# Geneva Gowns, Yes or No?



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Not a question of if you do or not or if your Pastor does or not but a simple yes or no as to the propriety of "Geneva Gowns" in the pulpit. 

Let the arguments be organized and exegetical if you would.

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 10:49:31 EST-----

bump


----------



## Dearly Bought

No. There is no Scriptural basis for distinctive clothing as an element of worship.


----------



## charliejunfan

If there is no scriptural basis for distinctive clothing as an element of worship and that is your reason not to, then what is your reason for dressing up for church if you do? I am not aware of any scripture that suggests special dress either, but we want to be reverant whether that means a suit and tie, or a robe, I personally think a black robe takes the attention off of the pastor and allows one to give more attention to what is being said. I believe it is a matter of Christian Liberty, and for me the robe seems to allow for more reverence to God within the audience.


----------



## TsonMariytho

charliejunfan said:


> I am not aware of any scripture that suggests special dress either,



The only one I can think of is where James forbids treating somebody better than others because he dresses up...

Jas 2:1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 
Jas 2:2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 
Jas 2:3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet," 
Jas 2:4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? ​


----------



## Marrow Man

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Not a question of if you do or not or if your Pastor does or not but a simple yes or no as to the propriety of "Geneva Gowns" in the pulpit.





I voted before I read the first post. I personally don't wear one (although I did once for a wedding at the request of the couple -- the groom was another pastor -- and had to "borrow" one) and I'm not fond of wearing them (for both personal and practical reasons), but that is not the same as saying they are wrong or out-of-place. As long as man-made religious symbolism is not being attached to them, they are permissible, In my humble opinion. And as someone here pointed out on another thread, the suit is the "Protestant vestment"! 

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 01:42:15 EST-----

Someone once commented to me that the office of pastor/minister of the word needs to be set apart in corporate worship. This is sometimes given as a reason for the pastor to wear the Geneva gown. Fair enough, except that when I preached in Mississippi, I was almost always the only man in the congregation wearing a coat and tie (it was a rural church, and the air conditioning didn't work that well in the summers). I'd say that just wearing a suit in those circumstances distinguished me as the pastor!


----------



## Curt

> Someone once commented to me that the office of pastor/minister of the word needs to be set apart in corporate worship. This is sometimes given as a reason for the pastor to wear the Geneva gown. Fair enough, except that when I preached in Mississippi, I was almost always the only man in the congregation wearing a coat and tie (it was a rural church, and the air conditioning didn't work that well in the summers). I'd say that just wearing a suit in those circumstances distinguished me as the pastor!



Agreed. In this day of Hawaiian Shirts and headphones as uniform for many "pastors" it may be appropriate - and in some cases necessary to wear something that distinguished the office and brings a sense of propriety to the pulpit. If it is a Geneva Gown, that works for me. I do, BTW, wear one, summer and winter.


----------



## Ivan

Marrow Man said:


> I'd say that just wearing a suit in those circumstances distinguished me as the pastor!



That's true at my church too. Normally there is only one other gentleman that wears a coat and tie. I don't have anything against the gown. I can see advantages in wearing one.


----------



## Christusregnat

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> bump



Bumps have nothing to do with Geneva gowns, unless you preach in a backwoods baptist church, and they think you're a papist for wearing one, and then give you bumps and bruises  Then your robe will be black, blue and red.

Jesus, Paul, and Barnabbas were all known as rabbis wherever they went. Why? Of course, it was the halos.... or, was it the distinctive magisterial gown they wore... hmmmmmmmmm....


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

If I wore a Geneva Gown in the Backwoods of my youth they would think I was some kind of Mennonite...


----------



## TsonMariytho

Christusregnat said:


> Jesus, Paul, and Barnabbas were all known as rabbis wherever they went. Why? Of course, it was the halos.... or, was it the distinctive magisterial gown they wore... hmmmmmmmmm....



Can you give an example in scripture where someone identified someone else as a rabbi, and we can be reasonably certain that he/they had no way of knowing the rabbi's identity apart from vestment?


----------



## Christusregnat

TsonMariytho said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, Paul, and Barnabbas were all known as rabbis wherever they went. Why? Of course, it was the halos.... or, was it the distinctive magisterial gown they wore... hmmmmmmmmm....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an example in scripture where someone identified someone else as a rabbi, and we can be reasonably certain that he/they had no way of knowing the rabbi's identity apart from vestment?
Click to expand...


Not sure your name, as it didn't show up on your signature, so I'll call you TM.

TM, 

From the known custom of the people of that day, doctors or teachers were known by the clothing that they wore. This was based on the fact that in the OT, the Levitical priests (non-Aaronic) were the doctors of the people: they were to teach them the Law.

In the NT, this custom was not forsaken by Jesus, or Paul or Barnabbas. This is the only explanation for why Paul could go to any city in the Roman empire, sit down in a synagogue, and be asked to give a word of exhortation or explanation, or teaching on the text. Why pick him above the other scores or hundreds of worshippers? Because he was visibly distinguishable as a teacher. Acts has several such instances, but here's one:



> Acts 13:14-16 (King James Version)
> 
> 14But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
> 
> 15And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.
> 
> 16Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.



Note: Paul was visibly distinguished from the other worshippers _*by the rulers of the synagogue as rabbis*_, and that Paul not only had the vestments, but also the oratorial practice (raising his hand - not essential to the argument, just interesting).

Cheers,


----------



## Dearly Bought

Christusregnat said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumps have nothing to do with Geneva gowns, unless you preach in a backwoods baptist church, and they think you're a papist for wearing one, and then give you bumps and bruises  Then your robe will be black, blue and red.
> 
> Jesus, Paul, and Barnabbas were all known as rabbis wherever they went. Why? Of course, it was the halos.... or, was it the distinctive magisterial gown they wore... hmmmmmmmmm....
Click to expand...


That is an argument for a clerical uniform, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're discussing whether or not it is appropriate to don a Geneva gown specifically for stated public worship. Or are there ministers who consistently wear Geneva gowns to identify themselves as ministers outside of public worship?


----------



## Christusregnat

Dearly Bought said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumps have nothing to do with Geneva gowns, unless you preach in a backwoods baptist church, and they think you're a papist for wearing one, and then give you bumps and bruises  Then your robe will be black, blue and red.
> 
> Jesus, Paul, and Barnabbas were all known as rabbis wherever they went. Why? Of course, it was the halos.... or, was it the distinctive magisterial gown they wore... hmmmmmmmmm....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an argument for a clerical uniform, but that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're discussing whether or not it is appropriate to don a Geneva gown specifically for stated public worship. Or are there ministers who consistently wear Geneva gowns to identify themselves as ministers outside of public worship?
Click to expand...


Bryan,

There's no need for belligerence, as we're all friends. I'm not unfamiliar with the topic of discussion, but before you come down on me, perhaps you should take the matter into your better thoughts.

The Geneva gown is an academical robe, intended to demonstrate the office of doctor, teacher, or teaching elder, if you like. The discussion of clerical garb is perfectly appropriate, because the context Paul used it in would be teaching situations. Acts doesn't record his private vacations to the Bahamas, but his teaching and preaching tours. Therefore, the fact that Paul went to church in his "Geneva gown" is perfectly appropriate to our discussion. Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the specifics of what a minister wears in the pulpit be a subset of clerical garb in general?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## TsonMariytho

Christusregnat said:


> Not sure your name, as it didn't show up on your signature, so I'll call you TM.
> 
> TM,
> 
> From the known custom of the people of that day, doctors or teachers were known by the clothing that they wore. This was based on the fact that in the OT, the Levitical priests (non-Aaronic) were the doctors of the people: they were to teach them the Law.
> 
> In the NT, this custom was not forsaken by Jesus, or Paul or Barnabbas. This is the only explanation for why Paul could go to any city in the Roman empire, sit down in a synagogue, and be asked to give a word of exhortation or explanation, or teaching on the text. Why pick him above the other scores or hundreds of worshippers? Because he was visibly distinguishable as a teacher. Acts has several such instances, but here's one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 13:14-16 (King James Version)
> 
> 14But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
> 
> 15And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.
> 
> 16Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Paul was visibly distinguished from the other worshippers _*by the rulers of the synagogue as rabbis*_, and that Paul not only had the vestments, but also the oratorial practice (raising his hand - not essential to the argument, just interesting).
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Thanks, CR!

It didn't show yours either... Until I learn everybody's name, this is going to feel like reading a Russian novel.

Very interesting theory. I'd suggest it's not a necessary conclusion to draw, though. Maybe Paul and his companions came in lugging some books:

2Ti 4:13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.​
If he was carrying books, mightn't that have piqued the interest of the synagogue rulers such that they'd ask him to contribute to the service? It's at least as credible a theory to me as the vestment idea. Of course, we have no way to know for sure whether it is correct.

Mischievous thought (contra my own point): was the "cloak" above one of the special vestments? :^)


----------



## Dearly Bought

Christusregnat said:


> Bryan,
> 
> There's no need for belligerence, as we're all friends. I'm not unfamiliar with the topic of discussion, but before you come down on me, perhaps you should take the matter into your better thoughts.
> 
> The Geneva gown is an academical robe, intended to demonstrate the office of doctor, teacher, or teaching elder, if you like. The discussion of clerical garb is perfectly appropriate, because the context Paul used it in would be teaching situations. Acts doesn't record his private vacations to the Bahamas, but his teaching and preaching tours. Therefore, the fact that Paul went to church in his "Geneva gown" is perfectly appropriate to our discussion. Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the specifics of what a minister wears in the pulpit be a subset of clerical garb in general?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam



Sorry, didn't mean to come off unfriendly there. Rereading it, I can see how I might seem to be asking snarky rhetorical questions.  Let me try again:
Are we discussing the case of a minister who uses a Geneva robe solely for stated public worship? In such a case, I cannot understand how the robe avoids becoming an element of worship. Are there ministers who wear the Geneva robe as a general indication of office? Wouldn't you have to wear it while teaching Sunday school to be consistent? Wouldn't it be consistent to wear during pastoral visitations as well? Wouldn't you wear it at any stated public worship service, regardless of your role?​


----------



## Christusregnat

Dearly Bought said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to come off unfriendly there. Rereading it, I can see how I might seem to be asking snarky rhetorical questions.  Let me try again:
> Are we discussing the case of a minister who uses a Geneva robe solely for stated public worship? In such a case, I cannot understand how the robe avoids becoming an element of worship. Are there ministers who wear the Geneva robe as a general indication of office? Wouldn't you have to wear it while teaching Sunday school to be consistent? Wouldn't it be consistent to wear during pastoral visitations as well? Wouldn't you wear it at any stated public worship service, regardless of your role?​



No worries broham 

I render my own measure of snarkesque questions 

Generally, ministers will have clerical garb that they wear to identify them in public as ministers, and a specific form of garb (say, a cloak ) for the act of preaching or teaching. On the theory I have espoused, yes, the minister/doctor would wear his robe while in worship, although I wouldn't argue that he needs to do so outside of worship, since that is the only context mentioned in the book of Acts. Yes, a minister would be obliged to wear the robe while teaching Sunday School as well, on the theory I've espoused. Visitation, I don't have Scripture for, so I would leave it as indifferent.

Cheers,


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Dearly Bought said:


> No. There is no Scriptural basis for distinctive clothing as an element of worship.



I'm not aware that clothing has historically been defined as an element.


----------



## Dearly Bought

R. Scott Clark said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is no Scriptural basis for distinctive clothing as an element of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aware that clothing has historically been defined as an element.
Click to expand...


That's the sticky point for me. As I understand the regulative principle, anything can be an element if you attach religious significance to it in stated public worship. I don't understand how essays like this manage to keep the robe from becoming an element of worship.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

If y'all would care to I would like to hear some more discussion on this point.


----------



## PresbyDane




----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

indeed...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Reasons in favor of Ministerial Robes:

Scripture: Ministerial robes were required in the Old Testament (Ex. 28).

1) It marks the office and not the person: The robe, among other things, helps emphasize the office of the pastor and de-emphasize the personality of the man in the pulpit. Sometimes it’s hard to be led in worship by a elder or pastor who is a good friend or a peer or even (especially) one who is younger. To help us get over this feeling, the church in general, and the Reformed church in particular, has historically placed special robes on her ministers when they conduct worship. This helps the people to remember that it is not just a man up there; rather, it is God’s appointed minister leading us into God’s presence and speaking God’s Word to us. Strictly speaking, the worship service is not conducted by a man anyway, but by the robe of office which he happens to be filling at the current time. We submit to the office, not to the man, during worship. (The concept of submission to church office is eminently biblical: Acts 20:17, 28-35; 1 Cor. 12:28; 16:16; Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Thess 5:12, 13; 1 Tim. 3:1ff; 4:14; 5:17; Heb. 13:7, 17; & 1 Pet. 5:1-7.)

2) The teaching elder who leads the worship plays a symbolic role during worship. When he leads the congregation in prayer before God, he symbolizes Christ leading the church in prayer before the Father. When he reads and preaches the Word, he symbolizes Christ, the husband, speaking to his holy bride (which is, by the way, one of the main reasons why women cannot be pastors: they cannot symbolize Christ the Husband to his bride, the church, 1 Cor. 11:2-10; 14:33-38; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Tim. 2:11-15). The robe is not meant to set him above the congregation, but to set him apart from them because of his unique office as pastor during the Lord’s Day worship service. Here’s what the French Calvinist theologian Richard Paquier says about this:



> It is natural that the man who officiates in the worship of the Church be clothed in a manner corresponding to the task assigned to him and expressing visibly what he does. Moreover, whoever leads in the act of worship does not perform as a private party but as a minister of the church; he is the representative of the community and the spokesman of the Lord. Hence, an especially prescribed robe, a sort of ecclesiastical “uniform,” is useful for reminding both the faithful and himself that in this act he is not Mr. So-and-so, but a minister of the church in the midst of a multitude of others. (Dynamics of Worship: Foundations and Uses of Liturgy [Fortress Press, 1967], p. 138).


3) The pastor is not a businessman. He is not the CEO of the ecclesiastical corporation. It tends to contribute toward a very real problem in our churches we tend to attract upper-middle class people. Upper middle class people are comfortable around a pastor whose uniform is a suit and tie. People in other economic strata, however, sometimes find it hard to relate to a pastor who dresses like and acts like a business man. I often sense that what I wear erects unfortunate barriers in certain situations. Just because a congregation doesn’t have its pastor wear a robe doesn’t mean that they escape the idea of a uniform. In most American Protestant churches, for example, there is an expectation that the pastor dress conservatively, with a black or dark suit, a white starched shirt, a conservative necktie (no Mickey Mouse ties!), etc. In our culture this is the weekday uniform of a lawyer or middle to upper management business man. This has become de facto the American Evangelical clerical garb. I think this “uniform” often communicates precisely the wrong message in our churches and the communities in which we minister. Our pastors too often seek to conform to the patterns and symbols of authority prevalent in American culture. It is simply not possible to escape the symbolism of clothing. When the minister of the Word wears a robe, it helps to focus the congregation on the work of Christ and the Apostles, because the minister has no authority outside of them.

4) The robe adds dignity and reverence to our services. Why is it that pastors wear robes during wedding services and not during Lord’s Day worship services? At weddings the robe adds to the solemnity and glory of the event. The same ought to be true on the Lord Day. Are wedding services more important than Sunday services? No, just the opposite. The Lord’s Day worship service ought to be just as (or more) glorious and formal as a wedding.

Blessings,

Rob

PS: Just about all of the pictures we have of the Reformed and Puritans are shown with them in the Geneva Robe! - RPW


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Dearly Bought said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. There is no Scriptural basis for distinctive clothing as an element of worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aware that clothing has historically been defined as an element.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the sticky point for me. As I understand the regulative principle, anything can be an element if you attach religious significance to it in stated public worship. I don't understand how essays like this manage to keep the robe from becoming an element of worship.
Click to expand...


Many things in a service add dignity to an element of worship without being an element themselves- e.g. raised platform, pulpit, larger than normal Bible for public reading, all add to the dignity of the word read.

Vestments- alb, cassock, stole, surplice, chasuble, etc.- might be regarded as having a special religious significance and were opposed by the Puritans. However, a robe of office, as worn by professors and judges, has no special religious significance. It does not violate the regulative principle any more than a pew Bible.

I don’t wear a robe in my normal public worship ministry. There are situations where it would draw undue attention and would be best avoided. I own a plain Geneva robe, which I have used on occasion, when not to do so would have been more out of place. I find robes with fake velvet stoles and religious symbols less appropriate. If it is no different than a judge or professor, it should look like a plain judge’s robe.

Clerical garb outside of public worship is a separate issue. 

There are other threads on this board where this has been discussed before.


----------



## JBaldwin

> PS: Just about all of the pictures we have of the Reformed and Puritans are shown with them in the Geneva Robe! - RPW



I don't see the above arguments as reasons why a pastor should wear a ministerial robe. If we go back to time when people wore clothing that showed their status and job in life, we can understand why ministers wore robes. It was the practice of the day, just as nuns and monks wore robes, and the king wore colors that identified his status, etc. These days you can walk into a room full of people and the CEO of a company might be dressed in a jeans and T-shirt while one of his employees is dressed in a suit. 

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Calvin and others wore the robe because of their education, not because they were clergy. The clergy of their day dressed differently, and the reformers frowned on that sort of clothing.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not aware that clothing has historically been defined as an element.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sticky point for me. As I understand the regulative principle, anything can be an element if you attach religious significance to it in stated public worship. I don't understand how essays like this manage to keep the robe from becoming an element of worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many things in a service add dignity to an element of worship without being an element themselves- e.g. raised platform, pulpit, larger than normal Bible for public reading, all add to the dignity of the word read.
> 
> Vestments- alb, cassock, stole, surplice, chasuble, etc.- might be regarded as having a special religious significance and were opposed by the Puritans. However, a robe of office, as worn by professors and judges, has no special religious significance. It does not violate the regulative principle any more than a pew Bible.
> 
> I don’t wear a robe in my normal public worship ministry. There are situations where it would draw undue attention and would be best avoided. I own a plain Geneva robe, which I have used on occasion, when not to do so would have been more out of place. I find robes with fake velvet stoles and religious symbols less appropriate. If it is no different than a judge or professor, it should look like a plain judge’s robe.
> 
> Clerical garb outside of public worship is a separate issue.
> 
> There are other threads on this board where this has been discussed before.
Click to expand...


It is my understanding (cf. link above) that many modern proponents of the Geneva robe understand it to represent the ministerial office in worship. If it were just a matter of dignified attire (not restricted to the minister alone), I would have no objection.


----------



## Whitefield

I usually don’t wear a robe, however the last time I preached on predestination to this fairly Arminian group I intentionally wore my robe with stole. I wanted to make sure that as they heard words they may not agree with, they had to notice that the one speaking those words was not just offering his opinion. But because of his education and office (symbolized by the robe and stole) his words had more gravity and authority. So the wearing of the robe on that day was a sign of 75% education and 25% office.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

I minister within a denomination dominated by Roman Catholic wannabees, Anglican wannabeees and other types of strange breeds. I have seen stoles with every image short of the Golden Calf and robes as outlandish as even red... Sometimes the men in these get-ups seem more ladylike than the women present! 

But there seems to be little warrant in Scripture for either excess in our Lord's Day garb in worship--for RC priestly excess or CEO suits. My solution to the insanity? The plain, black, unadorned Geneva gown. It's not trendy, nor is it popular with the rainbow stole crowd.

The Geneva gown links me to my Reformed communion of saints who still uphold me today: Calvin, Cranmer, Edwards, Whitefield, Machen, et al. If they could wear the gown, then I wear it with humble recognition that the office that Almighty God has entrusted to me is not my own, it is His.

Last time I checked, the human heart can turn whatever it desires into an idol: whether robe, cassock or business suit. Don't worship the gown, don't worship the preacher in it. To me, that's the safest ground we can stand on.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Whitefield said:


> I usually don’t wear a robe, however the last time I preached on predestination to this fairly Arminian group I intentionally wore my robe with stole.



Why the stole?


----------



## Whitefield

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> I usually don’t wear a robe, however the last time I preached on predestination to this fairly Arminian group I intentionally wore my robe with stole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the stole?
Click to expand...


It is the black stole I had as an Army chaplain. In my tradition it signifies the yoke (burden of responsibility) to preach the gospel. It serves to remind me more than anyone else that the burden has been placed upon me to labor in teaching and preaching the Word of God.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Whitefield said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> I usually don’t wear a robe, however the last time I preached on predestination to this fairly Arminian group I intentionally wore my robe with stole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the stole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the black stole I had as an Army chaplain. In my tradition it signifies the yoke (burden of responsibility) to preach the gospel. It serves to remind me more than anyone else that the burden has been placed upon me to labor in teaching and preaching the Word of God.
Click to expand...


OK... your tradition. As Presbyterians or neo-Puritans, worship, government and doctrine are guided neither by tradition, taste nor pragmatism.

*The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the 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. * [WCF I:6]​
A plain robe as a symbol of office falls under “circumstances.” A minister must wear something, a matter “common to human actions and societies,” and as one holding office and authority in leading public worship, he wears a garment indicating office and authority. A stole comes closer to a religious element, a priestly symbol. Do judges and professors wear stoles?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

JBaldwin said:


> PS: Just about all of the pictures we have of the Reformed and Puritans are shown with them in the Geneva Robe! - RPW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the above arguments as reasons why a pastor should wear a ministerial robe. If we go back to time when people wore clothing that showed their status and job in life, we can understand why ministers wore robes. It was the practice of the day, just as nuns and monks wore robes, and the king wore colors that identified his status, etc. These days you can walk into a room full of people and the CEO of a company might be dressed in a jeans and T-shirt while one of his employees is dressed in a suit.
> 
> Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Calvin and others wore the robe because of their education, not because they were clergy. The clergy of their day dressed differently, and the reformers frowned on that sort of clothing.
Click to expand...


Hi:

I did not say a pastor "should" wear a gown - I simply said these are arguments in favor of wearing particular garments. It is purely a matter of adiaphora, and not a command In my humble opinion.

Whether you like it or not the clothing we wear tells us something about ourselves. CEO's, Lawyers, Construction workers all wear clothing that declares who and what they are doing.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

JBaldwin said:


> These days you can walk into a room full of people and the CEO of a company might be dressed in a jeans and T-shirt while one of his employees is dressed in a suit.



Which is a type of egalitarianism we don’t want in the church. The Catechisms' application of the fifth commandment speaks of superiors, inferiors and equals in terms of office. Church officers are “fathers” in terms of their office. Recognition of such in performance of their duties is biblical. They stand in a place where they may be heard by all, behind a special desk, dressed in a manner at least respectful of the office they perform (whether robe or coat and tie), reading from a Bible perhaps bigger than the one typically used, leading God’s people in prayer, praise in the presences of an Almighty King, whose ambassador they are. A robe is not obligatory, but certainly not prohibited. In Regulative Principle Worship there is no place for a minister wearing jeans and t-shirt sitting on a bar stool. I assure you, the Chief Justice will not be dressed in such a manner when he administers the oath of Office to the President-elect tomorrow.


----------



## Archlute

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the stole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the black stole I had as an Army chaplain. In my tradition it signifies the yoke (burden of responsibility) to preach the gospel. It serves to remind me more than anyone else that the burden has been placed upon me to labor in teaching and preaching the Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK... your tradition. As Presbyterians or neo-Puritans, worship, government and doctrine are guided neither by tradition, taste nor pragmatism.
> 
> *The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the 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. * [WCF I:6]​
> A plain robe as a symbol of office falls under “circumstances.” A minister must wear something, a matter “common to human actions and societies,” and as one holding office and authority in leading public worship, he wears a garment indicating office and authority. A stole comes closer to a religious element, a priestly symbol.
Click to expand...


The problem that I have with neo-Puritan argument of "OK...your tradition" is that it acts as if these issues have been established purely on tradition alone, and without any significant thought having gone into their being established. It does not seem to occur to the modern day iconoclast that there may actually be arguments worth considering for a particular practice. Not every thing Banner of Truth publishes is worth reading, nor is every argument ever put forward by various Puritan writers the definitive word on the subject. 

I still believe it worthy of consideration that in the 15th chapter of his epistle to the church in Rome the apostle Paul describes his ministrations to the Gentiles as being mediatorial and priestly in a manner different from, although not opposed to, the general priesthood of the believer. I believe that there are some good exegetical arguments and theological principles found in this description to warrant the wear of some special clothing of religious significance that does not elevate oneself (which, of course, was the problem with the pharisees), but sets apart oneself as a bond servant of Christ (which is why Protestants have worn the ecclesiastical "dog collar"), and as one who does indeed function as a mediator in some sense between God and his people. 

That last statement my cause the eyes of some to get a little wider than normal, but it is a fact in that even in Protestant churches the prayers of the minister for his people are seen as having a special significance. In both Testaments emphasis is placed upon the mediatorial nature of prayers from the prophets and ministers of the church in a way that sets them apart from the prayer of the congregation. Our own historically based BCOs and manuals for worship emphasize the special nature of the minister's prayers for his people. 

There is more that could be said, and I am certainly not for the silly garb found in most mainline churches, but I do think that our conservative Protestantism, affected as it has been both by the modern winds of egalitarianism and anti-ecclesiastical opinion, has lost sight of some of the Scriptural emphases that would lend credibility to the wearing of certain forms of dress, both in worship and for witness in ministerial visitation.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Archlute said:


> The problem that I have with neo-Puritan argument of "OK...your tradition" is that it acts as if these issues have been established purely on tradition alone, and without any significant thought having gone into their being established. It does not seem to occur to the modern day iconoclast that there may actually be arguments worth considering for a particular practice. Not every thing Banner of Truth publishes is worth reading, nor is every argument ever put forward by various Puritan writers the definitive word on the subject.



The wearing of some minister identifying dress outside of public worship is not a Regulative Principle issue. Choice of clothing, as long as it does not denigrate the office of minister, is a matter of Christian Liberty. Though I have not done so, there are circumstances where I could conceivably wear a clerical collar, and find some practical ministerial benefit in doing so.

However, when it comes to public worship, we confessional Presbyterians are bound by the Confessional Standards and the Regulative Principle. Everything fits under an “element” or “circumstance” of worship. Circumstances are narrowly defined as matters which enhance one of the biblically warranted elements. A sound system may help the congregation hear the reading and proclamation of the word, and is therefore circumstantial. If I start attributing some “religious” significance to the sound system itself (e.g. It represents the loud voice of God delivering the Law.), I’m making it an “element” of worship, thus departing from the clear implications of the WCF.

A robe is a circumstance, a sign of office, common to other officers of other institutions. Notice the US Chief Justice tomorrow. Stole, alb, chasuble, surplice are strictly “religious” symbols and manmade additions to worship, eschewed by the Puritans for that reason.


----------



## Whitefield

Glenn Ferrell said:


> A plain robe as a symbol of office falls under “circumstances.” A minister must wear something, a matter “common to human actions and societies,” and as one holding office and authority in leading public worship, he wears a garment indicating office and authority. A stole comes closer to a religious element, a priestly symbol. Do judges and professors wear stoles?



You are the one defining what falls into symbol and what falls into element. That's fine ... don't wear a stole. But unless you can present something other than how you think they fall out, then I will continue to view the stole as a symbol of the office and not an element of worship. And because I see it as a symbol of the office and not an element of worship, I will rely on Christian liberty and not let you bind my conscience. Judges and professors do not wear stoles because they have not been ordained to preach the Word.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Whitefield said:


> You are the one defining what falls into symbol and what falls into element. That's fine ... don't wear a stole. But unless you can present something other than how you think they fall out, then I will continue to view the stole as a symbol of the office and not an element of worship. And because I see it as a symbol of the office and not an element of worship, I will rely on Christian liberty and not let you bind my conscience. Judges and professors do not wear stoles because they have not been ordained to preach the Word.



Lance:

I am not trying to bind your conscience. Christian Liberty applies to matters not prescribed by Scripture. As a confessional Presbyterian, I confess the Westminster Standards as an accurate summary of the scriptures.

According to those standards and the historical understanding of the Regulative Principle of Worship, 1) A robe of office would be and has historically been permitted in public worship; 2) Symbols of clerical ordination have not been permitted.

The Confessions do not make the definition of “elements” and “circumstances” a matter of Christian Liberty. The “elements” of worship are defined in WCF XXI. Christian Liberty is explained in WCF XX.

So, on a Puritan Board, don’t accuse me of binding your conscience by advocating the historical, confessional Puritan position. You should expect to find such here. Your position is not the Puritan one.


----------



## Whitefield

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Your position is not the Puritan one.



That's because I'm Reformed, and not a Puritan.


----------



## Hamalas

Ok, stupid question here: What is a stole?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Whitefield said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is not the Puritan one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because I'm Reformed, and not a Puritan.
Click to expand...


Yet, on your Public Profile, you list your confessional subscription as the "Westminster Standards." The Westminster Standards are “Puritan” on these matters of public worship. Perhaps you would like to rethink and restate your profile?

-----Added 1/19/2009 at 03:50:55 EST-----



Hamalas said:


> Ok, stupid question here: What is a stole?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stole_(vestment)


----------



## Whitefield

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Perhaps you would like to rethink and restate your profile?



Not everyone who subscribes to the WCF accepts all the subsequent interpretations of the RPW ... e.g., hymns vs Psalms. If a moderator wants to question my presence here and whether I should "rethink" by profile, then I will. I don't think that is your place.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Whitefield said:


> Glenn Ferrell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you would like to rethink and restate your profile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone who subscribes to the WCF accepts all the subsequent interpretations of the RPW ... e.g., hymns vs Psalms. If a moderator wants to question my presence here and whether I should "rethink" by profile, then I will. I don't think that is your place.
Click to expand...


I’m not trying to usurp the role of moderator here; nor police your profile. Nor am I accusing you of some presumptuous act of sacrilege in wearing a simple black stole with a Geneva robe. Far worse is done in “conservative” Presbyterian churches each Lord’s Day. In ignorance, I’ve done worse myself. I don’t mean to pick on you personally, but address the principles stated or implied in this thread.

The Westminster Standards are not interpreted or applied subjectively. There is no question Chapter XXI of the WCF, as shown by the subsequent DPWG, made the singing of Psalms only (or at least canonical content) an element of worship. Certain Reformed denominations since, including my own OPC, seem to allow a blanket exception to this by their mention of hymns in their Directory of Worship. This does not change the Confession. And the definition of “elements” and “circumstances” is firmly established and understood. These are not arbitrary subjective matters of “Christian Liberty.” 

Confessional standards mean nothing among us Presbyterians if not believed, understood, applied and enforced. That’s exactly where the PCUSA and its predecessors, the UPCUSA and PCUS, got into trouble. All PCUSA officers take an ordination vow-

_“Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?”_ (Book of Order, G-14.0405b(3))​
Yet, there is no uniform and enforced understanding of what are the “essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions.” Other Reformed denominations will face similar problems when they don’t believe, understand, apply or enforce important parts of their confession such as those speaking of worship. Worship is as important as doctrine; and its components are warranted by scripture or illicit. 

My point is not to moderate you; but you accuse me wrongly of violating your Christian Liberty when I point out the worship principles of the confessional standards, and the inconsistency of your calling yourself “Reformed” but not “Puritan,” when you’ve stated you “subscribe” to the Westminster Standards, a Puritan document on worship issues. I leave it to you to qualify your subscription statement or not, and to work out the implications of your theology. As you are not a Presbyterian, you have not taken similar vows concerning the Standards. If you ever become such, you need to think through, in consultation with the receiving presbytery, the extent to which you “subscribe” to these documents and the implications of the vows taken. But, I freely admit, many Presbyterians and presbyteries in “conservative” denominations are lax on these matters.

“Reformed” is not merely a matter of soteriology; but of worship also. Those who are saved by God’s sovereign grace alone, through God given faith alone, in God’s eternal Son Jesus Christ alone, will rightly offer their imperfect worship though the completed righteousness, perfect sacrifice and continuing intercession of Christ alone, as God has commanded in his word alone, leaving off their man-made, people-pleasing, ego gratifying inventions, seeking the glory of God alone in their public worship. The Reformation was about worship as much as doctrine. It still is.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Sure, why not.


----------

