The Clerical Collar: A Sign of Distinction and Necessity in Prison Ministry

Introduction

The clerical collar, far from being a mere tradition or a mark of Catholic hierarchy, serves as a biblical means to visibly distinguish ministers ordained by God. Throughout history, God has set apart those who serve Him, often marking them with distinct attire, as seen in His commands concerning the garments of the Levitical priesthood. Despite this history, the clerical collar has often been misrepresented in popular culture. In Hollywood, it is frequently depicted with suspicion, symbolizing moral failure, deception, vulnerability, or skepticism.1 Given these portrayals, it’s no surprise that many Protestants today view the clerical collar with the same skepticism that Hollywood reinforces. Few realize why some Reformers chose to retain the clerical collar while others abandoned it. Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Methodists continued wearing it as a sign of their tradition, recognizing its functional purpose in distinguishing clergy. Meanwhile, groups like the Baptists rejected it in favor of plain attire, believing that simplicity better aligned with their theological convictions. Ironically, however, many Baptist pastors who now wear suits and ties on Sunday mornings would have been criticized by their own forebears for the same reason they rejected the clerical collar: a desire to avoid vanity. This study will examine the history of the clerical collar, its broader connection to Christianity, and its continued role in ministry today.

Objections about Priesthood of the Believer

Some may argue, “But we’re all priests before God! Why should one man dress differently from another?” This objection, however, is only a half-truth presented as the whole. It’s absolutely true that all believers are part of the royal priesthood, as stated in 1 Peter 2:9. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t distinct roles within the church. The same New Testament that calls all Christians priests also establishes specific offices for leading and building up the body of Christ, as seen in Ephesians 4:11. And since God established distinct offices among His people, it stands to reason that those called to priestly service should be visibly set apart: just as He commanded specific garments for the Levitical priests to signify their sacred role (Ex. 28:2-4, Lev.8:7-9, Ezek. 44:17-19). Paul never suggested that since all believers are priests, there’s no need for pastors, teachers, or elders. Quite the opposite. He made it clear that Christ himself gave these roles to the church for its benefit. Wearing a clerical collar isn’t about elevating one man above another. It’s simply a way to recognize that God calls certain person to a specific role of spiritual leadership, and that calling should be acknowledged in a visible way in a prison setting.

The Radical Rejections of Some Protestants

In their sweeping effort to distance themselves from anything associated with Catholicism, radical Protestants like the Anabaptists and Puritans discarded any vestages, viewing them as unnecessary Papal traditions. However, this type of reactionary response was not grounded in Biblical tradition, or the reformation itself. Over time, many of their unbiblical objections have been reassessed and rejected. The Puritans took a hard stance against musical instruments in worship, insisting that only unaccompanied Psalm-singing was biblically allowed. But they overlooked something important. Ephesians 5:19 says, "Speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Sing and make music (ψάλλοντες | psallontes) from your heart to the Lord." The Greek word ψάλλω (psallō) originally denoted plucking or twanging, particularly in reference to playing a stringed instrument with the fingers rather than a plectrum. This is evident in classical Greek usage, where it is used to describe plucking the hair, twanging a bowstring, or playing a lyre (1 Kings 16:16-23).2,3 Despite this, the Puritans wrongly argued that since the New Testament never explicitly commands the use of instruments, and because they were part of Jewish Synogog worship, they should abandon it altogether. The Anabaptists took their rejection of tradition to another level. They didn’t just abandon vestments; they went as far as rejecting church buildings entirely. Many believed that since the early Christians met in homes, building formal churches was a corruption of the simple, organic faith that Christ intended. Some even saw stained glass, crosses, and pulpits as symbols of pagan or Roman influence, so they stripped their places of worship down to the bare essentials. Their opposition to church traditions didn’t stop there. Many Anabaptist groups rejected the celebration of Christmas and Easter, arguing that there was no biblical basis for these holidays. To them, these were man-made traditions imposed by the Roman Church rather than authentic expressions of Christian worship.

The Puritans took this idea even further. From 1647 to 1660, they legally banned Christmas in England, and in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, they outlawed it from 1659 to 1681.4 They believed the holiday was tainted by pagan customs and Catholic excess. The law was clear: “Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing labor, feasting, or any other way… shall pay for every such offense five shillings, as a fine to the county.” (Charters and General Laws of the Colony, 119; Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, 366).5 For them, keeping Christmas wasn’t just unnecessary: it was an offense against God’s law. These extreme reactions reveal that rejecting vestments was not based on biblical teaching. It was driven by a broader effort to remove anything associated with Catholic tradition. Their dedication to maintaining pure worship was admirable, but their misinterpretation of Scripture led them to reject things that were not actually contrary to God’s Word.

The History of the Clerical Collar

Contrary to popular belief, the clerical collar is not a Catholic innovation. The modern clerical collar traces its roots back to the 19th century. According to the Glasgow Herald of December 6, 1894, the detachable clerical collar was invented in 1865 by the Rev. Donald McLeod, a minister of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) in Glasgow.6 Some say that the idea behind the neck scarf, known as a cravat, was to tie it around the neck to resemble a yoke, symbolizing servitude to Christ.7 Others say, it symbolized a sense of separation between clergy and the secular world. The Anglican clergy wore a black coat and the white cravat, which evolved into what we now know as the clerical collar by the 1880s.

Before the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), Roman Catholic clergy typically wore the cassock as their daily attire, especially in regions where Catholicism was predominant. In areas where Catholics were a minority, clergy began adopting the clerical collar as a more practical alternative. The Second Vatican Council, initiated by Pope John XXIII and concluded under Pope Paul VI, brought significant reforms to the Church, including changes in liturgical practices and clerical attire. Post-council, many clergy worldwide transitioned from the traditional cassock to the clerical collar for everyday wear, reflecting a move towards modernity and practicality.

Protestantism and Liturgical Clothing

Some may argue that Baptists and Reformed Christians should reject the clerical collar because it seems too Catholic. But this argument is both historically and theologically mistaken. Baptists, for example, have long worn robes for baptisms. Why? Because they recognize that some occasions require clothing suited to the seriousness of the act being performed. The same idea applies to the clerical collar or wearing a suit and tie. It’s not a sacrament or a sign of priestly superiority but a symbol, an outward expression of an inward calling. The collar serves as a visible reminder that the minister has been set apart for a specific role. Like all vestments, it represents a spiritual reality. Just as a judge wears robes in court and a doctor wears a white coat in the hospital, a minister should be easily recognized by his calling.

The Clerical Collar in Prison Ministry

Nowhere is the importance of the clerical collar clearer than in prison ministry, where identity and authority must be instantly recognized. Inside those walls, clarity is everything. A chaplain cannot afford to be mistaken for a social worker, a volunteer, or just another visitor. In an environment where hierarchy controls every interaction, the collar serves as a visible declaration. It shows that this man is a minister of God, someone with real spiritual authority. For inmates, many of whom have spent their lives judging people to determine who is a friend and who is a threat, this recognition is crucial. A prisoner who may be hostile or uncertain should not have to guess whether the person in front of him has a spiritual role. The collar speaks before the chaplain says a word. It’s a silent statement: "I am here to bring you the Word of God." That is no small thing. In prison culture, respect has to be earned. Civilians are often seen as outsiders who do not matter in the daily struggle to survive. If a chaplain looks like just another visitor, that is exactly how he will be treated. But if he is set apart not just by his conduct but by his appearance, then his role is unmistakable. This clarity is just as important for correctional officers. In moments of crisis, when tensions run high, there cannot be any confusion about the chaplain’s identity. A minister stepping into a volatile situation cannot afford to be misidentified. The collar cuts through the chaos, making sure everyone, officers and inmates alike, knows exactly who he/she is and why he/she is there.

In Conclusion

The clerical collar is not a Roman Catholic invention, nor is it just an accessory. It is a necessary tool in ministry, especially in environments like prisons where establishing authority and providing clarity is essential. It confirms the chaplain’s office, affirms his role, and communicates his purpose without words. If the world recognizes a police officer by his uniform and a doctor by his coat, should a man of God not also be recognized by his calling? Wearing the collar is not about claiming status or superiority but about embracing the responsibility of the office. For this reason, we should not be ashamed to wear what those before us have worn, not just because of tradition but because it is necessary. The collar should remain, not as a mark of power but as a mark of service. In a world that is increasingly confused about who speaks for Christ, the least we can do is make it absolutely clear.

On a personal note, I am the great grandson of Reverend Roy Drummond Whitehorn who was a distinguished Presbyterian minister and scholar (1891–1976). Educated at St. Paul's School and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he earned a first-class degree in classics. After serving in World War I, he trained for the Presbyterian ministry at Westminster College, Cambridge, and was ordained in 1923. His ministry included serving in Kuala Lumpur, Malaya (1923–1927), as well as in York and Oxford. In 1938, he returned to Westminster College as Professor of Church History and later became its Principal (1954–1963). He also served as Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in England and was active in ecumenical efforts with the British Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. He always wore a the Clerical Collar and so will I (While holding an office).



Footnotes

1. The Exorcist, directed by William Friedkin, written by William Peter Blatty (Warner Bros., 1973); Doubt, directed by John Patrick Shanley, written by John Patrick Shanley (Miramax Films, 2008); The Godfather Part III, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, written by Mario Puzo and Francis Ford Coppola (Paramount Pictures, 1990).
2. Henry George Liddell et al., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 2018.
3. Ethelbert W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1908), 493.
4. Judith Maltby, “The Prayer Book and the Parish Church: From the Elizabethan Settlement to the Restoration,” in The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey, ed. Charles C. Hefling and Cynthia L. Shattuck (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 91.
5. Rebecca Beatrice Lindell, “When Christmas Was Banned in Boston,” History of Massachusetts Blog, December 24, 2012, https://historyofmassachusetts.org/when-christmas-was-banned-in-boston/.
6. John W. Howe and Samuel C. Pascoe, Our Anglican Heritage: Can an Ancient Church Be a Church of the Future?, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010), 205.
7. Tim LeCroy, “A Short History of the Wearing of Clerical Collars in the Presbyterian Tradition,” Pastor Tim LeCroy (blog), May 17, 2012, https://pastortimlecroy.com/2012/05/17/a-short-history-of-the-wearing-of-clerical-collars-in-the-presbyterian-tradition/.