Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Isabel Penraeth on 2nd mo. 3, 2012 at 6:24pm

This is lovely and interesting, Karen, I thank thee.

Perhaps this is a new manifestation of the concept of a Public Friend: by wearing religious dress, one is publicly a friend :)

Isabel

Permalink Reply by Margaret Banford on 2nd mo. 4, 2012 at 12:53pm

Isabel, I do like that link.  I had no idea what a public friend was until now. 

Isn't there a passage in the Bible, I think in one of Paul's letters, where he calls Christians to be 'not of this world'? 

He was, I think, calling Christians not to dabble in the luxury and extravagence characteristic of the later Roman Empire, which makes that passage particularly significant in light of what Quaker dress can represent to those wearing it. 

Margaret.

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 2nd mo. 5, 2012 at 1:30pm

I enjoyed the Public Friend link...yes, even for those who are not Friends I think that one becomes a "public friend" at the least; a friend to the public. It certainly gives me an opportunity to talk to those who ask about both my Jewish and Quaker interests and influences :)

(now, if only I could slow down and master the importance of spelling and grammar...)

Isabel Penraeth said:

This is lovely and interesting, Karen, I thank thee.

Perhaps this is a new manifestation of the concept of a Public Friend: by wearing religious dress, one is publicly a friend :)

Isabel

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 2nd mo. 6, 2012 at 6:04pm

Thank you, to those who commented. It's nice to know I am not always irritating people.

Margaret, there are quite a few places where dress is discussed in some form. In the Torah, there are some dress injunctions but most of them are passive (they assume people are dressed a certain way and then remark on it) rather than commanded. Wearing Tzitzit (fringes) on certain garments in order to be reminded of the comandments is one of the few actual commands. All other practices derive from traditions and Rabbinic teachings.

Jesus doesn't really address dress specifically, maybe because he is surrounded by Jews already mostly dressed properly (at least in public) and Romans /non-Jews who have their own dress who aren't his direct concern. There is no record of him directly addressing Hellenization in dress, even though it is a factor of the times that other Jews are remarking on. He seems to assume Torah standards and then concern himself with inward development. Yes, it's Paul who addresses it most directly, probably because he is teaching in the diaspora and to recent converts, whose dress may be immodest or else who may need something that sets them apart and keeps them from falling into old cultural habits. I can track down the quotes for you, if you like.

Later teachers vary in their reaction to dress. It seems to become a greater issue at times when the standards of dress and behaviour in the wider society are perceived to have fallen in some way...either in modesty, or in accepting greater luxury, especially inequality of luxury, and decadence. This is true of both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity and also, Islam. I expect the current movements of interest in dress today reflect a reaction to falling moral and ethical standards and also the current state of distribution of wealth in the West and in the wider world. Dress is a quiet but fairly public way of making your opinions of the current state of things known, particularly if circumstances deny people other ways of dissenting. We can't all buy land in the country and go off the grid....

Permalink Reply by Alice M Yaxley on 2nd mo. 7, 2012 at 2:45am

Thanks for writing, Karen Mercer. This has been on my mind this week. Been thinking how easy most folks seem to find it to walk past someone in trouble - M. Perks recently wrote: "Early Christians were recognized on the street as such by their unique, old-fashioned (for the time) clothing and their gentle manners. They were also the people hauling the sick and injured and starving out of the alleys and gutters and taking them off to a hospice of some sort. In the first century, Christians were notably different."

Permalink Reply by Barbara Smith on 2nd mo. 7, 2012 at 8:07am

For me the ability to be recognized by those who need help has been a back-of-my-mind motivator for plain dress for years! Since becoming a Quaker years ago I regretted the loss of plain clothing among Friends for this very reason: they lost their identifying presence in the world! Quakers could not have done the incredible work they did on the Underground Railroad, and be a blessing to so many run-aways, if they had not been identifiable! The peculiar dress signaled safety and security to many.
When they dropped the peculiar dress the Friends pretty much faded out of sight and mind, and I truly think that was the main reason for the decline of the denomination in this century. It was too easy for Friends to blend in, to not even think about their faith if they chose not to, and for the children to pass unseen into the world never to return. When you are dressed plain it forces you to take your faith, or lack thereof, seriously, and to make conscious decisions regarding that faith. No slipping into the crowd or unconsciously letting your faith practices go etc.

Also, it occurs to me that it would not have been as easy for non-Friends to join up with the denomination without a serious commitment to a way of life apart from the world! While churches are usually trying to get everyone and his brother to join them, I don't seen this as a good thing for Friends. I don't want to step on toes here, but I feel it is far too easy to join the denomination now with only a vague sense of "the Light" in your life and a desire for peace in the world. Aside from sitting quietly with others who are pacifists and reflecting on your life, being a Friend does not require the sacrificial commitment to Christ and the peculiar walk that it did in the past! In fact for many, even most, people, it does not require any life changes at all! (This was true for me and most of the people in our liberal meeting). And if you live in a liberal college town as we do just about half the population could easily join up without changing their lives at all! No convincement necessary! But if those same people were required to dress plain (not that this should be "required", but if it was common practise) then it would be necessary to actually ARTICULATE what they are committing to, and not only that but to then walk the walk in public day and night! Christ requires us to be ready to follow him to the cross, not to fit him nicely into our comfortable lives.

So a query to consider might be: Is your commitment to your faith so strong that you are willing to stand out in the world, separate yourself from all your cultural identity, in order to serve the Teacher? (and everyone on the street who needs you?)

My thought is developing a bit as I write and I hope I didn't go ahead of the Teacher, but it is a new angle on plain dress that is dawning in my mind. Thank thee, Karen, for bringing this discussion to us.

May we all live up to our commitment.
Barb

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 2nd mo. 9, 2012 at 11:07am

I had not heard of Early Christians differing by dress, except being simpler but I knew that they impressed many Romans during a plague because most Romans who could afford to do so fled the cities, but most Christians stayed and cared for the sick. I was also just reading today about the horrible crash in the US...one of the people who stopped to help was deeply upset that so few others stopped but many did take time to take pictures and video with their cellphones and ipods etc. I don't want to separate myself just to be different from other human beings....it's that culture that I want to stand out from.

I wish we had a new word to use to describe it....I can't use the old stand-bys of "pagan" or "heathen" because all of the Pagans and Wiccans I know are equally horrified by all that. I guess "Wordly" is the best resort but it has overtones of wealth and sophistication (now) that don't fit drive-by filming of other people's tradgedies.

Thanks for writing, Karen Mercer. This has been on my mind this week. Been thinking how easy most folks seem to find it to walk past someone in trouble - M. Perks recently wrote: "Early Christians were recognized on the street as such by their unique, old-fashioned (for the time) clothing and their gentle manners. They were also the people hauling the sick and injured and starving out of the alleys and gutters and taking them off to a hospice of some sort. In the first century, Christians were notably different."

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 2nd mo. 9, 2012 at 11:33am

This is something I think upon a fair bit and is an issue a lot of religious institutions at the liberal end are dealing with. Someone wrote a very nice piece on trust that was posted to QQ but I was disappointed that it only addressed the broken trust and betrayal felt by those who had left hard-core fundamentalist or other abusive christian backgrounds. It didn't even mention the many people who have been through the liberal church ringer...meaning those who come out of no religion and join and liberal church and are betrayed in some way or those who get doubly betrayed. It is a problem that happens when you let many people in without asking anything of them, you get people just there to socialize but you also get those who come in looking for vulnerable people to take advantage of. Plain Dress (or any other hurdle to full membership) would not be able to stop all of those people but it would make it less easy for them. It's psychological, hurdles put off the lukewarm but they strengthen the resolve of those who chose to make the leap.

I do know what you mean about liberal college towns and liberal religion...and though I don't know my local Meeting well enough, I have known other people who wandered in and out of Quakers and Mennonites and everything else because they liked the politics. It's a great way to network with people who already share every opinion you have, and membership looks good on your Peace and Social Justice C.V. But, no, they didn't want to have to change a single thing about themselves...and they only want to help people when it's the "right" people and someone is looking.
 
"While churches are usually trying to get everyone and his brother to join them, I don't seen this as a good thing for Friends."

Permalink Reply by Barbara Smith on 2nd mo. 9, 2012 at 12:30pm

Karen - To be more charitable about it, I don't think that the politically liberal who join the Quakers are not wanting to change themselves, but rather that it doesn't seem to be required! No one ever suggests such a thing.I understand what you mean about betrayal by liberal churches. When we joined a liberal Quaker meeting years ago I yearned for it to make some kind of huge change in my life. I yearned to be disciplined by God (though I didn't at the time know that's what it was) and follow a new path! But the meeting did not even question us when we wanted to join, and we just went on with out lives!

It is funny to me to realize that being Plain now has such a totally opposite meaning to me than it used to! I used to see it as an almost punitive imposed from without, and now it feels like a loving thing for the church to do. (Not expressed very carefully, but maybe you get my meaning). Back when the Quakers were so persecuted one had to be prepared to really sacrifice to join them. And then "take up your cross" had real meaning! I think folks still hunger to take up their crosses, but the crosses seem to have vanished. I have friends who wear actual crosses but wear them inside their clothes at work for fear of offending, or for fear of provoking discussions they don't want to have. I believe people secretly wish someone would REQUIRE more of them for their faith. What could that something be on a daily basis? Maybe this is where ritual, communion, confession, etc. came in?

Barb

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 2nd mo. 9, 2012 at 2:20pm

Oh no....I wasn't saying that there aren't any people there wanting to change! I was remarking on some people I have met and even then, I believe most of them wanted to change (at least at some points or in some way, at some time) but were given no guidance for it. Nothing was required of them, and in many respects their growth was even compromised by others.

The core of liberal churches is full of people who are often smart and educated, from good psychological stock and nice middle-class families. They are nice people but they assume everyone is "like them" and if left to their own devices and given the resources they will figure it out. They fail at understanding that there are people who need guidance that is more explicit and even strict because they have in some way been handicapped in life. In being too "non-judgemental" and all about "self-guidance" they kill with kindness those who desperately need help. It's not quite putting a stumbling block before the blind....it's more like failing to put up a rail at the edge of the cliff around the blind. A stumbling block on otherwise soft ground would actually be kinder. Too often though, they have no "rules" that are announced - but there are still subtle consequences to breaking them. The people who don't catch on are ignored or just not invited any closer.

 I view strict cultures with obvious stated rules as being actually kinder. At the moment I am overhearing a teenage girl who was probably taught no moral rules around sexuality by her family or the wider society beyond "naughty is the new nice"....and she is telling her friends the story of how her boyfriend left her while she was six weeks pregnant and her father beat her until she lost the baby when he found out. The kids are now discussing shelters to stay at and who is going to jail. I would love someone from a liberal church to explain to me how the freedom and non-judgementalism they preach is helping these kids. They will go through their lives being judged quietly by the nice middle-class, educated people who form the core of liberal theology. These "unjudged" kids will grow into adults they won't want to hire, won't want to live in their neighbourhoods and won't want to marry into their families. But they won't judge them, as they form commitees to discus the roots of poverty and raise money for foodbanks and visit them in jail....and they won't have much guidance for them.  Sorry....rambling. Just been reading about how the top 20-30% of our society have adopted strict rules for their kids even as they pay bobo chic lip service to a libertarian lifestyle that is devastating the children of the bottom 20-30%. It makes me angry, and I sometimes wonder if enough people knew and got angry whether things might not change.

 Like you, I've come to revise my thinking and consider appropriate rules to be a loving thing now. I do disagree with excesses; some Quakers at one point were doing spot inspections of each other's homes and measuring the length of fringes on the antimacassars and trimming the offensive ones. I would not advise that sort of invasion of privacy (nor do I care about the fringes on pillows and throws). It's always a difficult issue though...which rules should be there? which should be voluntary? which are most important? which ones should be enforced? how do you enforce them? how do you balance the rights and needs of the community which the rights and needs of the individual? It is all complex...yet I have no fear of any such state (antimacassar raids) gaining any real hold...it would produce its own backlash.

I'm content with Plain Dress as voluntary. On my list of things I would ever feel ought to be enforced it comes quite far down, if it makes it at all. I mainly think it is a good help to basic discipline and to consciousness of how we ought to be acting. I do think that religion has become something "sold" to people. Shiny brochures and snazzy websites extolling what membership can do for you, what this religion can contribute to your life, comfy seating, soda fountains in the lobby!....and yes I think a lot of people are feeling that they might like to be asked what it is they will be contributing. Ask not what you can do for your religion....

The Quakers are funny with ritual...they are so often against it even when they are doing it themselves, and sometimes against it to the point of silliness. I think the original push against ritual had to do with thinking that ritual is some sort of magic and that if you were to mispronounce a word or forget something your whole prayer would be invalidated and worthless. Becoming attached to ritual as a thing holy of itself, and forgeting that it's just a convenient symbolism. We all have rituals that make our day easier, that help us get along with other; even standing in line is a ritual, some cultures find it mind-boggling how automatically westerners arrange themselves in a queue without a word to each other. We are far more attached to it's meaning (fairness, civility) than the custom itself.....give people a ticket with a number you will call and they will quite happily sit or roam about haphazardly. I suppose that is my view of ritual. If it works, keep it. If it doesn't, change it. It's about the meaning underneath....does it make us better people and help us closer to God?

Permalink Reply by Barbara Smith on 2nd mo. 9, 2012 at 2:49pm

Karen - I agree 100% with what you wrote! We were foster parents for many years and boy did that open our eyes! I think all liberals should be forced to be foster parents for a year and then see what happens to all those policies.

This really cracked me up : " Ask not what you can do for your religion...."
Wonderful!

Barb