# Clerical Collars Poll



## TylerRay

What do you think of clerical collars? I'm trying to gauge the popular opinion on them in Reformed circles.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

I really don't have a problem with it. Arguing about fashion is not my passion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I am a bit of a traditionalist, so I voted for option one. It is not a dogma, however.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Adiaphora

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo

I chose option #2. I could not bind someone else's conscience against doing it, I aim to think the best thoughts about Reformed pastors who do wear one, but I know my own heart and know how easily it could become a badge of pride for me.


----------



## RamistThomist

Are we distinguishing between the more Anglican looking collars and the ones that have flaps down front, which were nigh-universal among reformed?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay

BayouHuguenot said:


> Are we distinguishing between the more Anglican looking collars and the ones that have flaps down front, which were nigh-universal among reformed?


No; I just mean distinct dress for ministers.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

I personally like the idea of a distinct uniform among the leaders in the church if you would call it that. Other professions do it, so I don't see why pastors can't. A few years ago an older man said nowadays you can't tell a pastor from a prostitute master. It was a funny but interesting thought.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Held Fast

Here's a quote I saved on the issue that I do not have a source for: "The Puritans’ emphasis on moderation arose from strong religious beliefs about the nature of human vanity and desires. J. Stephen Yuille, writing in the journal ''Churchman,'' traces this teaching back to Augustine’s theology of affections. The 16th-century Puritan theologian William Perkins makes explicit the connection between moderation of desires and holiness, writing that the “vertue” (sic) of moderation arises when the soul’s affections are “tempered and allayed with the feare (sic) of God.” Perkins devoted a section of his book "Cases on Conscience" to moderation of dress, calling on believers to pay more attention to the “inward” ornament of the soul than the borrowed, outward ornaments of the body."

If I may add an observation, my vocation is the only required and authorized to wear a religious symbol on their uniform. The effect is predictable - pagans pretend to be holy in our presence, will make obscenities or profanities first, and then apologize. The devout have no need for the symbol to be mindful; its the pagan that sees the symbol and feels he/she must "behave" in my presence ... never mind a Holy God. Having supervised diocesan Catholic priests on contract to the DOD, I have observed their collar elicits the same behavior. It serves as an idol for the pagan, and for some devout as well, as though the man wearing it is holier. I've been asked to consecrate canteens, rifles, helmets, vehicles ... its pagan superstition and idolatry, emanating from the same heart that seeks a symbol, and I'd rather not feed into it. When asked to do so, I take the object, and hold it in my hand while praying for the person who brought it to me to look to the Creator and not the created for their peace and security.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TylerRay

Held Fast said:


> Here's a quote I saved on the issue that I do not have a source for: "The Puritans’ emphasis on moderation arose from strong religious beliefs about the nature of human vanity and desires. J. Stephen Yuille, writing in the journal ''Churchman,'' traces this teaching back to Augustine’s theology of affections. The 16th-century Puritan theologian William Perkins makes explicit the connection between moderation of desires and holiness, writing that the “vertue” (sic) of moderation arises when the soul’s affections are “tempered and allayed with the feare (sic) of God.” Perkins devoted a section of his book "Cases on Conscience" to moderation of dress, calling on believers to pay more attention to the “inward” ornament of the soul than the borrowed, outward ornaments of the body."



I'm going to keep quiet about my own views until the survey is over, but I did want to set this straight.

If you are referring to this William Perkins:






And to puritans such as John Owen:





And Thomas Goodwin:





And Richard Baxter:





I think you're going to have a hard time making a case against distinctive ministerial dress from their views. Their doctrine of modest dress did not keep them from using such clothing.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## JimmyH

I think it was in Preaching And Preachers where Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said a minister of the Gospel should where a gown, or surplice, to differentiate him from the congregation.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Better than a Hawaiian shirt...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K

There should be no hard-and-fast rule. But in Western cultures today, a clerical collar tends to make people act weird around the guy who wears one, and so it generally makes it harder for most guys to speak the gospel effectively in casual situations, especially to unbelievers. Wearing one in the pulpit may be a different story, though I still wouldn't recommend it for a preacher who hopes to help visitors feel at ease.

The clerical collar also tends to make people think of a Catholic priest or a clergyman from a high-church mainline tradition, especially if it's worn by a white guy. It seems out of place on a Reformed minister or on a pastor from any gospel-faithful church, simply because it has gone out of fashion in such circles (though I think the fashion sense may be a bit different in some historically black neighborhoods). Why cause confusion or make people think you are someone you are not? This too might get in the way of effective gospel proclamation because it distracts from the minister's main message by requiring him to explain his wardrobe. How frequently do you want to clarify that your collar does not mean you're a priest or liberal, or would you rather be talking about Jesus?

So I say it's allowed and may be helpful in some places. But for most guys in most parts of America today, it often is not the best practice for a minister who wants to reach his whole community with the gospel.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Held Fast

TylerRay said:


> I think you're going to have a hard time making a case against distinctive ministerial dress from their views. Their doctrine of modest dress did not keep them from using such clothing.



Different time, different standards of modesty. And indeed even during their day, there were those who sought to wear the clerical collar for the public attention it garnered. Consider what it means to be modest, to not draw attention to oneself, and what clerical garb conveys into today's culture. I have preached in hawaiian shirts ... in a hawaiian church where a hawaiian shirt was considered aloha crisp, a modest display of sober mindedness in worship. I have preached in boots, jeans and a western shirt while pastoring a country church in a ranching community ... they thought bolo ties were immodest. The clerical collar does not cut across all lines today - it worked in the closed communities of the puritans. But the standard of modesty is what the puritans espoused, and that is relative to the community. As with all things, the heart of the wearer is a factor, as is the heart of the weaker brother.


----------



## Edward

JimmyH said:


> I think it was in Preaching And Preachers where Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said a minister of the Gospel should where a gown, or surplice, to differentiate him from the congregation.



But how,then, can he show his tats to prove he is hip and with it.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Edward said:


> But how,then, can he show his tats to prove he is hip and with it.



You could have your clerical collar tattooed on.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## JimmyH

Edward said:


> But how,then, can he show his tats to prove he is hip and with it.


Perhaps you're confusing MLJ with someone else ? Years past to 'be hip and with it' get a tattoo. Now to be hip and with it don't get a tattoo.


----------



## Gforce9

Bill The Baptist said:


> You could have your clerical collar tattooed on.



Skinny jeans and a collar tattoo.......now your talkin'.......hi.....hip.....hipster........

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Edward

Gforce9 said:


> Skinny jeans and a collar tattoo.....



Don't forget the 'soul patch'.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Held Fast said:


> Different time, different standards of modesty. And indeed even during their day, there were those who sought to wear the clerical collar for the public attention it garnered. Consider what it means to be modest, to not draw attention to oneself, and what clerical garb conveys into today's culture. I have preached in hawaiian shirts ... in a hawaiian church where a hawaiian shirt was considered aloha crisp, a modest display of sober mindedness in worship. I have preached in boots, jeans and a western shirt while pastoring a country church in a ranching community ... they thought bolo ties were immodest. The clerical collar does not cut across all lines today - it worked in the closed communities of the puritans. But the standard of modesty is what the puritans espoused, and that is relative to the community. As with all things, the heart of the wearer is a factor, as is the heart of the weaker brother.



The ministerial dress clearly and intentionally differentiated the Puritan minister from the congregation in public worship, something which a simple concern for modesty would not do. If modesty is the only rule, than the congregants are no less under that rule as the minister and there should be no clear distinction between minister and lay-person in dress. That is certainly common in these days, but that was not the approach of Perkins, as Tyler illustrated, and therefore could not the be import of the works by him that you reference.


----------



## Held Fast

Would someone care to offer a biblical argument indicating that elders ought to, in external form, be distinguishable from the rest of the church?

What I quoted of Perkins was on modesty, and in his time the clerical collar was considered modest for a particular reason. It may be helpful to consider who else wore collars during that same time period, and compare them to those worn by some of the clergy ... I believe the principle of modesty will stand out visibly as 17th century collars outside the clergy were much more elaborate & adorned. While at the time of all the pictures offered many who held positions of public trust wore collars, no one does so today, so by mere fact of wearing a collar, the clergyman sticks out, not for the modesty of their collar in contrast to others, but for being the only one that has one. If you live in a community where other public professionals wear elaborate collars, then a plainer collar indicating both modesty and a position of public trust may be in order.


----------



## TylerRay

I just wanted to let everyone know--this survey is almost over, so if you want to vote and haven't yet, go ahead and do it.

Many thanks to everyone who has participated.


----------



## Post Tenebras

How about when we laypeople wear them?


----------



## TylerRay

Now that the poll is over, I'll give my concluding thoughts. But first, let me again thank everyone who participated. We had an excellent turn out--57 participants! It is clear that majority view among those polled is that the matter is indifferent; nearly thirty people voted in this way, while the next popular option only had ten votes.

I refrained from sharing my own views while the survey was being done, as I didn't want to influence anyone's vote. However, I'll now make a case for the use of such garments.

The first and main reason why I think that they are the best option is the matter of modesty and plainness of dress. It has been argued on this thread that clerical collars violate Biblical principles of modesty. However, what could be more plain and simple than a uniform, black and white, form of dress? By way of contrast, most ministers today wear ties of various colors and patters, reflecting their own tastes and personalities. While the collars draw attention to the office of the ministry, the form of dress commonly employed today draw attention to the man. Jeans, Hawaiian shirts, bow-ties, colored blazers, etc. all have the inevitable effect of saying something about the man wearing them. There is nothing wrong with that ordinarily; however, in the work of the ministry, a man is acting in the stead of Jesus Christ. He is, as much as possible, to put aside his peculiar quirks and tastes. He is, as much as he is able, to give his people all of Christ, and none of himself. _That_ is how modesty is applied in the pulpit, and in my opinion, the collar is an excellent way to do this. The only other option that I've seen that doesn't draw attention to the man is the practice of certain denominations in the Dutch tradition, in which ministers uniformly wear a plain black suit, white shirt, and plain black tie.

The second reason for the use of the collars is that they mark out the man who is serving in the ministry. We have been asked to provide a Biblical argument for distinct dress for minister--I won't pretend to do this. It isn't an argument from Scripture; it's an argument from common sense. It is ordinary in any society that men who serve in public offices (especially ones with whom ordinary people have regular interaction) wear something that distinguishes them from people who are not serving in such a capacity. This is true for police officers. It is true for fire fighters. It is true for medical professionals. Why should it not be true for those who have the care of souls?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo

TylerRay said:


> The second reason for the use of the collars is that they mark out the man who is serving in the ministry. We have been asked to provide a Biblical argument for distinct dress for minister--I won't pretend to do this. It isn't an argument from Scripture; it's an argument from common sense. It is ordinary in any society that men who serve in public offices (especially ones with whom ordinary people have regular interaction) wear something that distinguishes them from people who are not serving in such a capacity. This is true for police officers. It is true for fire fighters. It is true for medical professionals. Why should it not be true for those who have the care of souls?



A friend was telling me about an encounter he had the other day with a group of Mormons and, strangely enough, it made me think of this thread.

I voted that I do not think clerical collars are a great idea because I am very concerned about the tendency toward ostentation and pride. However, my friend pointed out that he knew the group he saw as Mormons from a distance because of their shiny, black name tags. 

Now I'm wondering if a nice, magnetic name tag identifying a man as "Rev." or "Pastor" and maybe the name of his congregation would be a good way to let people know about his office? It's a more subtle and modern way of letting people know of a man's office when talking to him. What do you all think?


----------



## TylerRay

Parakaleo said:


> Now I'm wondering if a nice, magnetic name tag identifying a man as "Rev." or "Pastor" and maybe the name of his congregation would be a good way to let people know about his office? It's a more subtle and modern way of letting people know of a man's office when talking to him. What do you all think?


I've got to confess, brother, that I'd feel kind of awkward wearing a name tag around as a minister. Maybe it's just me.


----------



## Edward

Parakaleo said:


> Now I'm wondering if a nice, magnetic name tag identifying a man as "Rev." or "Pastor"



Our pastor to seniors wears a name tag when he is serving as chaplain at one of the large hospitals. And, of course, we are all supposed to wear nametags at church. 

But somehow it doesn't strike me as a good idea to wear one all the time. In this day and time, it's likely to turn off more folks than it attracts.


----------



## TylerRay

Edward said:


> And, of course, we are all supposed to wear nametags at church.


I trust you mean all of the officers, not all of the members, correct?


----------



## Edward

TylerRay said:


> I trust you mean all of the officers, not all of the members, correct?



Members, too, although probably less than half the folks are doing so at this point. It helps the visitors and new members.


----------



## TylerRay

Edward said:


> Members, too, although probably less than half the folks are doing so at this point. It helps the visitors and new members.


Interesting. I've never heard of a congregation doing that.


----------



## Edward

It's a large church. And we maintain our size by planting nearby churches - we are getting ready to plant our 4th within 10 miles, so there is a fair amount of turnover.


----------



## TylerRay

Edward said:


> It's a large church. And we maintain our size by planting nearby churches - we are getting ready to plant our 4th within 10 miles, so there is a fair amount of turnover.


Wow. I can see why the name tags are in order.


----------



## Parakaleo

TylerRay said:


> I've got to confess, brother, that I'd feel kind of awkward wearing a name tag around as a minister. Maybe it's just me.



I completely understand. Hypothetically though, why would a name tag make you feel awkward but a clerical collar wouldn't? I would be far more comfortable snapping a name tag on whatever I happen to be wearing than putting on a collar and getting confused with the Anglo-Catholics all the time.


----------



## RamistThomist

I wonder if it goes back to the old idea that clothing represents an investiture of authority (we see it even today; police uniforms).


----------



## BG

I voted that it should not be practiced. There has not been set forth any scripture to support the idea although I understand that God has not forbidden it, I can not see any reason for a man to just decide to do it. I don't buy the uniform argument. It seems boarder line self promoting/aggrandizement. It reminds me of the hyper Patriarchal Dad who is always saying I'm the leader I'm the leader. Ministers are to be humble servents of the people not seeking their own glory, their duty is to draw attention to Christ not themselves. Lastly, this is not a logical conclusion to my argument but only an observation of my own thoughts, whenever I see a man in a collar I think child molester simply due to all the ugly reports that we hear about RC Priests.


----------



## RamistThomist

The suit and tie has practically become a uniform today. Uniforms aren't avoided, they are only transferred. Whenever I wear a suit and tie to church, I always get asked if I am preaching.


----------



## TylerRay

BayouHuguenot said:


> The suit and tie has practically become a uniform today. Uniforms aren't avoided, they are only transferred. Whenever I wear a suit and tie to church, I always get asked if I am preaching.


Very true. When my wife and I first met @Parakaleo at a Presbytery meeting, she assumed he was a minister before meeting him, simply because he was wearing a suit!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay

Parakaleo said:


> I completely understand. Hypothetically though, why would a name tag make you feel awkward but a clerical collar wouldn't? I would be far more comfortable snapping a name tag on whatever I happen to be wearing than putting on a collar and getting confused with the Anglo-Catholics all the time.


I'll have to think about that. Perhaps it's because the collar is already a convention for ministers.


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> Ministers are to be humble servents of the people not seeking their own glory, their duty is to draw attention to Christ not themselves.


Bill, note that the purpose of the uniform is to take attention away from the minister, showing that he is acting as a representative of Christ.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Generally what happens, In my humble opinion and experience, is that people immediately tend to equate the collar and robe as something Reformed ministers borrow from "Roman Catholicism", where, in fact, it is Calvin's Geneva that dealt with that issue first. When they see the collar, then tend to think, "Why does the minister want to look like a Papist?"

Even if ministers muster up biblical arguments for pastors all through Scripture who "looked different" than laity, it still comes down to perception. And it is hard to be "upset" with others on an indifferent issue especially when it causes them to be distracted during worship if they have never been taught why a distinction may be helpful. Some, for example, see the Genevan Robe (think through why it is called _Genevan_) as OK, but the collar of Geneva not OK. Well, they equate it too much with Rome, too much with Papist perception.

Some ministers can wear a robe, and the people are fine with it, but not wear a collar, because they are not fine with that. 

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, Calvin gave a myriad of reasons why Genevan ministers were going to wear a robe and collar, and then said, finally, but, its of an indifferent issue. They still wore the robe and collar, but at the end of the day, it didn't "really" matter, though they did it.

If someone asks me why I wear a robe, I answer, "I don't own a suit," and leave it at that.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TylerRay

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> At the end of the day, when all is said and done, Calvin gave a myriad of reasons why Genevan ministers were going to wear a robe and collar, and then said, finally, but, its of an indifferent issue. They still wore the robe and collar, but at the end of the day, it didn't "really" matter, though they did it.


Dr. McMahon,
Is Calvin's writing on this subject readily available?


----------



## TylerRay

kainos01 said:


> Better than a Hawaiian shirt...


I think I may have found a compromise:

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

TylerRay said:


> Dr. McMahon,
> Is Calvin's writing on this subject readily available?



First, the picture above is hilarious. Me personally, I wouldn't go with that. 

Second, my recollection of Calvin's info on that is via remembrance (Calvin is very voluminous). I'll have to check where its at. When I find it, I'll post it.


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> Bill, note that the purpose of the uniform is to take attention away from the minister, showing that he is acting as a representative of Christ.



Very true. If you want to continue the anti-collar logic, the minister should wear the plainest of plain clothes: white polo shirt with some khaki pants (which is basically how I dress everyday).


----------



## BG

TylerRay said:


> Bill, note that the purpose of the uniform is to take attention away from the minister, showing that he is acting as a representative of Christ.



The purpose can be (mho)attention, prestige and recognition, we can pretend it is not but that is what happens. It is not indifferent, it is not commanded or even hinted at in scripture.


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> The purpose is attention, prestige and recognition, we can pretend it is not but that is what happens. It is not indifferent, it is not commanded or even hinted at in scripture.


It's very uncharitable for you to judge the hearts of the ministers of Christ, brother. I think you should try to see it in a different light.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> The purpose is attention, prestige and recognition, we can pretend it is not but that is what happens. It is not indifferent, it is not commanded or even hinted at in scripture.


Scroll through the page below and see how many collars you see. Can you really say in good conscience that you know that each of these men is seeking glory and prestige in the ministry?

http://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/find-us/ministers


----------



## BG

Do you feel the same way about RC ministers? History and popularity have no bearing on the biblical argument. When a minister wearing a collar fails to leave a fair tip, decided to take a peek at a young girl in a bikini or cuts someone off in traffic, should we see the man or the office as having done the act?


----------



## BG

I don't think that there is anything uncharitable about disagreeing with a practice not commanded in scripture. I am not questioning anyone's motives, I can't see anyone's heart, a mans motives may be sincere and he still be sincerely wrong.


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> I don't think that there is anything uncharitable about disagreeing with a practice not commanded in scripture. I am not questioning anyone's motives, I can't see anyone's heart, a mans motives may be sincere and he still be sincerely wrong.


No, sir. It's the motive that you criticized: "The purpose is attention, prestige, and recognition."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> Do you feel the same way about RC ministers? History and popularity have no bearing on the biblical argument. When a minister wearing a collar fails to leave a fair tip, decided to take a peek at a young girl in a bikini or cuts someone off in traffic, should we see the man or the office as having done the act?


We're not talking about Roman Catholics. The collars were developed by Reformed Christians, and were almost universal in Reformed churches until the 1900s.

What do the papists have to do with the question?

As to your second point, everything a minister does is done by the man. However, he has an official capacity according to which he is called to act. When he is acting according to that capacity, it is appropriate that he not dress or act in such a way that draws attention to his own quirks, peculiarities, or tastes because he is not acting on his own behalf.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

TylerRay said:


> No, sir. It's the motive that you criticized: "The purpose is attention, prestige, and recognition."



Badly worded on my part

We just have to disagree unless there is a bible verse that you can use to support the practice.


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> We just have to disagree unless there is a bible verse that you can use to support the practice.


I can't; there's nothing in Scripture that specifically addresses what a minister should wear. It has to be guided by moral principles and common sense.

At the end of the day, he has to wear something, and almost everyone has an opinion about what it should be: necktie? bow tie? dress shirt with no tie? t-shirt? clerical collar? polo? Hawaiian shirt? An argument for any of these as the ordinary dress for a minister is going to be an argument from morality and common sense.

It's fine to agree to disagree on the subject, but none of the arguments can be made from the Scriptures in a direct way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw

BG said:


> Badly worded on my part
> 
> We just have to disagree unless there is a bible verse that you can use to support the practice.


May I ask where there is a Bible verse that supports the practice of wearing a regular business suit, or any other particular garb? The clerical collar is purposefully distinguishing itself from the professionalism of a business suit and from the casualness of the Hawaiian shirt. Do you wonder if there was distinguishing dress for Rabbis in order for men to recognize who were teachers or not? This is not something about which I can be dogmatic, but it seems to me that folks would approach Jesus and call him _master_, _teacher_, _Rabbi_, without perhaps having never met him up until that point.

I am not arguing that men _must_ wear the collar, or the robe, etc. But -regardless of what one is wearing- they're projecting a message of some sort. It may be unfair to interpret the message in a way not intended by the wearer, but it's still going to be there, whether they're sporting a t-shirt, a suit and tie, or a clerical collar.


----------



## BG

TylerRay said:


> I can't; there's nothing in Scripture that specifically addresses what a minister should wear. It has to be guided by moral principles and common sense.
> 
> At the end of the day, he has to wear something, and almost everyone has an opinion about what it should be: necktie? bow tie? dress shirt with no tie? t-shirt? clerical collar? polo? Hawaiian shirt? An argument for any of these as the ordinary dress for a minister is going to be an argument from morality and common sense.
> 
> It's fine to agree to disagree on the subject, but none of the arguments can be made from the Scriptures in a direct way.




I agree to a point. I am standing in Lowes right now there are a variety of people here dressed a variety of ways, if we line them all up nothing would stand out about them but if one of them was wearing a collar he would.


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> I agree to a point. I am standing in Lowes right now there are a variety of people here dressed a variety of ways, if we line them all up nothing would stand out about them but if one of them was wearing a collar he would.


Are any of them wearing a suit and tie?


----------



## BG

Please don't misunderstand me, many of my heroes wore collars and some of my favorite men today wear them (Todd Ruddell one example) I listen, read and love these men, but disagree with the practice.


----------



## TylerRay

BG said:


> Please don't misunderstand me, many of my heroes wore collars and some of my favorite men today wear them (Todd Ruddell one example) I listen, read and love these men, but disagree with the practice.


No worries, brother, and no hard feelings. We ought to be able to disagree in a straightforward way in discussion all the while counting one another friends and brothers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

