# Candles and RPW



## RamistThomist (Nov 7, 2007)

I was just thinking about this--not necessarily endorsing it or giving reasons for it. No doubt Anglicans, Catholics, and EOs have used reasons simiar to it. 

In _Revelation_, Jesus associates and identifies candles (lampstands, actually) and churches. While their is not a command to light candles in churches, it is not a foreign idea either. But then again, there isn't really a command to baptize infants either (yes, I still hold to paedo). 

I only bring this up because if I were a liturgical guy, or if I were talking to liturgical guys, I probably should expect something like this.


----------



## Davidius (Nov 7, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I was just thinking about this--not necessarily endorsing it or giving reasons for it. No doubt Anglicans, Catholics, and EOs have used reasons simiar to it.
> 
> In _Revelation_, Jesus associates and identifies candles (lampstands, actually) and churches. While their is not a command to light candles in churches, it is not a foreign idea either. But then again, there isn't really a command to baptize infants either (yes, I still hold to paedo).
> 
> I only bring this up because if I were a liturgical guy, or if I were talking to liturgical guys, I probably should expect something like this.




Wouldn't it depend on the function of the candles? If we were to say "no" even if the candles were only being used for light, then what would that mean about having electric lights?


----------



## Davidius (Nov 7, 2007)

Was my response bad?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 7, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Wouldn't it depend on the function of the candles? If we were to say "no" even if the candles were only being used for light, then what would that mean about having electric lights?



If the candles were used purely for lighting, then they would be a circumstance of worship and permissible. If they are used for some other reason, e.g., aesthetics, then they become an element of worship and are forbidden


----------



## Davidius (Nov 7, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it depend on the function of the candles? If we were to say "no" even if the candles were only being used for light, then what would that mean about having electric lights?
> ...



What do you mean by "aesthetics"? Since we don't purposefully make the insides of our buildings ugly, doesn't that mean that everything has an aesthetic quality?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 7, 2007)

We can have pretty lighting; we can't invest them with sacred and significant meaning, to paraphrase Gillespie I think.


CarolinaCalvinist said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > CarolinaCalvinist said:
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 7, 2007)

In a previous thread concerning candles and the RPW, I noted:



> Yes, there is a difference between using candles for illumination (circumstance) and lighting them in a worship service on an Advent wreath or in homage to the Virgin Mary (element). Just as there is a difference between the use of a pitch pipe (circumstance) and instrumental musical accompaniment (element).
> 
> John Calvin, _Commentary on the Psalms_, Vol. 1, p. 539:
> 
> ...


----------



## SRoper (Nov 7, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> If the candles were used purely for lighting, then they would be a circumstance of worship and permissible. If they are used for some other reason, e.g., aesthetics, then they become an element of worship and are forbidden



I disagree. Aesthetics is a perfectly good justification for using candles.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 8, 2007)

SRoper said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > If the candles were used purely for lighting, then they would be a circumstance of worship and permissible. If they are used for some other reason, e.g., aesthetics, then they become an element of worship and are forbidden
> ...




Not according to the WCF. 



> But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.



If it's not a circumstance, then you need a command from God for introducing something into His worship. Something as subjective as aesthetics as no place there, since it involves will-worship.

You can search WCF Chapter 21 and you will see nothing there akin to aesthetics.


----------



## k.seymore (Nov 8, 2007)

> You can search WCF Chapter 21 and you will see nothing there akin to aesthetics.



One reason that I don't wear a suit and tie to church. I don't on any other day, why would I do it on the Lord's day? I wouldn't be doing it for God since he didn't ask, and if I thought I was doing it for others on the Lord's Day then that would of course be a problem as well. I'm not saying I trying to force the RPW on suit wearing heathens, but I do admit being guilty of turning away and shaking my head from time to time. Ok, maybe I actually just don't like suits. But I still question this religious practice in light of the RPW.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 8, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I was just thinking about this--not necessarily endorsing it or giving reasons for it. No doubt Anglicans, Catholics, and EOs have used reasons simiar to it.
> 
> In _Revelation_, Jesus associates and identifies candles (lampstands, actually) and churches. While their is not a command to light candles in churches, it is not a foreign idea either. But then again, there isn't really a command to baptize infants either (yes, I still hold to paedo).
> 
> I only bring this up because if I were a liturgical guy, or if I were talking to liturgical guys, I probably should expect something like this.



As an Anglican  you can imagine that I have had to come up with an answer for my Anglo-Catholic "brethren"...it didn't take long...surely we have electricity nowadays for lighting


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 8, 2007)

k.seymore said:


> > You can search WCF Chapter 21 and you will see nothing there akin to aesthetics.
> 
> 
> 
> One reason that I don't wear a suit and tie to church. I don't on any other day, why would I do it on the Lord's day? I wouldn't be doing it for God since he didn't ask, and if I thought I was doing it for others on the Lord's Day then that would of course be a problem as well. I'm not saying I trying to force the RPW on suit wearing heathens, but I do admit being guilty of turning away and shaking my head from time to time. Ok, maybe I actually just don't like suits. But I still question this religious practice in light of the RPW.



Yes in Northern Ireland we have a lot of people who think that a man must wear a suit to church on a Sunday; no matter how many times you point to James 2 they still persist in enforcing this upon others. I have known people who will not go to churches simply because of the dress code.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 8, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> > tcalbrecht said:
> ...



Aesthetics is a circumstance. You need to assemble somewhere, so the question necessarily arises as to what the place you assemble looks like. That's a question of aesthetics.


----------



## etexas (Nov 8, 2007)

SRoper said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > SRoper said:
> ...


Good point!  Would one call for peole to meet in a pigsty just to make a point...the point being what? I am in a sty...what a good boy am I.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 8, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> k.seymore said:
> 
> 
> > > You can search WCF Chapter 21 and you will see nothing there akin to aesthetics.
> ...



My poor husband...he's part Irish, doesn't own a suit, and he would attend anyway regardless...LOL!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 8, 2007)

SRoper said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > SRoper said:
> ...



No, it is not required that we decorate. A plain building, plain pews, and lights are all that is needed. I have been in MANY intentionally undecorated churches. I have actually been sickened by the decorating of the church. It distracts the worshipers, is a waste of monies, time, and concern...and many focus on that more than that which we are called to be focused on. Plain (and I don't mean anabaptist...though many of them are prime example) churches lend to complete focus on worship and it's intents and purposes.


----------



## Augusta (Nov 8, 2007)

I think the principle set forth in 1 Tim. is fitting for the church too. Adorn it with modest apparel and with good works.

1 Timothy
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 

10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 8, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Aesthetics is a circumstance. You need to assemble somewhere, so the question necessarily arises as to what the place you assemble looks like. That's a question of aesthetics.



What difference does what the place where we worship looks like? Was that a concern of the apostles for gospel era worship?

The circumstances of worship are those things which are necessary so that pure worship may take place according to the Word of God. The time and place of worship are circumstances. Having a place to sit, lighting in order to see and read the Word of God, a platform or pulpit from with to preach the Word, etc are all circumstances.

It might be argued that having comfortable seats is more conducive to pure worship than, say, hard wooden benches with no backs or sitting on the floor or standing. That’s not a matter of aesthetics, in my opinion.

Candles do not seem to fall into any necessary category of circumstance unless candles are the only available form of lighting. 

In most modern churches this is not the case. Candles serve no circumstance. They are there because they look nice or are “traditional” in certain settings. I sincerely doubt that the authors of the Westminster Standards would have considered such accoutrements to be appropriate in a Reformed worship setting.


----------



## Coram Deo (Nov 8, 2007)

At the rate Electrical prices go up currently, candles might serve a circumstance for lighting. If the price of electricity goes to high to afford.....


Just my


----------



## Calvibaptist (Nov 8, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> The circumstances of worship are those things which are necessary so that pure worship may take place according to the Word of God.



I'm a little confused. Forgive me because I am fairly new to the RPW. But why is a circumstance considered "necessary?" This doesn't seem to be what the Westminster Confession says. The only place that I found that it mentions "circumstances of worship" is in the first chapter:



> there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.



It doesn't say anything about these circumstances being "necessary." I don't see how any kind of light is necessary for the worship of God. Do the churches in Muslim countries that have to meet in the dark without any light at all not have true worship? If you are going to have lights, should they necessarily be ugly lights? Why not have candles that make the location look nicer? Sure, you can worship in a bare building with wooden pews and bare light bulbs, but are those conditions necessary for true worship? Or can you have acceptable true biblical worship in a beautiful building with comfortable pews, beautiful chandeliers and multiple candles (used primarily for ambiance)?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 8, 2007)

The difference is that chandeliers or whatever is simply for light (the elaboration of such can be up for debate) vs., as you stated, the candles "for ambiance". There is no point to the candles. Candle-lighting is typically an added "ceremony" under such circumstance, therefore strictly against the RPW.

Versus having candles for the main purpose of light...one would light them before even expecting the majority of worshipers and not part of the service.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 8, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> What difference does what the place where we worship looks like? Was that a concern of the apostles for gospel era worship?



It doesn't make a difference which is my point. It is a thing indifferent so we can adorn our churches according to what is prudent.



> The circumstances of worship are those things which are necessary so that pure worship may take place according to the Word of God. The time and place of worship are circumstances. Having a place to sit, lighting in order to see and read the Word of God, a platform or pulpit from with to preach the Word, etc are all circumstances.



I disagree with your definition of circumstance. The WCF says, "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." Aesthetics is something common to human society. You have to choose how to adorn your meeting place whether it is a home, an office, a judge's chambers, or a church. If you choose plain white walls you still are making an aesthetic choice. Using your definition I disagree that having a place to sit is "necessary so that pure worship may take place." The Eastern churches get along just fine without places to sit. Pulpits are also unnecessary, but many reformed churches choose to have them because they communicate something about the Word of God. That is certainly an aesthetic decision.



> Candles do not seem to fall into any necessary category of circumstance unless candles are the only available form of lighting.



Again you add "necessary category" (without warrant, I believe). Candles are commonly used in modern settings outside the church because they look nice. I don't see any reason why the meeting place of the church can't look nice either.



> In most modern churches this is not the case. Candles serve no circumstance. They are there because they look nice or are “traditional” in certain settings. I sincerely doubt that the authors of the Westminster Standards would have considered such accoutrements to be appropriate in a Reformed worship setting.



Maybe they wouldn't have, but this intention is not clear in the Standards themselves.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 8, 2007)

> *which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence,*



Key factor here. Extravagance is not ordered by the light of nature (nature deeming that which is necessary), nor is it of Christian prudence.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 8, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> No, it is not required that we decorate. A plain building, plain pews, and lights are all that is needed. I have been in MANY intentionally undecorated churches. I have actually been sickened by the decorating of the church. It distracts the worshipers, is a waste of monies, time, and concern...and many focus on that more than that which we are called to be focused on. Plain (and I don't mean anabaptist...though many of them are prime example) churches lend to complete focus on worship and it's intents and purposes.



So you have made the decision that plain decorating is the most prudent, and you give many good reasons for choosing plain decoration. That's fine, but I don't think that decision necessarily follows from Scripture.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 8, 2007)

SRoper said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is not required that we decorate. A plain building, plain pews, and lights are all that is needed. I have been in MANY intentionally undecorated churches. I have actually been sickened by the decorating of the church. It distracts the worshipers, is a waste of monies, time, and concern...and many focus on that more than that which we are called to be focused on. Plain (and I don't mean anabaptist...though many of them are prime example) churches lend to complete focus on worship and it's intents and purposes.
> ...



The point...I'm neither adding to what scripture calls for either. However, it does follow Scripture in being good stewards and other portions of principle as Tracy mentioned above.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 8, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Key factor here. Extravagance is not ordered by the light of nature (nature deeming that which is necessary), nor is it of Christian prudence.



No doubt, but no one is calling for extravagance in decoration.

If you were invited to someone's house and they had two candles on the dinner table, would you immediately think, "what an ostentatious display!"?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 8, 2007)

You cannot compare a place set aside simply for worship with other common areas of life. The RPW is the Regulative Principle of *Worship*...specifically public worship. Not the Regulative Principle of the Home and Other Common Areas of Life.


----------



## Davidius (Nov 8, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> You cannot compare a place set aside simply for worship with other common areas of life.



Sure you can. There's nothing holy about the building. It's just a building, like your house.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 8, 2007)

Apparently, ya'll have missed this quote or you have chosen to ignore it.



> There is no point to the candles. Candle-lighting is typically an added "ceremony" under such circumstance, therefore strictly against the RPW.
> 
> Versus having candles for the main purpose of light...one would light them before even expecting the majority of worshipers and not part of the service.



I cannot continue any longer tonight, gents. It's way past for me and and I meant to head to bed 10mins ago when the conversation suddenly picked up.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Nov 8, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> The difference is that chandeliers or whatever is simply for light (the elaboration of such can be up for debate) vs., as you stated, the candles "for ambiance". There is no point to the candles. Candle-lighting is typically an added "ceremony" under such circumstance, therefore strictly against the RPW.
> 
> Versus having candles for the main purpose of light...one would light them before even expecting the majority of worshipers and not part of the service.



I agree that using candles as an integral (or any other) part of worship is contrary to the RPW. But the reason is that they have crossed from the category of circumstance into the category of element. I believe that the elements of worship are very strictly ordered, whereas the circumstances of worship will change based on cultural norms.

I have seen a very simply-adorned church that had both lights and candles. Neither were used in the worship as a part of worship. They were there as circumstances just like the padding on the pews or the carpet on the floor (or the walls and roof on the building). They neither offended the "light of nature" nor the Word of God.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 8, 2007)

Candles are certainly a stumbling block or a diversion to some. In my pagan youth I thought they were cool and spiritual, so I went often to a Catholic church. Lots of nice candles, and they didn't burden you with a Gospel either.

The point is, I think for mature and faithful Christians, fine--who cares about candles? But for the strays who straggle in, it makes an impression. The simplicity of a simple RPW type service makes an entirely different impression.

So, personally, if I couldn't have electricity, I'd go for either torches or Coleman lanterns.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 8, 2007)

Have to love the idea of torches...LOL!

Night, gents.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 8, 2007)

Torches... and black robes! That would make QUITE an impression!


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 8, 2007)

SolaScriptura said:


> Torches... and black robes! That would make QUITE an impression!



 I was thinking more along the lines of pitchforks and claymores.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 9, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > k.seymore said:
> ...



When I was referring to people who won't attend churches, I was referring to Christians who will not go to meetings in churches because suit-wearing is not enforced.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 9, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Their pride, their loss. Discipline is needed for them (for forsaking the fellowship) not their fellows. You would think they were amishmen that showed up with that attitude.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 3, 2007)

So can anyone explain why my PCA Church is lighting Advent Candles prior to the call to worship and leaving them to burn throughout the service of worship? This causes me some measure of distress, but I'm unsure as to if and how I should address it to the Session. Does anyone know where this little bit of liturgy entered into Presbyterian worship?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 3, 2007)

Brad said:


> So can anyone explain why my PCA Church is lighting Advent Candles prior to the call to worship and leaving them to burn throughout the service of worship? This causes me some measure of distress, but I'm unsure as to if and how I should address it to the Session. Does anyone know where this little bit of liturgy entered into Presbyterian worship?



The PCA is one link the evolutionary chain of American Presbyterianism. At one time Presbyterians walked upright. But over time, American Presbyterians started adopting the worship practices of Anglicans and Lutherans in the 19th century with the singing of uninspired hymns, celebration of Christian "holy days", etc. The official embrace came in the early part of the 20th century. Thus the Presbyterian Church lost its ability to walk upright. Today you can hardly find a local Presbyterian Church that does not decorate its auditorium with green and red, pass out advent calendars, light candles to set the right mood, and preach sermons about "the Baby Jesus".




> With the twentieth century the Southern Presbyterian, or the Presbyterian Church in the United States, to use its official title, joined the ranks of Christmas-keeping denominations. The process followed the familiar lines of official disapproval and ignoring of the day, of an increasing number of local celebrations, many of which were of the holiday, Santa Claus, party type, and finally of official recognition and attempts to change the character of the local observance.
> 
> The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism



If you suggest today that Christmas-keeping in the Church is un-Presbyterian and forbidden by the RPW, most Presbyterians of the PCA variety would look at you as if you were from another planet.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 3, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> > With the twentieth century the Southern Presbyterian, or the Presbyterian Church in the United States, to use its official title, joined the ranks of Christmas-keeping denominations. The process followed the familiar lines of official disapproval and ignoring of the day, of an increasing number of local celebrations, many of which were of the holiday, Santa Claus, party type, and finally of official recognition and attempts to change the character of the local observance.
> >
> > The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism
> 
> ...



 The fpcr link to the html version is not working; the site appeared to be back up after a month or so yesterday, but back down today; though other's may have better linkage given the nature of how changes ripple over the Internet. See a new version here, and the original newsletter version in PDF at The Blue Banner in PDF archive.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 5, 2007)

Brad said:


> So can anyone explain why my PCA Church is lighting Advent Candles prior to the call to worship and leaving them to burn throughout the service of worship? This causes me some measure of distress, but I'm unsure as to if and how I should address it to the Session. Does anyone know where this little bit of liturgy entered into Presbyterian worship?



I just want to clarify that I don't believe Advent candles are appropriate in worship. Our church uses them too, but at least this year they aren't lighting them during the service. Maybe next year they'll just stay in the box.


----------



## etexas (Dec 5, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Was my response bad?


No the response was not at all bad my brother! There is an OLD Presbyterian, near me that uses candles in sconces, the church was built before electricity was available there and even though they now have electric lights they are sort of minimal, and the candles are used along somme of the walls due to the fact that much of the church of the church(despite its New-Fangled "lectricity"), is still dark! The candles are a functional thing!


----------

