FAMILY FIRM RETAINER GIVES BADLYDRESSED CLERGY A DRESSING DOWN

From THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE:

"Why are our clergy the worst-dressed people in church? They "dress worse than the lay people," wrote Bishop Robert Forsyth of South Sydney on a Web site for the city's Anglicans.

Forsyth says the idea of "Sunday best" does not exist any more. "We are now in a much more informal society," he wrote.

Still, he continued, "There is a way of dressing casual that looks really good ... [and] there is a way that looks positively daggy and scruffy."
"It's not a good look," he wrote, "especially for unbelievers and outsiders who may come along to church, particularly for special occasions, and find the minister, frankly, unimpressively dressed."
COMMENT: In all fairness to the good bishop, he always wears a smart, business suit when he is showing potential dupes round his "daggy" slum properties (see THE AUSTRALIAN).

Comments

FAMILY FIRM RETAINER GIVES BADLYDRESSED CLERGY A DRESSING DOWN — 21 Comments

  1. There does seem to be a significant human population that’s entirely fixated on appearances, which are perforce superficial. I’m tempted to call it the “bluebird syndrome.” It accounts for many categories of organisms having to be amended, now that we have DNA to consider the insides of living things.
    I’m also tempted to ascribe the focus on superficialities to sloth. Paying attention to what people do, rather than how they look, takes a lot more effort.

  2. Yes. “Dag” is an English shepherd’s term for a shitty, matted strand of wool on a sheep’s arse after it’s been out in a muddy field. A fine word for an evangelical bishop to use – I don’t think. It’s more like the sort of language you get on a low brow blog like what I write.

  3. I think that the bishop forgets that God can see us even when we aren’t in Church and thus is used to seeing our normal slovenly ways.

  4. Yes, God can see us. But, Kevin, I assume, as God is English, that he would never be so rude as to look at us when we’re getting dressed in the morning or when we’re in the toilet with our trousers round our ankles. The God of the English is a God of decorum.

  5. Goodness, I can’t for the life of me think of a solution to the problem whereof the bishop writes. If only there were some means of ensuring that the clergy were decently dressed for services, some convention of clerical dress commonplace in virtually every other part of the Anglican Communion that could avoid the scenarios he describes…

    Oh, well, I’m coming up blank. I guess worshippers at Anglican churches in Sydney will just have to shop around if they prefer to see their clergy in a nice suit, much less anything else.

  6. “Dag” is an English shepherd’s term for a shitty, matted strand of wool on a sheep’s arse after it’s been out in a muddy field

    yes, I know, MP – most colloquial terms of abuse do have a technical meaning that is rather unappealing, usually referring to the nether quarters of some creature or another, often human.

  7. I should add that whatever its origins, “daggy”, in Australian usage, means the equivalent of “naff” – about as mild as it gets. So it’s perfectly okay for a bishop to use it in my book.

  8. I have spent a lot of time up close and personal with the arse end of sheep. What I have done to little boy sheep with elastic bands cannot be described on a family blog such as what this one is.

  9. Oh no, Cathy. You don’t want bishops writing all over your books, especially if you’ve only got one. It decreases the value unless they go and get themselves martyred or something.

  10. What I have done to little boy sheep with elastic bands cannot be described on a family blog such as what this one is.

    Have you always had this hobby? Is it a personal thing, or some arcane ritual required by the Anglican church of its employees that outsiders haven’t been told about? And what on earth did the bishop write in your book that decreased its value so greatly? … I’ve got more than one book, of course, so a bit of sheep-related scribble from a cleric doesn’t make any difference to me.

  11. OK, show of hands –
    How many folks read Hannah’s comment where she says, “It accounts for many categories of organisms having to be amended,” as ” It accounts for many categories of orgasms having to be amended,” the first time and had to reread it to get it right?

    Oh and MP, please do not tell us what you did up close and personal with the arse ends of little girl sheep!

  12. God looking at us while we’re dressing or showering is one thing, to me. That wouldn’t bother me.

    Sitting on the toilet, however…that’s very different. I should think that since God invented that, he wouldn’t *need* to look at us at that time anyway.

    :nods:

    Tracie the Red

  13. Yes, ‘daggy’ is quite a mild term here in Australia especially for those of us who grew up in the 50’s and 60’s like Forsyth and me.
    I object more to going to an ‘Anglican’ church service and finding the priest standing out the front in civilian clothes whether it be a suit or more comfortable clothes. I walked out one Christmas morning but that was not so much the suit he wore as the request for all of us who were Christian to raise our hands.

  14. I actually don’t mind what priests wear … he/she could dress in a Hawaiian shirt, flares and crocs for all I care. Not that I’ve ever seen one who does. By the way Brian – since you walked out, did you ever find out why the priest asked all the Christians to raise their hands? Maybe he was going to give you all a fiver to enjoy down the pub!