Non Clergy, wearing Clergy Tartan?

[Joseph]

That will definitely depend on your definition of "Protestant" but we're getting very close to the edge of Rules 5 & 2.

Maybe, but I doubt there is a more qualified place to determine the proper use of a clergy tartan. Than the expert advice on this forum (you father bill). This has been great.

To me, I define "Protestants" as Christians who are not part of the Orthodox Catholic faith. And from that comes many doctrinal Denominations. I try not to get caught up in all that. For me the intent was never about faith so much, as proper use or improper respect to the tartan.

I think if we stood side by side, and I wore a black shirt with a clergy tartan, and you wore a black shirt with your collar and a clergy tartan, our similar connection AND our unique difference would be appearent to anyone that saw us together.

[Joseph]

Joseph.

I know very little about who in which team can wear this or that and care little about it. I also have no doubt to your personal calling. However your thinking over this "Tartan Aspect", just confirms to people like me our severe reservations about exactly what you stand for. Is that what you want? I am not sure your peers would be too impressed? I dont know what you will decide and that is absolutely your choice. But--------

Thanks for your input. It MAY be that in order to avoid confusion on the part of others, I should not wear the Clergy Tartan. God is a God of order, not chaos. I'm the last person that wants to make more trouble for that cause.

[rlloyd]

Joseph.

I know very little about who in which team can wear this or that and care little about it. I also have no doubt to your personal calling. However your thinking over this "Tartan Aspect", just confirms to people like me our severe reservations about exactly what you stand for. Is that what you want? I am not sure your peers would be too impressed? I dont know what you will decide and that is absolutely your choice. But--------

I believe this is a bit, mostly, of Old World vs. New World.

[Jock Scot]

I believe this is a bit, mostly, of Old World vs. New World.

I have absolutely no idea!

[figheadair]

I fear that some may be reading far too much into a name.

This tartan started life as Wilsons' Priest sett. There is no evidence that it was ever intend for, or sold exclusively to, the clergy. Logan, as was often the case with his records, completely messed up the recording of Wilsons' sett, and for good measure called it something else and in doing so invented a pseudo-pedigree for this tartan that evidence does not support. Subsequently the original name was forgotten and the Clergy tartan became synonymous with Clerk/Clark (because the clergy were often the only literate people in an area they also used to act as a clerk) and so it is also now worn by those of that name as their own (notwithstanding the fact that there is a Wilsons' red Clark sett of equal antiquity).

Ascribing some ecclesiastical right to using this sett (of which there are about a dozen versions) is to misappropriate and misinterpret history. If you like it then wear it. It's not a club or regimental tie and you don't need to justify it to anyone.

[Nathan]

I fear that some may be reading far too much into a name.

This tartan started life as Wilsons' Priest sett. There is no evidence that it was ever intend for, or sold exclusively to, the clergy. Logan, as was often the case with his records, completely messed up the recording of Wilsons' sett, and for good measure called it something else and in doing so invented a pseudo-pedigree for this tartan that evidence does not support. Subsequently the original name was forgotten and the Clergy tartan became synonymous with Clerk/Clark (because the clergy were often the only literate people in an area they also used to act as a clerk) and so it is also now worn by those of that name as their own (notwithstanding the fact that there is a Wilsons' red Clark sett of equal antiquity).

Ascribing some ecclesiastical right to using this sett (of which there are about a dozen versions) is to misappropriate and misinterpret history. If you like it then wear it. It's not a club or regimental tie and you don't need to justify it to anyone.

Cleric and Clark come from the same root word. It's not just an accident.

[Joseph]

Clerics or Clergy are defined as priests or leaders of the church. I don't think I really fit into that category. To me this seems to be the figurehead of the church, the shepard. Not deacons or layworkers ect. I will reserve the honor of this tartan for those who are called by God to that role. Thanks for all the replies. Thanks to the mods for letting the discussion flow.

[McMurdo]

I believe this is a bit, mostly, of Old World vs. New World.

I disagree for myself I see this as a difference between the Traditional and Contemporary view.

[Jock Scot]

I disagree for myself I see this as a difference between the Traditional and Contemporary view.

I have absolutely no idea!

[MacLowlife]

Joseph, you seem like a good guy. I am not sure how long you have been reading XMarks, but I suspect it has been a relatively short time. The longer I read these things, the more often I notice the same basic questions. One of them is "Will I bother anybody by wearing this tartan?"

Gee, is there a more difficult question on earth?

You see, there are people who are going to be bothered by your wearing a kilt. Then there are people who mistakenly believe you are wearing their tartan. That group breaks down into those who believe they control it and those who are delighted to see their tartan. The same thing can be said for a tiny number of people who might actually be correct in identifying the tartan as "theirs" ( as in Campbell named people spotting the Campbell tartan). But that group is pretty tiny indeed. Even among the fairly knowledgeable crowd here, most people can only correctly identify three or maybe five tartans. Correctly identifying ten tartans would put you in the top 5percent, maybe the top 1 percent WORLDWIDE. And for any given person, maybe those ten tartans do not include the Clergy tartan.

Here we come to an interesting point. There are many kinds of preachers. Where I live, on the wrong side of the tracks, the commonly accepted way to become a preacher is for another preacher to say you are one. Sometimes that is done in a ceremony, sometimes it is done in a sentence, or simply by inviting the designee to preach. But there is another way to become a preacher. You hear a call and you start preaching. Whether or not the call comes from the Right place, only you and the Caller will know.

Some people are touchy about the signs and uniforms of office or other pursuits. Wearing a police uniform will get you arrested. Wearing a clerical collar without calling yourself a priest might get you punched in the nose- I have a friend whose brother in law was an Episcopal priest and the friend somehow got a clerical collared shirt off him. He was in college and would wear it to parties. Some people thought it was a riot. Some people were very disturbed that he was not an actual priest and didn't really even pretend to be. He just liked to mess with people. But there are plenty of other examples. Wearing a Bears jacket doesn't bother other Bears fans, but wearing a Bears pullover that has script embroidery saying "Coach Mike Ditka" might get you punched in the nose. Wearing a black robe into a court room would get you into trouble. Wearing a vertically striped black and white shirt to a sporting event might get you ejected- assuming you weren't working as an official. Wearing a red coat you haven't "earned" is a bad bad thing to do around foxhunters. Try to find someone who has a sticker on their car from a college they didn't attend- or whose children don't. But consider all of the people who have "foxy grandpa" stickers on their cars who aren't in the least bit foxy... And may not even be grandpas...

Do you see the problem? Does everyone else?

See, we have to decide three things:
1) IS the Clergy tartan a generally recognized sign of something?
2) IS Joseph wearing it contradictory of that generally recognized sign?
3) IS that contradiction a sign of admiration or a sign of disrespect?

For my money, the answer to #1 is NO. Even if you wear it and tell people, how many are going to understand or believe that wearing the clergy tartan is akin to wearing a nametag that says "Hello, I'm Clergyman Joseph" ?

However, I am afraid for Joseph, the answer to #2 is probably yes. He has considered the Clergy tartan specifically because that is what it is. For him, wearing it is an acknowledgement that he is not a clergyman, but he wants to wear the Clergy tartan.

But the answer to #3 seems to me to be that Joseph wishes to do so with all respect. So, like the guy who hears the Call without having been ordained, he is going to have to discuss this with a higher authority- higher even than the mods or Matt Newsome. Higher even than The League Commissioner or the Archbishop of Canterbury. Higher than the Pipe Major. Or the Sergeant Major.

OK, for those who go to churches with vestments and laypeople who participate in the services- do you notice that those laypeople wear cassocks or other robes? They aren't pretending to be priests. They may WISH to be priests or they may not. Presumably, since they are participating in services alongside priests or other ministers, they admire those people. Could it be that Joseph's Clergy tartan is like the cassock alb that my neighbor wears when she serves as a Lay Eucharistic Minister?

I suppose so. But I prefer Figheadair's position- that this Clerical Entitlement debate arises from a clerical error at best. I also agree with whoever observed that Joseph is going to have to be prepared to discuss this whole topic every time he wears a kilt- whether he goes for the Clergy/Clark/Clerk tartan or for the Royal Stewart. It might have been useful for him to have met my friend at a party about 30 years ago when he was wearing that black shirt.