A Church of England vicar, Rev. Sally Hitchiner, has posed for a fashion shoot “wearing a £480 black leather jacket by Frances Leon, a £505 Prada top and tight silver leather trousers by the Mother label that come in at just over £1,000. She also wears £535 leopard print Christian Louboutin heels, that rest on a leather stool.”
In the Church of England, this is known as the church’s way of enacting of God’s preference for the poor.
As Ms. Hitchiner herself says: ‘why shouldn’t a priest be interested in Prada? I dress in a way that reflects my personality.’ Good point: perish the thought that the Church of England might use anything crass – like strippers for Jesus – to entice the reluctant to enter its musty sanctuaries; much better to employ the more nuanced imagery of the high heels and leather look of hookers for Jesus.
According to Hitchener, Jesus was ‘thinking fashion theology: Jesus said consider flowers if you’re stressed “how much more beautifully will God clothe you”’. It’s well known that Jesus was big on fashion: he wouldn’t be seen dead performing miracles in anything less than his best tailored to measure seamless robe.
Apparently, Ms. Hitchiner is at the forefront of the battle to ordain women bishops in the Church of England. When they finally materialise – and they will – at least we know how they are likely to dress; that’s the important thing.
From here:
An interesting poser has been exercising the Reverend Sally Hitchiner over the past week. She has posted several tweets on her Twitter page — where she describes herself as an ‘Anglican priest, faith adviser, broadcaster… and finder of funny things’ — on the subject of ‘the theology of fashion’.
She was so preoccupied by it that she even conducted a Facebook debate on the subject.
So we shouldn’t be too surprised then, that this weekend, the 32-year-old Church of England vicar took her theological studies even further forward, posing for a fashion shoot for a Saturday broadsheet magazine under the headline: The Vicar Wears Prada.
In the main picture, Rev Hitchiner is reclining on a leather chair wearing a £480 black leather jacket by Frances Leon, a £505 Prada top and tight silver leather trousers by the Mother label that come in at just over £1,000. She also wears £535 leopard print Christian Louboutin heels, that rest on a leather stool.
In one shot, a heavily kohled eye gazes sultrily at the camera beneath a £239 Andrew Wilkie leopard skin hat set at a flirtatious angle, covering her other eye. Her blood red lips pout above her sharply white dog collar.
The Priestess says it all when shes says:
“…..to fit MY PERSONALITY.
Not the Imitation of Christ-
Not Him.
“My”
Says it all.
Even I have to admit this one is a little silly.
I sent you a petition via facebook, Vincent.
Okay. 🙂
This is why admission of priestesses into the Church was never about providing women the “opportunity to serve God in the clergy” and never came from a meaningful, truthful effort to discern God’s will from his Word.
It was never about these things: the institution of priestesses was always a political, social and cultural article of faith. It thus reflects an alien understanding of the church body relevance to a sinful world. As a result, the predictable thing has happened: the church has become a distillation of the currents of the secular and unbelieving world, unhinged from the restraint of God’s word, tradition, and ancient doctrine handed down from the Apostles.
Because the church is now aligned solidly to the world, it has also lost its capacity for self-discipline. Does anyone imagine any bishop, careful to preserve his six-digit salary, would dare to condemn the blatantly anti-Christian behaviour of a person posing in the holy places erected by the faithful and devout of past generations? The perversion is obvious to all but the solidly blinkered, and that now includes diocesan bishops.
The church is squandering the inheritance bequeathed by past generations. It is burning through its resources; replacing orthodox clergy with (both men and women) who are half-witted, shallow, vacuous, cow-eyed, hedonists who are either spineless, grasping ladder climbers, or shameless attention whores. They are bidding farewell to droves of families and people. They are closing churches, selling up the ranch, as they engage in the slow burn to the liberal paradise.
The supremely lamentable thing, is that these childish stunts by warped heterodox clergy give people a false idea about Christ, his truth, his true worshipers and his gospel. They substitute their own vapid selves in the place of a glorious Saviour. They turn people off from seeking God’s word and searching for his presence. They engage in three ringed circuses rather than simply proclaim and declare the teachings of GOd. They shut the door of faith on sincere seekers who are needy for answers; they give false confidence and cheap glittering media diversions to people who are longing for salvation, like sheep without a Shepherd.
Most assuredly, such gutter-trash were aptly described by the Apostle as “wandering stars, for whom the blackest of darkness is reserved for ever.”
AMEN Jason.
Again I say AMEN!
“Professing to be wise, they became fools,…..who exchanged the “truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever,AMEN….God gave them over to a debased mind..”
Well said, Jason.
She seems to exude arrogance, not something I seek in a pastor.
Sounds like the Frederick K C Price of Anglicanism.
“Jesus was rich and He left us with an example to follow. That is why Fred drives a Rolls Royce; he is following Jesus’ example”
Pastor Matt Brown of the Strippers for Jesus Ministry is keepin’ it real.
http://www.sandalschurch.com/staff-members/matt-brown/
I saw nothing about ‘strippers’ on that website.
I am reminded of the old song about the curate “saving young ladies from sin.”
Maybe she dresses like that in order to do something similar for young, or not-so-young men.
Yup. I could find a wackjob male presbyter and post his story online, would that be reason to say no men should be presbyters? Good grief.
Hello Kate,
May I first offer you my sincere best wishes to you and your family during this Advent season, and may the joy of the season fill you hearts.
I will agree that it is not wise to judge any group of people by the actions and behaviour of one individual. The metaphor of a barrel of apples is somewhat applicable here. Get a large enough barrel and you will have at least one bad apple. That one bad apple does not mean that all the others are bad.
In that spirit I would like to contribute this. From what little we are told about Sally Hitchiner in this article it certainly comes accross that she does not have the right stuff to be a true “Servant of God” (clergy). She may still very well be a good “Servant of the Church” (laity). However anyone who dresses in such expensive fashion clothing (£2,520 is what I calculate, and presumably she owns these clothers) and than parades them in a photo shoot is rather incensitive. I do not begrudge a person for the purchasing choices that they make. But I do think that mixing her high priced fashion clothing with her clergy position is a matter of extremely poor judgement.
I do not know if it is accurate or not, but having read the article I am left with the impression that she is one of the “it’s all about me” people. Not exactly the type of person who I would want to have as Priest who is supposed to be serving God and others.
Best wishes,
AMP
No argument from me there. I was objecting to the generalization to all female clergy. The cost of those clothes would be enough to provide the shelter I will be volunteering for cots and equipment…
http://Www.restoringhope.ca, in case you are interested.
I think many commenters are just trying to point out that the great female push to become ordained in the Anglican Church is so often exerted by the wrong sort of female, for the wrong reasons. It is another of the identity agendas to be pushed.
I once knew of a female choir in the Anglican Church world that for the longest time had to literally beg new choristers to join, then suddenly, after a couple of prestigious secular events in which they sang, other women were lining up to don the choir robes. The motives of these newcomers became suspect, in other words.
Same thing seems to be going on here, in terms of female clergy. Too many of them want clergy-hood only to pump their fists in the air for the Sisterhood, or strut in Prada for Anglican/mainstream photo shoots, or find their calling on-stage in the VM. Would I trust their motives if I had a sick and dying child in hospital, and they appeared for outreach ministry? No.
Kate
You should prayerfully consider your vocation.
Peace,
Jim
People are fickle, Jim. I can remember when you were also sending words of support to commentors whose opinions you cannot wait to disagree with now.
From what I have read over time here, I wouldn’t say that the ANIC seems like a terribly good fit for a decent, thinking Christian either. Many problems in those ranks too.
I will add that if women want to serve God so badly, there are a thousand other ways of doing it, fully open to them. Or is this not really about serving God?
Anon,
Guess again.
ANiC is one of the last bastions of traditional Anglicanism in North America. If a pilgrim was looking for a caring home to grow their soul, here is a fertile place.
If one is looking for blind acceptance of sin and a steady dose of warm fuzzies, look elsewhere.
That would be a matter of opinion, Jim. I have never been looking for a dose of the — as you put it — “warm fuzzies.” Quite the contrary, in fact.
I just don’t think all ANIC members necessarily live up to the standards they like to crow about. And I say that from real experience, and not just musings on an internet site. I note that when the going gets tough, someone in the group (Kate comes to mind) will deliberately post about the good works they themselves are involved in (or so they say), as if to advertise their holiness. Many of us are involved in good works — sometimes to the extent you cannot imagine — but we believe in anonymity and humbleness regarding these. Looking only for warm fuzzies, am I?
I often wonder if you actually understand some of the posts on this site, as you reply quite strangely. You seem to ally yourself with particular personalities instead, and then when someone disagrees with these people, you launch into the “snub mode.” Not very Christian, Jim, for someone who proclaims his orthodox stance.
Traditional Anglicanism does not have the monoploy on Chrisitianity, and obviously there are some members of ANIC who have much work to do on growing their souls. Not that this isn’t the case for ACofC members too (it is), or for any of us in the mass of humanity, but don’t count yourself in the righteous group just because you pay lip service to certain principles.
I, too, support various principles, but I have seen these similarly supported by various individuals in various faith groups, most often amongst traditional Christians (though not only ANIC).
The common problem with break-away groups is that they forever more cast themselves as the Holy of Holies, by default, and rule out critical thought. I think of the Mennonites or the Amish here, and the fact that both groups, after centuries of considering themselves THE most righteous of our society, are now falling into behaviour that is non-Christian at best, and criminal at worst. Take heed, ANIC.
Anon
WOW