The Cassock and the Symbols of a Bygone Era

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I am a regular reader of a blog called "Front Porch Republic" and today noticed a story by one of the writers who is an Anglican Priest. He has a thought provoking article on the Cassock that is worth reading.

Find it here.

Also might be worth looking at our most recent discussion on Ministers and Clerical Garb here.

 

[JBaldwin]

This is an interesting article. While I think there is some merit to people wearing vestments of some sort to identify their professions, it can become a tool of division in the church as it separates the laity from the clergy, and I for one am thankful that at least in the clerical profession, it is for the most part, a thing of the past.

I was close friends with an Anglican priest years ago who told me that the buttons on the cassock he wore represnted the 39 articles of the Anglican faith. He used to recite each one as he put on his cassock. I've heard of priests doing this same thing and think that it borders on superstition. I realize that not all Anglicans do this, but it is another side to symbolism that I personally think goes a little to far in the wrong direction.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

This is an interesting article. While I think there is some merit to people wearing vestments of some sort to identify their professions, it can become a tool of division in the church as it separates the laity from the clergy, and I for one am thankful that at least in the clerical profession, it is for the most part, a thing of the past.

I was close friends with an Anglican priest years ago who told me that the buttons on the cassock he wore represnted the 39 articles of the Anglican faith. He used to recite each one as he put on his cassock. I've heard of priests doing this same thing and think that it borders on superstition. I realize that not all Anglicans do this, but it is another side to symbolism that I personally think goes a little to far in the wrong direction.

I wish more Anglican priests had memorized the 39 articles.

 

[Philip]

I think that we in the reformed tradition are quick to dismiss things like clothing, church architecture, and visual symbolism in general as unimportant. What we forget is that we are material visual beings, and what we see matters. Yes, it's more important to speak truth than to have all the externals, but is it too much to ask for both?

 

[KensingtonerRebbe]

I used to be opposed to any and all types of ecclesiastical garb. Now that I've grown in appreciation for churchly office I can see the merit of having the minister wear something that designates him as a member of his office. To be honest I think it may help people my age and younger who have been effected by the ruthless egalitarianism of our times to gain more respect for the Dominee.

 

[JennyG]

It's a good article, though I always have a bad feeling about anglican clergymen who call themselves, or let themselves be called, "Father".

 

[tcalbrecht]

I used to be opposed to any and all types of ecclesiastical garb. Now that I've grown in appreciation for churchly office I can see the merit of having the minister wear something that designates him as a member of his office. To be honest I think it may help people my age and younger who have been effected by the ruthless egalitarianism of our times to gain more respect for the Dominee.

Elders and deacons also hold office in the church. Is there warrant for special garb for only the minister?

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

I think that we in the reformed tradition are quick to dismiss things like clothing, church architecture, and visual symbolism in general as unimportant. What we forget is that we are material visual beings, and what we see matters. Yes, it's more important to speak truth than to have all the externals, but is it too much to ask for both?

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

 

[Peairtach]

This is an interesting article. While I think there is some merit to people wearing vestments of some sort to identify their professions, it can become a tool of division in the church as it separates the laity from the clergy, and I for one am thankful that at least in the clerical profession, it is for the most part, a thing of the past.

I was close friends with an Anglican priest years ago who told me that the buttons on the cassock he wore represnted the 39 articles of the Anglican faith. He used to recite each one as he put on his cassock. I've heard of priests doing this same thing and think that it borders on superstition. I realize that not all Anglicans do this, but it is another side to symbolism that I personally think goes a little to far in the wrong direction.

The 39 articles are very good, although whether the 39 buttons are so good is another matter.

 

[Philip]

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

Clothing of the minister would fall under the circumstances of worship, as would the aesthetics and symbolism inherent in church architecture.

 

[tcalbrecht]

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

Clothing of the minister would fall under the circumstances of worship, as would the aesthetics and symbolism inherent in church architecture.

Circumstances cannot convey anything of a spiritual nature. That is why they are denoted as circumstances.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

Clothing of the minister would fall under the circumstances of worship, as would the aesthetics and symbolism inherent in church architecture.

Circumstances cannot convey anything of a spiritual nature. That is why they are denoted as circumstances.

So then, Elder Tom, are you against pulpits, arrangements of pews which are intended to draw attention to the word preached, steeples and burning bush logos?

 

[tcalbrecht]

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

Clothing of the minister would fall under the circumstances of worship, as would the aesthetics and symbolism inherent in church architecture.

Circumstances cannot convey anything of a spiritual nature. That is why they are denoted as circumstances.

So then, Elder Tom, are you against pulpits, arrangements of pews which are intended to draw attention to the word preached, steeples and burning bush logos?

I’m not “against” circumstances. I’m against attributing spiritual significance to circumstances.

Pulpits, etc are circumstances insofar as they simply make for an orderly worship service. In and of themselves they convey nothing of a spiritual nature. One could dispense with a physical pulpit and pews and not materially affect the worship. That is the definition of a circumstance. Christ had benefit of neither when He delivered, e.g., the Sermon on the Mount. A circumstance has no spiritual significance.

It is the word preached and sacraments observed that are the focal point of Christian worship. Logos, steeples, etc are all superfluous.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

Clothing of the minister would fall under the circumstances of worship, as would the aesthetics and symbolism inherent in church architecture.

Circumstances cannot convey anything of a spiritual nature. That is why they are denoted as circumstances.

So then, Elder Tom, are you against pulpits, arrangements of pews which are intended to draw attention to the word preached, steeples and burning bush logos?

I’m not “against” circumstances. I’m against attributing spiritual significance to circumstances.

Pulpits, etc are circumstances insofar as they simply make for an orderly worship service. In and of themselves they convey nothing of a spiritual nature. One could dispense with a physical pulpit and pews and not materially affect the worship. That is the definition of a circumstance. Christ had benefit of neither when He delivered, e.g., the Sermon on the Mount. A circumstance has no spiritual significance.

It is the word preached and sacraments observed that are the focal point of Christian worship. Logos, steeples, etc are all superfluous.

Tom, I agree, and you could replace the word "pulpit" with "Geneva gown" or "ecclesiastical garb" and your paragraph would still be true. Hence, they are merely circumstances to be used if and where they may be found useful or conducive to the spirtual office of Minister, and discarded otherwise.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Tom, I agree, and you could replace the word "pulpit" with "Geneva gown" or "ecclesiastical garb" and your paragraph would still be true. Hence, they are merely circumstances to be used if and where they may be found useful or conducive to the spirtual office of Minister, and discarded otherwise.

But physical clothing has no spiritual significance under the terms of the new covenant. Thus a “Geneva gown” in reality says absolutely nothing about the office of a minister. It is an abuse of the term “circumstance” to apply it to such clothing. In fact, the intent of such clothing is anything but circumstantial.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Tom, I agree, and you could replace the word "pulpit" with "Geneva gown" or "ecclesiastical garb" and your paragraph would still be true. Hence, they are merely circumstances to be used if and where they may be found useful or conducive to the spirtual office of Minister, and discarded otherwise.

But physical clothing has no spiritual significance under the terms of the new covenant. Thus a “Geneva gown” in reality says absolutely nothing about the office of a minister. It is an abuse of the term “circumstance” to apply it to such clothing. In fact, the intent of such clothing is anything but circumstantial.

It says "office of minister of the gospel" in the same way that a steeple says, "church", that a Bach tune to which a Psalm is set says "timeless majesty" and that a pulpit says "authoritative preaching from God's word." These things are not necessary, but they are examples in which circumstances are so ordered to support the spiritual message rather than to detract from it. A circumstance may not carry spiritual meaning, but it may suggest, support, or detract from it. Usually if the medium is not supporting the message, it detracts from it.

 

[Philip]

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

Clothing of the minister would fall under the circumstances of worship, as would the aesthetics and symbolism inherent in church architecture.

Circumstances cannot convey anything of a spiritual nature. That is why they are denoted as circumstances.

In that case there are no circumstances. Everything you do has some significance.

The difference is that circumstances are necessary to worship and are therefore to be treated pragmatically. If it is useful for a minister to wear a cassock, then by all means let him do so. If it is aesthetically pleasing to have a cross on the wall, then by all means let it be placed there.

 

[tcalbrecht]

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

Clothing of the minister would fall under the circumstances of worship, as would the aesthetics and symbolism inherent in church architecture.

Circumstances cannot convey anything of a spiritual nature. That is why they are denoted as circumstances.

In that case there are no circumstances. Everything you do has some significance.

The difference is that circumstances are necessary to worship and are therefore to be treated pragmatically. If it is useful for a minister to wear a cassock, then by all means let him do so. If it is aesthetically pleasing to have a cross on the wall, then by all means let it be placed there.

What spiritual significance do the overhead lights fixtures have in a worship hall? What spiritual significance is there in the fact that your congregation meets for worship at 10 am or 3 pm or whatever hour? What spiritual significance is there in the fact that your worship service lasts for one hour or two?

Those are circumstances.

Why exactly is it “useful” for a minister to wear any particular article of clothing (other than for the circumstance of clothing the body)?

When one starts using terms like “useful” and “aesthetically pleasing” to denote certain otherwise inconsequential aspects of worship, I’m afraid they are wanting to move beyond mere circumstance. Next thing they will be telling us is that it is “aesthetically pleasing” to have carved images on the altar lighted by ornate candelabras, and how much more “worshipful” that makes them feel.

---------- Post added at 03:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

Tom, I agree, and you could replace the word "pulpit" with "Geneva gown" or "ecclesiastical garb" and your paragraph would still be true. Hence, they are merely circumstances to be used if and where they may be found useful or conducive to the spirtual office of Minister, and discarded otherwise.

But physical clothing has no spiritual significance under the terms of the new covenant. Thus a “Geneva gown” in reality says absolutely nothing about the office of a minister. It is an abuse of the term “circumstance” to apply it to such clothing. In fact, the intent of such clothing is anything but circumstantial.

It says "office of minister of the gospel" in the same way that a steeple says, "church", that a Bach tune to which a Psalm is set says "timeless majesty" and that a pulpit says "authoritative preaching from God's word." These things are not necessary, but they are examples in which circumstances are so ordered to support the spiritual message rather than to detract from it. A circumstance may not carry spiritual meaning, but it may suggest, support, or detract from it. Usually if the medium is not supporting the message, it detracts from it.

How Western of you!! Do you really believe that steeples and pulpits and Bach tunes are universal symbols of anything remotely religious? Or, rather, are intended by God Almighty as such?

When you start attaching spiritual significance to objects that have no warrant in the Word of God, you have crossed the line regarding reformational worship. You are elevating the ideas of men in place of the Word of God.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate. – John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church

In other words,, if God has not expressly commanded in His Word that spiritual significance be attached to things, then to do so by human effort is an abomination, no matter how nice they make us feel.

One of the greatest threats to the Church is the assault on Christian liberty by officers who impose their will on congregational worship over and against the Word of God. It may be subtle -- pretty candles, ornate carvings, fashionable, pietistic tunics for clergy -- but it all ends up at the same place.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

How Western of you!! Do you really believe that steeples and pulpits and Bach tunes are universal symbols of anything remotely religious? Or, rather, are intended by God Almighty as such?

When you start attaching spiritual significance to objects that have no warrant in the Word of God, you have crossed the line regarding reformational worship. You are elevating the ideas of men in place of the Word of God.

You noticed! I am very Western, thank you very much. Ahem.

These were examples from a cultural context, and not meant to be universal in every age in every land. I think you proved my point when you recognized these as symbols which represent something within a given culture, i. e. Western culture.

The question is not whether or not your circumstances will send a message, but what message are they sending? Do you think that a suit and tie, an aloha shirt, a skeletal lecturn, Fanny Crosby tunes, or open-field preaching do not send a message? The medium always shapes the message. So we need to be careful that the medium is supporting and undergirding the message rather than detracting from it, within the particular cultural contexts that we find ourselves. Otherwise the circumstances are becoming distractions.

 

[Philip]

What spiritual significance do the overhead lights fixtures have in a worship hall?

Might show how much your church values beauty. Might also show how much it values money. The Puritans, in building their churches in the New World, deliberately departed from the Old World norms to create buildings that would put visual emphasis on the word.

What spiritual significance is there in the fact that your congregation meets for worship at 10 am or 3 pm or whatever hour? What spiritual significance is there in the fact that your worship service lasts for one hour or two?

Might show where your priorities are.

Why exactly is it “useful” for a minister to wear any particular article of clothing (other than for the circumstance of clothing the body)?

Possibly to mark him out for the visitor. Then too it might be useful outside the service to mark his profession. It's similar to a science professor's lab coat, a policeman's uniform, or a judge's robe.

The fact is that we are not angels trapped in bodies: we are physical beings and as such our physical surroundings cannot help but affect us, and our moods and attitudes. Of course the content of the service is more important than the circumstances, but somehow the circumstances have significance. We cannot write them off as unimportant in and of themselves simply because of the overemphasis on them in certain churches.

When a church builds a building on an expensive Main Street lot, it says something: it's a message to the community that this church is in the community to stay. It's making an investment in the community for the long-term. Visual markers have a huge impact on our perception of something or someone. This is why I think that clerical clothing isn't a bad idea: just as a suit and tie sends one message, a uniform another, and a pair of shorts and T-shirt yet another, so the collar sends a message---a message of function.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Might show how much your church values beauty. …

Might show where your priorities are. …

Possibly to mark him out for the visitor. …

I can’t tell if you are missing the point of the regulative principle vis-à-vis circumstances vs. elements. These are the same arguments one might hear from a Roman Catholic or Anglican regarding the way they justify adorning their facilities … a manner unsupported from the Word of God. They are pragmatic, humanly speaking, but they lack the principles articulated by Calvin and other reformed wrt the proper worship of God.

It is the Word preached and made visual by the sacraments that tells the world about the gospel. When a minister does these things faithfully there is no mistaking the person, or the building where these things take place. Buildings and clothing do not point people to Christ.

“Now faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 PM ----------

You noticed! I am very Western, thank you very much. Ahem.

These were examples from a cultural context, and not meant to be universal in every age in every land.

And that is the point. The things taught in the Word of God are universal, not culturally bound. Unbelievers don’t care about your steeples or vestments. Satan, on the other hand, loves such things, and for God’s people to get wrapped up in such things as spiritual objects.

The things of men are the things that neither last nor are they desirable for His body. When the church starts to focus on these circumstances and import spiritual significance to them, it is bound for ruin.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

And that is the point. The things taught in the Word of God are universal, not culturally bound. Unbelievers don’t care about your steeples or vestments. Satan, on the other hand, loves such things, and for God’s people to get wrapped up in such things as spiritual objects.

If the Bible is not being culturally contextualized, it's not being communicated. You have to bring the Bible's teaching to bear on the culture, to speak intelligibly to the culture. Otherwise you are not communicating. You are speaking a foreign tongue. We're not going to go around wearing Galilean tunics because that's what Jesus wore. We're also not going to wear ripped jeans and a T-shirt without thinking about what that communicates to the culture in which we are speaking.

The things of men are the things that neither last nor are they desirable for His body. When the church starts to focus on these circumstances and import spiritual significance to them, it is bound for ruin.

Again, he has to wear something. We have to meet somewhere. These are necessary circumstances. Let's not focus on these things, as you said, but at least put a little bit of thought into them to make sure our choices are not undermining the message.

 

[Philip]

I can’t tell if you are missing the point of the regulative principle vis-à-vis circumstances vs. elements. These are the same arguments one might hear from a Roman Catholic or Anglican regarding the way they justify adorning their facilities … a manner unsupported from the Word of God. They are pragmatic, humanly speaking, but they lack the principles articulated by Calvin and other reformed wrt the proper worship of God.

In that case, what is the most Biblical style of architecture? Is it Gothic? Romanesque? Classical? Cinderblock? Modernist? Contrary to anything Louis Sullivan said, form does not follow function. One may have a perfectly reformed service in a Gothic cathedral (as Knox did at St. Giles, Edinburgh) just as one may worship in a small house, as many have done and many still do. The reformers may have been right to be iconoclasts, but they would not have been right to knock over the buildings or eradicate the symbolism inherent in the very blueprints.

The question is which is most conducive to worship.

Buildings and clothing do not point people to Christ.

I won't argue this. However, might they be able to help or hinder the message preached from the pulpit (assuming that use of a pulpit is biblical).

 

[dudley]

I used to be opposed to any and all types of ecclesiastical garb. Now that I've grown in appreciation for churchly office I can see the merit of having the minister wear something that designates him as a member of his office. To be honest I think it may help people my age and younger who have been effected by the ruthless egalitarianism of our times to gain more respect for the Dominee.

Elders and deacons also hold office in the church. Is there warrant for special garb for only the minister?

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

I think that we in the reformed tradition are quick to dismiss things like clothing, church architecture, and visual symbolism in general as unimportant. What we forget is that we are material visual beings, and what we see matters. Yes, it's more important to speak truth than to have all the externals, but is it too much to ask for both?

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

After reading many comments on this thread and then reading Tom Albrects I have to say I agree with our brother Tom and say Amen in that it is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

I agree with Tom also when he says: "These are the same arguments one might hear from a Roman Catholic or Anglican regarding the way they justify adorning their facilities … a manner unsupported from the Word of God." I belive as Tom that as Protestants we do not need these superfulous ornaments which can detract from the sacrament of the Lords Supper and the Word of God revealed in scripture.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I used to be opposed to any and all types of ecclesiastical garb. Now that I've grown in appreciation for churchly office I can see the merit of having the minister wear something that designates him as a member of his office. To be honest I think it may help people my age and younger who have been effected by the ruthless egalitarianism of our times to gain more respect for the Dominee.

Elders and deacons also hold office in the church. Is there warrant for special garb for only the minister?

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

I think that we in the reformed tradition are quick to dismiss things like clothing, church architecture, and visual symbolism in general as unimportant. What we forget is that we are material visual beings, and what we see matters. Yes, it's more important to speak truth than to have all the externals, but is it too much to ask for both?

The only sanctioned visual representation for the church is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

After reading many comments on this thread and then reading Tom Albrects I have to say I agree with our brother Tom and say Amen in that it is that of the Lord's Supper where Christ work on our behalf is conveyed by sensual means. The rest are inventions of men.

I agree with Tom also when he says: "These are the same arguments one might hear from a Roman Catholic or Anglican regarding the way they justify adorning their facilities … a manner unsupported from the Word of God." I belive as Tom that as Protestants we do not need these superfulous ornaments which can detract from the sacrament of the Lords Supper and the Word of God revealed in scripture.

A suit and tie are inventions of men.