kirking of the tartans...an american invention?

[macwilkin]

I think what Hector is saying here is being overlooked. Unless I am misreading, he's saying he doesn't plan on participating in kirkin of the tartans services, for religious reasons, and would this fact affect his chances of holding a leadership position in his can society?

Rather than suggesting he attend kirkin services, I think we need to recognize that these are religious services, and if someone chooses not to attend, or to attend as an observer only, for religious reasons, that is a legitimate choice.

As to how this may effect your ability to serve in a leadership position in your clan society, that would depend one the clan society -- but the ones I know don't generally have any religious requirements for service, so I'd say you were in good shape.

Matt,

Point very well made and taken; however, my concern was that he not judge a Kirkin' service without attending one first. As my article points out, there is a lot of mythology and false information surrounding this service, and not every Kirkin' follows the myth.

I know in the Kirkin' service I have organized for almost a decade, I have tried to distance ours from these myths and our service does not follow "the norm".

I certainly was encouraging Hector to attend as an observer only, and not to participate in if he did not feel comfortable.

Regards,

Todd

[beloitpiper]

All of the religious parts of the Kirkin are done by a minister. The one in Milwaukee (which is absolutely amazing) requires the clan reps to do very little.

I'm an atheist and I love going to the Kirkin. It's very moving, and a great way to bring the Scottish-American community together. I just don't get my tartan blessed when the time comes, but nobody really cares. I'm there for the community, not God.

[scotchmaster]

lads and lassies,

looking information on clan regency requirements, I've found that a lot of clans and local scottish societies perform something 'kirking of the tartans' which is basically the 'blessing' of pieces of tartan for the participating clans.

now, according to a few scottish sources, this is NOT a Scottish tradition, for several reasons (historical, religious and political), but rather a tradition started by a scottish immigrant to the US in the 1940s.

With this said, and specifically for the religious reasons that I agree with, I do not want to be a part of that 'ceremony', but I wonder if this refusal will in any way damage my intentions of eventually take a leadership role (regency or assistant) in my local Clan?

Any thoughts on this 'anathema' tradition?

Not neccessarily an American thing... Kirking comes from the Gaelic word kirk or in English Church.

Apparently people used to take a piece of tartan to church with them discreetly hidden away because displaying your family tartan (or wearing the kilt or playing bagpipes or speaking in your native language) was banned by the English...........All the more reason to rise again and get out of the Union! The North will rise again!

[macwilkin]

Apparently people used to take a piece of tartan to church with them discreetly hidden away because displaying your family tartan (or wearing the kilt or playing bagpipes or speaking in your native language) was banned by the English...........All the more reason to rise again and get out of the Union! The North will rise again!

Please see my article that I mentioned earlier. This story you tell is oft-repeated in the Scottish-American community, but as I mentioned, there's simply no firm documentation for it. I would take this with a rather large salt-shaker. The real story of the Kirkin', a WWII service for war relief by the Rev. Peter Marshall, is far more impressive, INMHO.

And let's refrain from pro/anti-Union discussions, please.

Todd

[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

[Balaamsass51]

Hello Hospitaller!

Adm has asked that this go to private messaging. Quite frankly I have no interest in doing that unless you would like to. My question was one of semantics, not individual religious beliefs.

Why you are interested in what a group of former Calvinists would think about some modern ceremony is beyond me. But you are wrong in saying that the words involved, "anathema" and "adiaphora", have changed meaning. These words were in common usage prior to Calvin, just examine the Lutheran and Roman Catholic writings. And they had specific meanings, which I mentioned in my first post. You are incorrect when you say that "they" would have used "anathema" in the sense of "more in the spirit of 'against the teachings of the church'.

When Calvin used anathema he meant "damn to hell". Methinks thou dost protest too much.

In kilted friendship, Matt