Clergy collar

[Salty]

From the thread "Things not to debate on BB"

The gospelgeek asked "Brings up an interesting point. What is the purpose of the clergy collar and robes? I've never attended a church that used them and have always wondered"

So who wears a collar - and why
and if not - why not?

 

[annsni]

I don't know why but I think I've only seen Catholic, Episcopal and Lutheran priests wear them. I have NO clue why they wear them.

 

[Steven2006]

Good old Google


http://www.askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2005/09/why_the_collar.html

 

[Jim1999]

I wore a clergy collar most of the time. I grew up in the Church of England and early on served 8 years as an army chaplain. In the Canadian army, clergy were either protestant or catholic and collars were norm. Also, in England, many baptists in the Baptist Union wore clergy collars and I just carried on in Canada. Some people frowned, but most accepted that it was just "me". My photo above on right is with a clergy collar...hard to see behind the beard.

On robes; it seems fitting to wear a robe in the pulpit. In early days, baptists in Canada wore striped trousers and tailcoats. This switched to striped trousers and a black (Tuxedo-type) jacket complete with waistcoat.

This had no special significance to me except the formality of the morning service, weddings and funerals.
I don't see any difference between a clergy collar, bow tie or regular long tie, ecept it is easier to fasten a clergy collar!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

In our church, the pastor normally wears a coat & tie. Personally, I prefer the Geneva robe which was the norm in a former church. The Geneva robe is simple black robe and draws attention to office not to the person.

Here is part of an article from the web (see the following for the entire article -- http://www.hornes.org/theologia/jeffrey-meyers/why-does-the-pastor-wear-a-robe.

"In Christian worship, biblically and historically, the ministers wear distinctive garments to testify to their office as representatives of Christ. The robe serves to hide the personality of the man and highlight his special calling. The pastor represents Christ, the Husband, to the church, his bride. When the pastor leads worship, the robe helps remind us that it is not “my friend Jeff” up front. God in Christ calls us to worship, to confess, to hear his word, to give, etc., and he does so by means of his ordained servant. The pastor does not act for himself, but for Christ. A judge or a policeman wears a uniform because he does not act for himself. He is under orders. He represents the law and government of the county, city, or state in which he serves. In the same way, a minister represents the law and government of another kingdom. The clothing he wears testifies to this. He also is under orders. The pastor’s authority does not derive from his economic or social status (expensive suits and starched shirts). It does not derive from his natural charisma (impressive hair or flashing dark eyes). It most certainly does not derive from the fact that he looks and acts like other leaders in the world (business suits), even though this is what happens too often in America. Just as the location of the pulpit and table have symbolic significance, so also the minister’s clothing communicates that he is the ordained servant of the risen Christ, called to lead God people in covenant renewal worship."

 

[Jerome]

Spurgeon was no "man of the cloth":

"I don't know—but I can think—why the devil ever invented pulpit gowns and bibs, and all that sort of distinction between clergymen and laymen. I am no clergyman. I know of nothing of the kind. There is no such distinction in the New Testament."

"do not touch a rag of the rubbish—not even the white boiled rag round the necks which is the last relic of an abominable Popery."

"I do not want to be taken for an undertaker, or a draper, or parson; I am neither, but a simple preacher of the Gospel among my brethren, and not distinguished by any garb;"

"Having no desire to be lifted into the clerical order, or to claim any distinction above my fellow church members, I dress as they dress, and wear no special distinguishing mark. Let men of sense judge whether this is one-half so eccentric as arraying one's self so that it is hard for spectators to guess whether you are a man or a woman,"

 

[dcorbett]

All my life, I was told that those churches that had their leaders wear collars had close ties to the papal heresy....and I agree! Baptists are not Protestants.....we never protested anything. Why dress like the catholic fools?

 

[Palatka51]

All my life, I was told that those churches that had their leaders wear collars had close ties to the papal heresy....and I agree! Baptists are not Protestants.....we never protested anything. Why dress like the catholic fools?

Here, Here!! :thumbsup:

 

[Jim1999]

Mr. Spurgeon was never ordained either, and so loved the Baptist Church that he called his church the Metropolitan Tabernacle. He had other quirks as well, peculiar to his day.

The orginal tie was a woman's apparel as well. Originally men had a white cloth that wrapped about the neck to distinquish himself from the laity of the church.

The collar does not a romish priest make, nor the robe, commonly worn by professors of universities. It is an academic gown, and serves to cover the person in leadership whilst in that prestigious place we call the pulpit.

To each his own when it comes to dress. You wear your ragged jeans to church, which I deem to be an insult to God. I shall wear my robe to hide my person and stand tall in the presentation of His truths.

By the way, Mr. Spurgeon also had solid Anglican preachers in his pulpit, gown, collar and all!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Alcott]

The collar and robe seem to me to be a residual of the clergy class, meaning more than just the teacher, preacher, and wine and bread blesser and giver-outer. They had a place in society, and in the UK they still do, with the 24 bishops and 2 arch-bishops entitled to their seats in the House of Lords. If the nobles dressed and lived differently than the commoners, and royal family different still, the idea of class would also have dictated that clergy dress different from parishioners.

While in the USA there are no societal class distinctions between clergy adn laity, they may still exist within various churches and individuals. I went to a kindergarten at an Episcopal day school, and every week (on Wednesday, I think) we had chapel, where the rector (though I didn't know that term then) had on his flowing yellow robe and there were altar boys to light candles and kneel in prayers who also wore some kind of robes, per se. It was scary, in a way. To not regard that robed priest with awe made us feel like we did not regard God with awe. And he always spoke so solemnly and clearly, never joking or talking about the weekend picnic or fishing trip (it seems Baptist preachers always find ways to get such subjects in, and a few chuckles, at least). Anyway, there was something about such rigidity, as if the message we got was "don't even think it-- 'it' meaning the procedures or the respect given, et al.

 

[Jerome]

"We wonder how much of the extravagance of female dress could be traced to the man-millinery of Anglican priests. Church congresses have been edified by exhibitions of ecclesiastical finery, in which were seen robes and vestments of the costliest material and the gaudiest colours. . . . no wonder that it costs so much to dress a woman. When men, and even ministers, take to resplendent trappings, who can wonder that the weaker sex exercise a larger liberty? For shame, ye so-called priests, put away your baby garments and quit yourselves like men." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[Jerome]

"Forever away with surplices and gowns, and all those nursery doll-dresses—men should put away childish things. A cross on the back is the sign of a devil in the heart; those who do as Rome does, should go to Rome and show their colors." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Spurgeon was no "man of the cloth":

"I don't know—but I can think—why the devil ever invented pulpit gowns and bibs, and all that sort of distinction between clergymen and laymen. I am no clergyman. I know of nothing of the kind. There is no such distinction in the New Testament."

I think my friend is wrong here. There is indeed a distinction in the NT between the laity and the clergy (elders, bishops). However, I agree with Jim. It is simply a matter of personal preference.

 

[Jerome]

"Great importance is attached to the style of garment, which should be worn by priests on Holy Monday, or Good Friday. Colours vary according to the almanack, and the age of the moon. I must confess I need all my gravity when I think of copes, and girdles, and surplices, and gowns being matters of serious discussion. Surely these poor dupes of superstition are far, very far, from the kingdom of God, which is not meat and drink, nor clothing, nor posture, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[Jerome]

"A Dutchman. . . . being in London, he had availed himself of the opportunity to hear me. This, however, he deeply regretted, as he had now lost the power to read my sermons with pleasure any more. . . . he said that I wore a moustache like a carnal, worldly-minded man! Think of that. Instead of being all shaven and shorn like the holy man whom he was accustomed to hear, and wearing a starched ruffed collar all round my neck, about a quarter of a yard deep, I was so depraved as to wear no ruff, and abjure the razor. His great guy of a minister, with ruff and bands and gown, and a woman's chin was not eccentric, but because I allowed my hair to grow as nature meant it should, I was eccentric and frivolous and carnal and worldly-minded, and all sorts of bad things." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

[tinytim]

All my life, I was told that those churches that had their leaders wear collars had close ties to the papal heresy....and I agree! Baptists are not Protestants.....we never protested anything. Why dress like the catholic fools?

Well you were told wrong.

Many Baptists in my denomination wears robes.. and when we are ministering in South America, have wore a collar.. it is a symbol of being a clergy.

People identify with it.

No need for name calling just because your culture is different.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

"Great importance is attached to the style of garment, which should be worn by priests on Holy Monday, or Good Friday. Colours vary according to the almanack, and the age of the moon. I must confess I need all my gravity when I think of copes, and girdles, and surplices, and gowns being matters of serious discussion. Surely these poor dupes of superstition are far, very far, from the kingdom of God, which is not meat and drink, nor clothing, nor posture, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." ---Charles Spurgeon

Great quotes there. However, there is a HUGE difference between what Spurgeon is saying about the Roman Catholic clergy in his day versus a minister wearing a simple black robe in the pulpit. The idea of the Geneva robe is exactly the opposite -- it is there to put the emphasis on the Scripture & the preaching of the word instead of what the pastor is wearing.

 

[matt wade]

Great quotes there. However, there is a HUGE difference between what Spurgeon is saying about the Roman Catholic clergy in his day versus a minister wearing a simple black robe in the pulpit. The idea of the Geneva robe is exactly the opposite -- it is there to put the emphasis on the Scripture & the preaching of the word instead of what the pastor is wearing.

I can understand the concept of the Geneva robe, but I can't see it holding true in practice. If the pastor of my church were to preach the sermon wearing a robe, it would take the emphasis away from the Word. We'd all be wondering what was going on.

Yes, after a while we would get used to it, but newcomers to the church would wonder what was going on until they also became used to it.

In some cultures it may not have the same effect as it would in my church (and most churches in the area).

I don't have a problem with robe or collar, I just don't personally see the point of it.

 

[LeBuick]

I have a couple of clergy collars I wear just so I don't have to put on a tie. I never thought much about the meaning, I just be lazy on those days.

Oh, and wearing one to the hospital always gets me the up close parking by the doctors and you can visit any time of day or night. Even after hours in the ICU.

 

[Jerome]

If a man will adopt a curious dress I will not defend him; why cannot he dress like a gentleman, not like a woman? Even our brethren who preach the Gospel come out rather smarter than I like—in a black gown or white gown, with red pieces of something or other around it—but I am not learned in their eccentricities. I believe we shall see these things in a museum some day, including that bib and piece of lawn said "to represent cloven tongues as it were fire," and I venture to prophesy our grandchildren will not believe it when they are told those are the things men used to wear a hundred years ago. They will say, "Why I have heard of people worshipping gods of wood and stone, and I cannot believe that in worshipping the true God they ever thought it important to put on these naperies and draperies." And when the children are told that ministers who dressed like ordinary Christian gentlemen and tried to speak English were called eccentric, they will say, "Why, what a benighted generation it must have been!"" ---Charles Spurgeon