I spend a lot of my time trying to explain what it means to be in a Free Church tradition. There is so much church hopping and so little explanation about ecclesiological principles that many people really have no clue what the difference is between, say, a Baptist and a Methodist. And then we do things like this that make things that much harder . . . For a long, long, long, long time, certain churches have required their leaders to wear special clothing that sets them apart from the regular church members and visitors. "That's not a big deal, is it?" you say. After all, most companies out there require employees to wear some kind of uniform. And is there not great value in that? When you walk into a store, you know exactly who to ask for help. When you walk through a public event, you know exactly who is on security. That's good. So, if you were walking through life and had a spiritual question, wouldn't it be helpful if you could quickly identify an "expert"? Clericals and VestmentsObviously, some people think the answer to that question should be yes. To make that identification, there has evolved a style of dress unique to clergy: clericals (which clergy wear out and about) and vestments (which clergy wear in church services). This goes way back before Judaism, where Egyptian priests wore special robes. This should only make sense in every culture where priests are expected to perform sacred, ritual duties that would have a lot of rules attached to them as to how to perform those duties correctly so as not to offend the associated god. Jews, who served the One True God, were also given rules about priestly attire and purification for the time that they would spend either in the presence of God (with the various offerings) or in the service of God (with the various sacrifices). But with the first exile and destruction of the temple and subsequent rise of the synagogue, a new class of priests arose, regularly populated by Pharisees. Modern Christians tend to cast Pharisees as a caricature, but in this area the truth seems to be that they indeed had a very elaborate system of dress. Everything from the tie of their sandals to the cut and color of their robes was designed to distinguish them. They had a particular beard trim, special rings and bracelets, and the infamous fringes and tassels. They had multiple layers of clothing all very carefully put together. Pharisees also wore phylacteries all the time. Everything about their attire screamed "Rabbi!" and they received due homage for their vocation. All of that to say this: peculiar churchy attire is not something new. With modern Christians, what kind of dress are we talking about? You'll recognize the clerical collar immediately. It was "invented" by a Presbyterian and is now worn by Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, UCC, and even some Baptists. I wasn't at all surprised and was thoroughly entertained to read about the fashion trends in clericals. And, yeah, some of those shirts look really nice and comfortable. Of course, there was plenty about debate over colors (what color should a deacon vs. a priest wear? recognizing that "deacon" means something very different from tradition to tradition) and not a little controversy about what should be considered modest. Other clericals (that should not be overlooked!) include those of monks and nuns. Those are a bit more rare in my corner of the world, but that doesn't make them any more otherworldly. The advantage to a monk's robe or a clerical collar is the immediate visual identification of the vocation. The connotation can be good or bad in the eye of the beholder, but that is beside the point. The person wearing the garb is of that vocation and wants there to be no mistake about it. That's more than a little self-serving in a culture where Christianity is elevated, but in our new world where such is no longer the case, I respect that stand. I've seen some very powerful arguments from those who wear a clerical that every pastor or minister should wear a clerical - not because it is a source of prestige, but because it identifies you to everyone around you. One man wrote how he had disliked the idea of wearing his clerical while traveling for personal purposes, but while on a trip he was able to pray with and counsel multiple strangers who came up to him knowing he was a pastor of some kind. That makes a lot of sense, and I will have to address it. Another man made a much less-convincing argument that we should all wear clericals because Jesus did. We'll have to talk about that, too. Vestments, on the other hand, are worn during a church service. These get a lot more varied from tradition to tradition. And if you don't go into that service, you will never see them worn (outside of pictures like these). Begging your pardon, but the purpose of this article is not to explain who wears which vestment and why. There are many websites devoted to that, and the answer changes depending on which church you have entered. You should be able to tell quickly, though, that vestments, just like military garb, are designed to identify the rank and function of the person wearing them. While some of them (not pictured here) simply look silly, many are tasteful and reverent. I've been told that the process of putting them on helps a minister get into the frame of mind that says, "I'm about to do something sacred." I find that laudable and valuable. Of course, all is not happy-happy with vestments. I've heard of some awful arguments based on the minister's garb, and any time the powers-that-be come up with some sort of modification, someone rebels against it. But I'm not writing about clericals and vestments in those churches that use them - I just wanted to make sure that you know what I'm talking about! Now let's get to the actual purpose of the article. Why I Don't Wear EitherI find it interesting, but not at all surprising, that some Baptists have begun wearing clericals. More than a few Baptist preachers wear robes when they preach. In their view, it is not a vestment but standard attire (and I agree there is a difference): A robe helps emphasize the office of the pastor and de-emphasize the personality of the person in the pulpit or leading worship. The pastor is not a businessman or a CEO of a religious organization. Often, wearing clothing that is too causal or too “business” like for worship leaders can detract away from the most important thing: the worship of God. The type of dress should not be a sign of good fashion in a nice suit, but rather the Word of God should be the focus. (bspabaptist.org) I get that. The robe has a long history going back to Calvin's Geneva where he took the "academic robe" and put it on the preacher. I guess you can tell his priority? (There were also judicial robes and choir robes, but more on that below.) The whole idea of a pastor wearing a suit and tie came from the business world (and a day when "Sunday best" was what the wealthiest people in town wore. This argument says, "Why would you want your pastor to look like the CEO of a bank?" If the pastor has to wear something to preach (which he does), put him in a standard, plain garb that attracts no attention to itself so that the purpose can be on the function and the message. Of course, the very act of trying to put a pastor in garb that does not attract attention to itself attracts attention to itself. Because no one else will wear robes in a Baptist church, the pastor's robe sets him apart from the people. And that's the main point that I have here. Yes, technically a robe is not a vestment, but I'm pretty sure that's beside the point. The robe functions like a vestment in the eyes of the people. In the Free Church tradition, we believe in the priesthood of all believers. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, Sadly, based on where things have gone in some Baptist circles (thank you, E. Y. Mullins, though I don't blame you for what happened), I now have to note that there is a difference between "priesthood of the believer" (as in BFM 63) and "priesthood of [all] believers" (as in BFM 2000). The former pointed Baptist ecclesiology on an intensely inward and individualistic trajectory, one we are still struggling to correct. The idea became, "I don't need a priest; I am my own priest." While there are elements of truth in both phrases, the premise is flawed. Even in the Jewish priesthood, with its layers of ranks and functions, there was a unity of mind and understanding of reciprocity. The priests needed one another. Now, in the Christian church, we are all priests: "To Him who loves us and has set us free from our sins by His blood, and made us a kingdom, priests [or "a kingdom of priests"] to His God and Father—the glory and dominion are His forever and ever." (Rev 1:6) We are not priests on our own, we are priests together. We are now a priesthood of all believers. The New Testament uses a number of images to describe this new people God has created to take the reigns of the Jews:
The vestment takes us back to an Old Testament view of things, where only certain people were to be priests (Levites) based on heredity. And others who wanted authority (Pharisees) had ways of dressing and acting that forced people to acknowledge them. That's a Jewish way of thinking, and it takes away from people one of the great privileges and blessings of salvation: equal access to God. For that reason alone, I do not want to wear anything that would set me above other church members. And that's why the idea of a universal dress code for pastors doesn't even get off the ground: clothing convention varies wildly from place to place. Any attire that says, "I'm a pastor" also equally says, "I'm different from you." In the old Jewish way of thought, which has been imported into the church through Catholic and Reformed channels, those distinctions are celebrated. Clergy are distinct from laity. There is a wall between the pew and the altar*. They would even defend such a mindset by appealing to the calling of God to the vocation of pastor, as if that sets them apart from other Christians. I say that that grossly misunderstands what new thing God has done with His people in Jesus Christ: one Lord, one Spirit, one purpose - different gifts to achieve that purpose. The calling of being a pastor is no more special than any other vocation; that person just has more responsibility in a church building. Every calling matters. [*Altar language itself is an import from Old Testament worship - a place more sacred than others. I would prefer that we do away with "altar" speak completely; the once-for-all sacrifice has been made on the cross. But as this article leans heavily on perception, the truth is that many church members speak of "altar." Thank you, Fanny Crosby.] Now, what does this have to do with clothing? To be honest, it doesn't have to have very much. If a pastor were to say in his heart, "This is what I need to wear [i.e. a robe] in order to bring the most glory to God," I'm not going to tell him otherwise. All I can say is to keep in mind perception. What do other people think about your attire? Going back to the suggestion above that all pastors should wear clericals so as to be easily identified, I have to counter that in the way I believe the New Testament to be structuring us, such identification reinforces a mindset rooted not in biblical anthropology but human superstition. "Let the holy man do the God stuff." I've talked to friends around the country and the world enough to know that this is a real problem. (And if you are unaware of the sacerdotal tendencies in vestments, then perhaps I do need to write a history thereof.) I can't tell you how many times I've been expected to pray at an event for no other reason than I'm a pastor, and that's even when I'm in shorts and a t-shirt. That's a mindset I'm trying to overcome in our people, not reinforce! Every Christian has equal access to God! Doing anything to my appearance (beyond biblical commands for modesty and Christian behavior) to indicate my vocation continues a superstition that the Bible says should not be there. (And don't get me wrong: just like the Pharisees not a few Christian clergy want to propagate that superstition because it gives them job security.) With that, though, the very pragmatic American ends-justify-the-means mindset would acknowledge, "But if I'm a pastor, and I'm standing next to someone wearing a clerical, all the people would go to that person for spiritual leadership. Should I not then wear a clerical to head that confusion off?" The answer is, of course, no. The ends do not justify the means. There's a clever investment commercial in which some people take a DJ, give him a haircut, a suit, and some fancy catchphrases, and he is able to convince a number of potential customers to invest with him. Yikes! Appearances are on the verge of meaningless. Behavior eventually trumps appearance. We can't be worrying about other people's outsides when we need to be taking stock of our inside. If that person wearing a clerical is a man of God, then great. If he is a charlatan, then people will eventually realize it (and the name of Jesus sadly will have been disparaged). Besides, there are plenty of anti-theists in our culture who would be repelled by such attire. But let me counter the ridiculous argument that Jesus wore clericals. (It's a well-intended argument! If it were true, then I would sure think twice about the premise.) The argument goes, "People knew Jesus was a rabbi, so he must have been wearing rabbinical attire." Really. That's the whole argument. "These people didn't know who Jesus was, so how could they have known He was a rabbi?" Where would anyone get the idea that people didn't know who Jesus was? One maker of this argument actually used the encounter with two disciples in John 1:38 to make that point, never mind that John the Baptist had specifically pointed Jesus out to them. People knew who Jesus was from His childhood, and once you start casting out demons, more people are going to find out quickly. In a crowd of people, all you have to do is ask, "Who is that?" to get "That's Jesus." So, no, Jesus did not wear clericals (or the first century equivalent). Based on the Free Church commitment to the idea that all Christians are equal before God and that all churches are equal before God, I reject anything that would set apart one person or group against another. No matter the intention (and I certainly question some intentions), history has shown that clericals and vestments play into sacerdotalism, and that's not getting into the hierarchy within some of these priesthoods. I am a pastor in a local church, but I am not any more loved by God, any closer to God, or any more likely to have my prayers answered by God than any other Christian. Those traditions and denominations who teach that clergy is separate from laity are wrong, basing their teaching on a completely faulty understanding of the purpose of the church and influenced not a little bit by self-serving superstition. But . . . An Equal Problem: The Use of TitlesSo that's why I don't wear clericals or vestments. And there are many in the Baptist tradition who agree with me. But we have something else we do to make up for our lack of distinct dress: titles. The longer I spend in church life, the more I see it, and the more it bothers me. We should expect to see some impressive titles in those denominations that teach that clergy are set above laity. In the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, there are fantastic titles like "Your Holiness" "Your All-Holiness" "Father" "Reverend Father" "Most Reverend Father" "Very Reverend Father" and "Very Most Reverend Father" with each title referring to a different rank. That's way too much fun. You'll also notice, especially in store-front churches and others that were started by individuals, a heavy emphasis on a title in church advertising. "Bishop so-and-so" "Prophetess so-and-so" "Apostle so-and-so" (and they will actually introduce themselves as that and church members will address them as that). Even if they are self-proclaimed, the simple repetition of the title seems to reify their intent. Baptist issues might be different, but we still have them. Let's go through the list of what titles you might hear in a Baptist church:
It's taken me a long time to get here, but I'm finally at the real purpose of this article. This is the actual problem: when the pastor himself (or herself) demands the use of a title. Explicitly or implicitly. In each of my stops, I have known pastors who introduce themselves as "Hi, I'm Pastor so-and-so" or "I'm Doctor so-and-so" (as in all the time, not just in situations when it would uniquely matter). They actually make their email address "[email protected]" or "[email protected]" or even "[email protected]." Do a people search for "pastor" on Facebook and you get a pretty long list. I found a secular protocol site (http://www.formsofaddress.info/Pastor.html) with a section filled with anecdotes that verify my contention. For example, one letter/response: If you know them as Pastor (first name) ... then you are on a first name basis with them. I am not (so far) ... so I'd call them Pastor (last name) until they asked me to call them Pastor (first name). My mother's pastor likes to be addressed as Pastor Jim ... and I call him that so in conversation. But I'd still address mail to him as The Reverend James Ensor. Seriously. There are quite a few exchanges like that. (Note that the author of that page sees a difference between "Pastor" and "Reverend"; he finds it inappropriate for anyone to refer to himself/herself as "Reverend So-and-so" whereas "Pastor" is functional.) What does Jesus have to say about this? Matthew 23. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees are seated in the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore do whatever they tell you, and observe it. But don’t do what they do, because they don’t practice what they teach. 4 They tie up heavy loads that are hard to carry and put them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves aren’t willing to lift a finger to move them. 5 They do everything to be observed by others: They enlarge their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. 6 They love the place of honor at banquets, the front seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by people. I don't see any other way you can interpret this. I italicized the phrase where Jesus explains why we should not use titles: "we are all brothers." Would you introduce yourself to Jesus as "Pastor so-and-so"? Lord, have mercy, I hope not. Why? Because we should all know that Jesus is the only Lord and "Pastor" of the church universal. So if we wouldn't give ourselves that title around Him, why would we do around each other? Do we think that Jesus is somehow no longer present? This one is pretty cut-and-dried. We need to cool it with the titles. Postscript: Choir RobesBut then there are choir robes. What to do about choir robes? My church has them. A lot of Baptist churches have them. And based on the fact that I'll take anyone I can in our choir (and I think most church choir directors feel the same), I know that choir robes don't have a whole lot of "mystique" in my church. When I have talked to church members who like choir robes, their reasoning has to do with formality more than anything. That's kind of bypassing my entire argument! Choir robes today are related to sanctuary decoration.
Hm. At their Christian origin, choir robes were born in that theology that believed the people on the platform/behind the altar rail were separate from the people "in the pew". For a long time, only those with special church training were even allowed to sing in a choir. (Specially dressed choir members long predate Christian worship.) I strongly doubt that anyone in my church views choir robes in that light, which doesn't give me a compelling reason to even think about changing a long-standing church practice, But if I ever find someone who attends our church who does think that choir robes make us closer to God, then I would have to think about bringing this up for our church to consider. No one in our church leadership wants that mistaken impression to be given. Every Christian has equal access to God. - thanks to Jesus.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorIf I ever say something in here that doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify. It always makes sense in my head, but that doesn't necessary mean anything to you . . . Categories
All
|