Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They were conscious of the fact that the pulpit, the church, had lost her authority and they began to search for a way of regaining and restoring that. But they, from the Protestant standpoint, took an entirely wrong step. They said that the way to restore authority was to remove the preacher or minister farther away from the people. The way to do this was to put vestments of various descriptions upon him to emphasise the priestly and the mysterious element in his functioning.
In other words they tried to build up his authority in this outward spectacular manner, they called him a priest and claimed that he had a special authority through the sacraments and so on. Let us grant that the motive was good, but they took a false step which led in the end to a depreciation of preaching and to a false emphasis upon sacraments and in many cases upon the mere aesthetic aspect of worship.
As for the non-episcopal churches in the last century it seems to me that they also made a false move; they believed that the key to authority in the pulpit was scholarship. Now scholarship is obviously of great value and importance; but scholarship alone will not give authority to the preacher.
It will give him standing among other scholars and make him attractive to 'the wise'; but that is not what is needed primarily in the pulpit. The prime and greatest need in the pulpit is spiritual authority. I have already said that the abler a man is the better preacher he should be.
Knowledge and culture are invaluable but only on condition that they are used as servants and handmaidens; in and of themselves they do not give authority. There is but one thing that gives a preacher authority, and that is that he be 'filled with the Holy Spirit'. The history of the Church throughout the centuries and especially during the last hundred years proves and substantiates what I am saying.
At this point I would add a word which may come as a surprise to some, and indeed sound almost ridiculous in view of what I have been saying. I believe it is good and right for a preacher to wear a gown in the pulpit. How do I reconcile that with what I have just been saying about spiritual authority ? 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 !
In my context (SW Georgia), to dress much differently would distract folks and create unnecessary problems.
In my context (SW Georgia), to dress much differently would distract folks and create unnecessary problems.
This is the important thing to remember. Not all are in the same environment. As long as the clothing allows for reverent worsip, without distractions, it shouldn't matter whether one wears a Geneva gown, suit & tie, slacks and sport coat, or even jeans...
Does that help to clarify?
I prefer the clergy to wear clerical collars. Since it is culturally recognised as the standard form of clerical dress in Northern Ireland, I see no good reason for men to depart from it. Although I would agree with Andrew that, in the final analysis, it is not really important as long as the standard of dress is modest.
Does that help to clarify?
Brother, I wasn't responding specifically to your post, although I thank you for your contributions to this thread. I was observing the disconnect between supposedly distracting suits in church with the ubiquity of suits in television news, sports, etc.
I wear a Geneva gown with a shirt and tie underneath.
Same here, but I wear pants and shoes too.
I wear a suit and tie. Sometimes it is a 3-piece suit (they had a sale at Men's Wearhouse about 5 years ago and I bought two). Often I will wear a bow tie.
Incidentally, in our presbytery a few years ago, a student under care of presbytery delivered a sermon in a dress shirt and khakis (no tie, no coat). He was mildly rebuked by one of the older respected ministers in the presbytery for failing to honor the office.
I trust that the "older respected" minister was suitably reminded by his brothers that the office is not honoured by what a
man wears, but by his life and message?
Why isn't there a Hawaiian shirt option? Typical East Coast bias!
I trust that the "older respected" minister was suitably reminded by his brothers that the office is not honoured by what a
man wears, but by his life and message?
What a man wears can be evidence of his life.
That said, he probably wasn't dressed appropriately for the audience. I'm not the world's most formal person (ask Andrew), but if I were showing up to preach at Presbytery I would probably have sense enough to put a suit on.
I wouldn't show up in my Wedding Suit or a Geneva Gown to preach to certain audiences, and I wouldn't show up to preach in Khakis to others. Either, in certain situations would distract from the Word of God if the minister looks out of place. If I were in Ireland and were a minister I would adopt the dress of the clergy there, even though I might be uncomfortable (personally) with a clerical collar. In my mind: why make anything a distraction from the preaching of God's Word?