reformed tradition. I'm talking about people like this clown (left). Pastors Ski and Glende, who co-founded The CORE in Appleton, Wisconsin, explain that they "work to be students of the culture." The church's motto is "Real, relevant, and relational," which apparently means dressing like Larry the Cable Guy to deliver God's Word. Why would a pastor dress like this? I looked for answers in the visitor section of the church's website. In the section about what to wear to church, they seem to equate wearing nice clothes with pretending to be perfect.

As a matter of theological interest, you are perfect, in one sense, because of what Christ has done. And this is why pastors and priests have traditionally worn a white alb. Understood correctly, dressing up for church should not be equated with snobbery or self-righteousness. I gather that many Christians see it as an act of love for the God who has clothed them in his own righteous robe. And even though the goal of this post is not to discuss what laymen should wear to church, it seems that the pastors at The CORE and other pseudo-Lutheran churches see liturgical vesture as an extension of "dressing up." They unabashedly equate traditions with legalism and snobbery.¹ And since they consider anything regarding worship an external matter and therefore an adiaphoron, they give themselves license to discard whatever they dislike.

Now, for the time being, I will grant that it is an adiaphoron, although many Christians have a gross misconception about what exactly that means. But even though God did not command his New Testament messengers to wear liturgical vesture, there are still at least three very good reasons to do so:

1. It makes a lot of sense. Judges wear uniforms. Soldiers wear uniforms. Policemen wear uniforms.  Even though policemen regularly interact with ordinary citizens, they don't dress like regular blokes unless they are undercover. (I've never heard of an undercover pastor.) Every special office has its own uniform or dress code to distinguish its members from people of other offices, and to signify the special authority it wields. Pastors have a very special authority. A pastor is not just some schmuck off the street who feels especially spiritual. In confessional Lutheran circles, pastors go through 8 years of training; Greek and Hebrew, theology, hermeneutics, exegesis, etc. They have the very solemn responsibility of caring for souls and administering the Word and Sacraments. And they bring the prayers of their congregations before God. It makes every kind of sense that they distinguish themselves visually from the laymen of the congregation, especially during the divine service. The vesture that a priest, pastor, or bishop wears symbolizes his ordination, his special, God-given authority, and his submission to God's Word. But this new breed of Lutheran pastors is the polar opposite of the counterfeit female pastors; they want to exercise their pastoral duties and authority, but without any outward semblance of legitimacy or ordination. It's like a plainclothes cop wanting to arrest people without ever having to show his badge.


2. There is ample biblical precedent. Even though the Old Testament regulations do not apply to  the New Testament church, no detail recorded in Scripture was recorded in vain. Why did God command that the priests be so elaborately garbed in ceremonial clothing? I think that reason #1 above would certainly have been as valid then as now. It also reinforced the idea that the priests were coming before a holy God. They dared not "come as they are," because God cannot tolerate sin. Today, we have largely lost the idea that we are in the presence of God during worship. We don't call on God to come our party—He calls us to his house on his terms. That idea has not changed in NT worship. In fact, Jesus reinforced it (Mt 18:20). When the Jews expelled the early Christians from the synagogues and the Christians were forced to find their own places of worship, it was in keeping with both OT precedent and with doing all things in good order (1 Cor 14:40) for them to eventually adopt their own ecclesiastical garments.


3. God works through Christian traditions. Concerning traditions, Luther wrote, "We should not discard or alter what cannot be discarded or altered on clear Scriptural authority. God is wonderful in his works. What he does not will, he clearly witnesses to in Scripture. What is not so witnessed to there, we can accept as his work. We are guiltless and he will not mislead us."² No pastor who promises to uphold the Lutheran Confessions at his ordination or installation should dispose of liturgical vesture and other church traditions unless their observance becomes sinful in itself. The reason being is that the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article XV, upholds the use of traditions as good and useful for teaching the Christian faith and for contributing "to tranquility and good order." So long as they are not "required as necessary," they ought to be kept. To my knowledge, no Christian has ever claimed that observing proper liturgical vesture merited him the forgiveness of sins. But the Apology to the AC goes even further, citing traditions as a unifying force in Christendom: "In this very assembly we have sufficiently shown that, for the sake of love, we will reluctantly observe adiaphora with others, even if such things should prove to be somewhat burdensome. We judge that the greatest possible public concord ought to be preferred to all other interests."

I am sure that further arguments could be made, but I believe these points are sufficient to make a solid case for preserving the practice of wearing liturgical vesture. While there is no biblical law commanding its use, neither is there any good reason for throwing it off. And there are many good reasons for retaining its use in our churches.

_______________

¹ That is not an assumption; it came straight from Pastor Glende's mouth.
² Carl C. Christensen, Art and the Reformation in Germany (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1979), 55.

Operation (Body of Christ Edition)

In Lutheran churches, it has become relatively commonplace to have a lay-led worship committee. Personally, I think it's a good practice. Historically, it performs some of the functions that were often carried out by the cantor. The cantor was not only responsible for conducting the choral music program,  but was himself a competent performer. He also enjoyed responsibilities such as chief music instructor, and planning the entire musical program for the liturgy. It was a very prestigious position, second only to the clergy, and was awarded only to the most skilled musicians. In some modern Lutheran parishes, they still employ a cantor.

The advantage of having a lay-led worship committee (or cantor) is that it allows one or several people to give the worship service the attention it deserves. Ideally, the result is that the liturgy, hymns, readings, and sermon become a coherent whole, rather than a patchwork. The pastor does not have to divide his attention between service planning and his pastoral duties, and the chances of an incoherent service being thrown together at the last minute are eliminated.

I've been to churches that suffered from the lack of any worship planning. In one situation, a pastor adopted a policy to let the organist pick a "wild card" hymn every Sunday, while the remainder were picked seemingly at random from the appropriate section of CW. In another, the pastor used a hymn chart that recorded how many times the congregation had sung each hymn in CW, with the policy that the congregation should never sing more than one "unfamiliar" hymn on any Sunday. The result was that they sang certain "favorite" hymns far too often, while entire sections of the hymnal remained unfamiliar to them.

But I've also been to churches where the practice of having a worship committee was torpedoed by the insistence that one person with no musical experience sit on the committee. The intent was to give the uneducated congregation a "voice" on the worship planning. But for all practical purposes, an individual who couldn't find middle C on a piano had veto power over musical selections. The result was that some beautiful Luther hymns were deemed "creepy" because they were in a minor key.

So what's the big deal? Aren't you being an elitist? Well, sort of. There are places where democracy is wholly inappropriate. Imagine if the fans determined the calls in a baseball game by means of vote. Whichever team had more fans present would obviously win every call. Or imagine making someone umpire who knew nothing about baseball. Now, this individual might claim that because he has no experience with baseball, he has no biases and is therefore more likely to make fair calls than a seasoned veteran. While that makes some sense at first glance, without any experience, he has only his instantaneous whims and emotional reactions to guide his calls.  Besides that, this person actually has no idea what a fair call is if he doesn't know the rules of baseball.

Insofar as Jesus insists that every part of the Body do the work he designed it to do (1 Cor 12:15-18), sure, I guess some might call that elitism. We aren't all called to be worship leaders, just like we aren't all called to be pastors or teachers. But anticipating the elitism objection, St. Paul continues, "On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor" (1 Cor 12:22-23). He further argues in Rom 9:21, "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"

It is not our place to ask why God didn't give us this or that talent, much less to surgically implant ourselves into a different part of the Body of Christ. Our vocation is to serve with the talents he has given only to us, in the particular niches in which he has placed us. We are not all called to be worship leaders—but we are all called to worship. Whether or not we have a "voice" in the choosing of worship music, every one of us has a voice in the worship of our Redeemer. Believe it or not, we are perfectly suited to that and every vocation by the people and circumstances that God has placed in our lives to shape and form us into his special creations. Thanks be to God! He has not only redeemed us and asked for lives of worship, but he gives us the gifts, the motivation, and the grace to perform those acts, and sanctifies them by the work of his Holy Spirit!

Stained Glass Designs Completed

After a bit of a fiasco with my computer crashing and needing its graphics card replaced, I was finally able to finish the design of the stained glass triptych for Bethany. As I talk with the glass artists about its construction, we might have to tweak some parts of the design or select different colors. But I suspect this will resemble the end product.

There was talk about switching to five panels, which would essentially send me back to square one. I tried to discourage that option, because I think the design would be less solid and unified, and the problem they were attempting to solve would probably not be solved. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Below are the revised sketches that I did...

...and the final design, colored and textured in Photoshop.

The window was designed for Bethany Lutheran College, Old Main, above the entrance facing down the hill. It was commissioned by the (high school) Class of 1952.

The Church and Motion Media

There's a lot of buzz about motion media and video these days. It's hard to find a website that doesn't have some kind of animated graphics, video, or at least a slide show. Nothing has changed overnight: it's only the latest step in the evolution of media. But technology and a consumer-driven market has accelerated the rate at which these media are evolving and the ways in which they effect our day-to-day lives.

The new media discussion has by no means bypassed the church. Mega-churches have been dressed up like a Super Bowl halftime show probably for as long as projection screens have been around. More conservative churches have been slow to jump on the big screen bandwagon, but the times are obviously changing, and even my small-town confessional Lutheran church is discussing whether (or how) to use video in the worship service. I can't answer the question myself, and I haven't found many discussions on various media in worship. But now is the best time to have them. A decade ago was probably too soon; a decade from now it will probably be too late.

With video in particular, we aren't dealing with a medium that is totally new and foreign to us—just more accessible. We can literally pull a device out of our pockets and watch Justin Bieber's latest music video, or this week's episode of our favorite network sitcom. We can access music, video, and information at any time and any place. So is it realistic that we can find these media everywhere but in church? I'm not sure yet. But it is the people who aren't sure who will probably do the important research, search the Word, and proceed cautiously into uncharted waters. We have hindsight on our side—we can learn from the successes and mistakes of other churches in dealing with new media (not just video). The two easy mistakes would be to either put up barriers and resist any form of newness, or to charge ahead without any theological direction or regard to consequences.

Yet again, I don't presume to be an expert on this subject. But since I deal with the visual arts in worship, the discussion is inevitably going to turn this direction. So perhaps I need to become more familiar with this. But for the time being, I can at least submit some observations and ask some important questions. Perhaps they will eventually help us avoid some of the many pitfalls that are lurking in the storm of new media ahead.

1. The Medium is the Message.

Marshall McLuhan is a well known philosopher of media theory, whose work became foundational to modern theories about communication media. In the 1960s, he was writing about what we now call social media—long before Facebook and Twitter were ever conceived. A foundational concept found in his work is also the title of one of his books: "The Medium is the Massage."¹. I managed to find a short interview with Shane Hipps that addressed video technology in churches, and not surprisingly, he cites McLuhan:

"The content of any medium is the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind" [McLuhan]. What he's saying is that the medium itself has a power, a bias, and a meaning regardless of what message you put through it. He's challenging the metaphor that we often assume: Media are simply pipelines, a neutral conduit through which information can be put through. I think it's crucial for Christians to begin to perceive the media forms themselves, rather than just looking at - and understanding - the content. We're too easily distracted by the content, and we miss the power of the medium.

If media are not just "neutral conduits," then this obviously raises questions: What message is the medium sending over and above the content I want to communicate? Is it possible that this message is contrary to the message of God's Word, or to the purpose of worship?

The interview that I linked to above explains how easy it is to manipulate people through video media. The reason TV commercials are so effective is that they easily stimulate the emotional functions of our brains and stifle the portions that make informed and logical decisions. Whether we intend them to or not, motion media have a high capacity for manipulating. That should make us at least very cautious in how we use them.

2. Faith Comes by Hearing the Word.

God is truly wonderful in his works. He presumably could have revealed himself to us by visions, by giving us signs in the heavens, by e-mail, or perhaps by any other hundreds of media. But he chose something so simple that it has been accessible to little children, illiterate shepherds, and professors of law, in every age since the creation. It was written down to preserve its accuracy over the millennia, but it was transmitted orally for generations. God wants us to hear his Word. Regardless of what new media will appear 50 years from now—inconceivable to us now—that truth will never change. "Faith comes by hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ" (Romans 10:17).

If McLuhan's theories are right—and I suppose they manifestly are—then any medium other than spoken word is altering or affecting the message, however unintentionally. Sometimes this cannot be avoided. We print the Bible in braille to make the Word readily accessible to the blind. We webcast or e-mail sermons to make them accessible to shut-ins. There is even a ministry that gives audio recordings of the Bible to deployed soldiers on portable USB drives. Even setting God's words and works to song has an effect on the message. Part of why God's Word is so wonderful is that it can be transmitted in so many different ways. However, we need to be aware of how the medium changes or affects the message. For instance, webcasting worship services has evolved into the phenomenon of "religion online." The result is that a person becomes a congregation of one, and can pick and choose what he wants to hear and when—just like he would surf TV channels. This touches on one of McLuhan's four "laws" of media: "What does the medium reverse into?" Hipps explains,

This means that every medium will always reverse into some form of its opposite when it is overused. So for example, when the automobile, which is designed to increase speed, is overextended or overused, it actually reverses into traffic jams and even fatalities.

We can see this law at work in "religion online." What may have been intended as an outreach with the gospel has become a crutch for laziness and consumerism. In addition, it turns the objective substance of the Word and Sacraments into little more than a subjective emotional experience. Check out these online videos (oh, the irony) by Jeff Hendrix that summarize some of the problems encountered in these media: Material Beliefs and Virtual Presence.

We are best off when worship remains what it is and always has been: Christians gathering together in one place to hear the Word proclaimed and to receive the Sacraments. Technology will never change that.

3. The Church Adapts, But Cautiously. 

The Christian Church is not inherently indisposed to using new technologies. During the Reformation, the church was busily utilizing a recent (re)invention—the printing press.² Since 1455, the Bible was being mass produced. Pamphlets were being circulated that discussed the theological issues at the heart of the reformation. Catechisms were distributed into the home for instruction. And collections of hymns were published and distributed as early as 1523.

But the earthly church isn't infallible, either, and hasn't always wielded media appropriately. For instance, medieval morality plays and pageants quite probably began in worship contexts as "liturgical drama." What began as priests enacting the gospel lesson evolved into a costumed pageant featuring bastardized parables. By the time the dramas were transitioning out of the church and into the public, they had little to do with Scripture and more to do with spectacle. Does this sound at all familiar?

Or consider another medium: sculpture. Art and theology have always enjoyed an intimate relationship in the church. When the cult of the saints was at its height in the Romanesque and Gothic periods, every church—especially those on major pilgrimage routes—boasted of gilded, bejeweled statues and reliquaries of the saints. If the medium is the message, what does the medium say about the saint being portrayed? Does a golden statue containing a bone fragment say, "This was a person who submitted himself to Christ and the gospel," or "This is a holy figure who is worthy of your worship"? An argument could be made that the medium influenced the theology of the church at least as much as the theology necessitated the medium.

Fast-forward to today. Pastors, musicians, and churches are working overtime to get video technology into the sanctuary. Some, because of a superficial desire to be seen as "with the times," and others, because they genuinely want to share the gospel in any way, shape, or form. For instance, the music group Koiné leads worship services that are a total audio/video experience, even including live sand art performances on some occasions. And from what I have seen, they appear to be very conscious that everything be as reverent and Christ-centered as possible. It would be hard for a person to go to a Koiné service and say, "This is disrespectful to God." It is that kind of caution and temperance that will make it possible to see what the liturgical potential is for these new media.

Here's another one for your consideration. What does the medium of a plastic disposable cup communicate when it contains the blood of Christ? (I am using "media" in an increasingly broad manner, I realize, but perhaps it is necessary.)

It may be that some media are not appropriate in worship ever, because of a categorical contradiction between entertainment, for instance, and Christ-centered worship. It may also be that some media will grow out of their common associations that might currently prevent them from being used in worship, as has occurred with certain instruments. (The difficulty with that thesis is that in order for something to "grow out" of its secular association, it presumably has to be used in sacred settings before that point has been reached.) And it may be that some media are appropriate in worship, but must be used cautiously. I think any medium has to be sanctified—set apart—and considered in light of Scripture before it is imported into worship. Because just like the structure, music, liturgical articles, and everything else we use in worship, it is being used for a new and special purpose. That's part of our historical understanding of being "not of the world" (John 17:16)—we don't cut-and-paste secular culture into our sacred culture of worship.

I didn't promise to provide an answer to the question of whether video is appropriate in church, and perhaps I'm not any closer to getting one. But at the very least, it cannot hurt to begin having informed discussions about new media and their use or misuse in worship. I think that with careful study of his Word and prayerful consideration, the Holy Spirit will guide our actions as he has in the past.

_______________

¹ The title is a triple pun on the words message, massage (which describes what media do to our brains), and mass-age (that is, the age of mass media).
² It is commonly overlooked that the moveable type printing press had been in use in China since the 11th century.

Stained Glass Triptych

It's been a while since I've had any liturgical projects going, so it's really nice to be working on two at the same time. Here are some preliminary sketches for a stained glass window, to be installed at Bethany Lutheran College. The design is still somewhat fluid, but the first change was to substitute the Ascension with the Resurrection. I liked the idea of making Jesus' Nativity (descending to earth) and Ascension as bookends, with the Crucifixion in the center. But the horizontal shape of the side windows was not ideal for the Ascension.

I also did a digital color study. The last step will be to finalize the sketch, resolve the colors (probably in another digital version), and produce the cartoon for the window.

Is it Appropriate for a Lutheran to Pray that the Catholics Elect a Wise Pope?

Yes. Yes it is.