A new and interesting development locally is a monthly inter-faith coffee morning. A few of us from different faith traditions go and have coffee together in a local cafe. No agenda. Very relaxed. It is a meeting which includes RC, Presbyterian and Episcopal Christians, the local Immam and someone from a Tibetan Buddhist centre. We are in touch with someone from the local synagogue too, but so far I’ve not met him.
This week was a particularly good meeting. Someone had invited two liaison officers from the local police force – two individuals who work on diversity issues including race, gender, religion etc. One of the most interesting things to come out of the conversation on Tuesday was that of five of us sitting around a table, three of us had had trouble in the streets which had to do with wearing particular clothing associated with religion. In my case, the number of times I’ve had aggressive comments about my collar has meant that I now remove it before walking home.
It does not feel comfortable to have to modify one’s dress in the street in order to avoid trouble, and the police were very keen to point out to all of us that hassling someone because of the way they are dressed is a crime and should be reported every time. It was the fact that this is something that we had in common across faith boundaries which struck me most.
I’m aware of some people who think that the right thing to do is to carry on wearing clerical dress proudly at all times and to take one’s place in the streetscape. In theory I agree with this. In practise, I slip off my collar before I get past one of the local pubs, where there have been drinkers out on the street late at night since the smoking ban came in.
What would you do and what would you have a priest do?
Off topic, but I just discovered that St.Mary’s was featured in the ship of fools “mystery worshipper” section, and received 9 out of 10 in arguably the most important criteria:
http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/2008/1554.html
“received 9 out of 10 in arguably the most important criteria”
– shoe colour, presumably.
I’m too distracted to comment on collars and shirt colour because I’m still stymied by the notion that Glasgow would rather have people boozing it up on the streets than smoking in the pubs…
Well, almost too distracted. I say go for the collar and take the verbal abuse. (If it comes to physical, then call every cop in town.) For many years priests accepted unearned respect and honour. (In this corner of the world they got free movie tickets, in order to vet potentially offencive or immoral films, a practise my wife and I are trying to see restarted…not for morality’s sake, but because we’re dirt poor.) We still do, in many quarters, get better treatment than secular professionals. Overall, though, it’s our lot to be priests in a time when respect for the church is low. Sometimes the church deserves low respect, even if we don’t. Sucks to be us, but that’s the reality.
Plus, I find that the collar has been a signal to people in trouble or pain. I’ve had more spontaneous counselling, prayers and genuine connection wearing it than I ever had with a naked neck. If it means getting a snide comment as I pass the pub or a suspicious look from parents with small children (really, people, we’re not ALL paedophiles and the ones who are don’t snatch children off the street in broad daylight in front of their parents) that’s a small price to pay.
All of this is moot, of course, if the attacks are threatening and there’s a real chance of you getting a thrashing.