Ashton and Davis
On page 102 Ashton mentions the garments worn by priests. I was impressed by the fact that he did not simply bow to his tradition but rather questioned practices that are not biblical. I appreciated hearing the Anglican priest’s historic explanation of priestly wear on Tuesday. I agree, however, with this week’s author that a different dresscode for the leader of a ceremony and the laity can promote a mistaken notion: that an elite group exists which has easier access to the Father than the rest of the church. This runs against the Biblical teaching that there is but one go between man when it comes to God and man, and that is the great high priest, Jesus Christ. My question to you is this: what reasons can you think of for why a ceremony leader should or should not wear distinctive dress?
Perhaps it’s only because I’ve just read “Pagan Christianity,” but now I’m having a terribly difficult problem with the adjective, “biblical.” Clearly, we’re only going to question whether something we do in church is biblical if it is unfamiliar, or tired.
There is so very little biblical direction for what we should do or wear “in church.”
Frankly, most churches these days have a severe distinction between what the guy in the pew is wearing from what the guy in the pulpit is wearing. The chasm between my Sunday best (non-thriftstore-purchase), and the $1k suit in the pulpit is wide. Personally, I appreciate that my pastor’s position on the capitalist hierarchy at the expense of my tithe is hidden behind the cassock.
I’ve got lots of thoughts along these lines, and should probably save them ’til Tuesday (nice little nod to Amee Mann.) But also would like to say that I think the teaching, lifestyle, demeanor, etc., of the clergyman, will have much more to do with his congregation believing he is above them or not.
Truly, I exist concurrently in Christian communities, and the one in which the clergy wear clerical collars and cassocks is not the one where elitism is felt.
Only one time have I seen clerical robes worn and I felt it was showy – He was wearing a huge gold necklace with the emblem of the church in front of his fitted robe with glorious, colorful piping like a military uniform. Perhaps, not the best choice.
I appreciated what Pastor Chip said about his clerical wear – that it marks him in the community as someone that can be approached, so that even a non-church member would recognize him as a pastor and could “use” him. That is so different from the idea of wearing robes to elevate the pastor in the eyes of the congregation. To agree with Uncle Rod, it more often removes the pastor’s individuality for me.
I agree with Dr. Lewis!
ok, since you all know it, I’m not going to say here, again, that it is ok to disagree with me!
I think a ceremony leader should not wear distinctive dress if doing so would be a distraction to anyone he leads. I agree with ciumus4810 that the behavior of this leader will be more an indication of loftiness than dress. However, I do not think that cassocks and collars are a brilliant way to communicate the “priesthood of all believers” (nor do I claim that anyone does). “Capitalist garb” is the garb of many in the culture, and most people probably don’t pay much if any attention to it. So, it is not a distraction.
BUT
Isn’t it the case that in many churches, the congregation is free to dress far more casually than the leaders, even if the leaders are only wearing suits? Maybe we should be careful to think that just because some of us ditch the collars that we are representing biblical theology accurately.
there isn’t much left to say, but i will say that I cannot think of any way off the top of my head when “lofty dress” for pastors or priests can be useful within a congregation. However, outside the walls of the church building it is socially understood that a priest will wear all black with the white collar. That dress in the eyes of outsiders marks him as a “man of God”. So outside the walls of the church I would say that priestly dress can be useful, but wearing them to church just doesn’t mean anything to me. Then again, I don’t know much about it so…
Ok, I could have sworn I’d used the term “capitalist garb” in my comment! Did you just hear me say that somewhere else Jesse?!
Anyway, I differ on the capitalist distraction. For those who’ve not grown up in the church, the suit is often a distraction – in much the same way they cassock is a distraction to those who are not familiar with it.