Why Pray the Hours? – Reflections on Reformation

The church throughout her history has kept regular, set times of prayer each day. Should modern Christians reacquire this ancient practice?

Note: this begins a series on my blog called Reflections on Reformation which will be running this year in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the onset of the Protestant Reformation.

Early on in the history of the church, Christians understood that the 1st century Jewish practice of meeting for prayer at set times of the day was a good and biblical practice to continue. We find references to this in several places in Scripture. In Acts 3 we find Peter and John attending a set prayer at the temple at 3PM. Acts 10 seems to reference Peter continuing this practice in his devotional life as he was praying at the ninth hour (3pm). Later in the story he prays at the sixth hour (noon).  Pentecost occurred at the third hour of the day (9 am). In Jesus’s parable in Luke 18 we find two men going up to the temple to pray. While he does not tell us the exact hour, it was a corporate prayer service they were attending. Simeon and Anna prayed in the Temple continually, it says in Luke 2. We tend to assume this is individual devotional prayer, but it would make more sense if this referred to them participating in the set prayers of the temple service. In Acts 22 we find Paul praying at the temple. In Luke 1:10 we find a multitude praying in the temple courts at the “hour of incense.” In Daniel 9 we find Daniel praying at the time of the evening sacrifice. He did this even though the temple was destroyed and there was currently no sacrificial ministry occurring.

In the Psalms there are multiple references to prayer and times of day. Psalm 88:13 says, “But I, O LORD, cry to you; in the morning my prayer comes before you.” Psalm 141:2 says, “Let my prayer be counted as incense before you, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice!” Psalm 5:3 says, “O LORD, in the morning you hear my voice; in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for you and watch.” Psalm 59:16, “But I will sing of your strength; I will sing aloud of your steadfast love in the morning. For you have been to me a fortress and a refuge in the day of my distress.” Psalm 119:147, “I rise before dawn and cry for help; I hope in your words.” Psalm 55:17, “Evening and morning and at noon I utter my complaint and moan, and he hears my voice.” Psalm 119:148, “My eyes are awake before the watches of the night, that I may meditate on your promise.” Psalm 134:1-2, “Come, bless the LORD, all you servants of the LORD, who stand by night in the house of the LORD! Lift up your hands to the holy place and bless the LORD!” Psalm 119:62, “At midnight I rise to praise you, because of your righteous rules.” This is not to mention numerous places in the Psalms where specific times of day are referred to with relation to receiving mercy, hearing God’s word, groaning, crying out, meditating on his greatness, etc.

Perhaps this is also what is meant by the several references in the scriptures to praying night and day and praying without ceasing. This would make sense in the context of gathered set times of prayer, which we know were happening at least in the temple and also in an extension of those temple services in private prayers (see Peter and Daniel above).

Are we to take these numerous references to prayer at specific times of day as a descriptive coincidence? Or do the Scriptures intend to prescribe a practice for God’s people? Indeed, the early Christians saw these references as scriptural warrant to offer prayers at set times each day. Based on specific times mentioned in scripture (just before dawn, third hour, sixth hour, ninth hour, sunset, evening, midnight) and based on Psalm 119:164 which says, “Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules,” the early Christians established set times of prayer at these times.

https://pastortimlecroy.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/daf9c-xpray-the-hours-pagespeed-ic-msrl-z6coo.jpg?w=840

Not everyone prayed seven times a day in the early church, although for some this was the ideal (see Hippolytus of Rome’s Apostolic Constitutions). Yet the churches called those to prayer who were pastors and workers, those with vocations within the church and those who were able and willing to do so. Eventually communities sprang up who were devoted to prayer, such were the early monasteries. In the Rule of Benedict he lays out the liturgies for the set times of prayer along with the Psalms that were to be sung at them. In the ancient practice of the Benedictine Rule, the monastery was directed to sing through the entire Psalter every week.

This may be what Paul had in mind as well when he describes that the widows who are enrolled in the church when he writes in 1 Timothy 5:5, “She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day.” Interestingly, Calvin remarked on this in his Institutes in book 4:8:18-19 where he discusses the enrollment of widows as deaconesses to “discharge the public ministry of the church toward the poor and to strive with all zeal, continancy, and diligence in the task of love.” It is interesting because he does not address the apostolic command that these widows continue in supplications night and day. His reaction against late medieval monasticism was too strong to allow him to consider that possibility. In this he was not unlike many of the Protestant Reformers who saw the services of the hours as attempts to “appease God with songs or unintelligible mumbling.”

Despite Calvin’s protestation, the church has continued these daily prayers, the hours or divine offices throughout her history. At the time of the Protestant Reformation one of the main questions that arose was whether and which practices of the ancient and medieval church should be continued. While some protestant traditions continued the daily office in some form (mainly Anglicans and some Lutherans), most of the Protestants jettisoned the daily office in favor of the teaching ministry of the church. Calvin himself taught the scriptures daily, and for that reason we have an expansive collection of his biblical teaching. We might ask though, while teaching the scriptures is obviously a very good thing, should the corporate prayer ministry of the church have been abandoned? If the answer is no, what are ways that we can reincorporate this ministry into the life our churches today?

Evangelical churches have tended to relegate prayer to the private life of the individual believer. The emphasis on alone time with the Lord is in keeping with Christ’s teaching on prayer, and this was the main influence for Evangelical piety. Yet in the 20th century, Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have reacquired this ancient emphasis on prayer, while not taking up the ancient forms. Many charismatic prayer ministries seek to be faithful to God’s word by opening up prayer rooms where there is a sign-up and a schedule to ensure that prayers are being offered around the clock.

While this re-emphasis on prayer is to be commended, it largely focuses on the efficacy of prayer (a true and good notion), but not necessarily on the formative aspects of prayer for the Christian believer. In the early church it was both the efficacious and the formative aspects of prayer that shaped the church’s practices. Could we glean from this formative aspect of prayer today?

There has been much work recently in this area. James K. A. Smith’s work on Christian formation has drawn deeply from prayer’s formative aspect and the goodness of this for Christian formation. Additionally Greg Thompson in his public teaching ministry has made this a focus. Both Thompson and Smith have drawn from the life of the ancient church in its rich liturgies and from the Rule of Benedict which prescribes prayer as a way of life for disciples of Christ. It should be noted that both Smith and Thompson are active in the Reformed context, Thompson being a pastor in the PCA and having given a series of foundational lectures at Covenant Theological Seminary on this topic.

What then are we to make of this? I’m not suggesting that every Christian should pray the seven offices every day. Yet it would be helpful if Evangelicals leaned into this rich tradition to form our congregations in some way. It is also very helpful, if not necessary, that those who are in vocational ministry participate in the daily office as a way to rest, recharge, and fulfill our callings to intercede as ministers of word and prayer.

I’ll offer several practical suggestions below.

  1. Offer avenues for daily prayer to congregants. This could be in the form of a prayer guide that the church produces, or suggestions of various smartphone apps which fulfill the same purpose. For example, each year for Advent and Lent my church offers a daily prayer guide to all our congregants to enter into daily prayer. Mind you, this is not seven times a day, but a suggestion and resource for engaging in once-daily prayer as individuals and families. Another option is to offer a page in the weekly service bulletin with all the lectionary readings for that week and encourage congregants to use that week’s service as a prayer guide throughout the week.
  2. Offer a mid week prayer service. Churches with access to facilities during the week could offer a mid-week vespers or matins (or both!) so that congregants who wish could attend to pray together and be shaped by these rich patterns of prayer.
  3. Pray daily as a church staff. If you have multiple staff who office at the same location, gather for morning prayer as you start each day. Make it a priority and block the time out on your schedule.
  4. Seminary Communities. Seminaries are uniquely positioned to enter into the richness of communal prayer. If chapels are more lightly attended than years past, perhaps a shift away from the didactic focus of a chapel sermon to the communal and formative act of prayer will reinvigorate seminary communities. Begin by exposing students and faculty to things like chanting psalms and saying the hours. Do the office for one or two of the chapel services a semester. Pick one day per semester to cancel classes and pray the hours (9am, 12, 3, and at sunset), encouraging the students and faculty to work in between the prayer services. Eventually begin offering morning prayer on a daily basis for those that desire it. Then sit back and see what the Lord does with it.
  5. Individual pastors. I encourage all pastors to say the office at least once a day. I say the morning office every morning (even Sunday before church!) except for my day off. This has been very beneficial for me in a number of ways, which I will detail in a future post.

Won’t this require too much work and take up too much time? The great thing about the office is that once you learn how it works, you don’t need to spend time preparing and practicing like we have done for many chapel services and Sunday services these days. Find someone who can lead it well. Find someone who can chant psalms. Then just show up and do it. Take 15-20 minutes out of your day (minimum) to spend time in community before the Lord. I promise that you will begin to see tangible results in the lives of those who participate.

Martin Luther is supposed to have said, “I have so much to do that if I didn’t spend at least three hours a day in prayer I would never get it all done.” There is no written evidence that he ever said that, though perhaps it was a oral tradition that was passed down through the ages due to its poignancy. Whether he said it or not, we must remember that Luther was a medieval monk who prayed the hours. That shaped him and formed him in his knowledge of the scriptures and in his love and knowledge of God. Augustine prayed the hours. Chrysostom prayed the hours. Anselm prayed the hours. In fact, all the theological giants of the ancient and medieval church prayed them in some form. Our fathers and mothers were steeped in scripture because of this. We often think that we know the bible well and understand it even better. But are we steeped in scripture to the level that our fathers and mothers were? Who recited the psalter by heart once a week? Who read through the bible at least every three years? Who daily spent hours in prayer before the face of God?

 

Want me to help you learn how to chant the psalms? Contact me.

Apps for the daily office
These apps are available in your app store. Note: these apps come from various theological traditions.

  • Mission St. Clare
  • Divine Hours, Vinyard Ann Arbor
  • Universalis
  • Daily Prayer from the COE
  • Do you know of others? Comment below!

 

New Wineskins: A New Response to an Old Problem

“Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.” (Matthew 9:17)

UPDATE (Sunday, 4/2/17): Comments are closed and no more names will be added to the list. Please see this post for further explanation.


“Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.” (Matthew 9:17)

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus discusses the necessity for a new people of God and a New Covenant to usher in his kingdom. The lesson is that old ways can be intractable and inflexible; and thus, if the new wine of the Spirit-filled kingdom is poured into those old, inflexible wineskins, they will not be able to contain its expanding volume due to the bubbling effervescence of active fermentation. This is of course a metaphor. Jesus is not primarily seeking to teach us about brewing or vintning methods (although he is technically correct, as anyone who has had the lid blown off of their fermenter when the air lock becomes clogged can bear witness). No, this is a metaphor, a parable, to teach us that old ways cannot often tolerate fresh moves of the Spirit of God.

Now, when Jesus says that old wineskins cannot contain the new wine, is he talking about the Law of God? No. The Old Testament? No.  Jesus does not denigrate the Torah or any part of the scriptures. What, then, is he saying needs to change? What, then, is lacking? Specifically, he is arguing that what cannot contain the new wine of the New Covenant are man-made and extra-biblical additions to the law and man-made and extra-biblical cultural appropriations of the Law. So: Tithing mint, dill, and cumin while ignoring mercy and justice. Ostentatiously giving to the temple while leaving one’s parents destitute. Not being allowed even to talk to a woman as a hedge against sexual immorality, while ignoring her worth and dignity as an equal image bearer. These were all Pharisaical hedges put around the law intended to keep one from even coming close to transgressing it. But the great irony is that the hedges themselves led to weightier transgressions of God’s law, as Jesus often points out.

An example of Jesus’ wisdom pertaining to the inability of old wineskins to contain new wine has occurred just this week. Three sisters-in-Christ who host a podcast called “Truth’s Table” invited two brothers from the Reformed African-American Network to record an episode called “Gender Apartheid.” I was made aware of this podcast after another minister posted a rebuttal on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals blog, called, ironically in this case, the Mortification of Spin. In the blog post, the pastor warns that the episode is “shocking to anyone who actually believes and upholds the doctrinal standards of the PCA and OPC.” He calls the podcast, “typical boilerplate liberation theology,” and says that the views espoused are, “fundamentally unbiblical and incompatible with the gospel and the church’s mission,” and that they, “destroy the gospel by replacing it with something else.”

These are very serious charges, my friends. So serious that one would expect a robust articulation of these charges and how these brothers and sisters in Christ have actually done these things. One would expect evidence to substantiate these charges. However, if you read the blog post, you will not find the charges substantiated in any way. What you will find are more charges, uncharitable conclusions, and a failure to really listen to what these brothers and sisters were actually saying.

The pastor charges that the grave error that has been committed is that, “the hosts dismiss the biblical pattern of male leadership within the church as nothing more than a manmade rule. They also mock those who uphold that biblical pattern and join that mockery with crude language.” He goes on to further charge that, “Near the very end of the podcast one of the hosts gives a brief nod of legitimacy to transgenderism.”

Again, serious charges. Are they given any substance? To this the author states, “I will not labor over every problem with the content of this podcast. You will be able to hear for yourself.” He then threatens the three women and two men by advising that anyone reading the blog should write letters to their Sessions so that they can be properly rebuked for their errors. This Saturday (April 1) the Alliance followed this up by sending an email alert with the blog post and contact information, urging readers to contact the authorities of the five people who produced the podcast.

So let me state it again, none of these very serious charges are backed up with any evidence at all. Instead, the blogger assures us that it will be evident to anyone who listens that what he is saying is true.

Therefore, after reading the blog post, I decided to listen. When I listened, I heard nothing of what the blogger was alleging. The blogger alleged that what was said on the podcast was unbiblical and unconfessional. But in listening to the podcast three times, I did not hear even once anyone saying that women should be ordained to the pastorate. Instead I heard passionate pleas to treat women as equal image bearers and to utilize their gifts in any and every way that does not violate the scriptural commands to an ordained male pastorate. Not once did I hear anyone advocate for women’s ordination. Rather I heard requests to include women as speakers at conferences. I heard a request to allow more emotion in worship, to allow a more feminine response in worship. Again, this is not an attack on the male pastorate. I heard that women should be allowed to say prayers, give testimonies, take up the offering, pass out communion, and to serve as greeters in the church. None of these are roles that must be reserved for the pastorate.

In essence, their argument is that anything that an unordained man can do in the church, a woman should be allowed to do. That’s an argument that should not be all that controversial. This was not, as two Alliance members alleged on Twitter, “an open advocacy of women’s ordination.” I think that anyone that came to that conclusion has failed to really listen to what these brothers and sisters were saying in this podcast. And given the level of accusations in that blog post, in email campaigns, on Facebook and Twitter (some of which may have been now deleted, but I possess screenshots), I believe that many people have sinned and owe those ladies an apology. I also believe that the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals has severely overstepped in sending out an email alert asking people to contact the church authorities of the podcast hosts, without any substantiated evidence at all.

What then to the charges of crudeness and of a nod to transgenderism? Again, I believe that both of these charges stem from a failure to listen with charity seeking understanding. The crudeness that was spoken of can only refer to the use of the words, “penis,” “breasts,” and “ovaries.” But even if we object to the definition of maleness in terms of anatomy, it is a fact that possessing a penis is a requirement to be a pastor, elder, or deacon in the PCA. What she then did was move from this biblical and confessional requirement (which she gave no inclination of disagreeing with) to object to that essential requirement for ordination being extended to other roles, ministries, and activities in the church that do not require ordination. That is what she was challenging. She wasn’t challenging the notion that there are requirements for ordination, she was challenging the fact that one must be a male to do all the things mentioned above. All three of the hosts were challenging the notion that women should only be consigned to nurturing ministries in the church, and that men were above such ministries. Their challenge is valid. Men should be serving in nurseries, teaching children, cleaning, and cooking food in the church. If your church does that, great! Wonderful! If men in the church are reticent to do such things because they are “women’s work,” that’s the toxic patriarchy they were referring to. Furthermore, only allowing women to do ministry in these areas is another example of what they were pushing against. When she mentioned that perhaps if women had “penis shaped microphones,” (a provocative image, to be sure) she was using admittedly strong language to prove the point that unless one possesses a penis one does not have a voice in our churches. Is she wrong?

To the nod to transgenderism – again this is baseless and is frankly the most uncharitable accusation of all. There were three references in the podcast to ideas from academic gender studies: that gender is a construct, the term cisgender, and the disclaimer at the end of the podcast about transgender image bearers. There is nothing in those statements that is a nod to transgenderism. The first statement was a purely academic acknowledgement of the distinction between gender and sex, and they even clarified this shortly after stating it. They are affirming the existence of biological sex and the creational and biblical distinctions between the sexes. They even used that affirmation in one of their arguments about feminine responses to worship. Gender, as they were using it, refers to normative gender appearances and behaviors.

Now, I’m not sure what they would say to women dressing and appearing more masculine, they didn’t address that. But what they were addressing is the assigning to a gender specific roles and ministries in the church that are extra-biblical. Where in the Bible does it say that only women should cook, clean, and change diapers? Where in the Bible does it say that women cannot do other ministries such as serving on staff, speaking at conferences, taking up the offering or passing out communion? When women are restricted to certain roles and forbidden others (again, not talking about roles and ministries reserved for those who are ordained) that’s the Gender Apartheid they were referring to. That’s the gender construct they were referring to, not that biological sex doesn’t exist or that sex distinctions don’t exist.

Lastly, to the use of the term cisgender and the statement about transgender image bearers, this I took as a compassionate acknowledgment that all kinds of people are listening to and reading the things we put out on the Internet, and that their perspectives were not necessarily included in that podcast. That’s just a compassionate thing to say. It doesn’t say any more than that we acknowledge that you exist and that you have a voice and that you are an image bearer of God. Who of us would deny that any human person bears the image of God and is due honor, dignity, and respect?

In conclusion, I want to affirm what I heard on that podcast. I heard a stirring call to biblical faithfulness in how we treat women and utilize their gifts in the church. I want to thank Ekemini, Michelle, Christina, Tyler and Jemar for their courageous, biblically faithful, and entertaining words to us. This is new wine. It’s a fresh, prophetic move of the Spirit to do what the Bible actually calls us to in the church. I pray that our wineskins can flex with the bubbly. If not, I’m afraid they’ll burst.


The following people have seen fit to attach their names to this post in agreement with what is said and in support of Ekemini, Michelle, Christina, Tyler and Jemar. If anyone reading this would also like to attach your name, please leave a comment and I will add you to the list.

Rev. Dr. Irwyn Ince

Rev. Mike Khandjian

Rev. Doug Serven

Rev. Jay Simmons

Rev. Jon Price

Rev. Mike Sloan

Emily Sloan

Rev. David Richter

Rev. Bobby Griffith

Rev. James Kessler

Rev. Kevin VandenBrink

Rev. John Haralson

Rev. Joel Littlepage

Melissa Littlepage

Rev. Brad Edwards

Hannah Edwards

Rev. Wayne Larson

Rev. David Schweissing

Rev. Charles Johnson

Rev. Jimmy Brock

Rev. Moses Lee

Rev. Robbie Schmidtberger

Rev. Ewan Kennedy

Rev. Hansoo Jin

Rev. Justin Edgar

Rev. Jeff Birch

Rev. Ethan Smith

Rev. Greg Ward

Rev. Kevin Twit

Rev. Curran Bishop

Rev. Howard Davis

Rev. Dan Adamson

Beth Sloan Hart

Rev. J. Paul Warren

Rev. Dave Abney

Rev. Matt Adair

RE Matt Allhands

Rev. Hace Cargo

Rev. Lance E. Lewis

Eriq Hearn

Rev. Robert Binion

Rev. Sam DeSocio

Rev. Austin Pfeiffer

Rev. John Houmes

Rev. Ben Reed

Jeremy Bouris

Hannah Rose Singer

Cody Alan Brobst

Katelynn Ronning

Rachel Flowe LeCroy

Jill Harding

Rev. Wesley Martin

Sean Loftin

Amanda Cope

Tanner J. Beebe

Garrett Lathan

Kyle Dickerson

Helen Marchman Morris

Lauren Hogsett

Dr. Ted Turnau

Rev. Ross Lockwood

Dr. Otis W. Pickett

Julie Thome Pickett

Rev. Sam Kang

Dr. Matthew W. Uldrich

Rev. Pat Roach

Katie Ribera

Josiah Green

Craig Harris

Ameen Hudson

Edward Games

Kelsey Vaughn

James Jardin

Susannah Walden

Olivia Cordray

Dr. Eric Michael Washington

Stephanie Woodward Ilderton

Brittany Smith

Steven Gilchrist

Chase Daws

Andrea Romyn

Rev. Tim Locke

Jeff Rendell

Claire Berger

Rev. Marc Corbett

Jessica Fox

Adam Houston

Owen Troy

Taylor Daniel

Rev. Parker James

Matt Creacy

Knox on Baptism

We utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted, and also that in the Supper rightly used, Christ Jesus is so joined with us that he becomes the very nourishment and food for our souls.

-John Knox, The Scots Confession, 1560

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_Confession

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

Image

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 19th century 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.

Image
Charles 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

Visit our church’s website: www.christourkingcolumbia.org

A Biblical Theology of Maturation and Renewal

The apostle Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 3:18 that, “we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.” How is it then that the Spirit is transforming us from glory to glory?

The pattern of maturation in the scriptures is a progression from priest to king to prophet. The priestly phase is a propaedeutic phase of keeping rules and doing things exactly according to the book. This corresponds to our childhood which is full of rules. The kingly phase is a phase of ruling and exercising dominion in the vocation that God has given us. This corresponds to the main phase of our adult life. The prophetic phase is a phase of increasing influence and wisdom based on a lifetime of knowledge and experience. This phase corresponds to  our “golden years” which all to often in our culture are discounted by the younger generation. Biblically speaking, the prophetic phase is the most glorious and most influential, though we tend to value the kingly phase the most in our culture.

The bible also shows us that moving from glory to glory is preceded by a time of testing. The first test is the wilderness trial, where the person must deal with the Heavenly Father and come to terms with their personal loyalty to him. This trial is shown in Israel’s wilderness wandering as well as Jesus’ 40 day temptation in the wilderness. At the end of the wilderness trial, Joshua says, “Choose you this day whom you will serve,” (Joshua 24:15). Passing this test makes one ready to become a priest, where performance is measured by doing exactly what God says, and blessings/curses are meted out accordingly.

The second test is the garden trial. The garden trial is a test to see if one is willing to lay down his life for others, specifically his bride. The garden trial is shown in the scriptures in Adam’s test by the serpent in the garden as well as Jesus’ temptation in Gethsemane. Being willing to lay down one’s life for the sake of others is the test that is required to move into the kingly phase of life and ministry, which requires exactly that one lays down one’s life on behalf of those which he (or she) has been given to rule. The kingly phase is marked by wisdom, and the exactness of the rules of the priestly period are stretched (and sometimes broken) according to the wise rule of the king.

The third test is the fiery trial. The fiery trial is a test to see if one will pass on the kingly rule and all the things which one has built to the younger generation of junior kings. The fiery trial is shown in the bible in several places: Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, Elijah’s handing down his ministry to Elisha, and Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to his church on Pentecost. Passing the fiery trial (which involves both being willing to let go of our “sons” as well as passing our ministries down to them) makes one ready to become a prophet. Being a prophet in the bible is the most glorious and the most influential. Where the king is taken up with the day-to-day aspects of ruling, and his influence is largely over those he rules, the prophet has time to spend influencing and impacting the greater world. Prophets in the bible are world changers. They usher in new covenants and phases of redemptive history. They have power to rebuke and instruct the nations of the world, not just the local Israel. Being a prophet means one has remained faithful through the three major tests of life, and that one has gained a treasure trove of wisdom and knowledge based on his life experiences, knowledge of the scriptures, and close connection with God. Prophets should always be listened to, and never discounted in the church.

For the most part we as Americans are good at getting to the kingly phase, but we stall before getting to the prophetic phase. How can we do a better job of passing the fiery trial and becoming world changers? Kings have power and influence, but prophets make kings and disciple the nations. This is the phase that we must most aspire to, and must value the most in our churches.