Wearing a Collar

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we are going to have special clothes for ministers, then why not for the elders and deacons as well?


Because some of us still think that setting apart the preaching and teaching office in the classical Protestant manner of the "three-office" distinction continues to have an important place in the life of the Church :)

That does not answer the question; why not give other church officers holy clothes?

It does, implicitly.

1. Preaching and teaching are tasks of instructing, and in the Lutheran and Reformed tradition the use of an academic Genevan gown has reflected this role. It both sets apart the office, and brings attention to the didactic and proclamitory role in which the office is engaged.

2. It sets apart a function in the context of a worship service. Since elders and deacons do not have a place in leading worship and preaching, which is a role traditionally assigned to the minister, they have no need of wearing one during the service. On the other hand, when the minister sits in as the moderator on the session or the board of deacons you will not find him wearing a robe then, nor would there be any reason for the entire session or diaconate to don them outside of the context of the worship service.
 
Yes, I do wear the more traditional collar, which separates me from a papist priest, but I see no issue with wearing them. I think it is related to this entire cultural norm of not wanting distinctives. The church in its approach to worship is becoming more like culture, where the minister dresses however he chooses and the people come to worship the living God, dressed like they are going to a sporting event. If you were invitied to visit Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, there would be a certain way you would dress, and it would not be casual. We should approach the living God in the same way, never casual or alloff.

We don't go to church to visit God, though, do we? I do not buy this whole approach to the matter. I concur with your wearing some sober and distinct garb, which you do, but it does not follow that everyone else has to put on their best suit. Because if that was the case, we should dress that way every time we have private devotions or family worship, because we are drawing near to God with equal measure.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do wear the more traditional collar, which separates me from a papist priest, but I see no issue with wearing them. I think it is related to this entire cultural norm of not wanting distinctives. The church in its approach to worship is becoming more like culture, where the minister dresses however he chooses and the people come to worship the living God, dressed like they are going to a sporting event. If you were invitied to visit Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, there would be a certain way you would dress, and it would not be casual. We should approach the living God in the same way, never casual or alloff.

We don't go to church to visit God, though, do we? I do not buy this whole approach to the matter. I concur with your wearing some sober and distinct garb, which you do, but it does not follow that everyone else has to put on their best suit. Because if that was the case, we should dress that way every time we have private devotions or family worship, because we are drawing near to God with equal measure.

I would disagree here and say that from within the understanding of a healthy Reformed view of worship, we are not drawing near to God with equal measure in all of these various modes unless you can include the corporate praises and prayers of the saints, the public reading and preaching of the Scriptures, and the partaking and enjoying of the sacraments (with coordinate instruction of what is being set before you) in private devotions and family worship. There is a reason why these things are called the means of grace, and why we are edified in corporate worship in a manner unattainable in other settings.

Christ has told us, via the Samaritan woman, that the time has now come when worship is not restricted by location for a true spiritual interaction to occur, but I would not read that as denying a difference between public and private worship (remember the woman was speaking of worship in a public gathering here), nor do we see images of the saints in heaven worshipping off on a hill by themselves in the book of Revelation. Private and family worship are still true worship, but they are also "incomplete" worship, if I may use that term in describing that distinction.
 
For those who think the collar is pretentious, what is the business suit? Ideally, in a society which respects institutional religion, the collar serves an important function; there were days not too long ago when laws were enforced concerning interrupting a minister of religion in the course of carrying out his occupation. But such is the levelling humour of the day that one might now create an unnecessary hindrance to personal ministry by wearing a collar. In that case it is probably the wisest course to lay it aside. The last thing we want to to do is create unnecessary distance between ourselves and the people we are seeking to minister to. In Phil. 2:5-8, we see the pre-eminent Example of laying aside one's dignity and privileges of office in order to effectively serve others.
 
For those who think the collar is pretentious, what is the business suit? Ideally, in a society which respects institutional religion, the collar serves an important function; there were days not too long ago when laws were enforced concerning interrupting a minister of religion in the course of carrying out his occupation. But such is the levelling humour of the day that one might now create an unnecessary hindrance to personal ministry by wearing a collar. In that case it is probably the wisest course to lay it aside. The last thing we want to to do is create unnecessary distance between ourselves and the people we are seeking to minister to. In Phil. 2:5-8, we see the pre-eminent Example of laying aside one's dignity and privileges of office in order to effectively serve others.

I agonise over this. The majority of folk in my church (lifelong churchgoers) like to see me in a suit and tie, but I feel so alienated from some of the visitors who come in. Recently, we had a local chap come in and I wanted to speak to him after the meeting - we had a good talk, but on the way down from the pulpit I had dived into the vestry and ripped my jacket and tie off to talk to him in shirtsleeves. I personally feel very pretentious in my suit. I never wear a suit at any other time apart from weddings and funerals!
 
Last edited:
Maybe if that person wearing a collar (make it a woman) sang "Shine, Jesus, Shine" she could win it all?

Todd, if you like it that much, you can always download it as a ringtone here: Cliff Richard | Shine, Jesus, Shine lyrics
 
Because some of us still think that setting apart the preaching and teaching office in the classical Protestant manner of the "three-office" distinction continues to have an important place in the life of the Church :)

That does not answer the question; why not give other church officers holy clothes?

It does, implicitly.

1. Preaching and teaching are tasks of instructing, and in the Lutheran and Reformed tradition the use of an academic Genevan gown has reflected this role. It both sets apart the office, and brings attention to the didactic and proclamitory role in which the office is engaged.

2. It sets apart a function in the context of a worship service. Since elders and deacons do not have a place in leading worship and preaching, which is a role traditionally assigned to the minister, they have no need of wearing one during the service. On the other hand, when the minister sits in as the moderator on the session or the board of deacons you will not find him wearing a robe then, nor would there be any reason for the entire session or diaconate to don them outside of the context of the worship service.

But where does it say this in the Bible?
 
However, in relation to distinct garments for ministers, I think you have to find Biblical warrant for a minister to dress in a distinctive manner.

The manner of clothing is a circumstance of worship not an element and is unregulated. Distinctive clothing for ministers is a good thing as it befits their office.
 
However, in relation to distinct garments for ministers, I think you have to find Biblical warrant for a minister to dress in a distinctive manner.

The manner of clothing is a circumstance of worship not an element and is unregulated. Distinctive clothing for ministers is a good thing as it befits their office.

Prove that from Scripture. There is no evidence that ministers in the NT wore distinctive dress. I agree that a ministers clothing is a circumstance, but once you begin to argue for distinct ecclesiastical dress, then you have to find Biblical warrant for it.

Some say "it's a good idea", but if it really was a good idea then God would have told us about it in His word.
 
If we are going to say that a certain form of dress is ecclesiastical, then we shall have to find Biblical warrant for it or else we are violating the regulative principle.

I don't think we will agree on this, mate.

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:
 
Would you be happy if your minister turned up in a Haiwian shirt? :lol:

What is interesting is that among many of the PD type churches here in SoCal, the Hawaiian shirt has become 'ecclesiastical garb'! If you go to a mega-church in the OC you can usually pick out the preacher by his Hawaiian shirt. In fact, when I first started preaching in SoCal, I made people mad because I wore a tie! That was not appropriate in their opinion.

I think this is an impossible topic to make dogma because cultures are so different. What if the culture of a community was to wear robes everywhere. Would a 'Genevan gown' still set anyone apart?
 
From the perspective of one sitting in the pews, I don't mind if a pastor wears a robe to preach, but I am definitely against the collar. It too quickly makes me think Roman Catholic. No minister around here wears the collar unless he are catholic. In other places I've been, I've seen Lutherans wear them, but never presbyterians.

Having visited Auburn Avenue Presbyterian- I have seen Steve Wilkins and his Assoc Pastor, they both wear collars.


What are you saying? That all FV minister's wear collars, so therefore we should not?
 
I have a very high esteem for the office of pastor so I prefer the pulpit and even a raised pulpit BUT, the collar and the robe I find very pretentious. I don't like them. That is just my opinion. Then again, I can't stand American Idol and I seem to be out of step in that regard as well.

Now if someone goes on American Idol wearing a collar... I'll probably have to go get some rest in the nervous hospital again.


Brother, I respect your opinion on the collar and robe, but I have to draw the line on American Idol. Now you are espousing anti-Americanism and you have crossed the line. :rofl:
 
One must realize that there is no "neutral" clerical clothing. Whether an Hawaiian shirt, slacks and an open collar, suit and tie, or clerical collar, each makes a statement of one's understanding of the ministry. I wear a clerical collar when preaching, along with a "preacher's stole" or Geneva gown. I argue from the principle of general equity from the OT dress for church officers in that OT Church, not that there is a ceremonial aspect to the collar and robe, but that there is a distinguishing point at issue, which is corresponds to the general equity. One earlier referenced "holy garments" in the New Testament--that is not the point at all. It is simply a uniform to distinguish the calling and the office, much like a judicial robe worn by the judge, or the uniform worn by a police officer, doctor, or other professional. The clothes do not make the man holy--far from it. They do however, tell the story of the office.

Aside from this principle, there are, as one would expect, numerous practical applications of wearing distinctive dress. I wear a collar in public when on official Church business, such as visitation, ministering to the sick, at meetings of Church courts, etc. I even took one man to the grocery store one night in a collar, after he had come to the Church looking for money. Refusing to give him money, I visited him in his home, spoke to him and his family about Christ, and offered to take him to the store to buy groceries. I surmised that if he was willing to walk around the store with me, dressed as I was in a collar, he probably was truly in need.
 
One must realize that there is no "neutral" clerical clothing. Whether an Hawaiian shirt, slacks and an open collar, suit and tie, or clerical collar, each makes a statement of one's understanding of the ministry. I wear a clerical collar when preaching, along with a "preacher's stole" or Geneva gown. I argue from the principle of general equity from the OT dress for church officers in that OT Church, not that there is a ceremonial aspect to the collar and robe, but that there is a distinguishing point at issue, which is corresponds to the general equity. One earlier referenced "holy garments" in the New Testament--that is not the point at all. It is simply a uniform to distinguish the calling and the office, much like a judicial robe worn by the judge, or the uniform worn by a police officer, doctor, or other professional. The clothes do not make the man holy--far from it. They do however, tell the story of the office.

Aside from this principle, there are, as one would expect, numerous practical applications of wearing distinctive dress. I wear a collar in public when on official Church business, such as visitation, ministering to the sick, at meetings of Church courts, etc. I even took one man to the grocery store one night in a collar, after he had come to the Church looking for money. Refusing to give him money, I visited him in his home, spoke to him and his family about Christ, and offered to take him to the store to buy groceries. I surmised that if he was willing to walk around the store with me, dressed as I was in a collar, he probably was truly in need.

Would other minister's in the RPCGA wear the robe and collar? In the PCA some do and some do not, but there is a suspicion by some if you wear the collar.
 
One must realize that there is no "neutral" clerical clothing. Whether an Hawaiian shirt, slacks and an open collar, suit and tie, or clerical collar, each makes a statement of one's understanding of the ministry. I wear a clerical collar when preaching, along with a "preacher's stole" or Geneva gown. I argue from the principle of general equity from the OT dress for church officers in that OT Church, not that there is a ceremonial aspect to the collar and robe, but that there is a distinguishing point at issue, which is corresponds to the general equity. One earlier referenced "holy garments" in the New Testament--that is not the point at all. It is simply a uniform to distinguish the calling and the office, much like a judicial robe worn by the judge, or the uniform worn by a police officer, doctor, or other professional. The clothes do not make the man holy--far from it. They do however, tell the story of the office.

Aside from this principle, there are, as one would expect, numerous practical applications of wearing distinctive dress. I wear a collar in public when on official Church business, such as visitation, ministering to the sick, at meetings of Church courts, etc. I even took one man to the grocery store one night in a collar, after he had come to the Church looking for money. Refusing to give him money, I visited him in his home, spoke to him and his family about Christ, and offered to take him to the store to buy groceries. I surmised that if he was willing to walk around the store with me, dressed as I was in a collar, he probably was truly in need.

I find myself in agreement with your notations in this discussion. You have truly developed for me a proper understanding of clerical dress. Thank You.
 
Daniel,

May I query you on this?

Didn't the fellows who gave us the RPW wear them? They have historically been worn as a sign of special office. Not every Christian holds special office (minister, elder, deacon). The loss of the Genevan gown has not been due to principle (esp. not the RPW) but due to the relentless leveling tide of democratic populism.

I realize the dangers of enlarging the category "circumstance" unduly but we still do distinguish between elements and circumstances and aren't matters such as clothing a circumstance (along with place, time of day, posture etc)?

My concern is not to lose the RPW inadvertently by identifying circumstances with elements.

rsc

Distinct ecclesiastical garments are a breach of the regulative principle. :down:

If we are going to have special clothes for ministers, then why not for the elders and deacons as well?
 
Daniel,

May I query you on this?

Didn't the fellows who gave us the RPW wear them?

I realize the dangers of enlarging the category "circumstance" unduly but we still do distinguish between elements and circumstances and aren't matters such as clothing a circumstance (along with place, time of day, posture etc)?

My concern is not to lose the RPW inadvertently by identifying circumstances with elements.

rsc

Distinct ecclesiastical garments are a breach of the regulative principle. :down:

If we are going to have special clothes for ministers, then why not for the elders and deacons as well?

Dr Clark

The fellows who gave us the RPW were the writers of Scripture, who did not wear dog collars. :lol:

I do believe that a minister's clothing is a circumstance, however, I believe that when an item of clothing becomes identified with a church office or is uniquely used in worship to distinguish a minister, then it violates the RPW. Hope that makes some sense.
 
From the perspective of one sitting in the pews, I don't mind if a pastor wears a robe to preach, but I am definitely against the collar. It too quickly makes me think Roman Catholic. No minister around here wears the collar unless he are catholic. In other places I've been, I've seen Lutherans wear them, but never presbyterians.

Having visited Auburn Avenue Presbyterian- I have seen Steve Wilkins and his Assoc Pastor, they both wear collars.

What are you saying? That all FV minister's wear collars, so therefore we should not?

Not at all. I was simply saying that I've seen Presbyterian Ministers wear collars. This was simply in response to the above quote where it was said regarding collars, "never presbyterians." No guilt by association was intended.
 
Daniel,

May I query you on this?

Didn't the fellows who gave us the RPW wear them? They have historically been worn as a sign of special office. Not every Christian holds special office (minister, elder, deacon). The loss of the Genevan gown has not been due to principle (esp. not the RPW) but due to the relentless leveling tide of democratic populism.

I realize the dangers of enlarging the category "circumstance" unduly but we still do distinguish between elements and circumstances and aren't matters such as clothing a circumstance (along with place, time of day, posture etc)?

My concern is not to lose the RPW inadvertently by identifying circumstances with elements.

rsc

Distinct ecclesiastical garments are a breach of the regulative principle. :down:

If we are going to have special clothes for ministers, then why not for the elders and deacons as well?

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top