Are ecclesiastical robes a valuable element in our Anglican tradition or are they just expensive trappings that appeal to a particular class of people and can be safely discarded in this busy modern world? It is a question well worth asking, now that so many good, hard working and Gospel-focussed clergy have been busy consigning them to the scrap heap of history without so much as a second thought.
In the first place, it is worth considering what they are and what they mean. In the Middle Ages, when there was only the one Catholic Church in the British Isles, those devoted to the service of God, either as priests or members of religious communities, wore a black cassock and white surplice at all daily services other than the Holy Communion and the other six sacraments. The cassock denoted their sacred vocation and the surplice pointed to their call to be pure in Christian living, as was their heavenly Master, Jesus Christ Himself. For the Eucharist, there were special vestments, the coloured stole for the ordained priests and deacons, with the celebrant and his assistants wearing a distinctive and highly ornamented chasuble and other no less exuberant vestments. These special robes, although in reality the garb of a nobleman in the later days of the Roman Empire, had evolved into the distinguishing mark of those leading the Mass, where it was believed that a sacrifice was being offered to the Father to atone for the sins of the congregation. The mediaeval stole, hanging down the priest’s front, had signified that he had received the authority, but also the yoke or burden of Christ. Apart from the old sacerdotal one, the new Reformation black scarf or tippet signified much the same ministerial functions of the Anglican ordained minister as he sought to serve both the Lord and His people.
However, what is rarely realised is that the Anglican clergy are not the only ones in English society to wear the black scarf. They are also part of the attire of High Court judges, where they signify that the judiciary is responsible for administering the Moral Law of God and imposing its penalties, whereas the ministerial scarf reminds us all that the clergy are ministers of the Law of Christ, which focusses, not upon punishment, but upon the Saviour’s mercy and forgiveness to unworthy sinners.
As for the academic hood that denotes a man’s university and degree, this demonstrates that the clergy are not ignorant, as so many people seem to think these days. They have been obliged to submit to the rigour and discipline of university levels of learning and prove themselves sufficiently competent in how to think and how to express themselves in both the spoken and written word. Learning has always been part of the Anglican mindset from Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker onwards and it becomes even more important now that such a large proportion of the young are themselves becoming university graduates.
In this way we can see that our ecclesiastical robes, far from being a distraction, are actually valuable teaching aids, displaying to our people in visual fashion the authority of the leadership given to them by God and demonstrating just how the clergy ought to be living and what they should be doing – a great reminder of why the clergy exist. Theirs is entirely a servant role - that is if they actually want their lay people to be aware of this uncomfortable fact! This does, of course, beg the question of whether some Evangelical clergy actually believe in a separate ordained ministry at all, or whether the Priesthood of all Believers has been taken to a ridiculous extreme. Perhaps they should read the 1662 Ordinal and Articles for the answer!
However, the abandonment of robes is also an indication of our continuing inability to engage with working class people and children, who have always responded more readily to the visual than to the written word, as the great Anglo Catholic slum ministries of Richard Dolling in Portsmouth, Lincoln Wainwright and H.A.Wilson in London’s East End and George Body in the Black Country so amply testify. Jesus Himself was only too well aware of this when he decided to do most of his public teaching by telling stories – in His day that was the only way the spoken word could become visual, realistic and effective.
Interestingly, our orthodox Anglican brothers in the persecuted churches of Africa and Asia represented by GAFCON and GSFA are all robe wearers and nobody could possibly complain that they are anything other than totally focussed upon spreading the Gospel of Jesus and teaching their people assiduously from His holy Word. If only we possessed a fraction of their energy and courage!
When one looks at most Evangelical Anglican churches and meeting places, the visual impression is one of being at a secular public meeting or even in a mosque. Does it actually look like the worship of our great and glorious Lord and God? Very often there is no cross, no pictures of Jesus and His disciples and no holy table or font. The visual place of honour instead goes to the music group or band. The minister, standing at the front in his open-necked shirt, is hardly marked out from among the rest as their spiritual leader. Surely he will have ample opportunity to return to casual attire when the service is over – as indeed, he should!
Of course, it is great to have a flexible and informal worship space, where all kinds of music can be made, drama can be performed, overhead screens can be used for teaching and refreshments can be served after, or even during a service. This is all good and proper, but please, don’t let us throw the baby out with the bathwater. What people can see before them with their own eyes is as effective a teacher, if not more so, than what they can read on a page or a screen. Ask anyone who works in a primary school what constitutes an effective communication method and you will be told precisely this.
