MENU

Worship
Category

On August 12, 2013 By In Culture, Worship

Should a Pastor Teach Frankly About Sexual Issues?

I often address sexual sin in my writing, preaching, and counseling. When I do this I try to address it in a frank manner. Is this really necessary? As a pastor, do I need to address things like masturbation and dressing up in the bedroom?  I think this is an important question. Our world is drowning in sexual imagery and language. I can go to any “normal” news page, such as Fox News or CNN and find articles about sexual issues that range from the funny to the profane. Shows on television are frankly sexual, often involving sodomy, fornication, etc. Nudity on television has gone up dramatically over the last ten years. Even if I avoid the internet and TV there are the magazines at Wal-Mart and college girls all over town with far too little clothing or clothing that draws attention to their bodies. (One advantage of living in the North is that winter brings a reprieve to this.)  Does a pastor need to add to this? Is it really his job to deal with these types of problems in a forthright, frank manner? Maybe he should just tell his congregation about Christ and let them apply Christ to their sexual lives?

I believe a pastor must address these issues if he is to be faithful to Christ and his blood-bought Church. He must do it correctly, but it must be done. Today, I want to give reasons why a pastor must address these issues. Later in the week, I will talk about how these issues are to be addressed. We must lay a solid foundation of why a pastor can speak on these things before we get to the how he should speak on them. Throughout this paper I use the word “teach” a lot. Do not assume that I mean only public teaching. By teaching I mean a combination of public and private ministry of the Word. Let me state what used to be obvious, Christian fathers have a great obligation in this area as well. One reason there is so much sexual sin and brokenness in the church is because fathers fail to do their job to teach their sons and daughters in both word and deed about these issues. Here are the reasons why a pastor has the authority and the duty to teach on sexual holiness in a frank manner.

Pulpit 2

  1. The Bible addresses almost every conceivable sexual act. Incest, rape, bestiality, lust, prostitution, adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc. are all mentioned in the Bible (See Leviticus 18). On the positive side you have the Song of Solomon, Proverbs 5:15-23, and I Corinthians 7:1-5. Of course, it is not done in a pornographic way, but these issues are addressed. If the teaching is handled correctly, which  is not easy, there is no reason to be squeamish about discussing them.
  2. Sexual sins are a major part of the Biblical teaching on sin. Here is a list of some of those sins: Lamech’s numerous wives in Genesis 4, attempted sodomite rape in Genesis 19, incest in Genesis 19,  the sexual sin of Israel in Numbers 25, Samson and the prostitute in Judges 16, the rape of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19, David’s sin with Bathsheba in II Samuel 11-12, Jesus’ teaching on lust in Matthew 5:27-30, Paul’s discussion of sleeping with a prostitute in I Corinthians 6:12-20, and the mention of a “Jezebel” who seduces men to sexual immorality in Revelation 2:20. And I could mention dozens of other passages. Sexual sin and sexual righteousness is not a blip on the Bible’s radar. They are a central theme in the Scriptures.
  3. Based on 1 and 2 above I would argue that it is impossible for a pastor to be faithful to the Scriptures if he does not address various sexual practices and how to approach them biblically.  Of course, he does not have to do this in every sermon. But it should be a regular part of his private and public ministry.
  4. Our cultural context demands a frank discussion of sexual issues. This is one shift from previous generations. We must learn to live in the generation that exists, not the one we wish existed. A pastor in previous generations did not have congregants (men and women) who had watched hundreds of hours of pornography prior to marriage. He did not have congregants whose views of sex, marriage, and love had been shaped by romantic comedies. He probably did not have women who had used sex toys during their college years. He probably did not have men who had experimented with homosexuality. Of course, there has always been sexual sin. But sexual sin has grown more prevalent over the last several decades, especially with the internet, where one can view pornography, find willing sexual partners, and read all about the sex lives of celebrities.  Add into this mix sexual education at the public school, the failure of Christian parents to faithfully teach their children about sexual holiness, and the failure of churches to teach on these matters and the pastor will find that most men and women coming into  his church bring a dump truck full of sexual baggage that they do not know what to do with. A pastor cannot just ignore this baggage. His job is to make disciples.  Sexual holiness is a major part of that discipleship process.
  5. But should a pastor discuss sexual practices not explicitly addressed in the Bible? I mentioned two of those earlier in the post, masturbation and dressing up. Masturbation is never mentioned explicitly in the Bible. Women dressing up as cheerleaders to arouse their husbands is not mentioned either. So does a pastor just ignore these practices?  Can he just assume that people will get this right without any explicit teaching on the matter? The answer is no. Basic teaching on sexual matters and the Gospel will cure a lot of ills. But the pastor is there to shepherd the people. This means he needs to have an answer when someone asks, “Can I dress my wife up as a maid and not be sinning?” That means in private he needs to be able to ask questions that are awkward. Or when he finds out that a young man is masturbating he needs to be able to counsel that man biblically.  The Bible touches every area of our lives. We do not have a verse for every area, but the principles laid out in God’s Word can and must be applied to all areas. So yes, if there are common sexual practices that he finds members are engaged in, even if they are not addressed explicitly in the Scriptures, he should address them.
  6. If the pastor does not address this issue, who will? If the pastor is not clear on these issues who will be? If the pastor will not ask the uncomfortable questions who will? Most of us come from homes where sexual holiness was rarely addressed in any detail. How many of us haven’t look at porn? How many of us had sex before we were married? How many were sexually abused? How many women have had abortions?  We could go on and on. Pastors, we must address these things. No one else will. If we do not address them we will be held accountable for letting the wolves eat the sheep (Ezekiel 34).

Wolf 2

In summary, the Bible gives the pastor the authority and duty to address sexual sin and sexual holiness. Issues directly addressed in the Bible should be taught on, but also common sexual issues not directly addressed should be taught on using Biblical principles. In our current cultural climate a pastor should expect that addressing the past and present sexual sins of his congregation will be a regular part of his counseling, teaching, and preaching load. He should be prepared to shepherd men, women, and couples through these problems.

There are a lot of potential dangers when addressing these matters. For example, can I address these matters honestly without being crass or violating Ephesians 5:3-4? When and where should a pastor address sexual issues? How can they be addressed without causing a man struggling with lust to stumble? How should women be counseled on these matters? I will address some of these issues in another post. It is a thorny path one must walk down to disciple the congregation in sexual matters. But a man who is committed to Scripture and loves his flock has no choice.<>сео копирайтинг ценыпоисковая оптимизация а дешево

Read more

On July 24, 2013 By In Worship

Music Divides — If We Sing the Right Kind

What is it about music that makes it so intensely personal for us? Why is it that if I write a blog post discussing music in worship there will necessarily be people who are offended? Somehow, we see music as extremely personal and taste-based, so any attempt to question such a paradigm is taken as an attack on an individual’s taste. What if, however, we are wrong? Not only are we wrong to be offended by these questions and discussions, but we are also wrong to categorize music as a personal taste.

Many churches face questions of music. What type of music should we sing? Contemporary? Traditional hymns? Psalms? With or without instruments? Pianos and pipe organs or guitars and drums?

Many–although maybe not Kuyperian readers–will argue that contemporary music with praise bands is the better choice. It is inclusive of the young people who desire it. But is it? There are several problems with this line of argumentation.

First, while contemporary music may be inclusive of young people, something I’m not yet willing to grant, it is exclusive of everyone else. Why is it that contemporary music gets a free pass for the inclusivity argument, when it is excluding just as many people–if not more–as traditional music may? Why can’t traditional hymns and psalms be argued as the better choice because they are inclusive for everyone else?

Second, isn’t there a problem with the inclusivity argument from the beginning? Contemporary music is inclusive of the young–if it is–but only so long as it is actually contemporaneous to the young. Traditional hymns and psalms are timeless. They will always be inclusive for their particular class of listeners. Contemporary music will be inclusive for one generation and will follow that generation, until the newer, more contemporary music alienates them in favor of a new group of listeners.

Finally, it is worth questioning whether it is actually inclusive of the young. Most of the proponents of contemporary music are actually middle-aged adults who think young people like it. The young in America today, however, are starved for tradition and gravitas. They want high liturgy, good–in the objective sense–music, and rituals. If they wanted contemporary music, they wouldn’t come to church for it, they’d turn on the radio, attend a concert, or visit a club. The Roman Catholic Church may be worth taking a cue from on this point. The last three popes, each of whom are older popes, have been wildly popular with the young. It isn’t the cool and hip the young want from church, it is the transcendant, liturgical, and sacramental. The cool and the hip is what the middle-aged want.

Let’s try inclusivity. But let’s try it the right way. Let’s try it by singing music that is timeless and cross-cultural, dividing asunder the boundaries of age, race, socio-economic status, and gender.

<>гугл эдвардскак узнать позицию а в поисковике

Read more

On July 17, 2013 By In Worship

I Give An Altar Call Every Week

When I was growing up my family attended Southern Baptist Churches. Many services ended with a hushed atmosphere. The piano would play one of great hymns such as “Just as I am” or “There is Power in the Blood.”  We would all bow our heads and listen attentively as the preacher urged, exhorted, pleaded with those who were lost or backslidden to come forward. As a kid, I always hoped someone would go forward quickly so the preacher would stop. If no one went forward he would keep on and on.  In my Christian psyche these altar calls hold great power and call me back to different time in my life.

The years went by and eventually I became a pastor at a Baptist church. There I read up on the idea of the altar call, where it came from, and why it was done. After some research, I decided not to do altar calls at my church. There were some who opposed my decision, but I think most were secretly grateful.

Now I am a pastor at a liturgical, reformed, presbyterian church. I don’t do altar calls, at least not how the ministers of my youth did them. But I do call upon men to follow Christ and trust in him as any good preacher should.  And I call them to this every week. When? At the Lord’s Supper.

One of the great reasons to have the Lord’s Supper every week is it provides a natural and Biblical (unlike the altar call) way for a minister to exhort his flock to renew their trust in Christ and to remind them of Christ’s gracious redemption for them upon the cross. This past Sunday I saw this very clearly in the way the sermon and the Lord’s Supper tied together.

My sermon ended with an imperative, a command.  I was urging my congregation to consider their loyalty to Christ. I called upon them to examine their lives and see if their professed love for Jesus matched their actual love for Jesus. I was telling them that the road for Christians is a hard one that will require daily sacrifice. Were they ready and willing to take that road? Had they counted the costs?  I knew there were sheep who had become sluggish in their walk with Christ. They needed the cattle prod and my text provided the opportunity to give it to them. I did not pass it up. Concluding a sermon in this way can be dangerous. It left out the cross. It was all imperative. No indicative. Tender consciences can be hurt or weakened when they are not taken to the cross.  But the text was a warning about sluggishness and not being prepared. It was not about the cross.  Too often we soften the power of a text by bringing in what is not there. There was no cross in the text. (I know some will say, “Find one anyway.”  But that is a post for another time.)  As the sermon ended the flock was left hanging and pondering their walk with Christ.

 Five minutes later we came to the Lord’s Table. And though there was no cross in my text there is always a cross at the table. Before we eat and drink together I give the congregation a brief exhortation that ties the word, the sermon, together with the sacrament, the Lord’s Supper. This week I encouraged the flock to look to Christ as their provision for the long journey ahead. I reminded them of the call to discipleship. But then I reminded them that Jesus has provided what we need to fulfill that call. Each week we go out and fight in the Spirit. We lose some battles. We win some battles.  But each week we come in here and Jesus feeds us. He nourishes us on his body and blood. We are refreshed. Our sins are forgiven. We are strengthened by his gracious provision at Calvary.  It was the perfect altar call, reminding the congregation to look to Christ in faith. It was a call to the faithful to keep believing and a call to wayward to return to the fold. I could tell in the eyes of the people that it was effective. Their love for Christ and trust in him was renewed.

Not every week requires this type of an exhortation before communion. But when my people need the cross of Christ I don’t have to tack it on to the end of a sermon like some strange appendage. Or bring it  into a sermon text when it is obviously not there.  I don’t have to hope they remember the cross as they walk out the door after a sermon filled with imperatives. When my people need the cross of Christ I know it is sitting right there every week on the table promising forgiveness, promising grace, promising strength to finish the race.

Peter Jones is the pastor of Christ Church of Morgantown, wife to Julie, and father to eight children. <>kontaktmasterпроверка а на seo оптимизацию

Read more

On July 10, 2013 By In Books, Culture, Worship

10 Reasons to Sing the Psalms

182776_10150180754808989_3285492_n

By Uri Brito

Many of us grew up in theological backgrounds where the psalms were known, but not sung. These theological backgrounds are anomalies throughout the history of the Church. E.F. Harrison observed that “Psalmody was a part of the synagogue service that naturally passed over into the life of the church.” Calvin Stapert speaks of the fathers’ “enthusiastic promotion of psalm-singing” which he says, “reached an unprecedented peak in the fourth century.” James McKinnon speaks of “an unprecedented wave of enthusiasm” for the psalms in the second half of the fourth century. Hughes Oliphint Old argued that Calvin appealed to the church historians (e.g. Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen) as well as the church fathers (e.g. Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom) for the singing of psalms. While the Reformers did not advocate the exclusive singing of Psalms they did express “a partiality for Psalms and hymns drawn from Scripture.” a 

The Reformer Martin Luther urged that Psalms be sung by congregations so that “the Word of God may be among the people also in the form of music b.“ By the end of the 19th century, however, most hymnals produced had limited psalms to a couple of well-known pieces like Old One-Hundredth. Beyond that, scriptural references had all but disappeared. Terry Johnson summarized the state of psalmlessness:

This eclipse of psalmody in the late nineteenth century is quite unprecedented. The psalms, as we have seen, have been the dominant form of church song beginning with the Church Fathers, all through the Middle Ages, during the Reformation and Post-Reformation eras, and into the modern era. By the beginning of the twentieth century the church had lost the voice through which it had expressed its sung praise for more than 1800 years. c

Though the last hundred years were not psalm-friendly, we have seen in the last 30 years a kind of revival of psalmody in the modern church, especially in the Reformed tradition. New hymnals, like the Cantus Christi, and many others are including old and new psalms ( metrical and chants).

So why should we sing the psalms? Aren’t the 19th century hymns and contemporary songs sufficient to fulfill the worship demands of the modern congregation?

The answer is a resounding no!

There are ten reasons I believe congregations should begin to sing psalms once again:

First, Psalm-singing is an explicit biblical command (Ps. 27:6). The Scriptures encourage us to sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God” (Col. 3:16). To have the word of Christ dwell in you richly means to invest in the rich beauty of the Psalter. How can we sing what we do not know? Is there a better way to internalize the word than to sing it?

Second, Psalm-singing was the ancient practice of the Church and it continued for 1,800 years. We honor our forefathers and our history when we sing their songs.

Third, Calvin observed that the psalms are “An Anatomy of all Parts of the Soul; for there is not an emotion of which any one can be conscious that it is not represented here as a mirror.” The psalms are satisfying to the human being. We are homos adorans; worship beings. God is not against emotions, he is against emotionalism. The Psalter is an emotional book. It provides comfort for the people of God at different stages of life. As a minister I have never once walked into a hospital room and been asked to read a text from Leviticus or Romans, but rather every time I have been asked to read a psalm (most often Psalm 23). The psalms reach deep inside our humanity in time of pain.

Fourth, singing the psalms builds our Christian piety. It is nurturing to our souls. It is God’s devotional book; God’s hymnal. Singing the psalms restores the joy of our salvation. Ask me what book of the Bible I would take to a desert island, and I will not hesitate to say “The Psalms.”

Fifth, the psalms are ultimately made for the body. You may sing the psalms on your own, but they reach their culmination when sung together. They are meant to be roared (Ps. 47:1), because they were written by the Lion of Judah. When we sing together we are both being edified and edifying one another. “We sing because in singing we join together in common breath and melody in a manner that no other medium can duplicate…We become an assembly unified in purpose and thought. And by our singing, we hear God’s Word for us, and the world hears it loud and clear.” d

Sixth, we should sing the Psalms because they re-shape us; they re-orient our attention. We are a people constantly being sanctified by the Spirit of God, and the Spirit has specifically inspired 150 psalms for our sanctification. How should we pray? How should we ask? How should we lament? The Psalms helps us to answer these questions, and thus shape us more and more after the image of Christ.

Seventh, by singing the Psalms we are worshiping the Spirit. The Spirit hovers, shapes, re-makes in the Bible. He is the music of God in the world. In an age when the Third Person of the Trinity has become the source of theological confusion, the Psalms keeps us focused on His role and purposes in history.

Eighth, we should sing the Psalms because our current songs are often cheap and shallow. The Psalms are rich and full of substance. If we wonder why the evangelical community is so powerless, one reason for this is its trivialized worship. Modern worship is often a pietistic exercise, which is manifested in poorly constructed and pessimistic theology. But the Psalms teaches us that God is full of mercy and powerful over all His enemies (Ps. 2). The Psalms are political statements. They are direct attacks on those who challenge the supremacy of King Jesus.

Ninth, the Psalms should be sung because our children need them. Our little ones need to know the God they worship in profound ways from their earliest days. We become what we worship, and so our children will become what we sing.

Tenth, you should sing the Psalms because the world needs them. The world does not need a weak Gospel. She sees plenty of it already. She needs to hear a Gospel of a God who delights in praise, who will not allow evil to go unpunished, and who prepares a table for us.

This may all sound daunting and strange. But I’d encourage you to take that first step. What first may appear to be strange may become a wonderful journey into praise and thanksgiving to the God from whom all blessings flow.

For more information on how to sing the psalms, or for resources, please contact me at uriesou@gmail.com.<>заказ статьи ваккак определить тиц

  1. See Terry Johnson’s The History of Psalm Singing in the Church; I depended heavily on that article for the quotes on this paragraph  (back)
  2. Luther, Martin. Tischreden. No. 2545. Quoted in F. Blume et al., Protestant Church Music (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1974  (back)
  3. Ibid.  (back)
  4. From the article: “Why do we sing the Psalms?”  (back)

Read more

On July 8, 2013 By In Theology, Worship

A Short History of the Wearing of Clerical Collars in the Presbyterian Tradition

Image

By Contributing Scholar, Timothy LeCroy

Introduction
There does not seem to have been any distinctive everyday dress for Christian pastors up until the 6th century or so. Clergy simply wore what was common, yet muted, modest, and tasteful, in keeping with their office. In time, however, the dress of pastors remained rather conservative, as it is wont to do, while the dress of lay people changed more rapidly. The result was that the dress of Christian pastors became distinct from the laity and thus that clothing began to be invested (no pun intended) with meaning.

Skipping ahead, due to the increasing acceptance of lay scholars in the new universities, the Fourth Lateran council (1215) mandated a distinctive dress for clergy so that they could be distinguished when about town. This attire became known as the vestis talaris or the cassock. Lay academics would wear an open front robe with a lirripium or hood. It is interesting to note that both modern day academic and clerical garb stems from the same Medieval origin.

Councils of the Roman Catholic church after the time of the Reformation stipulated that the common everyday attire for priests should be the cassock. Up until the middle of the 20th century, this was the common street clothes attire for Roman Catholic priests. The origin of the clerical collar does not stem from the attire of Roman priests. Its genesis is of Protestant origin.

The Origin of Reformed Clerical Dress
In the time of the Reformation, many of the Reformed wanted to distance themselves from what was perceived as Roman clerical attire. Thus many of the clergy took up the attire of academics in their daily dress or wore no distinctive clothing whatsoever. Yet over time the desire for the clergy to wear a distinctive uniform returned to the Reformed churches. What they began to do, beginning in the 17th century as far as I can tell, is to begin to wear a neck scarf, called a cravat, tied around the neck to resemble a yoke. Thus common dignified attire was worn by the pastor, supplementing it with this clerical cravat. This style can be seen in many of our famous Reformed divines, one of the more famous of whom being Charles Hodge.

Image
Charles Hodge pictured with clerical cravat

When Reformed pastors would enter the pulpit, they would add what is known as a “preaching tab” or “neck band” to their clerical dress. This type of dress is nearly ubiquitous among 17th and 18th century Reformed pastors. Here are a few examples:

Image
Jonathan Edwards featuring clerical cravat and preaching tabs
Image
George Whitfield
Image
John Owen – 17th century Reformed pastor

In the following picture we see more clearly the use of both the clerical cravat and the inserted preaching tabs by one Thomas Chalmers.

Image
Thomas Chalmers, 19th century. Notice both the cravat and tabs clearly visible.

The reader will note that the men depicted here were of great eminence as Reformed pastors and theologians. They are all well known for their commitment to Reformed theology and biblical teaching and practice. These are not obscure men who sported clerical attire.

One might ask whether this sort of attire was universal among the Reformed. The answer is, no. Upon perusing several portraits included in the Presbyterian Encyclopedia of 1880, published by Presbyterian Publishing Co. of Philadelphia, I found that there was diversity of clerical attire chosen by Presbyterian pastors of the 19th century. Some wore clerical cravats. Some wore what looks like a modern rabat with a collarette (a black vest which closes at the top with a bit of white collar revealed all around). Others wore bow ties or neck ties. The conclusion to be drawn is that in the Presbyterian tradition, there has been diversity of clerical dress without any type enforced over the other.

Another objection that might be raised is whether or not this neck band or cravat, such as we see Charles Hodge wearing, was in any way distinctive clerical garb. Several 19thcentury sources reveal that these cravats were, in fact, considered distinctive clerical garb. The following quote is from a 19th century source called The Domestic Annals of Scotland, Volume 3:

In the austerity of feeling which reigned through the Presbyterian Church on its reestablishment there had been but little disposition to assume a clerical uniform or any peculiar pulpit vestments. It is reported that when the noble commissioner of one of the first General Assemblies was found fault with by the brethren for wearing a scarlet cloak he told them he thought it as indecent for them to appear in gray cloaks and cravats. When Mr. Calamy visited Scotland in 1709 he was surprised to find the clergy generally preaching in neckcloths and coloured cloaks. We find at the date here marginally noted that the synod of Dumfries was anxious to see a reform in these respects. The synod – so runs their record – “considering that it’s a thing very decent and suitable so it hath been the practice of ministers in this kirk formerly to wear black gowns in the pulpit and for ordinary to make use of bands do therefore by their act recommend it to all their brethren within their bounds to keep up that custome and to study gravitie in their apparel and every manner of way.”

Here we see several members of the 18th c. Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) having their hackles raised over some ostentatious clergymen wearing scarlet cloaks and cravats. Later they hold a Synod where they decide that they ought to wear black gowns and to make use of neck bands. This paragraph shows us two things: the wearing of cravats was considered to be distinctive clerical garb, and the synod of the kirk decided ultimately that modest use of neckbands was permitted. (There are many more such examples in 19th century sources which can easily be researched on Google Books. I invite the reader to see for himself.) Thus when we see all manner of 17th-19th century Reformed pastors sporting preaching tabs, neck bands, and cravats, we should interpret them to be intentionally sporting distinctive clerical garb. We should also gather that the author of these annals, one Robert Chambers, included this anecdote in his work in order to promote the modest use of bands and clerical garb in his day.

The last bit of history to cover regards the origin of the modern clerical collar. According to several sources, including one cited by the Banner of Truth website (no Romanizing group), the modern clerical collar was invented by a Presbyterian. In the mid 19th century heavily starched detachable collars were in great fashion. This can been seen up through the early part of the 20th century if one has watched any period television shows or movies. If we observe the collar worn by Charles Hodge we can see that at first these collars were not folded down as they are today, but left straight up.

ImageCharles Hodge revisited. Notice the upturned collar protruding from the top of the cravat.

Yet in the mid to late 19th century it became the fashion of the day to turn these collars down. You and I still wear a turned down collar. The origin of the modern clerical collar is simply then to turn or fold the collar down over the clerical cravat, leaving the white cloth exposed in the middle. According to the Glasgow Herald of December 6,1894, the folded down detachable clerical collar was invented by the Rev Dr Donald McLeod, a Presbyterian minister in the Church of Scotland. According to the book Clerical Dress and Insignia of the Roman Catholic Church, “the collar was nothing else than the shirt collar turned down over the cleric’s everyday common dress in compliance with a fashion that began toward the end of the sixteenth century. For when the laity began to turn down their collars, the clergy also took up the mode.”

Yet two questions arise: how did the clerical collar then fall out of use among Presbyterians and how did it come to be so associated with Roman Catholic priests? The answer is that up until the mid 20th century the prescribed dress for all Roman Catholic priests was the cassock, a full length clerical gown. Yet during the 20th century it became custom for Roman Catholic priests to wear a black suit with a black shirt and clerical collar, which collar they appropriated from Protestant use. Owing to the large number of Roman Catholic priests in some areas, and due to the fact that some sort of everyday clerical dress was mandated for all priests at all times when outside their living quarters, the clerical collar became to be associated more with the Roman Catholic Church than with the Protestant churches. It stands to reason that once again a desire to create distance between the Reformed and Roman Catholics and the increasing desire throughout the 20th century for ministers to dress in more informal ways has led to the fact that barely any Reformed pastor wears any distinctive clerical dress these days, though plenty of examples show that our eminent forbearers desired to do so.

Sources
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, 2003
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 1996
The Presbyterian Encyclopedia, Alfred Nevin, 1880
Wikipedia: Clerical Collar
Wikipedia: Bands (neck wear)
Wikipedia: Clerical Clothing
Clerical dress and insignia of the Roman Catholic Church, Henry McCloud, 1948
Domestic Annals of Scotland, From the Revolution to the Rebellion of 1745, Robert Chambers, 1861, pp. 147-148.
Google Images
Google Books
Wikimedia Commons
Ken Collins’ Website – Vestments Glossary
Banner of Truth Website
Pastor Garrett Craw’s Blog

Dr. Timothy LeCroy is a Special Contributing Scholar to the Kuyperian Commentary and is the Pastor of Christ Our King Presbyterian Church in Columbia, MO.

This post originally appeared on Dr. LeCroy’s blog, Vita pastoralis.<>topodinреклама агентств недвижимости

Read more

On July 5, 2013 By In Worship

An Exhortation on the Supreme Court Decision

SCOTUS_RainbowGuest Post by Alan Stout

In light of the recent Supreme Court decision to not deny federal benefits to homosexuals that enter into a false marriage covenant. I thought I would address this issue.

In small ways and great, we have given in to false teaching and false gods. We are timid before the gods of tolerance, sensuality, entertainment and comfort. We became ensconced behind our Church walls, boldly proclaiming our outrage over sin, other people’s sin, in closed meetings of other like-minded Christians. We have proclaimed “a different path” to those already walking that direction and rejoice that prophetic ministry has found such receptive ears.

The Church of Christ bares much responsibility for the woeful state of marriage in our nation. It is not because we have not spoken out against sodomy or homosexual relationships, we have, but because we have done so while leaving out the biblical purposes of marriage, making it an idol to be added to our shrine.

In and of itself, these in-house conversations are not sinful. Going to a conference on marriage in order to build yours up is not a bad thing. The problem is this: in practice, we as the Church have undercut the very foundations we purport to love. The result of this erosion is adultery, no fault divorce, and now the Federal tearing down of marriage itself (See Antonin Scalia’s dissent as the Supreme Court over-turned the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA).

The Church owns this sin and here is where we bought it. We have so divorced marriage from the original purpose given by God that we have turned it into a covenant of shortsighted selfishness, failing to think generationally about what God has joined together. From creation one of the chief purposes of holy matrimony (marriage) has been the procreation of children. The Church has traditionally recognized this and proclaimed it during the wedding ceremony. For example the 1609 Book of Common Prayer, after which many of our American Christian weddings have been patterned, declares three reasons marriage was given to man.  Here is how wedding ceremonies in the West[1] have traditionally opened:

At the day and time appointed for solemnization of Matrimony, the persons to be married shall come into the Body of the Church with their friends and neighbours: and there standing together, the Man on the right hand, and the Woman on the left, the Priest shall say,

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

Modern Sample Call to Worship

Dear friends and family, with great affection for ___ and ___ we have gathered together to witness and bless their union in marriage. To this sacred moment they bring the fullness of their hearts as a treasure and a gift from God to share with one another. They bring the dreams which bind them together in an eternal commitment. They bring their gifts and talents, their unique personalities and spirits, which God will unite together into one being as they build their life together. We rejoice with them in thankfulness to the Lord for creating this union of hearts, built on friendship, respect and love.

Our President, Barack Obama, tweeted out immediately after the decision, “love is love.” Mr. President, the Church has been saying that for years… to our shame. May we repent, may we go forward to the garden-city, may we say with our Lord to those who marry today, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” That is a significant part of marriage and unless providentially hindered, children are mandated by God. This needs to be embraced and extolled in every marriage and in the Church.

The culture of sodomy is, in the end, death. There is no future in the sexual activity of homosexuals, their homes die with them. What a shame that the Church has bought into this same culture.

I propose that we do a few things to counter this trend:

1.     Pastors, teach and fight the anti-family trend in this war. Extol the cultural mandate, think generationally, preach from Psalm 127 and 128 and do not undercut the force of the blessing of children with stupid statements like, “some men’s quivers are smaller than others and they hold only one or two arrows (127:5).” Teach that it is a real blessing to have a table surrounded by little olive plants (128:3).

2.     Pastors again, let me urge you to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony unless the reasons for marriage are clearly articulated, we must preach the whole counsel of God in this situation.

3.     Saints of almighty God, do not neglect the clear teaching of Scripture. Embrace the mandate to be fruitful and multiply, to deny this is death – in effect the same death the sodomite revels in. You too think generationally, long to see your children’s children (Psalm 128:6).

——————————————-

[1]  The Eastern Church also contains a blessing that asks that the couple “multiply” like unto Jacob and Rachael.

Alan Stout is the Associate Pastor of Providence Church in Pensacola, Fl.<>dlya-vzloma гугла

Read more

On July 4, 2013 By In Politics, Worship

Worship and the Pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness

By Uri Brito

This is a great day for these United States. It is a time of joy and celebration. And we hope to enjoy ourselves with one of America’s greatest inventions: hot dogs. But beyond all the fireworks, parades, and the good and healthy national festivities, we will also remember that in 1776, the Declaration of Independence was approved by the Continental Congress, setting the 13 colonies on the road to freedom as a sovereign nation. Sovereignty is good. It is right. And I believe there was much wisdom in that threefold pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness. Undoubtedly we have not followed those principles very well in this nation. We have despised life by disposing of unborn infants, we have forgotten that God has set us free from ourselves and from the tyranny of sin, and we have also forsaken the liberty given to any nation whose God is the Lord. Therefore, we receive the just punishment we deserve, and that means the majority of our politicians and their policies. Washington has become a place of secret handshakes, unwarranted transactions, political elitism, sophist rhetoric, and cowardice. And finally, the happiness that we should certainly pursue is largely devoid of any form of Trinitarian rationale. Happiness–which is the pursuit of righteousness– without Nature’s God is temporary and unsatisfying.

We are first and foremost heavenly citizens. Our fellowship is heavenly. Our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness are not granted by this nation, but by a heavenly nation that this country has largely ignored. But this should not be the case. We are not pessimists. We know that even in the darkest moment of this country’s history, God is still on the throne, and He did not hit the pause button on his kingdom advance.

Be good citizens of this nation! Sing Psalms so loudly that the enemies will think there is an army of giants coming at them. Speak truth so firmly that Washington will be unable to shut her ears. Stand so strong that nothing will deter you from marching on. Love so convincingly that godly marriage would be honored. Obey the Lord your God; petition his mercy that God would spare us as He did Nineveh.

True patriotism rejoices when our country does right, and weeps when she chases after false gods.

Let us come together this coming Lord’s Day through the holy act of worship, and purify the Bride of Christ with confession and rejoicing, for in this manner this nation will find life, liberty, and true happiness.

Uri Brito is a dual citizen.<>оптимизация а своими руками

Read more

On June 27, 2013 By In Politics, Worship

“Where’s my Diversity?” asks the Polygamist

By Uri Brito

Does the Supreme Court truly believe in equality? If so, why is the long tradition of polygamy being discriminated against? As Steve Deace observes:

They’re just as guilty of discrimination as those dastardly conservatives still bitterly clinging to their guns and their religion. Why no argument for polygamy, polyamory and other forms of diversity? Why are they only defending their exclusive definition of diversity?

The LGBT should be up and arms about not valuing other types of consensual relationships like polygamy. Is this the next step? Or to put the question more forcibly, “is this the inevitable next step?” (more…)

Read more

On June 13, 2013 By In Worship

Gospel Explosion in the World

By Uri Brito

It appears that God always delights in bringing good news to his children. In whatever season, in whatever phase of human history, God is always actively changing, transforming, re-creating the world by His word. And good news is here. Since the Ascension of our blessed Lord God has taken the few and the humble and transformed them into a multitude. This is the trajectory of the kingdom.

C.Peter Wagner reports that the five gospel hot spots in the world are China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria. “Starting with China,” observes Wagner,  the largest nation in the world reports “the greatest national harvest of souls ever recorded in history, beginning in 1976. Although figures differ, I personally am comfortable agreeing with those who claim that 10 percent of the population is Christian, which would mean that there are around 140 million Christians in that country.” The numbers are staggering. The fields are being harvested.

KC contributor, Thomas Kidd, pointed me to a Christianity Today article detailing how despite persecution, the Iranian church marches on. Claiming 0.5% of Christians, the church has not given in to the political dark forces. Melissa Stefan observes:

Yet, there are two bright lights for Christians in the otherwise-dark Iranian context: Elam Ministries reported in its Summer 2013 magazine that 246 Iranian Christians were baptized on April 17—”probably the largest baptism service on record in the Iranian church since the fourth century.” In addition, Iran’s underground house churches—where freedom to attend Persian-language worship services is more likely to be found—do appear to be growing.

The Gospel presses on. After darkness, light.

Uri Brito is the Senior Pastor of Providence Church in Pensacola, Fl.<>изготовление ов на заказмассовая проверка параметров

Read more

On June 7, 2013 By In Culture, Worship

We are what we Worship: Idols and their Makers

by Uri Brito

John Calvin

Calvin c. 1554.

Human beings are a marketable people. Those who shop around for us see our lifestyles and develop an entire strategy aimed at purchasing our wants at an exceedingly rapid speed. But not only are we easily bought, we are also very creative. We are idol-makers, to quote Calvin’s famous line. We are industrious, and the consequences of our hard work are a boost to the Baal factories and stock.

Unfortunately, this type of productivity is not encouraging. St. John quietly, but forcefully exhorted us in the last verse of I John to keep ourselves from idols. We have not heeded the apostle’s words. We have approached the idols and bargained with them about producing an entire new line of idol fashion and idol currency. We take the idol money and invest it into our own companies. We are good at what we do. In fact, we produce the best idols in town. We make them in all colors and shapes. We sell them at a discount during the Christmas holidays. All we want is for everyone to share in our pleasures. We make idols and the idols make us. We are what we worship. The more we consume the more marketable we become for the more sophisticated idol seller. We become like the gods. We treasure their style. They roam around speechless and blind, and we perceive that to be the new fad.

(more…)

Read more