It is interesting to note that Exodus 28 repeatedly points out that the priestly garments are given "for glory and for beauty" and are to be skillfully made in a variety of spelendid colours.
Granted that the Lord Jesus Christ is our supreme and final High Priest and that the Old Covenant is fulfilled and the ceremonial law radically changed, how do the OT cultic laws regulate New Testament worship today?
Of course there is great glory and beauty to the New Covenant and all of it is fulfilled in Christ (2 Cor 3 springs to mind), but what are the implications for our church buildings, our clothing and our collective public worship today? Is it still appropriate to look for glory, beauty and skill on a Sunday morning?
Surely such things are not necessarily Judaizing returns to the Old Covenant shadow-lands? The Book of Revelation would suggest such symbolism in heaven and in the New Creation too. So why not a little foretaste of heaven coming on earth too?
It feels quasi-Marcionite to say that the OT no longer regulates public worship and semi-Gnostic to say that simple invisible spiritual worship is best.
Ritual, buildings and clothes would seem inevitable. Neutrality would seem impossible.
So what should it look and sound and feel and smell like?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
It might FEEL quasi-Marcionite to say the OT no longer regulates public worship:
but it isn't.
'why not a little foretaste'...you sound like the White Witch with Turkish Delight!
"Regulates" in the sense of relevantly informs rather than provides a strict unchanged blueprint, that is.
To my mind the OT at least shows, for example, that there is nothing inherently wrong with feast days and festivals in an ecclesiastical / civil calendar, for example.
I guess my question is, if this stuff was good then and is good in heaven, why is it not good now? Of course there could be good reasons why some things arent good now but were then (eg no porpitiatory sacrficies, since Jesus' once for all propitiation; no animal sacrifices since Christ our Passover lamb has been slaughtered, etc). But I'm not sure I know what these reasons are or would be?
PS. I've never really seen the attraction of Turkish Delight
Wouldn't the beauty of the high priest be seen in the NT looking to Jesus who is glorified? Why would we need a coloured cloak when we have an exalted King?
I'm not saying lovely robes are essential (we dont "NEED" them) but I do think they could be appropriate and helpful.
Yes, I agree, of course Jesus is our High Priest and there are no Aaronic / Levitical priests today.
Yet, all believers are preists. But aren't there specially "priestly" things about the pastor? Robes for all is fine by me!
I don't see why Jesus being enthroned in heaven means we dont want lovely robes. Why are lounge suits or chinos better?
Jesus sharing his glory with his people, or Jesus' people being like Jesus (in this small matter of lovely clothes), surely doesn't threaten his glory?
Surely Old Testament believers also had a glorious king (God) but they had lovely robes?
Well I have to say the conservative evangelical blue shirt + chinos uniform could be improved...
But seriously Marc: listen to yourself! Is this the result of this Federal Visionist stuff - that we start becoming interested in robes? Puhlease!
I dont really know if its a federal vision thing. In part, I guess.
In my mind its an association of things like:
creation and physicality good
OT / NT continuity
a broader Framesque view of the regulative principle
a sense of tradition and history
and the idea that we may have been too anti-Papist in the past (ie there could have been some babies thrown out with the Reformation bath water - though undoubtedly much needed to be thrown out and the Reformation was a good thing).
No neutrality - what would a Biblical culture look like?
And being attentive to the descriptions in the book of Revelation where we see such things as white robes and incense and so on.
Hope that helps?
I cant see what (in principle) the problem with robes would be?
I guess associated things might be wonderful church buildings - even if its only a rain shelter lets have a glorious one that's fitting for what we are going to do in it etc.
Michael,
It's not really a Federal Vision thing. I must say, the whole robes thing is still one on which Marc has failed to persuade me.
However, the anti-any-sort-of-robes agenda is really unique to our Anglo-Australian conservative evangelical constituency. Most other evangelical Anglicans worldwide, not to mention many orthodox conservative Presbyterians in the States find it rather odd that the pastor-teacher doesn't wear distinctive garments while leading worship on the Lord's Day.
Perhaps it's more of a Reformed vs Evangelical thing, rather than an FV thing?
Well there is a long Anglican Reformed history of opposing vestments, going back to Hooper. So it isn't just a new thing...
You are right of course about the rest of the conseverative evangelical world and robes. We can always hope they change their minds!
Advocating robes as an aesthetic rather than a didactic thing: well that might be a Leithartianism. I put the F|V reference in as a tease I guess, admittedly; but it seems to me that the influence of this movement is growing in the UK amongst some Anglicans, with rather odd (it seems to me) results.
I'm not sure its just aesthetic. I do think the pastor's office makes some kind of distinctive garments appropriate didactically.
I guess robes could make other didactic points too about special priestly / kingly service, holiness, purity etc. but in this case there would be a case for robes for all.
And again, I guess our clothing inevitably makes some kind of points - even if its just, nothing much special about me or what I / we are doing here today.
I wonder what the dress code in the New Creation will be. :)
Nude, I always thought!
I don't think we'll be nude in the new creation. Surely nudity in the original creation story is to do with immaturity/infancy rather than with sinlessness. We'll be sin-free but mature, therefore clothed.
Being clothed not naked seems to be a significant metaphor in revelation.
On the vestments thing. I too am unconvinced overall (not least because of the archaism, even if a dress code can be argued for, why does it have to be robes? Are there other ways of using colours/hats/badges?).
But I'm also unconvinced by the anti all vestments/distinctive clothing arguments either. It seems to assume to strong a relationship between vestments and high priesthood, when the bible's teaching gives us a much broader perspective from which to work, even if we only take specific clothing-related texts in view. For e.g. note the use of clothing in the symbolism of John the Baptist and Elijah/Elisha.
So, Pete, do you have any designs in mind? What would be your best guess for what minister and people should wear?
I guess some (esp. young people / newcomers to church) could be put off by it, but it seems to me that other things being equal there's at least a case for "Sunday Best"?
An idea latent in several of these comments and, I think, helpful is:
are robes really a sign of glory and beauty?
Even if we grant Mark's point that NT era Chr meetings should have a glorious and beautiul atmosphere, in the minds of many, robes don't create this. They rather make us think of buffoonish, Rowan-Atkinson-in-4-weddings style clergymen. If a minister wishes to look beautiul, or at least dignified, why should he not wear the standard smart clothes of his culture? In our culture this is perhaps the suit and tie many conservative evangelical ministers wear.
Thanks for that, Michael. I see what you mean.
I think in part it would depend whether you think cultures are neutral and interchangable. Would it make sense to speak of a Biblical culture and theology of dress? Presumably the New Creation will have such a culture? Are we meant to let the Bible determine what beauty and glory and clothing should be like? Is Exodus just reflecting the culture of the human recipients or is God telling us what pleases him irrespective of cultural situation?
Even if you think the new creation will have many cultures and many things could represent beauty and glory in different cultures, I still think it would be worth deciding if beauty and glory is part of our aim in our dress for worship or if we are intending to copy our de-Christianized culture and be as inoffensive to outsiders / newcomers as possible (for what I admit are laudable evangelistic motives of being all things to all men etc.). As you say, if you bought the beauty and glory principle culturally applied, this approach might still suggest a suit rather than chinos even if most of the congregation come looking very casual and may thing a suit a bit wierdly dressy and formal.
Post a Comment