The collar has always been
and still the dress code for Protestant
preachers and Lawyers in
Europe. In days past, these
individuals wore black and
chose a white sweatband
(cravat) to wear around
their necks for the purpose
of riding on horseback. This
became personified in the UK
by John Wesley, founder of
the Methodists, who rode on
horseback the length and
breadth of England preaching
the Bible. It was also the
normal mode of dress for the
Protestant Churches of
Europe and it was not until
the turn of the eighteenth
century that the Catholic
Church adopted it also. It
was never a Roman Catholic
style of clergy dress code
before that time and not one
picture of a Pope or member
of the clergy can be seen
wearing one. Sadly today
most fundamentalist Protestants
and particularly those from other nations
erroneously think that the
clerical collar is a Roman
Catholic instituted style of
dress code for their clergy
and that Protestants should
not wear it, because it
represents the Roman
Catholic Church, "religion" and
"tradition". This type of
thinking is wrong. The
clerical collar is a
Protestant clergy dress
code.
But where did it come from
and how far back can we
trace its origin and more
importantly its scriptural
importance?
Today, when you look at the
clerical dress of the
majority of religions, you
will see that the leadership
attire is very similar. The
adaptations in headgear may
be different but the style
of robe and neckband are
ostensibly the same. Because
the Judeo-Christian faith is
born out of middle eastern
customs the origin of
Christian clerical attire
can be narrowed down to a
very definite style.
The thirty ninth chapter of
the book of Exodus describes
in detail how the Lord
commanded Moses to make "the
garments of ministry". Again
in the book of Leviticus in
the eight chapter and verse
thirteen, tunics were
brought for ministry.
Modernist Christian
anti-Semitic, anti Jewish
"replacement theology" in
churches has denied the God
given institutions in the
"spirit" of the Old
Testament ceremonial law and
replaced it with a variety
of man made interpretations
concerning ministerial dress
code. The most abominable
thing to God is for someone
to minister to Him in a
secular dress code, using
the system of the world's
style of attire to flaunt in
worship before Him. The
spiritual significance of
the garments, or covering,
before God when conducting
Worship, is of absolute
importance and reverence in
His presence and will affect
His presence.
This Priestly and Levite
attire was carried by the
Jews into captivity in
Babylon where it was copied,
adopted and adapted by the
Persians and their
Zoroastrian faith which
influenced Manichaeism and
Buddhism as far east as
Mongolia and the Parsee's
faith of India (the Bible
word Pharisee being the same
root word). While in
captivity, a section of
scholars within Judaism
employed the same scrupulous
study system as the Parsees
did in their study of their
religion and applied the
same study system to their
own study of the
Torah and other Jewish Holy books.
This strand of studious form
and its proponents became
known amongst the Jews in
captivity in Babylon as
Pharisee or the group called
"the Pharisees". At the time
of Christ, "Pharisee" had
become the description of a
legalistic interpretation of
the Biblical texts and a
theological position. The
Pharisees had not adopted
Zoroastrianism and its
beliefs, but rather its
studious style of precision
when studying. This, these
Jewish "Theological
Pharisees" applied to the
Bible Law Prophets and
Poets. Both the Pharisees
and the Sadducees of
Christ's time had a similar
style of clerical attire,
carrying on the developed
style to become what Christ
Himself would wear after His
theological training. A robe
(usually black) with a white
Jewish prayer shawl wrapped
around the neck. This same
style of black robe and
white neckband can be seen
throughout Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, with
adaptations in other
religions right up to the
present day.
A distinct dress code is
Scriptural!
"Yahashua" (Jewish phonetic
for Jesus) told His
disciples not to be called
"Rabbi" in the marketplace
of life. He also said, "to
call no man Father on the
earth, for we have only one
heavenly Father in heaven."
The reason that Jesus told
His disciples these things
was to instill humility and
spiritual authority and for
them to learn not to rely on
the pride possible that
comes with a title. John
13:13.
But, the Bible clearly
teaches and historians of
middle eastern customs
agree, that Jesus of
Nazareth was a "Rabbi" in
the fullest Rabbinic code of
Law and tradition. A
lecturer from the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem
recently stated, "that Jesus
was in the fullest sense a
Jewish clergyman and would
in fact have had to have
been one in order to do what
He did and to say what He
said". The reason being,
that if anyone were to
comment upon, teach, or read
publicly from the Jewish
scriptures, then they would
have had to have been a
Rabbi.
No one but a Rabbi can open
the Word of God and teach
from the Pulpit. Jesus would
not have been able to
assemble disciples or
conduct a public ministry
unless He was a Rabbi
because the Jews would have
stoned Him or the Herodians
arrested Him. Therefore,
Jesus, after His bar-mitzvah
in the temple in Jerusalem,
had gone through Yeshiva
school and had become a
Rabbi, reading and attending
His local synagogue in
Nazareth which was His
custom. Jesus also wore
clerical attire, which
included a black robe over a
white ephod (a cassock, alb, or
ankle length shirt), with a
white prayer shawl draped
over His shoulders or
wrapped around His neck. An
expensive purple robe was
permitted after the
"Rabbi-Teacher" had gained
disciples to His teachings
and it was for this robe
that lots were cast at the
foot of the cross. This
expensive purple robe was
probably paid for by the
rich of Capernaum during His
ministry. The purple dye was
extracted from shellfish by
the Tyrians and sold by the
purple sellers in Capernaum. The Roman
soldiers had taken His own
purple robe
off and put a scarlet robe
upon Him, scarlet being the
Roman colour of Caesar or
King. This they had done in
order to
mock Jesus and by also
placing the crown of thorns
upon His head. Interestingly
it is a bishop in present
day denominationalism that
is associated with purple.
(This is no random choice of
colour to be associated with
that position of bishop but
the colour association has
come down through the
centuries also.)
We should repudiate the myth
that Jesus was a poor,
uneducated carpenter from
Nazareth. All Jewish clergy
had another profession. The
idea that a slum dwelling
Palestinian from a poor
family, with His rough
uneducated disciples was the
"real Jesus", is a western
Church contrivance which
borders on anti-Semitism,
because it completely
disregards Jewish history
and culture. Jesus was
educated to the best
Rabbinical standard and the
majority of His disciples
were also educated.
Destroying the myth!
Also another myth promoted
by the western church, is
the foolish idea that the
Pharisaical Rabbis only
followed Jesus around to
criticize Him. This again is
plainly wrong according to
historical Jewish culture.
Jesus had been trained in
the Pharisee tradition of
study and it was customary
that other Pharisaic Rabbis
would attend a teaching
given by one of their own,
in order to contest, ask
question about, or warn
their fellow Pharisee if
someone was out to get him.
This is exactly what
happened during the ministry
of Jesus. This is also why
Nicodemus came to Him by
night, to find out the truth
about His teaching. Jesus'
human operation worked under
and through the Jewish Law
in order to fulfill it.
Jesus was a Rabbi and when
approached and called by His
title "Rabboni", He replied,
"and you have called me by
my proper title, for indeed
I am a Rabbi. It is
also interesting to note two
other things. Firstly, no
one called Him by His first
name, for that would have
been familiar and
derogatory. They called Him
"master" or "teacher",
"Rabboni" or "Rabbi". The
second thing, is the
perfunctory respect that the
Sanhedrin had to give Jesus,
even though they might have
wanted to do other wise, but
the could not because He was
a Rabbi.
Today clergy relegate
themselves, or allow
themselves to be relegated
to the position of being
known on a first name basis.
Stevo, Kenny, Pastor George,
or Rev Robert is the order
of the day. The Master, the
Rabbi of Rabbis, Yahushuah,
Jesus, the Christ, the Son
of the living God, changed
the names of His disciples
and gave them a new name for
a very good reason. This
separated them from their
past, establish their
newness of life and would
stamp out familiarity with
them on a personal level.
Now let us turn our
attention back to the early
church. As Rabbis and their
congregations became
Christians, in fact the
whole of Jerusalem was
practically Christianized by
70 AD, the wearing of
Rabbinical attire continued
in the early church by the
leadership. The "Apostles",
having been Jesus'
"students-disciples" now
were "Teachers" in their own
right. The Apostle Paul wore
rabbinical clerical attire
and so the dress code
continued throughout
European history within
Christianity up and unto the
time of its present form
This can be seen in the
European legal system, where
a white collar is worn
showing two tabs hanging
down, an adaptation which
harks back to the old Jewish
prayer shawl and of course
the same is seen worn by the
European Clergy.
In the Old and New
Testaments, the Bible
clearly teaches that there
is a distinct difference
between the Clergy and the
rest of the congregation.
Today, every Christian seems
to think that they have the
right to have their own
"ministry", do their own
thing for God and not be
under anybody's authority.
This is un-scriptural,
heretical and a complete
blasphemy against God given
church government on the
earth.
People should not speak evil
about something that they do
not fully understand or have
not been fully educated
about. People should not
show their ignorance, just
because a lot of present day
preachers have
systematically gone about
pulling down the image and
presentation of what a
clergyman should look like
in dress code. Remember, the
collar, originally the
prayer shawl, yokes us
together with Christ in His
Ministry on earth, rather
than wearing a necktie and
being tied to the world and
its system.
Oh, congregations love to
hear that there is no
difference between the
pulpit and the pew, because
we are all equal in the
sight of God. Well, we are
all equal in the sight of
God, but we are not all
equal when it comes to His
callings, His offices and
His government within His
operation on the earth
through His Church. That is
Scriptural and anyone who
preaches otherwise, either
preaches it in ignorance or
in the "spirit" of
rebellion.
The other important issue
is, that the world knows
exactly what clerical attire
stands for. Many have abused
their position of being
properly educated and
ordained, but this is not a
reason to throw away one of
the biggest witnessing tools
for the Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, God does not want
us to act presidential,
modern or fashionable in the
pulpit or in public life,
but rather as signage for
eternity, a visible
confrontation promoting the
inevitability of eternity
and the need for people to
make a personal decision
about Him. It is a "black
and white" issue.
The Reasons why Vestments
and Clerical dress are worn
by Clergy.
Vestments
(Not worn by FGP Clergy)
Vestment
is the term for special
clothing worn by the people
who conduct a worship
service. Vestments have
their origin in the ordinary
street clothes of the first
century, but have more or
less remained the same as
clothing fashions have
changed. (Most Bible
translations are not
consistent with the names of
articles of clothing, and in
some translations, people go
around wearing ‘garments.’
The original text is
consistent and more
specific.)
Today, vestments are
designed to be worn over
street clothes and serve a
number of practical
purposes: they conceal the
distractions of fashionable
street clothing, they remove
any consideration of what
constitutes appropriate
attire, and they remind the
congregation
that the ministers are not
acting on their own, but
performing in their official
capacities. Vestments are in
almost universal use,
although in some churches
only the choir wears
vestments. Common vestments
include
albs,
chasubles,
and
surplices.
Clericals
(Worn by FGP Clergy)
Clerical is the term to describe the
distinctive street clothing
that clergy wear, such as
black shirts with white
collars. The shirt can be
any color, but the public
often does not perceive it
as a clergy shirt unless it
is black. There are two
kinds,
neckband shirts
and
tab-collar shirts.
Also Cassocks, Cinctures and
Robes are actually Clericals
and not Vestments. Although
it is mandatory for IFGPC
Clergy to wear a Clerical
Collar, IFGPC Clergy have a
choice as to whether they
wear a Cassock, with a
Cincture and a Robe.
Clericals are the normal
Clergy attire for European
Non-Conformist Clergy and
the International Full
Gospel Pentecostal
Church falls into this
category.
Firstly, let's talk about
the origin of Vestments (not
worn by FGP)
We want to
talk about these anyway,
because the general
secularized "Born Again"
Christian and "Born Again"
Christian Ministers today
criticizes them, are against
the wearing of them and
having no idea of their true
origin.
Alb
An alb,
called a
sticharion
in Orthodox churches, is a
plain, lightweight,
ankle-length tunic with long
sleeves. It is generally
worn with a rope
cincture
around the waist. The word
alb
is short for the the Latin
phrase
tunica alba,
which means
white tunic;
accordingly, albs are
usually made of white or
undyed fabric.
In the first
century, the tunic was the
first article of clothing
that you put on in the
morning. Working-class
people wore knee-length
tunics, while older people
and people with less active
occupations wore
ankle-length tunics. It was
possible to wear more than
one tunic at a time for
warmth, but it was
considered gauche to wear a
tunic without a cincture.
The tunic was
originally sleeveless.
Greeks and Romans thought
sleeves were barbaric
because barbarians wore
them. (The barbarians lived
in colder climates.) Tunics
did not acquire sleeves
until the third century,
when a Roman Emperor came
back from a military
campaign wearing a tunic
with sleeves—much to the
horror of the fashion mavens
of the day. A modern alb has
sleeves because we need to
cover street clothing that
has sleeves.
In the first
century, most people wore a
himation
over their tunics. The
himation was a rectangular
garment that was wrapped
around the body. The designs
on the himation, as well as
its color and quality,
varied depending on the
wearer’s sex, occupation,
and social status. Because
of the relatively precarious
way it was worn and the way
it hindered movement, people
had to remove it when they
were engaged in certain
physical activities. For
example, when blind
Bartimaeus ran to Jesus in
Mark 10:46-52, he threw off
his himation. Matthew
9:20-22 tells about a woman
who was healed when she
touched the hem of His
himation. In Revelation 3:5,
3:18, and 4:4
people are given white
himatia. Perhaps the writer
of Revelation wanted us to
think of people who had
received a white tunic at
their baptism now receiving
an elegant and triumphant
white himation to wear over
it. The himation never
became a church vestment,
probably because as
servants, the clergy would
have to remove it anyway.
Scripture
tells us that Jesus wore a
himation over a tunic
to the crucifixion. The
soldiers tore the himation
in four pieces, but because
the tunic was woven in one
piece, they cast lots for
it. Jesus’ tunic would have
been sleeveless and
ankle-length—it was the same
kind of tunic that the high
priest wore when he entered
into the Holy of Holies to
atone for the sins of the
people. Ancient writings
from that period refer to
seamless tunics, but the
technology for weaving them
that way was lost in the
fall of the Roman Empire.
In the first
four centuries of the
Church, people were baptized
in the nude. For propriety,
they were baptized in three
groups: men, women, and
children; and female deacons
baptized the women. When
they emerged from the water,
they were immediately
clothed in a white tunic (a
tunica alba,
or
alb).
For this reason, the alb is
a reminder of baptism and a
symbol of the resurrection
on the Last Day.
Anyone who has a leadership
role in worship can wear an
alb and cincture, whether
they are clergy or lay
people. Only clergy wear a
stole
over the alb. Albs are
increasing in popularity not
only because they are
ecumenical, (Our PHC Comment:
Ecumenism, not something that the
Pentecostal Holiness Church
of Great Britain and Ireland
agrees with) but also because
congregations are
increasingly eager to
conform to the practices of
the ancient Church.
An alb marks
the minister as performing
in an official capacity, not
as a private individual.
Martin Luther wore an alb.
In
addition, a person wearing
an alb is dressed like
Jesus.
Surplice
A surplice is a very
lightweight blouse-like
garment with sleeves. It is
almost invariably white and
it often has lace trim. A
surplice is only worn over a
cassock,
never by itself, and never
over an
alb
or an
academic gown.
The surplice is actually a
type of alb that is designed
to be worn over a cassock.
The cassock and surplice
combination is very common
in Anglican churches, where
it is worn by both clergy
and lay worship leaders.
Now let's talk about Clerical
Attire (worn by FGP)
as again the
general secularized "Born
Again" Christian and "Born
Again" Christian Ministers
today criticizes them, are
against the wearing of them
and having no idea of their
true origin.
The term ‘clericals’ refers
to the clothing and
accessories that clergy wear
as street clothes, such as a
tab-collar shirt,
which make it evident that
they are clergy. The
difference between clericals
and vestments is that
clericals are street
clothes, while vestments are
only worn during worship.
Clergy Shirt
A clergy shirt is a
clerical, not a vestment.
There are two types:
neckband shirts
and
tab-collar shirts.
Though many people associate
clergy shirts with the Roman
Catholic Church, that is
only because of their
denomination's sheer
size makes their clergy
conspicuous. Clergy shirts
(black shirts with white
tabs or collars) are
actually of Protestant
origin. The Rev. Dr. Donald
McLeod of the Church of
England invented the
neck-band shirt style.
Protestant clergy had been
wearing white preaching
bands for quite some time;
McLeod combined them with
the detachable collar that
was in use at the time. The
Roman Catholic Church did
not adopt them as street wear
for its clergy until later.
During the first half of the
twentieth century a
modification of Rev. McLeod’s
design developed into the tab-collar
style. Rev. McLeod was a
Protestant Minister.
Clerical
Collar
A neckband
shirt is a clerical, not a
vestment. It is a type of
shirt that has no collar,
just has a thin band of
cloth around the neck; hence
the name. The shirt has a
fly front; that is, a flap
of cloth that covers the
buttons that go down the
front. Where you would
expect to find a top
button—the one you’d fasten
before putting on a
necktie—the neckband has two
buttonholes that line up.
There is also another button
hole in the neckband in the
center of the back.
The wearer
puts on the shirt, then
sticks a collar stud through
the button hole in the back
of the neckband, then
another collar stud through
the buttonholes in the front
to fasten the two ends of
the neckband together under
the throat. The white
plastic collar has three
small holes in it; one in
the middle and one at each
end. The wearer slips the
center of the collar over
the collar stud in the
front, then wraps the two
ends around the back and
slips them over the collar
stud in the back. The end
effect is a circular collar
that goes completely around
the neck.
Neckband
shirts come in all colors
and fabrics, but the general
public often does not
immediately perceive them as
clergy shirts if they are
not black.
Tab-Collar
Shirt
A tab-collar
shirt is a clerical, not a
vestment. It is a type of
shirt that has a
folded-down collar with an
opening over the top button
over the throat. The shirt
has a fly front; that is, a
flap of cloth that covers
the buttons that go down the
front. The shirt comes with
a white tab that looks
something like a tongue
depressor. After putting on
the shirt, the wearer slips
the tab into place. The
effect is a black collar
with a white rectangle over
the throat.
The terms
“Roman collar” or “Roman
shirt” refer to style, not
origin. Clergy shirts are
Protestant in origin. The
Roman Catholic Church did
not adopt them as street
wear for clergy until the
end of the nineteenth century.
Tab-collar
shirts come in all colors
and fabrics, but the general
public often does not
immediately perceive them as
clergy shirts if they are
not black.
Wearing a Clergy shirt
and white collar
This is
appropriate for leading
informal worship and for
public ministry where
vestments are impractical,
such as visiting the sick.
The advantage of wearing a
clergy shirt to visit people
in the hospital is that
everyone knows what you are
and why you are there. You
have quicker access and
carry greater credibility
with the hospital staff.
Even a delirious patient can
tell that you are a minister
and not some casual visitor.
Cassock
A cassock is a plain,
lightweight, ankle-length
garment with long sleeves,
but no hood. The cassock is
a clerical, not a vestment.
It serves as an undergarment
for vestments, namely the
surplice
(a type of
alb)
and the
stole.
If the
cassock has buttons down the
center of the front, from
the neck to the ankles, it
is called a
Roman
cassock. If it is
double-breasted, it is
called an
Anglican
cassock.
Cassocks are
worn by both clergy and lay
worship leaders, with or
without a surplice. Only
ordained clergy wear a stole
over the surplice.
The main
difference between cassocks
and albs is the color.
(Cassocks are generally
black, albs are generally
white.) They are both
adaptations of first-century
tunics. They both mark the
minister as performing in an
official capacity, not as a
private individual. John
Wesley and Ulrich Zwingli
wore cassocks.
Cassocks are
most common in all
churches. The
cassock-and-surplice
combination is very common
in Anglican churches. The
cassock- robe is very common
in non-conformist churches,
Lutheran, Methodist,
Presbyterian, some Baptist
and some Pentecostal. John Wesley wore a cassock
and surplice, because he was
a priest in the Church of
England. Some choirs wear
cassocks with surplices
instead of robes.
Cincture
A cincture,
called a
poias
in Orthodox churches, is
anything worn around the
waist to gather or hold up
clothing. Often
cinctures made of
a band of cloth or rope. When a
cincture is made of leather
or plastic, or if it is used
with street clothing, it is
called a belt.
Robe
Many people
use the term
robe
as a synonym for
vestment,
but in actual fact, a robe
is not a vestment at all. It
is a ankle-length gown with
long sleeves, designed to be
worn without a
cincture.
They originated from the
middle-east and particularly
from Judaism through early
church times and up and to
the present day. They can be
seen worn by Christian,
Jewish and Islamic clerics
today.
There are four types of
robes, all of which are
modern forms of the academic
robes that professors used
to wear while on the job in
medieval universities. The
four types are
choir robes,
clergy robes,
academic gowns,
and
judicial robes.
Only the first three types
are worn in church. All
types of robes are designed
to be worn over street
clothing. The only vestment
that can be worn over a robe
is a
stole.
Choir robes
come in a large variety of
styles and colors. They give
the choir a unified
appearance. (However, choirs
can wear
cassocks
and
surplices
instead of robes.)
Academic gowns
come
in
three
forms
corresponding to bachelors,
masters, and doctoral
degrees. The doctoral robe
sometimes appears in church.
It has puffy sleeves with
three stripes on the
forearm, indicating that the
wearer possesses a doctoral
degree. When they are used
in church, academic gowns
are most often worn without
the square cap or the long,
decorative hood down the
back that normally complete
the outfit. If there is a
hood, the colors indicate
the wearer’s field of study
and alma mater. (You
can find out the color code
for the
fields
of study.)
Clergy robes
mark clergy who do not have
a doctorate degree or who do
not choose to wear their
doctoral robes. Even though
most clergy have a masters
degree, clergy robes are a
modified form of the
baccalaureate robe, probably
because contemporary masters
robes have an odd
appearance. Clergy robes are
nearly identical to judicial
robes, except that clergy
robes often have a sort of
built-in stole; a wide
stripe running down both
sides of the zipper in the
front, often with decorated
with Christian symbols.
Unlike
vestments, robes are not
worn by lay leaders. The
original purpose of the robe
was to indicate that the
wearer had the authority of
academic credentials. John
Calvin started the tradition
of wearing academic robes in
church. He was not able to
wear vestments because he
was not ordained clergy, but
he did have an academic law
degree. For that reason,
clergy robes are most common
in churches that are in the
Reformed tradition, such as
Presbyterian churches, and
in other groups with
Calvinist roots, such as
Baptists. Also the wearing
of academic robes was
carried by Arminians into
Methodism. Choir robes are
nearly universal.
Robes or
Gowns that we presently see
worn by Christian ministers are
called a Geneva Gown,
because of their particular
adaptation in style, which
originated in Geneva.
Geneva gowns
originated in medieval times
as academic gowns. The three
stripes on the sleeve
originally indicated that
the wearer holds a doctorate
degree. University
professors used to wear them
while teaching, and they are
still common at academic
convocations at secular
colleges and universities.
They are common in the
Arminian tradition because
Arminius and Wesley and his
contemporaries wore one and
in the Reformed tradition Calvin wore one. (Calvin was
not clergy). However,
Zwingli, who was also in the
Reformed tradition, wore a
cassock.
(Our FGP Comment:
In Europe, Academic and
Clergy Robes known as the
Geneva Gown is worn as the
norm by Non-Conformist
Protestant Clergy. They are:
Lutheran, Methodist,
Presbyterian, Free
Presbyterians and some
Baptist and Independent
Methodists, as well as
ourselves the Pentecostal
Holiness Church of Great
Britain and Ireland)
Of course,
this only applies to
conducting worship. Jesus
forbade wearing worship
attire in the marketplace,
so we don’t do that, except
when we are street preaching
or if we are involved in
other acts of public worship:
Then in
the audience of all the
people he said unto his
disciples, Beware of the
scribes, which desire to
walk in long robes, and
love greetings in the
markets, and the highest
seats in the synagogues,
and the chief rooms at
feasts; Which devour
widows' houses, and for
a shew make long
prayers: the same shall
receive greater
damnation.
—Luke 20:45-47, KJV
Outside the context of
worship, clergy must
dress
plainly
and with a clerical collar
if they are "on duty", because this
simply makes them
identifiable as clergy.
Why
FGP Clergy
wear
Clericals
Clothing conveys a Message
A business suit in our opinion is
completely inappropriate,
because it is worldly. The
church is not a business. A
business suit is
fashionable, it is
comfortable, and it
expresses the wearer’s sense
of style, and these are
precisely the reasons why it
should not be worn.
Ministers are not supposed
to be representing the
changing fashions of this
world, but the unchanging
mercies of our God. Their
primary concern should not
be their own comfort, but
the spiritual well-being of
their congregation. They
should not be representing
themselves, but God.
Business suits also allow
the clergy to pass for a lay
person, which means that
newcomers and visitors might
not know who the pastor is.
Clothing
conveys a message. A
business suit says, “Money!”
A police uniform says,
“Law!” A tuxedo says,
“Wedding!” Casual clothing
says, “Me!” Clericals say,
“Church!” Any of those
messages might be valid in
different contexts, so you
have to make sure you are
wearing the right clothes
for the occasion. If you
wear a business suit in a
department store, people
will mistake you for the
manager. If you wear a
tuxedo to a football game, they
won’t ask you to play. If
you wear a jogging outfit to
a fancy restaurant, your
clothing says, “I wandered
in here by mistake,” and the
staff will treat you
accordingly.
The word
clericals
refers to the special
clothing that clergy wear
outside of worship services,
usually consisting of a
white collar on a black
shirt, combined
with other clothing that is
either black or grey.
If you are a
pastor and you think you are
aggrandizing yourself when
you wear clericals, you’ll
be disappointed. The
congregation quickly gets
used to the clericals and
they see them as badges of
service, not honour.
Clericals put you in the
same functional category as waiters, police
officers, airline pilots,
and so on. We do not dress
to please ourselves, or
anyone else for that matter;
our manner of dress
facilitates our service. It
makes our function obvious
to strangers. It makes our
duties inescapable, and it
constrains our personal
conduct, because we can’t
disappear into the crowd
when we are wearing
clericals. Clericals mean
that visitors don’t have to
ask, “Where is the pastor?”
They know just by looking.
Clericals
also have other advantages.
They communicate to the
congregation that you are
not a proxy child, a
potential date, a worldly
expert, or a bosom buddy. It
allows you to focus on the
job of being a pastor, without
slipping and sliding into
those role conflicts and
boundary issues your
denomination keeps warning
you about.
A minister
was required by his
ministerial association to
wear a clergy shirt with a
tab collar while he was
traveling. He thought it was
a huge imposition on his
personal liberty, until he
obeyed. On the airplane, he
heard a confession of faith,
reassured a frightened
traveler, and calmed a
terrified child. He was
delighted that a routine air
flight had turned into
pastoral ministry. If you
are clergy and you’ve never
worn a clergy shirt to visit
people in the hospital, you
should try it. The clergy
shirt means you don’t have
to explain what you are or
why you are there. The staff
extends you all necessary
courtesies, and even
delirious patients know
right off what you are. You
can get in after visiting
hours, even if you’ve never
been to that particular
hospital before.
If you called
the police because of a
burglary in my house, you
would not be reassured if
the police showed up driving
a sports car with his kids
in the back, and wearing
jeans and loafers. If you
are
in distress because of a
crime, you want the police to
arrive in a police car and
you
want them to be wearing
freshly pressed uniforms. If
you have just been through a
burglary, you don’t need a
buddy, you don’t need a
narcissist expressing
himself in his clothing, you
need a policeman. You need a
policeman who will carry out
the law, not his
self-expression. You couldn’t
care less about who he is
personally; You called him as
a representative of a
greater force. Similarly, if
you am on my deathbed,
facing the greatest
spiritual crisis in your life,
you don’t
want a buddy to come express
himself. You want a properly
uniformed and equipped
minister of God who
subordinates himself to his
ministry, and who
confidently and
authoritatively represents
God.
Our church
membership deserve nothing
less.
When you
visit people in the hospital
or in jail, for example,
what sort of message do you
convey with your clothing?
If you show up in casual
clothes, you are trying to
say, “I’m just one of the
gang,” but they hear the
message, “I’m not taking
this seriously.” If you show
up in a business suit, you
are trying to say, “I’m a
well-dressed capable
person,” but they hear the
message, “I’m a man of the
world.”
When you are
watching television, you can
tell right off what sort of
character has just appeared
on the screen, because
script writers take
advantage of our cultural
stereotypes to dress the
characters to give us the
right first impression. For
example, if the character is
supposed to be an inhibited
secretary, they pull her
hair back in a bun, put
glasses on her face, and
give her plain make up. When
she loses her inhibitions,
they signal the change by
removing the glasses,
letting her hair down, and
improving her make up. Very
few actresses play romantic
scenes with their hair up in
a bun.
So have you
been paying attention to the
way they dress the
characters who are supposed
to be clergy? It tell us what sort of
ministers they are by the
way they are dressed:
If the minister is a shyster
who is fleecing his flock
for their money, he is most
often wearing a sports coat
and tie.
If the minister is the
manipulative type who is
gradually transforming his
congregation into a
mind-control cult, he is
most often wearing a
well-tailored business suit,
shirt and tie.
If the minister is an
activist who is crusading
against the establishment,
he is most often wearing
casual clothing, with a
tab-collar shirt under his
sweater or leather jacket.
If the minister is
"daddy-cool", who is trying
to keep up with "Christian-Television-Cool" and be
a look-alike-wannabe,
he is most often wearing
casual clothing, jeans, open
neck shirt or tee-shirt
under his or leather jacket.
If the minister is competent
and respectable, and if he
is performing a valuable
spiritual service (such as a
wedding, funeral, or
exorcism) in a dignified
setting, he is most often
wearing clericals on the
street and vestments or
clericals in
church.
(It is interesting to note,
that most of those who don't
wear clericals, have the
most pharisaic attitude
towards those who wear them.
They have ended up
legalistic about not being
legalist. This decision to
wear secular dress was
started by evangelical
Protestant individuals in
the nineteenth century,
firstly because the Roman
Catholic Church seemed to
high-jack the Protestant
Clerical Collar and secondly
because of their wrong
reasoning, thinking that to
throw away all vestiges of
what they thought was
"religiousness" was a
"Godly" action. What they
thought was wisdom from God
to repudiate the wearing of
Clerical Attire, has ended
up in the secularization of
the "Born Again" Christian
understanding of dress code.
However, now they dress like
the world, talk like the
world, try to make their
worship services compete
with the world.
Interesting!)
Objection: But Jesus Didn’t
Wear Clericals!
Now of course
there is the objection that
Jesus allegedly wore the
clothing of the working man,
not special clothes of the
clergy. The assertion
doesn’t stand up to close
scrutiny in Scripture. In
many places, people walked
up to Jesus out of the blue,
addressed Him as “teacher,”
which the New Testament
informs us is the
translation of the word
“rabbi.”
Then
Jesus turned, and saw
them following, and
saith unto them, What
seek ye? They said unto
him, Rabbi, (which is to
say, being interpreted,
Master,) where dwellest
thou?
—John
1:38, KJV
Without
knowing
who
He was (that is, Jesus),
they knew
what
He was (that is, a rabbi),
because they asked him to do
rabbinical things: to heal
the sick, cast out demons,
settle disputes, probate
wills, and decide religious
issues:
And when
he was gone forth into
the way, there came one
running, and kneeled to
him, and asked him, Good
Master, what shall I do
that I may inherit
eternal life?
—Mark
10:17, KJV
If they
thought He was a rabbi,
these were reasonable
expectations, because those
were the duties of rabbis.
However, in John 7, Jesus
attends a festival at the
Temple and even though
everyone is talking about
Him, they are unaware that
He is among them in the
crowd. Since there was no
photography in those days,
we can understand that
strangers would not
recognize Him by His face.
There was no television
newscaster to say, “Galilean
rabbi draws large crowds
with His controversial
miracles—film at eleven.”
But when
his brethren were gone
up, then went he also up
unto the feast, not
openly, but as it were
in secret. Then the Jews
sought him at the feast,
and said, Where is he?
And there was much
murmuring among the
people concerning him:
for some said, He is a
good man: others said,
Nay; but he deceiveth
the people. Howbeit no
man spake openly of him
for fear of the Jews.
Now about the midst of
the feast Jesus went up
into the temple, and
taught. And the Jews
marvelled, saying, How
knoweth this man
letters, having never
learned?—John
7:10-15, KJV
So we have to
ask: how could they know He
was a rabbi in one
circumstance, but not in
another? Why were people
surprised by His expertise
at the Feast in John
7:10-15, when they took it
for granted in situations
such as Mark 10:17? The only
explanation is that they
knew by the way He was
dressed. When they addressed
Him as a rabbi, He must have
been dressed like a rabbi;
the surprise was not that He
was a rabbi, but how He
handled their requests. In
John 7, they did not
recognize Him as a rabbi, so
they were surprised that He
knew rabbinical things. He
must not have been dressed
as a rabbi. The only way He
could attend the Feast “in
secret” was to go without
wearing rabbinical clothes.
While Jesus
definitely did not wear a
black shirt with a white
collar, He obviously wore
the first-century
equivalent. So clergy who
wear clericals are imitating
Christ. We think that clergy
who do not wear clericals
have the more difficult
position to defend.
Objection: Some People Have
an Adverse Reaction to
Clericals!
Conflict-avoidant people
raise this objection, but
there are two problems with
letting other people’s
phobias dictate your
wardrobe. The first is that
you are not solving their
problem by changing your
clothes, you are only
letting it fester
unresolved. The second is
that if you are driven by
your own fears of what other
people will think of you,
you’re on a slippery slope
to second-guessing yourself
into total ineffectiveness. If
someone has a problem with
clerical dress, at least
this exposes it so you can
help them overcome it. We
observe, however, that this
problem is more apprehension
than substance. A person who
is assertive without being
authoritarian or bossy is
said to have a strong
character.
Objection: But a Collar
Would Make Me Look Catholic
(or whatever)!
The inventor of the
clergy shirt, the Rev. Dr.
Donald McLeod, was not
Catholic. The wearing of the
Clerical Collar is growing
again amongst Protestantism.
Objection: None of This
Applies to my Congregation!
A black shirt
with a white collar makes
you look like ordained
clergy. If that is what you
really are, why not dress
like it?
So, let's talk about some of
these Christian titles and
what they mean.
Again sadly,
most secularized dressed
clergy will say that titles
are prideful and are
irrelevant today. Today, if
you use a title, the trend
is to as quickly as possible
to get you to a first name
basis and even shorten that
if possible. The Revd. Dr.
Kenneth G. Williams Ph.D.,
D.D. is quickly brought down
to the Rev. Williams, then
Rev. Kenneth, then Rev. Ken
and eventually Ken or Kenny.
Why does this happen? Those
who do it would say that it
is endearment that is making
them "get to know" their
pastor better. But this
breeds familiarity and the
primary reason that it
quickly happens today is the
hope that if you get
familiar with the Minister
then that Minister will not
"blast" you for your sinful
lifestyle because "isn't he
supposed to be your friend?".
The clergy are not primarily
your friend at all. They are
firstly the friend of God,
and how God sees things,
what God thinks about things
and delivering those Godly
commands on the earth.
So it's not "Kenny baby" that
preaches to you in Church,
or "Stevo" that is the
visiting clergy dude from
Coolsville. And it's not "Oi
Vicar!"
When we get to heaven you
won't march up to Jesus on
His throne and say, "Hey
dude, hey Jeezy baby, uh!
I'm a joint heir with you
dude and uh, get down off
that throne for a minute and
let me try it, I mean, I
should be able to be seated
on it aswell."
Now, this same spirit
emanates out of a lot of
ordinary evangelical
Protestants today even if
they are just not as crass
as that. Why? Because of
ignorance, the refusal to
accept rank and file
hierarchy in the church, the
democratization of church
government and lastly the
wrong expansion of "equality
at the cross" into "His
callings" as well.
We repudiate this outrageous
pulling down of titles, rank
and file and hierarchy,
because it is satanic and
comes from a rebellious
heart of ignorant inverted
snobbery and hypocritical
pride, whilst accusing those
who use titles as promoting
pride and unscriptural
respect.
Here is an explanation of
titles, including some that
we do not use
Bishop
(used by FGP)
Bishop
is the English version of
the Greek word (episkopos),
which means overseer or
supervisor. (Note the
progression from episkopos
to piskop to bishop.) The
qualifications for bishops
are given in 1 Timothy 3,
but there is no scriptural
description of their duties.
In the first century, the
local church was headed by a
bishop and the priests
served as a board of
advisors who also functioned
as
clergy
under the bishop’s
direction. By the time of
Ignatius at the end of the
first century, the Church
had grown. By that time,
bishops had territorial
supervision over several
churches, while the
presbyters
were responsible for
pastoral care of individual
churches. Ignatius describes
a system identical to the
modern practice, well in
accord with Titus 1:6-9 and
the situation in the seven
letters in Revelation.
Bishops wear purple
clericals.
In the historic church, a
bishop is a regional
minister, a
priest
with administrative duties
over a group of churches in
a territory called a
diocese.
Only bishops can preside at
the rite of ordination. An
individual bishop can ordain
a deacon or a priest, but it
takes three bishops to
consecrate a new bishop. A
Roman Catholic bishop must
remain unmarried. An
Anglican, Lutheran, or
Methodist bishop can be
married. In the eastern
Church, only unmarried
priests can become bishops,
and bishops are not
permitted to marry.
Canon
(person) (not used by FGP)
A canon is a
priest
who serves on the staff of a
cathedral.
The duties of a canon
include conducting worship
and performing pastoral
services, especially when
the
bishop
is visiting other churches
in the
diocese.
If John Smith is a canon of
a cathedral, he is called
the Rev. Canon John Smith.
(The word
‘canon’ also has
another meaning.)
Clergy
(used by FGP)
The word clergy comes from a
Latin word that means
“office holder.” It refers
to
ordained
ministers who are authorized
to conduct the rites and
sacraments of the church.
Some clergy may have
administrative duties at
various regional and
national levels of a church.
In some legal
jurisdictions, clergy status
may automatically empower a
person to perform legally
binding weddings; in others,
clergy must obtain a license
from the court. Courts
generally do not require
clergy to divulge what
people have told them in
confidence; this is often
called
the sanctity of the
confessional.
However, there can be
exceptions. Many legal
jurisdictions impose
criminal penalties on clergy
who do not immediately
report information about
certain types of crimes,
such as suspected child
abuse, even if the
information was given in
confidence.
Curate (not
used by FGP)
Curate
is an Anglican term for
assistant pastor. The word
cure
is related to the word
care.
A
curate
is a person who takes care
of a
cure,
that is, the congregation,
viewed as a spiritual
charge. Assistant pastors
are usually assigned the
duty of routinely visiting
the members of the
congregation who are sick,
shut-in, or in distress;
hence the term. The word
curator
(as in a museum) is related.
See also
rector
and
vicar.
Deacon (used
by FGP)
The word
deacon
comes from the Greek word
(diakonos), which
means servant. The New
Testament records the
appointment of the first
deacons in Acts 6 and lists
their qualifications for
office in 1 Timothy 3. The
New Testament describes the
function of the first
deacons, but it does not lay
down a general charter for
the function of deacons in
the church. Up through the
fourth century, deacons had
administrative functions,
and because even the largest
churches limited themselves
to seven deacons, they often
had more power and prestige
than the presbyters, who
nominally outranked them.
This situation was corrected
by the Council of
Constantinople in AD 381 and
by allowing larger churches
to have as many deacons as
they needed. Today,
depending on the church, a
deacon can be any of the
following: a member of the
clergy;
a lay minister; or a lay
administrator.
Elder
(not used by FGP)
Elder
is the English word which
translates the Greek word
presbuteros
(or
presbyter),
which came down to us in
English as
priest.
Father
(not used by FGP)
In
Roman Catholicism, in
Orthodoxy, and to some
degree in Anglicanism,
people often address
priests
as
father.
In general usage, if John
Smith is a priest, he is
called
Father
John,
but if he is an Anglican
priest, he might be called
Father Smith.
Protestants do not call
their
clergy
father,
based on Matthew 23:9, but
they do not use the same
reasoning to ban the term
teacher
(Matthew 23:10), so the
prohibition is mainly a
reaction against Roman
Catholic practice. Groups
who do use this term argue
that the context
(Matthew 23:1-12) only
forbids Christian leaders to
use titles such as
father
and
teacher
hypocritically or for
self-promotion. They use
1 Corinthians 4:15 as an
example of how the term
father
can rightly be applied to a
Christian leader. However,
if you are writing a letter
to
Father John Smith,
the address on the envelope
should say
The
Reverend
John Smith.
Minister
(used by FGP)
Minister
is the Latin word for doer
of little deeds, as opposed
to a magistrate, who is a
doer of great deeds. In some
churches, the word
minister,
if they are an "ordained
minister"
denotes a person who is
charged with the spiritual
care of a church. In most
churches,
"to
minister"
is a generic term
that includes all who assist
in worship, whether
clergy
or lay.
Pastor
(used by FGP)
Pastor is the
Latin word for shepherd.
This word refers to the
ordained minister who is
charged with the primary
spiritual care of a local
church.
Presbyter
(used by FGP)
The Greek word (presbyteros)
is used in the New Testament
for people who perform the
functions of
clergy
in the Church. It means
elder. The English word that
developed over time from
presbyter is
priest.
(Note the progression from
presbyter to prester to
priest.) The qualifications
for presbyters are given in
1 Timothy 5, but their
duties are not listed in
scripture. The office,
function, and name came into
the Church from the ancient
synagogue.
Presbyters, that is, regular
ordained clergy, wear black
clericals.
Presbytery
(used by FGP)
The word
presbytery
has several meanings in
current use. In Presbyterian
churches, it refers to a
council of presbyters
(elders) and a geographical
area that corresponds to a
diocese.
In the Catholic Church, it
can refer to a priest’s
residence.
Presbytery
is also a synonym for
priesthood.
Priest
(not used by FGP)
Priest
is the English word that
originated from the Greek
word
(presbyteros), which means
elder. (Note the progression
from
presbyter
to prester to priest.)
Originally, this was the
normal word for Christian
clergy.
Over time it took over the
meaning of (hiereus
or hierarch) and was
extended by way of analogy
to Jewish and then pagan
clergy. Some groups avoid
priest
as if it were pagan, when it
is in fact entirely
Christian and scriptural in
origin. The Greek word for a
temple functionary is
hierarch.
In many New
Testament translations, the
word
priest
is used to translate both
presbyter and
hierarch, which can confuse
the reader. It gives the
false impression that the
Church has no clergy or that
all Christians are clergy.
The Greek New Testament
teaches a
hierarchy
of all believers, not a
presbytery
of all believers—meaning
that all Christians have
direct access to God, but
not all have administrative,
supervisory, or sacramental
duties in the Church. (See 1
Peter 2:1-10 in the original
Greek.)
Priests, that is, regular
ordained clergy, wear black
clericals.
Priesthood
(not used by FGP)
Priesthood
is a synonym for
clergy
in Anglican, Catholic, and
Orthodox churches. The
phrase
priesthood of all believers
comes from 1 Peter 1:4-10.
In this passage, the word
priesthood
translates a Greek word that
does not refer to
presbyters,
but to people who have
direct access to God. Thus
this passage says that all
Christians have direct
access to God; it does not
say that all Christians are
clergy.
Rector
(not used by FGP)
Rector
is the
Anglican word for the
elected pastor of a
financially self-supporting
congregation. The term
derives from the fact that
if there are multiple
clergy
on staff in a church, the
pastor has primary
responsibility for directing
the worship. Historically in
the Church of England, the
terms “rector” and “vicar”
had different meanings, but
today the distinction lies
in the history of the
parish. See also
vicar.
Reverend
(used by FGP)
The term
reverend
is an adjective that simply
indicates that a person is a
member of the
clergy.
In the
United States,
it is abbreviated
Rev;
outside the United States,
it is abbreviated
Revd.
If John Smith is a member of
the clergy, you can refer to
him in writing as
The Revd. John Smith,
or
The Revd. Smith.
If he has a doctorate
degree, you can refer to him
as
The Revd. Dr. John Smith,
or
The Revd. Dr. Smith.
When you are talking to him,
you can address him as
Reverend Smith,
but it is usually considered
impolite to call him just
Reverend.
If John Smith is clergy in
another church, and you are
unsure what to call him or
you are uncomfortable with
his customary title, call
him
Reverend Smith
and no one will be offended.
If, for example, you are a
Protestant and you are
speaking to a Roman Catholic
priest who refers to himself
as
Father John,
he will not be offended if
you call him
Reverend John,
because it is actually
correct. Nevertheless, most
members of the clergy are
humble and are not offended
if you get their titles
wrong.
When in
doubt, refer to clergy as
“Revd. So-and-so.” That way
no one will think you are
being disrespectful.
Vicar
(not used by FGP)
In the
Anglican Communion, if a
church is not financially
self-supporting and is
unable to pay a full-time
pastor, the bishop is
nominally the pastor. The
bishop appoints a priest to
do the actual work. Since
this priest is only
functioning as a stand-in
for the bishop, he or she is
called a
vicar
from
the Latin word for stand-in.
When the church becomes
self-supporting, its
vestry
calls and elects a
rector
to take the place of the
vicar. Historically in the
Church of England, the terms
“rector” and “vicar” had
different meanings, but
today the distinction lies
in the history of the
parish.
We do trust that this we
page has been informative,
but more importantly changed
your mind in regards to
clerical attire as you now
know the facts regarding
their origins and purpose
