Bishop's Epistle

Friday, January 17, 2014

Modalism, Simultaneous or Sequential?

ON MODALISM

It has been my experience, that those who say there is a difference between Oneness and Modalism theologies have little or no knowledge of Modalism as a label for their faith. Or, they have accepted Trinitarian definitions of Modalism.

Some Trinitarian writers, I will not say scholars, claim that the Modalism of the early centuries of the Church taught a position of sequential modalism. This same group of writers want to postulate that the doctrine of Modalism was formulated by Sabellius. Both accusations are untrue.

These writers also postulate that Sabellius taught sequential modalism - that when God became the Son He was not the Father, now that He is the Holy Spirit He is no longer the Father or the Son. What we know is that this was not the opinion of earlier Modalism, and we only have Sabellius' enemies for what he taught. I, for one, do not believe Sabellius taught such a doctrine.

Between modern Oneness and ancient Modalism there may be a shade of difference in the understanding of the phrase "Son of God." Modern Oneness theology has a tendency to view the Son as ONLY the humanity of Christ, while (at least some) Modalist of the second and third centuries seem to have been willing to call the incarnated Father the Son of God, because He was God that had undergone generation. This view is reflected in the Greek text (Greek New Testament) of John 1:18 where John calls Jesus “monogenēs theos;” English: “only begotten God. (Text: NKJVmg; RSVmg; NREV; ESV; NSAB; NIV (TNIV); NEBmg; NJBmg; NAB; NLT; HCSBmg.)

The simple biblical truth is this: One God-being has manifested Himself to His creation in three modes: As the Father in creation, in the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in emanation and sanctification. These modes exist simultaneously.

The three modes are not eternal; the mode of the Son did not manifest until Bethlehem and will end at some point in eternity future. Though the Holy Spirit has always been the "Power of the Highest," since Pentecost AD 30 the world has been in the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. Both the office of Son and Holy Spirit will be re-assumed into the one office of God at some point in the future and God will be what He was in the beginning - God: All in All.

As a Modalist bishop, I want to lovingly correct the mistaken view that is current today concerning Modalism. Modalism NEVER has and does not today teach or believe in Sequential Modalism as our enemies assert. This is ONLY the accusation of Trinitarianism against Modalism. It is sad that so many Oneness persons have bought into the Trinitarian lie and are shying away from using this most ancient term to classify their theology.

Sabellius was accused of Sequential Modalism; but, it has never been proven, nor can be, because anything we have of his teaching is filtered through the poisoned pens of his enemies. Even if we give the Trinitarians the benefit of the doubt and allow that Sabellius did teach a Sequential Modalism, it is quickly pointed out that he was excommunicated by the Modalist Bishop of Rome, one Callixtus. We would agree that any such teaching as Sequential Modalism would be heresy.

All Modalist of the early centuries of Christianity - and since - believed/believe and taught/teach

Simultaneous Modalism. Modalism does not now. nor ever did, teach Sequential Modalism. This is a misnomer created by our opponents. Modalism has always believed in Simultaneous Modalism. When the Father was incarnate in the Son He did not cease being the Father, now that God is also manifested as the Holy Spirit He has not stopped being the Father and the Son. Just as h2o can exist in the mode of liquid, solid, and vapor without altering the underlying substance of h2o, so too God.

On Sabellianism and Sabellius:

Sabellius was a Modalist, yes, that is true. In the early centuries of the Church people had different ways of explaining Modalism, just like today people have different ways of explaining Trinitarianism. Because Sabellius was such a successful teacher of Modalism his name came to be applied to any and all positions of the Godhead that advocated Jesus as the one God in opposition to subordinationism. Consequently, then, "Sabellianism" became a catch word for all types of Christological concepts that acknowledged Jesus as the One True God. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that just because some weird and strange teaching is called Sabellianism does not imply that Sabellius, himself, taught it.

Sabellius attempted to take the teachings of older modalists and frame it in the scientific language of the then developing trinity. He even employed the word trinity to describe his theology; I think, because it was the buss-word of his day.

Both Sabellius and Tertullian were from North Africa. It is easy to get the Economical Trinity, of Tertullian, and the Modalism of Sabellius, mixed up. At first appearance, they sound very much alike.

Conclusion

There is much talk about the difference between Modalism and Oneness. I want to go on record as stating there is no REAL difference. As in all theological paradigms, different "laymen" have different ways of explaining their particular views.

Many have asked why I favor and promote the term 'Modalism" over the term "Oneness." Well, I will tell you clearly: The term "Oneness" is a twentieth century title that has come to be associated with 20th century apostolic-ism (not to be confused with 1st century apostolic-ism) which is, itself, associated with such non-biblical practices as regulating the dress and personal appearances of both men and women as a test of salvation; the insistence on a belief in pre-millennialism for fellowship; and the non-sacramental position on the Eucharist.

Modalism, on the other hand, is a term that goes back to the early centuries of the Church (and is truly apostolic), which moves us beyond the 20th century interlopers that wish to claim the title of "apostolic."

Peace to your houses.
☩ Jerry Hayes

If the Bishop's ministry is a blessing to you, we are sure you would want to have a part in providing this imformation to others. To support this ministry make a donation of any amount, click the link below.

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/06/defense-of-first-timothy-316-answering.html

Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY

PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

The Three Horsemen of Dispensationalism

As each of you know by now, a concept of the Kingdom of God has laid hold on me in a hard and fast manner, which is somewhat different from the view that is commonly held by most Pentecostal authorities. (Of course, I mention Pentecostal authorities, because, for the past several generations our family has been a very large part of that particular movement.) However, history testifies that the common view (in most Pentecostal and mainline Evangelical churches), now called Dispensationalism, is actually rather new, and therefore neo-orthodox, to say nothing of not being apostolic. The apostolic view of the Mystery of God (see Rev. 10:7), as it was believed by most Christians before the American Civil War, was the view of Kingdom Theology, as I have now come to embrace. It seems that the present view of Dispensationalism took root in American evangelicalism and spread throughout the world by means of Evangelical missionary activity.

Before the American Civil War (1861-65) most Christian bodies viewed God’s plan for the ages (the Mystery of God–Rev 10:7) as that of Kingdom dominion: namely, the converting of the world to Christ Jesus! However, this particular war (which took the lives of more Americans than all other wars, even up to this present time) fought by our nation, where the Christian North and the Christian South killed one another in such wholesale manner, caused the religious teachers to rethink their position on the Kingdom of God. The world, to them, was not getting better, but worse. It appeared that the end was near, and Christ would surely return soon. About this time, an English minister by the name of John Nelson Darby (Plymouth Brethren) first popularized the view now called Dispensationalism.

Coming on the heels of the American Civil War was the Great War (1915-1917), or World War One, as it came to be called after the Second World War (1941-1945). These two great world conflicts seemed to give validity to Dispensationalism’s call for the imminent and physical return of Christ, and the appearing of the Antichrist. It was in the midst of all this that an American Bible expositor by the name of Cyrus I. Scofield wrote his famous Study Bible which carries his name, to this very day. Mr. Scofield’s Study Bible contains notes that are both Dispensational and Calvinistic. This particular study source was widely used by evangelical preachers and Bible colleges throughout the last half of the twentieth century. (My first serious Bible-study tool was a Scofield Study Bible, given to me by my pastor. I think the year was 1962.) Giving a visual concept to dispensationalism was Clarence Larkin, of Philadelphia. Larkin was an Episcopalian mechanical engineer, turned Baptist minister, who employed his skill as a professional draftsman to give Dispensationalism a visual concept. Adding to this has been the troubled events of the world for the last fifty, or so; years that have been touted as the “signs of the times,” which presage the end of time.

Though this may seem like sound reasoning at first thought, when one applies oneself to rightly dividing the Scripture, it seems far more likely that the shaking and trembling of the earth, for the last 150 (or so) years, are not signs of the end. Instead, they should more correctly be understood as birth pangs of something new—namely, the consummation of the Kingdom of God.

In this consummation of God’s Kingdom, the earth will be united under the theocracy of the one true God of Heaven. All men will live in a community of peace and love as set forth by the New Testament. The New Testament has many names for this community which we will discuss later. To arrive at that place, the Church should begin now to establish micro communities throughout the earth. These communities should be established on the principle of Christian order, under Christ as the one and only Principality.

John Nelson Darby, Born Nov 18, 1800, Died April 29, 1882

Cyrus I. Scofield, Born Aug 19, 1843; Died July 24, 1921

Clarence Larkin, Born Oct 28, 1850; Died Jan 24, 1924

With Darby’s theology, Scofield’s Study Bible, and Larkin’s drawings, American evangelicalism was in position to spread Dispensationalism around the world.

Apostolically Speaking
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

Read other epistles from the Bishop on eschatology:

God’s New Covenant With Israel

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/05/gods-new-covenant-with-israel.html

Apostolic Eschatology

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/02/apostolic-eschatology.html

The Prophets Speak of the Church

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-prophets-speak-of-church.html

Apostolic Kingdom Theology vs Futurism

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/07/apostolic-kingdom-theology-vs-futurism.html

Dating the Book of Revelation

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/07/dating-book-of-revelation.html

Prophecy and the Spiral Staircase

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/04/bible-prophecy-and-spiral-staircas.html

The Three Horsemen of Dispensationalism

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-three-horsemen-of-dispensationalism.html

Correct Method of Interpreting the Book of Revelation

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/07/correct-method-of-interpreting.html

Joel's Messianic Kingdom (The Church of Jesus Christ)

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/06/joels-messianic-age-church-of-jesus.html

Biblical Eschatology
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/biblical-eschatology.html

Millennial Reign of Christ
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/millennial-reign-of-christ.html

All These Things (A Study on Matthew 24)
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/all-these-things-kingdom-teaching-of.html

Second Coming of Christ Jesus
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/second-coming-of-christ-jesus.html

The Crux of the Matter (What Did Jesus Mean By "The Generation"?)
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-crux-of-matter-what-did-jesus-mean.html

The Apocalypse, is the introduction to the biblical book of Revelation. Here Bishop Hayes also gives a verse by verse commentary of the first three chapters of the Apostle John's Revelation of Jesus Christ, covering the letters addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor. The Bible student will thrill at the Bishop's easy evangelistic style of presenting deep and unique truths never before published. In this study a wealth of information will be shared with the disciples of Christ on each verse of this great manuscript.

Own your personal copy of this enlightening work by ordering at the link provided here:
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Introduction-Epistles-Seven-Churches/dp/1686423152/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+Apocalypse&qid=1568308793&s=books&sr=1-1

After spending over forty years in the dispensational doctrine, and having raise my children in that theological framework, I became a convinced adherent to a "kingdom" theology that recognizes the Church as the Israel of God, and that the first century actually saw the fulfillment of most of Matthew chapter 24. "Letters to My Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology" is a compilation of twenty four letters written to my children explaining my journey. These "Letters" provide a systematic approach to Apostolic Eschatological study of Scripture. It is sure to interest all students of Scriptures.

Order your personal copy today from the link provided here:

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Children-Apostolic-Kingdom-Theology/dp/1482716712/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_2?keywords=Letters%2C+Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1558365492&s=books&sr=1-2-fkmrnull

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY PURCHASING MY BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY. -JLH

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Triquetra and Modalism

On the Tri-Circle (Triquetra)

This symbol is of Celtic origin.

The triquetra is often found in Insular (Celtic) art, most notably metal work and in illuminated manuscripts like the Book of Kells. It is also found in similar artwork on Celtic crosses and slabs from the early Christian period. The fact that the triquetra rarely stood alone in medieval Celtic art has cast reasonable doubt on its use as a primary symbol of belief. In manuscripts it was used primarily as a space filler or ornament in much more complex compositions, and in knotwork panels it is a design motif integrated with other design elements. Celtic art lives on as both a living folk art tradition and through several revivals. This widely recognized knot has been used as a singular symbol for the past two centuries by Celtic Christians, and by Pagans and agnostics as a sign of special things and persons that are threefold.

Only since the 19th century has the triquetra found a place in Trinitarian theological symbols. However, it falls short of being a representation of the trinity. One should compare it to the three interlocking circles that does, in point of fact, represent the Trinity.

The triquetra is a circle that has been tri folded.

When I teach about the omnipresence of God I say: God is a circle Whose center is everywhere and Whose circumference is nowhere.

Then, when I teach about the economy of deity, I tri-fold the circle to represent the Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit - notice that while the tips of the symbol are separate (demonstrating the distinction between the offices/manifestations/modes) they are all three the same circle; notice that at the center the Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit are all three the same individual. In this sense the One God arranges His deity into an economy to facilitate redemption. This configuration is not eternal. God has not always existed in the modes of Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit (these modes are necessary to redeem a fallen creation). Furthermore, when the restitution of all things is accomplished the economy of deity will unfold back into the Circle, Whose center is everywhere and Whose circumference is nowhere.

Trinitarians think the triquetra represents a Trinity; however, the triquetra does not adequately represent three separate and distinct persons - as does the three interlocking circles. This fact is an aid in their evangelization, however. The triquetra brings the truth of the Godhead into sharp focus and is used by those Trinitarians who, in truth, are Modalist but are still using a Trinitarian vocabulary. As I pointed out above, it teaches Modalism much better than it teaches the Trinity.

It is correct that most today see the triquetra as a recent Trinitarian symbol; although it is very ancient in the Church. For example the triquetra was used by the Celtic christians in the early centuries of Christianity as a decorative Celtic knot. It is doubtful that the triquetra was used by the Celts to represent the Godhead because it is never seen standing alone. The Celts may have used the term Trinity but were by-and-large Modalist. It must be pointed out that Sabellius, himself, used the word Trinity to describe his form of Modalism. The triquetra, however, has only been used to represent the Trinity for the last 200 years; which represents how the view of the Godhead is becoming more and more Modalistic among those who still consider themselves Trinitarians..

Some say it is a pagan symbol and should be rejected as having no Christian merit. Other persons would be just as adamant that the cross is evil because it was a symbol used in paganism before it became popular in Christianity. IMHO, a symbol can stand for anything one wants it to stand for. A symbol may represent different things to different groups: e.g. I may employ the rainbow as a covenant symbol, while the gays employ it as their symbol, and Jesse Jackson uses it in yet another way. There is nothing intrinsic in any particular symbol that makes it good or evil - it is the explanation that is put on it. A symbol only has valid meaning within the particular community that is using it.

That the Oneness think the triquetra represents a Trinity of persons only demonstrates how badly we need educated.

Apostolically Speaking

☩☩ Jerry L Hayes

(Mar David Ignatius)

Read other essays from the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Dual Nature Of Jesus Of Nazareth"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-dual-nature-of-jesus-of-nazareth.html

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-worlds-made-by-son.html

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/12/hebrews-138-vs-1-corinthians-1528.html

"Glory With The Father"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2012/12/glory-with-father.html

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/02/philippains-26-8-answering-trinitarian.html

"How Is God One?"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-is-god-one.html

"Hebrew Monotheism"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/02/hebrew-monothesim.html

"Answering Trinitarian Objections To The Oneness Faith"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/03/answering-trinitarian-objections-to.html

"The Apostolic Creed"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/05/i-believe-in-one-god-1-solitary-in.html

"Jesus Is Father God"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/07/jesus-is-father-god.html

"Homoousia And The Creed Of Nicaea"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/10/homoousia-and-creed-of-nicaea.html

"The Triquetra And Modalism"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2013/12/triquetra-and-modalism.html

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/01/modalism-biblical-and-historical.html

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/02/micah-52-4-exegesis-but-thou-bethlehem.html

"Elohim, the Plural form For God"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/10/answering-trinitarian-objections-to.html

"Can the Deity of Jesus Be called The Son Of God?"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/04/can-deity-of-jesus-be-called-son-of-god.html

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/04/mathematical-equation-of-godhead-1x1x11.html

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/05/hebrew-monotheism.html

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/05/jesus-on-gods-right-hand.html

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-name-of-deity-tetragrammaton.html

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/06/christology-of-apostolic-church-fathers.html

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/06/christian-modalism-challenged-by-greeks.html

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-apologist-and-logos-christology.html

"Logos Christology"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/06/logos-christology.html

"The Seven Spirits of God"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/07/revelation-14-apostolically-speaking.html

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-historical-numerical-superiority-of.html

"How Is God One?" Second Edition

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-is-god-one.html

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/09/creed-of-nica-creed-of-318-affirmed.html

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/09/another-comforter-answering-objections.html

"Echad vs Yachid (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/09/echad-vs-yachid-answering-objections-to.html

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/10/godhead-theology-of-bishop-ignatius-of.html

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/10/godhead-theology-of-bishop-ignatius-of.html

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2016/08/godhead-theology-of-tabernacle-of-moses_5.html

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/proper-biblical-understanding-of-word.html

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/defense-of-isaiah-96.html

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/06/defense-of-first-timothy-316-answering.html

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY

PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Clerical Dress

On Clerical Collar: by Bishop Jerry L Hayes (Mar David Ignatius)

The origin of the clerical collar does not stem from the attire of Roman priests. Its genesis is of Protestant origin.

Bishop Jerry Hayes

In the time of the Reformation, many of the Reformed wanted to distance themselves from what was perceived as Roman clerical attire. ... What they began to do, beginning in the 17th century as far as I can tell, is to begin to wear a neck scarf, called a cravat, tied around the neck to resemble a yoke. Thus common dignified attire was worn by the pastor, supplementing it with this clerical cravat. This style can be seen in many of our famous Reformed divines, one of the more famous of whom being Charles Hodge.

Another objection that might be raised is whether or not this neck band or cravat, such as we see Charles Hodge wearing, was in any way distinctive clerical garb. Several 19th century sources reveal that these cravats were, in fact, considered distinctive clerical garb. The following quote is from a 19th century source called The Domestic Annals of Scotland, Volume 3:

Charles Hodge

In the austerity of feeling which reigned through the Presbyterian Church on its reestablishment there had been but little disposition to assume a clerical uniform or any peculiar pulpit vestments. It is reported that when the noble commissioner of one of the first General Assemblies was found fault with by the brethren for wearing a scarlet cloak he told them he thought it as indecent for them to appear in gray cloaks and cravats. When Mr. Calamy visited Scotland in 1709 he was surprised to find the clergy generally preaching in neckcloths and coloured cloaks. We find at the date here marginally noted that the synod of Dumfries was anxious to see a reform in these respects. The synod – so runs their record – “considering that it’s a thing very decent and suitable so it hath been the practice of ministers in this kirk formerly to wear black gowns in the pulpit and for ordinary to make use of bands do therefore by their act recommend it to all their brethren within their bounds to keep up that custome and to study gravitie in their apparel and every manner of way.”

Here we see several members of the 18th c. Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) having their hackles raised over some ostentatious clergymen wearing scarlet cloaks and cravats. Later they hold a Synod where they decide that they ought to wear black gowns and to make use of neck bands. This paragraph shows us two things: the wearing of cravats was considered to be distinctive clerical garb, and the synod of the kirk decided ultimately that modest use of neckbands was permitted. (There are many more such examples in 19th century sources which can easily be researched on Google Books. I invite the reader to see for himself.) Thus when we see all manner of 17th-19th century Reformed pastors sporting preaching tabs, neck bands, and cravats, we should interpret them to be intentionally sporting distinctive clerical garb. We should also gather that the author of these annals, one Robert Chambers, included this anecdote in his work in order to promote the modest use of bands and clerical garb in his day.

The last bit of history to cover regards the origin of the modern clerical collar. According to several sources, including one cited by the Banner of Truth website (no Romanizing group), the modern clerical collar was invented by a Presbyterian. In the mid 19th century heavily starched detachable collars were in great fashion. This can been seen up through the early part of the 20th century if one has watched any period television shows or movies. If we observe the collar worn by Charles Hodge we can see that at first these collars were not folded down as they are today, but left straight up.

Yet in the mid to late 19th century it became the fashion of the day to turn these collars down. You and I still wear a turned down collar. The origin of the modern clerical collar is simply then to turn or fold the collar down over the clerical cravat, leaving the white cloth exposed in the middle. According to the Glasgow Herald of December 6,1894, the folded down detachable clerical collar was invented by the Rev Dr Donald McLeod, a Presbyterian minister in the Church of Scotland. According to the book Clerical Dress and Insignia of the Roman Catholic Church, “the collar was nothing else than the shirt collar turned down over the cleric’s everyday common dress in compliance with a fashion that began toward the end of the sixteenth century. For when the laity began to turn down their collars, the clergy also took up the mode.”

Yet two questions arise: how did the clerical collar then fall out of use among Presbyterians and how did it come to be so associated with Roman Catholic priests? The answer is that up until the mid 20th century the prescribed dress for all Roman Catholic priests was the cassock, a full length clerical gown. Yet during the 20th century it became custom for Roman Catholic priests to wear a black suit with a black shirt and clerical collar, which collar they appropriated from Protestant use. Owing to the large number of Roman Catholic priests in some areas, and due to the fact that some sort of everyday clerical dress was mandated for all priests at all times when outside their living quarters, the clerical collar became to be associated more with the Roman Catholic Church than with the Protestant churches. It stands to reason that once again a desire to create distance between the Reformed and Roman Catholics and the increasing desire throughout the 20th century for ministers to dress in more informal ways has led to the fact that barely any Reformed pastor wears any distinctive clerical dress these days, though plenty of examples show that our eminent forbearers desired to do so.

It is an important part of a Christian minister's uniform. I can tell by the way many ask that they do not approve. Why is that. If they are of the opinion that it is Roman Catholic, they would be mistaken. In our day when Christianity is so put down, I find it a witness for Christ. When I am about town, so to speak, no one mistakes me for a used car salesman. In fact my appearance announces to all who see me that the Kingdom of God is open for business. According to Apostolic Orthodox custom I am expected to wear clergy apparel whenever outside my home. I do not always do that, however.

Although I do not have to defend my actions concerning clerical dress, the collar especially, I will say this: Clerical dress is not RCC. But, in the name of brotherly love I am happy to help educate the uneducated. Clerical dress is customary with the PAW (Pentecostal Assemblies of the World). Much of my Pentecostal life has been spent in and with that group. I adopted my dress from them. Those who associate the collar with the RCC are un-knowledgeable. Trust me, you are the only ones offended. It is respected by the world we are trying to reach with the gospel.

Here is a prediction: Just as we are beginning to see the term "Bishop" used among the Oneness Pentecostals where we never did before (except in the PAW), clergy garments such as the collar will be seen more and more over the next few decades.

As the Christian faith becomes more disliked and the more society attempts to push us into the shadows the more our ministers will force our visibility by their apparel. it is an "In Your Face" kind of evangelistic move.

Clergy apparel is a personal decision I made which I felt would be pleasing to God. Today many (most) churches (not OP) are leaving the business suit. In time, say 100 years or so, the Op will still be wearing the black business suit to preach in and it will be just as much clergy apparel as the collar is today -- IMHO.

The prophet Elijah wore specific attire that made him recognizable by all who saw him, and the prophet John the Baptist dressed in the same exact way. Historians report that James the half brother of Christ and the Apostle John (if you accept the John of Ephesus as being the apostle) wore priests garments. And Jesus, Jesus did indeed wear the garments of a religious teacher. And, O, there is this: The NT church is the "Tabernacle of David" rebuild -- according to James. It was in the establishing of the OT tabernacle of David that religious garments were assigned to everyone who served in the house of God. So this is very biblical. Christianity is not something else apart from Judaism, it is Judaism in full bloom.

Sources

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, 2003

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 1996

The Presbyterian Encyclopedia, Alfred Nevin, 1880

The clerical collar has been present in the apostolic movement from the very first as this picture of Bishop David T. Schultz bears witness: