A Response to Mike Winger on Clergy Clothing

Clothing is rhetoric. Clothing communicates, and the Bible speaks abundantly about the role of clothing.

The popular evangelical podcaster Mike Winger has written a piece of contention against clergy clothes. Winger seems well-liked, and I suspect he and I would have much in common. His short and long videos are compelling for a broad evangelical audience. He does not come from the Reformed tradition, so his analysis generally doesn’t satisfy my interests or interpretive grid. Still, he’s appealing to a different audience, and I am delighted he is reaching them. There is plenty of room for other approaches and strategies.

Mike Winger

The Winger Thesis

Here's his thesis, which I wish to interact with briefly:

“Jesus and the apostles never wore special robes to represent themselves as clergy. Yes, he had a tunic woven from a single piece of cloth. But let’s not pretend that it had a little white bit in the middle of a black collar or that he wore some elaborate, pointy hat that only he was allowed to wear. Clergy clothing is an accretion and one that seems unhealthy (note I did not say “evil”). One can make analogies about Old Testament priests and their clothes but this only underscores my point, for we are ALL priests and trying to make such distinctions in the body of Christ based on an Old Covenant distinction that doesn’t exist in Christ only shows that the priesthood of all believers is made less clear through clergy clothes.”

Winger argues that the apostles never wore special robes to represent themselves as clergy. But his hermeneutic is simplistic and flawed. The argument for clergy wearing distinct uniforms is not rooted in a “show-me-the-verse” method of interpretation. He agrees that one can make analogies with the Old Testament priesthood of Exodus 28, but he is functioning with a New Testament-only paradigm. Christ abrogates the patterns and paradigms of priestly clothing.

But that approach fails to see what biblical theologians have articulated for some time. The Bible is a typological book. Patterns and paradigms reappear as confirmation notes for practice. The Apostles never articulate doctrine, worship, and practice divorced from the Old Testament patterns. For instance, the creation account is a paradigm for ethics, ecclesiology, and sociology. Genesis speaks to sexuality, labor, hierarchy, and more. If Winger neglected that pattern because he sees it fulfilled in Jesus, he would miss the centrality of Genesis to Jesus’ earthly ministry. Thus, theological deductions are inescapable and are, therefore, normative. Winger is operating on a different framework than historically understood.

He notes in his paragraph that there are abuses (“pointy hat”) in broader forms of Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. I also have distinct worries about this, but my concerns extend to low or casual liturgical traditions as well. While some may perceive ecclesial garbs to be a form of elite Christianity, there is no doubt that casualized vestments among evangelical leaders are easy forms of showboating that are, I argue, much more extreme than any basic clerical attire. Clerical attire requires no embellishment. It’s preset by seasons, whereas there is a necessary decorative element to non-liturgical garments that require time and are not rooted in biblical seasons. As you can see, the argument can quickly go both ways.

The White Bit

Winger says that there is no explicit case for a “white bit” in the middle of a black collar, but there certainly isn’t a case for the levels of low-hipster attires worn by many evangelical leaders. Winger may also dispute the validity of a Furtick pink sweater, but then he is left with defending some kind of clergy attire. So, then, what will it be? Cowboy boots and jeans, business casual, suit and tie, three-piece suit, golfing attire, fundy pants, tucked or untucked t-shirt? I have seen examples of all these outfits. What is his biblical rationale for them? Even if he says the clergy should look just like the people on Sunday morning and throughout the week, you still have to ask, “Which people?” The businessmen in the church, the construction worker, the shorts-guy? Which one, and what is the apostolic mandate for such a thing?

Steven Furtick

Clothing is rhetoric. Clothing communicates, and the Bible speaks abundantly about the role of clothing. It is crucial to understand the connotation of this rhetoric wherever you are ministering. Some people may trip over robes if they attend one of our churches, especially in the South, where the Southern Baptist world is dominant. But people will also trip over skinny jeans or a more exuberant suit.

The Clothing Symbolism

So, what is the Scriptural reality? Mike Winger notes that Christ and the Apostles wore no unique clothing. But this is a misunderstanding of how the Bible speaks of clothing. When John comes from the desert, his clothing is described in precise language (Matthew 3:4). His clothing is symbolic of judgment. When Jesus condemns the clothing of the Pharisees in Matthew 23, he is not condemning the garments but how they have been turned against their own meaning. The priests represented glory and beauty (Exodus 28:2), but Israel’s priests represented despair and damnation. Their clothing contradicted their message. There is a clear development of clothing articulated in the early Gospels. Jesus is not concerned about the Pharisees’ ecclesiastical garments, but instead, he would strip them of clothing if they continued to make false disciples. Ultimately, he will strip them of life in the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

John the Baptist preaching to the Pharisees

That clothing theology builds in the ministry of our Lord. When Jesus's Transfigured glory (Mat. 17) clothed him in white, what does that unique scene on the Mount—a place of worship—communicate about the role of Christ’s representatives in Word and Sacrament? It communicates that now our Lord is the final Word of Yahweh. It promises he will be the triumphant, resurrected Lord over the Church. Ministers (his representatives) will speak with the authority of the transfigured Lord in their white robes.

When the angelos (the pastors) are sitting around the throne robed in white (Rev. 4), what does that communicate about the labors of those gone before us? They cry on behalf of those who suffer. Ministers are heralds of God and speak words of comfort to those who suffer persecution and those who need the comfort of the Gospel. Again, the analogy applies to the Old Testament and heavenly worship.

Jeff Meyers and Al Stout

Furthermore, Winger’s attempt to argue for the priesthood of all believers fails the test of coherence. The fact that he begins by noting the “apostles” indicates something unique about the apostolic office that others don’t have. I wrote an entire book on the armor of the Christian called “The War of the Priesthood” to make the case there is a royal priesthood that pertains to all, and within that priesthood, there are unique callings (pastors and elders, for example). Ministers do not have the same calling as others. God’s people are priestly but are not all called to be the priestly voice that equips the saints in their local parishes (Ephesians 4:11-13).

Clerical Elitism?

There is also an unfortunate perception that clerical collars or albs call attention to the man or place the minister far from the people. In all my 16 years in Pensacola, wearing a white robe and stole on Sundays and wearing clerical collars daily, only 3-4 times has someone inquired about my attire. And when they do ask, it is quite an easy conversation. I cannot even begin to describe the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of times I have been stopped to pray for someone or to talk about the Bible with someone simply because a person or group saw me with a white tab on my shirt. The clerical collar indicates that God’s ministers are in the public square, ready to draw men and women to the blessings of Christ and his Church.

This leads to my general observation that the culture of any congregation and the culture the minister desires to convey leave a more powerful impression than the liturgical interests. Establish the culture, and the white robes are an easy sell. There is also a case for a well-dressed minister who doesn’t wear standard clerical attire, as most Protestant ministers have. These are all considering things indifferent (adiaphora). Still, the reasons to oppose the traditional Reformational clerical attire are not strong.

Gay priests wearing rainbow stoles are a problem, but on the other hand, the suit/tie combo has provided its fair share of egalitarianism and leftism. Clothing matters and the way to read clerical garments can be interpreted differently depending on context. But there is no legitimate biblical case against a pastoral uniform identifiable in worship and the public square.

We live in an age where priestly figures have disappeared from the scene. There is no power in clerical clothing but power in symbols. Our culture has given us too many cowardly ministers who will not confront the chaos of culture. The clerical collar re-establishes a sense of authority, which must always be connected with the authoritative word.

---

Notations

It was a great honor to receive a mention in the NRB newsletter.

---

---

Nuntium

Pray for my upcoming travels.

I will be headed to Fort Worth/Dallas next week for an hour-long interview with a ministry that televises and provides Gospel ministry to millions of Iranians. This is a tremendous opportunity, and I hope my interview will travel far and wide and encourage what seems to be a massive revival taking place in Iran.

Afterward, I will speak twice at the Fight, Laugh, Feast Conference on behalf of the CREC. I look forward to meeting hundreds of you there. Please come and introduce yourselves.

Pentecost Cheers,

Uriesou T. Brito

FOLLOW ALONG

FACEBOOK  /   X  /   YOUTUBE  /   INSTAGRAM
PODCAST  /   KUYPERIAN  /   SUBSTACK