Calendar distraction: Many Presbyterians Be Like....

[J.L. Allen]

At the risk of being seen as insensitive, I cannot see how observing so-called holy days is a matter of conscience. Liberty of conscience is about not being forced to do something contrary to or added to God's Word in matters of faith or worship - it is not about the freedom to simply do something because it is not specifically forbidden in His Word (regulative vs. normative, Calvin vs. Luther).

If you cannot find a reason to reintroduce these so-called holydays either "expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence... deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men," (WCF 1.6), then where is the desire to do so emanating from? None of our Reformed, Puritan forefathers in the faith approved of the continuation of so-called holydays, so where does their reintroduction come from? Is the answer to both these questions not a lusting after the things of the world and the flesh? "They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty" (WCF 20.3).

Again, "the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another.... maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church." (WCF 20.4).

With regard to the connection between the Sabbath and so-called holydays, albeit anecdotal, many of the same people I speak with who tell me it is a matter of conscience whether or not they celebrate so-called holydays are the same ones who tell me their various desecrations of the Sabbath are also a matter of conscience. Since you find more interest in 1800s OS Presbyterians , I commend to you Reformed Covenanter's most recent blog post on the Sabbath: "Samuel Miller on the effect of uncommanded holy days on the sanctification of the Lord’s Day."

As for the issue of sensitivity (by which I assume you mean brotherly love), I do not crusade on this issue in my congregation. When someone says "Merry Christmass" to me after worship on the Lord's Day, I reply "Merry Lord's Day." If they ask why I responded that way, I explain as humbly as I can. If unconverted coworkers invite me to a Christmass party, I tell them I'm afraid I cannot participate. If they ask why, I explain as humbly as I can (this year I was asked if I would attend if they called it a "Holiday Party" instead...). Perhaps the saddest commentary on this issue is that the latter are often more understanding than the former. I feel no such need to be similarly sensitive expressing these sentiments of Puritan Board as I have always acknowledged that I subscribe to the Westminster Standards, including The Directory for the Publick Worship of God which states that: "There is no day commanded in Scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s Day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called holy-days, having no warrant in the Word of God, are not to be continued. Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people."

I maintain the onus is on those who claim to be Puritan and Reformed to demonstrate how they arrive at a position allowing (instead of actively opposing) the reintroduction of so-called holydays into their lives and the life of the Church. As for those who say, "I just celebrate Christmass at home as a civil holyday," I note that our Puritan forefathers did not distinguish between a civil observation of Christmass and a religious one. "Festival days" = "holy-days." Syncretism is always an error, even in private.

Again, I'm not questioning the issue nor am I ignorant. You are preaching to the choir, friend. I'm merely trying to encourage people to be slow and sensitive with others.

Edit: That includes being sensitive to people on Puritan Board.

 

[MyCrows]

View attachment 10721

You clearly stole the source material for your post from this guy.

 

[No Other Name]

You clearly stole the source material for your post from this guy.

If @NaphtaliPress does not laugh react to this, then he will never laugh react to anything. Hahahaha

 

[NaphtaliPress]

More a react.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

Due to three or four different "incidents" or communications with our family in a certain broad home schooling context this year we put together a letter "to whom it may concern" about why our children would not be participating in formal Christmas pageantry. It is careful to be respectful but quotes from the WCF and Directory for the Publick Worship of God along with Scripture (Jeremiah 10 alway striking to me). At the end of the letter it includes a list of resources we have on our website with url links, which includes my own sermons when Dec. 25 fell on the Lord's Day a while back, a few articles and other sermons (one article from puritanboard.com), and two videos which we are watching through December and discussing during our church's Sabbath class time. This letter is attached for any who may find it helpful (especially the links at the bottom in the PS line): it has been edited to strike out the name of the schooling context.

Also, I mentioned during our last Sabbath class after finishing the first video about the pagan and syncretistic Roman Catholic origins of Christ-mass that this is my favorite Christmas song to share this time of year, "Christmas at Denny's," by CCM Pioneer Randy Stonehill:

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Due to three or four different "incidents" or communications with our family in a certain broad home schooling context this year we put together a letter "to whom it may concern" about why our children would not be participating in formal Christmas pageantry. It is careful to be respectful but quotes from the WCF and Directory for the Publick Worship of God along with some Scriptures (Jeremiah 10 alway striking to me). At the end of the letter it includes a list of resources we have on our websites with url links, which includes my own sermons when Dec. 25 fell on the Lord's Day a while back, a few articles and other sermons (one article from puritanboard.com), and two videos which we are watching through December and discussing during our church's Sabbath class time. This letter is attached for any who may find it helpful (especially the links at the bottom in the PS line): it has been edited to strike out the name of the schooling context.

Also, I mentioned during our last Sabbath class after finishing the first video about the pagan and syncretistic Roman Catholic origins of Christ-mass that this is my favorite Christmas song to share this time of year, "Christmas at Denny's," by CCM Pioneer Randy Stonehill:

Thank you for sharing these materials and the strong stand you, your family, and your church take on this!

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Just to clarify, the three confessions of faith PB allows are the WCF, the LBCF, and the 3FU, none of which allow for man-made holy days, though the two may lack the precise language of the WCF.

I want to point out that the PB rules say:

2. Confessional Requirements
d. Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

Furthermore the link at the bottom of PB labeled "Reformed Confessions" includes the Second Helvetic Confession.

In the Second Helvetic Confession we find the following:

CHAPTER XXIV
Of Holy Days,
Fasts and the Choice of Foods

THE FESTIVALS OF Christ AND THE SAINTS. Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly. but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints. Holy days have to do with the first Table of the Law and belong to God alone. Finally, holy days which have been instituted for the saints and which we have abolished, have much that is absurd and useless, and are not to be tolerated. In the meantime, we confess that the remembrance of saints, at a suitable time and place, is to be profitably commended to the people in sermons, and the holy examples of the saints set forth to be imitated by all.

If this allowance is old or out of date, the language in the rules probably ought to be amended.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I want to point out that the PB rules say:


Furthermore the link at the bottom of PB labeled "Reformed Confessions" includes the Second Helvetic Confession.

In the Second Helvetic Confession we find the following:


If this allowance is old or out of date, the language in the rules probably ought to be amended.

I'm not sure why 2nd Helvetic is in there to be honest; other than it is in the Reformed confession pantheon. I don't recall ever having an applicant claim it. Even if it were not there I don't think moderators have ever simply "shut down" discussions when Continental Reformed practice was put forward because it is part of the broadly Reformed history and practice. Personally, I believe strongly that cannot withstands scrutiny, certainly it cannot within a puritan/Scottish Presbyterian context. Voetius and Calvin were right I think in placing the undue retention of such days on magistrates' wrong thinking in retaining them, and on stubborn people insisting on retaining them, to use Voetius's term. Calvin certainly thought those insisting on retaining such days were to be blamed. But that is discussion, not any rule to shut off the semi-annual discussions of the pretended holy days.

 

[DanSSwing]

Despite the obvious etymology, I wonder if we might draw a distinction now between holy days and holidays. The vast majority of "holidays" now are obviously secular, and I'd argue that they are ALL cultural. While retaining the Lord's Day as the only Biblically (and naturally) mandated holy day, I don't see why we cannot acknowledge other days, not as a Biblical mandate, but rather as something that is important to the community in which we live--and an opportunity to touch base with the hearts of the people around us. As Lloyd-Jones wrote, if there's a major earthquake, you'd better be preaching about it. Likewise, if you don't take advantage of the fact that most people in your neighborhood are thinking about the birth of Jesus each December, that's a missed opportunity at the very least.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The vast majority of "holidays" now are obviously secular, and I'd argue that they are ALL cultural.

I think it is pretty plain in the writings of many of our spiritual forefathers that the vast majority of the so-called holydays have been largely secular and cultural since medieval times. This did not stop our forefathers from calling for their cessation in the public and private life of the Church.

 

[DanSSwing]

I think it is pretty plain in the writings of many of our spiritual forefathers that the vast majority of the so-called holydays have been largely secular and cultural since medieval times. This did not stop our forefathers from calling for their cessation in the public and private life of the Church.

What were those other "holidays"? We've got everything from Arbor Day to Veterans Day now, but my impression was that the medieval "holidays" were all various Saints masses.

 

[Andrew35]

What were those other "holidays"? We've got everything from Arbor Day to Veterans Day now, but my impression was that the medieval "holidays" were all various Saints masses.

Arbor Day seems to have fallen on hard times for some reason. Pity. A nice holiday, that. Infinitely preferable to the odious newcomer "Earth Day."

 

[C4MERON]

Arbor Day seems to have fallen on hard times for some reason. Pity. A nice holiday, that. Infinitely preferable to the odious newcomer "Earth Day."

what is Arbor day?

 

[Andrew35]

what is Arbor day?

A nice, secular celebration of trees by planting trees. Gets you outside and doing something nice for the future.

 

[Northern Crofter]

....my impression was that the medieval "holidays" were all various Saints masses.

There are lots of lists of so-called holydays and they go beyond "various Saints masses." For example, the Scots First Book of Discipline ("The explication of the first head.") refers not only to "keeping of holy days of certain Saints commanded by man, such as be all those that the Papists have invented" but also "the feasts (as they term them) of the Apostles, Martyrs, Virgins, of Christmasse, Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification" and "other fond feasts of our Lady: which things because in Gods Scriptures they neither have commandment nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from this Realm: affirming farther that the obstinate maintainers and teachers of such abominations ought not to escape the punishment of the civil Magistrate."

Despite the obvious etymology, I wonder if we might draw a distinction now between holy days and holidays.

"Holy" simply means separated or set apart - days can be set apart for a common or sacred reason. In pre-Reformation Europe, all commerce shut down for so-called holydays and it was often a time of gluttony and drunkenness. Not much different than today. I don't have access to it at the moment, but one of the best sources to get a glimpse of what this looked like is found in the book Calvinism in Europe, 1540-1610: A Collection of Documents. (1992. United Kingdom: Manchester University Press. p.123). This is a great collection of texts (roughly organized by European regions/nations) translated into English. It was a textbook for a course I took during my university days, but it gives an insightful firsthand survey of daily life in Reformed communities on this and many other issues they were dealing with (rulings from consistories, letters between congregations, etc.).

What were those other "holidays"? We've got everything from Arbor Day to Veterans Day now....

Not all modern "holidays" are equal. Perpetual civil holidays (where commerce is largely shut down) are a fairly new idea (Remembrance/Veterans Day, Labor Day, Independence Day, etc. - I'm afraid I've never seen Arbor Day observed). I believe memorial days are warranted - for example, the Westminster Standards, in contrast to "Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, [that] are not to be continued," not only allow for but state "Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for publick fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people." (Directory for Publick Worship, "AN APPENDIX, Touching Days and Places for Publick Worship.").

The Directory elsewhere distinguishes between religious and civil observances when it deals with how to properly conduct Christian funerals: "....because the custom of kneeling down, and praying by or towards the dead corpse, and other such usages... are no way beneficial to the dead, and have proved many ways hurtful to the living; therefore let all such things be laid aside.... this shall not extend to deny any civil respects or deferences at the burial, suitable to the rank and condition of the party deceased, while he was living." (see "Concerning Burial of the Dead.").

And the Directory has an entire section devoted to days of national thanksgiving and fasting, being both religious and civil holy (in the sense of being set apart from the usual calendar) days (see "Concerning the Observation of Days of Publick Thanksgiving." and "Concerning Publick Solemn Fasting." sections).

But is a modern "civil holiday" - which is simply a day off from work for most people - not encouraging people to violate the 4th commandment: "Six days shalt thou labor"?

 

[Northern Crofter]

A nice, secular celebration of trees...

I thought that's what Christmass is for?

EDIT:

by planting trees.

....so we can cut them down once a year and bring them into our homes and decorate them in what is objectively a very strange human activity.

 

[DanSSwing]

Arbor Day seems to have fallen on hard times for some reason. Pity. A nice holiday, that. Infinitely preferable to the odious newcomer "Earth Day."

Now Earth Day is a religious holiday if there ever was one.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

I'm not sure why 2nd Helvetic is in there to be honest; other than it is in the Reformed confession pantheon. I don't recall ever having an applicant claim it. Even if it were not there I don't think moderators have ever simply "shut down" discussions when Continental Reformed practice was put forward because it is part of the broadly Reformed history and practice. Personally, I believe strongly that cannot withstands scrutiny, certainly it cannot within a puritan/Scottish Presbyterian context. Voetius and Calvin were right I think in placing the undue retention of such days on magistrates' wrong thinking in retaining them, and on stubborn people insisting on retaining them, to use Voetius's term. Calvin certainly thought those insisting on retaining such days were to be blamed. But that is discussion, not any rule to shut off the semi-annual discussions of the pretended holy days.

While I appreciate the estimation of the quote, I also appreciate having it highlighted and knowing about it. I was ignorant of this and it is relevant for the general discussion.