Our southern correspondent sent a story from the Washington Post about the Supreme Court’s justices’ annual photo shoot. Robin Givhan, the staff writer, took particular notice of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision to adorn her black robe with “a white lace frill that flopped down the front of her chest like a hankie she’d tucked into her collar.†This fashion statement contrasted with the new justice, Elena Kagan, who allowed only a “a discreet hint of delicate white fabric peeking out from the top of her robe.â€
Givhan goes on to comment on the significance of attire for officials such as justices:
One wishes that the decision to wear basic black had been unanimous. The justices’ unadorned black robes carry with them an air of tradition, dignity, gravitas, as well as humility. It doesn’t matter if a justice is wearing a custom made Turnbull & Asser shirt, a Chanel suit or a tie from Charvet. All of that finery is hidden under their look alike robes. The stark costume reminds them that while they possess great power, it should be wielded with deep humility.
In donning the robes, the justices make a visual promise that they’re leaving personal idiosyncrasies, prejudices and desires outside the courtroom. They have tamped down individual preferences in service to the greater good, the general public . . . the law. The robes acknowledge that the justices have shed distractions in favor of objectivity, fairness and a common, high minded purpose. . . . The robe helps to ward off hubris and self importance. Indeed, wouldn’t we be perturbed if a justice decided that a little rhinestone trim along the sleeves would be quite nice? Or what if a justice decided that a mink collar would be quite lovely in the winter?
Does not the same logic, as our southern correspondent’s email asked, apply to pastors? Isn’t the nature of their work to get out of the way and let the word and Spirit do the work? And wouldn’t a robe that hid personal idiosyncrasies of sartorial preference and cultural breeding be a good way to remind the pastor that his work is not finally about him, his taste, or his social standing?
As Givhan concludes, “Clothes have a lot to say about who we are. They are our personal riffs on our place in the world. And those flourishes of style are important and meaningful.†But such statements have “no place on the Supreme Court.†If the proclamation of the word and the administration of the sacraments occupies an even higher purpose than interpreting the meaning of the nation’s laws, a robe would appear to be even more fitting for ministers than the business suit (not to mention the polo or faded t-shirt).
Old Life 
DGH,
Well said. As I recall it, the argument for pastoral robes was almost identical to the argument for judicial robes (all judges wear them). It’s a reminder that one deals not with the man or woman on the bench, but with the government he/she is speaking for. The pastor speaks for God.
The current culture does not like this. It wants to “relate” to the pastor as a person rather than to the One for whom he is speaking. So the pastor has to wear cool Tommy Baham shirts and golf slacks, talk with current slang, and have the most up-to-the minute jokes and ancecdotes. This makes him “more accessible.” Granted. It brings more in the door. But on the other hand, I wonder if it doesn’t infantilize the congregation, habituating them to the trivial and the temporal rather than the substantive (God’s Word) and the eternal. A profound preachere can be rejected by a congregation because he is too old and isn’t hip, and a mediocre preacher can be beloved because he wears nice golf shirts.
Both goals of “reaching out” and deepening the congregation are worthy. It’s a tradeoof, and churches need to struggle lmore, I think, with frank recognition of the tradeoffs.
LikeLike
Why is this just now an issue? Both Sotomayor and Ginsburg wore frilly things over their robes last year, and O’Connor always wore something frilly with her robe. I fear an America where Elena Kagan is the model of reserved fashion.
Re: pastoral wear, it’s not a given that a Ginsburg-style fashion faux pas could not make its way into the pulpit: http://www.lamus.net/photos/atya%20robe.jpg
LikeLike
That particular type of neckwear was common among all Protestant clergy from John Wesley to Jonathan Edwards back in the day.
I agree 100% with your point Dr. Hart.
LikeLike
As I recall, Chief Justice Rehnquist wore a robe to the Clinton impeachment proceedings which came out of a Gilbert and Sullivan production, possibly Iolanthe. At this point, I think all analogies to the wearing of Genevan gowns breaks down.
LikeLike
So does this mean you love your church less now then you did in July?
Do you need to add a caveat to Why you love your church item
something like: “but I would love it more if he wore a robe.”
In light of that July post, is this some sort of hint to Mark that you don’t like his recent choice of ties?
LikeLike
Maybe, Andrew, if your reading Old Life means you love what you read.
LikeLike
Darryl,
This is off topic but I chose a post which was not getting many comments. I just finished listening to Scott Clark’s interview with you on Office Hours and found out we had a common childhood hero in Dick Allen. He was traded to the White Sox when I was in grade school and I went to a lot of White Sox games during that time. He used to swing his 40 ounce (or was it 44 ounce?) bat like it was a toothpick. And I swear I saw him come out to the On Deck circle with a fag in his mouth one time. He smoked like a fiend during batting practice. He was fascinating to me as a little kid. Perhaps he was part of the subconscious inspiration for the Nicotine Theological Journal.
Great lively and a bit lighthearted interview by the way. I really enjoyed listening to it.
LikeLike
John, I’m jealous you got to see Allen’s 1972 MVP season. He may have inspired the NTJ. But just as powerful was my first ballgame at Connie Mack Stadium. I smelled cigar smoke and said to myself, that is an aroma I want to know better.
LikeLike