# Ecclesiastical Garb and Acts 13



## Backwoods Presbyterian

A buddy of mine and I were discussing Presbyterians wearing collars historically and why that has died out over the last 100 years or so and both of us noticed in Acts 13 (and other places) Paul and others are recognized as being teachers of the Law before introducing themselves as such. It seems obvious to us this means Paul was wearing something that marked him out as a Teacher. The next obvious question for us was how should/does this inform our understanding of Pastors/Teaching Elders dress. 

What say you? 


_As a side-note please no "If you wear a collar you must be in love with FV and heading to Rome" posts please. _


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

bump


----------



## Andres

[-]If you wear a collar you must be in love with FV and heading to Rome[/-] I mean, nevermind... my pastor wears the robe, but obviously only during service. Are you talking about distinguishing the minster even when he is not leading worship, as in general, everyday life?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Yes.


----------



## Jared

It was always distracting to me when I would try to watch D. James Kennedy on tv. I think if he would have worn the black robe like Martyn Lloyd-Jones and many others did before him, it wouldn't have been as distracting. But, the bright blue was kind of hard to get past.

Maybe it's just because of my church background. I don't know.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> A buddy of mine and I were discussing Presbyterians wearing collars historically and why that has died out over the last 100 years or so and both of us noticed in Acts 13 (and other places) Paul and others are recognized as being teachers of the Law before introducing themselves as such. It seems obvious to us this means Paul was wearing something that marked him out as a Teacher. The next obvious question for us was how should/does this inform our understanding of Pastors/Teaching Elders dress.
> 
> What say you?
> 
> 
> _As a side-note please no "If you wear a collar you must be in love with FV and heading to Rome" posts please. _



Why do you say that they are introduced as teachers of the law in Acts 13? Just because they were asked to teach at the synagogue? It was common practice for all Jewish males to be asked to teach, not just teachers of the law. 

In any case, if you must wear a collar, go with Genevan tabs and not a Roman collar. Someone wearing a Roman collar marks himself out as an idolatrous priest.


----------



## LawrenceU

Wearing a full collar,dog collar, even more clearly marks you as not Catholic. Sometimes the slightly wider tab is not wide enough.

Riley by Genevan tabs do you mean this:


----------



## Grillsy

Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well it is worth noting "Rome" did not start wearing the type of collar you see today until fairly recently in church history, approximately about the same amount of time Protestants started wearing them.


----------



## Grillsy

Good point.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

LawrenceU said:


> Wearing a full collar,dog collar, even more clearly marks you as not Catholic. Sometimes the slightly wider tab is not wide enough.
> 
> Riley by Genevan tabs do you mean this:


 
Yes, that's it!

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well it is worth noting "Rome" did not start wearing the type of collar you see today until fairly recently in church history, approximately about the same amount of time Protestants started wearing them.


 
By "Protestants", do you mean Anglican prelatists? Because I've never seen an old photo or portrait of a Reformed pastor wearing a Roman collar.


----------



## lynnie

If you are into the regulative principle, how are priestly garments and vestments and all that stuff not a return to temple worship? How is that in any way worship in spirit and truth instead of Old Covenant?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Willem van Oranje said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wearing a full collar,dog collar, even more clearly marks you as not Catholic. Sometimes the slightly wider tab is not wide enough.
> 
> Riley by Genevan tabs do you mean this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's it!
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is worth noting "Rome" did not start wearing the type of collar you see today until fairly recently in church history, approximately about the same amount of time Protestants started wearing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "Protestants", do you mean Anglican prelatists? Because I've never seen an old photo or portrait of a Reformed pastor wearing a Roman collar.
Click to expand...


Well Lutherans, Anglicans, and some others. The "type" of collar is interchangeable. I have seen Roman Priests wearing the "Anglican"-type and Anglican/Lutheran/Presbyterian ministers wearing the "Roman" type. 

Roman "Tab" Collar






Anglican "Dog" Collar


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Personally I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a Lutheran or an Anglican, so I would stick to the Presbyterian/Reformed/Congregational tradition of the Genevan tabs. Why not use our own tradition as the guide?


----------



## Emmanuel

Protestants don't wear collars anymore because they are not longer necessary ... now that Hawaiian shirts have been invented ...


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Emmanuel said:


> Protestants don't wear collars anymore because they are not longer necessary ... now that Hawaiian shirts have been invented ...


 
On my native island this is formal wear, but only if it is tucked in!

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------




lynnie said:


> If you are into the regulative principle, how are priestly garments and vestments and all that stuff not a return to temple worship? How is that in any way worship in spirit and truth instead of Old Covenant?


 
Because the pastor has to wear something in the pulpit. In most settings it would not be appropriate to preach naked. What that something is, must be left to Christian prudence.


----------



## MarieP

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> A buddy of mine and I were discussing Presbyterians wearing collars historically and why that has died out over the last 100 years or so and both of us noticed in Acts 13 (and other places) Paul and others are recognized as being teachers of the Law before introducing themselves as such. It seems obvious to us this means Paul was wearing something that marked him out as a Teacher. The next obvious question for us was how should/does this inform our understanding of Pastors/Teaching Elders dress.
> 
> What say you?
> 
> 
> _As a side-note please no "If you wear a collar you must be in love with FV and heading to Rome" posts please. _


 
I don't think it indicates that it ought to be normative today. The Jewish Christians were still circumcising their children in Acts 21. Paul seemed to not have a problem with the idea of making an offering in the temple (which he never did, in the providence of God). They hadn't yet realized the full extent of Christ's fulfillment of the ceremonial law.

NOTE: I'm not saying that sacrificing an animal is the same as wearing a collar or vice versa. I'm trying to think through the excellent OP.


----------



## lynnie

Willem van Oranje said:


> Emmanuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protestants don't wear collars anymore because they are not longer necessary ... now that Hawaiian shirts have been invented ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On my native island this is formal wear, but only if it is tucked in!
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are into the regulative principle, how are priestly garments and vestments and all that stuff not a return to temple worship? How is that in any way worship in spirit and truth instead of Old Covenant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the pastor has to wear something in the pulpit. In most settings it would not be appropriate to preach naked. What that something is, must be left to Christian prudence.
Click to expand...


Obviously they don't go naked. But how is one set of clothes for laity and another set of clothes for the "priesthood" not Old Cov and against the RPW? Seriously, I have wondered this for a while. If we are all priests now and we can all go into the holy of holies, then why do some wear special garments? What's not enough about a suit, or a shirt, or whatever the guys in the congregation wear? Why a different dress for the pastor? Isn't that a return to the temple? This is one thing that never made sense to me in my Presbyterian experience.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

The preacher is a continuation of the Old Covenant priesthood only in the sense that he is set apart to serve as God's mouthpiece to the assembly, as the high priest did. Hence the call to worship, the apostolic greeting, and the benediction. I don't have a problem with a suit and tie, but I think that in some cases a plain robe would be less distracting and take the focus off the man and put it on the office where it belongs.


----------



## Jared

Grillsy said:


> Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.



I think it was because things were trending in a more contemporary direction. Tullian Tchividjian took some flack for not wearing robes when he became the pastor of D. James Kennedy's church, Coral Ridge Presbyterian. D. James Kennedy was out of step with the times though because as you have pointed out, robes have been out for nearly a century.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Jared104 said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was because things were trending in a more contemporary direction. Tullian Tchividjian took some flack for not wearing robes when he became the pastor of D. James Kennedy's church, Coral Ridge Presbyterian. D. James Kennedy was out of step with the times though because as you have pointed out, robes have been out for nearly a century.
Click to expand...


...in most independent/evangelical circles. But in the "mainline", from which the PCA and OPC came from, robes are definitely still "in." 

I think it's still a good idea in heavily Roman Catholic regions, or places where there is a lot of mainline influence. Those elect of God who are on a journey out from the clutches of Anti-Christ tend to be put off and confused by a minister who wears "normal garb."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Jared104 said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was because things were trending in a more contemporary direction. Tullian Tchividjian took some flack for not wearing robes when he became the pastor of D. James Kennedy's church, Coral Ridge Presbyterian. D. James Kennedy was out of step with the times though because as you have pointed out, robes have been out for nearly a century.
Click to expand...


I'd say more like the past 20 years. The vast majority of Presbyterian ministers wore a Geneva Gown until recent days. In my estimation the decline of the use of the robe is attributable to the egalitarian vibe of the church that automatically casts out of hand any symbol of "set apartness" in the Church.


----------



## Christusregnat

I think the Apostles were obviously considered as teachers, and known to be such throughout the book of Acts. Was it merely incidental that every place they went in the synagogue, Paul was asked to give a "word of exhortation"? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the Romish garb, as the Reformation broke with the "priestly" garb in favor of the academic garb, of one whose office it is to feed the flock of the LORD with knowledge.

The Geneva tabs represent the 10 Commandments: one tab for each table of the law.

Both are perfectly suited to the gravity and message that ought to drop from the lips of a minister of the gospel. Hawaiian shirts and other sorts of non-official garb symbolize something else than the gravity and message; namely, the equalitarian concept of the Church.

Oh, and no, I don't think that this applies outside of public worship, the context in which the Apostles obviously wore their garb.

Cheers,


----------



## MW

Grillsy said:


> Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.


 
It was due to the breakdown of institutionalism and a rejection of the minister as a public officer whose function is to be protected and promoted by law.


----------



## PointingToChrist

I have discussed this issue with a friend, and I believe he is correct: there should be some sort of everyday clothing that distinguishes a pastor as a pastor.

This is not meant to separate a pastor from the rest of the world as something to boast about, but to be visible as a man of God, especially from those who see the vestments and need guidance.

I was told of a story where a woman was at a train station and started to cry. A group of Catholic priests in their vestments were there, along with Protestant ministers. Who do you think the woman went to, and why?

Another anecdote I have is that a man (part of the PCA, I believe), wears a collar as he ministers to Hispanic neighborhoods, because he is automatically recognized as a preacher.

The collar should not be viewed as something of Rome.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

armourbearer said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was due to the breakdown of institutionalism and a rejection of the minister as a public officer whose function is to be protected and promoted by law.
Click to expand...


This is very interesting. Can you elaborate some more?


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

In the Free Church of Scotland a number of pastors wear a clerical collar. They usually wear it when performing ecclesiastical duties. The pastor at my former congregation wears the "Roman Collar." I believe that in the Church of Scotland most pastors wear some form of clerical garb. 
I used to be very against clerical garb, but now I sort of like it.
I know of several pastors who do not wear clerical collar or gown because they believe there is no biblical warrant to wear it.
My (PCA) pastor wears a Geneva gown at worship. I believe it is because it marks the office of pastor as someone who is authorized to preach and administer the sacraments.
But the OP raises an interesting question to ponder.


----------



## N. Eshelman

I'm going to start wearing scrubs because I am a physician of the soul.


----------



## Ivan

^groan!!!!!!!!


----------



## Andres

PointingToChrist said:


> The collar should not be viewed as something of Rome.


 
Maybe it _should not be_, but it certainly is in our day and age.


----------



## PointingToChrist

Why can't a Reformed pastor wear a collar? If he is approached, and it comes up in conversation, he can explain who he is and what his denomination is. Maybe the collar is something we should reclaim, rather than abandon it to Rome.


----------



## JennyG

You can't possibly mistake a Catholic priest's collar for a Protestant (Anglican, presbyterian, whatever) dog collar. Superficially they're similar, but at least over here, clerical collars are still familiar enough to churchgoers for the difference to stand out at a glance. The unchurched might not see it like that, but then you can spell out ALL the differences to them, and they will still be none the wiser :S
I've never seen a minister wear Geneva bands or a gown except during service - but then I think they add solemnity to the occasion. It's a bit like school uniform (which I'm told is hardly known in the US either, though it hangs on here) - if the kids can wear whatever they like, then all they can think of is their, and each other's, clothes. Uniform can take away that distraction, making it easier to keep the mind on what the main business is supposed to be. 
I expect the gradual disuse of ministers' formal attire is connected with the decrease in formality right across society. A few decades ago grammar school teachers were known as "masters", addressed as "Sir" and always taught in black academic gowns! (they added the mortar boards and hoods on gala occasions). If anyone thinks it's a good thing we've dispensed with all that, they shouldn't forget that along with the formality, a lot of respect and discipline got lost too...


----------



## lynnie

I still think the regulative principle needs to be thought through better here.

You can wear a uniform on the street, burn incense at home, light candles at home, and dance if you like. Are these things appropriate for the worship gathering or are they Temple worship that we are told is no longer worship in spirit and truth?

If you don't care about the RPW, fine, wear a robe. But when I see people who claim to hold to it wearing vestments, or "priestly linens" during worship, sorry but I think its a double standard. We are all high priests now and we can all go into the holy of holies. If you want it to be a mark of ordination, well, is that biblical? Is that how we distinguish the ordained from the unordained?

Just asking, I might be wrong and I am no expert, but really, I just don't get this in light of RPW concerns.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

A uniform noting a profession or office is not a violation of the regulative principle; wearing garb invested with some kind of superstitious significance is. Beyond that scriptural rules governing things otherwise indifferent should be observed (i.e. if some kind of gear has a scandalous rep you avoid it).


----------



## Grillsy

armourbearer said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was due to the breakdown of institutionalism and a rejection of the minister as a public officer whose function is to be protected and promoted by law.
Click to expand...

 
Thank you for the answer Rev. 
Do ministers still wear clerical garb in the Reformed churches in Australia?


----------



## JennyG

NaphtaliPress said:


> A uniform noting a profession or office is not a violation of the regulative principle; wearing garb invested with some kind of superstitious significance is. Beyond that scriptural rules governing things otherwise indifferent should be observed (i.e. if some kind of gear has a scandalous rep you avoid it).


that's just where I would want to draw the line - between the functional and self-effacing plain gown and bands of the old-school Scottish minister, and the bad vestments favoured by catholics and some strands of Anglicanism (generally full of symbolism)


----------



## LawrenceU

Okay, I'm a baptist. I can right now look to my left and see two clerical collared shirts hanging in the closet. Do I wear them? Sometimes. It depends upon the situation.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

How about wearing a jacket or a polo shirt with the name of your theological seminary blazened on it, when walking around town. Would that set you out as likely a pastor? Would that be a good modern equivalent? Some seminaries sell those.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Willem van Oranje said:


> How about wearing a jacket or a polo shirt with the name of your theological seminary blazened on it, when walking around town. Would that set you out as likely a pastor? Would that be a good modern equivalent? Some seminaries sell those.


 
Well some of us would not want to be associated with our seminary of record.  

But seriously interesting question. Should Pastor's "set themselves apart" in daily life?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about wearing a jacket or a polo shirt with the name of your theological seminary blazened on it, when walking around town. Would that set you out as likely a pastor? Would that be a good modern equivalent? Some seminaries sell those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well some of us would not want to be associated with our seminary of record.
> 
> But seriously interesting question. Should Pastor's "set themselves apart" in daily life?
Click to expand...

 
I can sympathize with your feelings about PTS, but even then, it could lead to some opportunities if you run into someone who is mainline Presbyterian or Methodist, and others won't know the difference to distinguish it as a "neo-orthodox" school. My school, GCTS is not that, but it's still pretty broad. Yet I would probably sport a shirt or jacket of theirs around, since most people, if they have heard of it at all, would still associate GCTS with biblical conservatism, even Reformed theology. 

In answer to your question, probably, if it could lead to opportunities. It would be nice for people to know that a pastor is there if they need one. And you would want them to talk to you, wouldn't you?


----------



## Steve Curtis

LawrenceU said:


> Okay, I'm a baptist. I can right now look to my left and see two clerical *collard shirts* hanging in the closet. Do I wear them? Sometimes. It depends upon the situation.



Hey, I'm from the Deep South, too, but I didn't know they made shirts out of those! Mm-mmm 

[I would interject a "wink" here, but that function is, well, malfunctioning at the moment!]


----------



## LawrenceU

kainos01 said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'm a baptist. I can right now look to my left and see two clerical *collard shirts* hanging in the closet. Do I wear them? Sometimes. It depends upon the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm from the Deep South, too, but I didn't know they made shirts out of those! Mm-mmm
> 
> [I would interject a "wink" here, but that function is, well, malfunctioning at the moment!]
Click to expand...

 

They are actually a dual purpose shirt. If you face a shortage of good food you can boil it up and have a good meal. I always kept a neck bone and corn bread in my back pocket just incase.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Willem van Oranje said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about wearing a jacket or a polo shirt with the name of your theological seminary blazened on it, when walking around town. Would that set you out as likely a pastor? Would that be a good modern equivalent? Some seminaries sell those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well some of us would not want to be associated with our seminary of record.
> 
> But seriously interesting question. Should Pastor's "set themselves apart" in daily life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can sympathize with your feelings about PTS, but even then, it could lead to some opportunities if you run into someone who is mainline Presbyterian or Methodist, and others won't know the difference to distinguish it as a "neo-orthodox" school. My school, GCTS is not that, but it's still pretty broad. Yet I would probably sport a shirt or jacket of theirs around, since most people, if they have heard of it at all, would still associate GCTS with biblical conservatism, even Reformed theology.
> 
> In answer to your question, probably, if it could lead to opportunities. It would be nice for people to know that a pastor is there if they need one. And you would want them to talk to you, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

 
I agree. I wear PTS stuff. I was being a tad facetious.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Okay... you all didn't like the physician of the soul.... but how about this... 

When I became ordained one of our members gave me a gift to distinguish me as an elder. She has served on the Cush4Christ team (which is an RP mission in Souther Sudan). The tribe that they work with is called the Dinka and the elders of the tribes carry "elders' sticks" which set them apart as elders in the community. 

As her new teaching elder, she was able to find (and I guess it was VERY DIFFICULT to obtain) and give to me a Dinka elder's stick. I thought of bringing it to synod last month, but it hangs in a stately position in my study. 







_(This is not me in the picture, by the way. It's a REAL Dinka elder). _


----------



## SRoper

JennyG said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> A uniform noting a profession or office is not a violation of the regulative principle; wearing garb invested with some kind of superstitious significance is. Beyond that scriptural rules governing things otherwise indifferent should be observed (i.e. if some kind of gear has a scandalous rep you avoid it).
> 
> 
> 
> that's just where I would want to draw the line - between the functional and self-effacing plain gown and bands of the old-school Scottish minister, and the bad vestments favoured by catholics and some strands of Anglicanism (generally full of symbolism)
Click to expand...

 
Ha ha, thank you for reminding me of that site! It's been a while since I looked at it. The woman with the stole listing the names of women in the bible cracked me up.


----------



## LawrenceU

nleshelman said:


> Okay... you all didn't like the physician of the soul.... but how about this...
> 
> When I became ordained one of our members gave me a gift to distinguish me as an elder. She has served on the Cush4Christ team (which is an RP mission in Souther Sudan). The tribe that they work with is called the Dinka and the elders of the tribes carry "elders' sticks" which set them apart as elders in the community.
> 
> As her new teaching elder, she was able to find (and I guess it was VERY DIFFICULT to obtain) and give to me a Dinka elder's stick. I thought of bringing it to synod last month, but it hangs in a stately position in my study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _(This is not me in the picture, by the way. It's a REAL Dinka elder). _


 

Now, that is cool. It is a great honour to carry an elder stick. I had a friend in college from the Dinka. His father was an elder. He came to the States once while we were in school. That man had more dignity and command presence than anyone I've ever met.


----------



## MW

Grillsy said:


> Do ministers still wear clerical garb in the Reformed churches in Australia?


 
It is now extremely rare. To show how uniform the collar is disused -- the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland minister in Australia told me that he was given a special dispensation by the Synod so that he was not obliged to wear one. I wore one for the first two years of ministry but eventually discarded it because it was counter-productive; reformed people saw it as an affront.

For Benjamin -- I would trace the anti-institutionalism to three influences. First, the post-modern quest for authenticity leads people to look with suspicion on any authority which stands between the individual and the genuine expression of himself. If church and state are recognised as institutional in any sense it is only in so far as these have been compromised by diversity and over-sensitivity. Secondly, the post-Christian belief that Christianity only served a formative role in leading Western societies to embrace values like civil liberty, and that it is no longer in the interests of liberty to give Christianity any place in civil life. Thirdly, the success of the post-Christendom movement within the church which has held aloft ideals like "Honest to God" and "Body-Ministry," and thereby introduced highly influential concepts such as relevance and equality into the everyday thinking of most evangelical Christians.


----------



## lynnie

_Thirdly, the success of the post-Christendom movement within the church which has held aloft ideals like "Honest to God" and "Body-Ministry," and thereby introduced highly influential concepts such as relevance and equality into the everyday thinking of most evangelical Christians. _

Hum...last time I looked we Reformed believed in the priesthood of all believers, which is what vestments wrongly opposed. I assume you mean ordained versus unordained? Yeah, churches are supposed to have elders that rule. But we still have equality of access to the mercy seat, not equality of function in the church, and robes can be well intentioned but misleading. Just my opinion. And the bible has plenty to say about body ministry, even if it does not all take place for an hour Sunday morning. That is not post Christian, it is scripture


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> Hum...last time I looked we Reformed believed in the priesthood of all believers, which is what vestments wrongly opposed. I assume you mean ordained versus unordained? Yeah, churches are supposed to have elders that rule. But we still have equality of access to the mercy seat, not equality of function in the church, and robes can be well intentioned but misleading. Just my opinion. And the bible has plenty to say about body ministry, even if it does not all take place for an hour Sunday morning. That is not post Christian, it is scripture


 
I provided historical reasons for anti-institutionalism; I wasn't giving biblical evaluation one way or the other. Your reply serves to show how vibrantly the post-Christendom ideals resonate in today's evangelicals. Appealing to Scripture apart from history to justify a stance on history is not very helpful to discussion.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Thanks as usual Rev. Winzer. 

What do you make of the case in acts 13 of Paul and his compatriots being recognized as teachers?


----------



## py3ak

lynnie said:


> Hum...last time I looked we Reformed believed in the priesthood of all believers, which is what vestments wrongly opposed. I assume you mean ordained versus unordained? Yeah, churches are supposed to have elders that rule. But we still have equality of access to the mercy seat, not equality of function in the church, and robes can be well intentioned but misleading.



Lynnie, you've mentioned several times now in this thread that you consider vestments a violation of the RPW because "we are all priests now". But if you want to support that from 1 Peter 2:9, it's worthwhile to remember that it's a quote from the OT (Exodus 19:6). So the priesthood of all believers is not quite a NT distinctive; the liberty of access is not due to the elimination of an order of priesthood, but to the coming of Christ (after all, in the OT, even the high priest didn't have _free_ access to the holiest of all).

But it's not even necessary to go into that to answer the point. Because "clerical garb" isn't automatically "priestly vestments" implying that someone has superior access to God anymore than scrubs or a lab coat imply that medical workers are full of grace. Think about the example of a military chaplain: my understanding is that he has particular insignia that distinguish his uniform from that of the other officers. That's not telling everyone else that he's particularly holy, but simply informing you what his function within the organization is. So if a minister wears a robe or a collar, it's not intrinsically or necessarily a claim to a special priestly status at all, but merely a sort of uniform or standard wear, as lawyers tend to wear suits and maintenance guys often have a t-shirt with their company's name on it.


----------



## lynnie

Reuben, yes, I understand the concept of a uniform. And when worn for that reason there is nothing wrong with the heart or doctrine. But can it make weaker brethren stumble into looking to a pastor instead of looking to God in some ways? I think so, having known so many ex catholics and having gone through the charismatic shepherding movement in the 70s where indeed men stood in the place of God. I find it to be sacerdotal. Just something to consider. I was thinking yesterday that I don't even know what my pastor wears ( suit or shirt or tie, I literally never noticed in the last nine months.) He blends in. I find robes to be conspicuous. Just my opinion. But thanks.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

lynnie said:


> Reuben, yes, I understand the concept of a uniform. And when worn for that reason there is nothing wrong with the heart or doctrine. But can it make weaker brethren stumble into looking to a pastor instead of looking to God in some ways? I think so, having known so many ex catholics and having gone through the charismatic shepherding movement in the 70s where indeed men stood in the place of God. I find it to be sacerdotal. Just something to consider. I was thinking yesterday that I don't even know what my pastor wears ( suit or shirt or tie, I literally never noticed in the last nine months.) He blends in. I find robes to be conspicuous. Just my opinion. But thanks.


 
When the pastor is preaching, the sheep should hear not his voice, but the shepherd's voice. It is not merely man, but God speaking to his people. The preacher is not preaching merely as a man, but as God's mouthpiece. The surrounding circumstances should be calculated to reflect this reality, and not diminish from it. 

In some circumstances, the suit and tie can be every bit as conspicuous as a robe, if the pastor is the only one wearing one.


----------



## alhembd

21st Century Calvinist said:


> In the Free Church of Scotland a number of pastors wear a clerical collar. They usually wear it when performing ecclesiastical duties.



Also, in the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, when performing clerical duties, the minister will wear a collar when in Scotland. The reason given is that it marks the minister as a minister of the State Church. The Roman Church was the State Church until Knox, afterward, the Presbyterian Church was. The Presbyterian ministers, for the most part, continued wearing ecclesiastical collars and robes, though sometimes the style of the collar varied.

When a minister of the Free Church or the Free Presbyterian Church wears a collar, it denotes that, although his Church is no longer the State Church, the minister nonetheless still believes in a State Church.


----------



## py3ak

lynnie said:


> But can it make weaker brethren stumble into looking to a pastor instead of looking to God in some ways?


 
The counter to that is that a suit could make unbelievers or weaker brethren stumble by making the pastor come aross as a CEO or lawyerly type (there are some who think of the church as a business, and in some churches that is a true perception), and a Hawaiian shirt could make people stumble by forcing them to wonder why this guy thinks he's cool. But if we've come to considerations of whether it's convenient, then we are plainly no longer on the turf of the RPW - if it's a question of the 2nd Commandment, there is no need to ask about people's reactions.


----------



## MW

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> What do you make of the case in acts 13 of Paul and his compatriots being recognized as teachers?


 
It would be an argument from silence, so one should be wary of building anything on it. It is just as possible that they had a prior acquaintance.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

armourbearer said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you make of the case in acts 13 of Paul and his compatriots being recognized as teachers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be an argument from silence, so one should be wary of building anything on it. It is just as possible that they had a prior acquaintance.
Click to expand...

 
Being Jewish males, it would have been usual for them to have been asked to teach in the synagogue.


----------



## dudley

*I am against any Reformed Protestant pastor wearing a the "Roman Collar*

I am against any Reformed Protestant pastor wearing a the "Roman Collar If a reformed Pastor wishes to wear a collar it should be the style of Anglican and Protestant Collar, to clearly distinguish them as Protestant clergy. Pastors who do not wear clerical collar or gown are biblically correct because there is no biblical warrant to wear it.
I think the only garb a Reformed Protestant pastor should wear at worship services and the celebration of the Lords Supper is a Geneva gown and also not required by scripture.


----------



## Jack K

I thought the protestant collar was supposed to denote servanthood. It looks like a dog collar or prisoner's shackle for a reason. The pastor wearing it is ordained as a servant of the gospel. Any honor he receives from it should not be due to superiority, but due to the peculiar Christian honor that comes with servanthood.

I've never been part of a church where the pastor wore such a collar. But I have a fondness for the idea of a man ordained to the pastorate wearing it everywhere—services, visits, the supermarket—as a constant sign to others and a reminder to himself that his life is one of a servant to the gospel.

Of course, as the conversation on this thread shows, few people these days see the collar that way. So if I were a pastor I'd probably think twice before actually wearing the collar. But I do like the idea. Viewed as a distinctive and servant-identifying mark, it has some merit.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

dudley said:


> I am against any Reformed Protestant pastor wearing a the "Roman Collar If a reformed Pastor wishes to wear a collar it should be the style of Anglican and Protestant Collar, to clearly distinguish them as Protestant clergy. Pastors who do not wear clerical collar or gown are biblically correct because there is no biblical warrant to wear it.
> I think the only garb a Reformed Protestant pastor should wear at worship services and the celebration of the Lords Supper is a Geneva gown and also not required by scripture.


 
What about the "academic gown?" Does anyone just wear the gown they wore at their MDiv graduation?

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> I thought the protestant collar was supposed to denote servanthood. It looks like a dog collar or prisoner's shackle for a reason. The pastor wearing it is ordained as a servant of the gospel. Any honor he receives from it should not be due to superiority, but due to the peculiar Christian honor that comes with servanthood.
> 
> I've never been part of a church where the pastor wore such a collar. But I have a fondness for the idea of a man ordained to the pastorate wearing it everywhere—services, visits, the supermarket—as a constant sign to others and a reminder to himself that his life is one of a servant to the gospel.
> 
> Of course, as the conversation on this thread shows, few people these days see the collar that way. So if I were a pastor I'd probably think twice before actually wearing the collar. But I do like the idea. Viewed as a distinctive and servant-identifying mark, it has some merit.


 
Your post shows the true heart of a pastor. But from a layman's perspective, the pastor should be viewed as a superior authority. If my pastor gives me some advice, I'm generally going to take it as being the most authoritative insight, unless I can disprove it from the Scriptures. And together with the elders, he is absolutely an authority to be obeyed in the church. I. E., a "superior."


----------



## Jack K

Willem van Oranje said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the protestant collar was supposed to denote servanthood. It looks like a dog collar or prisoner's shackle for a reason. The pastor wearing it is ordained as a servant of the gospel. Any honor he receives from it should not be due to superiority, but due to the peculiar Christian honor that comes with servanthood.
> 
> I've never been part of a church where the pastor wore such a collar. But I have a fondness for the idea of a man ordained to the pastorate wearing it everywhere—services, visits, the supermarket—as a constant sign to others and a reminder to himself that his life is one of a servant to the gospel.
> 
> Of course, as the conversation on this thread shows, few people these days see the collar that way. So if I were a pastor I'd probably think twice before actually wearing the collar. But I do like the idea. Viewed as a distinctive and servant-identifying mark, it has some merit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post shows the true heart of a pastor. But from a layman's perspective, the pastor should be viewed as a superior authority. If my pastor gives me some advice, I'm generally going to take it as being the most authoritative insight, unless I can disprove it from the Scriptures. And together with the elders, he is absolutely an authority to be obeyed in the church. I. E., a "superior."
Click to expand...


I agree he's an authority too. The collar doesn't denote everything about him. It denotes his relationship _to the gospel_. He is a servant to God and to the Good News entrusted to him. In that role, he will also act in many ways as a servant to others: "Whoever would be great among you must be slave of all." But this should not imply he gives up spiritual oversight and leadership.

And again, I'm not saying he's required to wear it or even that it'd necessarily be wise for most pastors these days. Just that some aspects of it appeal to me.


----------



## Philip

> I think the only garb a Reformed Protestant pastor should wear at worship services and the celebration of the Lords Supper is a Geneva gown



I for one think he should at least wear _something_ under it . . . a pair of pants, shirt, etc.

But seriously, I see a lot of good reasons for and against the practice (I personally don't care whether it's the Roman collar or not). I have seen good reformed pastors wear it and others not and for perfectly good reasons.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

> *Jack K. *I agree he's an authority too. The collar doesn't denote everything about him. It denotes his relationship to the gospel. He is a servant to God and to the Good News entrusted to him. In that role, he will also act in many ways as a servant to others: "Whoever would be great among you must be slave of all." But this should not imply he gives up spiritual oversight and leadership.
> 
> And again, I'm not saying he's required to wear it or even that it'd necessarily be wise for most pastors these days. Just that some aspects of it appeal to me.



Thanks, pastor Jack. Most Reformed people probably would bet the heeby jeebies if they saw something like a clerical collar these days, as you seem to have aluded. (I think that includes me.) But I wonder if there might still be situations when it could be a good idea. Ministering in a catholic neighborhood? Riding alone on an airplane? Visiting a hospital? Just a thought.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

A simple black gown without augmentation with stole or stripes is a sign of office not a liturgical vestment. This is no different than judges or professors wearing a robe, or the minister preaching from a raised pulpit. Both pulpit and robe fall under “circumstances” of worship, like lighting, pews and psalters; lending dignity to the word and office. 

Clerical wear outside of worship is a separate but not Regulative Principle matter. Ministers should wear modest and suitable clothing. If this includes some element signifying his office, this is a pragmatic issue not requiring scriptural warrant. I’ve never worn a collar, but could imagine situations where one might be helpful to identify one as a minister to those in need. 

Neither robes nor collars are unseen in the Scottish Free Churches. In the US one must read the cultural landscape in making such choices.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Excellent words as usual Rev. Ferrell.


----------



## Zenas

Willem van Oranje said:


> How about wearing a jacket or a polo shirt with the name of your theological seminary blazened on it, when walking around town. Would that set you out as likely a pastor? Would that be a good modern equivalent? Some seminaries sell those.


 
Like a biker club.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Zenas said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about wearing a jacket or a polo shirt with the name of your theological seminary blazened on it, when walking around town. Would that set you out as likely a pastor? Would that be a good modern equivalent? Some seminaries sell those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a biker club.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's a great idea. They should all get pastor biker jackets with the name of their denom blazened on the back!


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I'm a Baptist minister in South Georgia. If I could get away with wearing a collar and robe, I would. For me there are some real benefits. But, it certainly is not necessary. 

Its kind of funny: in my church my choir wears robes every Lord's Day, and I wear a robe when administering the ordinance of baptism, but the thought of their minister wearing a robe to preach... perish the thought!

One thing I do however, is carry my Bible with me whenever I'm "on the job" and when walking, I carry it clutched to my breast like in the picture above. It serves as a visible _badge of office_ that helps to distinguish me in hospitals and other places as a pastor.


----------

