# New Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 4, 2007)

*I have posted a wordpress version of "The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism" to my site. In time for this year's festivities.

Links and Downloads Manager - Worship - The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism - The PuritanBoard
*


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Nov 4, 2007)

christmas is the last stronghold remaining for people of the Reformed faith.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 4, 2007)

No it isn't. What a ridiculous statement.


----------



## etexas (Nov 4, 2007)

As one making a big shift from the Anglican perspective to the Reformed view, I truly feel torn, to me the Holidays were like "pegs", as we made our way through the life of Christ. To be honest I think this might well be the difficult period for me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 4, 2007)

Slippery said:


> christmas is the last stronghold remaining for people of the Reformed faith.



I agree with Chris on this Keon. Your statement is a "drive by". Would you care to qualify it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 4, 2007)

etexas said:


> As one making a big shift from the Anglican perspective to the Reformed view, I truly feel torn, to me the Holidays were like "pegs", as we made our way through the life of Christ. To be honest I think this might well be the difficult period for me.



I think you need to keep in mind that much of the historical Reformed ire toward holy days is that men were forced to celebrate days and seasons in violation of their conscience in the matter. In fact, men were put in stockades if they refused to celebrate a particular holy day that the Church had set.

The irony with the RPW is that many view it as placing a stranglehold on liberty. Why can't I celebrate Christmas? In fact, the real question is: What gives a Church the right to force a man to celebrate Christmas? Those that will argue against many things because they are against binding the consciences of men to a man-made doctrine don't bat an eyelash when they are forcing a man to worship on a day that God has not commanded. Of course, the reason for that is that it is now "their" holy day and, after all, if _I_ don't have a problem with it then neither should you.

Do you see the problem? Not only does the RPW seek to guard worship in a way that God commands but, in the process, its simplicity creates a "least common denominator" where no man can object to a particular worship practice (or day) because all men are at the same level of submission to having to worship in a way that God commands.

I think this is a helpful way of looking at this. I don't have a personal conviction against Christmas. I will have a tree and we will open presents with our kids. I do so for cultural reasons and I'll even use the event as an opportunity to tell my kids about the Incarnation. That said, do I believe the Church ought to have the right to add a holy day? No. While I won't be personally bothered by the celebration, I don't believe it is right and proper to bind a man's conscience where God has left it free.


----------



## etexas (Nov 4, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > As one making a big shift from the Anglican perspective to the Reformed view, I truly feel torn, to me the Holidays were like "pegs", as we made our way through the life of Christ. To be honest I think this might well be the difficult period for me.
> ...


Again thank you...as a man who was raised with a liturgical calendar I think you understand me on this. Parting with the things we are used to for good or ill is never an easy thing. We will actually have a tree, it is something my wife likes and we have good together time putting up it's lights. Our pet cat loves it and it is very funny to watch our little Bichon chace her under the thing...and the get a little nose swat from kitty.


----------



## dannyhyde (Nov 5, 2007)

Here is a serious question about this whole issue. Coming from the Continental Reformed tradition in which Christmas, among other days, *may* be celebrated by the churches (Cf. Second Helvetic Confession, Church Order of the Synod of Dort), is there a difference in celebrating Christmas as a church in which it is considered a _holy day_ and celebrating it as just another opportunity to gather as the people of God for preaching? Can one not gather for "public thanksgiving" as the Directory of Worship talks about, or is it that Christmas itself is viewed as inherently evil and so a gathering must be held the day before or after?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 5, 2007)

The attitude of the Continental Reformed to the question of holy days, Christmas etc. seems to be more Lutheran than Reformed. This is because the Lutherans believed that human inventions may be added to worship, but nobody had to participate in them if they did not want to (the Anglicans were slightly different, believing that the church could force people to participate in human inventions). Whereas the Reformed view of worship (i.e. the Regulative Principle) is that only what God has ordained may (and ought to be) employed in worship.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 5, 2007)

dannyhyde said:


> Here is a serious question about this whole issue. Coming from the Continental Reformed tradition in which Christmas, among other days, *may* be celebrated by the churches (Cf. Second Helvetic Confession, Church Order of the Synod of Dort), is there a difference in celebrating Christmas as a church in which it is considered a _holy day_ and celebrating it as just another opportunity to gather as the people of God for preaching? Can one not gather for "public thanksgiving" as the Directory of Worship talks about, or is it that Christmas itself is viewed as inherently evil and so a gathering must be held the day before or after?



Yes, there is a difference. The Westminster divines had to deal with the question of gathering for preaching on Christmas as was customary, or not. I cover this in the American Xmas article. The arguments ran about as they do now, that it is an evil that should be put away and not countenanced, bury it in obscurity (Calamy has a famous remark to that effect before the Assembly), etc. or an opportunity to preach the word as folks are used to going to church on that day and the church and state had not changed the practice at that point (it was later declared unlawful). The Scots if I can take Durham as a cue, would view the superstitious observance as unlawful, and the gathering on that day for preaching to be a possible stumbling block to bring superstition back in. One is about lawfulness, the other, being circumstantial, is about expediency.


----------



## dannyhyde (Nov 5, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The attitude of the Continental Reformed to the question of holy days, Christmas etc. seems to be more Lutheran than Reformed. This is because the Lutherans believed that human inventions may be added to worship, but nobody had to participate in them if they did not want to (the Anglicans were slightly different, believing that the church could force people to participate in human inventions). Whereas the Reformed view of worship (i.e. the Regulative Principle) is that only what God has ordained may (and ought to be) employed in worship.



No offense, Daniel, but you do not answer the question in your remarks. I am an Irishman, so I'll overlook that!

I think you forget that the Continental Reformed also "view...worship (i.e. the Regulative Principle) [as] that only what God has ordained may (and ought to be) employed in worship." Read the Belgic Confession, art. 32, and the Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 96–98 and you'll see that the principle of the Westminster Confession is the same as our principle.


----------



## dannyhyde (Nov 5, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a serious question about this whole issue. Coming from the Continental Reformed tradition in which Christmas, among other days, *may* be celebrated by the churches (Cf. Second Helvetic Confession, Church Order of the Synod of Dort), is there a difference in celebrating Christmas as a church in which it is considered a _holy day_ and celebrating it as just another opportunity to gather as the people of God for preaching? Can one not gather for "public thanksgiving" as the Directory of Worship talks about, or is it that Christmas itself is viewed as inherently evil and so a gathering must be held the day before or after?
> ...



I'll check it out, Chris. Thanks.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 5, 2007)

dannyhyde said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > The attitude of the Continental Reformed to the question of holy days, Christmas etc. seems to be more Lutheran than Reformed. This is because the Lutherans believed that human inventions may be added to worship, but nobody had to participate in them if they did not want to (the Anglicans were slightly different, believing that the church could force people to participate in human inventions). Whereas the Reformed view of worship (i.e. the Regulative Principle) is that only what God has ordained may (and ought to be) employed in worship.
> ...




Sorry Danny, I was just making a general point - others can answer the question.

I don't doubt that the Continental Reformed adhere to the RPW, but they seem (to me at least) to be inconsistent at this juncture. 

You're an Irishman? Where abouts are you (or your ancestors) from?


----------



## dannyhyde (Nov 5, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



No problem, brother. I plan to read Chris' essay, so hopefully he gets into these types of questions.

As far as my heritage goes, I plan to start researching that in the near future. Our family "lore" since I was a kid is that we are related to Douglas Hyde, the first president of the Republic. I guess that would make me of Papist blood.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 5, 2007)

dannyhyde said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > dannyhyde said:
> ...



Douglas Hyde, if I remember correctly, was a Protestant and founder of the Gaelic League which partly inspired the Easter Rising in 1916 (though Mr. Hyde was still a Unionist at that point).

I hope Chris does not object to me mentioning "Easter".


----------



## dannyhyde (Nov 5, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Douglas Hyde, if I remember correctly, was a Protestant and founder of the Gaelic League which partly inspired the Easter Rising in 1916 (though Mr. Hyde was still a Unionist at that point).



This is why I need to trace my tree...thanks for the insight.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 5, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a serious question about this whole issue. Coming from the Continental Reformed tradition in which Christmas, among other days, *may* be celebrated by the churches (Cf. Second Helvetic Confession, Church Order of the Synod of Dort), is there a difference in celebrating Christmas as a church in which it is considered a _holy day_ and celebrating it as just another opportunity to gather as the people of God for preaching? Can one not gather for "public thanksgiving" as the Directory of Worship talks about, or is it that Christmas itself is viewed as inherently evil and so a gathering must be held the day before or after?
> ...



That would lead to an interesting discussion about whether such a stumbling block actually exists today or not. Part of the problem I have with people (not you Chris) that quote some of the Puritans is that they rip their quotes out of the 16th and 17th Century and utilize them as if we just came out of the medieval Church within our lifetime. It doesn't seem like it would possible to make the same argument that Durham did for people that never celebrated Christmas for superstitious reasons.


----------



## etexas (Nov 5, 2007)

What about celebrating Festivus?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 5, 2007)

It might. From the negative side, we still must contend with more recent history, that doctrinal decline led to the beginnings of the observance of the calendar in Presbyterianism, and the question whether we can keep a _mere_ civil observance or _mere_ preaching schedule without continuing a perpetual slide into superstitious observance, as well as simple will worship. So, it would be interesting, but no slam dunk for a totally different tact or conclusion from the Puritans.



SemperFideles said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > dannyhyde said:
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 5, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> It might. From the negative side, we still must contend with more recent history, that doctrinal decline led to the beginnings of the observance of the calendar in Presbyterianism, and the question whether we can keep a _mere_ civil observance or _mere_ preaching schedule without continuing a perpetual slide into superstitious observance, as well as simple will worship. So, it would be interesting, but no slam dunk for a totally different tact or conclusion from the Puritans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This might well be the case Chris. My problem is with the members who cut and paste from history and don't really try to contextualize whether a particular problem that existed at the time of the Reformation can be applied today. 

I think the RPW is one of those areas where Presbyterians don't really try to do the "ground work" that is done for other Reformational doctrines. We're good at giving good examples for the depravity of men or the other doctrines of Grace but then many simply port an old quote from the past and expect the lay-person to figure out why Christmas is a popish superstition (think they: "I'm not Roman Catholic so what does that mean to me....")

Two years ago, when I first joined the board, I asked a question about the celebration of Advent and was simply deluged with quotes from Puritans. I suppose I was supposed to figure out how they all applied but I was struck by the fact that many thought they had actually answered a question by simply quoting a Puritan.

Don't get me wrong, I love Durham's work and was profoundly impacted by his exposition of the Ten Commandments but simply hearing that he is concerned about a slippery slope doesn't give me enough information to figure out how that is contextual to my circumstances. Was I ever guilty of a superstitious view of Christmas when I was a Roman Catholic? I'm not sure because the Catholic stuff I grew up with is way different than the time of Durham.

Anyhow, these are just general observations. I'm not for the idea that there be a stated worship event where men are required to celebrate a holy day that God has not bound their consciences to but I'm also not convinced that a voluntary Church event would be precisely objectionable. Some actuaally have a problem with Sunday School for similar reasons to why they object to other voluntary things but Sunday School isn't a stated worship service so I think it's perfectly acceptable.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 5, 2007)

Great Rich; you manged to link an xmas discussion with Sunday School.
I understand about the perception of simply having a ton of Puritan quotations dropped on you, and agree these must be understood in context and in respect to whatever is different in our day. My perspective though is the danger is downplayed as often as the Puritan quotation dumping is on the other. But I'm probably sitting this round out this year. I am supposed to be getting an EP debate together soon for some discussion board you may have heard of. That will be my two cents worth for the month of December. 



SemperFideles said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > It might. From the negative side, we still must contend with more recent history, that doctrinal decline led to the beginnings of the observance of the calendar in Presbyterianism, and the question whether we can keep a _mere_ civil observance or _mere_ preaching schedule without continuing a perpetual slide into superstitious observance, as well as simple will worship. So, it would be interesting, but no slam dunk for a totally different tact or conclusion from the Puritans.
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 5, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Great Rich; you manged to link an xmas discussion with Sunday School.





> I understand about the perception of simply having a ton of Puritan quotations dropped on you, and agree these must be understood in context and in respect to whatever is different in our day. My perspective though is the danger is downplayed as often as the Puritan quotation dumping is on the other. But I'm probably sitting this round out this year. I am supposed to be getting an EP debate together soon for some discussion board you may have heard of. That will be my two cents worth for the month of December.



I completely agree that we need to take our Puritan forbears' seriously. My aim, when I understand them, is to explain their views to their detractors. I just think we ought to be able to "translate" them a bit better sometimes so people can appreciate how their concerns are our concerns.

BTW, where is our favorite EP proponent? I've missed him around here.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 5, 2007)

Not sure; but I know he has a special assignment for CPJ 4 that he has been working on.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Nov 5, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> No it isn't. What a ridiculous statement.


can you show me how Christmas which is purely religious in nature does not violate the RPW and the commandment against graven images?


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Nov 5, 2007)

I am a bit confused here. The term Holy Day keeps coming up (negatively) in reference to Christmas. I am not sure I get this idea that if you celebrate Christmas you are celebrating a holy day. What makes it a holy day? Or who says it is a holy day?
My church will meet for worship on the morning of Thanksgiving, does that make it a holy day? Doubtless there will be many in the USA who will fail to give thanks to God Most High on this day, does it make it wrong that we choose to use this nationally appointed day to thank our God? The Presbyterian denomination I belonged to in Scotland usually always hold pre communion services on the days preceeding the administration of the sacrament. They also will have worship on New Years Day. Is this wrong? I see no requirement in the bible or the RPW to hold such worship services. What then makes remembering Christmas or Thanksgiving more objectionable?


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Nov 5, 2007)

Christmas is not in the same category as Thanksgiving and New Years.

Christmas and Easter are blatant additions to worship based on carnal desires that are not satisfied with the Lord Supper that already celebrate the things engendered in Christmas and Easter.

Christmas celebrates the birth of Christ, whereas Easter celebrates His death and resurrection. The Lord supper adequately summarizes these two events and premeditates on the world to come. This is what Christ has specifically instituted for remembrance. 

Christmas and Easter due to the carnality that abounds with these holidays (the utmost creativity of the human mind without restrictions) usually rests away emphasis and glory on to themselves, whilst leaving the Lord's Supper and the Lord's day as pure mechanical automation of the week or month.

It is without a shadow of doubt that Christians who celebrate Christmas and Easter put more emphasis into the preparations for these holidays than they do for the Lord's Day of which the Lord's Day was directly instituted by Christ. Now isn't this idolatry?


----------



## etexas (Nov 5, 2007)

Slippery said:


> Christmas is not in the same category as Thanksgiving and New Years.
> 
> Christmas and Easter are blatant additions to worship based on carnal desires that are not satisfied with the Lord Supper that already celebrate the things engendered in Christmas and Easter.
> 
> ...


Huh?


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Nov 6, 2007)

Slippery said:


> Christmas is not in the same category as Thanksgiving and New Years.
> 
> Christmas and Easter are blatant additions to worship based on carnal desires that are not satisfied with the Lord Supper that already celebrate the things engendered in Christmas and Easter.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your candid response. I think you are reading into Christmas and Easter things that are just not there. I don't think anyone who celebrates either is dissatisfied with the Lord's Supper or necessarily thinks lightly of the Lord's Day. Rather than clarify, your post leaves me more confused.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 6, 2007)

joshua said:


> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> > NaphtaliPress said:
> ...




I'm not so sure, Josh. I hold essentially the same view as Chris, but I thought it was ridiculous for a different reason. It implies that all other Reformed distinctives are lost and all that's left is a stand on Christmas. That seems to be pretty strange, as if to say if we waffle on this position, we have lost everything. Even the most hard-core RPW adherent knows there are bigger fish to fry than this.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 6, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Slippery said:
> ...


That is exactly how I understood it, as it was the most important thing to defend, not the most important thing to fight. I suppose it might be read either way, but either way, it is hyperbolic as Vic notes. I commend to everyone who wants to get a sense of the literature on the subject of worship to get and read the sixty year survey of RPW literature in the 2006 and newly available 2007 issues of The Confessional Presbyterian journal. Get the v1 as well as it has great critical surveys of the anti RPW writings of Frame and Gore. All three available for #43 postage paid.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 6, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



Yes, you are correct to note that John Frame and R.J. Gore's writings are anti-RPW, not a legitimate interpretation of the RPW.


----------

