# How to combat this argument for the permissibility of the church calendar



## Confessor (May 6, 2009)

Someone I know proposed to me, _contra_ the Puritan understanding of the RPW, that deciding to make a "unified" church calendar, chosen by man, is just as appointed by God as "aribtrarily" deciding to (e.g.) preach through a whole book at a time. Both are decisions by men, so why is the former considered against the RPW? He also stresses that the calendar is not obligatory, but merely permissible.

Here are his words:


> But here's a more practical and immediate question about the Church Calendar in general. What makes following the traditional schedule for remembering the life of Christ throughout the year, every year, any less Biblical than the way others who do not follow the calendar arbitrarily choose which sections and when to remember different aspects of Christ and His life and ministry?



I responded that preaching is supposed to be directed by Providence and not by a pre-chosen ecclesiastical calendar -- seeing as Providence cannot in principle move men to install such a thing. He replied that Providence as experienced by individual men is not objective and therefore arbitrary.

Am I missing anything here? How can I get to the crux of the argument?


----------



## jwithnell (May 6, 2009)

Jeff Myers makes this argument in his book on worship. If a church wants to organize itself using a church calendar, it should have the choice to do so. The problem comes if it is forced by another church court.


----------



## Confessor (May 6, 2009)

Here was my most recent reply:



> If God instituted annual days of religious celebration and planning in the Old Covenant, and allowed His people only to celebrate at that those times, disallowing celebration of man-made holy days, then why would it be allowed in the New Covenant? There's clearly a distinction between what you call the "arbitrary" selection of sermon content and the predetermined annual schedule of a church calendar and a "holy week." To say Providence is no verifiable judge is not the matter at hand; what is important is that we are not bound by man-made regulations. And what you deem "arbitrary" (which seems to mean only that it's not precommited to a church calendar) avoids such regulations. If it were somehow the case that everyone coincidentally selected a church calendar, irrespective of what occurred in other years, it'd be different.
> 
> If you think there is some distinction between the church calendar and man-made holy days, please say so, for that seems to be a possible point of clarification.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 6, 2009)

The problem is that the choice is never arbitrary; it always ends up the traditional church calendar that is chosen; and that simply removes the discussion squarely aware from some conceptual "choice" on the part of the minister. It may be an interesting conversation if we would be free to structure a year of preaching some way (like the Reformed do with the Heidelberg) but never seems to be by advocates of the so called Christian Calendar. Thus the issues of why the Presbyterians tossed the "traditional" church calendar of holy days stands. I have always found it interesting that this is raised as something circumstantial and then the vary types that do this go on and call something like Christmas a high holy day.  If it is arbitrary and a circumstance it cannot be extra special because we say so or think so. Any way; my ramblings. See previous links I've given for Gillespie on Holy Days and my American Presbyterian xmas paper.


----------



## R Harris (May 6, 2009)

Douglas Kelly has an excellent article he wrote in 1979 entitled "No Church Calendar for Presbyterians" (a blunt title!) in the _Southern Presbyterian Journal_.

There is a link to it on the website of the First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Missisippi (sorry, don't have it handy).

It is like Ash Wednesday with the ashes on the forehead and the other Lent nonsense. Where is the Scriptural authorization for this? Very simple - there is none, period. When Paul chastized the Galatians for keeping the days, feasts, and moons and other Judiastic things, he feared he had labored in vain over them. He does NOT then proceed to turn around and give them a NEW set of observances for them to hold fast to.

The "high church" episcoterians simply have no case here except for their own vain desires to implement man-made worship and rituals.


----------



## Whitefield (May 6, 2009)

R Harris said:


> Douglas Kelly has an excellent article he wrote in 1979 entitled "No Church Calendar for Presbyterians" (a blunt title!) in the _Southern Presbyterian Journal_.
> 
> There is a link to it on the website of the First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Missisippi (sorry, don't have it handy).
> 
> ...



c'mon, tell how you really feel ...


----------



## Confessor (May 6, 2009)

I have another question: if it were possible to create a church calendar that does not institute holy days, just a preaching schedule, would that be permissible under the RPW? Is it even possible to do so?

Of course, I would argue that doing so seems a bit inefficient, but nonetheless, the question remains.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 6, 2009)

The problem here is this simply doesn't have a meaningful abstraction; those liturgists wanting a calendar what "the" calendar. It's a waste of time rabbit trail.



Confessor said:


> I have another question: if it were possible to create a church calendar that does not institute holy days, just a preaching schedule, would that be permissible under the RPW? Is it even possible to do so?
> 
> Of course, I would argue that doing so seems a bit inefficient, but nonetheless, the question remains.


----------



## Whitefield (May 6, 2009)

Confessor said:


> I have another question: if it were possible to create a church calendar that does not institute holy days, just a preaching schedule, would that be permissible under the RPW? Is it even possible to do so?
> 
> Of course, I would argue that doing so seems a bit inefficient, but nonetheless, the question remains.



Why not call it a "preaching schedule" and drop the "church calendar"?

I use "church calendar" to remind me when the next chicken and noodle supper is. I use "preaching schedule" to look ahead and rough out what I may be preaching on in the months ahead.


----------



## Theognome (May 6, 2009)

Sounds like a non-sequitur argument. You can't use a declared means of grace and it's instructed biblical use as a benchmark for a practice that does not carry such biblical weight. It elevates one and cheapens the other.

Theognome


----------



## Confessor (May 10, 2009)

Sorry to keep bringing up more questions regarding this.

The gentleman with whom I am discussing this claims that his church does not elevate any day as holier than another (thereby keeping the fourth commandment); he rather claims that the Church Calendar is a schedule to ensure that the entirety of the Gospel narrative is delivered. Says he:


> My point is that it should not overshadow the Sabbath when followed properly because by its very nature it is defined by the Sabbath and is a year-long exposition on the Sabbath rest.



He also points out that he thinks merely calling it a "preaching schedule" would be deficient:


> To clarify what I said that the CC isn't "just a preaching schedule":
> 
> It also influences the selection of hymns and psalms, the focus of prayer and exhortations, the readings chosen, etc. In other words it is a schedule for many things, to be followed as the pastor and elders see fit. In other words the CC affects more than just the sermon text.



How does one respond to this? I was unaware such a Church Calendar could possibly exist! It seems to go back to the failed argument of "I'll just celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday" -- since doing so would be _de facto_ celebrating it religiously with everyone else. He is essentially saying that he and his church are utilizing the Church Calendar correctly while everyone else is not; but that seems like a weird excuse if everyone else celebrating the Church Calendar is partaking in idolatry.

However, even if I can use this argument to denounce the celebrating of Christmas and Easter and other holidays, is there an argument to make against a systematic schedule of the content of Lord's Days? Or is such a Church Calendar just as permissible as leaving the content of Lord's Days up to the elders/pastor every week?

Should I look to the above readings for an answer?

-----Added 5/10/2009 at 01:45:57 EST-----



Whitefield said:


> I use "preaching schedule" to look ahead and rough out what I may be preaching on in the months ahead.



Would you say that a pre-systematized, annual preaching schedule is against the RPW, and if so, how?

He argues that doing so is no different from "arbitrarily" selecting one's own preaching content every week.


----------



## Whitefield (May 10, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > I use "preaching schedule" to look ahead and rough out what I may be preaching on in the months ahead.
> ...



Well, if one is preaching through a book of the Bible wouldn't one have a rough idea of what the text will be on, say, July 12th? But on July 11th, 2010 the text will not be the same. 

The lectionary is a 3 year cycle of text. So the set of texts for May 10, 2009 will be the same on approximately the same Sunday in 2012. I looked at the lectionary in my early years and rejected it when I noticed that one who uses it will never preach on some important passages of the Bible.


----------



## Confessor (May 11, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...



I'm not sure I understand you. Let me try to explain this guy's position:


His church does not treat one day as holier than another (or at least they claim not to).
He prefers the Church Calendar because it ensures that the entire Gospel narrative is presented annually.
The only thing the Church Calendar affects is the selection of preaching material, prayer material, songs, etc.
He sees this as not morally different from a pastor who would personally decide all the content of a service. His church just prefers to follow a specific pattern.

Are there any problems with this?


----------

