Christmas & Holy Time, Seasons of Scrutiny (Part III)

- Yes, Virginia, There Is A Clause-
(The Regulative Principle Of Worship)

Gal. 5:1 “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.^” (NASB)

“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 day, 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 of thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people.”
– Directory of Publick Worship, AN APPENDIX, Touching Days and Places for Publick Worship – Act of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland (1645), Act of the Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland (1645).

From, An Exposition in the Form of Question and Answer of the Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (1905),  by James Harper, UPC professor at Xenia Theological Seminary :
Q. 7. Is it not a daring intrusion upon the prerogative of God to appoint as a stated religious festival any other day or season, such as Christmas or Easter?
A. It is an impeachment of the wisdom of God and an assertion of our right and ability to improve on his plans.

“Wherefore, those things are also which are in themselves indifferent, that is neither commanded nor prohibited by God, if they are prescribed and done as the worship of God, or if it is supposed that God is honored by our performing them, and dishonored by neglecting them, it is plainly manifest that the Scriptures in these and similar places condemn them.” – Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, n.d. [from 1852 edition]), pp. 518-519.

There are many arguments laid against Christmas, against a Church Year devised by man, against all Holy Days but the Sabbath, and oddly even against the Biblical Sabbath. Many apologetics have been constructed favouring one or any of the above. As we’ll see in a later post, I personally find the most salient and saline point in such, and somewhat the clearest, is being in the world but not of the world (cf. John 17:13-19), which still may be argued against or in favour of Christmas.  However, apart from Romanisms or Paganisms, apart from rhythms of adoration, apart from popular consent, for many the argument comes down to Scriptural warrant and is usually engaged as a matter of what came to be termed the regulative principle of worship (RPW). I may delve more particularly into RPW on its own at a later time, though finer minds have deeply mined its caverns, both historically and of late.

In brief, sola Scriptura was a key ingredient fostering the Protestant Reformation, and it was set against the excess of church traditions and superstitions even Rome felt the need to reform in the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Thus, a regulative principle of worship was initially conveyed as in contrast with a high church principle of worship, turning to the Scriptures rather than the Church as the authoritative voice in all things worshipful. This was thought by all Reformers to be both the most ancient practice of the Church and that most consistent within Scripture.

A second deployment of RPW was refined when various elements of the Protestant Reformation, especially Luther and Calvin, couldn’t find means to maintain continuous unity in Protestantism (often critiqued by Catholics who themselves have always appeared similarly divided, though unity in love is indeed a chief mark in Christ’s command). All Protestants saw the need of purifying Christian worship away from superstition and what is termed a will worship of man-made contrivance in affront to God. The Lutherans considered that it was most important in worship to avoid what God has forbidden, those elements in the Catholic worship of the times that were clearly at odds with Scriptural warrant. This came to be called the normative principle of worship, that whatever God did not forbid through Scripture might yet in discernment be found worthy and allowed in worship. Lutherans continued to enjoy organ music, popular hymns (even of ‘converting’ pub tunes in the cause), Gospel narrative through stained glass windows, and a Church Calendar seriously trimmed of saint’s days but inclusive of Christmas. It of course was most purposeful that Luther chose the eve of All Saint’s Day, with its abuses in Saint’s relics, for the posting of his 95 Theses to the door of All Saint’s Church in Wittenberg, and that virtually all of the Reformed have since celebrated the fact as a day demarcating thankful reformation, a Reformation Day of sorts; not completely unlike the Jewish Purim, the American Thanksgiving Day or Memorial Day, Scottish commemoration of the Battle of Bannockburn, English celebration of the Act of Supremacy, establishing the Church of England, or French Huguenot solemn memorialising the murder of 50,000 Protestants in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.

Calvinists weren’t as accepting of traditional Roman forms, especially hailed exclusive prominence of the Christian Sabbath, and though no less thought than others to have handed posterity a tradition, it is one thought more regulated by Scripture.  Calvinists wanted far less to do with Rome, and were keen to carve away, to purify Christian worship into only those forms or elements commanded, specifically sanctioned, patterned in approved historical example, justly and necessarily deduced or inferred in Scripture (particularly in the Christian New Testament), or as a necessary consequence of these contained in Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) I.vi puts it as, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary; for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added…”, and further distinguishes, “that 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.”

Such radical changes as were brought through Protestant reforms were not easy on established popular worship. Even Luther had to tame the iconoclasts’ destruction of images, and Calvin, too, sought peacefully to abide by civil directive, even where it sometime rubbed against his personal conviction frowning on Christmas (similarly, Dordrecht in 1578, of Holy Days, as “observed by authority of the government”). As for Christmas Day, the Continental Reformed eventually found some place for it under the civil magistrate (and at least Good Friday, Pasch or Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday or Pentecost – as in the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), Chap. XXIV.4, which lists the events worth celebrating (adding Circumcision to the above), though not exclusive to special days, even though topically signified as Holy Days and Festivals of Christian liberty); and the Order of Dordrecht (1618-1619)).

In British and particularly of Scottish expression the Calvinistic Puritans, Separatists, and Presbyterians enacted yet a third deployment of the regulative principle of worship. They railed and embattled against all Holy Days but Sunday only (among some ‘original reformers’ of Wycliffe, the then still present Lollards, even Sunday was suspect) with occasional special days of prayerful fasting or thanksgiving as providence befitted. They turned from hymns and instruments to acappella Psalms singing in worship, and some even frowned on using the Lord’s Prayer as a form in worship. They especially despised Christmas excess, and it was this sound rejection of Christmas the Puritans brought to America, which regulated Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist worship in American history for over 200 years, before quickly fading to popular compromise.

As a Reformed distinctive, some manner of regulative principle has variously been employed to either allow or disallow Christmas (with allowance weighing initially on the side of civil authority upholding both civil and religious orderliness). Of late, some Reformed have sought to displace the RPW with new designations of informed principle of worship (IPW) or covenantal principle of worship which claim to look a lot like the Continental or 2^nd deployment of the RPW, though specifying the doctrine of the Gospel as the only RPW in the New Covenant, and otherwise allowing for creativity more akin to the NPW. Others have pondered some RPW-NPW middle ground closer to an edifying or constructive principle of worship, where proper worship is essentially inclusive of that which builds the Church “according to Scripture”, which might allow for a redeemed sense of Christmas observance. In practicability, the suffusion between Scriptural regulations (RPW) and norms (NPW) may sometimes be a mater of fine nuance or semantics; though strict regulativists, while disallowing Christmas worship, still affirm Scripturally inferred, deduced, or consequential forms beyond literal command (in either “elements” or especially in “circumstances”). Variously, other Reformed have sought to distinguish an observance of Christmas as either secular (in essence, a Christmas without Christ), by civil authority (a Christmas with Christ but not qualified with religious worship), or a matter of liberty in private worship as contrasted with corporate worship.

To be fair, the extent of Christian liberty and Church authority was also primary to initial distinctions between RPW and NPW. Luther found the Church to have authority to impose ceremonies provided they are not contrary to Scripture (as, for example, of Christmas or marriage); while Calvin found that the Church only has authority to impose on a person’s conscience ceremonies that have positive warrant in Scripture. For Calvin, Christmas might be allowed, even with blessing of the Church, but not imposed (at least not by the Church), though such things as Christmas sermons or Christmas Day services might practicably be too fine a distinction of liberty and authority to expect of congregants, especially, as is common today, if there be a particular swell of attendance for Christmas (or Easter) services beyond that of expected weekly routine.

Still others have employed the RPW in an apparent loose sense, as Scriptural inference not literally particularised or clearly exemplified (i.e., commanded by good consequence; examples of which might be infant sprinkling, adult emersion, or serving communion to women or infants). I hermeneutically like this last conveyance best, though it’s usually employed to justify Christmas observance, while I would beg to differ – that even if a RPW might be seen in and of itself to infer Christmas observance from Scripture (though, like the Puritans, many RPW practitioners would stress it does not), other factors of Christmas observance in further historical and cultural context would set it against an RPW allowance (and see how Domm, cited below, distinguishes RPW through the perspective lenses of historical, exegetical, theological, and practical).

(I’ll cover more of the practical considerations of Christmas, which I find determinative, in subsequent post, but in passing I’d just like to point out by example that the Directory of Publick Worship, prohibitive of Christmas, also detailed as either “of divine institution” or “set forth according to the rules of Christian prudence” (though no doubt many regulativists would categorise these as the second, as “circumstance” rather than “element”),

• “forbearing to read anything, except what the minister is then reading or citing” in the sermon (i.e., no independent cross referencing or use of Study Bible helps or commentary during the sermon – and such were available then as now, though not as common),
• that public reading of the Word be only by pastors, teachers, or gifted ministerial candidates,
• that such reading be only from the best allowed translation (no comparing translations or paraphrases here),
• that “ordinarily one chapter of each Testament be read at every meeting; and sometimes more” without interruption by exposition to follow,
• that it is convenient for sequential reading of Scripture from week to week,
• that “the whole day is to be celebrated as holy to the Lord, both in publick and private”, abstaining “from all sports and pastimes” (with the NFL and NASCAR being modern tools of the devil),
• that “the diet on that day be so ordered, as that neither servants be unnecessarily detained from the publick worship of God” (thank God Chick-Fil-A is closed, as should be most things),
• and “That what time is vacant, between or after the solemn meetings of the congregation in publick, be spent in reading, meditation, repetition of sermons; especially by calling their families to an account of what they have heard, and catechising of them, holy conferences, prayer for a blessing upon the publick ordinances, singing of psalms, visiting the sick, relieving the poor, and such like duties of piety, charity, and mercy, accounting the sabbath a delight.”)

The Puritan Governor Interrupting the Christmas Sports, 1883

This Westminster’s Directory of Publick Worship, again, often cited as forbidding Festival Holy-days like Christmas, however waxes eloquent on the solemnization of marriage in some detail quite beyond the text of Scripture.  And so, as with element and circumstance, and as with public and private worship, the Christian life is regulated by Word and Church, while still respectful of a liberty of conscience against church imposition or forbidding of worship practice on which Scripture might be thought indifferent.

Thus, historically and theologically, an RPW apologetic against Christmas observance isn’t always all it’s cracked up to be, though very fine arguments are made, valuably needed, and appreciated. With the Gospel narrative of Christ’s birth, the RPW is quite an effective tool of guidance, in that neither the numerical year, nor the date of December 25^th (or any counterpart on a Jewish Calendar) are given in the text of Scripture or authoritatively in the writings of the early Church. Certain Christians and non-Christians consistently fault Christianity and celebrating a Christmas Day on this account. God, further, in no wise commands that the birth of the Son be only or especially celebrated annually on a special birth day or Holy Day (that is, other than every Holy Sabbath and indeed every day, as holy, for all eternity, if eternity have days).  Indeed, as remarkable a thing it was, it may be argued that the Nativity is all we see in Scripture of either human or angelic celebration of Christ’s birth, other than some theological appreciation of the fact in the Epistles and as treasured in each of our hearts in reading and meditating upon it. By the time the date gained any thought of importance to the Church, it had been quite lost to human precision, though there continues no end of trying to ascertain. This perhaps bodes well for the Church celebrating the life of Christ each weekly Sabbath. Still, it is most certainly of good consequence and plain telling that a treasured celebration of Christ’s Incarnation in Nativity is invoked at both a day and season in time (and, with the angels, Mary, Elizabeth, John, Joseph, and the Magi, perhaps several), it only remains in determination as to whether a Holy Day of Christmas (or some other designation, as in, say, the Feast of the Nativity or Feast of Tabernacles) is a necessary element of Scripture or circumstance of conscientious celebration (a proper mode of inference and consequence), whether or not it is a matter of individual liberty, familial liberty, civil liberty, Church liberty, Christian liberty, or may be bound in discipline of Church or other authority and designation.  Some indeed find and argue that the RPW is most clear in all these determinations, but in all honesty even the most ardent of RPW applications has not found sufficient unity in well-considered Reformed thought, regardless of errant or admirable practice.

Is Christmas observance a strange fire for which celebrants ought to be consumed by fire from heaven (Lev. 10:1-3)? Is it some bleating of sheep, lowing of oxen, (or even reserve of sugarplumed infants) in a rush upon forbidden cultural spoils in disobedience to the voice of God, a divination and idolatry for which Christians should be rejected even in begging forgiveness (1 Sam. 15:1-29)?  Is it an undue specialisation stabilising a nearly upset Sabbath in regards to Christ’s Nativity, for which forbidden balancing of handling, celebrants should be struck down dead in holy wrath (1 Chron. 13:8-14)? Is it some prideful extravagance of forbidden worship for which celebrants should suffer leprosy for life (2 Chron. 26:16-21)? Most of the Reformed would account “No” to all of the above, though these are rightly verses often employed in support of RPW, and careful worship is certainly a most awesome and chief end of man. There are passages perhaps of less fearful countenance, but all Christians view God as Holy and due all reverence of proper worship. What of the Commandments of Moses (Exodus 20; Deut. 5;12:32), the admonitions of Christ regarding the traditions of men (Matt. 15:1-11; Mark 7:1-13), and Paul’s warnings about will worship and binding ourselves to worthless shadowy elements that seek us (Gal. 4:9-10, 17; Col. 2:16-23)?  Again, I’d say, as does the disunity of RPW application, that as reverent and meditative we ought to be regarding the Word of Life and our worship, we find little real authority for either supporting or condemning a special feast of Nativity in the Scriptures.  We find reason of caution and safeguarding liberty and reverence, but essentially, elementally, I find the RPW  inconclusive on this matter of ‘Christmas’. By the principle, the Nativity might just as well be celebrated on one Sunday as on several or all (even reading through the Scriptures week to week, one is bound to especially hit the Gospel accounts of Nativity sooner or later), or on any day of the week, season of the year, or even in annual cycle; and as either an element or circumstance of corporate worship.

While a regulative principle of worship is a most worthy, Scriptural, and confessional topic where worship is so vital and fearful and enjoyable a purpose, we Reformed are far from unanimous or sometimes even peaceable about it, and often unduly weary ourselves in straining principled gnats (cf. Matt. 23:23-24). While I agree that modern Christmas, like Hallowe’en, is a corruption generally best avoided, it is not without some fashion of RPW merit.

Before a final disposition on Christmas, I’d like to next discuss it in conjunction with the Calendar and that Church Year we do find in Scripture, that of the Jewish Covenant in continuity with our New Covenant in Christ.

___________________________________________________________

“God commands us to worship him once weekly in a corporate manner, but allows us to apply biblical principles to worship him at other times. The church under the new covenant does not have less liberty than the church under the old covenant; we are not the underage church, but the church which has been baptized in the Spirit of Christ. If we were to apply the regulative principle without clearly understanding these things, then we would have to condemn the apostolic church for meeting daily, since God had never commanded such meetings. Instead, they understood that what God was commanding was for them to worship him acceptably (cf. John 4:24; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 10:25; 13:15).” – from, “The Observance of Christmas”, by Stephen D. Doe, pastor of Covenant OPC in Barre, Vt.

___________________________

Perhaps the best balanced and bibliographic online summary of the RPW is that of James (Jim) Domm, of Englewood Baptist Church & Reformed Baptist Seminary, in several parts of a series beginning here: http://blog.rbseminary.org/2009/11/the-regulative-principle-of-worship-in-historical-perspective/: The Regulative Principle of Worship in Historical Perspective, Part II (exegetical), Part III (theological), Part IV (practical)).

See also the Christmas index, For Unto Us a Child is Born, at the official site of PCA’s First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi, where Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III is pastor. http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/family_and_culture/christmas/index.html;

Chris Coldwell’s “The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism” http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/americanxmas.htm, also at http://www.naphtali.com/articles/chris-coldwell/the-religious-observance-of-christmas-and-%e2%80%98holy-days%e2%80%99-in-american-presbyterianism/;

James Bannerman’s “Rites and Ceremonies in Public Worship”; http://www.naphtali.com/articles/james-bannerman/rites-ceremonies-in-public-worship/;

and, Horton Davies’ Worship of the American Puritans.

This series: “Christmas & Holy Time, Seasons of Scrutiny” (Part I, II, III, IV,V).