Six Reasons Why Ministerial Uniforms are Helpful and Wise
The following is a paper from Trinity Church Seattle explaining their decision to have ministerial staff wear pastoral uniforms.
Beginning Ash Wednesday (February 22) TCS’s ministerial staff will begin wearing a pastoral uniform during worship services and during the working week, at their discretion. You might be thinking, “What is a pastoral uniform and why is it beneficial?” The purpose of this short paper is to introduce our rationale, and explain what you can expect going forward.
What is a pastoral uniform?
Following our Presbyterian tradition, TCS’s ministerial uniform will be composed of a clergy shirt and stole (while preaching and leading the sacraments).
Why is a pastoral uniform necessary?
Below you’ll find a more detailed rationale, but in short, uniforms set apart and authorize a person for a specific task or office. This is true in our common life. We find all manner of uniforms helpful and wise. If someone appears at your door and claims to be a police officer, we expect them to be in uniform or carrying a badge. If a judge entered the dock wearing jeans and a t-shirt, we would consider that odd, if not inappropriate. Why? It’s because a judge’s uniform is a black robe. We could think of other examples as well.
Over the past 150 years, ministers have largely worn a variety of cultural “uniforms. For example, in the 20th century, the minister’s uniform was typically business attire, mirroring a corporate CEO. That uniform has become increasingly more casual, particularly in Seattle, but even our casual attire represents a broader youthful, urban “uniform.” Neither of these styles of dress are bad, but all clothing is rhetoric and speaks to a set of norms and values. Consequently, the question is not so much, “Should a minister wear a uniform?”; rather it’s, “What uniform should they wear?” For the reasons articulated below, we believe the historical ministerial uniform is most appropriate.
Six Reasons Why Ministerial Uniforms are Helpful and Wise
It’s Biblical
In Scripture, clothing is frequently invested with meaning. Old Testament priests who oversaw Israel’s preaching and sacramental ministry wore liturgical garments associated with their calling and office (Exodus 28:2; 35:19; 39:1). In the New Testament, God calls and ordains faithful men to similar offices of Word and Sacrament (Ephesians 4:11-13). It’s also interesting to note that the risen and ascended Jesus wears priestly garments as part of His ongoing heavenly ministry (Rev. 1). We believe the Biblical pattern is one of “good” consequence. It’s helpful and wise for those leading God’s people in worship to be set apart by distinctive dress associated with their calling and office.
It’s Historical
Like their OT priestly counterparts, ministers in the early church continued wearing liturgical garments for worship purposes. You can see this in many of the artistic renderings of the church fathers. It seems like their weekly attire was relatively modest, reflecting the broader culture. By the 6th century pastoral dress became increasingly distinct from the laity. This is where we inherit the term vestment (i.e., ministerial clothing invested with specific meaning). The Fourth Lateran council (1215) mandated a distinctive dress for clergy so that they could be distinguished when about town. This attire became known as the vestis talaris or the cassock.
Part of our culture at TCS has been to retrieve and implement wise and helpful practices of the ancient church. This has included many of our liturgical practices, including its form, prayers, and songs. We believe ministerial uniforms fit within this broader, historic pattern.
It’s Reformed and Presbyterian
During the Reformation, Protestants, like John Calvin, began to wear academic robes in the pulpit to distinguish themselves from Catholic priests. These are similar to the Genevan robes still used in modern PCA worship. “Martin Luther is believed to have introduced the plain black robe in Protestant services to distinguish ministers of the Reformation from their Roman Catholic counterparts. The Genevan gown was a scholar’s robe, worn by professors as they lectured in the university. The minister’s black robe emphasized two things. First, he is a pastor-scholar, a teacher feeding God’s people with words and signs they can understand. Second, the minister is hidden beneath the black robe. He is Christ’s representative and mouthpiece. The Word of God is the center of attention, not who is preaching or what he is wearing.” “Some of the more extreme manifestations of the reformed traditions rejected special ecclesiastical garb altogether, but most did not, or returned to it when their first reforming ardor burnt out.” In the 17th c. Reformed ministers returned to the practice of wearing a distinctly ministerial uniform. Sometimes it was the use of a white scarf (clerical cravat, cf. Charles Hodge) or “preaching tabs” or “neck bands” (cf. Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Owen). Similar attire was worn by Dutch Reformers Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper.
Interestingly, the modern clerical collar was invented by a Scottish Presbyterian in 1894 and was later adopted by Roman Catholics (and other Protestant traditions). Clerical dress continues to be worn in the PCA and broader Reformed and evangelical circles. Examples include the late Martyn Lloyd- Jones, RC Sproul, JI Packer, Lesslie Newbigin, and currently a handful of men in our own Presbytery.
It’s Theological
The ministerial uniform is an attempt to reestablish the idea that the pastor serves at the pleasure of Christ as discerned by an ecclesiastical body via the process of ordination and the laying on of hands. Within this context, ministers wear uniforms as a reminder of their office and the divine authority they obey. The minister’s attire reminds the congregation that their pastor is not functioning as a private person. He is God’s ambassador. “The collar symbolizes that the minister is enslaved to Christ and serves as His under-prophet, priest, and shepherd king. It sits particularly over the minister’s voice box to remind him that he speaks on behalf of another.” Likewise, the stole indicates the calling and ordination of a minister who bears the yoke of ministry in service to God (1 Timothy 6:1, cf. Jeremiah 28), as well as represents a towel or cloth such as was used by Christ to wash His disciples’ feet (John 13).
In short, our ministerial uniform visually represents our stated theological convictions regarding ordination and the centrality of the means of grace.
It’s Pastoral
One of the blessings TCS’s ministerial staff enjoys is our warm relationship with the congregation. Two tension points we’ve consider during this decision-making process have been around ministerial “accessibility” and issues of unnecessary “hierarchy.”
As ministers we want to be approachable primarily in our capacity as ministers. We believe our ministerial uniforms will aide in this relational dynamic. Think about doctors, nurses, judges, and police officers. There’s value in distinctive dress that reminds us of their expertise or calling. We are helped when our doctor wears a white uniform. The uniform assists us in remembering that we can place some confidence in him or her. This is their calling. The same should be true with pastors.
Pastoral uniforms, like all vocational uniforms, provide a visual representation of the relationship between the two parties. Vocational uniforms don’t make claims of superiority or barriers to mutuality, but they do frame the interactions within the context of the relationship. By concretely representing the pastoral role both pastor and congregant are reminded of the nature of their interaction. It’s important to recognize this two-way messaging. The pastor needs reminding too.
A common question is “What about negative connotations? Ministerial uniforms have been used improperly and people have suffered as a result. Isn’t this reason to not implement them?” This is an important consideration. It’s lamentable that the pastoral office has been mistreated. We should acknowledge that and safeguard against it. However, it’s also worth considering that “abuse does not cancel [proper] use.” There are crooked judges, police officers, etc. who abuse their uniforms, but we continue to find their proper use necessary and valuable. Culturally, much capital has been spent rehabilitating these offices and renewing the uniform with its proper investiture. Lord willing, as ministers, it’s our desire to “fill” the uniform with comportment that reflects the life, ministry, and hospitality of our Lord.
It’s Contextual
By most estimations we are entering into an increasingly secularized cultural milieu. This is not simply an increasing polarization between the “secular” and “religious;” it’s that now, more than ever, it’s normative to imagine a world without God. Not only do many in Seattle find this easy, but almost inescapable. This has had, and will continue to have, broad and significant impacts to our Christian witness.
Not too long ago, it wasn’t uncommon to downplay the historic or even religious nature of our worship practices, rituals, and rites (I’m thinking particularly of our broader evangelical world). On multiple fronts, this impulse hasn’t played out well. Not only have we lost a sense of transcendence, but it hasn’t produced the missionary fruit it sought. Increasingly, if our secular neighbors are to cross the threshold into a distinctly religious space, they’re expecting it to be, well, religious—and Christian. In other words, our worship (and dress) might feel weird and unfamiliar but that’s part of what’s being sought—something different from a disenchanted, mechanical, godless world. Christianity is being forced—I believe, in a positive way—to put its cards on the table and play its true hand. We are different, weird, and religious.
In a similar vein, because our Christian witness is shifting (and shrinking), Jesus’ command in John 17 is becoming increasingly important. Christian love and unity around core apostolic teaching and across denominational boundaries should be a value we strive for. In a visible way, pastoral uniforms connect us across ethnic, demographic, and socio-economic lines. Many of our brothers in Africa, Asia, and South America wear historic ministerial dress, as well as large sections of the African American church. Wearing a unifying uniform is a small gesture, but it broadly communicates our filial commitment and family identity in Christ.
So, what can I expect?
TCS’s ministers will wear our basic uniform during Sunday worship and throughout the working week (at the pastor’s discretion). Our typical shirts will be gray but will also include other colors (black, white, and blue), depending on liturgical season. Outside of dress, we expect that our normal worship will remain unchanged. I should also note that our move to ministerial uniforms does not represent a broader change to our theological convictions or ecclesiastical affiliation. We are happily Presbyterian and highly value our doctrinal standards and polity.
Finally, we want to acknowledge that this topic will elicit a variety of opinions and emotions. This is certainly understandable. Our conversations as a leadership team and staff were diverse and likely representative of the congregation as a whole. It’s important to note the difference between uniformity and unity. Uniformity suggests that we all need to think or believe the same. That’s not what we have in mind here, particularly since it’s not an essential, core gospel issue. Rather it’s an open-handed judgment based on good reason. It is important, however, that we have unity on the topic and so maintain the bonds of love and peace.