I saw this little story in The Times yesterday about the Mayor of Henley-upon-Thames in Oxfordshire. The mayor had to defend wearing shorts, trainers and a “garish floral shirt” to a formal ceremony for Royal Marines, army and air force cadets. The Times report that the mayor argued:
“People’s preconceptions need to be challenged,” he said, rejecting any notion that such formal roles required adherence to rigid dress codes…
…He added that he would not “allow the role to shape me”, nor would he let ceremonial chains “wear” him.
Going on:
Buckley later insisted that he wore similar outfits to work and had never been told that changing his attire would make him more productive.
He told the Daily Telegraph: “You’ve got to be yourself, you can’t be someone else.”
The story was interesting to me for a couple of reasons. First, it raises questions about appropriateness of dress. Are there settings in which certain clothes are just inappropriate and, if so, where and what? Second, it raises potentially opposing questions about individual expression, being naturally oneself and how we perceive certain public-facing roles and whether those perceptions should rightly be challenged or not. It further opened up questions about when and where it is appropriate to make those challenges if we deem them necessary.
There is some direct application here to supposed dress codes for the pulpit. Is there a specifically appropriate way to dress in the pulpit? Are there settings where it is appropriate for a pastor to dress more casually and settings where it is not? Is it right for your pastor to be himself in the pulpit – particularly how he is dressed – and what impact will that have on how his role is perceived? If a challenge to people’s perception of the pastorate is deemed necessary, are there times and places to make those challenges? The direct parallels are very interesting and the way people have reacted to the story is reminiscent of how these things tend to get discussed in the church.
I, for example, cannot get worked up at someone wearing shorts or a shirt in a civic role. I suppose I don’t hugely respect the role of a local ceremonial mayor, so I am not overly bothered if it appears unserious. But let’s just say I did think it a vitally important role, would I be more bothered about the shorts and Hawaiian shirt? In principle, I doubt it.
However, let’s just look behind the issue. What we have is a public facing position and two very different views of the role. The traditionalists are for making the role appear serious and weighty and so, for them, wearing a suit and donning the ceremonal chains is vitally important to convey that fundamental idea. The mayor himself, however, is for making the role more accessible, approachable and ordinary. For him, the key issue is making himself more relatable to people who will then feel more at ease approaching and engaging him as he seems like ‘one of us’. On this view, seeming casual, laid back and easy-going is the more important thing to convey. It isn’t that one is necessarily right or wrong, it is that there are two fundamental competing visions of the role and its fundamental purposes.
These same sorts of things are at play when it comes to how pastors dress. There are those who are most concerned about conveying a seriousness and weightiness to what we are doing. As such, their position is that suits and ties are vital. There are others who see the need for the pastor to seem relatable so that those who come in and engage with the church are not immediately put off but see this is a place for people like me because the guy at the front is like ‘one of us’. Depending on your particular priorities here, you are likely to land differently on what you think is legitimate.
There are also some more specific contextual concerns. Whilst it is often assumed that suit and ties convey seriousness, that isn’t necessarily what people hear. Many see a suit and tie and don’t think ‘what a weighty role’, they just think ‘what a sombre bloke’. Similarly, not everybody sees casual clothes and immediately thinks, ‘this guy just doesn’t take this seriousy’. We need to be careful that we don’t assume what we think we’re conveying is what we are actually conveying contextually.
As most of you know, I am not of the suit and tie brigade. That is a combination of being oneself, being accessible and approachable, seeming normal, contextual concerns and lack of any biblical compulsion to do other. However, even I would not turn up to a funeral in my joggers and sliders. Again, that is not because I take the funeral seriously but I don’t really value the weekly preaching of the Word. It is because – seemingly unlike this mayor – whilst I think being oneself and potentially challenging some people’s perceptions of the role might be necessary or worthwhile, I don’t think every occasion is suitable for such challenges and I have to live in the real world where expectations exists.
I think there is a difference between being oneself weekly in the pulpit and making oneself relatable on the regular and turning up to a funeral and insisting on individual expression in a way that is liable to be deemed upsetting and unwelcome on this one occasion. There are times and places for these things. And it bears saying, even in communities like mine where casual clothes are the norm most the time, suits are still expected at a funeral and it would be deemed disrespectful to do other.
The mistake (I think) this mayor seemed to make is not that he was being himself nor that he wanted to make the role relatable. Rather, it was insisting on doing so at an event where he will only see people once, without the benefit of ongoing relationships with them, and whether he is right to challenge their perceptions or not, there is a time and place to make that challenge, a time and a place I suspect he midjudged. The issue – and the questions he raises – are worth considering but the main problem is a contextual misjudgement. Which I suppose when it comes down to these questions, understanding what we want the role to be is key, and then we need to be careful that – if we are seeking to shift perceptions – we do it in contextually appropriate ways. For this discussion, the old adage is true: context is king.
I think, at a ceremony involving Royal Marines who have no option but to wear a uniform, the major was discourteous and disrespectful. He used the occasion egotistically, drawing attention to himself, and diverting attention away from the theme of the event.
And for Christians, self-expression is surely not a priority. Sometimes we have to make clothing sacrifices for the sake of others. Funerals and weddings are good examples.
You put it more succinctly: context is king.
Yes, I agree self-expression is not our primary goal here (though I do think there is a case for a pastor ‘being himself’, less as a first priority but nevertheless not unimportant).
I also agree the mayor was discourteous here. Let’s just grant him his arguments (for argument’s sake here), I cannot see how or why this would be the appropriate time to make those points/choices. I, for example, would defend any pastor who wanted to make himself more accessible, approachable and like a normal person. I would question his wisdom in deciding to buck expectations to that end at a funeral or wedding. The point may be valid; there is a time and a place for it.
Somebody else (rightly) raised the point of being other-person centred and thinking of them. I think that is a right and proper concern, particularly for a pastor. But I think it is also important to point out the following when we cite other-person centredness:
We may wear what suits them for that reason (that could well be right), but we may think they have some unhelpful expectations and we aren’t serving them helpfully by reinforcing those faulty expectations (that could be the right other person centred thing to do too).
Then, of course, you have something of the issue of a room full of people with all their different expectations/views – you have to wear something (I assume) – but you may be conveying different things to different people in the room and serving one set of expectations whilst confronting a whole set of others.
There is also the question of what we think a role is there to do and, therefore, what we might seek to convey as result. Again, people may have different expectations of the role and have those expectations met or bucked at the same time as other people in the room find the opposite.
We can be all for being other-person centred, the question is which other-people are we centring? It may be impossible to centre on all of them at the same time in the way they might like most.
And, as much as the person up front ought to seek to be other-person centred (however that works out), there is presumably a need for the people in the room to be other-person centred too, which might just boil down to being gracious about whatever someone at the front might wear.
Life is often quite complicated like that 🙂
Where I think we’re on safer ground is when there is a cultural uniform rule (say, at a funeral). We can assume some expectations here as they are (despite the occasional outlier) very long established and very rarely broken traditions on what is appropriate that seem to transcend the various British sub-cultures.
It’s clearly more problematic for a pastor ( the person at the front). I sympathise with pastors… the subject of so many (often unreasonable) expectations.
I rarely notice what people are wearing and tend to think that if people notice what I’m wearing, then I’ve got it wrong. But I’m not in the public eye!
A senior manager in the NHS I wore a short-sleeved shirt ( ‘cos hospitals were always too warm), a tie, smart trousers and a jacket that I hung in my office as soon as I arrived at work.
At senior meetings Consultants, Execs and senior managers wore suits. Only once did anyone comment on my shirt and tie approach. Interestingly it was a Consultant Psychiatrist.. after working with me on a project he made some comments about my approach to work and compared it to my dress code, which he described as ‘smart casual.’ Hmmmm….
The irony is that in this case the mayor makes himself unrelatable. The Marines were in their uniform. He did not mirror what they wore and he did not wear what others would expect to wear. I think this guides the rule of thumb for weddings and funerals too. But also in some roles, the uniform matters. It is by its nature formal. It’s the mistake of thinking that dressing down might make those who don’t agree with role go “ok I will change my mind” and an over confidence as though it is them and their personality that makes the role. Fact is that the mayor was invited not some fun bloke in his shorts
Yes precisely this I think.