As some of you may know I am exploring Christianity and have been getting involved in my local church by attending service and Christianity lessons etc... Something I have noticed but have been afraid to ask is why our Vicar does not wear any clerical clothing? I expected our Vicar to wear the traditional clothing of a cassock, surplice, a scarf and collar. However this vicar wears a normal suit. He doesn't even wear a clerical collar. Is this normal in the Anglican Church now? I do prefer to see a Vicar actually look a Vicar to be honest.
Most rectors and Vicars that I know wear at least a collar except when they are clearly "off duty" but I've heard that many priests do not follow that rule.
If you're referring to 'clericals' - the type of clothing worn by clergy for day-to-day use outside of service times, then many clergy these days tend to blend in rather than stand out. It's quite unusual to see a member of the clergy wearing a cassock in the street now. Dog/clerical collars are still common and may be worn with a sober suit or casual clothes. Our Rector generally wears a dark sober suit with dog collar whereas our Curate wears casuals without dog collar. If on the the other hand you're referring to vestments for liturgical use, then much will depend on the tradition and churchmanship of the individual. If this is the case, it sounds like your vicar might be of the evangelical - low church tradition. I don't know about the Church in Wales (if that is your Church) but in the Church of England, Canon Law stipulates what vestments should be worn for divine service. (No doubt some will ignore this and minister in ordinary attire). In terms of vestments for Holy Communion for example, a low church vicar might wear cassock, surplice and scarf; a middle of the road vicar might wear cassock, alb and stole and a high church vicar might wear cassock, alb, stole, (possibly maniple) and chasuble.
The church is a member of the Evangelical Alliance so you are probably right. It is a Church Of England church I'm attending as I'm currently living in Surrey, England. So I presume that Evangelical church ministers do not have to wear the attire?
Church of England Canon Law stipulates what vestments should be worn for divine service. However, some ministers in the more extreme end of the evangelical tradition choose not to wear them. The CofE doesn't officially attach any doctrinal significance to vestments so I expect the choice of some evangelical clergy not to wear them is tolerated by the hierarchy. From CofE Canon B8: 3. At the Holy Communion the presiding minister shall wear either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole. When a stole is worn other customary vestments may be added. The epistoler and gospeller (if any) may wear surplice or alb to which other customary vestments may be added. 4. At Morning and Evening Prayer on Sundays the minister shall normally wear a surplice or alb with scarf or stole.
In the "Vestment Controversy" early in the English reformation, rejecting vestments was declared a heresy by the church. Hooper, the one bishop who tried to reject wearing clericals was severely censured, and sent to prison to 'think it over'. Very sad statement about disloyal churchmen who refuse to wear their mark of Order and Office.
Obviously, but they should still be censured for breaking canon law. Evangelicals cannot dismiss Archbishop Whitgift or John Jewel (the powerhouses behind wearing clericals) as "caroline divines".
I remember reading that Frs. Arthur Tooth, Sidney Faithorn Green, and Richard William Enraght were imprisoned in 19th century England for wearing chasubles and other Catholic vestments (among other charges) during the period of the Oxford Movement.