# Gown - To Wear, or Not to Wear



## Staphlobob (May 27, 2007)

Redeemer Christian Congregation uses a liturgy, a contemporary version of the 1662 BCP's Holy Communion Service. We have an altar and use a chalice. I also have been using vestments - alb, cincture, stole, chasuble.

But lately I've been wondering, should I do away with these things and do the entire service in street clothes, or keep them? Are they idolatrous? Or should I get hold of a simple gown of some sort?

I don't think the Regulative Principle is opposed to a form of worship (liturgy) of some sorts (I could be wrong since I'm not *that* familiar with it), but I'm of the opinion that vestments can be problematic. 

Suggestions? Thoughts? Points of view?

BTW, our Sunday School class is about to finish up our study of the liturgy. Then we go onto the WCF (as found in the back of the 1990 Trinity hymnal). It's part-and-parcel of trying to discern what the Lord would have us do and where He would have us join.


----------



## larryjf (May 27, 2007)

Pastor Kevin,

In an interview with Dr. Bahnsen he touched on vestments...



> CM: Some Reconstructionists have been very interested in liturgical renewal, seen particularly in the movement to Anglican communions and the use of vestments. Any comments?
> 
> Bahnsen: Reformed theology has insisted on the regulative principle of worship because the Bible requires it. The stress on liturgical forms and significance goes beyond the scripture's teaching. I endorse the regulative principle, and thus the simplicity of New Testament worship. The days of symbolism and ritual (Old Covenant) have given way to the appearance of the Son and emphasis on the Word (New Covenant).



I never really thought about vestments myself, but lean against them. They seem to put focus on the preacher instead of on the word preached.

In the NT i see no example of vestments.


----------



## etexas (May 27, 2007)

As an Anglican I cannot give advice to my Presbyterian brethren on what a pastor should wear, so I thought I would share a funny story. The only Christian Book and Supplies store close to my church is SBC owned, I went with my pastor once and I saw a few people shooting him nasty looks. We checked out and left, as soon as we were in the car I said.......Padre, why were those pople looking at you like that? He started laughing and said,"They see my black shirt and white tab and think I am a Roman priest." Moral of the story...Pastors,wear what you like just be careful what Christian bookstores you go to!


----------



## SRoper (May 27, 2007)

Replace the altar with a table. Some sort of gown can be an acceptable symbol of your office as long as you aren't going to be mistaken for a Romish priest.


----------



## etexas (May 27, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Replace the altar with a table. Some sort of gown can be an acceptable symbol of your office as long as you aren't going to be mistaken for a Romish priest.


 It happens!


----------



## jfschultz (May 27, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > Replace the altar with a table. Some sort of gown can be an acceptable symbol of your office as long as you aren't going to be mistaken for a Romish priest.
> ...



There was an old cartoon web site called "Pew Sitters" set at a Lutherian school. In this one set a professor was telling of being mistaken for a Romish priest and given confession. He gave this person his penance, four our fathers and a reading of the 95 thesis.


----------



## etexas (May 27, 2007)

jfschultz said:


> There was an old cartoon web site called "Pew Sitters" set at a Lutherian school. In this one set a professor was telling of being mistaken for a Romish priest and given confession. He gave this person his penance, four our fathers and a reading of the 95 thesis.


.......I like that.


----------



## Craig (May 27, 2007)

As soon as you typed in the title of the thread...you should have had your answer.

Gown!!!!?????


----------



## KMK (May 28, 2007)

There is always this...



> Luke 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes...



Of course, this appears to refer to public places but should at least give pause.

The Geneva Bible Notes say this...



> We must avoid the example of the glory-seeking and covetous pastors.



The main thing is that you would know the exact reasons for wearing one and make sure it is not 'glory seeking' or 'covetousness'.

I do not wear one. (Of course, I am a baptist) But I would bet that there are some Godly Presbyterian pastors on PB that do.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> There is always this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is very good. 

Didn't some Puritans wear gowns?


----------



## Staphlobob (May 28, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> As an Anglican I cannot give advice to my Presbyterian brethren on what a pastor should wear, so I thought I would share a funny story. The only Christian Book and Supplies store close to my church is SBC owned, I went with my pastor once and I saw a few people shooting him nasty looks. We checked out and left, as soon as we were in the car I said.......Padre, why were those pople looking at you like that? He started laughing and said,"They see my black shirt and white tab and think I am a Roman priest." Moral of the story...Pastors,wear what you like just be careful what Christian bookstores you go to!



This has happened to me quite often! 

This past Sunday, for the first time since 1989, I wore a shirt and tie instead of a collar.


----------



## KMK (May 28, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> This is very good.
> 
> Didn't some Puritans wear gowns?



I am not sure. There are many here that are better historians than myself. I think they wore hats! And I think some even wore wigs.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 28, 2007)

You guys probably don't want to know what I wear, I'm from Woodstock; when we would see a suit walking down the street we'd peg them for either a narc or an executive.

When in Kenya, and I would see these simple villagers attending the school of Biblical theology, dressed in sharp, pressed, clean suits and ties on Sundays, I went and bought myself a fancy, colorful Kenyan dress shirt to preach in.

This is not about ministerial attire, but when my wife & I were attending Redeemer PCA in NYC, one Sunday morning I asked her (she being my fashion consultant) if my clean ironed blue denim jeans and shirt with a brown corduroy sports jacket were acceptable, she answered "Yes." And as I turned around to go about my business, pleased I had passed inspection, I heard her mutter, "for a hayride."

I hope I don't get kicked off PB or defrocked for this!

P.S. Please do not think I mean to be irreverent; it is a cultural thing, and I wear what I wear before the Lord (I do not wear jeans when ministering). Plus my wife keeps an eye on me. She doesn't think I have a great sense of humor either, but the mentally retarded folks I worked with for years thought I was the funniest!


----------



## Romans922 (May 28, 2007)

Yes, Definitely get rid of any altar. Altars are used for sacrifices and no sacrifices are now needed since Christ is the ultimate sacrifice (see Hebrews).

The only table like thing should be the table which serves the Lord's Supper. This is typically before the congregation on the very floor the walk on (not elevated like most pulpits --> symbolizing that it comes from God) so as to symbolize that the table is for the people (Christians).

I am attempting to work through if a pastor should wear a gown when he preaches; sometimes I think he should because he is speaking for God and to minimize distraction, etc. Sometimes I think he shouldn't because it makes the pastor look like he is on a different level than the congregation (like he is more holy or something).

I recently wrote a blog article on this; however it mostly deals with Federal Vision stuff: http://asubmergingchurch.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/32185.html


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 28, 2007)

This is an interesting question in light of the fact that I have been struggling with the same issues. In my case I wear a collar and a black genevan gown.

These really are two different things, and two different issues...

1. The Genevan Gown (vestments). I began with questions about whether or not the 'form' of this gown was appropriate. Calvin modeled the gown after the academic gown and besides just covering up the man to exalt the word, it represents 'academic learning'. A plain Genevan gown represents one's seminary education. Three stripes on the arm represent a doctorate degree. Is it really consistent with the humility of the office to flaunt ones academic credentials?

I considered using an alb and stole as the symbology seemed more appropriate but further thought has brought me around to questioning the entire concept of vestments.

The gown as well as the alb and stole are vestments. Many in the Reformed camp like to deny that our gowns are vestments but I fail to see how that can be since this is a garment that is ONLY worn for worship services. As something that is only worn during worship (for whatever our reasons), I fail to see how it does not become an element of worship.

Do we have liberty to introduce elements into our worship that God has not prescribed either implicitly or explicitly? I find arguments for the use of pulpit robes from within the Reformed community that are based upon the priestly vestments of the Old Testament to be woefully inadequate. 

2. The collar. The collar is a clerical. This is more difficult as it is not an element of worship (vestment); it is a uniform (clerical). As such it does not so cleanly fall under the regulative principal of worship. I wear the collar both in and out of the pulpit, during worship and anywhere in which I am serving in my office as elder. The collar is no more an element of worship than a tie would be. A uniform is a human convention, not something instituted in the scripture. The question here is, do we have liberty to wear a collar (a uniform) as an elder seeing as God does not command this practice?

I will argue that yes we do. For biblical support consider the following...under the Old Covenant, the king was an 'officer' in the 'church'. The state was included as part of the covenant community. In Deuteronomy 17 you have the command as it relates to the office of 'King' and notice it says, "that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers" (verse 20). Notice also that there is no mention of the use of crowns. 

Questions to consider: 1. Where did God tell kings under the Old Covenant they could wear crowns as a sign of their office? 2. If a king wore a crown was he guilty of "lifting his heart up above his brothers" by drawing attention to his office? (Something some charge elders with today who wear collars.) 

Now take a look at 2 Samuel 12:26-30. Here David takes the crown of the defeated king of Rabbah and places it upon his head. The relevant question is, 'where did God ever command the use of crowns by His kings?'. At this time in history, the crown was a human convention (and a pagan one at that) representing the office of a king. Was David wrong to adopt this symbol of his office seeing as God never instituted the use of crowns by the Kings of Israel (remember, at this time, the King was an officer in the 'church')?

In 2 Samuel 1:10 and you will see that Saul also wore a crown.

The scriptures give no indication whatsoever that the use of crowns by Israel's kings was wrong. The inference seems to be that whether or not a king wore a crown was a matter of liberty.

Saul most likely wore his crown with a prideful spirit. David wore his crown with humility as 'a man after God's own heart'. The use of crowns was in and of itself not a matter of pride. In such things we are dealing with the hearts of men, not outward symbols.

With the consideration for the previous, we can move forward to clericals (collars)...as long as the form of the clerical is humble; it is a matter of liberty. The question to ask is 'does this edify the body'. That some wear their collars with a prideful spirit does not mean that all who wear them adorn them with an arrogant heart. 

Conclusion Vestments: Vestments are elements of worship that are neither explicitly commanded nor logically inferred from the scriptures leaving open the question by what authority do we do these things?

Conclusion Clericals: Biblically it can be demonstrated that clericals are not elements of worship but uniforms. We have biblical example from the Old Covenant that officers wearing 'symbols' of their office that God did not institute are presented in scripture as a matter of liberty. 

Can elders wear collars? Yes they can. Should elders wear collars? Yes, if it edifies the church.



Staphlobob said:


> Redeemer Christian Congregation uses a liturgy, a contemporary version of the 1662 BCP's Holy Communion Service. We have an altar and use a chalice. I also have been using vestments - alb, cincture, stole, chasuble.
> 
> But lately I've been wondering, should I do away with these things and do the entire service in street clothes, or keep them? Are they idolatrous? Or should I get hold of a simple gown of some sort?
> 
> ...


----------



## Staphlobob (May 28, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Yes, Definitely get rid of any altar. Altars are used for sacrifices and no sacrifices are now needed since Christ is the ultimate sacrifice (see Hebrews).
> 
> The only table like thing should be the table which serves the Lord's Supper. This is typically before the congregation on the very floor the walk on (not elevated like most pulpits --> symbolizing that it comes from God) so as to symbolize that the table is for the people (Christians).
> 
> ...



Sounds like you're struggling with this issue also. Our ruling elder is on James Jordan's mailing list (not that he agrees with Jordan, he receives the mailing to stay on top of what's going on) and shares the info with me. After reading Jordan I have to clear my head by listening to John Robbins take on FV.

The altar we have was lovingly made for us, gratis, by a member of the congregation. It's quite beautiful and I would never discard it. It also has storage room inside where we place hymnals, Bibles, etc. Because we worship in a library the altar is on wheels so it can be moved back into a corner when we're finished. 

But I do place it somewhat in the front and center of the congregation and stand behind it - like a table. Perhaps it's best referred to as an altar-table. Or a table-altar.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 28, 2007)

prespastor said:


> This is an interesting question in light of the fact that I have been struggling with the same issues. In my case I wear a collar and a black genevan gown.
> 
> These really are two different things, and two different issues...
> 
> Can elders wear collars? Yes they can. Should elders wear collars? If it edifies the church.



Now THAT is a good take on things. I'd never considered the issue in tangent with that of crowns (though it might be viewed by some as being fulfilled by Christ alone). 

But you're really struggling with the gown/vestment and pride issue as I am. I see it not only as an RP issue, but also as a personal spiritual struggle. Having been used to vestments all my pastoral life, it's something I have to evaluate. Are vestments a boundary that assist in the proclamation of the Gospel? Or are they a souce of pride, a Jordan River boundary that I must cross over and go beyond? It'll take prayer and study with my congregation before any definitive move is made.

But the issue of elders wearing collars is excellent. Though I will have no problem wearing one, I doubt the elder of RCC will buy one.


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 28, 2007)

Yes, I think our struggle is the same. 

Regarding the arguement for crowns being fulfilled in Christ...my point was not that collars come in place of crowns, but rather the principles at play in the use of crowns by Old Covenant officers provides incite to the question as to whether or not collars for elders are a mater of liberty.

Regarding struggling with pride in regard to vestments. Again I think that is a matter of the heart, not necessarily evil of vestments. As a vestment, I think the alb and stole provides a much humbler image than that of the geneva gown. The alb is not even a symbol of office as anyone serving in worshipi can wear an alb. For the symbol of office there is the stole that (rather that pointing to the man's learning) identifies the man as being yolked to Christ.

Irregarless, I firmly believe that a man can wear either the genevan gown or the alb and stole with godly humility in his heart. For me the question is, "Do I have liberty to introduce elements into our worship that are not commanded or inferred from the scripture?" and then, if so, "What are the most appropriate forms (example: gown or alb?).

Since I answer "no" to the first question, the second question becomes irrelevant.




Staphlobob said:


> Now THAT is a good take on things. I'd never considered the issue in tangent with that of crowns (though it might be viewed by some as being fulfilled by Christ alone).
> 
> But you're really struggling with the gown/vestment and pride issue as I am. I see it not only as an RP issue, but also as a personal spiritual struggle. Having been used to vestments all my pastoral life, it's something I have to evaluate. Are vestments a boundary that assist in the proclamation of the Gospel? Or are they a souce of pride, a Jordan River boundary that I must cross over and go beyond? It'll take prayer and study with my congregation before any definitive move is made.
> 
> But the issue of elders wearing collars is excellent. Though I will have no problem wearing one, I doubt the elder of RCC will buy one.


----------



## AV1611 (May 28, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> a contemporary version of the 1662 BCP's Holy Communion



I prefer the original  There is no problem with Anglican vestments, if I were ordained I would wear them.


----------



## SRoper (May 28, 2007)

I guess I don't see the RPW concerns. The minister must wear something, and since Scripture does not specify what, it seems to be a circumstance of worship. The WCF says "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." Since clothing often indicates office in human society, I don't see an issue with special clothing for the minister.


----------



## Davidius (May 28, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> I am a baptist, but a while back the PB had this disucssion about clerical robes.
> 
> I was impressed with some of the reasoning behind those who do, in fact, wear clerical robes.
> 
> ...





SRoper said:


> I guess I don't see the RPW concerns. The minister must wear something, and since Scripture does not specify what, it seems to be a circumstance of worship. The WCF says "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." Since clothing often indicates office in human society, I don't see an issue with special clothing for the minister.


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 28, 2007)

I agree with you in so much as we are talking about clericals as all that you have said applies to them.

However, vestments are more than simply the uniform or dress of the minister. Clothing worn only and specifially in the worship service, by that very distinction are for all practical purposes vestments and therefore elements of worship.

It is somewhat humorous to me that Baptists typically wan to say that both clericals and vestments are vestments. Presbyterians seems more apt to say that both clericals and vestments are clericals.

If we are going to properly engage the Scriptures in this subject and apply the RPS, it is critical we understand the difference between a clerical and a vestment. 

A clerical is very much a circumstance of worship (not really a RPS issue)...I just happen to wear my collar in the pulpit because it is my uniform that I wear everywhere when I am angaged in the work of my office. As to its relevance to worship, it would be no different should I wear a tie into the pulpit.

My Genevan gown, that I purposely put on right before the worship service and take off when the service is over, becomes an element of worship. There is something specific about it that we are employing specifically in worship (if not, why even bother with it?). The implications of this as it relates to the RPW are unescapeable.






SRoper said:


> I guess I don't see the RPW concerns. The minister must wear something, and since Scripture does not specify what, it seems to be a circumstance of worship. The WCF says "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." Since clothing often indicates office in human society, I don't see an issue with special clothing for the minister.


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> I am a baptist, but a while back the PB had this disucssion about clerical robes.
> 
> I was impressed with some of the reasoning behind those who do, in fact, wear clerical robes.
> 
> ...


Wonderful point. My Pastors were a simple black cassock so as NOT to bring glory to themselves. There is a local pastor who is paid one million dollars a year and wears 2000 custom suits. Ask yourself this, what brings more attention to the man simple black cotton robe or 2000 buck Italian suit?


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

A note for Christian History buffs. The Anglican cassock was a practical "wear" item for the COLD stone and wood churches of England during the Reformation. Not only did it keep them warm but it was practical for easy movement, turning pages of the Holy Bible, reading sermon notes setting communion. Second item, the cassocks worn by RC Priest look a lot like those of the Anglicans....why.......they stole them! Until the late 18th and early 19th century RC priests wore a more billowy high bigh collared thing. Around this period the RC saw the practicality of the ANGLICAN cassock and began to adopt it it was finally approaved by the Vatican for use and the rest is History. If you see an Anglican in his cassock do not ask why he is dressing RC ask why the RC "priest' is dressing like him. Grace and Peace.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 28, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> I prefer the original ..



To be honest with you, so do I. And would even use the AV. However, though I'd used the original 1662 a number of times with them, the congregation nonetheless asked for something contemporary. We use the NKJV also.

But I appreciate all the comments re clerical garb and vestments. Just to see some of the thinking here on this board, I feel a bit more comfortable with the vestments I'm using.


----------



## KMK (May 28, 2007)

An important aspect of the crown to remember is this:

A king is 'crowned'. The king does not take on the crown himself. It is something that is given to him by his subjects in recognition of his office.

In that way, if my church gave me some kind of article of clothing in recognition, not of me, but of the office, and it would edify them to see it worn by the man who happens to fill that office, then I would have to seriously consider it. But if I, on my own accord, started shopping for a collar and then just showed up to church one Lord's Day wearing it, I would be laughed right out the door!

Also, I agree with Mr. Rafalsky in that it is partly cultural. Around here, there is a specific message that is sent by preaching while wearing a Hawaiian shirt. Someone who does not live on Chuck Smith's turf probably would not understand that underlying message. Those of you that do, know what I am talking about.


----------



## Dagmire (May 28, 2007)

I prefer a preacher to be in casual clothes or a suit. A robe does not imply simplicity in my mind. In our culture, wearing a long robe is more eye-catching than dressing in regular clothes.


----------



## Archlute (May 28, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This is not about ministerial attire, but when my wife & I were attending Redeemer PCA in NYC, one Sunday morning I asked her (she being my fashion consultant) if my clean ironed blue denim jeans and shirt with a brown corduroy sports jacket were acceptable, she answered "Yes." *And as I turned around to go about my business, pleased I had passed inspection, I heard her mutter, "for a hayride."*



  

Man, God gave us wives to keep us in line! Who else could get away with saying something like that?


----------



## Archlute (May 28, 2007)

I do not see the wearing of a Genevan gown as a distraction, or as something that brings unwarranted attention to a minister, but rather the opposite. My wife and I have personally been more distracted by all of the awful plaid tie and mismatched suit combos that we have seen in the past, and would be greatly blessed if those ministers would cover up!

I believe that MLJ wore a robe partly for that reason also, to minimize distraction of dress with the congregation, but also to set apart the preaching of the word from the everyday and the ordinary (not necessarily to exalt the preacher).


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I do not see the wearing of a Genevan gown as a distraction, or as something that brings unwarranted attention to a minister, but rather the opposite. My wife and I have personally been more distracted by all of the awful plaid tie and mismatched suit combos that we have seen in the past, and would be greatly blessed if those ministers would cover up!
> 
> I believe that MLJ wore a robe partly for that reason also, to minimize distraction of dress with the congregation, but also to set apart the preaching of the word from the everyday and the ordinary (not necessarily to exalt the preacher).


----------



## Davidius (May 28, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I do not see the wearing of a Genevan gown as a distraction, or as something that brings unwarranted attention to a minister, but rather the opposite. My wife and I have personally been more distracted by all of the awful plaid tie and mismatched suit combos that we have seen in the past, and would be greatly blessed if those ministers would cover up!



This is exactly what I was about to say - couldn't agree more! And think of all the money the minister would save. 

I actually try to convince my teaching elder to start wearing Genevan gowns quite often.


----------



## KMK (May 28, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This is exactly what I was about to say - couldn't agree more! And think of all the money the minister would save.
> 
> I actually try to convince my teaching elder to start wearing Genevan gowns quite often.



But doesn't seeing a grown man wearing a gown distract you because you start asking yourself the same question you ask when you see a man in a kilt?


----------



## etexas (May 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> But doesn't seeing a grown man wearing a gown distract you because you start asking yourself the same question you ask when you see a man in a kilt?


I'm not sure my pastors have the legs for a kilt! I hope they stick with the cassock!


----------

