I continued reflection recently on clergy collars. I announced that I will wear a collar (pontiff style, not the tab) during my internship as a chaplain at Duke Hospital this spring. I think my beloved wife intends the same. I originally asked for some responses from lay persons, but got mostly fellow clergy. All comments were welcomed, thoughtful, and graceful, even when in disagreement with me. I'd suggest reading the comments section of that previous post.The most challenging response came from Gordon, a Baptist in Australia, a contributor to Neobaptist. As I noted in that posting's comment section, I suspect Gordon and I will have some fundamental disagreements that won't change much, but that shouldn't stop graceful Christian conversation. Such conversation can only sharpen our own thinking, and we are called to love God with all our minds (a fundamental assumption of mine and hence this blog). I'm posting my response to Gordon's questions below. Please continue the conversation, honestly and charitably!
*****
1. Did Jesus have a collar – or any other item of clothing that displayed his religiosity?
It's hard to say what clothes Jesus wore since the gospels don't really seem to care about his appearance. We all have to think about what clothes are appropriate for our line of work. Like it or not, pastors are employees - workers who get paid by churches, pay taxes, etc. We have to think about what we'll wear.
2. Under the New Covenant can you find any justification for priestly garments?
This question about justification for "priestly garments" is an old argument, dating back at least to the Reformation. There were two lines of thought on this and similar items, as you probably know. Some said, "If the Bible says nothing about it, then we won't do it." Others, like Martin Luther, said, "If the Bible says nothing about it, then it is ok to do it," assuming of course that whatever it is doesn't violate principles of Scripture. Applied to this discussion, some have said "no" to vestments because the Bible doesn't say we should have them. Others have accepted vestments as legitimate because the Bible says nothing about them. I'm of the latter party. I think everyone is of the latter party in practice. Did Jesus use PowerPoint? Did Jesus drive a car to worship, visit the sick, etc.?
This question about justification for "priestly garments" is an old argument, dating back at least to the Reformation. There were two lines of thought on this and similar items, as you probably know. Some said, "If the Bible says nothing about it, then we won't do it." Others, like Martin Luther, said, "If the Bible says nothing about it, then it is ok to do it," assuming of course that whatever it is doesn't violate principles of Scripture. Applied to this discussion, some have said "no" to vestments because the Bible doesn't say we should have them. Others have accepted vestments as legitimate because the Bible says nothing about them. I'm of the latter party. I think everyone is of the latter party in practice. Did Jesus use PowerPoint? Did Jesus drive a car to worship, visit the sick, etc.?
The fact remains, however, that there is a long Christian tradition of drawing upon priestly imagery for Christian leaders. I admit that this is not always helpful and has sometimes been damaging, but I do not believe that all priestly comparisons are inappropriate. Part of this discussion goest to the role of tradition in biblical interpretation and Christian life. I, for one, am a Protestant who gives tradition a significant voice in both interpreation and guidance for life. This is consitent with my commitments as a Methodist and a Protestant. The Reformers gave great creedance to the early Church Fathers. In short, I think that the Holy Spirit kept working in the Church after the Bible was finally written.
Your question also begs the question on what is "biblical." Is biblical whatever can be word for word detailed in the Bible? Or is biblical whatever is consistent with the principles of Scripture and the God revealed in Jesus Christ? Again, I'm of the latter party. I'll state up front that I'm no Southern Baptist on biblical inspiration. I think Scripture bears true witness to everything necessary for faith and salvation.
Your question also begs the question on what is "biblical." Is biblical whatever can be word for word detailed in the Bible? Or is biblical whatever is consistent with the principles of Scripture and the God revealed in Jesus Christ? Again, I'm of the latter party. I'll state up front that I'm no Southern Baptist on biblical inspiration. I think Scripture bears true witness to everything necessary for faith and salvation.
3. The very name itself: ‘clerical collar’ suggests a ‘clergy’ [read priesthood] and a ‘laity’. Do you believe in a separation between clergy and laity [as indicated in clerical garments]?
Do I believe in a clergy vs. laity distinction? In one sense, yes, I do. I don't believe in the Catholic notion of an ontological change during a priest's ordination. Scripture certainly calls for Christian leadership, as does the earliest non-canonical Christian documents (Igntius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, etc.). We all recognize the practical need for group leadership. The primary Christian leader is the priest/elder/bishop, however you translate the Greek in the New Testament. The main Christian leader in a local church continues the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, i.e receives and hands on the teaching of and about Jesus Christ from the apostles down through the centuries. Preserve and pass on - the two basic functions.
The passing on occurs in the ministries of Word and Sacrament. We as the body of Christ ordain - set aside - leaders to this task. Word and Sacrament equips other Christians for all the various ministries they are gifted for. I don't see the ordained ministry as something above other Christians but the true act of service. It's the paradox of Christian leadership, whether one is a Catholic or Orthodox priest or a Methodist elder. The strings connecting all these thoughts on this point may not be explicitly clear, so I apologize for any confusion.
Do I believe in a clergy vs. laity distinction? In one sense, yes, I do. I don't believe in the Catholic notion of an ontological change during a priest's ordination. Scripture certainly calls for Christian leadership, as does the earliest non-canonical Christian documents (Igntius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, etc.). We all recognize the practical need for group leadership. The primary Christian leader is the priest/elder/bishop, however you translate the Greek in the New Testament. The main Christian leader in a local church continues the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, i.e receives and hands on the teaching of and about Jesus Christ from the apostles down through the centuries. Preserve and pass on - the two basic functions.
The passing on occurs in the ministries of Word and Sacrament. We as the body of Christ ordain - set aside - leaders to this task. Word and Sacrament equips other Christians for all the various ministries they are gifted for. I don't see the ordained ministry as something above other Christians but the true act of service. It's the paradox of Christian leadership, whether one is a Catholic or Orthodox priest or a Methodist elder. The strings connecting all these thoughts on this point may not be explicitly clear, so I apologize for any confusion.
4. Why do you need an outward symbol of your spirituality?
First, I should say I have a strong aversion to the word "spirituality." It's so flimsy as to be almost meaningless. Christians have taken the ridiculous assumption that life in Christ is something ethereal, interior, private, spiritual. Consequently, they refuse to show it in public (think of the oft-said line in American politics: "faith is private"). I confess: I no longer know what that means. If we mean "personal relationship with God," well if that isn't reflected in behavior of some kind, the words make no meaning to me.
Second, human beings thrive on symbols. There are many books documenting this point from an anthropological perspective. I suspect that every Christian has symbolic gestures towards their faith. Baptist churches in the states have steeples. The cross is an "outward symbol." Even for Baptists baptism is a symbol.
Third, the collar can serve as a point of accountability for the wearer. It's a way of saying to those around me, "I'm a Christian leader." In that way, I'm held accountable to who I am in Christ. I've heard the same conversation surrounding the icthus on the back of one's car. Some won't put it on because they don't want other drivers to know that a Christian just cut them off in traffic! One friend of mine, however, has a "clergy" sticker on his car to keep him accountable why driving.
In the context of chaplaincy, i.e. in a hospital like mine, the collar immediately signals that you are a religious leaders, offering you rights and responsibilities not given to others. At Duke, even chaplains wear the white medical coat. The collar will signal that I'm of two worlds, as it were.
My fourth reason leads to the next question...
5. Given that many Americans associate a collar wearing cleric with all manner of evils such as child abuse – hasn’t it lost its power [whatever it had], and does it not invite [in some cases] cynicism and ridicule?
Certainly the collar triggers memories in some Americans of clergy abuse, but I think this off the cuff guesstimate is unnecessarily large. I doubt most people assume that every Catholic priest wearing a collar is a pervert. I'm more aware of the scandal than others and I don't think it, no more than I assume all police officers abuse people because some have.
Actually, I've heard of many positive experiences from those that wear clergy collars. It can actually open doors that were previously closed. Many strangers will approach a collar wearing pastor and ask for prayer. The stranger would have no idea to do so were that person not wearing some visible mark of his or her ministry role. Certainly any Christian could make just as effective a prayer as my own, but the fact remains that no one will approach a stranger in blue jeans and t-shirt because no one knows that the person is a Christian. In the US, at least, the collar provides easier access in hospitals, jails, etc.
Finally on this point, I see no reason why Christians should let their symbols be hijacked by those that corrupt them. Why not reclaim them? We don't abandon the cross because it offends.
6. Do you wish to take with the collar the title [which Scripture only affords of God] - ‘Reverend’?
I'm not sure about the reference of this question. If you're talking about the gospel passage where Jesus says to call no man "father," well...I call my own male biological parent "father," so if that's the point, I guess I'll blow that one till the day I die. And in the US, even Baptist pastors - especially Baptist pastors - are known as "reverend."
Gordon, thanks so much for taking the time to read the blog and post your thoughtful questions. I hope to continue this great conversation!
8 comments:
Dear Casey
Before I continue with debate I would like to acknowledge that your motives with regard to the wearing of a collar are pure and it is in the context of your desire to serve God.
You make some valid points again, but in some I think there has been a misunderstanding and in others I must challenge you further.
Firstly I think the issue of whether Jesus wore some kind of garment that clearly delineated himself from the ‘laity’ is an important question, because it can serve as an argument from precedent. We are called to imitate Christ, to serve rather than to be served. As servants why would we wear something that denotes importance? [Don’t tell me that many clerics don’t wear their clerical attire without a great deal of pride and at times great pomp!].
On the issue of the New Covenant I think you need to ask if there still is a priestly class who mediate between people and God. If not then why would you want to wear anything remotely redolent of an institution Christ transformed? Surely the power of imagery should now be used to highlight the priesthood of ALL believers.
I of course do not subscribe to the simplistic argument that ‘if its not in the Bible then don’t do it’. However I would argue strongly that for an important step like this you should be able to refer to some clear rationale from Scripture to justify the wearing of clerical garments. The issue is far more important than whether or not the Scriptures contain references to Powerpoint. There is no theological justification required to use Powerpoint. There is clear need to have theological justification to wear a dog collar in your role as an ambassador and imitator of Christ. Such justification is nowhere to be found except in the curious and accidental ‘tradition’ of clerical collars.
I’m with you on the importance of traditions – in so far as they point back to key theological truths. I cannot see how the imagery of a collar can do that. The earliest origins of the collar were within the Roman Catholic Church in the 27th Century [collarette], and that is consistent with a church who still perpetuate a priesthood. [The development of the collar was somewhat accidental and may ironically have stemmed from a desire by priests to emulate the dress of their parishioners.].
The latter Protestant development seems to have stemmed from the Oxford Movement and became de rigueur for at least some Anglican clergy by WWI. There was a backlash in the 60’s particularly within the evangelical movement. Therefore there’s a rather flimsy tradition that the whole notion of a collar is based on. Not much of a heritage behind taking the fairly radical decision to delineate yourself so curiously from your fellow believers.
You make my case very clearly yourself by saying, “I don't see the ordained ministry as something above other Christians but the true act of service.” I rest my case. Having said that why would you wear clerical attire that clearly sets you apart from your fellow servants?
On the outward form of your spirituality – I would argue that the outward from Christ calls you to are the disciplines of love and servanthood, and not bumper stickers, collars or Jesus T-shirts. They will know we belong to Jesus by our love.
Having said that as a military chaplain I do wear insignia. Thankfully it is not a collar, but rather we wear cross badges on our lapels. Hospital chaplains in Australia tend to do the same. When we lead religious ceremonies in the military we do have garments [which stay safely in my cupboard!], and I wear a stoll as a bare minimum. The primary point of recognition however are the crosses.
In some contexts it is important that people can recognize who you are and what your role is. When I am in the field I have a large stick which acts like a shepherds crook. The radio call sign for a chaplain is ‘shepherd’. Soldiers can see me from a long distance with my staff and know who I am. In ceremonial parades we carry a staff to delineate us from normal officers involved in combat roles. In operations we wear the insignia of a red cross to delineate us as ‘non-cobatants’.
Therefore I accept that in some contexts insignia is highly relevant. However, that to my mind does not justify the adoption of priestly imagery.
In terms of ‘reclaiming symbols’, I would argue that the collar, as a latter development with an origin in Roman Catholicism is not yours to reclaim as a good Methodist!
Finally, on the issue of taking the ‘title’ [what business does a servant have seeking a title?] of Reverend, what I was referring to was that in Scripture the word occurs once, and refers to God: “God sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant forever: holy and reverend is his name.” [Psalm 111:9]
I’m not sure what business we have claiming that title? The final word in this post can go to Peter in Acts10:25 - As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man mys
Gordon,
Thank you for your thoughts. I'm glad you acknowledge the good motive in my position.
I have to admit: your arguments defending a non-visible separation of a Christian leader from Christian non-leaders carries little weight when you admittedly do just that! I simply can't see the difference between a military chaplain wearing special clothing and any other Christian leader wearing special clothing to identify herself as one.
I grant that having Jesus' model on your side is good but not likely to resolve anything here. Why not wear sandals or other first century garb? You carry a staff in the field; Jesus says in Luke 9:3, "Take nothing for the journey - NO STAFF, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic." Why not take this as the example? I need to see some more support for your method of interpretation here.
On the same note, why not take up a position of pacifism as Jesus did? You questioned the negative associations of the collar, etc. Could not military chaplaincy be read as a support of national violence via the military?
Why don't you have to have a theological justification for PowerPoint? I simply don't see why a clergy collar calls for such justification (which I thought I had provided).
As a Methodist standing in the long line of Christian tradition from the earliest centuries, I believe in ordination. Ordination separates clergy apart from laity, like it or not. Ordination is not given for any special talent the person has, nor as a right, nor to say that this one is better than all others. Ordination sets Christian leaders aside for the ministry of Word, Sacrament, and order. Many in the free church tradition (Baptists and so-called non-denominationals) seem to have a system of choosing leaders in a manner just as, if not more, corrosive than an episcopal government with checks and balances. Again, it's not an ontological difference but functional, but that function of leadership sets the leader apart. I can't make it any more simple than that.
The whole title of "reverend" thing just seems spurious and pedantic. I'm not seeking the title. Call me "pastor" for all I care. I'm not asking for people to worship me as was the man worshiping Peter.
Sorry if this seems abrupt, but I'm pressed for time. Hope my tone remains respectful and genial!
Firstly a correction: collarettes were introduced in the 17th Century rather than the 27th – they aren’t that contemporary! I note that you call yourself a Methodist.
That’s a key difference between us I guess, I do not call myself a Baptist. My primary identity is wrapped up in Christ and his Body rather than any denominational expression of it.
As far as allegiance is concerned, the Baptists still don’t ‘own my soul’, I just happen to have been called to minister within this part of the vineyard. Therefore there are few Baptist sacred cows that I am prepared to go the barricades on.
I think there is a wholesale difference between the non-issue of Powerpoint and Collars. Powerpoint is a modern software that enables effective [and also no-effective!] presentation. The wearing a collar is an issue which Christians disagree on, and for good reason.
The wearing of a collar clearly differentiates some Christians from others and also draws into the debate the imagery of priesthood in an epoch where the only mediator between man and God is Christ. The two issues do not belong on the same page let alone planet.
The reason I wear a uniform in my military role is because I HAVE to. In my civilian role I do not have to [like you] and so if I do it through a tacit choice.
I do exercise my choice in my military role in that I decline to wear a collar, gown, robe etc. The wearing of a stoll draped over my shoulders if anything is to delineate me from combat officers in a ceremonial setting.
The issue of pacifism if for another thread I guess, except to say that I am a non-combatant, do not carry a gun and in place of that I carry a staff, which again is not something I would ever do in a civilian setting. [my military chaplaincy is part time].
Not sure what you are getting at in terms of Baptists and a ‘corrosive’ system of ordination, you’ll have to elaborate. Ordination as you and I know it in our denominations is once again an institution which we have developed rather than something which is clearly laid down in Scripture. [I do broadly support the rigorous process involved in ordination and think it is necessary]
The Holy Spirit didn’t have to jump through the 5-7 year hoops we have created to gift and ‘ordain’ people to minister.
On the issue of pastor as a title I routinely call people who address me by that ‘title’ by their own, “good morning Accountant John”, “hi Lawyer Steve!”.
To me pastor is a descriptive term, a designation rather than a ‘title’. We are here to imitate Christ who cam to serve and not to be serve. He humbled himself even to death. We surely have no business seeking any titles or any honorifics?
I respect the impulse many have to not identify with a denomination but more broadly with the whole Body of Christ. However, I think a failure to acknowledge our own commitments may also fail to respect the real differences Christians have with one another. I'm a Methodist for many reasons. I like Wesley and generally agree with him, but do value the broader Body (hence our conversation).
I don't mean to press the Powerpoint vs. collars thing too far, but my points are two. First, you give no justification as to why the two issues are different. You simply assert it and move on. Second, this still comes down to a question of hermeneutics. You've called us back to the model of Jesus again and again, and rightly so, yet we all come to Jesus as model with different assumptions. We all assume that certain things about Jesus' life are not to be carried over to our lives (his clothing, his language, his career as carpenter, etc.). Those aren't clear in this conversation, at least not explicitly.
Ultimately, I still think this comes down to one's view of Scripture as I've been saying all along, and the proper role of tradition. I like Christian tradition and think it can help us appropriate Scripture better than we can on our own.
This also comes down to notions of leadership. I agree that our roles as pastors are ultimately functional, and I've stressed repeatedly that my role as a Christian leader does not rely on something in me of my own that makes me better than others, nor does it make me better by being a leader. BUT...I'm still a leader. It's best for me to acknowledge that role and to take its responsibilities seriously. Part of doing so - for me - is wearing something like a collar to remind me of my role as Christian and as leader. Wearing it also is an invitation to others to speak to me as a Christian. It opens door. If a collar will bring people closer to the kingdom, then I'm all for it. I understand that some people have issues with the collar, but I'll work to change that and I think they're few and far between. Some people who've been abused have issues with touching, but we don't abandon affectionate touches with everyone because a few are bothered by it. We just strive to make appropriate contact with those who've been harmed and build a personal relationship of trust.
Gordon, this has been great and instructive. Feel free to keep talking about this. If I don't respond right away it's because my life has gotten way more hectic with chaplaincy, family, church work, and my wife's school. Blessings on you, brother!
Good stuff Casey, I have a US Military Chaplains kit for communion and included is a couple of laminated prayers. They are very generic and I would be curious if Australia has similar generic prayers that strive to be inclusive of the variety of faith traditions everyone serving might come from.
One argument I heard a pastor use for a collar - you already mentioned - which was quick and easy access to restricted areas during times of emergency when ministry is needed most for those suffering. He used 9/11 as an example of a place he was able to get into without hassle due to his collar.
Casey
Let’s get Powerpoint out the way. For something to have a theological basis it usually involves actions, beliefs, traditions predicated on a biblical basis, i.e. baptism, sacraments, church polity etc. Elevating Powerpoint to the same level is bizarre [I say with respect..of course].
I need no theological justification is I eat subway for lunch today, use Wordpress instead of Blogger, etc If I choose to start calling God ‘Mother God’ from this Sunday and the Holy Spirit as ‘She’ I would need to have a sound theological basis for my actions.
Because the wearing of a collar has theological implications it is an entirely different kettle of fish that whether you use Word or Open Office. You are sharp enough o appreciate this point.
The Apostle Paul took a dim view of following people, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas]". Perhaps we can insert some other names in there: Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Driscoll, Warren, Hybels, Spong? I cannot find any justification for any primary allegiance to people or institutions other than the Body of Christ. I draw upon Wesley and others to inspire and inform my journey of faith and knowledge, but never to extend to taking on the name of an institution to describe myself – “I am a Baptist”, “I am a Weslyan”, “I am a Democrat”. I may identify very strongly with things Baptist, Weslyan or Democrat but it can never be said to be my identity – so I won’t ever say it.
Scripture provides very little theological precedent for the elevation of ‘tradition’. Much of the ‘tradition’ of the Church [not all] come from periods of history when the church did not cover itself in glory. Constantine had perhaps the most devastating effect, transforming an organic expression of the body of Christ overnight into a state institution. Christians went virtually overnight from being a persecuted minority into cahoots with an all powerful state who changed from killing believers to killing those who weren’t believers. Are you able to satisfy yourself that in God’s scheme of things ‘tradition’ is something you need to perpetuate?
You say “It's best for me to acknowledge that role and to take its responsibilities seriously. Part of doing so - for me - is wearing something like a collar to remind me of my role as Christian and as leader.” I accept your desire to take your role seriously – but there is a giant leap in logic from that to wearing a collar to ‘remind’ yourself of your role as a Christian. This seems to be a flimsy rationale for a collar.
I accept that in say 9/11 a collar was useful [for some]. I remember seeing a lot of pictures of counsellors at ground zero with high viz vests with their role designated. Casey, howsabout an attractive name tag instead of a collar? Not important enough a symbol? How important does it need to be? Howsabout an attractive lanyard with a smart identity card on it? That seems to work for other people who need to identified in a hospital:
• Doctors
• Nurses [not always in uniform in Australia]
• Specialists
• Psychologists
• Physiotherapists
How do patients know who these people are? Well outside of a uniform, most specialists have a ….. name badge. So Casey, is an effective and clearly readable name tag OK?
My name tag does it for me at local business & community leader functions. People know me already so no name tag needed most of the time.
Livefish – we do have a service called the ‘United Service’ that has a liturgy that has been agreed by the Anglicans [Episcopal] and Catholics. Communion is shared at these meetings but the Catholics [the ones with the dog collars on!], decline cos we haven’t done the mojo on the elements.
We have a book of prayers as well for all manner of things, many of which I avoid and refer to the Anglicans or Catholics [blessing of memorials including rocks with brass plates on them!, blessing of colours, armoured vehicles, chapel furniture!!!]
warm regards,
Gordon
www.neobaptist.com
Saw your comment on the young clergy blog and really enjoyed this post. I'm a former Duke grad ('04) and have a friend that wears a clerical collar in contemporary worship with some sort of designer jean. The congregation was initially uneasy but eventually began to accept the collar.
I only have an isuue with being on/off the job. You can take off the collar but you can never take off the office.
Casey:
Our Annual Conference (North Alabama) was this past Friday and Saturday, and I saw two clergy collars. I myself have strongly considered purchasing at least one shirt to wear at similar events, funerals, while visiting the sick/homebound, etc.
I read in John 19:23 that the Roman soldiers cast lots for Jesus' clothing. This was because He wore a garment that was seamless. Now, I've always heard and read that only the Rabbis wore such garments. Further, I see throughout the Gospels that people come to Jesus and address Him "Rabbi" or "Teacher". In other words, Jesus dressed like the religious establishment. I also strongly suspect that He was the ruler (chief elder) of a synagogue for a while in Capernaum, because Luke 4:16 talks about Him going into the synagogue and standing up to read "as was His custom". This suggests to me that He was the "senior pastor" of the local synagogue.
I think that, given these things, if Jesus were here in human form today, He would probably wear a clerical collar. I think He would wear vestments when leading worship. Of course, this is just my own opinion, and I don't mean to exclude the ideas of others.
Thank you for wearing the clerical collar. I think more clergypersons should do so as well.
Post a Comment