Wearing a Collar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Possibly not. I once commented to my old minister about how he had stopped wearing a collar, he said that he had dropped "the Romish collar". I replied that I had no problem with it, but he said "where do you get that in the Bible, from the fact that the priests in the Old Testament wore vestments?". That kept me quiet. :lol:

DR: Do any RPCI ministers wear a collar or robe? My wife and I have worshiped at Loughbrickland and know David Silversides does not. She was a member of a Free Church of Scotland- Continuing congregation for several years. A number of their ministers do wear collars, and perhaps robes in public worship.
 
Possibly not. I once commented to my old minister about how he had stopped wearing a collar, he said that he had dropped "the Romish collar". I replied that I had no problem with it, but he said "where do you get that in the Bible, from the fact that the priests in the Old Testament wore vestments?". That kept me quiet. :lol:

DR: Do any RPCI ministers wear a collar or robe? My wife and I have worshiped at Loughbrickland and know David Silversides does not. She was a member of a Free Church of Scotland- Continuing congregation for several years. A number of their ministers do wear collars, and perhaps robes in public worship.

A couple of the older, retired ones do; but no serving minister wears a collar or gown nowadays. It is generally discouraged, but not forbidden.
 
And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. [Acts 13:15]​

Why did the elders of the synagogue approach Paul and Barnabas for an exhortation? Were the latter perhaps wearing some distinctive clothing marking them as rabbis?

In many cultures, there is a distinctive dress for different crafts and professions. Was something of this sort practiced in first century diaspora Judaism?
 
If you wear a collar, wear a PRotestant (Anglican) one, not a Catholic one, which is what most high-church Presbyterians normally do.

Frankly, I'm agin' em.

But, I am in favor of the Geneva (teacher's) gown --Read Lloyd-Jones to see why!

I have to admit though we wear cassock, surplice and stole where I currently serve, I am partial to geneva gown and preaching tabs (seriously considering the purchase of a gown and tabs once I'm ordained to the presbyterate).

Of course, as an Anglican, I have no problem with a collar :cool: .
 
In recent years I’m convinced American Evangelicals are far too folksy and informal in they way they do public worship, the reading and preaching of the word.

I noted in worship in Scotland and Ulster a greater dignity and reverence in Regulative Principle churches. In Scotland, in an FCC congregation, I observed the Bible reverentially carried to the pulpit before the minister entered. After the benediction, everyone takes their seat and remains in silence until the minister leaves the pulpit, in recognition of having been in the presences of God. When, asked to preach at a midweek Scottish service, I noted to the woman now my wife, who had lived there for three years, “I gather Scottish preachers don’t tell jokes or relate anecdotes as part of their sermons.” I carefully stayed within their norm.

Dr. Samuel Kamaleson, a noted Methodist minister originally from India, removes his shoes when he reads or preaches the word. He explained this came from a young Indian girl’s inquiry regarding Muslim’s removing their shoes when they entered a mosque. In India, removing shoes indicates being on holy ground, as it did in the Bible. So, recognizing this cultural sensitivity, he began to do likewise when he approached the pulpit.

Such, I regard as a circumstance of worship, something “common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed,” and somewhat culturally determined. We sit in pews in our culture, in others they might sit on the floor or mats.

In recent years, I’ve approached the reading and preaching of the word with greater reverence and attempted to convey the dignity of the event and the office I exercise. As judges in our culture usually wear a robe, I think it right for pastors to wear one also, while exercising their office in public worship.

To this point, I have not done so. I just turned 59, am an East Kentucky hillbilly ( a less formal and folksy place one will not find), don’t like change, and have concerns about appearing pretentious. However, my respect of the reading and preaching of Scripture, and the dignity of the office of he one who does so in public worship convinces me it would be preferable, though not to be mandated.

That said, I don’t appreciate albs, cassocks, stoles, and never a chasable. I say that as one who was briefly an Episcopalian in one of my early adulthood pilgrimages away from Presbyterianism, to escape the liberal forms of the tradition. But, Puritan views have won out and those would violate the RPW. Likewise, no velvet, doctors strips or icons on the robe. Just a plain black robe as a symbol of office to obscure the individuality of the office holder, and leave all those other pretentious signs of rank or attempts at decoration alone.

It is the RPW which leads me to the conviction I should be wearing a robe, though such is not required. But, that said, I haven't done so yet.
 
As a minister who used to wear both a genevan gown and a collar but have dropped the use of both, I may have a unique perspective?

It seems like many people like to lump the robe and the coller into the same category of 'vestments'.

A vestment, properly so called, is special attire worn by the minister only in worship services. As such, the robe is properly called a vestment because it is only donned for worship services, and thusly becomes an element of worship.

The collar on the other hand is not regularly donned for worship but is worn either all of the time or on many occasions outside the context of worship. It is a 'uniform'. It is properly called a 'clerical'.

I dropped the robe because I believe it is unlawful to add an element to worship that is not prescribed in the Scripture (call it part of my recommitment to the regulative principle). Personally, I simply do not find the argument that the robe is a circumstance of worship to hold water.

It is interesting to note that Calvin introduced the Genevan gown to get away from the appearance of the vestments of the Roman Catholic Church. For many of his day, it was just to soon to perceive of a minister not wearing any sort of vestment in the pulpit because they had been in use for over 1000 years. At the time, the Genevan gown was perhaps a step in the right direction but I believe it is high time we gave them up as well.

I had an interesting conversation with an elder who wears a white robe in the pulpit and also claims to hold to the regulative principle of worship. I asked him were in the Bible he finds warrant (either explicitly or implicitly) for the use of vestments by New Covenant elders? He answered very confidently, "that's simple...in Revelation we see the elders wearing white robes". I then asked him if he thought it was wise to regulate worship using imagery in apocalyptic literature? Again he confidently answered, "sure". I then asked him what all of his congregation thought about having to wear their own white robes to church? At this point he was somewhat confused and pointed out that it was only himself as the minister who wore the robe. Thats odd I replied, does not Revelation also teach that ALL the saints were given white robes to wear?

As for the collar...being a uniform (clerical), the argument against them cannot be made from the regulative principle of worship since they are not an element of worship (unless for some odd reason a minister only puts it on for the worship service and thereby places a different sort of emphasis on it). I believe from a strictly biblical perspective, collars are a matter of liberty. At the foundational level, there is no practical difference for a pastor to wear a collar designating his office, than a pastor to wear a name tag that says "Pastor Truelove" (like is done at conferences for example).

However, I speak at the base level. We have to put the collar into the context of real life. Because of its history and what it tends to identify with, it has the tendency to 'say' more than a simple name tag. I believe this is the reason why the collar is so often miscalled a 'vestment' by so many people; they are identifying it with something it is not because those who wear collars almost invariably wear vestments in the pulpit. I do not want people to see me in a collar and mis-identify me with a Roman Catholic priest, an Anglican, or one of those in the Reformed camp trying to bend the regulative principle of worship to support a 'high church' view of worship.

I'll conclude by saying that were I looking for a church to join and found a good solid Reformed ministry where the pastors wore collars and gowns, it would not deter me from joining the church. I would simply submit to the authority of that good Reformed church and agree to disagree.


I am less than a year away from my first Pastorate (knock on wood) and have a question for the Puritan Board Reverand's (and others).

Wondering what the general consensus and arguments pro/con concerning donning a collar as a Teaching Elder are and also how many of you wear a Geneva Gown on a regular basis?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
A robe worn by the one officiating in public worship is no more an "element" than a pulpit or lectern Bible. They assist the element of reading and preaching the word.
 
Question though Robert. Why is a suit and tie, polo shirt, etc... any less an "element" than a Geneva gown?

Because a suit, shirt, tie, etc. is not something unique I am bringing into the worship service. I walk into the pulpit, in the same sort of attire I commonly wear out of the pulpit. They convey nothing in addition to the word.

The examples cited are truly 'circumstances' of worship. A special garment worn only when I am presiding in worship by the fundamental nature of the case becomes an element of worship.

To further the point, if the Genevan gown is on par with a suit and tie, there should be no problem with anyone in the congregation wearing a Genevan gown in the service. The very absurdity of my illustration should make clear the gown is more than a mere circumstance.
 
Question though Robert. Why is a suit and tie, polo shirt, etc... any less an "element" than a Geneva gown?

Because a suit, shirt, tie, etc. is not something unique I am bringing into the worship service. I walk into the pulpit, in the same sort of attire I commonly wear out the pulpit.

The examples cited are truly 'circumstances' of worship. A special garment worn only when I am presiding in worship by the fundamental nature of the case becomes an element of worship.

The difference between the collar and a suit and tie is that the former is seen as a distinct form of dress for a particular office in the church (while anyone can wear a suit and tie). Distinct forms of ecclesiastical dress have no place in new covenant worship. If God had wanted us to have them, then he would have told us like he did in the OT. :2cents:
 
A pulpit or lectern Bible again is a 'circumstance'. The only 'assistance' I receive from my pulpit is that I can put my Bible and notes on it for convenience. These things add nothing to the Word.

However, you make my case for me, that a robe is an element of worship, not a circumstance, when you infer that a robe assists in the reading and preaching of the word. It does not help me see the text any clearer, it does not amplify my voice that those hard of hearing may hear me. If it 'assists' me it is because it is adding something that is left undone by my leaving the robe off. Does the Word really need such 'assistance' if it never commands such?

The admittance of a Robe as an assist to the Word is a clear demonstration that it is indeed an element, not a circumstance.


A robe worn by the one officiating in public worship is no more an "element" than a pulpit or lectern Bible. They assist the element of reading and preaching the word.
 
Last edited:
Question though Robert. Why is a suit and tie, polo shirt, etc... any less an "element" than a Geneva gown?

Because a suit, shirt, tie, etc. is not something unique I am bringing into the worship service. I walk into the pulpit, in the same sort of attire I commonly wear out of the pulpit. They convey nothing in addition to the word.

I don’t normally use a Psalter except in worship (public, family, or private). Is it an “element” of worship? It assists me in fulfilling the biblical mandate to sing Psalms. Use of something only in a worship service does not make it an element. We don’t typically have pews in our homes or work place. But, pews are not an “element” of worship. I don’t typically wear a coat and tie in everyday life. But, I wear them for more formal occasions, where I want to show respect for the circumstances I’m in. If I did wear a Geneva gown, it would be to indicate respect for the office and ministry of the word, the same as I now indicate by wearing a coat and tie. Neither have unique religious significance other than the general desire to be reverent and respectful of what I am doing.

There are also practical benefits. I could dispense with the coat in warm Idaho summer weather, throw on the robe for the service, take it off afterwards, and not cause distraction for the congregation due to what I am wearing. I could spend less money and less time being concerned about my wardrobe, as my wife says I’m fashion challenged. Those are matters of utilitarian use, not religious significance.

The examples cited are truly 'circumstances' of worship. A special garment worn only when I am presiding in worship by the fundamental nature of the case becomes an element of worship.

An alb, stole, chasable or cassock might convey some special religious or sacramental meaning and would be an element of worship. For this reason, so called holy days are contrary to the RPW. Also, special decoration or iconic symbols on a Geneva gown, even doctors bars, I find offensive as they seem to say, “Look at me.” On the other hand, a plain black gown, such as a judge might wear, is more like the coveralls a mechanic puts on before tackling a messy job. It is work clothing, which should say, “Don’t look at me; but look at what I say and do and the One all this is about.” This is comparable to the black robes worn by puppeteers in Japanese Banraku puppet theater. The black robes make the handlers of the puppets less obvious and focus the audience’s attention on the characters of the story.

To further the point, if the Genevan gown is on par with a suit and tie, there should be no problem with anyone in the congregation wearing a Genevan gown in the service. The very absurdity of my illustration should make clear the gown is more than a mere circumstance.

While we certainly couldn’t forbid a congregant from wearing a Geneva gown to worship, in a more traditional time, almost everyone did wear a suit and tie. Our culture is repulsed by authority, by the very language of “superiors, inferiors, or equals” one finds in the catechisms (e.g. WSC 64). Thus, even the coat and tie is dropped. We are great levelers, and we want little or no authority in our doctrine or worship, except the authority of culture, tolerance, relativism and pleasing man. Yet, we are called to authoritatively declare the judgment, decrees, pardon and blessing of God Almighty as officers in his church. As I’ve learned to better represent God’s authority in public worship, I’ve concluded, work cloths, a uniform, a symbol of office and authority which removes me from the focus and says, “This is the LORD’s word and His ministry,” would not be a bad thing nor violate the RPW.
 
A pulpit or lectern Bible again is a 'circumstance'. The only 'assistance' I receive from my pulpit is that I can put my Bible and notes on it for convenience. These things add nothing to the Word.

However, you make my case for me, that a robe is an element of worship, not a circumstance, when you infer that a robe assists in the reading and preaching of the word. It does not help me see the text any clearer, it does not amplify my voice that those hard of hearing may hear me. If it 'assists' me it is because it is adding something that is left undone by my leaving the robe off. Does the Word really need such 'assistance' if it never commands such?

There are lots of things we do by use or non-use to place emphasis upon some biblical aspect of an element of worship. We encourage our congregants to sing enthusiastically, with understanding and reverence. We place word lists in Bibles so they may understand the language or the Authorized Version. Pews or chairs are arranged facing the pulpit. The walls of a building are constructed for good acoustics. The absence of decoration or plain white walls lessen distraction to non-elements of worship. The pulpit is centered or raised. The table doesn’t have side panels to suggest it is an altar. Why might we use a large pulpit Bible, rather than a paperback, newsprint copy for public reading? Doesn’t the large volume on the central podium convey the authority of God’s inspired text? Why don’t we kneel to receive communion? Why are the elements distributed by elders? Why don’t we pass the microphone around for everyone to add their comment or make a prayer request? Why might the elders sit up front in a congregation? How do we visually and geometrically convey authority and the setting apart for God’s particular use certain things in public worship? A plain black robe conveys no more than a larger than essential pulpit Bible. Does that violate the RPW?

Note: This thread has helped me clarify my own thinking on this subject. For most of my ministry, I’ve been opposed to any use of distinctive uniform or robe of office. While such may not be mandated; it is permissible. And, I continue to wear a suit and tie to lead public worship, and don't own a robe or clerical collar.
 
Is it documented that the Divines wore gowns for the purpose of 'magnifying' the office? Or were they going along with the culture? Did they wear wigs for the same reason and does that mean we should also wear wigs?

Whilst not a Westminster divine, Gill wore his wig to symbolise his office as a pastor. :2cents:
 
I can respect the arguments made for robes though I disagree with them.

For the record, if I were to put this subject on an 'importance meter' to me...1 being least important and 10 being most important...this would be a 2.


A pulpit or lectern Bible again is a 'circumstance'. The only 'assistance' I receive from my pulpit is that I can put my Bible and notes on it for convenience. These things add nothing to the Word.

However, you make my case for me, that a robe is an element of worship, not a circumstance, when you infer that a robe assists in the reading and preaching of the word. It does not help me see the text any clearer, it does not amplify my voice that those hard of hearing may hear me. If it 'assists' me it is because it is adding something that is left undone by my leaving the robe off. Does the Word really need such 'assistance' if it never commands such?

There are lots of things we do by use or non-use to place emphasis upon some biblical aspect of an element of worship. We encourage our congregants to sing enthusiastically, with understanding and reverence. We place word lists in Bibles so they may understand the language or the Authorized Version. Pews or chairs are arranged facing the pulpit. The walls of a building are constructed for good acoustics. The absence of decoration or plain white walls lessen distraction to non-elements of worship. The pulpit is centered or raised. The table doesn’t have side panels to suggest it is an altar. Why might we use a large pulpit Bible, rather than a paperback, newsprint copy for public reading? Doesn’t the large volume on the central podium convey the authority of God’s inspired text? Why don’t we kneel to receive communion? Why are the elements distributed by elders? Why don’t we pass the microphone around for everyone to add their comment or make a prayer request? Why might the elders sit up front in a congregation? How do we visually and geometrically convey authority and the setting apart for God’s particular use certain things in public worship? A plain black robe conveys no more than a larger than essential pulpit Bible. Does that violate the RPW?

Note: This thread has helped me clarify my own thinking on this subject. For most of my ministry, I’ve been opposed to any use of distinctive uniform or robe of office. While such may not be mandated; it is permissible. And, I continue to wear a suit and tie to lead public worship, and don't own a robe or clerical collar.
 
Is it documented that the Divines wore gowns for the purpose of 'magnifying' the office? Or were they going along with the culture? Did they wear wigs for the same reason and does that mean we should also wear wigs?

Whilst not a Westminster divine, Gill wore his wig to symbolise his office as a pastor. :2cents:

You are sure that this was his intention? (Don't feel you need to cite a reference as I recognize from your previous posts you are an excellent Gill scholar.)
 
I can respect the arguments made for robes though I disagree with them.

For the record, if I were to put this subject on an 'importance meter' to me...1 being least important and 10 being most important...this would be a 2.

For the record, this is about a 2 on my ten point scale also.

While I could never justify a cassock, surplice, alb, stole or chasable, because these seem to be unwarranted “vestments,” I argue for the permissibility of a plain black gown for RPW reasons- it diminishes the personality of the office holder and honors the office and ministry of the word- no different than raised or centered pulpit or large pulpit Bible.

But, as wearing a gown is not my practice, no biggy!
 
If a gown is "work clothing" for a minister, shouldn't he wear it when interceding for the congregation, studying for his sermons, or speaking individually with some congregant?
 
If a gown is "work clothing" for a minister, shouldn't he wear it when interceding for the congregation, studying for his sermons, or speaking individually with some congregant?

Different work clothing for different tasks.

My intercession and study clothing is jeans and t-shirt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top