kirking of the tartans...an american invention?

[Balaamsass51]

Hello Hospitaller.

Instead of "anathema" I believe the word you want is "adiaphora".

Matt

[macwilkin]

There is a great article on the Scottish Tartans Museum's web site about the origins of the Kirkin:

http://www.scottishtartans.org/kirkin.htm

Of course, I do know the author, so I'm a bit biased.

Yes, the service did begin in the USA -- if you read the article, you'll notice that it was used to raise funds for British War Relief during the Second World War by the Rev. Peter Marshall, a noted Presbyterian minister and Scottish immigrant. Since you are a WWII reenactor, I would hope you would appreciate that.

Respectfully, Hector: have you ever been to a Kirkin' before? If not, I would ask you not to judge it before you participate in one. Not all kirkin' services are the same. You're always welcome at the one I organize.

Regards,

Todd

[hospitaller]

Yes, the service did begin in the USA -- if you read the article, you'll notice that it was used to raise funds for British War Relief during the Second World War by the Rev. Peter Marshall, a noted Presbyterian minister and Scottish immigrant. Since you are a WWII reenactor, I would hope you would appreciate that.

Indeed, times were grave back in those days.

Respectfully, Hector: have you ever been to a Kirkin' before? If not, I would ask you not to judge it before you participate in one. Not all kirkin' services are the same. You're always welcome at the one I organize

I have not been to a Kirkin before and I do not oppose it per se, I do however hold my beliefs dearly and I would not like to be 'a part' of one in any official capacity, be it as an organizer or as the person actually bringing the tartan to the altar, etc.

I can always go and watch as I'm sure plenty of people do, but as I mentioned, if I were to be a regent for my Clan in my area, wouldn't this be one of the requirements of the job?

If you pay the gas, I'm there anytime Todd!

[macwilkin]

I have not been to a Kirkin before and I do not oppose it per se, I do however hold my beliefs dearly and I would not like to be 'a part' of one in any official capacity, be it as an organizer or as the person actually bringing the tartan to the altar, etc.

Again, Hector, not all Kirkin's are the same. At our Kirkin' for example, the only tartans that are blessed are the ones being worn by those in attendance as part of an overall blessing. We tend to focus more on St. Andrew as the patron of Scotland, the Scottish roots of the Episcopal/Presbyterian Church, etc.

I like to compare the Kirkin' to other services, such as the Blessing of the Fleet services held by the Cajuns in Louisiana:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041500582.html

I can always go and watch as I'm sure plenty of people do, but as I mentioned, if I were to be a regent for my Clan in my area, wouldn't this be one of the requirements of the job?

If you pay the gas, I'm there anytime Todd!

Not necessarily. It again really depends on the Kirkin' service and its organisers. At a games/festival I would say you would more likely see clan officers as participants.

Since you haven't actually attended a kirkin', I would strongly encourage you to investigate and study the tradition before making such strong conclusions. I would be happy to send you a draft of the service that our society presents.

If you would like, I would be happy to discuss this further via PM or e-mail since we are crossing the line into a "religious" topic.

Con respecto,

Todd

[hospitaller]

no, I meant anathema. religious reasons is the operating word remember?

;)

Hello Hospitaller.

Instead of "anathema" I believe the word you want is "adiaphora".

Matt

[Balaamsass51]

no, I meant anathema. religious reasons is the operating word remember?;)

Fair enough. Therefore, when you said in your original post that the ceremony of "kirking" or "blessing" of tartans was an "anathema tradition" you meant that those who participate in this ceremony are cursed or damned. They have separated themselves from God as a result of their actions.


Again I ask you, would not it have been better to use the term "adiaphora"? This term applies to things which God has neither forbidden nor commanded, which are in themselves indifferent - therefore it is no sin either to do or not to do them.

Kindly reconsider.

Matt

[macwilkin]

Fair enough. Therefore, when you said in your original post that the ceremony of "kirking" or "blessing" of tartans was an "anathema tradition" you meant that those who participate in this ceremony are cursed or damned. They have separated themselves from God as a result of their actions.


Again I ask you, would not it have been better to use the term "adiaphora"? This term applies to things which God has neither forbidden nor commanded, which are in themselves indifferent - therefore it is no sin either to do or not to do them.

Kindly reconsider.

Matt

Let's take this aspect of the thread to a PM, gents.

Thanks!

Todd

[gilmore]

Let's take this aspect of the thread to a PM, gents.

Thanks!

Todd

Why? I am learning quite a bit of interesting things. I didn't know the difference.

[macwilkin]

Why? I am learning quite a bit of interesting things. I didn't know the difference.

Because when we start dicussing people being "cursed or damned", we run the risk of crossing the line on religious discussions.

As I suggested earlier, it's probably best to take it to PM.

Regards,

Todd

[hospitaller]

I see where you're coming from, but, and this is WITHOUT intending this to enter a religious clash, simply a statement of curiousity, I intended anathema.

I am aware that adiaphora refers to something that, as you stated, is neither commanded or forbidden.

Now, my original statement including the anathema portion, was intended for the supposed 'spirit of the ceremony', regarding the act of proscription and all that. Back in the mid 1700s.

And even then earlier than that, as it is understood that Calvin and others were 100% linear in their interpretation of religion and what was and was not allowed.

Based on their belief, God had been clear as far as what and how He wanted us to behave, and most importantly, to 'communicate' with him, religious services being the obvious method.

So, along with images and other tidbits, they would have thrown a fit at the thought of conferring any sense of religious power (even if it was just a blessing) to a piece of tartan (an object).

So, with that sliver of history, I meant anathema, as it would have been for them, in the spirit of '45. Not necesarily damnation but more in the spirit of 'against the teachings of the church'.

2-3 centuries later, and plenty of denominations later, things have gone from anathema to adiaphora. Things that would have gotten you in trouble back then are now accepted, and labeled as 'if He doesnt tell me NOT to do it, then it means I CAN do it' sort of thing.

One way or another, again, I hope we do not deviate into a religious argument which is not my intent, everybody can believe any way they want, fine with me.

I was just pointing out that if I don't agree with a 'religious ceremony' that may or may not be part of a Clan, I am not sure whether that would close some doors or not.

That was all.

And thanks Matt for bringing this back to the original intent of the question.

Fair enough. Therefore, when you said in your original post that the ceremony of "kirking" or "blessing" of tartans was an "anathema tradition" you meant that those who participate in this ceremony are cursed or damned. They have separated themselves from God as a result of their actions.


Again I ask you, would not it have been better to use the term "adiaphora"? This term applies to things which God has neither forbidden nor commanded, which are in themselves indifferent - therefore it is no sin either to do or not to do them.

Kindly reconsider.

Matt