Clergy collars: yea or nay?
Monday, March 03, 2008
Every year at annual conference, I see more and more of my Methodist clergy brothers and sisters wearing collars. I have never asked any of them why, and I have never donned a clergy collar myself. But the issue of collar wearing has come up among some friends here at Duke recently, particularly with my Free Methodist friend and fellow blogger Casey Taylor, who has posted a couple of times on this issue recently (see here and here). Besides engaging in a fascinating and friendly debate with a Baptist pastor from Australia named Gordon (a contributor to the Neo-Baptist blog), Casey raises a lot of helpful points around this issue.
My brother Barkley is an Episcopal priest in Roanoke, VA, and he wears a collar everyday. (In fact, that's him in the picture above.) He has mentioned to me one of the points that Casey raises - that, because he is so easily identifiable as a member of the clergy, the collar sometimes provides ministry opportunities he would otherwise miss. He has also shared with me a bit of the history of the collar about which I was not aware: that it (in combination with the black clergy suit) is essentially a modern adaptation of the cassock which was once the everyday apparel of the clergy. That is interesting, since most people today think of the cassock as a vestment (an opinion which Barkley says is technically incorrect).
These points are echoed by a former Duke student named Jonathan Melton, who is now serving an Episcopal parish in west Texas. In a reflection piece in Duke's Anglican/Episcopal House of Studies publication Perspectives, he calls clergy collars "symbols of humility and availability." Jonathan argues that it is important to wear the collar exactly because it can be an awkward and difficult experience for the person wearing it at times. Like a policeman's badge or a physician's white coat, it announces to the world that this person serves a certain role and that he can be called on for aid.
I am curious to hear others' opinions on the pros and cons of wearing a collar. Theologically speaking, I regard it as adiaphora - there is no clear Scriptural injunction either for or against it. That means it essentially boils down to a pastoral issue: Is it conducive to a more effective ministry to wear the collar? Two strong issues in its favor for me are: 1) that it marks one as clergy and hence as a minister of the gospel to the watching world; and 2) it calls the wearer to a high accountability for actions and attitudes in the public sphere. As our culture continues to secularize, I can see many benefits to this form of public clerical witness.
If you are clergy, do you wear a collar regularly? And if you do not, have you thought about it?
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 9:17 AM
40 Comments:
hey Andrew,
Never wore one, never owned one, never given any thought to doing so.
Aside from theological or philosophical reasons for wearing one, I think the peer pressure of Duke and Episcopalians is working on you! ;^)
ps, thanks for the book tip; I'll check that out sometime.
Andrew,
I'd add only that the collar is just that: a yoke. It tethers the wearer to his calling to be a witness for the Gospel, and it hopefully prevents him from straying too far from that calling in his words and actions.
Barkley
I own one but it is in the back of my closet. I got it because of the year I spent in England and the collar was an everyday garment for my fellow clergy (both men and women). My wife said it replused her to see me in it and thus I have never worn it. I agree that it does put the wearer into a zone, almost like wearing a super hero's tights. You cannot escape the fact that you are clergy and represent Jesus Christ. I think though it might turn many people off as it does draw people to that person.
Rev. J -
In England, was the collar an everyday garment for Methodist preachers, as well as Anglican clergy?
Also, what was it about seeing you in a collar that was repulsive to your wife? Did it have to do with associating with a Roman Catholic practice, or was it just too strange generally?
Because I no longer serve as a pastor, I do not wear a clergy collar. I used to wear one occasionally, especially when I did hospital visits. The collar immediately communicates who I am and why I'm there.
I think clergy should be encouraged to wear the collar for the reasons you have cited.
By the way, during my time in England last summer a British clergy friend told me that the C of E is discouraging clergy from wearing their customary attire because several of them have been physically attacked. It seems the clergy have become a target.
The reason given for the attacks is the recent accusations of clergy sexual misconduct against Roman Catholic priests. Attackers don't make distinction between Catholic and Anglican and Methodist clergy as long as they all dress the same.
I hope Dave Chapelle as Rick James will forgive me for saying, "I wish I had more hands so I could give those collars four thumbs down!"
I'm already too distant from pre-Christians. I avoid people wearing them and if I do I can't imagine what others feel about it.
My first experience with wearing a collar came during divnity school when I wore one to do jail and prison visits. As a young (and younger looking) woman, I encountered quite a number of problems with those working in the correctional system (not the prisoners, interestingly enough). After putting on the collar, those negative encounters almost ceased happening. Several years later some clergy friends and I discussed this question, "Is it an invitation for others when we wear one or a pretentious act by the wearer?" My friends mostly believed it to be pretentious. I, however, like wearing a collar. I wear one on Sundays all day, to hospital and prison visits, and to special occasions where I need to be identified as clergy. I have found it humbling to wear the collar and as a result of wearing one, I have been involved in all kinds of conversations that otherwise would not have taken place. Especially in the Pacific Northwest where the anti-church sentiment runs high, seeing a young-ish person in a collar, someone who listens to the same music, who watches the same movies and TV shows, and who likes to have a good time is a wonderful witness. It debunks some of the assumptions people have about church folk. So, it helps me do my job, it is a humbling reminder of my role, and it is a great witness. Despite reasons not to wear it, my experience with the collar outweigh arguments against one.
I'm curious to know what those of a more "postmodern" bent have to say about this. Could a collar be seen as something connected to institutionalism and the centralization of power in the clergy. Perhaps those of us who don't wear collars point out the general call of all those who are baptized.
Then again, on my last visit to a prison, I was wishing I had on a collar!! Nothing wrong with clear identification in there! :-)
When I became a United Methodist Elder a few years back, I purchased a clergy collar and shirt. I figured that since I'm young and in a Catholic town, it would serve me well. I had also just gotten out of a CPE experience where the other clergy who wore collars had a better experience than me who did not.
I've never worn it.
For those whom "pastor" does not immediately fit (younger pastors, female pastors, etc), a clergy collar may open doors previously closed. But in my experience, my having a strong personality is just as indicative of a clergy collar as I am not quiet about my pastoral office. Also, while clergy collars certainly open conversations, I find the surprise factor of "oh, thanks for picking up my dropped cell phone...oh, you are a PASTOR?" is just as effective. The surprise of help can be a better witness than "of course she's helping...she's a pastor!"
Timely topic, Andrew. I also see more clergy collars at Annual Conference than I'm used to in previous years.
Since I'm a local pastor and not yet ordained, I wouldn't wear one.
When I become ordained, it is something I will seriously consider.
To me, the collar is a rejection of the "pastor-as-CEO" model we've been stuck in. Back when I was an atheist, I was always turned off by slick, suite-wearing clergy who I always associated with car salesmen (my apologizes to anyone in that profession) and TV hucksters.
Ever since I became a Christian, I have been fascinated with two streams in Methodist heritage: the charismatic stream and the Anglo-catholic stream. I find that certain styles of music and attitude honor one stream while visual cues such as banners, stoles, candles, and yes collars honor the other.
Plus, it would be a daily reminder to me that as a pastor, my vocation is not about me. I belong to Christ and to the Church.
People can read most of my thoughts on my blog (linked in the article above). I plan to do a CPE collar-wearing update soon.
Anyway, I really like Rev Kate's comments. I have a half-hunch that many associate collars with stogy old white men. I like the idea of redeeming symbols like this. I also like John Wilks' comments about rejecting the CEO model of pastoring.
Those who wear collars outside Sundays, maybe to the grocery store, do you find it appropriate to wear a collar w/ blue jeans? I get comments about wearing an earring...
My wife has worn one a few times as she is also doing CPE and is moving toward ordination. I think a collar may give a little more upfront authority to women than it may to men. Just my most recent 2 cents.
Some have told me I am an odd mix when they discover how casual I can dress at times and don the collar on Sundays and several times during the week.
I always wear it when I visit the local jail or prison (which is often once a week) and when I am headed to the hospital. I am also likely to wear it on Sundays more often than not - especially since lately I have been wearing a cassock which I put on after singing with the praise team during Gathering Praise.
Other out and abouts - visits with new attendees, parishioners, and others - rarely - but for me it is less about wanting to look like a relaxed post-modern and more that I am not particularly found of dressing up.
I don't buy the argument that is repels others. Quite the opposite in my experience. At times, I have thought it was like wearing a sign saying: "talk to me if you have a problem."
On another aside - When I do "dress up" so to speak, I have a far greater aversion to looking like a CEO.
I am an American Methodist in England, and Andrew asked about methodist ministers ('methodist preachers' carries a different meaning here, as generally one would assume a lay person) wearing collars. Yes, typically, Methodist presbyters (elders in UM) do wear collars (deacons do not). Oddly, wearing a stole would have the same effect here that many clergy in American Methodists find in wearing a collar in the US - pretentious. I typically wear one when leading worship, in pastoral visits, and leading committee meetings. Some older folk seem to appreciate it more when I do (it also helps when I am knocking on their door for the first time). I find it helpful, but have come to depend on it less. It does help identify me.
Kevin Baker: It can repel in England. Over here, some have such a negative view of Christians in general and ministers/priests in particular. But, I have found it does open up some opportunities. Someone posted about the clergy attacks in England, it has been on the rise (but hardly epidemic).
I guess I haven't given much thought about it. The collar is just part of who I am and I stopped trying to figure out why I do (or when I choose, when I don't).
Andrew, to answer your questions, yes both the Methodist and Church of England vicars wore the collars.
As for my wife, it may be due to the Catholic image of the collar or the fact that in her eyes clergy who wear the collars seem distant. ALl I know is that when I did wear it she turned her nose up and said it wasn't me. The funny thing is she thinks I look quite distinguished and rather good (maybe even sexy :)) in my robe! I've stopped trying to figure her out and just love her for who she is!
Andrew:
I've always worn one on Sundays, and to the hospitals and at public functions. No one's ever asked me what I do for a living, and no one at the hospital has ever asked me what I was doing there.
It's a public witness of being yoked with Christ - and I am not ashamed to wear it. By the same token, I don't think it should be proscribed or required of clergy.
Consider this: Catholics and Orthodox don't get a choice. They wear the collar ALL THE TIME. What does it say about our pastoral identity if we choose to wear the collar sometimes (visitations) but not others?
This is great discussion! I'm a 2nd year student at a seminary in which we are all required to wear our collars at least once a week to our Vocational Formation class, and many wear theirs at their field education placements.
Admittedly, I have had less opportunity, in some ways, to wear my collar. I work in an interfaith context (Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, although clearly "interfaith" here could be larger) at a retirement center. If I were to walk into that context wearing a collar, I think my residents would be pretty confused or at least doubtful of the healing that has already taken place there (and is still taking place) between the Jewish and Christian residents.
I am very aware of how pretentious it seems at times, to assume that one could slip into a role with the ease of a piece of plastic. However, I also know that the matter is one of bearing witness. Among my peers--at least those in my general age range (mid-twenties) there has been a slew of argument over whether we should be required to wear it, in class or elsewhere. From what I hear, there was also contention among the faculty as to its appropriateness.
Nonetheless, the discussion itself seems to reveal a lot about the way we look at pastoral formation. Is our formation something we can choose rather flippantly, based on our mood? Or is our choice more of a reflection of carefully weighed decisions, keeping in mind the reality that many have deeply-imbedded issues with authority, as well as a sense of the direction in which we're called?
There is both burden and opportunity, really, and although I can see arguments against wearing the collar, I would certainly not stand in the way of those who are redeeming the pre-conceived notions of what it means to claim that witness. I wore mine at an airport a few months ago. Interestingly enough, I wore it for my mom, who was meeting me at an airport back home, and commented a few months ago that she never got the chance to see me in it. I write that this is "interesting" because my mother was raised in the Catholic Church and deeply hurt by it...yet somehow seeing her 20-something daughter wear a collar has been good for her.
How does one explain the level of complexity that goes into this one seemingly small choice? Regardless of where either of us come down, the discussion is still worth having...and I look forward to the opportunity of wearing mine more and growing into my understanding of it.
There are plenty of arguments for and against wearing collars. Most all the arguments against have to do with percieved associations with a collar.
I personally grew up mostly in Methodist and Baptist country and so rarely if ever saw collars until college. Personally (and I'm speaking as a 20-something "postmodern" who grew up without seeing them much) I prefer to see clergy (even Methodists) "in uniform" for many of the same reasons I prefer to see soldiers in uniform when they do their jobs (I know who has authorized them).
I am glad to see more Methodists are in fact wearing them. It may be worth noting that many of the early Methodist preachers did as well. It communcates a specifically non-business identity. I am not a car salesman or a politician or even a lawyer. I am a clergyman, the spiritual dimension is clearly displayed.
I also realize that many people dislike them or see them as causing distance. It may also cause intrigue (why is this 25 year old guy in the coffee shop with me wearing a collar?).
I have a couple of collared clergy-shirts but wear them sparingly (as I am a college minister), perhaps once or twice a month when the occassion seems to especially warrant it.
The most satisfying ministry I've ever experienced came at a parish where I felt it appropriate to wear a collar. Your friend is correct. Often when you're wearing the collar people come to you.
It is not true that Roman Catholics have no choice. I work with students at a Jesuit university (in addition to my parish role), and most of the priests here do not wear collars all the time.
I know some people make the distinction between wearing a collar in pastoral or non-pastoral functions.
Wearing collars at Annual Conference does strike me as odd. AC is a meeting of "insiders" so there's not so much need to identify oneself in relation to the church.
I very much prefer to be robed when leading worship. The connection between the alb and the baptismal garment is important to me. And I lead worship not only as an individual but as one authorized by the church. One of my congregants said something about me "dressing up" when they didn't. I don't so much think of it as formal but rather appropriate.
It's not what you wear, it's how you wear it! Right? I have one in the closet, but rarely wear it. My experience is that people think I'm Catholic when I wear it. Especially when I was doing a wedding and enjoying a beer at the reception. One of the groomsmen kept calling me "father." I told him that I was only "father" to my son, and he didn't even call me that (Wesley tends to call me "Nathan." Gotta love that :L ) That really threw the guy for a loop. (He was already drunk and explaining to me why he no longer went to mass, so I suppose there was some kind of odd pastoral role functioning there.)
i feel like i'm always getting to the dance too late on these issues i find interesting.
i wear one, but usually only when i'm going a place to serve in a pastoral function - like the hospital or jail. and i've started removing it when i go to kroger - not sure what that means. i want people to know that i'm there for a purpose, but i guess when i'm just shopping i don't want to be treated differently or anything.
the other thing i have noticed is the comments from many lay and clergy alike that "i didn't think anyone wore those but catholics." and there is often this negative association with catholics like "you shouldn't wear that - you might be mistaken for a priest." that deeply saddens me that such division has arisen that it would be so awful to be mistaken for the clergy of a different brand. generally though i have found wearing it helps open doors, literally and figuratively. and we united methodists are ALL about open doors.
as a side note, when i first got to lambuth several people told me i looked like barkley. i never saw it really - i mean i get that all the time when i'm around someone with dark hair. but seeing that picture of him, i first thought it was me.
I'm kind of with Matthew Johnson and an anonymous commenter soon after him...
I think the arguments to wear one seem to press the issue of all Christians wearing one if we take seriously the priesthood of all believers.
I'm not as keen on drawing as sharp a distinction from the laity and the ministry of the laity as wearing a collar seems to do.
I'm younger (34) but have never found myself in a situation in which I thought a collar would have helped, though I did have a friend encourage me to wear my "God clothes" to an SPRC meeting that I knew was going to get kind of hairy. It took me a second to figure out what she meant, but I've found that if I just carry myself like I'm called to the office I don't tend to need a particular set of clothing to back that up.
I should add that even with my problems with the collar I don't get real hot and bothered by other people wearing them, which admittedly is a little awkward in promoting individual choice on such a theological and vocational matter...
I agree that the collar functions as a "symbol of humility and availability." I'm a second career female UM probationary elder and wear a collar on Sundays, to the hospital, for special occasions. I'd like to start wearing it more often. I agree we should redeem this symbol and reclaim it along the same lines as reclaiming other important Christian symbols and rites. Bruce Bawer(?), in his book "Stealing Jesus", points out we as a faith community need to reclaim and reassert a loving resurrected Christ. I'd argue there has been a "stealing of the uniform" or "stealing of the collar" and we can reclaim it: with humility and availability. Personally, wearing it reminds me that I'm not doing a "job" but responding to a call.
I wear a collar every Sunday, on days that I make hospital calls, and when I have a pastoral counseling or spiritual direction appointment.
The collar reminds me of the "yoke" of my calling. I do not see it as separating myself from the people of God instead as a sign that I represent the people of God (whom they have chosen) as one of their leaders, wherever I go. It is my "uniform."
I'll be honest when I say that I do not understand why more pastors do not wear a collar. As a young pastor (I'm 29) I find that it opens many doors to ministry and to conversations. I can't tell you how many times I have been pulled over in hospitals, restaurants, and other public places to pray and have a conversation. I would not want to miss on those opportunities.
Ours is not the only vocation that has a uniform and I believe clothing always communicates something (and we all have to make a choice about what we wear, if not a collar: a shirt, long sleeve or short sleeve, a tie, a coat, dressy or casual, etc.)Why not communicate that we are leaders of a faith communities and as such are available for that ministry?
I also understand that it is a matter of preference in my tradition(UMC)and our acting/living in the way of Jesus should take place no matter what we are wearing.
I'm the pastor of a chuch alligned with the Southern Baptist Convention and I wear a collar when representing the church or God away from the church property. I wrote an article in defense of the practice a little while back that might be helpful-- http://www.fbcgh.net/wordpress/archives/8
Thanks for the link Andrew.
I'm not convinced by the 'it attracts attention to your role' argument. If you want to draw attention to yourself then hire a Gorilla suit - you will get far more comments than a rather understated collar. Another option could be a Jeremiah style loincloth, or Dance like David did – that will be a talking point for quite a while.
I think the argument boils down ultimately to your theological view of the priesthood. Either the New Covenant of Jesus did away with the need for a class of mediators and now there are none necessary, or the priesthood lives on. If you support the perpetuation of the priesthood then I guess you can go for your life. Wear whatever you want to differentiate yourself.
What I don’t get are ministers from denominations that do not hold to the notion of priesthood, [but rather affirm the priesthood of all believers] who wear clerical attire.
There are plenty of options to denote your role, other than wearing attire which effectively creates a distinction between clergy and laity. Most arguments from people within non-priesthood denominations seem to me to be finely constructed justifications for something which is clearly associated with the priesthood. You either buy the priesthood and all that goes with that or you don’t. If you don’t, then let that sink in and shape the decisions you make about wearing accoutrements that clearly have their origin in the priesthood.
I work part-time in an army chaplaincy role. I wear collars on my lapel to differentiate myself from other general staff officers, as do other specialist service officers. I exercise my right of conscience not to wear clerical attire, especially robes at official ceremonies. The crosses on my collars are enough to differentiate me.
The greatest differentiation ultimately comes from my life and witness amongst my community, church and the soldiers I minister to.
The United Methodist Church believes in the priesthood of all believers. Clergy don't go to seminary and get ordained because we have created a priesthood for select people. The entire church is involved in the process of ordination. The church says that they believe there are some among us who have the gifts and graces to spend their lives influencing and teaching the members of the household of faith as well as caring for them in different ways. It all begins with the local church and its identification of people to lead them. I don't think that stratifies the work or the leadership at all and I can see good reason for wearing the collar - not to separate and place one above others, but as a reminder not only of call and humility but also a reminder to the church that they gave birth to this person and his/her work.
We all know that the clerical shirt with notched collar is just a shortened form of the cassock (i.e. the white shirt worn under the cassock).
The tab collar is a particularly lame imitation cassock.
Why don't we all start wearing cassocks. People can miss the collar if they are not looking carefully (especially from behind), but they won't miss the long skirt of a cassock.
Cassock as daily wear -- real old-school.
Who's with me? Anyone want to go in on this? Who will take up my offer?
I see the point (and the humor) in the last comment, but I don't think the question of distinctive dress is one of slavish adherence to some ancient tradition. Wearing a full length cassock in our culture would be more of a distraction that would inhibit ministry than anything else. There is an issue of appropriateness to the culture, and the clergy collar meets that test whereas the full cassock does not (at least in terms of everyday wear). I raise the point again of uniformed professions such as police officers, physicians, UPS drivers, etc. The uniforms they wear mark them in certain ways to the watching world. Distinctive clergy dress is analogous, except that there is also the theological element of being yoked to Christ as others in this string have noted.
Neobaptist, thanks for your comments. I think that Baptists and Methodists are going to have different interpretations of this issue that go all the way back to our Reformed vs. Anglican 16th-century heritages. The Reformed are generally going to be much less apt to agree with aspects of ecclesial life that are not specifically enjoined in Scripture. Anglicans (and Lutherans), on the other hand, are going to be more open to those things that are customary, so long as they are not specifically prohibited by Scripture. In that sense, the disagreement that you and Casey Taylor had on his blog is 500 years old.
As Matthew Johnson pointed out, Methodists do believe in the priesthood of all believers. Our interpretation of ordination supports that, as well. We do not believe a person is ontologically changed during the act of ordination (as Roman Catholics and many Anglicans do). We rather understand that as an act whereby a person is physically set apart for ministry, due to a call from God that has been affirmed by the church.
An example: We only allow our ordained elders to consecrate the bread and cup in Holy Communion, not because of some special priestly ability, but rather because they have received the proper training and have exhibited the proper commitment to ensure that the teaching around the sacrament will be faithful to the church's understanding of its importance.
Another example: In the U.S. at least, Methodist clergy do wear various forms of vestments during worship. I have personally worn or seen worn preaching robes, cassocks, surplices, and albs. Practically all elders and deacons wear the form of stole appropriate to their clergy order. But again, this dress is to recognize the authority of the office they hold, not because they merit a special position by virtue of the ontological status of priestly mediator between Christ and the church.
In this way, the Methodist tradition suggests that there are many justifiable reasons why we clergy could (and perhaps should) wear a collar in our daily ministry. It is not because we have been graced in a special way, but rather because the church has authorized us to perform special shepherding functions that are not expected (and in some cases, not allowed) of the laity.
And by the way, my wife and I were in Rome last fall, and we saw plenty of priests walking around in cassocks. Old school, indeed!
I was being totally serious with the cassock thing.
Check these links:
http://orthometer.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-i-wear-cassock.html
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2006/11/crosses-habits-and-cassocks.html
http://www.geocities.com/peterpaulmin/Cassok.html
http://69.43.207.164/showthread.php?t=114014&page=2
Once, I was at Boston Pizza in cassock. A stranger walked-up, shared a joyful testimony with me (about finding a job), and thanked me for being a visible representative of the Church.
I have never received negative comments from others on the cassock. Rather, it's open up impromptu prayer requests from strangers, etc.
So, who is with me? Anglican, or Roman cut; take your pick.
Sorry! I thought the shortness of your other comment and the fact that you posted anonymously meant that you were being snarky.
What is your denominational background, if you don't mind sharing? I'd also be curious what part of the country you live in. I would imagine that cassock-wearing in cities might be easier than in more rural areas just due to perception, but that's just a guess.
I was ordained/consecrated with one of these so-called continuing Anglican churches/communions. Very small. Very grass-roots. No infrastructure. No buildings. No paid clergy. That sort of thing.
I am in Canada, in the capital city of Alberta.
Yes, I wear a robe in the "traditional" worship services in my congregation for customary reasons but I've never gotten used to wearing a dress in worship just because I'm a pastor. That's one reason I like contemporary--I get to dress normally. (Thus, reinforcing that the entire body of Christ are "ministers"?)
Andrew you said:
“Neobaptist, thanks for your comments. I think that Baptists and Methodists are going to have different interpretations of this issue that go all the way back to our Reformed vs. Anglican 16th-century heritages. The Reformed are generally going to be much less apt to agree with aspects of ecclesial life that are not specifically enjoined in Scripture. Anglicans (and Lutherans), on the other hand, are going to be more open to those things that are customary, so long as they are not specifically prohibited by Scripture. In that sense, the disagreement that you and Casey Taylor had on his blog is 500 years old.”
You seem to suggest in that piece that we are locked into whatever our tradition has believed and therefore will not move on the issue. If this is the essence of what you are saying it is not true for me. I was christened Anglican, raised a nominal Presbyterian, went through confirmation in a Methodist church, and journeyed through an array of Pentecostal expressions before landing on the shores of the Baptist church. I am here for as long as God intends.
Therefore I am not locked into any particular tradition, or their view of Scripture. I certainly resonate with much of Baptist polity. So my views on the issue of clerical attire are from the point of view of someone relatively unaligned as opposed to being locked in. I find myself comfortable within the realms of the Baptist church precisely because of my views on clerical attire/priesthood, rather than having those views because I’m a Baptist.
That’s the basis on which I would prefer people consider the issue: your appraisal of what Scripture has to say on the issue and an honest theological reflection on it, rather than appealing to the ‘authority’ of tradition.
I have a call upon my life to serve God as all believers should, but I feel God leading me into ministry. I would wear a collar for the fact of saying, "I am here to help." I think the collar destingushes people that have really surrendered their lives to Christ and want to stand out as being someone here to help. I am in school now working on my Bachlors in Religion. I question also about when people see it if they won't automactically assume that I a Roman Catholic Priest or something relating to something simular. I am a Bible Believing Christian leaning more toward non-denominational. I want something to show that I am available to those in need and I think the collar dose that. In todays world men of God are mixed in with and sometimes no different than the world. I am not trying to say that I view myself as better than the world, for I too was lost and a sinner, but now I a sold out for Christ-completly. My life is not my own for I have surrended it to God but want that to show so maybe I can help more. Is this wrong or just too early as I have not been hired yet as a pastor?
I am an A.M.E. Zion pastor and this has been a subject of importance to me. First, I want to say that "Christianity" was a movement, not an institution. "Christianity" did not become institutionalized until Constantine (313). Prior to this, their was no distinction between "clergy" and "laity," either you were a disciple or either you were not. Although there was no distinction between "clergy" and "laity," there were different functions in the body of Christ. In this present world, "clergy" are elevated; however, in the early church, those who had "priestly" functions were not elevated, they were least of all. When Constantine accepted the Christian faith, the church changed. From that point on, the "church" gave authority to ministers. As a result, one could prove their calling rationally and still become a minister. In the early church, ones calling was justified by the way in which they served God and humanity. Today, we put too much emphasis on what we wear and not enough emphasis on servanthood. People identified Jesus, not by what he wore, but by what he did (Mk. 1:40-45). In 1 Thessalonians 5:12, Paul encourages the church to respect its leaders, not because of what they wear, but because of their hard work for the kingdom of God. Over the past couple of years, I've come to realize that people expect for the pastor to act one way because they are "ordained" and the laity will act another way. They expect the pastor to abide by the Bible, but not themselves. If we believe that God doesn't show favoritism, them the same rules should apply for the "laity." Jesus was special and holy because he could fit into the crowd and still live out his faith. He could still wear a pair of shorts and a Abercrombie shirt and still be holy. We've made church so hard and discipleship so easy. In the early church, discipleship was hard and church was easy. (revbrojohnson@yahoo.com/pastor of First A.M.E. Zion Church- Pasadena, CA/M.Div., Hood Theological Seminary '06)
Post a Comment
<< Home