Here is an excellent historical theological treatment of the observance of holy days in the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition. Here's an excerpt:
In 1973 many conservative Southern Presbyterians faced with the prospect of the union of the body they belonged to (the PCUS) with the more liberal Northern UPCUSA opted instead to withdraw and form a new theologically conservative Presbyterian Church. This new church, the Presbyterian Church in America, opted not to adopt the liturgically oriented Book of Common Worship of the PCUS, its revised Directory of Worship, or any of the alterations that had been made to the Presbyterian Standards since adoption in 1789. Instead the PCA adopted the 1789 revision of the Westminster Standards and set to work on creating their own Directory of Worship. The non-binding Directory they created – while it is far more liturgical than the original Directory for Publick Worship, and includes sample forms for special occasions – does not contain a single reference to the Church year. In fact at no point in the history of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has the practice of observing Holy Days been officially authorized by the General Assembly, nor does anything in the Constitution of the Church legitimate the practice. To the contrary, since the constitutional documents of the PCA uphold and endorse the original Puritan concept of the Regulative Principle of Worship as it is set forth in chapter 21.1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the practice of observing Holy Days in worship is logically forbidden as no one has ever been able to prove that the practice of their observation was instituted by God in His Word. What is odd in light of this is that very few, if any, members of the PCA view the observance of Holy Days as an exception to the teaching of the Westminster Standards.
So while we can answer clearly why Presbyterians who belong to the PCUSA observe Holy Days, for they changed their doctrinal standards to allow for the practice, one cannot answer that question when it comes to members of other bodies that have not, such as the PCA. Their doctrinal standards clearly do not permit the practice, and yet it would seem that the majority of PCA churches observe Holy Days anyway. Why is that? Well one might be tempted to conclude that it is because the General Assembly has never tackled the subject, but the far more obvious answer is that they observe them because the Church they left observed them and the vast majority of modern evangelical churches around them observe them. In most cases no-one living can remember a time when Holy Days were not observed and most Presbyterian clergymen seem unaware that there was once a time when they were not observed. Even the oldest of PCA saints might be reasonably tempted to conclude that a notion that Holy Days should not be observed represents the thought of a crackpot.
36 comments:
I think Jeff Meyers gives a good "defense" of Christmas in the Reformed tradition. The practice is a bit more diverse than you may think:
http://www.prpc-stl.org/auto_images/1071243331Defense_of_Xmas.htm
I wonder if some of this is another example of the difference between the Contenantal Reformed and the British Reformed. Just as the Dutch orginized their catechism around the Apostles Creed and the Westminsterians did not even include it with the other important things to memorize as a Christian (with the Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments). The Dutch were fine with Church Calendar days like:
“The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas,Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in mostof the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform with the others.” -Synod of Dort
Tony,
I think Jeff's article is good but mostly irrelevant to the issues Andrew raises.
Jared,
While the Westminster Assembly did not include the creeds in the Standards, they did self-consciously follow the patterns and doctrine laid out in them.
Really? Considering Reformed Church history is irrelevant to PCA practice? Interesting.
My meaning is that the English Reformed seem more Biblicist than the Dutch or German or Swiss. At least in regards to "holidays" and the Apostles Creed in worship.
Tony,
I think all church history is relevant to PCA practice. My point is that the specific issues Andrew addresses are either not addressed or inadequately addressed in Jeff's article.
Jared,
If what you mean by Biblicist is aversion to the specification of extra-biblical forms in worship (which includes the observance of holy days), then I agree.
There's always someone more pure in their distain for "extra-biblical forms" and the "traditions of men" than you and are exceedingly proud of it.
God would be that someone. :-)
This issue ultimately comes down to our understanding of the Regulative Principle. If it is true that Holy Scripture regulates God's worship, then only those forms (distinguished from either elements or circumstances) prescribed in Scripture may be required in worship. Historically, the tradition of Westminster has not acknowledged any required forms. Formally speaking, that's what the Puritan aversion to the Book of Common Prayer was all about. This, however, does not mean that particular forms may not be used. They may and should be, especially the Lord's Prayer and the historic Christian creeds. But they should not be required.
With respect to the church calendar, I don't see how one can observe it without at least implying its requirement. Would it be acceptable for a church to celebrate Christmas in April and Easter in December? If not, the implication is that the days and seasons themselves are set apart (i.e. holy).
I think it would be fine to preach the incarnation in December and the resurrection in April, as long as it is not required, and maintaining the understanding that it is not required would seem to require doing away with a regular advent season with all its accouterments. It should be just as acceptable to preach the incarnation in April and the resurrection in December. Indeed, we should be preaching these things at some level every Sunday!
Would you also say that a Reformation Day service would be inappropriate?
Is "adiaphora" a functioning theological term for you Jay? :)
For an historical review of the Dutch view of holidays, see my blog post on the subject:
http://virginiahuguenot.blogspot.com/2009/11/nadere-reformatie-contra-christmas.html
TG,
Of course not! The church has been doing those for at least a hundred years, so they must be okay. ;-) Plus if we didn't have Reformation Day services, how would we remember that we shouldn't be having Reformation Day services?
Jared,
Only if I get to define it. ;-)
TG,
On a serious note, every Sabbath Day should be Reformation day in Protestant churches.
It is not about whether one subscribes to the Regulative principle or not but the correct and wise application of that principle.
Since you have brought up history, perhaps you will let me explain my belief on how it is applied in this venue.
First of all, Would you agree, Jay, that the Regulative principle is taught by the Apostles in their writings and their teahings?
Thank you for posting this section of Andrew Webb's essay. I've read at least twice, and I enjoy and agree with it both doctrinally and historically. I recently attended a PCA, and I was mildly astonished to see the lighting of an Advent candle. The church was observing Advent. How unbiblical, and non-historical Presbyterian.
Since the Directory of Worship in the PCA has no mention of a Church Year, is it optional for PCA congregations to observe holy days and seasons? Or do presbyteries and the General Assembly accept the practices even though the Standards fail to support it?
Jared,
I believe the RP is the biblical teaching.
Reformed4ever,
It seems that, in practice, it is optional to observe seasons in the PCA.
On the use of Advent Candles. My view is that this is a clear violation of the Regulative Principle. It is the addition of an element that is not prescribed by God for his worship.
Resolved: The Regulative Principle is the teaching of the Apostles.
Second, the apostles obviously have an authority that their students do not, but to what degree do you think the students of the apostles were faithful preservers of apostolic teaching?
Would we consider Timothy, Clement, John Mark, Polycarp, and Luke to have continued on as the second generation what the apostles taught, knowing very well the teaching of the apostles not only from their pen, but personal interaction and seeing them enact the doctrine they taught?
I think the way we determine the faithfulness of the students of the Apostles (among whom we are numbered) is by comparing their/our teaching to Scripture, which is the faith once for all handed down.
But my question is not one of new teaching, but reproduction and application of teaching by way of interpretation. Let me put it this way: Would the practice of the second generation be more instructive of what may possibly was the intention of the apostles more so than say, someone in the 400s, 1200s, 1600s, or 2000s? Not absolutely binding, but instructive in application? Would you say if two possible interpretations may be applied to a teaching and one (or more) of the second generation taught or applied a certain doctrine in one of those ways, would it be reasonable to have that information guide one's interpretation? Or is the practice and teaching of the second generation of Christians not useful and completely without instructive use?
I think when we speak of the truthfulness or faithfulness of an interpretation, what we mean is the degree to which it accords with the clear teaching of Scripture. This is true regardless of the provenance of the interpretation. In other words, second century teachers bear the same burden as 21st century teachers. However, 21st century teachers enjoy the wonderful advantage of having there perspectives informed by 1900 years of teachings.
I do believe the visible church's confession has, in some cases, progressed in fullness and precision over time, so that the WCF marks a much more full and precise confession compared to the confession of the early church.
Interesting. What of those that were entrusted to reproduce those teachings in written form? Are the gospels of Mark and Luke suspect? Did Mark and Luke bear the burden of making their writings accord with Scripture? From what do they derive their authority? Why are they considered canonical?
Mark and Luke are different due to inspiration. Inspiration is the distinguishing mark of Scripture.
Mark and Luke are different from what? So they are inspired in that they were really struck by the story and were inspired to write about it? So can I write an inspired story like them?
The texts of Mark and Luke are different from anything that's not inspired. Inspiration means that God authored the texts they wrote. Because the canon is closed, you cannot write Scripture.
would you say that the relationship Mark and Luke had to the apostles has anything to do with that?
I think provenance, while important, is insufficient evidence for inspiration. In other words, we do not have to prove that a text is either authored by an Apostle or by one who knew an Apostle in order for it to qualify as Scripture. Also, we should not assume that just because an Apostle or someone who knew an Apostle wrote a text it must be inspired.
Very true. That is why, although some used 1 Clement as Scripture, it was eventually ruled not to be. But it does show the level of respect the next generation had that Clement would be for a time considered for canonization and that Luke and Mark were trusted to reproduce the teachings of the apostles. They are respected for relaying the teachings of the apostles.
Now as to the topic:
There is a difference between the rule of faith for doctrinal meaning and using backgrounds and foregrounds to aid in making meaning clearer. The rule of faith would be no help in understanding what “phylacteries” are in Matthew 23:5. Nor would the rule of faith be any help in telling you the location of certain cities like Nineveh as much as a map would be. We understand the need for backgrounds, and also should understand the need for foregrounds. Among a number of Biblical arguments with a Unitarian, that when the Bible calls Jesus God it means equal to the Father and not merely majesty, I showed that Ignatius understood that language in an "equal to the Father" manner, not as an earthly king. If the students of the apostles understood a teaching in a certain way, that helps us in interpretation (although, yes, it is not binding). I don't think it warrants much objection to say so.
But I think you know what I am getting at, but are trying to avoid agreeing with something that might help me make a point. I'm only asking if it is legitimate to think that the second generation of Christians 1) aren't crazy guys that got most things wrong 2) might know quite a bit about the apostles' teaching since they were taught personally by them.
So, how does this apply?
Polycarp was a direct student of John and interacted with many of the apostles to hear their teaching. When Polycarp was alive, you would have a few of the writings of the apostles in a given town, but if you wanted to be thoroughly instructed in the teachings of the apostles, you went to a person that knew him, like Polycarp. And dare I say, they instructed from what they heard as much as what the apostles had written down, obviously comparing the two, but being able to illuminate exact meanings in the writings by hearing what was meant by the apostles themselves. If you were alive then, and wanted to know the teachings and work of Christ, and you have read four letters of Paul and two gospels your church had possession of, would you say “I have no need to go see Polycarp, except to compare his arguments to mine which are just as valid and informed by rational argument” ? No, you would want help in understanding certain things in those writings and perhaps to hear how Paul or John wanted those things enacted in life.
According to Irenaeus and Eusebius, Polycarp traveled from the eastern to the western churches because the western churches were concerned that the eastern churches were celebrating Easter (Pascha) at a different time than them. Polycarp could have applied the teaching of the church in multiple ways:
1.The West through Peter has authority to dictate the date of any observances on the entire church
2.Churches are at liberty to celebrate or not at the time they choose and such a thing cannot be dictated to them from above
3.Churches ought not celebrate any special day in the year, for such a day is not explicitly commanded in Scripture.
Of these three options, from the results we see Polycarp chose the second. We know Calvin and the Continental Reformed also interpreted apostolic teaching as the second option, while Rome maintains the first option. Westminster chose the third option and the Congregationalists that gained control later chose to enforce that with a legal ban.
Now, you may not agree. But is it unreasonable when looking at two possible interpretations (option 2 & 3) for me to look at history and see one who has sat at the feet of the apostles themselves and John Calvin and the majority of the Reformed world choosing option 2 and thinking that may be the true interpretation, rather than option 3 that is understandable when suffering under option 1 for so long to over correct in such a way in teh Directory of Public Worship?
Certainly we should respect our teachers, but I don't think respect is equivalent to recognizing their writings as inspired. Again, I think provenance, while important, is insufficient evidence for inspiration.
I agree on the need to understand context, which may not be apparent in the text, in interpretation, but I don't see how that applies in this instance. Are you suggesting that the Bible somewhere prescribes a calendar of observances for the New Testament era, which a study of the context of the times has made more clear to you?
If you were alive then, and wanted to know the teachings and work of Christ, and you have read four letters of Paul and two gospels your church had possession of, would you say “I have no need to go see Polycarp, except to compare his arguments to mine which are just as valid and informed by rational argument” ?
I never suggested what you are implying. Instead I wrote, "21st century teachers enjoy the wonderful advantage of having their perspectives informed by 1900 years of teachings."
I believe we should take early teachings into account. However, I don't think we should give them any more weight than the teachings of the Westminster divines. Early teachings, as well as all other teachings, should be evaluated according to Scripture.
As you know, virtually all of the early teachers held what we would call today libertarian free will. Nonetheless, I confess that they were wrong. Is my confession somehow tainted if someone can construct a continuum demonstrating that the Augustinian understanding of the will is a reaction to Pelagius, while Cassian's semi-Pelagianism or the semi-Augustinism of Orange were the middle ways? Posing continua can be helpful as long as we remember that the via media is not always the ideal.
By the way, I don't recognize your number 3 above. It is my understanding that the teaching of the Standards is that the church should celebrate special days, the weekly Christian Sabbath.
Also, it is interesting that Calvin's understanding of the Sabbath is the same as 2 above.
I made very clear that the writings of the apostolic fathers are not on the same level of the apostles. I do assert that listening to them as a foreground may be helpful. My use of polycarp is in no way to imply inspiration, but that he may be a source, with other factors like the Scripture and reason, to add to our understanding of the application of biblical principles.
Sorry I did not define #3 as any special day apart from the Sabbath.
Also, I would recommend Calvin's "Bondage and Liberation of the Will" in which he clearly shows that the popular notion that the early church believed in a libertarian view of the will is false.
I also do not think Polycarp, Calvin and the Continental Reformed are useful as a via media, but reasonable interpretations of biblical imperatives regarding worship. If I believed in a via media I would be Anglican, which I most definitely am not.
Also, would you stand by "I don't think we should give them any more weight than the teachings of the Westminster divines." I'm a little concerned by a preference for latter interpretation. For instance, the word "μονογενής" was understood by the Nicene era fathers as "only begotten" and so was reproduced in the KJV as such. Modern English-speaking scholars have pontificated on the matter that the word really means "one and only" and has nothing to do with "begotten." Not being a Greek scholar, I am naturally prejudiced against the new scholars largely because they are not koine greek speakers as their primarly language. I naturally distrust them, not trusting that the fact that they live in the 21st century grants them special powers to understand "μονογενής" better than Gregory Nyssa or Basil who used the word to argue for the "begotten" nature of Christ. Yet, I make my judgment entirely by prejudice, which I think is valid to do, and so find the ESV's translation lacking. In such a case, I think it valid to have a prejudice against contemporary thinkers in preference to ancient, koine speaking theologians.
I agree that we should respect the teachers who have come before us and that listening to them is not only helpful but indispensable, all things being equal.
I haven't read Calvin's work on the will. The basis for my assertion re: early church teaching on the will is contemporary church historians, church histories, and histories of Christian doctrine. Our common living teachers, John Hannah and Jeff Bingham understand the early church doctrine of the will in the way I've described above.
If I believed in a via media I would be Anglican, which I most definitely am not.
But this is only true if you set Roman Catholicism and Puritan Reformed theology as the poles of your continuum. If you set the poles as Anglo-Catholicism and Anabaptist theology, then Puritan Reformed theology would be the middle way in many respects.
I'm not familiar with the Greek language debate to which you refer. But I do stand by the thesis that the interpretations of 2nd century teachers should be accorded no more weight than Westminster divines or 21st century teachers. This does not mean that I think the early teachings should not be considered (i.e. "me on an island with my bible," aka nuda Scriptura). I think all teachings should be considered very carefully. What I mean is that I don't think provenance should automatically work like a trump card. We should go back to the extra-biblical sources of doctrinal development, of course, but we should not exalt the early time as a golden age. Ultimately, their source is the same as our source--the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
I'd agree that citing Clement of Rome or Ignatius of Antioch would not be an automatic slam dunk. However, I do find the first couple of generations to be very important, especially in determining apostolic practices. Not that I would refuse to disagree with a Justin Martyr, but I tend to want to read them sympathetically, assuming their orthodoxy and if they say something different from how I think of an issue, I tend to re-visit the issue and consider their perspective. But such a deference is limited and breaks down within a few years. I like what Calvin said about it:
"Irenaeus had seen the followers of the apostles. He and Tertullian mention the small number of bishops who had been in succession to the apostles up to their time. Many old people were still alive then during whose lifetime the very words uttered by the apostles had been well known from the reports of their fathers. So it is not surprising if they put forward as apostolic tradition what at that time not only had been accepted in common by the first churches, but was considered fixed and unchangeable as the sure doctrine of the faith which Paul, Peter, and their other colleagues had only lately delivered to them. But even Origen, whose time was not much different from theirs, counts among the essentials of the faith certain opinions which, if Pighius [his Catholic opponent] does not anathematise, will get him stoned by his own side too.....I urge readers merely to compare those ancient times with our own; then they will be able to judge how much sincerity or alternatively disgrace there is in his [Pighius'] building his case on [the Father's] support."
-Calvin. Bondage and Liberation of the Will.
I agree. I like what Calvin says.
I think the method of passing down doctrine in spoken form is much more unstable than the method of passing down doctrine in written form. In normal circumstances the spoken word can be radically corrupted without recourse in years, whereas the written word cannot. This is one of the wonderful aspects of God's graciousness in giving his church a written revelation. As the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.1 says:
Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.
Post a Comment