# Holy Days in Presbyterianism



## TylerRay (Nov 29, 2012)

How did the observance of Roman Catholic Holy Days enter in to Presbyterian worship? How old is this tradition within Presbyterianism in particular?

Thanks


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 29, 2012)

Historically, the Presbyterians rejected all of them. In the USA, there have been many social/cultural influences that have led to their slow, hopefully limited (if never eliminated) reintroduction in the last 400 years. If we just consider New England Congregationalists (once strictly Puritan), the influence of Anglican (religious) norms, and English cultural-influences generally, no doubt contributed to social acceptance after a while.

So, in a single country with no single "base" tradition other than (mostly) a generic Protestantism, where the Anglicans (and their daughter, Methodism), the Lutherans, and even the Roman Catholics brought their traditions to the cultural mixing bowl, along with the historically Reformed & Presbyterians, there is a great deal of non-theological influence on behaviors. The idea that ecclesiastic and secular traditions could be sharply distinguished probably also contributed to toleration of celebrations outside church, that eventually migrated into church, when the rationale for excluding them was ignored and then forgotten.

Historically, however, one must also consider an "intra-Reformed" set of influences within the scene in the immigrant country that we are. The Reformed churches, Dutch and German mainly, retained the remembrance of five "special" days in their churches: New Years (probably by the ecclesial, not secular calendar), Nativity (Christmas), Good Friday, Easter, and Ascension. These reflect some residual allegiance to a "church-year" calendar in the Low Country and Germany; which was rejected wholesale by the Swiss and later the Scottish and Puritan Reformation. No others have been added in 500 years. But in the melting-pot of the USA, and with churches influencing others, it is possible that "continental" theological and practical justification appealed to the Puritan/Presbyterian strain that originated in the "isles."


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 29, 2012)

Did I beat Chris to it? 

Read his article here: The Religious Observance of Christmas and 'Holy Days' in American Presbyterianism


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 29, 2012)

Yep.  


Romans922 said:


> Did I beat Chris to it?


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 30, 2012)

Thank you, Dr. Buchanan, that is helpful.



Romans922 said:


> Did I beat Chris to it?
> 
> Read his article here: The Religious Observance of Christmas and 'Holy Days' in American Presbyterianism



Thank you, that's extremely helpful!

And thank you, Chris, for writing it!


----------



## earl40 (Nov 30, 2012)

TylerRay said:


> How did the observance of Roman Catholic Holy Days enter in to Presbyterian worship? How old is this tradition within Presbyterianism in particular?
> 
> Thanks



How do we avoid not adding to the offence of the cross by abstaining from observerance without looking like a bunch of humbugs in our country?


----------



## J. Dean (Nov 30, 2012)

earl40 said:


> How do we avoid not adding to the offence of the cross by abstaining from observerance without looking like a bunch of humbugs in our country?



It is done by treating this as a "meat to idols" issue, which seems to be the proper way to handle this.


----------



## thbslawson (Nov 30, 2012)

I understand that "holiday" does have its origins in the phrase "holy day," but for most, it has lost that meaning and simply means time off or a time of celebration or observance. I fully acknowledge that Christmas is not a holy day, but it can be a _happy_ day. 

And to be fair, there is a difference between _observing_ and _acknowledging_ a "holiday" in the church. On the one extreme, there is the full inclusion of Christmas in the church as a liturgical "holy day", but on the other, there's pretending or acting as if nothing is going on outside of the church doors, and that to prove that we don't observe it, we don't even mention it. What other time of year can you hear...

_God of God, Light of Light,
Lo, he abhors not the virgins womb.
Very God, begotten not created.
O Come, let us adore him, Christ the Lord._

...playing over the sound system at Target?

It's one of the two times of year that many unbelievers darken the doors of the church. There is a tremendous opportunity to preach the gospel to a much larger audience.

It is no sin, nor is it a violation of the RPW in any way to preach the incarnation of Christ on or around December 25th, (or for the non-EPs to sing hymns about the incarnation). It's already on peoples' minds, so I would use that opportunity to increase understanding, correct misunderstand, and show the depths of Christ's love for the encouragement of the saints and call a lost world to repentance.


----------



## Tim (Nov 30, 2012)

thbslawson said:


> It is no sin, nor is it a violation of the RPW in any way to preach the incarnation of Christ on or around December 25th, (or for the non-EPs to sing hymns about the incarnation).



This is not _quite_ the point, because you have worded this as if to say that Christmas observance is merely preaching on the incarnation. But it is not. Christmas includes much more than that. It involves a restructuring of the seasons of the church, such that there is an unwarranted anticipation and rehearsal of the incarnation of Christ (something we are never commanded to do). 

Thus, the violation occurs when men set aside a particular day as a memorial to Christ when we have already been given one day (the Lord's Day) and one meal (the Lord's Supper). To invent such a day that is foreign to scripture is to demonstrate a dissatisfaction and distrust that what God has provided is sufficient. 



thbslawson said:


> It's one of the two times of year that many unbelievers darken the doors of the church.



I can think of many ways to get unbelievers to attend church. The question is whether God is pleased when we try to accomplish it by creating our own seasons, instead of using the Biblically-ordained pattern of "one day in seven" and regular communion at the Table. Both of these look forward, rather than backward:



> For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. *There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God* (Heb. 4:8-9).





> For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, *ye do shew the Lord's death till he come*. (1 Cor 11:26)


----------



## Marrow Man (Nov 30, 2012)

Tim said:


> Thus, the violation occurs when men set aside a particular day as a memorial to Christ when we have already been given one day (the Lord's Day) and one meal (the Lord's Supper). To invent such a day that is foreign to scripture is to demonstrate a dissatisfaction and distrust that what God has provided is sufficient.



Just as a practical observation of how this is true, I have seen many Christians (at least nominally so) who never darken the door of a church for an evening service on the Lord's Day who will make every effort to be there for a special "holy day" service. To me, this is an enormous issue, one that grieves my heart.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 30, 2012)

Tim, 

I like it when they (nominal ones who only come for Easter and Christmas) come and for the first time they don't hear about the birth or resurrection of Christ, but they hear rather of a Holy God or (fill in the blank: just, love, grace, etc.). They get to hear a fuller picture of the glory of the Lord.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 30, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> I like it when they (nominal ones who only come for Easter and Christmas) come and for the first time they don't hear about the birth or resurrection of Christ, but they hear rather of a Holy God or (fill in the blank: just, love, grace, etc.). They get to hear a fuller picture of the glory of the Lord.



I understand there are some good arguments for avoiding "Christmas" or "Easter" themed services, but this one doesn't ring true to me.

I've always been in churches that acknowledged those days with sermons that fit the theme. I don't believe anyone attending on just those occasions would have missed out on a fuller picture of God's glory than if they attended on two random weeks. Both the birth of Christ and his resurrection provide ample material to cover all those attributes you mentioned (holiness, justice, love, grace) and more. Good preachers vary their Christmas and Easter sermons and really cover a lot of ground. And many I've been around continue preaching through whatever part of the Bible they're in but show how Christ's birth/death/resurrection is related.

Not that attending twice a year is sufficient for anyone. But with a good pastor in the pulpit those two occasions—even if they're the same occasions every year—are as good as any.


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 30, 2012)

Jack, I wasn't making an argument. There are sufficient arguments above. I was making a statement of opinion based on experience "I like it when...".


----------



## Jack K (Nov 30, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Jack, I wasn't making an argument. There are sufficient arguments above. I was making a statement of opinion based on experience "I like it when...".



Understood. I really just wanted to mention that I've heard a lot of meaty sermons on a variety of topics with many different points, all under the banner of Christmas or Easter. They aren't all the same stuff each year, nor are they all fluff.

I'm sure yours are good and meaty too without that banner. And I too can smile at the idea of a nominal believer coming in for a "Christmas experience" and finding himself in a real worship service with some good preaching that doesn't even happen to mention Christ's birth. Might be exactly what he needs.


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 30, 2012)




----------



## thbslawson (Nov 30, 2012)

Folks, I'm tapping out of the Christmas debate this year. I find it more tedious than edifying. May the Lord's blessing be upon you all.


----------

