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.

 

[RamistThomist]

Adiaphora

 

[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?

 

[TylerRay]

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.

 

[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.

 

[TylerRay]

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.

 

[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...

 

[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.

 

[Held Fast]

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]

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.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

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

You could have your clerical collar tattooed on.

 

[JimmyH]

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]

You could have your clerical collar tattooed on.

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

 

[Edward]

Skinny jeans and a collar tattoo.....

Don't forget the 'soul patch'.

 

[TheOldCourse]

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?

 

[Parakaleo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.