WUH-OH!! We have a bona fide fashion crisis in the Unitarian Universalist Association!!
I got home from a day off to find my inbox flooded with e-mails from outraged, concerned and/or snarky Unitarian Universalist colleagues regarding this latest option in clergy garb:
Here is a sort of stream-of-consciousness set of quotes from the off-line letters I got:
This is the most hideous thing I’ve ever seen. It looks like a camp counselor shirt for a bizarre cult….Why did they have to choose that eyeball searing color? As if we don’t have bad enough taste…I am so glad I have the excuse of __________ so I can skip Phoenix this year. These are so embarrassing I don’t want to be associated with them. … It makes me so sick that UUs don’t wear collars any other time in their ministry except at rallies. This shirt is nothing more than a team jersey. It’s appalling. … I can just imagine how humiliated my church would be if they saw me in this hideous thing… I weep for my denomination….Sometimes we just make me sick. … usurpation of Christian symbols … It’s the most disgusting thing I’ve seen in years…. Thank you for fighting the good fight.
Serious condemnation. My Facebook page has generated over 80 comments on the subject.
Here are some of them, and some with my additional comments in brackets.
“I’m having trouble with the logo. It’s a brand. Clerical shirts aren’t about brand.”
“I should own that I liked the idea initially, and voted for it seeing the actual shirt, however, it finally hit me that adding ANY symbol to a clergy shirt, even something as general as a plain cross, trivialized it.”
“…don’t you clergy have more than one shirt? Why can’t one wear a social justice-oriented clerical shirt when appropriate and if one chooses to, and wear a more traditional clerical shirt at other times?” [I think this an idea with some potential. However, I don’t think that the “other” shirt should be in team colors with a slogan on the sleeve. – PB]
“Non clergy myself, but I dislike the SOTSOL slogan. “We’re taking sides. Dibs on feel-good LOVE, so you get the big platter of leftover shameful HATE.” It’s our spin, reducing their argument to racist hatred, rather than what people who want an organized and fairly implemented immigration policy would consider their legitimate concern, and thus fans flames of intolerance, self-righteousness, and closed-mindedness. But at least we get to be on the side of love.”
“It’s tacky. It’s NASCAR tacky. Your response to cringe just proves you’re paying attention, V. [This made me LOL, but not happily. Several off-line commenters said that they were cautious to offer public chastisement because of class issues. One Southern writer said that the shirts reminded him of the uniforms worn by employees at Southern fried chicken chain, Church’s. Yes, Church’s. – PB]”
Donald “O’Bloggin” Wilson wrote,
“Wait a sec… since when are clerical vestments NOT used for dramatic effect, and to put out front and center statements steeped in an understanding of faith?
If that’s not what clerical garb is for, shouldn’t Beauty Tips for Ministers have closed at blog post?
As for not putting brands or slogans on shared symbols… I cry foul. The Church itself (whatever faith you claim the Church to be is) is a brand, and has been for hundreds of years (if not longer), and the same/similar symbols have taken different and additional meanings by different people for just as long.If I understand your position, after this many years of following you, you would say that a member of the clergy SHOULD wear a standard clerical shirt and collar at a Side of Love event (in fact, if I took the time to look, I’m sure I could quote you). I would much rather you wear THIS shirt than put a Side of Love t-shirt on TOP of a standard one. [I do not agree with wearing clericals at rallies unless one usually wears them, but I do not feel strongly enough about this that I have been consistent with that message. I think I have flip-flopped on it, actually. – PB]
In heraldry, putting another symbol atop a flag or arms is called defacing, and it’s done specifically and intentionally to clarify meaning, and can be found on all sorts of historic and current church imagery. If I were a confused, questioning, demoralised gay youth watching my local Thanksgiving Day parade and I saw someone wearing the yellow shirt, that’s a symbol I KNOW, but it’s also different and when joined with the banners and the other symbols I see around such a group, that would drive me to ask “who are these people? Who is this faith leader, who wears this shirt and seems to accept me for who I am?” whereas in the same shirt and collar as the church my parents force me to every week, I’d avoid that minister like the plague, and in just a t-shirt, they’d just be another member of the mob.” [This is one of the more interesting comments in favor of the shirts that I got. – PB]
“How would people like it if Catholic priests started wearing garments that said “standing on the side of life” on them? Wouldn’t the general public start to get the impression that the Catholic faith was becoming excessively focused on the anti-abortion cause? (Indeed most people already feel this way about the present-day Catholic Church, even though they don’t literally wear their cultural/political beliefs on their clerical sleeves. But imagine how much *more* people would get that impression if they did wear clerical garments with such a slogan.) Now apply the same logic to UUs putting a slogan in favor of gay marriage on their clerical garments, and imagine how the general public is going to perceive UUism: “oh yeah, that’s the religion that all they talk about is how pro-gay they are.” There’s a place for promoting these kind of values, and it is not on clerical garments, IMO.” [I don’t consider the Standing on the Side of Love Campaign a pro-gay marriage campaign — it has broader aims than that, but this is an interesting point- PB]
The comments go on and on. One colleague provided half a dozen examples of clergy shirts with denominational logos on them, but all were small, all were crosses, and none were designed with the specific and exclusive purpose of being warn to rallies and protests in order to announce a sectarian group presence.
It doesn’t bother me that these shirts are ugly — the color is really garish but that’s just a funny problem to me (as in, “Oh my GOSH, WHO looks good in THIS color!” kind of vanity issue). What bothers me is that the clergy collar is an ecumenical garment that announces the Church’s pastoral presence. That Unitarian Universalists identify as non-Christian makes the adoption of the collar problematic in terms of identity integrity. Are you Christian or not? If you say “not,” then why wear clericals? Why not a tallis? Would that offend rabbis, to have a Unitarian Universalist effectively “impersonate” them? Why do our (sometimes emphatically) non-Christian colleagues want to don the collar so badly? I think the answer is obvious: out of a desire to broadcast spiritual and moral authority.
Fine. Then wear clericals. But please, let’s not use them as a team uniform. Because what the clergy who wear these shirts are doing is announcing not general spiritual and moral authority conferred upon them by virtue of their ordination by one of our congregations, they are communicating a non-verbal message that their spiritual and moral authority comes by virtue of their affiliation with a particular, historically-bound sectarian cause with an explicit political agenda. A major goal of the SOSL campaign is to influence American legislative policy. It is a faith-based political initiative. As a devoted ecumenist I find it the most disturbing yet expression of UU “terminal uniqueness” for us to re-interpret the shared ecumenical sartorial symbol of the clerical collar and brand it with our team colors and our cause.
I’m very, very gratified that we are having a serious debate about this, as it causes us to think deeply about who we are, the power of our visual statements, and (hopefully) our accountability to the broader community. True confessions: I think the design of the shirt is well done. The logo “heart on the sleeve” thing is not my cup of tea but I don’t find it “retch-worthy,” as several readers did.
You can see the bright yellow Standing On the Side of Love campaign t-shirts worn by many of our delegates to the General Assembly this summer in Charlotte, NC. They really do make a wonderful statement when worn by a large group. My personal recommendation for ministers wishing to identify as chaplains when joining SOSL acts of witness is to wear clericals and a SOSL pin or hat.
Passionate conversation is a creative expression. The minute it stops, we become a community of glass-eyed automatons. Thanks to all those who weighed in and are still talking about this. As one commenter wrote, “This is an education in itself.”
Hey PB…
Thanks for the quote, but I’m Donald not Daniel 😉
[OOps! Fixed! Thanks! – PB]
I have, up until this fall, been concerned when UU ministers wear clerical collars. Mostly, I have interpreted them as ostentatious gestures of Christianity in a denomination that is disdainful of it. When worn by UU’s other than the ‘saving remnant’, it seemed like misappropriation. I have heard it said that ‘if you don’t wear it on Sunday, you shouldn’t be allowed to wear to a demonstration.’
I was persuaded to buy and wear a clerical collar for Occupy Boston. The Occupy Boston chaplain I was talking to said that they were trying very hard to “disrupt the narrative” that Occupy Boston was punk students and homeless people. They needed visible clergy presence and they needed clergy to invite people from their congregations down to Dewey Square.
Public Witness is hardball. Public witness is not completely authentic self-expression. The shaping of public awareness of who is standing up, and why, is the battle being waged. Those in power will do everything they can to marginalize those who protest in the public’s minds. And much of that shaping is done by the selective manipulation of personal appearance, dress and grooming. That is where the battle is waged.
As I thought about that, I decided to step past my personal concerns about my own acute obsession about my personal authenticity and wear a collar.
Just as at GA, under the prodding of my friend, Sue Phillips, I bought a yellow Tee Shirt to go to the Charlotte witness for gay marriage.
I have personal power that comes from my age, obvious class position, and gender. I have power that comes from my professional position. I am the poster boy for that white male demographic that Obama doesn’t carry, and who supposedly holds gay marriage and immigrants in contempt, and Wall Street in awe.
I exercise that power in how I present myself in these public witness situations in that I help shape the narrative that is being created.
I need to keep the effect of how I use my ‘appearance power’ foremost in my mind in public witness situations. It is more important than my personal comfort and more important than what I think about endless flux and flow of UU denominational self-identity discourse.
Accordingly, I would wear my Brooks Brothers suit in some circumstances, and the hello yellow tee shirt in others and my clerical collar in still others. If someone could make a case that it would really matter if I wore the hello yellow dog collar, I would do that. However, it’s hard for me to imagine such a case — some situation where it was important to distinguish UU clergy from others?
The fact that almy can come with this and can’t seem to crank out a maternity shirt or a dress says something. This is just awful. Who thought this was a good idea?
This marks a sacramental and liturgical milestone of great historical importance. In the 1500s, Reformation theologians and ministers abolished most of the sacramental testimonials of faith in favor of the plodding regularity of Sunday worship. Some Reformation folk preferred to keep sacramental options for outbursts of high faith, particularly the anabaptist process of conversion, confession and adult baptism. Among congregationalists of New England, these two groups divided again during the Unitarian Controversies of the early 1800s.
It is my contention that today’s Unitarian Universalst Association has adopted demonstrations as a sacramental faith-revival tool, such as The Lord’s Supper used to be. Getting arrested is our new adult Baptismal ritual. There is no question that many UU Facebook threads brook no compromise on many political issues. This raises questions about our openness on political and cultural issues. Do we really want to be as politically narrow as the Religious Right tries to be? Many of those congregations, by the way, are reconsidering whether that is the best way to serve their God and members, as people leave when their politics soften or change.
Rather than get ourselves splashy shirts (self-righteousness is usually a sin, by the way), to get recognized on the news at every demonstration that comes down the pike, we need to recover our founders’ deep conviction that sacramental energy, like sexuality, must be carefully monitored and shared only in covenental relationships. This is especially true if it has risen to the level of ritual, as these shirts imply. Showing up at every new kind of demonstration can make us the political equivalent of those much-married folks (usually straight) who so often demean that institution. And if we move to the next issue before we’ve finished making a difference in its predecessor, how are we different from a well-known politician who cheated on a wife with cancer, and justifies it now by saying he’s divorced the one and married the other?
Serving as chaplain to an Occupy movement in crisis last month showed me that political commitment by Unitarian Universalism has real value to people in need. However,what mattered was that I stood in the rain with them for four hours and then was able to shelter them in our meetinghouse when they started trying to figure out where they could go. And if our minister hadn’t already been meeting with one of their working groups, and if some of their leaders hadn’t gone through our RE program, would they have welcomed that offer the way they did?
Moral of the story: religious testimonial is not a fashion statement.
i don’t hate the shirt, but i don’t love it either. I don’t have an issue with wearing a clergy shirt for any reason. I wear one when i am making a public statement. It holds authority and i don’t mind taking that authority…
The color is well, nasty (as you say- who looks good in that color), but it works- it stands out.
I wish the heart was on the front and a bit smaller- i don’t like it on the sleeve…if i put a jacket on it disappears- and i don’t plan to wear this particular shirt (the color is just difficult) to events other than large public witness/service events- I have another shirt that i wear to interfaith clergy gatherings, and events.
it is interesting to read what others have written…thanks for taking this on and giving us a place to comment!!
Such mixed feelings about this SOSOL thing. I like our being visible and making unequivocal statements. (Sure beats saying our usual “it’s all good” namby-pambyness.) I also liked the song and the phrase very much when it was first coined and applied to marriage rights. Love is love across preferences and deserves our support. Then it came to be applied to any situation as a statement of being right – “on the side of love.” As a UU colleague said to me once, “If you’re standing on the side of love, and I disagree with you, then what am *I* standing on? The side of bigotry and hate?”
That and the shirts are butt-ugly.
Thank you for listening.
I wore clericals just a few times when I was living in a small town, and ministers were asked to take turns carrying the pager as overnight chaplains at our hospital. I was a young, female pastor and wanted to be instantly recognizable as someone who could help. (I equally appreciated the lab coats with “chaplain” patch on the sleeve given to us during CPE.) In the right setting, I think it does help people see your face as the face of compassion.
Not sure what to make of these. You’re very right that when I see a clerical collar, I think Christian clergy. It’s the same reason when I’m officiating a wedding or other event I wear a Kippah, even thought I don’t generally do so. It clearly states to everyone, yep – she’s the Jewish clergy person here.
The clerical collar, as you point out is a symbol of moral and religious authority. It does make some kind of sense that the UU would adopt it. Now, the heart on the sleeve, that’s a bit much and I wont even go into that horrid color.
On the completely inane side of things…is the color meant to be “breastfed newborn baby poop”?
On the completely inane side of things…is the color meant to be “breastfed newborn baby poop”?
Somehow my Episcopalian and Anglican colleagues got hold of this picture, and have taken to their respective beds with cold compresses on their foreheads.
I am not a fan of these clerical shirts- it is taking things a bit too far. I am, however, a huge fan of the Standing on the Side of Love campaign and the shirts, banners, pins, and signs that so many of us have been wearing and carrying and bolting to the sides of our churches. The SSOL stoles some ministers have now a great deal more tasteful (and personal, they’re generally hand made and designed for the specific minister) than the shirts pictured here.
From my experience the yellow shirts are a wonderful tool- if nothing else because it makes it much easier to find people at protests and marches! I’ve also found them to be a grand conversation starter far more often then I’ve found them to be polemic, and I’m always amazed at how many people grin gleefully at the sight of our shirts and/or banners.
I disagree with some of the statements about Standing on the Side of Love being “haphazard”. The campaign is focused on circumstances where people are being discriminated against because of who they are, and the slogan was chosen because gives us a place in the public narrative. Fred Garcia explains it much more beautifully, of course.
It is also undeniable that this campaign is hugely significant for me personally. The way that it was launched at the GA following the shooting in my home congregation felt like a validation of everything our congregation has stood for- of our steadfast assertion that “love is the spirit of this church”. We (the congregation of Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church) were targeted in that shooting in large part because of our work for queer rights, and as a queer person raised by that community the shooting was particularly traumatic for me. I cannot possibly overstate how meaningful it has been that the wider Unitarian Universalist community has taken up that yellow banner. There is a great deal more I could say about this, as you might imagine. It’s hard not to take it personally, given the bullet holes in the back of our church sanctuary.
For me the question “what does it mean to stand on the side of love” is something I intend to keep asking myself and those around me. I think it’s an important question, and in circumstances where I have an answer I intend to continue standing up for that answer.
Not in that clerical shirt, though.
You wouldn’t get me wearing one of those. Yep, I dislike the colour.
I don’t like seeing Unitarian ministers wearing clerical collars. If they don’t identify as Christian, then it’s probably some kind of appropriation. (I don’t think I have seen any non-Christian Unitarian ministers wearing them, thankfully.)
If they do identify as Christian, it makes me feel that they are expressing that spirituality to the exclusion of all others.
(I refer to Unitarian as I am in the UK.)
Late to the party, but I like what UU clergy around here (Raleigh, NC) have been doing at rallies against HB2, which is to wear all black and clerical collars with the gold SOSOL stole. Seems like a nice medium: Standard clerical elements, with denominational affiliation represented by the stole. It actually made a nice aesthetic when PCUSA and ELCA clergy showed up to the HB2 protest in similar motif. I recognized clergy by the collar and was then able to likewise recognize what church affiliation by the stole. It is organized and makes sense. Furthermore, It’s absurd to deny a UU minister the right to wear whatever clerical vestments they see fit, considering UU ministers are required to be far more educated in divinity and a broad range of spiritualities than the average christian minister.