Ecclesiastical Garb and Acts 13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Backwoods Presbyterian

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
A buddy of mine and I were discussing Presbyterians wearing collars historically and why that has died out over the last 100 years or so and both of us noticed in Acts 13 (and other places) Paul and others are recognized as being teachers of the Law before introducing themselves as such. It seems obvious to us this means Paul was wearing something that marked him out as a Teacher. The next obvious question for us was how should/does this inform our understanding of Pastors/Teaching Elders dress.

What say you?


As a side-note please no "If you wear a collar you must be in love with FV and heading to Rome" posts please.
 
[-]If you wear a collar you must be in love with FV and heading to Rome[/-] I mean, nevermind... my pastor wears the robe, but obviously only during service. Are you talking about distinguishing the minster even when he is not leading worship, as in general, everyday life?
 
It was always distracting to me when I would try to watch D. James Kennedy on tv. I think if he would have worn the black robe like Martyn Lloyd-Jones and many others did before him, it wouldn't have been as distracting. But, the bright blue was kind of hard to get past.

Maybe it's just because of my church background. I don't know.
 
Backwoods Presbyterian said:
A buddy of mine and I were discussing Presbyterians wearing collars historically and why that has died out over the last 100 years or so and both of us noticed in Acts 13 (and other places) Paul and others are recognized as being teachers of the Law before introducing themselves as such. It seems obvious to us this means Paul was wearing something that marked him out as a Teacher. The next obvious question for us was how should/does this inform our understanding of Pastors/Teaching Elders dress.

What say you?


As a side-note please no "If you wear a collar you must be in love with FV and heading to Rome" posts please.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that they are introduced as teachers of the law in Acts 13? Just because they were asked to teach at the synagogue? It was common practice for all Jewish males to be asked to teach, not just teachers of the law.

In any case, if you must wear a collar, go with Genevan tabs and not a Roman collar. Someone wearing a Roman collar marks himself out as an idolatrous priest.
 
Wearing a full collar,dog collar, even more clearly marks you as not Catholic. Sometimes the slightly wider tab is not wide enough.

Riley by Genevan tabs do you mean this:
300px-Cotton_bands.jpg
 
Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.
 
Well it is worth noting "Rome" did not start wearing the type of collar you see today until fairly recently in church history, approximately about the same amount of time Protestants started wearing them.
 
LawrenceU said:
Wearing a full collar,dog collar, even more clearly marks you as not Catholic. Sometimes the slightly wider tab is not wide enough.

Riley by Genevan tabs do you mean this:
300px-Cotton_bands.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes, that's it!

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------
Backwoods Presbyterian said:
Well it is worth noting "Rome" did not start wearing the type of collar you see today until fairly recently in church history, approximately about the same amount of time Protestants started wearing them.
Click to expand...

By "Protestants", do you mean Anglican prelatists? Because I've never seen an old photo or portrait of a Reformed pastor wearing a Roman collar.
 
If you are into the regulative principle, how are priestly garments and vestments and all that stuff not a return to temple worship? How is that in any way worship in spirit and truth instead of Old Covenant?
 
Willem van Oranje said:
LawrenceU said:
Wearing a full collar,dog collar, even more clearly marks you as not Catholic. Sometimes the slightly wider tab is not wide enough.

Riley by Genevan tabs do you mean this:
300px-Cotton_bands.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes, that's it!

---------- Post added at 09:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------
Backwoods Presbyterian said:
Well it is worth noting "Rome" did not start wearing the type of collar you see today until fairly recently in church history, approximately about the same amount of time Protestants started wearing them.
Click to expand...

By "Protestants", do you mean Anglican prelatists? Because I've never seen an old photo or portrait of a Reformed pastor wearing a Roman collar.
Click to expand...

Well Lutherans, Anglicans, and some others. The "type" of collar is interchangeable. I have seen Roman Priests wearing the "Anglican"-type and Anglican/Lutheran/Presbyterian ministers wearing the "Roman" type.

Roman "Tab" Collar

frpatport.jpg


Anglican "Dog" Collar

090210abbott.jpg
 
Personally I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a Lutheran or an Anglican, so I would stick to the Presbyterian/Reformed/Congregational tradition of the Genevan tabs. Why not use our own tradition as the guide?
 
Protestants don't wear collars anymore because they are not longer necessary ... now that Hawaiian shirts have been invented ...
f.jpg
 
Emmanuel said:
Protestants don't wear collars anymore because they are not longer necessary ... now that Hawaiian shirts have been invented ...
f.jpg
Click to expand...

On my native island this is formal wear, but only if it is tucked in!

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------
lynnie said:
If you are into the regulative principle, how are priestly garments and vestments and all that stuff not a return to temple worship? How is that in any way worship in spirit and truth instead of Old Covenant?
Click to expand...

Because the pastor has to wear something in the pulpit. In most settings it would not be appropriate to preach naked. What that something is, must be left to Christian prudence.
 
Backwoods Presbyterian said:
A buddy of mine and I were discussing Presbyterians wearing collars historically and why that has died out over the last 100 years or so and both of us noticed in Acts 13 (and other places) Paul and others are recognized as being teachers of the Law before introducing themselves as such. It seems obvious to us this means Paul was wearing something that marked him out as a Teacher. The next obvious question for us was how should/does this inform our understanding of Pastors/Teaching Elders dress.

What say you?


As a side-note please no "If you wear a collar you must be in love with FV and heading to Rome" posts please.
Click to expand...

I don't think it indicates that it ought to be normative today. The Jewish Christians were still circumcising their children in Acts 21. Paul seemed to not have a problem with the idea of making an offering in the temple (which he never did, in the providence of God). They hadn't yet realized the full extent of Christ's fulfillment of the ceremonial law.

NOTE: I'm not saying that sacrificing an animal is the same as wearing a collar or vice versa. I'm trying to think through the excellent OP.
 
Willem van Oranje said:
Emmanuel said:
Protestants don't wear collars anymore because they are not longer necessary ... now that Hawaiian shirts have been invented ...
f.jpg
Click to expand...

On my native island this is formal wear, but only if it is tucked in!

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------
lynnie said:
If you are into the regulative principle, how are priestly garments and vestments and all that stuff not a return to temple worship? How is that in any way worship in spirit and truth instead of Old Covenant?
Click to expand...

Because the pastor has to wear something in the pulpit. In most settings it would not be appropriate to preach naked. What that something is, must be left to Christian prudence.
Click to expand...

Obviously they don't go naked. But how is one set of clothes for laity and another set of clothes for the "priesthood" not Old Cov and against the RPW? Seriously, I have wondered this for a while. If we are all priests now and we can all go into the holy of holies, then why do some wear special garments? What's not enough about a suit, or a shirt, or whatever the guys in the congregation wear? Why a different dress for the pastor? Isn't that a return to the temple? This is one thing that never made sense to me in my Presbyterian experience.
 
The preacher is a continuation of the Old Covenant priesthood only in the sense that he is set apart to serve as God's mouthpiece to the assembly, as the high priest did. Hence the call to worship, the apostolic greeting, and the benediction. I don't have a problem with a suit and tie, but I think that in some cases a plain robe would be less distracting and take the focus off the man and put it on the office where it belongs.
 
Grillsy said:
Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.
Click to expand...

I think it was because things were trending in a more contemporary direction. Tullian Tchividjian took some flack for not wearing robes when he became the pastor of D. James Kennedy's church, Coral Ridge Presbyterian. D. James Kennedy was out of step with the times though because as you have pointed out, robes have been out for nearly a century.
 
Jared104 said:
Grillsy said:
Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.
Click to expand...

I think it was because things were trending in a more contemporary direction. Tullian Tchividjian took some flack for not wearing robes when he became the pastor of D. James Kennedy's church, Coral Ridge Presbyterian. D. James Kennedy was out of step with the times though because as you have pointed out, robes have been out for nearly a century.
Click to expand...

...in most independent/evangelical circles. But in the "mainline", from which the PCA and OPC came from, robes are definitely still "in."

I think it's still a good idea in heavily Roman Catholic regions, or places where there is a lot of mainline influence. Those elect of God who are on a journey out from the clutches of Anti-Christ tend to be put off and confused by a minister who wears "normal garb."
 
Jared104 said:
Grillsy said:
Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.
Click to expand...

I think it was because things were trending in a more contemporary direction. Tullian Tchividjian took some flack for not wearing robes when he became the pastor of D. James Kennedy's church, Coral Ridge Presbyterian. D. James Kennedy was out of step with the times though because as you have pointed out, robes have been out for nearly a century.
Click to expand...

I'd say more like the past 20 years. The vast majority of Presbyterian ministers wore a Geneva Gown until recent days. In my estimation the decline of the use of the robe is attributable to the egalitarian vibe of the church that automatically casts out of hand any symbol of "set apartness" in the Church.
 
I think the Apostles were obviously considered as teachers, and known to be such throughout the book of Acts. Was it merely incidental that every place they went in the synagogue, Paul was asked to give a "word of exhortation"? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the Romish garb, as the Reformation broke with the "priestly" garb in favor of the academic garb, of one whose office it is to feed the flock of the LORD with knowledge.

The Geneva tabs represent the 10 Commandments: one tab for each table of the law.

Both are perfectly suited to the gravity and message that ought to drop from the lips of a minister of the gospel. Hawaiian shirts and other sorts of non-official garb symbolize something else than the gravity and message; namely, the equalitarian concept of the Church.

Oh, and no, I don't think that this applies outside of public worship, the context in which the Apostles obviously wore their garb.

Cheers,
 
Grillsy said:
Why did we stop wearing collars over the last 75-100 years? Was it because of Rome? Off topic, I know.
Click to expand...

It was due to the breakdown of institutionalism and a rejection of the minister as a public officer whose function is to be protected and promoted by law.
 
I have discussed this issue with a friend, and I believe he is correct: there should be some sort of everyday clothing that distinguishes a pastor as a pastor.

This is not meant to separate a pastor from the rest of the world as something to boast about, but to be visible as a man of God, especially from those who see the vestments and need guidance.

I was told of a story where a woman was at a train station and started to cry. A group of Catholic priests in their vestments were there, along with Protestant ministers. Who do you think the woman went to, and why?

Another anecdote I have is that a man (part of the PCA, I believe), wears a collar as he ministers to Hispanic neighborhoods, because he is automatically recognized as a preacher.

The collar should not be viewed as something of Rome.
 
In the Free Church of Scotland a number of pastors wear a clerical collar. They usually wear it when performing ecclesiastical duties. The pastor at my former congregation wears the "Roman Collar." I believe that in the Church of Scotland most pastors wear some form of clerical garb.
I used to be very against clerical garb, but now I sort of like it.
I know of several pastors who do not wear clerical collar or gown because they believe there is no biblical warrant to wear it.
My (PCA) pastor wears a Geneva gown at worship. I believe it is because it marks the office of pastor as someone who is authorized to preach and administer the sacraments.
But the OP raises an interesting question to ponder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top