BobVigneault
Bawberator
No, but I know some Bedside Baptists that do.
(I have no shame, that was a stale rotten attempt at humor.)
Who wears a Robe while preaching?
- Thread starter C. Matthew McMahon
- Start date
- Status
No, but I know some Bedside Baptists that do.
(I have no shame, that was a stale rotten attempt at humor.)
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
I've considered it. It would be useful as I hate neck-ties.
I haven't done, however, for a couple of reasons, mainly because of the setting in which I live. Most folk don't know the difference between the papist collar and the protestant collar and one doesn't have an opportunity to explain in daily life the way one might in church.
As a prof. I teach students who don't always have a lot of knowledge or background in the history of the church. They don't have any framework in which to interpret such things. Thus, it might hinder my ability to communicate to them. Further, they are sometimes impressionable and I don't want to "start" something.
Simply wearing the Genevan robe during services seemed to be a good way to communicate an important truth to the congregation, which truth we can explain in the brochure.
One isn't likely to carry a brochure to explain the clerical collar on a daily basis.
rsc
I haven't done, however, for a couple of reasons, mainly because of the setting in which I live. Most folk don't know the difference between the papist collar and the protestant collar and one doesn't have an opportunity to explain in daily life the way one might in church.
As a prof. I teach students who don't always have a lot of knowledge or background in the history of the church. They don't have any framework in which to interpret such things. Thus, it might hinder my ability to communicate to them. Further, they are sometimes impressionable and I don't want to "start" something.
Simply wearing the Genevan robe during services seemed to be a good way to communicate an important truth to the congregation, which truth we can explain in the brochure.
One isn't likely to carry a brochure to explain the clerical collar on a daily basis.
rsc
BobVigneault
Bawberator
I don't know Dr. Scott, I'm seeing robes and funny hats.
Do any of you know of resources (books/articles etc) either modern or older that distinguish the dog collar as Protestant and the tab as papist? I have seen the tab worn by Protestants. But as Dr. Clark says the traditional distinction may be breaking down as modern evangelical and reformed churches continue in their Romanizing tendencies.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
One of my pastors at my former NJ church (PCA) wore a "dog collar" one sunday. I was very confused since I thought it was strictly a Roman Catholic thing.
He was glad to explain it to me.
I think it is a good idea, but as Dr. Clark said, it may cause more confusion than it is worth.
He was glad to explain it to me.
I think it is a good idea, but as Dr. Clark said, it may cause more confusion than it is worth.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by BobVigneault
I don't know Dr. Scott, I'm seeing robes and funny hats.
Indeed and funny faces. I could name names....
rsc
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Adam,
Janet Mayo, A History of Ecclesiastical Dress (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1984), s.v., "clerical collar," says "A white stiffened band of linen or cotton, or more recently nylon or even polythene, worn instead of fashionable neckwear. In the late 19th and 20th centuries this can sometimes be the only identifying item of clothing worn by the clergy. It has come to be known as colloquially as the 'dog collar.'"
She speaks, however, of the "Roman collar" on p. 94 in describing the Victorian church, the Oxford Movement and After.
Perhaps another reason for my reluctance re the collar is that it was not a part of the Reformation. It seems to have appeared later.
The bands date to the 18th century at least (if not earlier) and have sometimes been described as "Geneva bands."
It's pretty clear that Protestant clerical dress has evolved in response to cultural developments.
My only interest in the Genevan gown is to re-assert the existence of the office. In our culture (particularly as we meet on the coast) when Jacksonian egalitarianism is the dominant assumption this seems particularly useful. If it ever became an obstacle I would not wear it.
We should be wary of evangelicals who, being on the rebound from fundamentalism, start playing at "high church" without bothering to think about the pastoral implications or the history of ecclesiastical dress. We should also be wary of the lot who stupidly dress like papists without realizing the difference.
rsc
Janet Mayo, A History of Ecclesiastical Dress (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1984), s.v., "clerical collar," says "A white stiffened band of linen or cotton, or more recently nylon or even polythene, worn instead of fashionable neckwear. In the late 19th and 20th centuries this can sometimes be the only identifying item of clothing worn by the clergy. It has come to be known as colloquially as the 'dog collar.'"
She speaks, however, of the "Roman collar" on p. 94 in describing the Victorian church, the Oxford Movement and After.
Perhaps another reason for my reluctance re the collar is that it was not a part of the Reformation. It seems to have appeared later.
The bands date to the 18th century at least (if not earlier) and have sometimes been described as "Geneva bands."
It's pretty clear that Protestant clerical dress has evolved in response to cultural developments.
My only interest in the Genevan gown is to re-assert the existence of the office. In our culture (particularly as we meet on the coast) when Jacksonian egalitarianism is the dominant assumption this seems particularly useful. If it ever became an obstacle I would not wear it.
We should be wary of evangelicals who, being on the rebound from fundamentalism, start playing at "high church" without bothering to think about the pastoral implications or the history of ecclesiastical dress. We should also be wary of the lot who stupidly dress like papists without realizing the difference.
rsc
backwoodspresbyterian
Banned
I often turn towards the idea of clergy dress for many of the reasons expressed in this thread. However being in the PC(USA)there is no directive that I am aware of as regards to certain clergy dress being more appropriate than others.
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
I wear both a robe and a collar. The robe is only for the pulpit but I wear the collar whenever I am serving formally as elder (church, hospital visits, counseling, etc.).
Its amazing what difference wearing a collar to the hospital makes. People can immediatly identify me as a pastor and I seem to have a lot of opportunites to share the gospel and pray with people (they approach me most of the time). Also, when in the room with a patient and the doctor comes in, he will generally look at me and go out of his way to answer all the patients questions. I have had people request for me to be at the hospital with them when their doctor comes just to help make sure they get the attention they need. All I have to do pretty much is sit there with my collar on.
It is totally different then the days when I wore a tie. The collar is a symbol of ecclesiastical authority. It's my 'uniform'.
Its amazing what difference wearing a collar to the hospital makes. People can immediatly identify me as a pastor and I seem to have a lot of opportunites to share the gospel and pray with people (they approach me most of the time). Also, when in the room with a patient and the doctor comes in, he will generally look at me and go out of his way to answer all the patients questions. I have had people request for me to be at the hospital with them when their doctor comes just to help make sure they get the attention they need. All I have to do pretty much is sit there with my collar on.
It is totally different then the days when I wore a tie. The collar is a symbol of ecclesiastical authority. It's my 'uniform'.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
I think it does have to do with the ecclesiology. Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc. draw more of a distinction between the laity and the ordained, and emphasize the administration of the sacraments by the ordained.
In contrast, Baptists are congregational, emphasizing the priesthood of all believers, and most are not sacramental, preferring the term ordinance instead and holding to the Zwinglian view.
I went to a PCUSA church when I was growing up, and the pastors would wear robes except during the summer, when they would wear coat and tie. It can get pretty hot in California summers.
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
Though I wear a collar, as I mentioned before; I also wear a robe in the pulpit.
I don't wear the robe primarily because it is historical or swanky (though it is both
). I wear it because it downplays the man. The robe covers the man and the fancy suit and shoes (if I actually had either). When I preach and lead in the liturgy it is not ME that I wish to draw attention to but Christ.
I don't wear the robe primarily because it is historical or swanky (though it is both
). I wear it because it downplays the man. The robe covers the man and the fancy suit and shoes (if I actually had either). When I preach and lead in the liturgy it is not ME that I wish to draw attention to but Christ. Thumbs up to your previous comments on the practical utility of the collar and robe for identifying the minister, but I cannot go the length of making the clothing symbolic ritualistically. The whole congregation should wish to draw attention to Christ. It is the spiritual nature of the worship itself which accomplishes this. But I do not want to detract from the excellence of your earlier statement. Blessings!
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
Sorry for being late in response to this. I was just reviewing old threads and came across your comment...
I completely agree with you. I did not intend to convey by saying that my wearing a robe was in an way ritual to draw attention to Christ. I cringe to think any would think me to promote a roman concept of vestments.
Rather, my intent was that the downplaying of the man (via the robe) is conduscive to drawing attention to Christ instead of the man. It is not so much what the robe is doing, but what by its use it is NOT doing.
I completely agree with you. I did not intend to convey by saying that my wearing a robe was in an way ritual to draw attention to Christ. I cringe to think any would think me to promote a roman concept of vestments.
Rather, my intent was that the downplaying of the man (via the robe) is conduscive to drawing attention to Christ instead of the man. It is not so much what the robe is doing, but what by its use it is NOT doing.
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
