Introduction
If you’ve seen old pictures or videos of me, you’ll notice that for about 12 years, I wore a clerical collar fairly regularly and preached in a white robe with varying colors of stoles for the liturgical seasons. And it’s a reasonable question to wonder why I don’t anymore.
A Few Disclaimers
First, let me make a few disclaimers: I actually like the idea of a distinctive clerical uniform. Doctors, law enforcement, and mailmen and UPS drivers all have uniforms, and I think that ministers of the gospel are public servants that rank above UPS drivers and mailmen. The question is whether there is such a uniform readily available to Protestant Reformed and Presbyterian pastors. Second, I don’t have any problem with my friends and fellow ministers in the CREC who wear collars and robes — assuming they generally agree with the concerns I raise below but find that they don’t apply to their situations and ministries. I’ve heard some great stories about pastors at airports and other public places having some wonderful opportunities to pray for people and share the gospel. I suspect that the uniform works in some places (and maybe for some people) better than others.
Some History & Concerns
However, I’m not convinced that the uniform is always doing what it is intended to do. Let me explain. When I first started wearing a collar, I was going to seminary and pastoring in South Carolina, and I wore it for about two years there. I bet I averaged a question or conversation a couple times a month in coffee shops and out and about in public. Folks would ask if I would pray for them, what church I pastored, if they could come to my church, etc. In other words, in South Carolina, the collar seemed to work fairly well. However, when I moved back to Idaho and continued to wear the collar, I can only remember about 2-3 questions or comments over the course of almost 10 years. One of those questions was which Catholic parish I minister in (or something like that), and the other question was what was wrong with my shirt! In other words, at least part of my decision was based on a growing conviction that the uniform wasn’t really a uniform (at least in the Northwest).
Another growing concern I had was with a misidentification among the people I was ministering to that I was aiming for some kind of quasi-Anglican ministry. Now I happen to know of some solid Anglicans who are doing the Lord’s work, but let’s just say that the English church families have fallen on rough times. The average testosterone levels are not quite what they used to be. And I think the collar and robes sometimes communicates an effeminate vibe – not because they always have (there are real dudes who wear them), but there’s a thoroughly unbiblical feminism and sentimentalism rife in the church that wants ministers that are like a third sex, attending tea parties with the ladies and always gently suggesting to everyone that they might consider, perhaps, next Wednesday, if the weather is right, whether they might possibly be less than fully right.
I do understand of course that one way to change this vibe is by faithful men being masculine men in the pulpit and in their day to day ministry and so change that reputation. And I was of that mind for a number of years, but at some point, I became convinced that the uniform attempt was causing more trouble than it was helping. And frankly, since it is certainly not commanded in Scripture, it’s the kind of thing that a minister ought to be willing to drop in a heartbeat if it isn’t actually being helpful. We are under orders, and our Lord has not ordered His ministers to wear a particular uniform. He has ordered us to preach and administer the sacraments. We know that God is perfectly capable of stipulating uniforms for His ministers as He did in the Old Covenant, but He did not in the New Covenant. Of course the original meaning of the collar, especially the full ring collar, was meant to symbolize that a minister is a “slave” of Christ. Very well and good, but to be slavish about collars and robes is a bit ironic since our Master commanded no such thing.
Again, if it’s a blessing in your context, no shade, but I do sometimes wonder if there is more attachment to the uniform than to Scripture, Christ, His gospel, and simple obedience. There is nothing in Scripture requiring a collar or robes. This means it is an area of Christian wisdom, discretion, and freedom. It cannot be thought of as more mature, more pious, or more pastoral, any more than the guys who preach with or without a tie. The pastor is to minister in garb that befits the dignity, gravity, and masculinity of his office. And this is why flip flops, baseball caps, and mickey mouse t-shirts in the pulpit are out.
This is no gnostic objection, as though Christ and His gospel can be delivered or ministered without a uniform of some sort. Business casual or suit and tie are also “uniforms” of a sort, but the question is what works best in our context to highlight the most important things and what allows a minister to perform his tasks with dignity and recede into the background (in the right way) in order for folks to see through the ministry to Christ and His authoritative word. The ministry is incarnate through particular men, but the task of those men is to constantly point to Christ and repentance and faith in Him. I know that the idea of a set uniform is to allow for the office to be highlighted rather than the man, but I’m not convinced it always actually accomplishes that goal.
Conclusion
One final thought tangentially related: while I also generally want the church calendar to shape our lives and the life of our culture, I prefer Calvin’s emphasis on the Five Evangelical Feast Days, as opposed to seasons, especially seasons focusing on fasting and penitence. I have experienced firsthand the tendency for the calendar to do something similar to clerical garb. It can take on a sort of life of its own, and the focus becomes on the thing, rather than the truth that the thing is supposed to be pointing to. This can be subtle, but the test comes down to basic biblical piety and holiness. Are you and your people prioritizing what Scripture prioritizes or are you beginning to really focus on tithing your spices (which is the proper reading? how many candles? what color stole?)? The problem is not necessarily tithing on spices; the problem is that when a certain kind of myopia settles in, camels start sneaking into tents. How’s your marriage? How are the kids turning out? How masculine are the men? How gentle and quiet are the women?
If you usually preach in a robe but showed up one Sunday to preach in business casual, would it cause a revolt? Why? Or if you decided to skip a Sunday of Advent or Lent, would it be a big deal? Compare that to one of the deacons’ kids being way into Taylor Swift or an elder’s wife being bossy at a potluck. Which would cause more general concern and does it reflect biblical priorities or not? Are there folks who are particularly focused on the vestments and colors and candles and seasons who are having major marriage trouble, kids out of control, or bad attitudes? Are all the decorations helping you get at those far more significant things or do they clutter up your day? I trust that some of my friends would say that for them and their churches, the clerical garb and liturgical seasons really do recede into the background so that they can get to work on the gospel and basic obedience. I understand that in theory good traditions are meant to keep things simple in order to allow you to focus on what really matters. If that’s your experience, then great, and God bless you. But I do wonder if for some it never quite recedes, never really is quite as edifying as it sounds on paper, and maybe everyone would be better served without it or less of it, at least until God grants us another Reformation and more obviously recognizable uniforms and customs emerge.
Joshua Cochran says
Toby,
I appreciate the balance in your post. You don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. I read you as saying that the garments of clergymen do matter and men should be mindful of how they dress in that office, but you don’t hold in a strict sense that there is a set uniform. There are weightier issues at play than whether robes are worn or what color they are, and care should be taken that we get the big things right first. Yes and amen.
My question has to do with something you said about the new covenant not mandating uniforms. I’ve not really thought a ton about this, but in the last few years I’ve noticed a trend in my church where the pastors dress kind of hipster…ish. Definitely not suit and tie. Anyways, I’ve never attended church where the pastor wore a uniform so that hasn’t ever been an issue. But I’m just not down with skinny jeans in the pulpit…
I’ve felt a pull like never before to want to see something like a uniform in the pulpit because of this.
Which leads me to my question. I would call myself a general equity theonomist as I think you would too, and my understanding generally of how that works is that the laws laid out in the old covenant are still binding in their general equity today unless specifically altered or fulfilled in the New Covenant administration.
The temple laws, sacrificial laws, and priesthood commands are fulfilled in Christ; but do some components of those fulfilled laws carry over? I’m thinking about the commands for the priests to wear specific clothing while doing their priestly service.
Do you think there is a theonomic argument to be made that pastors today should dress not only in a masculine way but also a priestly way?
Toby says
Yes, I would argue that the general equity of the OT argues for a uniform of dignity, masculinity, and service, but my hesitation with collars and white robes is that clothing communicates and as I said, I’m not sure it’s actually communicating what many of us have hoped it would. But since God didn’t mandate a specific uniform, we must translate the office of minister into our various cultural contexts. Skinny jeans and hipster vibes are completely out, but then we have to do our best with the material God has given.
David Anderson says
I think this thoughtful question gives an interesting insight into the limited usefulness of “general equity” in practice. i.e. It sounds great, but when it comes to particular questions, that greatness is often hard to discern from the conclusions made by those who haven’t even heard of it.
So, if we start with: “The laws laid out in the old covenant are still binding in their general equity today unless specifically altered or fulfilled in the New Covenant administration.” The difficult is: who gets to decide what this general equity is in practice when it comes to something specific, like in this case? The sentence itself guides us to the New Testament – but then what if, as in the problem posited, it’s not mentioned in the New Testament? Or doubtfully mentioned? We’ll then have to appeal to a range of more general Scriptural principles which might be found in New or Old Testaments, as Toby does, and that’s good and fine – I am in agreement with his lines of argument. But to do so is to passively concede that “general equity” hasn’t taken us very far when it comes to practice. Brothers can argue for years about whether their decisions are the true application of the true principles of continuity and discontinuity, still-in-force or revocation, but in the end, they may come to the exact same conclusions as someone else who didn’t particularly/explicitly take “general equity” as their guiding star.
i.e. Someone who didn’t begin from a rigid principle of “still binding unless explicitly revoked (but please then work out what it means for your church services since the entire temple worship is explicitly revoked)” that ties us up in knots and in practice dies the death of 1,000 qualifications when it comes to specifics, leaving us in the same place as someone who didn’t have the principle. Someone who just believed in general that whilst we live under the New Covenant and hence prioritise understanding how the full and final revelation shines light on all that came before, whilst also recognising that God is the same God in all ages, revealed wisdom in all ages, is always righteous in what he says, and that we must search the Scriptures carefully to seek to come to a harmonised understanding that honours both the parts and the whole (but as I say, without putting a very specific structure upon the meaning of the Mosaic Law).
i.e. In the end you’ll conclude that there are no New Covenant uniforms but that how we clothe ourselves has meaning, can express different attitudes, etc., and that gospel ministers should clothe themselves in a dignified and worthy way as those who wish to be taken seriously with a serious message, without unnecessary distractions.
“General equity” can risk in practice making the Bible a secret code book, or precise legal code, that only those who spot the exact verses that apply to this specific legal statute, its continued affirmation or revocation, will end up with the right answer to. Toby mentions tithing spices – this is the dynamic of your spiritual life and practice that you can be pushed into if you’re not careful.