What do worship leaders wear?
This post comes from the Pilgrim Uniting Church website and was written by Rev Dr Jenny Byrnes for that community. It is published here with Jenny’s permission.
To Robe or not to Robe…?
A recent conversation alerted me to the more familiar practice within the Uniting Church in SA for clergy not to robe for leading worship.
The conversation had me reflecting on why I robe to lead formal worship and the advantages and disadvantages of wearing or not wearing liturgical dress.
The alb (long white gown that the Uniting Church suggests is worn) is representative of the baptismal gown and is appropriate for all members to wear. We could all turn up in white!
The reason why I wear it is both practical and symbolic. It is a strong reminder to me as I lead worship that I am fulfilling a responsibility that is more than me just doing and saying what I like. Rather I am to exercise discernment and leadership that is prepared and offered after reflection and engagement with the issues and concerns of the whole people of God.
I am aware that it is often seen as creating, or reinforcing, a division between people; however for me that distinction is more about a division of roles and responsibilities.
Nevertheless it is experienced as a barrier (reinforcing outdated hierarchical and power issues) with some people and on many occasions when leadership of worship is shared amongst the people it is more appropriate not to be worn.
The more practical reason for wearing the alb is that it ‘blurs’ the individuality of the leader as a personality by covering the clothing. For me it is of assistance so that my personal clothing choices do not impinge on my presentation. I always remember a survey that showed that parishioners were more likely to comment on the dress and appearance of female preachers than they were to comment on the appearance of males. That was certainly my experience in my early ministry.
The Uniting Church suggests that clergy choose whether to wear liturgical dress or not but to always be mindful that the leadership of worship “is no casual task”.
Not surprisingly Pilgrim holds together a diversity of opinion and practice on the matter!
Shalom,
Jenny
We can! We can! Yes, We can!
We can do it! We can make a difference. Professor Fiona Stanley told Fran Kelly on Radio National’s Breakfast that she plans to end the annual Hawke lecture she is giving tonight at the Adelaide Town Hall, with Obama’s words of hope, “We can! We can! Yes, we can!” Former Australian of the Year, Founding Director of the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research and Professor in the School of Paediatrics and Child Health in WA, Fiona Stanley will give the address she has titled “The Greatest Injustice: Why we have failed to improve the health of Aboriginal people”. Speaking on ABC Radio this morning she said, “We already know how to grow healthy and developmentally healthy young people. We have known this forever. We know what parents have to have, we know what communities are supposed to look like, what housing and hygiene people need.” We don’t need more policy but more effective implementation of what we already know. We need, she said “to get Aboriginal people to be part of the solution” by increasing the number of Aboriginal people employed in education, health, child protection and juvenile justice. It is time Aboriginal people were given the assistance they need to run their own services and where communities don’t have the capacity, though many already do, help them get up to speed. There is diversity among capacity in communities: some Aboriginal communities have 50% of their population under the age of 20. Unfortunately, tonight’s lecture is fully booked (1200 people and a waiting list). However, the transcript of Professor Stanley’s lecture will be available from the UniSA website (go here )
The MRN Team are strong supporters of the Close The Gap Campaign and Make Indigenous Poverty History.
Olympic gold medallists Catherine Freeman and Ian Thorpe helped launch the Close the Gap Indigenous health campaign, which seeks to achieve health equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within a generation. Photo by Michael Myers/OxfamAUS
According to the Australian Human Rights Commission life expectancy for Indigenous Australians is almost twenty years less than it is for non-Indigenous Australians.
One of the major contributing factors towards reduced life expectancy is poverty.
There are a number of campaigns focusing on Indigenous poverty in Australia.
The Close the Gap campaign aims at decreasing the disparity in life expectancy.
To find out what you can do to support this cause go here
Last week end’s Presbytery and Synod meeting saw the 330 members from across SA keen to see some other issues affecting Aboriginal people addressed, in particular prison overcrowding and housing. Below is an extract from the SA Synod’s Communications Team media release:
The Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress (UAICC), the Indigenous arm of the Uniting Church, is concerned about severe over-crowding in the State’s prisons and the over-representation of Aboriginal people in prisons.
The meeting voted to establish a prison and justice issues advocacy group to investigate ways of addressing prison over-crowding, the high numbers of Aboriginal and remand prisoners, proposed prison closures and repeated lockdowns in the Port Augusta prison preventing prison chaplaincy and support.
Another issue raised by the UAICC is the lack of accommodation for Indigenous people visiting Adelaide from the APY lands.
The meeting heard that visiting Anangu people stay with relatives. This causes severe overcrowding which jeopardises tenancies and extreme financial hardship.
The church is considering solutions including whether it should push for a ‘Town Camp’ for Adelaide similar to those in Port Augusta and Ceduna.
If you would like to have further conversation about the issues raised in this post, please contact Peter Russell (prussell@sa.uca.org.au ), Covenanting Officer for the Presbytery and Synod of SA
The Lord’s Prayer
Last week’s call from the Speaker of the House, Harry Jenkins, for a public debate about the use of the Lord’s Prayer at the start of each Federal Parliament session has sparked much discussion. Some say that of course this prayer should continue to be prayed – it is part of this country’s Christian heritage. Others believe that this alone is reason enough for it to be discontinued: let’s honour the many varied traditions and cultures of those who now dwell in this land. Others say that those who pray it dont believe it and so therefore shouldnt pray it. “They mumble it so that you cant even understand the words”, was one commnet I heard. Cheryl Lawrie, writing for The Age says that any discussion about the use of the Lord’s Prayer before Parliament needs to go deeper than the sentiments raised so far. She suggests that the Lord’s Prayer offers a foundational ethic for the communities that pray it: that it is actually a prayer for the radical transformation of the way we understand ourselves in the world. It’s a vision of a community that has echoed for thousands of years across many countries; where the needs of all are met, where vengeance is transformed into forgiveness, where compassion holds us to each other, where we are liberated from forces and systems that oppress.
Saying the Lord’s Prayer before each sitting of Parliament is a public ritual – something of which we have all too few. If it was to go what, of equal menaing and power might replace it? Cheryl’s inspiring opinion piece can be read here
