I LOVE the idea of making the sacrament more tied to baptism in a visual
way, so I have no problem with the desire to have the young men who
administer the sacrament dress in white (and only a shirt is less
restrictive than fully white attire). I have a friend who used to think that there was no doctrinal basis for asking those who administer the sacrament to wear a white shirt, but she understood better when I referenced the General Conference talk in which that advice was given and talked a bit about the intended symbolism from that talk.
The doctrinal basis is obvious to anyone who accepts
the possibility of continuing revelation, changing symbolism and/or
apostolic/leadership authority to make a doctrinal basis for new
practices. The case of requesting white shirts be worn in the administration of the sacrament is far less radical a change than going from circumcision to baptism as a sign of accepting God and joining "his people". People might not agree with the doctrinal basis for a practice, but there
absolutely is one - and a very solid one in the case of white shirts and the sacrament.
Having said all of that, I really dislike the idea that there is a "uniform of the Priesthood". I believe linking the sacrament and baptism through visual symbolism
is awesome; extending and distorting that link by applying it to
everything imaginable (even simple church attendance) is planting so
many hedges that the principle gets obscured completely - and, given how
few members even remember the apostolic injunction against extending it
to other things and not making it mandatory even for the sacrament, I
would argue the "uniform of the Priesthood" angle actually has killed
the original beauty of the General Conference explanation of why white
shirts should be worn to administer the sacrament. For too many members, it has become about the shirt instead of the symbolic union of ordinances.
As I said in my response to Anonymous' comment below, I believe we have taken it to such an extreme that we have lost, almost completely, the deep meaning of wearing white for specific things - like *changing* into white for temple ordinances and baptism and wearing white to administer the sacrament. Putting on ("donning") white for those particular things adds symbolic meaning; wearing white all the time for everything church-related lessens that meaning, sometimes to the point of obscuring it completely.
The Scream
3 weeks ago
7 comments:
I love the post.
Recently I had been wondering why the Church doesn't encourage people to wear anything BUT white shirts to Church - to symbolize, of course, that we are all sinners, all in need of repentance, and all in need of Christ's atonement.
For an extra touch, some of us could wear scarlet or crimson colored shirts! ("Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow"...or the belief that Christ will be wearing a red robe at his second coming).
Perhaps this just goes to show that its not the color that matters, it's the symbol that people recognize in the color. Too often, it seems that we mechanically observe the outward symbol without thinking about its actual meaning.
You may not not like comparing a white shirt to the uniform of the priesthood, but there's a whole lot of leaders - the FP, Q12, and all the 70 who consistently wear white shirts to their meetings. I wonder why? And do you think if they were released tomorrow, do you think they would suddenly start wearing shirts of color? I doubt it. For similar reasons of being clean shaven to serve missions and as temple workers, we have been asked and strongly encouraged to appear certain ways.I don't think the world will come to an end if one wears the occasional colored shirt, but when the wearing of a white shirt is modeled by the President of the church, I'd encourage conformity. There's plenty of time in the week to wear what you otherwise want.
Thanks for your comment, PP. I agree completely that it's the symbolism that is important and that we have become far too mechanical in many cases.
Anonymous, the thing is the Handbook of Instructions has no directive whatsoever about wearing a white shirt for things like regular church attendance - or for non-worship meetings - or for most other things so many members believe a white shirt is required. It's completely cultural, and our obsession with it has pushed us into a situation that actually is opposed in multiple places in the Bible. I believe we have taken it to such an extreme that we have lost, almost completely, the deep meaning of wearing white for specific things - like *changing* into white for temple ordinances and baptism and wearing white to administer the sacrament. Putting on white for those particular things adds symbolic meaning; wearing white all the time for everything church-related lessens that meaning, sometimes to the point of obscuring it completely.
(I am adding that last part to the post itself, since I think it is extremely important.)
There isn't anything in the handbook about white shirts and facial hair. That is a pet peeve of mine, as my position is that there should be no "unwritten order of things" per Elder Packer. In my view, if the issue is important and you want uniformity, then put it in the handbook with softening language such as is written "encouraging" young men to wear white when passing the sacrament. But I digress. So, are you saying the FP/Q12, by wearing white shirts, and expecting Stake Presidents and Bishops and other priesthood leaders to wear white shirts, are actively participating in a misplaced cultural practice? I understand that too much emphasis can be placed on appearances. Still, if it were truly "no big deal," I don't know why the FP/Q12 wouldn't model that behavior. Unless, of course, you are saying the FP/Q12 are uninspired in such things, have taken things "to the extreme," and their examples and encouragement to wear white shirts should be ignored. Is that what you're saying?
I wear a white shirt most Sundays to church. I view it much like Paul's admonition not to eat meat with people who abstain from meat. I have no problem with people wearing white shirts to church. I have no problem with the top leadership wearing white shirts as their standard attire - and I respect their right to ask local leaders to do so.
I simply have never heard of actual requirements to do so at the local level, and I certainly have never heard of such a requirement for everyone in the Church. It's the exact same issue as what necessitated an official statement saying women are not prohibited from wearing pants to church - members taking something and twisting it to such an extreme that the top leadership had to address something that should not have been an issue in the first place.
"Unless, of course, you are saying the FP/Q12 are uninspired in such things, have taken things "to the extreme," and their examples and encouragement to wear white shirts should be ignored. Is that what you're saying?"
Aside from the fact that I have NEVER heard encouragement from the FP/Q12 for members to wear white shirts in every possible thing they do that might be related to church (which is the issue I address in the post), I think you need to read more of my blog if you think that is what I'm saying. It's not.
Also, fwiw, pitting someone against the top leadership is a standard way to shut down a productive conversation - and I really do believe this topic can result in good, productive conversation. It absolutely doesn't have to be an "us vs. them" approach.
I totally agree with this.
Sure, I have no problem with a white shirt being worn to pass the sacrament, but when I hear of young men, GOOD young men who, for whatever reason, do not own a white shirt, or (heaven forbid) 'only' own a pair of really nice jeans, not being allowed to pass the sacrament, well, that is just plain wrong.
Non judgmental anonymous person here sharing this relevant quote from Hugh nibley
"…the worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status-symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism. Longhairs, beards, and necklaces, LSD and rock, Big Sur and Woodstock, come and go, but Babylon is always there: rich, respectable, immovable… We want to be vindicated in our position and to know that the world is on our side as we all join in a chorus of righteous denunciation; the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances."
Post a Comment