Should Seminaries Reinstate Dress Codes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure, but you missed the irony regarding the no-beard rule.

I did so because it's an old, and bad joke. Institutions can set any rules they wish. It's pointless basing rules, or rejecting rules, on what Christ looked like or how He dressed because we have no pictures of Him and He lived in a different culture and time. By the same logic we should be dressing as Christ (supposedly) dressed, and we should have long hair &c. Of course Scripture tells us it is a shame for a man to have long hair so that's another level on which this whole argument fails. The woman who tweeted clearly didn't know her Bible.

We have principles of how to dress and we apply them within the cultures we live.
 
Certainly when preaching one should wear the full suit. Short sleeve shirt and tie worked for the NASA engineers of the 60s. But personally I've never been a fan of short sleeve shirts.
I've never been a fan of short sleeve with jacket either but 100+ degree temps in Texas have made me reconsider. :)
 
I've never been a fan of short sleeve with jacket either but 100+ degree temps in Texas have made me reconsider. :)

Short sleeve with tie is fine in my opinion but I would never wear a jacket with a short sleeve shirt. Personally I've always preferred rolling my sleeves up than wearing short sleeve shirts. But that is less formal than just short sleeves.
 
For the record, WTS has been working on a "Community Life Statement" for a while now and it is nearing completion. It is a complex thing to create, legally and morally, to avoid binding people's consciences inappropriately but to have clearly defined standards that we can appeal too if discipline is necessary. It has taken many hours of Board and Administration time, and I think the end result will be profitable for us all. I don't recall any discussion at any point of a dress code; we were more concerned with potential sins of speech and issues of marriage and sexuality. It is broadly enough written to deal with any behavioral issues, based as it is on Scriptures and Confessional Standards of the school. I don't recall anything in those documents concerning suits and ties, but Christian liberty was important enough to the writers of the Confession that they put it in the first chapter.
 
I did so because it's an old, and bad joke. Institutions can set any rules they wish. It's pointless basing rules, or rejecting rules, on what Christ looked like or how He dressed because we have no pictures of Him and He lived in a different culture and time. By the same logic we should be dressing as Christ (supposedly) dressed, and we should have long hair &c. Of course Scripture tells us it is a shame for a man to have long hair so that's another level on which this whole argument fails. The woman who tweeted clearly didn't know her Bible.

We have principles of how to dress and we apply them within the cultures we live.
WHAT!? None of my jokes are EVER old and bad. This a dueling offense. We will draw pistols at daybreak and settle this like men!

Institutions have the power to set any rules they want...but they should not. And in this case, requiring a suit and tie for seminary is too rigid and too specific; a general rule for tidy-ness and formality should suffice.

Where the bible gives liberty, we should give it as well.
 
For the record, WTS has been working on a "Community Life Statement" for a while now and it is nearing completion. It is a complex thing to create, legally and morally, to avoid binding people's consciences inappropriately but to have clearly defined standards that we can appeal too if discipline is necessary. It has taken many hours of Board and Administration time, and I think the end result will be profitable for us all. I don't recall any discussion at any point of a dress code; we were more concerned with potential sins of speech and issues of marriage and sexuality. It is broadly enough written to deal with any behavioral issues, based as it is on Scriptures and Confessional Standards of the school. I don't recall anything in those documents concerning suits and ties, but Christian liberty was important enough to the writers of the Confession that they put it in the first chapter.

Where is Christian liberty in chapter one of the Confession? And are you using the modern definition of Christian liberty or the Westminster, i.e. Biblical, definition?

No-one has yet explained the difference between speech and dress. They are both manifestations of the disposition of the heart. Ideally one would not need to say much about dress because there would be general standards and it wouldn't be an issue. The same can be said for our speech. Unless this new document is going to seek to regulate political speech, or seek to restrict speech by defining certain types of speech as "racist" or "prejudiced", then one would have thought there would be an implicit understanding that profane speech was to be avoided: at least amongst seminary students. If this is not the case then I'm very concerned. This does not fill one with confidence.

How does a seminary bind a student's conscience by requiring a dress code? A seminary is not a church. It is a voluntary institution of learning.
 
Last edited:
WHAT!? None of my jokes are EVER old and bad. This a dueling offense. We will draw pistols at daybreak and settle this like men!

Institutions have the power to set any rules they want...but they should not. And in this case, requiring a suit and tie for seminary is too rigid and too specific; a general rule for tidy-ness and formality should suffice.

Where the bible gives liberty, we should give it as well.

But the inevitable question is: what does a rule for "tidiness and formality" look like?
 
I've never been a fan of short sleeve with jacket either but 100+ degree temps in Texas have made me reconsider. :)
My church's current worship space will sometimes get up to 81 with the AC running during the hottest part of the summer. We're working on making it better, but short sleeve dress shirts are my go to in that environment.
 
My church's current worship space will sometimes get up to 81 with the AC running during the hottest part of the summer. We're working on making it better, but short sleeve dress shirts are my go to in that environment.
We just get a run at it as we say in Kansas. We also have trouble keeping up though. I have our church thermostats on my phone. Around an hour or so before fellowship I set them at 66 on really hot days and by the end of service temperatures will sometimes stil be in the 70s.
 
....The Puritans and the Anglicans argued about this in the 17th century: the Anglican argument was: "You are going to meet a king; therefore, you cannot freely compose prayers and meet in simple buildings that look like houses - you must be properly attired, and use prepared courtly language and meet in ornate buildings that are fit for a king". The Puritans response was "Yes but that king is my father, so I can come before him simply, with the words I have, in a simple building. Of course, there is a sense that both sides are right, as the Puritans well understood, but I think we're missing an important piece of the Biblical picture here, and it is strange on this Board that it is the Puritan piece! The Puritan pursuit of plainness certainly applies to how we dress for worship, along with other areas.

"Western society" is by no means one culture, even within the US. "Decent attire" is different in Jackson, Mississippi than in Oceanside, CA, which in turn are different from Sioux City, Iowa, so dress that is sensitive to culture is going to vary. And cultures do change over time: no Puritans ever dressed in suits and ties, so that cannot be the only permanent expression of proper church attendance garb. It will take wisdom for us all to dress appropriately to convey a message that doesn't get in the way of the gospel - and, as Alan pointed out, far more important than our attire is our hearts if we want to be found faithful before God.
Some of us have lived long enough that we remember old Reformed clergymen wearing frock coats when they preach.
Our cultures have changed over time.
In Myanmar and Nepal, neither Baptist nor Anglican worshipers, including clerics, wear shoes in the Church. I have visited the campus of Kachin Theological College, an evangelical school or the Kachin Baptist Convention, located in Nawng Nang, Myitkyina, Kachin State in the northern part of Myanmar. The student there did not wear shoes to class. When preaching Kachin Baptists pastors, in Myanmar, wear their tribal attire, minus the sword, but including their tribal head gear. They are not shod. The attire worn by Anglican Clerics in Myanmar consists of cassock, surplice and scarf, and a clerical collar [either Roman or Genevan] They are not shod. As Dr. Ian Duguid said the pursuit of simplicity certainly applies to how we dress. Decent attire is not the same in one culture as it is in another.
Should we expect seminarians to wear the same attire they would wear if they were a pastor?
When did academic dress cease to be worn daily in Reformed seminaries? Or was academic regalia only worn at graduation ceremonies in North America? Should each reformed seminary have its own academic ensembles that are distinctive in some way to that institution?
Should Dr. Ian Duguid wear the academic regalia of Cambridge when he teaches, and should his students all wear, at a minimum, a Geneva Gown?
 
Some of us have lived long enough that we remember old Reformed clergymen wearing frock coats when they preach.
Our cultures have changed over time.
In Myanmar and Nepal, neither Baptist nor Anglican worshipers, including clerics, wear shoes in the Church. I have visited the campus of Kachin Theological College, an evangelical school or the Kachin Baptist Convention, located in Nawng Nang, Myitkyina, Kachin State in the northern part of Myanmar. The student there did not wear shoes to class. When preaching Kachin Baptists pastors, in Myanmar, wear their tribal attire, minus the sword, but including their tribal head gear. They are not shod. The attire worn by Anglican Clerics in Myanmar consists of cassock, surplice and scarf, and a clerical collar [either Roman or Genevan] They are not shod. As Dr. Ian Duguid said the pursuit of simplicity certainly applies to how we dress. Decent attire is not the same in one culture as it is in another.
Should we expect seminarians to wear the same attire they would wear if they were a pastor?
When did academic dress cease to be worn daily in Reformed seminaries? Or was academic regalia only worn at graduation ceremonies in North America? Should each reformed seminary have its own academic ensembles that are distinctive in some way to that institution?
Should Dr. Ian Duguid wear the academic regalia of Cambridge when he teaches, and should his students all wear, at a minimum, a Geneva Gown?

I'm sorry but what does this have to do with this discussion other than to show that in different cultures the different standards of dress manifest in different ways? We're talking about seminaries in the West, where students should be expected to dress in accordance with Western norms.
 
I'm sorry but what does this have to do with this discussion other than to show that in different cultures the different standards of dress manifest in different ways? We're talking about seminaries in the West, where students should be expected to dress in accordance with Western norms.
I am sorry, You are right, I went somewhat off topic, and belabored the point.
The point is seminarians should dress in a culturally appropriate manner.
My question is, if we need to have dress codes, why not go back to wearing academic gowns, or Geneva Gowns?
Is this still a custom in any of the historically reformed schools in Ulster or Scotland?
Was this ever the custom in reformed seminaries in North America?
 
I think it is utterly silly to leave it up to the individuals own devices to determine base level acceptability in an academic environment.

I've been to too many ecclesial functions with people dressing and acting like complete idiots. (One time I was with a group of chaplains having dinner at Chilis and it was loud and boisterous and two of guys got up on the table (!) and were hooting and hollering like drunken frat boys... and they were sober.) I think of my many years as a student and as a professional and as a minister - being physically composed lends to being mentally composed.

Maybe the niche schools that guys like Alan and Ian teach at are so... cerebral... that the very nature of the schools keeps all but the most focused from attending. That's great. But it ain't the norm.
 
I am sorry, You are right, I went somewhat off topic, and belabored the point.
The point is seminarians should dress in a culturally appropriate manner.
My question is, if we need to have dress codes, why not go back to wearing academic gowns, or Geneva Gowns?
Is this still a custom in any of the historically reformed schools in Ulster or Scotland?
Was this ever the custom in reformed seminaries in North America?

Sorry if I was a tad curt. I wouldn't say it's a case of returning to a particular period and saying "that's the standard of dress most appropriate". We should be guided by certain principles. In the West there are clearly defined standards of dress from informal to formal. Even today when dress is becoming more casual in the office it's described as casual; it's not a redefinition of formal. So I don't think we need to be wearing gowns as they did in centuries past in order to have an objective code of smart dress.

Discussions of suits and ties is actually a bit of a distraction at this point because even having a dress code- never mind what would actually be stipulated in it- seems anathema to some. This is of course a fruit of the view today that beyond the most basic requirements of modesty, dress is of no concern to the Christian. When basic Biblical requirements and distinctions of male and female dress are thrown out then that is hardly surprising.
 
This thread is pretty eye-opening.

I honestly never thought that men would rebel against a school having (its right) to mandate a dress code. Seems like this is basic submission to authority (5th commandment). Also, why are people attending schools without reading their code of conduct and dress codes before running afoul of them (unless they did not send out the dress code information ahead of time, in which case, that truly is a terrible school)? I read my orientation packet for RPTS pretty carefully. One professor said no hats in his class. The students complied. I do not recall anyone ever complaining. Is this a backlash to fundamentalism?

It seems a mark of Christian maturity and submission to things that are, as some said, fairly indifferent in places like an institution (seminaries are not a church). A "don't tread on me" attitude really needs to be expunged, especially in Presbyterianism, where men say they will submit to authority but often flee church courts when they are unhappy. Perhaps this is a mark of godliness that needs to be tested in Seminary as well as our Presbyteries. I would raise my eyebrows at a man who will buck at a school's dress code. Tell me to wear a full school uniform, I would not care. My books for Seminary ended up costing far more than my suits!

BTW, the Master's Seminary seems to be doing just fine with a dress code. I have a friend in the ministry who went there before transferring to RPTS and graduating with me. Say what you will about John MacArthur (and I have much to differ with him!), but the man has done well in conducting himself as a mature man of God.

Been interesting.
 
I think it is utterly silly to leave it up to the individuals own devices to determine base level acceptability in an academic environment.

I've been to too many ecclesial functions with people dressing and acting like complete idiots. (One time I was with a group of chaplains having dinner at Chilis and it was loud and boisterous and two of guys got up on the table (!) and were hooting and hollering like drunken frat boys... and they were sober.) I think of my many years as a student and as a professional and as a minister - being physically composed lends to being mentally composed.

Maybe the niche schools that guys like Alan and Ian teach at are so... cerebral... that the very nature of the schools keeps all but the most focused from attending. That's great. But it ain't the norm.
Them charismatic chaplains huh?
 
Of course, a school can have a dress code if it wants one. I think the original question was, "Is it wise in the case of a seminary?" My gut reaction: Appearance masquerading as piety is a bigger danger in the ministry than is disrespectful slovenliness. So, I'd be inclined not to institute a dress code unless sloppy dress became a real problem at a particular school.
 
Of course, a school can have a dress code if it wants one. I think the original question was, "Is it wise in the case of a seminary?" My gut reaction: Appearance masquerading as piety is a bigger danger in the ministry than is disrespectful slovenliness. So, I'd be inclined not to institute a dress code unless sloppy dress became a real problem at a particular school.

Why is sloppy dress a problem?
 
Of course, a school can have a dress code if it wants one. I think the original question was, "Is it wise in the case of a seminary?" My gut reaction: Appearance masquerading as piety is a bigger danger in the ministry than is disrespectful slovenliness. So, I'd be inclined not to institute a dress code unless sloppy dress became a real problem at a particular school.

Is chaste speech masquerading as piety dangerous? Is faithfulness in marriage masquerading as piety dangerous? Is not stealing masquerading as piety dangerous? Should we then eschew such conduct? Why is dress singled out as the outward behaviour that it's ok to ignore due to the potential for hypocrisy? I've yet to hear someone explain why the potential for hypocrisy does not void our requirement to obey laws of behaviour but when it comes to dress suddenly hypocrisy is seen as almost an inevitability. And because of that we should avoid any requirement of dress beyond, as I said, the most basic levels of modesty (and even these are not adhered to by many in the visible church).
 
I can see Christian prudence but not Christian liberty [in WCF 1.6].
WCF 1.6 adduces the notion of Christian liberty, inter alia, in its statement following the colon, ending the first sentence: "unto which [the whole counsel of God as set forth in the Bible] nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

Peace,
Alan
 
Last edited:
Agreeing with Jack, I don’t think anyone here is rebelling against an institution having (its right) to mandate a dress code.

I find it surprising that it should even be debated whether seminaries should have a dress code as a general principle or necessity, and so the pushback seems to be against this because, well, “why?”.

But reading Ben’s post maybe answers that!..
Maybe the niche schools that guys like Alan and Ian teach at are so... cerebral... that the very nature of the schools keeps all but the most focused from attending. That's great. But it ain't the norm.
However, in the case of these institutions, surely a dress code is very low down on the list of priorities!
 
This is of course true. But the question is precisely "What is appropriate attire for a seminary class?" We have had lots of opinions that make it sound as if people think seminaries are full of students with sagging trousers and offensive T-shirts, or that unless you are dressed in a coat and tie you aren't serious about your subject. Meanwhile, Alan and I - I think the only two seminary professors so far in this discussion - have both stated that in our combined forty or so years of seminary teaching we have never found this to be an issue, despite not having a dress code. It is not as if MARS, WSCAL and WTS are "unserious" seminaries, yet the students manage to show up to class faithfully, wearing a variety of appropriate attire, eager to learn. So where is the problem that we need a dress code to fix? Frankly, there are far more pressing concerns that I have for the theological and spiritual health of my students than their sins against fashion -whether contemporary fashion or the fashions of a previous time. I'd rather talk to my students about being gracious and kind to one another, and to those with whom we disagree theologically, which I see as a more pressing issue in our communities.
Thank you for stating that my aphorism "is of course true." Thank you also for reminding us to pray for the difficult and important ministry of seminary professors.
 
In his book on fundamentalism, George Marsden relates an episode in which Moody Bible Institute president James M. Gray upbraided the faculty for removing their jackets while in their office. Evidently it wouldn't do for a student or someone else to come into the office unannounced and find the professor in such disarray. (I think this was probably around the 1900s-1910s.)
 
In his book on fundamentalism, George Marsden relates an episode in which Moody Bible Institute president James M. Gray upbraided the faculty for removing their jackets while in their office. Evidently it wouldn't do for a student or someone else to come into the office unannounced and find the professor in such disarray. (I think this was probably around the 1900s-1910s.)

Fundamentalists got a lot right and their warnings about what was happening in society have come to pass. Personal holiness is as important as right doctrine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top