Bishop Robert,

I remember many years ago visiting Barnies Church, you were there and your assistant priest/presbyter/minister and you both were wearing black shoes, black trousers, black shirts, and white clergy collars. I think you both looked pretty sharp.
As my former boss said to me "Never be ashamed of the King's uniform!"

Good advice I reckon!

Would solve more problems than what it creates. If blokes are worried about looking like a dag in clergy gear (which they wouldn't in my opinion) they can easily compensate by getting a decent haircut!

A few years ago a Moore college student I knew was preparing to preach at our Church and asked me if there was anything in particular that he should know about the various congregations. He was quite surprised when I told him that he MUST wear a tie to ouor two traditional services (I don't know if he even owned a tie at the time), but he quizzed me as to why I was so insistent. I explained that the tie wouldn't make him a better (or worse) preacher, but if he didn't dress in an appropriate manner, the congregation would be so shocked by his informality that they would be only thinking of that, and not of his sermon. No matter how good or bad the sermon, if the listeners are concentrating on his appearance they won't hear it. The right clothing does matter; it enables the listeners to hear.

Clothes are very powerful cultural cues. We make a lot of them - as humans they extend our "skin" and very clearly define us, both to ourselves and those who interact with us. I find it fascinating that different definitions of what is "daggy" or "fashionable" or "casual" or "formal" will change quite a bit in Sydney itself let alone the nation or the world at large.

In our part of Sydney smart casual is a nice dress shirt with collar and trousers- or dressy jeans and good shoes... and maybe a tie and jacket at a funeral, wedding or business event. What amazes me is that in some parts of the world a T shirt and casual jeans is considered quite appropriate. Some ministers can use more casual standards to rate themselves, as they think we need to be more "funky" or "edgy" but in the end alienate the people who are in their area. By the same token, some ministers are very "smartly" dressed, but are giving off the message "Upper Middle class" to people who find this a bit of a hurdle. We need to be dressed appropriately for the culture of the people we minister to.

This is a basic issue- but extremely important for our mission.

We need to be dressed appropriately for the culture of the people we minister to.

I agree. I am very mindful that I have to consider the culture of the people I serve not only outwith the church but also within the church.

I am too just old I think, but a songleader with "Carlsberg" on his sloppy joe, and a musician with no shoes, raised my hackles Sunday by Sunday until Carlsberg disappeared. I hope the barefooted pilgrim now has shoes.

The conduct of some Anglican morning services is not informal, but simply slovenly.

I am totally at a loss to understand why the abandonment of formality, such as cassock and surplice, or the dropping of the modernised prayer book services, is regarded as catering for the contemporary culture, especially as those for whom it is intended probably never darken the doors.

I think the current informality will pass when it becomes abundantly clear, if it is not already, that it is appropriate only in some primarily evangelistic contexts where compromise is not only desirable, but essential.

Why, however, it is considered obligatory to subject all congregants to unAnglican forms of worship for no really good outcomes is beyond my understanding.

I was in Sydney for the Catholic World Youth Day and I saw formality retained without, and I repeat, without, any loss of commitment by the thousands of young worshippers.

I think we got off at the wrong stop somewhere along the line.

I wonder how hobos feel about the dress standards of our clergy? I doubt there really are many ministers who really follow the 'dress like your congregation' guideline for the homeless. One of our difficulties is that we really are getting some christian leaders from different backgrounds now. They just seem to forget who is meant to be in charge (the respectable middle class!). Perhaps to get across that ministers are labourers not bosses we shoul make them all wear those flouro safety shirts while working. The advantage of the blue/black (even green if your a little fruity) shirt with clerical collar is that you look reasonably smart without looking like a businessman or a brickie

The issue is probably more with the 'cast' of laity than the senior minister.

My work means I get around churches quite a bit. Amongst the clergy there is sometimes a bit of colour blindness. But that's hardly a crime (hmmm... pink ties with green shirts). The worst item you see amongst the senior clergy is the odd brown cardigan.

As the bishop says the worst situation is often infant baptism in a regular congregation where the non-Christian guests dress up like they are at a wedding while the regulars (like me) are in T-shirts and thongs (including the laity 'up front').

Not sure how we get round that? Perhaps more communication? ie have info to advise baptism families to tell their guests to dress 'smart casual' while also reminding the regulars to dress 'smart casual' in the Sundays leading up to the baptism?????

Bishop's comments about 'overreacting' - nailed it! Historically the pattern amongst God's people when it comes to error (whether real or perceived)is to overreact.

1. Perceived error = over emphasis on the visible church at the expense of the invisible church -
The response: de-emphasise church membership, bring to the fore the invisible church.
The Overreaction individualism, the concept of church membership is non-existant; people "go to a church"or "attend a church" rather than "belong to a church"; McChristianity.

2. Perceived error = Cerebral Academic Christianity -
The Response: The Charismatic movement.
The Overreaction experience has primacy over the Scriptures, subjectivism.

3. Perceived error = formality, clericalism, nominalism, decreasing church attendance and/or decreasing conversions.
The Response: Clergy drop vestments; laity drop wearing their 'Sunday best' in the hope that it will make church more approachable to the unchurched, clergy won't be seen as a separate class of people, people won't emphasise external appearance over the state of one's heart. The unchurch will find the church attractive approachable and relevant.
The Overreaction: Clergy garp is deemed to be a hindrance to gospel proclamation and contextualisation? A loss of reverance and awe of God during corporate worship? Theotainment? Pragmatism?
cont

I am all for churches being contextually relevant but I wonder if (and I am not a fan of this saying because it seems to be used so often) the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater? Surely what attracts people to church must be the Lord Jesus Christ himself and the lives of those whom he has transformed rather than whether or not a minister is wearing clergy garb and/or if people are dressed up. In my experience with unchurch surprisingly perhaps I have noticed that some have quite conservative expectations about church:
1. They expect there to be some formality,
2. They expect to see clergy dressed different from the laity
3. They expect to see the laity dressed smartly.

It is us who think "oh no, the non-Christian (of which sadly many Christians don't have as friends) will be turned off by church because of the (take your pick)
a. the dog collars
b. the terminology
c. the music
d. the well-dressed people
and they will not be receptive to the gospel!" I wonder if these concerns are overstated?

I find Romans 14 helpful here. How we dress is a matter of freedom and we should dress how we like with a clear conscience. However, if ministry workers dress in a manner that evokes negative comment and thought, then those who are thinking this way are distracted from the gospel and from godly living. For their sake, we should change so that we do not evoke these comments.

Consequently, I think Robert has given some helpful advice.

However, further thought is needed. For example, my experience says that Josh is right in saying that many non Christians expect to see clergy dressed differently and more formally then the rest. However, it is also my experience that these same people fail to understand that Christianity is all about a relatiionship with Jesus and that we live in relationship with each other. Dressing according to stereotype can reinforce these wrong notions.

Quite simply: dress in a manner that is not a distraction and encourages the formation of a relationship. That is the principle I will work with and it means that different dress is required for different situations.

I dug up an old article entitled Collar Comfort. I hope I am not breaking any rules by posting it here. I thought it would promote more thought and discussion and this is always a good thing.

Joshua

Sometime ago I attended the Induction of a new Rector in a neighbouring parish. There were no instructions about robbing beforehand, so I assumed, rightly, that no robes would be worn by even so I was little surprised to find that I was the only clergy person there wearing a clerical collar. I felt a bit like the person who turns up at a wedding wearing a dinner sit when everyone else is wearing smart casual. This was not the first time I had been in the minority when it came to clerical dress but a minority of one gets you wondering. It is good to question long held traditions so this is an attempt to think through why I persists in what is now an antiquated and unpopular practice in the Diocese (of Sydney).
I suspect the current abhorrence of wearing clerical dress is based on the view that it smacks of power and privilege. It marks you out and separates you from laypeople; it says “I am deserving of special respect.” If that were really the case then I would be opposed to it too. However, this has not been my experience.

continued...

I was ordained in 1987 and commenced work as a Curate at St Mark’ Darling Point with the late Canon Jim Whild. Jim was definitely old school and wore his clerical collar at all times. It was rumoured he wore it to bed but I think this may have been apocryphal. It was Jim firm’s expectation that his curates would wear a collar too. I remember, soon after our arrival in the parish when a parish social function was about to be held Jim drew me aside and told me that for this function it would be permissible to ear mufti. Wearing a collar in the street was an interesting experience – I felt extremely uncomfortable at first and was convinced everyone was staring at me. This feeling gradually wore off and apart from being called ‘Father’ by some shopkeepers and greeted by parishioners recognising the new curate most people took little notice. Being ‘in uniform’gave me easy entree when visiting in hospitals and nursing homes and occasionally free admission to hospital car parks! (This quickly stopped).
Then we moved to the Parish of East Sydney where I was Assistant Minister to John McKnight and then Bill Lawton. Here I was free to wear what I chose, but habits instilled at Darling Point prevailed. The collar usually stayed on. But the streets of Darlinghurst proved very different to those of Edgecliff and Darling Point.

continued...

Here I encountered verbal abuse – one gentlemen felt impelled to swear loudly and vehemently whenever I came into sight. I was often stopped and asked for money. Walking past the strip clubs in Kings Cross on my way home from visiting patients at St Luke’s Hospital was always an interesting experience as the spruikers would often attempt to invite me in, notice the collar and then say, “Sorry Father”.
On one occasion a dishevelled gentlemen, living on the streets accosted me outside the Commonwealth Bank. He asked me if I could work the ATM for him as he needed money for food. With astonishing trust he gave me his keycard and pin no. I extracted the required money for him.
If people had been hurt or disappointed by the Church then that was how they reacted to me. Others, like my friend with the keycard, still thought a representative of the Church was a person to be trusted. I learnt that for some people a ‘collar’ marked me as ‘available for advice on family problems or explanations of why I haven’t been to church. After two and a half years at ‘never-a-dull-moment’ Darlinghust, I was convinced that wearing a collar presented me with more ministry opportunities than it denied. Yes, it marked me out, but rarely for social respect. The privileges it brought were those associated with showing compassion or service.

coninued...

Everyone called to full-time Christian ministry has to work out their own style and way of operating. Wearing a collar may not be the best approach for everyone but for me as an Anglican priest I’m comfortable with the collar and glad my old mentor, Jim Whild got me into the clerical ‘habit’.

Thoughts anyone?

Well the key part is:

After two and a half years at ‘never-a-dull-moment’ Darlinghust, I was convinced that wearing a collar presented me with more ministry opportunities than it denied. Yes, it marked me out, but rarely for social respect. The privileges it brought were those associated with showing compassion or service.

What surprises me about church life is that we often make radical changes based on nothing more than our 'gut feel' about what the unchurched/unbelievers think. This can cut both ways.

The research data would suggest the author is right. About half of the community still respect the church and believe Christianity and about half the community are anti-authoritarian and despise the church. Group 1 skews older.

I say use wisdom. Its probably a wise idea to wear a collar if you are visiting a nursing home or doing a funeral. Probably a bad idea if you are doing uni campus ministry.

I say use wisdom. Its probably a wise idea to wear a collar if you are visiting a nursing home or doing a funeral. Probably a bad idea if you are doing uni campus ministry

Jer,
If you don't me my asking, why would this be a bad idea? If ministers have not been wearing collars since the mid 80's (I assume this because I read a newspaper clipping from 1985 where Sydney Synod passed an ordinance saying that ministers are not required to where the surplace)then this would mean that nearly all uni students would never even seen a minister wearing a clergy collar. Therefore, if they did see anyone wearing a clerical collar, where would the negative reaction come from? How can they be offended by a uniform that they have never seen before? I cannot see how the clergy collar denotes authority to a younger generation (or even my generation [I am 35]) when they have not encountered it before.

It seems to me that either clergy wearing 'the uniform' is bad idea because it truly is a hindrance to the gospel or, because we have not been brought up with ministers wearing clergy uniform weassume, deduce and therefore concludethat of course non-Christians will perceive the clergy uniform negatively and it will be a hindrance to the gospel.

Josh, I don't feel particular strongly about the issue.. however I do think the argument that dressing down has a place missiologically is valid.

Indeed the argument against your would be that campus ministry is a particularly relational context where ministry is best done by those 'like us' (ie the students). Hence it tends to be done by young people who are / or who dress like uni students.

The argument would be that wearing the 'formal' clergy uniform would be as unhelpful as wearing a business suit.

For sure! I guess when an effort (even the slightest) is made it shows that who ever is up the front is serious about what they are doing/saying.