# Bad Vestments



## Wayne

With apologies to the queasy stomachs out there, this should provide no end of shock and comment:

Bad Vestments

As one Lutheran blogger described it, "It features the best of the worst vestments, very ecumenically. Spend a few minutes here and you will either be laughing, or crying, or laughing so hard you start crying."


----------



## Pergamum

The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!


----------



## Marrow Man

All vestments are bad vestments.


----------



## Wayne

Pergamum said:


> 1/5th of your pics...



Let's be clear here--not MY pics. Ah'm just sayin' . . .

-----Added 8/31/2009 at 01:20:28 EST-----

Calling Chris Coldwell:

As this thread might raise the question, are copies of your edition of George Gillespie's _English Popish Ceremonies_ still available for sale? Anyone who doesn't have a copy should think to buy one. Definitely _the_ definitive edition.


----------



## yeutter

Pergamum said:


> The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!


That's no lady, that is Ms. Katherine Jefferts Schori, she is the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Her vestments almost always look like they came from the costume department of some movie studio in Hollywood.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Marrow Man said:


> All vestments are bad vestments.



Amen!


----------



## Rogerant

Marrow Man said:


> All vestments are bad vestments.



A.W. Pink on Vestments or "Ornaments" Exodus 33:4-6

Then we read, “And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned” 
Here was the first hopeful sign that the people gave. The Hebrew word for “mourn” in this passage means to sorrow or lament. The threat that Jehovah Himself would not accompany them moved Israel to deep contrition. How sad is the contrast presented in Revelation 3! There too the Lord is viewed as not being “in the midst” of His people, but outside (v. 20). Yet Laodicea is indifferent, content without Him (v. 17). When the Lord is no longer “in the midst” of His people, it is high time for them to “mourn.” “And no man did put on his ornaments. For the Lord had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, ye, are a stiff necked people: 

I will come up in the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee” (vv. 4, 5). The removal of their ornaments was for the purpose of evidencing the genuineness of their contrition. Outward adornment was out of keeping with the taking of a low place before God. Con- trariwise, external attractions and displays show up the absence of that lowliness of spirit and brokenness of heart which are of great price in the sight of God. The more true spirituality declines, the more an elaborate ritual comes to the fore. All around us Christendom is putting on as many “ornaments” as possible. “And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb” (v. 6).


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

I proudly wear a Scottish "clergy tartan" pattern stole over my Geneva gown! It's minimal and tasteful, though some of my trouble making friends often threaten to give me one of those LGBT rainbow ones...


----------



## Kevin

Classical Presbyterian said:


> I proudly wear a Scottish "clergy tartan" pattern stole over my Geneva gown! It's minimal and tasteful, though some of my trouble making friends often threaten to give me one of those LGBT rainbow ones...



photo?


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Kevin said:


> Classical Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I proudly wear a Scottish "clergy tartan" pattern stole over my Geneva gown! It's minimal and tasteful, though some of my trouble making friends often threaten to give me one of those LGBT rainbow ones...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> photo?
Click to expand...


I'll grab my best Peterson pipe, don my garb and have my wife snap a photo sometime. I'm no Osteen, but no Schori either!


----------



## Hawaiian Puritan

Pergamum said:


> The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!




There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt":


----------



## Philip

Marrow Man said:


> All vestments are bad vestments.



Do Genevan robes count as vestments?

On the adornment issue: if adornment for worship is wrong, then why do many people wear their "Sunday best" to church?


----------



## Edward

P. F. Pugh said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All vestments are bad vestments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Genevan robes count as vestments?
Click to expand...


No. They are academic robes, not clearical vestments. 



> On the adornment issue: if adornment for worship is wrong, then why do many people wear their "Sunday best" to church?



It's a sign of respect. If you were invited to a formal state dinner, would you show up in flip flops and shorts? If you were going for a job interview with the CEO of a respected corporation, would you show up in a tank top and baggies?


----------



## Rich Koster

Did Elton John have a yard sale???


----------



## Wayne

Hawaiian Puritan said:


> There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt"





no pictures please. mixed audiences, here, you know. verbal descriptions are quite adequate.


----------



## Whitefield

Edward said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All vestments are bad vestments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Genevan robes count as vestments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. They are academic robes, not clearical vestments.
Click to expand...


Well, if they are worn in academia, they are academic robes. If they are worn in worship, they are clerical robes.


----------



## Pergamum

Hawaiian Puritan said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt":
Click to expand...


"Do you want fries with that?"



I have visions of that creepy King mascot from the Burger King or maybe it was the McDonald's commerical. Man, that dude is creepy.


----------



## reformedminister

I wear my Geneva robe every Lord's Day. It is not only historical but has a traditional symbolic meaning among Calvinistic ministers, as well as others. I am wondering why something with such long standing tradition in the Reformed camp has become disdained by some of our brethren?


----------



## Pergamum

Yours isn't colored like a rainbow, nor does it have balloons on it, right? Genevan robes are purposely simple, as it should be, right?


----------



## Whitefield

reformedminister said:


> I wear my Geneva robe every Lord's Day. It is not only historical but has a traditional symbolic meaning among Calvinistic ministers, as well as others. I am wondering why something with such long standing tradition in the Reformed camp has become disdained by some of our brethren?



I don't disdain it, actually I often wear a Geneva robe. But lets be honest and call it what it really is. If worn by an academician in the academy, it is an academic robe. If worn by clergy in a worship setting it is a clerical robe. Unless one thinks worship is the academy.


----------



## kevin.carroll

reformedminister said:


> I wear my Geneva robe every Lord's Day. It is not only historical but has a traditional symbolic meaning among Calvinistic ministers, as well as others. I am wondering why something with such long standing tradition in the Reformed camp has become disdained by some of our brethren?



I agree. I also think Toby is on to something too. I wear a simple red stole over my Geneva robe. I don't think of it as a vestment, nor does anyone in the church. I realize some would, but hey.


----------



## historyb

Hawaiian Puritan said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt":
Click to expand...

hmm, okay. Does she do birthdays - wait that's not a clown?

-----------------------------

On another note I seen some Presbyterians ministers wear robes with stripes on the sleeve (If I recall correctly) would this be a Geneva robe also?


----------



## bookslover

I just hope that nobody is now gonna say that we should have a Christian equivalent to Mormon underwear...


----------



## Brian Withnell

Marrow Man said:


> All vestments are bad vestments.





While OT ceremonial law is abrogated, the idea of wearing rather elaborate clerical garb goes all the way back to at least Moses and Aaron. While I do not care if someone does not (I do not think it mandatory) I would not think I have room to be critical from a direct biblical basis for being critical for a pastor to wear "vestments" so I would call them adiaphora.


----------



## Igor

The first "bad vestment" somehow reminds me of "The Happy Human", the emblem of Secular Humanists.


----------



## rpavich

OK...now I'm thoroughly confused.

Do Presbyterian's wear robes??

I'm a newbie and have never seen anyone do that.

can some one point me to some good info on this whole situation?

thanks,
bob


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

historyb said:


> Hawaiian Puritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same lady appears like a half-dozen times wearing silly hats. She alone accounts for 1/5th of your pics...someone tell her she looks silly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's one she wears that is affectionately referred to as the "oven mitt":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hmm, okay. Does she do birthdays - wait that's not a clown?
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> On another note I seen some Presbyterians ministers wear robes with stripes on the sleeve (If I recall correctly) would this be a Geneva robe also?
Click to expand...


The stripes on the sleeves recognize that the person wearing the Geneva Gown has a D.Min or Ph.D or the equivalent-level degree.

-----Added 9/1/2009 at 07:05:24 EST-----



rpavich said:


> OK...now I'm thoroughly confused.
> 
> Do Presbyterian's wear robes??
> 
> I'm a newbie and have never seen anyone do that.
> 
> can some one point me to some good info on this whole situation?
> 
> thanks,
> bob



Some Presbyterian's wear robes. Though traditionally most if not all Presbyterian ministers wore a simple Geneva Gown in the pulpit with no adornments.


----------



## rpavich

Thanks Ben,
I've seen the pictures but never connected the dots...

Interesting.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Some of the older members will have to tell you why the robe "fell out of favor" in Reformed circles in the last 50 or so years. I myself plan on wearing one when the time comes.


----------



## reformedminister

Pergamum said:


> Yours isn't colored like a rainbow, nor does it have balloons on it, right? Genevan robes are purposely simple, as it should be, right?



It's just your basic black robe, without velveteen panels.


----------



## JennyG

The Geneva gown (used always to be worn with bands) is only really now moving towards disuse in this part of Scotland.
I think it has a lot going for it - dignity, simplicity, awareness of the weight of the occasion and the office all seem to be in the wearing of it. 
Also I would rather distrust the motivation behind its abandonment in some quarters.


----------



## Philip

From my understanding the Geneva robe tradition actually stems from the fact that John Calvin, since he wasn't actually ordained, wore his doctoral robe in the pulpit. John Knox liked the idea and took it to Scotland, where it became standard practice (possibly due to the Scottish penchant for understatement and frugality).

In my opinion, there is no qualitative difference between a Genevan Gown and "Vestments." Both serve to set the minister apart from the congregation.


----------



## Rogerant

Brian Withnell said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All vestments are bad vestments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While OT ceremonial law is abrogated, the idea of wearing rather elaborate clerical garb goes all the way back to at least Moses and Aaron. While I do not care if someone does not (I do not think it mandatory) I would not think I have room to be critical from a direct biblical basis for being critical for a pastor to wear "vestments" so I would call them adiaphora.
Click to expand...


Yes, now that the OT ceremonial law is abrogated, and our great high priest is sitting in glory, where is there any scriptural or confessional support for the pastor drawing attention to himself among the congregation? And for what reason apart from human tradition and for the glory for the one who wears them?

"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom is greater than he." Matt 11:11.

The glory of the priesthood quickly came to an end with removal of the ornaments in Exodus 33. Only the high priest wore vestments or ornaments to foreshadow the high priestly office of Christ which as now been accomplished. I do not see any requirement or allowance for any of the clergy to be drawing glory to themselves. I may be wrong, but I would like to see some scriptural support.

I will come up in the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee” (vv. 4, 5). The removal of their ornaments was for the purpose of evidencing the genuineness of their contrition. Outward adornment was out of keeping with the taking of a low place before God. Con- trariwise, external attractions and displays show up the absence of that lowliness of spirit and brokenness of heart which are of great price in the sight of God. The more true spirituality declines, the more an elaborate ritual comes to the fore. All around us Christendom is putting on as many “ornaments” as possible. “And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb” (v. 6).


----------



## JennyG

> I will come up in the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee” (vv. 4, 5). The removal of their ornaments was for the purpose of evidencing the genuineness of their contrition. Outward adornment was out of keeping with the taking of a low place before God. Con- trariwise, external attractions and displays show up the absence of that lowliness of spirit and brokenness of heart which are of great price in the sight of God. The more true spirituality declines, the more an elaborate ritual comes to the fore. All around us Christendom is putting on as many “ornaments” as possible. “And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb” (v. 6).


How "ornamental" is the Geneva gown, though?
Unlike the glad-rags in that hilarious "bad vestments" blog, it doesn't really have that "attractions, adornments, displays" vibe at all. It seems to me more like the complete negation of any sartorial vanity or even individuality, so as to put the office uppermost


----------



## Bald_Brother

*sigh* The Geneva Robe never really caught on with us Baptists, though I do appreciate them. Though I do think Bunyan wore one.


----------



## Curt

The Geneva gown is to be much preferred over message T-shirts, Hawaiian shirts and jeans in the pulpit (or "on the stage," as has become more common). This is one of the reasons that I went back to wearing a Geneva gown. The pulpit has been so devalued by the church today.


----------



## Marrow Man

Brian Withnell said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All vestments are bad vestments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While OT ceremonial law is abrogated, the idea of wearing rather elaborate clerical garb goes all the way back to at least Moses and Aaron. While I do not care if someone does not (I do not think it mandatory) I would not think I have room to be critical from a direct biblical basis for being critical for a pastor to wear "vestments" so I would call them adiaphora.
Click to expand...


Brian, the major problem that I see with vestments (and I would distinguish the Genevan gown from vestments) is that too often a form of symbolism is tied to the various pieces which have no justification from Scripture and are thus a violation of the RPW. Of course, this is not a "problem" per se in denominations that do not hold to the RPW (such as those linked in the OP), and in such cases they are rightly adiaphora within those traditions, I suppose. If I am remembering my history correctly, though, this became a problem within Presbyterianism when vestments were _imposed _upon ministers, whose consciences were bound in such cases. If I am remembering correctly that is quite ironic since Anglicanism does not hold to the RPW but also would not consider them to be "adiaphora" either.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Curt said:


> The Geneva gown is to be much preferred over message T-shirts, Hawaiian shirts and jeans in the pulpit (or "on the stage," as has become more common). This is one of the reasons that I went back to wearing a Geneva gown. The pulpit has been so devalued by the church today.



I am sorry, but (with all due respect) I dont think we should enforce a dress code on people. I saw it said once that our "outward apperance was a reflection of our inner devotion to God" (ie if we dress up it means we love God more than those who do not dress up). I am pretty sure that is not the attitude here but I dont think we ought to impose standards that are not Biblically mandated on people. I ahve preached in jeans and t-shirt as well as in a suit and I much prefer not having to wear a suit to preach in.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Marrow Man said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All vestments are bad vestments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While OT ceremonial law is abrogated, the idea of wearing rather elaborate clerical garb goes all the way back to at least Moses and Aaron. While I do not care if someone does not (I do not think it mandatory) I would not think I have room to be critical from a direct biblical basis for being critical for a pastor to wear "vestments" so I would call them adiaphora.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brian, the major problem that I see with vestments (and I would distinguish the Genevan gown from vestments) is that too often a form of symbolism is tied to the various pieces which have no justification from Scripture and are thus a violation of the RPW. Of course, this is not a "problem" per se in denominations that do not hold to the RPW (such as those linked in the OP), and in such cases they are rightly adiaphora within those traditions, I suppose. If I am remembering my history correctly, though, this became a problem within Presbyterianism when vestments were _imposed _upon ministers, whose consciences were bound in such cases. If I am remembering correctly that is quite ironic since Anglicanism does not hold to the RPW but also would not consider them to be "adiaphora" either.
Click to expand...


So Presbyterians should not require our pastors to wear this for worship?


----------



## Marrow Man

Classical Presbyterian said:


> So Presbyterians should not require our pastors to wear this for worship?



There is adiaphora, there is binding of conscience, there is the RPW ... but sometimes there is _just bad taste_. 

Just because the box comes with 64 crayons and the sharpener in the back doesn't mean you have to use all of them at the same time.


----------



## reformedminister

Whitefield said:


> reformedminister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wear my Geneva robe every Lord's Day. It is not only historical but has a traditional symbolic meaning among Calvinistic ministers, as well as others. I am wondering why something with such long standing tradition in the Reformed camp has become disdained by some of our brethren?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disdain it, actually I often wear a Geneva robe. But lets be honest and call it what it really is. If worn by an academician in the academy, it is an academic robe. If worn by clergy in a worship setting it is a clerical robe. Unless one thinks worship is the academy.
Click to expand...


 Point taken.


----------



## Curt

Unashamed 116 said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Geneva gown is to be much preferred over message T-shirts, Hawaiian shirts and jeans in the pulpit (or "on the stage," as has become more common). This is one of the reasons that I went back to wearing a Geneva gown. The pulpit has been so devalued by the church today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but (with all due respect) I dont think we should enforce a dress code on people. I saw it said once that our "outward apperance was a reflection of our inner devotion to God" (ie if we dress up it means we love God more than those who do not dress up). I am pretty sure that is not the attitude here but I dont think we ought to impose standards that are not Biblically mandated on people. I ahve preached in jeans and t-shirt as well as in a suit and I much prefer not having to wear a suit to preach in.
Click to expand...


My comment had to do with reverence and respect. If one is preaching at a men's retreat or some similar event, jeans and a t-shirt may be appropriate. For Sunday worship, however, the high honor of handling God's Word in a corporate worship service calls for our best, given the cultural setting and the historical era. In the US a suit still conveys that respect. Robes do as well. I would not try to mandate that preachers wear robes. I would, respectfully submit, however, that they should dress well above their daily garb.


----------



## A.J.

There's a good discussion on the rationale for wearing a Genevan robe here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/where-buy-genevan-robe-27213/


----------



## Edward

Whitefield said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Genevan robes count as vestments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. They are academic robes, not clearical vestments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if they are worn in academia, they are academic robes. If they are worn in worship, they are clerical robes.
Click to expand...


You are projecting. The academic gowns of Presbyterians shouldn't be confused with the clerical garb that you all use as offshoots from your Anglican roots.


----------



## Whitefield

Edward said:


> You are projecting. The academic gowns of Presbyterians shouldn't be confused with the clerical garb that *you all* use as offshoots from your Anglican roots.



"you all"?????


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Whitefield said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are projecting. The academic gowns of Presbyterians shouldn't be confused with the clerical garb that *you all* use as offshoots from your Anglican roots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you all"?????
Click to expand...


"you all" = "y'all"


----------



## Baptist-1689er

Since it would seem that wearing a Geneva Robe is part of Presbyterian tradition, I'd like to hear why some don't wear them. Is it based on one's understanding of the RPW or just a personal choice?


----------



## Edward

Whitefield said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are projecting. The academic gowns of Presbyterians shouldn't be confused with the clerical garb that *you all* use as offshoots from your Anglican roots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you all"?????
Click to expand...


Methodists - isn't that what you are? 

And they started out as Anglicans, and brought their clerical robes with them. As opposed to the Presbyterians, who use academic gowns.


----------



## Whitefield

Edward said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are projecting. The academic gowns of Presbyterians shouldn't be confused with the clerical garb that *you all* use as offshoots from your Anglican roots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you all"?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methodists - isn't that what you are?
> 
> And they started out as Anglicans, and brought their clerical robes with them. As opposed to the Presbyterians, who use academic gowns.
Click to expand...


Well, "this-one-all" wears either a simple Geneva robe or shirt sleeves and tie to preach in ... which of those did "me-all" bring from Anglican roots?


----------



## Brian Withnell

Rogerant said:


> Yes, now that the OT ceremonial law is abrogated, and our great high priest is sitting in glory, where is there any scriptural or confessional support for the pastor drawing attention to himself among the congregation? And for what reason apart from human tradition and for the glory for the one who wears them?



From a confessional and scriptural standpoint, while it is true that our high priest is in heaven, we also have those officers of the church that have special honor due them:


> 2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.





> The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.



There is scriptural warrant to honor the pastor more than other elders, and even elders are to be given honor.

While I do not accuse you of such, there is in the church today a false view of the elders as being no different than anyone else ... meaning they deserve nothing more than anyone else in terms of honor. That seems especially true of pastors ... it is scandalous how some of the people in church think the pastor ought be a low paying, servile position to which they owe no honor above themselves. That idea I find absent from the scriptures, but very much present in the society in which we live.

That our pastors are to instruct us, it would seem wise that they have a reminder of their honored position if they so choose. It used to be custom for a professor to wear the robe of his degree in teaching as a sign of authority and honor ... it has much fallen to disuse to the detriment of the students that think they are equal (or even greater) in honor to the one teaching them (Luke 6:40). So when Rom 13.7 requires us render "honor to whom honor is due" within the authority of the government, how much more should we to those within authority in the church whom God has called to oversee our souls?

So while I would not demand that the pastor wear a robe signifying his honored position, I would humbly submit they are worthy of such honor from us who are taught by them. I find the session to whom I have vowed as a member of the church worthy of the honor I give them. I find my pastor worthy of double that honor, in his continual encouragement of the flock to pursue Christ Jesus with all our strength, his example of humble Godliness, his strength in defending the sheep. He is a shepherd under the great shepherd that feeds the lambs. (While he does not wear such robes, I would not complain if he did.) I hold to what I believe the RPW states, and while there is some disagreement as to the meaning of it, there certainly is no ordered raiment for those who preach. Absent such, what they wear would be up to them.


----------



## A.J.

Baptist-1689er said:


> Since it would seem that wearing a Geneva Robe is part of Presbyterian tradition, I'd like to hear why some don't wear them. Is it based on one's understanding of the RPW or just a personal choice?



In the thread Where to buy a Genevan Robe?, Rev. Danny Hyde explains in response to the question of whether the use of Genevan Robes is consistent with the RPW: 



> Since the RPW is about the elements of worship - Word, sacraments, and prayer - I don't see how a minister's dress plays into that as long as his dress does not violate the clear teaching of Scripture; hence, sacerdotal vestments are out because Christ has abolished the Aaronic priesthood.
> 
> That being said, what a minister wears is a matter of wisdom. Is it wise to dress as a businessman, or is it wisest to dress in a way that sets the minister apart for his ministry to the people since the ministerial office is one in which the man is set apart from the people for the benefit of the people?
> 
> This is how I've always addresses the issue, or else you end up looking in vain for a proof text for the people's clothing, whether a pulpit is biblical (after all, the priests stood on top of wooden structures), should we use song books (the people had the songs memorized, at best, each synagogue had a copy of the Word), etc.


----------



## reformedminister

Whitefield said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are projecting. The academic gowns of Presbyterians shouldn't be confused with the clerical garb that *you all* use as offshoots from your Anglican roots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "you all"?????
Click to expand...


I bought my Geneva Robe when I was a Methodist pastor. I wear the same one now that I am a Presbyterian. They are the same. The Geneva Robe is not Anglican. It has been traditional among many Protestant ministers, especially among those in the Reformed Tradition. Even Luther started wearing one. Most Anglicans wear the white Alb.


----------



## Rogerant

Although I find most arguments for wearing vestments quite "reasonable", I do not find any of them to be scriptural. And although many confess that they come from "The Reformed Tradition", it is a tradition of men, not by the command of God.

For us who have come from outside of growing up in a Reformed church, these "vestments" create concern or a stumbling block for those who have come from a "anti tradition" background.

As for showing the elders double honor, I am in agreement we should. That is scriptural. We are to honor them. But it does not say that the pastors or elders are to expect glory nor should be be drawing "glory" unto themselves.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Just as a point of clarification how do vestments create a "stumbling block" for those coming out of an "anti-tradition" background?


----------



## reformedminister

The Geneva Robe actually takes away focus from the individual and emphasizes what he brings to the people, the Word of God. I use to print the following on the back of our bulletins which includes a statement concerning the Geneva Robe:

*Questions and Answers about our Worship*

_Why does the service seem formal?_
It is called “Liturgy” meaning the work of the people. If you will notice there is an interaction between the minister and the congregation throughout the service. Some call this form of worship “traditional”. We would prefer to use the term “historic”. Christians have been following similar liturgical forms throughout Christian history. Worship is not a casual event but a solemn experience with God. We consider every element to our service an act of worship. It may seem formal but actually it is quite simple and the elements are derived from the Holy Scriptures. 

_Why do you have a lot of Scripture Reading?_
Reading from the different sections of the Old Testament Scriptures was a tradition in Jewish synagogue worship. According to early Christian writings, the New Testament Church followed a similar pattern. The reading of Scripture in public worship is a Scriptural command (1 Timothy 4:13). We systematically read through the Bible, from both the Old and New Testaments, so that the entirety of Scripture is covered over a period of time.

_Why does the minister where a robe?_
It is called a “Geneva gown” or “pulpit robe”, similar to the judicial robe. It dates back to the time of the Reformation. It is meant to convey the authority and solemn duty of the learned minister called by God, to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and preach the Word of God. The gown eschews ostentation, concealing individuality and fashion preferences, and instead draws attention to the wearer's office and not the person. It is traditional among ministers in the Reformed tradition as well as others.

_Why do you sing the Psalms?_
The Book of Psalms was the original song book of the Old Testament saints as well as the early church. The early Church Fathers testify that the congregational singing of psalms was an essential feature in their worship. This practice was revived during the Reformation in the 1500's and for almost two hundred years most protestant churches practiced exclusive psalmody. We don’t practice exclusive psalmody but believe the inclusion of psalms in our singing is not only historical but a Scriptural command (Colossions 3:16).

_Why do you use fermented wine during communion?_
It is both Scriptural and a historic Christian practice to use fermented wine during communion. It wasn’t until the 1800's when a Methodist by the name of Welch invented modern grape juice. To respect those who may not feel comfortable with fermented wine, we offer grape juice upon request.


----------



## Baptist-1689er

reformedminister said:


> The Geneva Robe actually takes away focus from the individual and emphasizes what he brings to the people, the Word of God. I use to print the following on the back of our bulletins which includes a statement concerning the Geneva Robe:
> 
> *Questions and Answers about our Worship*
> 
> _Why does the service seem formal?_
> It is called “Liturgy” meaning the work of the people. If you will notice there is an interaction between the minister and the congregation throughout the service. Some call this form of worship “traditional”. We would prefer to use the term “historic”. Christians have been following similar liturgical forms throughout Christian history. Worship is not a casual event but a solemn experience with God. We consider every element to our service an act of worship. It may seem formal but actually it is quite simple and the elements are derived from the Holy Scriptures.
> 
> _Why do you have a lot of Scripture Reading?_
> Reading from the different sections of the Old Testament Scriptures was a tradition in Jewish synagogue worship. According to early Christian writings, the New Testament Church followed a similar pattern. The reading of Scripture in public worship is a Scriptural command (1 Timothy 4:13). We systematically read through the Bible, from both the Old and New Testaments, so that the entirety of Scripture is covered over a period of time.
> 
> _Why does the minister where a robe?_
> It is called a “Geneva gown” or “pulpit robe”, similar to the judicial robe. It dates back to the time of the Reformation. It is meant to convey the authority and solemn duty of the learned minister called by God, to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ and preach the Word of God. The gown eschews ostentation, concealing individuality and fashion preferences, and instead draws attention to the wearer's office and not the person. It is traditional among ministers in the Reformed tradition as well as others.
> 
> _Why do you sing the Psalms?_
> The Book of Psalms was the original song book of the Old Testament saints as well as the early church. The early Church Fathers testify that the congregational singing of psalms was an essential feature in their worship. This practice was revived during the Reformation in the 1500's and for almost two hundred years most protestant churches practiced exclusive psalmody. We don’t practice exclusive psalmody but believe the inclusion of psalms in our singing is not only historical but a Scriptural command (Colossions 3:16).
> 
> _Why do you use fermented wine during communion?_
> It is both Scriptural and a historic Christian practice to use fermented wine during communion. It wasn’t until the 1800's when a Methodist by the name of Welch invented modern grape juice. To respect those who may not feel comfortable with fermented wine, we offer grape juice upon request.



This is helpful. Thanks!


----------



## Marrow Man

Yes, very nice explanations.


----------



## Rogerant

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Just as a point of clarification how do vestments create a "stumbling block" for those coming out of an "anti-tradition" background?



When I make referrence to those who come out of an "anti traditional" background, I am speaking of bible carrying arminians who have been repetitively warned about the man made traditions of the Reformed and Catholic Churches. As bible carrying arminians do not see any difference between the two. The wearing of vestments ties in with the tradition of baptizing babies and sprinkling. Although we may derive from scripture the basis for baptizing babies and sprinkling, there is not any basis that we may derive the wearing of vestments or academic robes during worship. If a arminian came into a Reformed church I could biblically defend our liturgy, our confessions, paedo baptism etc. But I could not defend vestments with scripture.

Even though the congregation is commanded to honor the elders and pastors, they should lead in humility. Even though the curse to the woman because of Eve's disobedience was that man would "rule over her", id does not give license to the man "to rule over her" but to love her as Christ died for the church.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, bing in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil 2:5-8

So, as in the condescension of Christ to humble himself as a servant "to man" when it was man's obligation to honor him as King and Lord, He humbled himself in willful submission. He dissrobed or undressed himself of His royal garments just as David did in 2 Samual 6:14-23. And also David, who as King did deserve the water that his men brought him in 2 Sam 2:16 at the risk of their own lives, David pours the water out unto the Lord.

The Pharisees adorned themselves with "academic robes" showing outward humility and academic eliteism. Christ adorned himself with the humility of a servant. He abased himself with the nakedness of sinful man.

When I see a pastor wearing an academic robe or "vestments", particulary "royal purple", I do not see a John the Baptist nor Christ leading his flock in humble submission.

We hear that John the Baptist was the greatest in the O.T. economy, and what was he wearing. And what was his attitude? "He must increase, but I must decrease" John 3:30


----------



## Pergamum

As anti-tradition as I am, I prefer robes over Rick-Warrenish- Hawaian shirts.


----------



## reformedminister

One thing you will find about churches in the reformed tradition is that they are not all the same. Some are more formal and the preachers wear robes, and others are less formal. Some use the KJV and others the ESV. Some sing the Psalms exclusively and others include hymns. If someone has a problem with any of these things then they can find a church that more suits them. The important thing is that the Gospel is preached and that disciples are made.


----------



## Rogerant

So then, no scriptural support?


----------



## Skyler

Rogerant said:


> So then, no scriptural support?



What do you mean? Jesus and the apostles all wore robes. Isn't that enough for you? 

But seriously, some of those pictures are hilarious...


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Skyler said:


> Rogerant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, no scriptural support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean? Jesus and the apostles all wore robes. Isn't that enough for you?
> 
> But seriously, some of those pictures are hilarious...
Click to expand...


Yes, Jesus and the 12 in pastel robes is a very accurate depiction of true history.


----------



## Skyler

Unashamed 116 said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rogerant said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, no scriptural support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean? Jesus and the apostles all wore robes. Isn't that enough for you?
> 
> But seriously, some of those pictures are hilarious...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jesus and the 12 in pastel robes is a very accurate depiction of true history.
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything about pastel. I understood the gist of the conversation to be about robes in general.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Skyler said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean? Jesus and the apostles all wore robes. Isn't that enough for you?
> 
> But seriously, some of those pictures are hilarious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jesus and the 12 in pastel robes is a very accurate depiction of true history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about pastel. I understood the gist of the conversation to be about robes in general.
Click to expand...



I know but I was refering to the commonly used pictures of Jesus for things like Sunday School.


----------

