The Uniform of the Office

Status
Not open for further replies.

W.C. Dean

Puritan Board Sophomore
For this thread I'd like to primarily hear from Pastors.

I know this has been discussed before, but that was a few years ago, and I have some questions about gowns and clerical collars I haven't found the answer to. For those that wear either I assume you agree on at least this: The office should have a uniform, there shouldn't be vestments (in the Eastern or Catholic sense), and this uniform should generally deemphasize the personality of the wearer. Now a few questions for both sides.
For those who wear gowns (Genevan or otherwise):
-
Do you wear your gown the entire time you're at church, or just during the Worship?
-Do you ever find yourself in a situation where you wear your gown outside a church service, a wedding, or a funeral?
-If you only wear it during these specific scenarios, how would you answer the objection that you are assigning a special, worshipful element to the robe itself (a vestment)?
-Why don't you wear a clerical collar with your gown? (obviously no answer if you do wear both)

For those who wear clerical collars:
-What is your reasoning/justification for wearing the collar? Does its history play into it?
-Isn't the collar's history primarily Roman Catholic? Do you find this problematic?
-How often do you wear your collar? Do you wear it outside of church? What situations would you be in where you wouldn't wear it?
-What is the general reaction to your wearing of it? Do people assume you're Roman?
-Does it matter what kind of collar you wear? I've seen some slim ones right in front of the throat, and some wrap all the way around the neck.
-Why don't you wear a robe? (assuming you don't)

Does anyone here wear both?
Can anyone here provide a reason why nothing like collars or gowns should be worn?
I don't mean a preference, but those who think these kinds of uniforms are wrong.

Thank you all for your time.
 
I am not a minister, but given that clerical collars are the culturally recognised form of ministerial dress in the United Kingdom, I consider it to be wise for a minister to wear one - especially when visiting hospitals and so on. Given that ministerial dress is a circumstantial matter about the worship of God, not an element in the worship of God, no moral justification needs to be given for wearing it, as it is merely a matter of Christian prudence.
 
I am not a minister, but given that clerical collars are the culturally recognised form of ministerial dress in the United Kingdom, I consider it to be wise for a minister to wear one - especially when visiting hospitals and so on. Given that ministerial dress is a circumstantial matter about the worship of God, not an element in the worship of God, no moral justification needs to be given for wearing it, as it is merely a matter of Christian prudence.

Well stated, brother.

I struggle with this because in SoCal, no 'culturally recognized form of ministerial dress' remains. The collar (and especially the gown) are more likely to confuse than comfort. The closest thing we have to ministerial dress is the Hawaiian shirt, but that doesn't go over well with the Reformed. :calvin::boston::edwards::gillespie::henry::knox::rutherford:
 
I am not a minister, but given that clerical collars are the culturally recognised form of ministerial dress in the United Kingdom, I consider it to be wise for a minister to wear one - especially when visiting hospitals and so on. Given that ministerial dress is a circumstantial matter about the worship of God, not an element in the worship of God, no moral justification needs to be given for wearing it, as it is merely a matter of Christian prudence.

I did want to hear from you because you've objected to Genevan Gowns before. Could you give a succinct argument for why you're against it? And what would you say to those where no ministerial uniform is expected, would it still be prudent to dress yourself in a uniform that gives recognition you're a minister?
 
I did want to hear from you because you've objected to Genevan Gowns before. Could you give a succinct argument for why you're against it? And what would you say to those where no ministerial uniform is expected, would it still be prudent to dress yourself in a uniform that gives recognition you're a minister?

I do not object to them now, as should be evident from my post. As a rule, it is wise not take things that I wrote 10+ years ago as if they represented my current opinions - at least with respect to extra-confessional issues. In the past, I fell into a form of hyper-regulativism with respect to such matters.
 
The practice in our church is for the pastors (usually 2, occasionally 3, rarely 1 or 4) participating in the service to wear the academic robes to which they are entitled. (Batchelors, Masters, Ph.D). (Loaners available if a guest doesn't have his own.) Robes are also worn for weddings and funerals, but not otherwise.

I have had a disagreement with a ruling elder who has preached a couple of times - he wears a business suit, while I have told him he should wear the M.D. robes to which he is entitled.
 
What kind of dress should a Baptist have, in your opinion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What kind of dress should a Baptist have, in your opinion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me? I don't see why a confessional Baptist would differ on this point. Historically calvinistic Baptists have always worn clerical attire. John Gill comes to mind. Robert Truelove, who is here on the board, has advocated the use of a clerical collar before.
 
The problem with the argument for gowns being a uniform of office is that historically there is nothing distinctive about 17th/18th century ministerial dress. It is called "clerical" wear because it was the fashion worn by "clerks" which would have included members of the legal profession. See this Hogarth engraving for a picture of an 18th century lawyer:
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/...tury-hudibras-approaches-news-photo/464472465

Clerical collars were invented in the 19th century by a Presbyterian to be sure, but the Church of Scotland in the 1820's was hardly a bastion of Reformed orthodoxy. By all means wear one if it is useful to you in your ministry, but don't attribute it to 17th/18th century divines. What they wore was nearer to a business suit in todays fashions.
 
Martyn Lloyd-Jones wore a gown in the pulpit to emphasise the authority of the office. He said:
"...I believe it is good and right for a preacher to wear a [Geneva] gown in the pulpit...The gown to me is a sign of the call, a sign of the fact that a man has been 'set apart' to do this work. It is no more than that, but it is that. Of course, I must hastily add that while I believe in wearing a gown in the pulpit I do not believe in wearing a hood on the gown! The wearing of a hood calls attention to the man and his ability, not to his call. It is not a sign of office but a sign of the man's scholastic achievements; so one has a B.D. gown, another a D.D. gown, another an M.A. and so on. That is but confusion; but above all it distracts attention from the spiritual authority of the preacher. Wear a gown but never a hood!" (Preaching and Preachers Pg. 160)
 
The only "clergy" who wear gowns and collars in our area are Roman Catholic Priests and butch women "preachers" who want everyone to know they have the position...kind of in your face. Even if I wanted to wear a clerical gown (I don't) I believe it would cause much confusion, such is the religious ignorance of the area.
Perhaps if all clergy were expected to wear the gown we would have less prancing and dramatics from the pulpit!
 
I thought a robe was initially intended to cover the gentleman's clothing so that attention would be given to the word preached?
 
I have two pragmatic observations. I wear a clerical collar to church on Sundays and then add on the robe for worship.

1. I never get a comment any longer from parishioners liking/approving of my ties, or suit color, shirts/suits/shoes, etc The focus is not on my personal fashion selection because now my worship wardrobe is plain and standardized.

2. My Sunday mornings are considerably simpler allowing me to worry about one less thing (wardrobe) and concentrate on the sacredness of the day rather than picking out a tie, shirt, socks, and shoes to go with a suit and then attempting to keep my suit jacket from getting wrinkled on the drive to the church, etc. Also, this makes my wifes Sunday chores easier as well allowing our entire family to have a more sacred Sunday.
 
When I was a pastor in a nondenominational evangelical church in the past I always wore a tab collared clergy shirt at church. The congregation got used to it quickly and it became part of my standard uniform. I believe the dull, unchanging appearance of the shirts (all were black), and the tightness of the collars also enhanced my focus on worship. When I wore clergy shirts outside of church I found, even in relatively "unchurched" areas, that they often got a response: people in need or going through difficult situations would approach me and ask for help or tell me about their situations on the basis of my being identifiable by wearing a collar. I could not hide behind my anonymity in public - when I wore a collar, it exposed me as a pastor and opened the door to unexpected, sometimes messy, situations. Given my experiences, I would certainly encourage pastors to wear clergy shirts in public. I found wearing one led to amazing opportunities for both evangelism and helping those in need that would never have happened otherwise. Wouldn't it be incredible to regularly be able to identify pastors mixed in with the general public - not in the sense of showing off, but as a way to bring glory to God.
 
This is a really fascinating question to consider as I live in a different cultural context. Here in Kyiv, the Eastern Orthodox clergy are definitely easy to spot in public; people often do approach them for prayer or encouragement...or blessing of some totem. Their churches are also externally distinctive.

A Baptist church here recently finished their building project and their design mimics that of the orthodox churches. The sight of the design and the presence of certain attire does seem to "open" people more than standing on the sidewalk like the Jehovah's Witnesses.

My experience in Ukraine has suggested to me the importance of considering these cultural elements and to think carefully about the logistics; the "matter about...not an element in" as helpfully explained above.

As I have thought about this question over the last two years, I have become convicted of the Genevan gown as a means to reduce distraction and communicate the importance of the Word preached. The jury is still out on the clerical collar, though I understand the benefits listed above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top