The Role of Clergy Clothing: A Tradition Worth Reconsidering

Critiquing Mike Winger's Vestal Egalitarianism

Introduction

Recently, I came across a critique from Mike Winger on the use of vestments and clerical clothing. While I respect much of Winger’s work, I often find myself in disagreement with him on various topics, particularly Reformed theology and head coverings. Normally, I don’t make a habit of critiquing everything I come across, but I felt his take on vestments was worth engaging. At its core, I believe his argument reflects what I’ll call Vestal Egalitarianism, a perspective that treats clothing as arbitrary and denies its deeper, symbolic meanings. While Winger’s intentions are sincere, I argue that his view risks creating disorder in the church—something I have seen firsthand during my nearly decade-long experience as a pastor, particularly within the evangelical and Acts 29 church planting world.

Winger recently shared his thoughts on clergy clothing via Facebook, and I’d like to take some time to interact with his perspective. Here’s what he had to say:

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 raises some seemingly valid concerns here about the potential for unnecessary distinctions within the body of Christ. However, I believe his critique fails to appreciate the deeper symbolic and theological roles that clergy attire has played throughout church history—a point I will explore further in this essay.

Symbolism and Tradition: More Than Just “Accretions”

Winger dismisses clergy clothing as an “unhealthy addition,” but he overlooks the rich symbolism that has developed within the church over centuries. From the earliest days of Christianity, symbols have been used to convey profound theological truths. Vestments worn by clergy, far from being mere decoration, often serve as a reminder of the sacred responsibilities ministers bear. Robes, stoles, and other garments visually represent the idea that clergy are set apart for specific tasks like teaching, preaching, and administering the sacraments.

This use of clothing isn’t about creating a hierarchy that diminishes the priesthood of all believers; rather, it’s about embodying the weight of the pastoral vocation. The clerical robe or vestment serves as a visible sign that the wearer is entrusted with the spiritual care of the congregation—a role that demands both humility and responsibility. In many traditions, the attire reflects not personal glory but the sacred office itself—an office that ultimately serves Christ and His body, the church.

By reducing clergy attire to mere "accretions," Winger’s argument reflects Vestal Egalitarianism—a mindset that treats all distinctions in the church as unnecessary, undermining the rich symbolism that attire brings to worship. This view is not just historically shallow; it’s also ontologically flawed, ignoring the inherent meaning that clothing communicates in any social or religious context.

The Priesthood of All Believers and the Role of Clergy

One of Winger’s primary concerns is that clergy clothing undermines the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, suggesting that such distinctions contradict the New Covenant. But this argument might be based on a misunderstanding of what the priesthood of all believers truly entails. While every believer, in Christ, has direct access to God and plays a priestly role in offering spiritual sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5), this does not eliminate the need for specific offices and roles within the church.

The New Testament clearly distinguishes between various roles in the body of Christ, such as pastors, elders, and deacons. These offices are established for the sake of order, teaching, and care (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). The priesthood of all believers elevates the responsibility of each Christian within their calling but does not flatten the distinctions between them. Clergy clothing, in this light, doesn’t diminish the shared priesthood but signifies the particular calling of those tasked with leadership and care.

Scripture clearly states, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1). This highlights that, although the church is God's priesthood, there are distinct roles and responsibilities within the body.

This distinction is essential. Clergy attire acknowledges the weight of the office without negating the priestly identity of all believers. Instead of viewing vestments as something that divides, we should see them as a visual cue that reminds the congregation of the sacred duties being performed—a representation of the pastoral office, not a contradiction of the priesthood of all.

Old Testament Typology and New Testament Fulfillment

Winger briefly acknowledges the analogy of Old Testament priestly garments but quickly dismisses their relevance for New Testament clergy. In doing so, he overlooks the continuity of biblical typology. The fact is, Israel was always intended to be both a kingdom and a priesthood for God. As Exodus 19:5-6 states:

"Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." — Exodus 19:5-6, ESV

While the entire nation of Israel was called to be a kingdom of priests, the Levitical priesthood was set apart within this broader priestly identity, tasked with special roles and clothed in distinctive garments that pointed forward to the ultimate High Priest—Christ. In many Christian traditions, clerical vestments continue this typology, symbolizing the minister’s role as a representative of Christ’s priestly office. These garments are not about personal elevation but serve as a visual reminder that the minister, during worship, stands in Christ’s place—not as His replacement, but as His humble servant.

Rather than undermining the priesthood of all believers, this typological connection highlights the unity of the Old and New Covenants. Just as the priestly garments of the Old Testament signified the holiness and responsibility of the priestly office, so too do clerical garments in the New Testament church. These vestments are not about power—they are about continuity, service, and sacred duty.

Practical Considerations: The Function of Clerical Garb

Beyond the theological and symbolic significance of clerical attire, there are also practical benefits that Winger’s critique overlooks. Like uniforms in other professions, clerical vestments serve a functional purpose. In larger congregations or formal liturgical settings, these garments make it easy to identify who is responsible for leading worship, administering sacraments, or offering pastoral care. Without these visual distinctions, confusion can arise.

For instance, I’ve seen situations where a guest approaches a deacon or regular member, mistakenly thinking they were the pastor. These misunderstandings can create barriers in communication and connection within the church. Whether Winger acknowledges it or not, clothing inherently communicates status. A police uniform signifies authority; a business suit suggests professionalism; a wife’s head covering signals her status, indicating she is not available — to other men or the angels. Clergy attire follows this same principle—it carries meaning, signaling the sacred duties associated with the office.

Moreover, clerical garments foster reverence and seriousness within worship. These garments are not about personal identity but about setting a tone for the sacred tasks at hand. By wearing vestments, clergy remind the congregation—and themselves—that their role is not about personal power or recognition but about serving the office that Christ established in the church.

Conclusion: A Balanced Perspective

Winger’s critique of clergy clothing raises legitimate concerns about potential abuses of hierarchy in the church. However, his argument risks oversimplifying the rich theological, historical, and practical significance of clerical attire. The priesthood of all believers is a vital doctrine, but it does not negate the biblical roles of ordained ministry. Rather than diminishing the shared priesthood, clergy attire can serve as a symbol of the sacred responsibilities entrusted to church leaders.

Imagine standing before Saint Augustine or any of the other saints from church history and saying, "Hey, just so you know, I think that's unhealthy." The real issue here isn't the practice of the church—it's the mindset of Vestal Egalitarianism.

Far from being mere accretions, these garments point to deeper realities of Christ’s ministry and the church’s ongoing call to serve God and neighbor. In this light, clergy clothing deserves thoughtful consideration, not as an obstacle to unity but as a visible reminder of the sacred order God has established within His church.