More on Feast Days in the Reformed Tradition (v 2)

This is Version 2 of this blog post.  Version 2 rewrites the final exhortation which you might have read in the initial version of this post written previously.

One reads in the Second Helvetic Confession, concerning the "church calendar":

CHAPTER XXIV

Of Holy Days,
Fasts and the Choice of Foods

THE TIME NECESSARY FOR WORSHIP. Although religion is not bound to time, yet it cannot be cultivated and exercised without a proper distribution and arrangement of time. Every Church, therefore, chooses for itself a certain time for public prayers, and for the preaching of the Gospel, and for the celebration of the sacraments; and no one is permitted to overthrow this appointment of the Church at his own pleasure. For unless some due time and leisure is given for the outward exercise of religion, without doubt men would be drawn away from it by their own affairs.

THE LORD'S DAY. Hence we see that in the ancient churches there were not only certain set hours in the week appointed for meetings, but that also the Lord's Day itself, ever since the apostles' time, was set aside for them and for a holy rest, a practice now rightly preserved by our Churches for the sake of worship and love.

SUPERSTITION. In this connection we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is any holier than another, or think that rest in itself is acceptable to God. Moreover, we celebrate the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath as a free observance.*

THE FESTIVALS OF CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity[1], circumcision[2], passion[3], resurrection[4], and of his ascension[5] into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples[6], we approve of it highly. but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints. Holy days have to do with the first Table of the Law and belong to God alone.

Finally, holy days which have been instituted for the saints and which we have abolished, have much that is absurd and useless, and are not to be tolerated. In the meantime, we confess that the remembrance of saints, at a suitable time and place, is to be profitably commended to the people in sermons, and the holy examples of the saints set forth to be imitated by all[7].

FASTING. Now, the more seriously the Church of Christ condemns surfeiting, drunkenness, and all kinds of lust and intemperance, so much the more strongly does it commend to us Christian fasting. For fasting is nothing else than the abstinence and moderation of the godly, and a discipline, care and chastisement of our flesh undertaken as a necessity for the time being, whereby we are humbled before God, and we deprive the flesh of its fuel so that it may the more willingly and easily obey the Spirit. Therefore, those who pay no attention to such things do not fast, but imagine that they fast if they stuff their stomachs once day, and at a certain or prescribed time abstain from certain foods, thinking that by having done this work they please God and do something good. Fasting is an aid to the prayers of the saints and for all virtues. But as is seen in the books of the prophets, the fast of the Jews who fasted from food but not from wickedness did not please God.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FASTING. Now there is a public and a private fasting. In olden times they celebrated public fasts in calamitous times and in the affliction of the Church. They abstained altogether from food till the evening, and spent all that time in holy prayers, the worship Of God, and repentance These differed little from mourning, and there is frequent mention of them in the Prophets and especially by Joel in Ch. 2. Such a fast should be kept at this day, when the Church is in distress. Private fasts are undertaken by each one of us, as he feels himself withdrawn from the Spirit. For in this manner he withdraws the flesh from its fuel.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FASTING. All fasts ought to proceed from a free and willing spirit, and from genuine humility, and not feigned to gain the applause or favor of men, much less that a man should wish to merit righteousness by them. But let every one fast to this end, that he may deprive the flesh of its fuel in order that he may the more zealously serve God.

LENT. The fast of Lent is attested by antiquity but not at all in the writings of the apostles. Therefore it ought not, and cannot, be imposed on the faithful. It is certain that formerly there were various forms and customs of fasting. Hence, Irenaeus, a most ancient writer, says: "Some think that a fast should be observed one day only, others two days, but others more, and some forty days. This diversity in keeping this fast did not first begin in our times, but long before us by those, as I suppose, who did not simply keep to what had been delivered to them from the beginning, but afterwards fell into another custom either through negligence or ignorance" (Fragm. 3, ed. Stieren, I. 824 f.). Moreover, Socrates, the historian, says: "Because no ancient text is found concerning this matter, I think the apostles left this to every man's own judgment, that every one might do what is good without fear or constraint" (Hist. ecclesiast. V.22, 40).

(The quotation of the Chapter from the Confession will stop here.)

OPPOSITION TO "CHRISTMAS"

There is enough here, I think, to pretty well undermine claims that the Regulative Principle of Worship denies the use of Christ-centered elements of the "church calendar" by a Christian assembly  -- at least on the grounds of the doctrine of this Confession.

One can have one's free opinions on the subject of special days, and the church cannot impose observance of any special day, fast-day, or feast-day against a man's conscience, but all these are left to the free use of individuals, and the churches.

To deny the evangelical character of an individual or church because Christ-centered elements of the "church calendar" are used therefore cannot be accomplished on the grounds of the Regulative Principle without having a "tighter" principle than is established in this Confession.  One is free to have a "tighter" principle, but one is not free, on the grounds of history, to deny the evangelical or the Reformed character of an individual or church, simply because Christ-centered elements of the historic "church calendar" are used.

All who feel bound in conscience to stay away from all church celebrations of this character should certainly be free to do so, but it is likely that they will also miss out on opportunities for edification in the knowledge of Christ.

A TIP ON OBSERVING HOLY DAYS

I suspect that those who oppose the Christ-centered holidays are in churches which don't observe them.  Most believers' conceptions of these holidays may then be filled with the vision of the civil and secular manifestations which surround a holiday (such as Christmas).  Not being in liturgical churches, they may not realize that Holy Days are celebrated religiously with worship services, singing, praying, reading the Scripture, sermons, and the Lord's Supper in the church buildings and also in the homes of the Christians.  This means that a Holy Day is an evangelical opportunity for edification in the knowledge of Christ.

AN EARNEST EXHORTATION TO THOSE WHO OPPOSE "HOLY DAYS"

The use, or opposition to the use, of Christ-centered "holy days" in the church ought to be done only in good conscience and in truth, using the Scriptures, accurate doctrine and good knowledge of relevant history, without casting unfair aspersions on other brethren, thereby promoting division in the Church.

Furthermore, for anyone arguing on this issue to bear any kind of false witness historically, doctrinally or morally, either directly or by hint or slur, just isn't the way of truth.  All sides must argue in a spirit which desires as much unity with other believers as conscience permits and as the Scripture demands.  The Moral Law does not allow me to fight, willy-nilly, "just because I'm right and it makes me feel good," even if I am right.  This can be a real temptation.  I know.  I like a good fight, too.  Pardon me, but I'm trying to hold down the flesh in this regard, as I write this! 

If free observance of Christ-centered days in the Church Calendar is the right of the church, as I allege, then I have to discipline myself not to wound your conscience by insisting that you ought to do something which is actually against your conscience, just as it is not your right to deny my use of my liberty to have extra days to worship Christ, as long as I don't do it in such a way as to cause you to sin.  All the rules of policy about things like this are spelled out by the Apostle Paul.

We ought all to fight like Christians, according to the Moral Law and the rules of Scripture, and fight for "hills worth dying on," by spending our time defending big stuff -- like the Gospel, instead of fighting one another while the Spirit grieves.

May the Lord Jesus deliver us from this!

-----------------------------------------

* This is not the same doctrine as the Westminster "Puritan" Doctrine of the Sabbath, which sees the Lord's Day and Sabbath as synonymous, nor is the nature of the "rest" the same, either.

[1] This is the so-called "Christmas Day."
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the_Circumcision_of_Christ
[3] This is the so-called "Good Friday."
[4] This is the so-called "Easter," or "Resurrection Day."
[5] This is the so-called "Ascension Day."
[6] This is Pentecost.
[7] This is to be done any time, but the so-called "All Saints Day" can be used for this, too.

Fast Day, Feast Day

In certain corners of the conservative Christian public space this time of year (the Christmas Season) there emerge feisty discussions of the meaning, validity and Christian "legality" of observing Christmas.

My contribution is as follows:

THESES

1)  According to the Regulative Principle of Worship, the Church may declare "thanksgiving days" in recognition and remembrance of major events of divine providence.

2)  Reasoning from the lesser to the greater, it is therefore within the church's liberty to declare "thanksgiving days" in remembrance of greater things, such as major events in the life of Christ.

3)  But, this liberty of the church to remember major events in the life of Christ has been decried by a false application of the Regulative Principle of Worship, which stems from anti-Roman Catholic sentiment.

4)  As a result of the church denying herself the use of her liberty to declare "thanksgiving days" in remembrance of major events in the life of Christ, the emphasis and development of these major gospel events is lowered within the life of the church, and

5)  The "church calendar" has been secularized to contain only civil holidays and days of remembrance.

DISCUSSION

I read somewhere that the tradition of "public days" called for by Church and State was carried to this country from European origins, and that in this country the tradition was carried forward, probably initially mostly by New England Puritans.  They would call for days of fasting as well as days of thanksgiving, in response to events of providence, such as wars, plagues, famines, victories, deliverance from enemies, etc.

Therefore, as they saw it, the Regulative Principle of Worship, in harmony with Scriptural (Old Testament) examples of days of feasting and fasting, in no way prohibited the declaration of fasting- and feasting-days in modern times when it seemed appropriate in the providence of God.

But, the non-Anglican Reformed and Baptist believers took considerable exception to the traditional "church calendar," including any recognition of the days devoted to remembrance of major events in the life of Christ.  There are several reasons for this that I can think of quickly:

1)  The "church calendar" was cluttered with all sorts of saints days and other inappropriate material, distracting attention from Christ.

2)  There were probably legal requirements requiring participation in church holidays, rather than permitting free participation in good conscience.

3)  But, perhaps most important of all, the "church calender" was "Catholic," and therefore to be avoided.

As I see it, anti-Romanism is the reigning thesis in this argument opposing Christmas, not the Regulative Principle of Worship.  Anti-Romanism distorts the pure application of the Regulative Principle.

Anecdotally, it is alleged that some Puritans would prostrate themselves (lie on their faces) on the floor in private prayer, but would not kneel.  Kneeling was "idolatrous" because Catholics did it.

I can't verify the accuracy of that anecdote, but the alleged reason for avoiding kneeling illuminates the well-known attitude of many of the advanced Puritans and Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries to Romanism in general:  It was considered to be entirely a cult of the anti-Christ, and therefore, all religious behaviors in public and private had to avoid doing anything that looked "Catholic."  Besides kneeling, this includes use of "holy days" from the traditional "church calendar," even "holy days" in remembrance of Christ.

CONCLUSION:

It seems to me that the fast-days and thanksgiving-days of the early American and Puritan experience have now evolved to become a new, secularized "church calendar."  New Year's Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving Day, etc., etc. have become the new "feast days," and are often mentioned or possibly observed in some churches.  But the church has denied herself the right to declare "thanksgiving-days" in honor of Christ!

Nowadays, in churches which profess to adhere to the Regulative Principle, all you might have for an extraordinary meeting during this season could be a meeting on Thanksgiving Day or New Year's Eve.

What a loss!

How Scripture Regulates Worship

It seems to me that a good deal of our inherited practice of the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is based on patternistic observations in the New Testament.  There are a lot of patterns that can be discerned in connection with worship practices, and a good deal of difference of opinion, and sometimes schism, can originate over varying conceptions of the relative importance of different aspects of the patterns seen.

I would suggest is that it's better to look at the theological reasons for any patterns.  The theology behind a pattern is the cause of the visible practice.  If we would stop looking at the "outside" of liturgical behavior observed in the Scriptures, and start looking at the "inside" -- the reasons for things being done the way they are -- we would tend to make more valid progress.

Example:  Musical Instruments

In the Temple they used musical instruments.  In the Apocalyse they are seen using musical instruments.  In the earthly teaching of Christ and his apostles, and in the historical records of Acts and the Epistles, no instruments are seen.  There were no (known) instruments in the synagogue.  Does this mean there should be no instruments used in the worship of the church on earth?

The patternistic response to outward forms is to say that there should be no instruments.  The response that makes sense, however, is to say that God has ordained the existence of musical instruments, and they are permitted in worship.  It is our job as mature sons to use them wisely.

The same logic can be used for church choirs, for creating "new songs" (instead of singing only psalms), and for using a patterned worship with lots of sung and verbal interactions, etc.

Sometimes, in the RPW discussion, it is asserted that the Temple worship was precisely specified to the smallest detail, and so we should take the same approach to the New Testament worship.  However, a real study of actual material (such as from Edersheim, The Temple - Its Ministry and Services), will show that the Mosaic institutes prescribed certain portions of the Temple liturgy in precise detail, but that a very considerable part of it had to be instituted by well-instructed elders and priests.  There's just not enough Mosaic instruction to prescribe every aspect of the liturgy of the Tabernacle or the Temple in real life.

And, too, what did the Temple priests do when they made a mistake?  It's easily verified that there is little in the inspired Scripture to cover all kinds of liturgical mistakes in detail.  Recovering the integrity of broken ceremonies was necessary, and also had to be instituted by authority (see the Mishnah for samples).

Concerning liturgical rigidity, the Lord himself was prone to allow such things as celebrating the Passover in the wrong month, or letting unclean people eat the Passover, or letting the show-bread be eaten by non-priests -- for good reasons at the time.  I'm sure there are other instances of this.  Therefore, the idea that we deal with a God who is absolutely so rigid in his liturgical requirements as to strike people down for merely formal or patternistic discrepancies is just not in accord with his character.  There is almost always a discernable moral component of sin in such cases.  It is true that there are a very few instances of the Lord appearing to be rigid -- but he is mostly not.  A close inspection of the lapses and irregularies in Tabernacle and Temple worship throughout the Old Testament shows considerable misbehavior that little is said about by the Lord.  He's infinitely more concerned about their idolatry than he is their formal worship.

This is no excuse to cavalierly disobey him in the liturgy of that worship that he specifies for us in the Scripture, but let us honor him for who he really is, and obey him for the right reasons.  Especially in the New Covenant, we are freed from the servility that was intentionally inculcated by the Law in this respect.  We should have the maturity to make mature use of the Scripture in discerning what worship must be.

The Regulative Principle of Worship (Edited)

The writing has been revised to speak more accurately and clearly.

It's in accord with so-called "Reformed" fundamental theological principles to emphasize continuity in the purposes and accomplishments of our redeeming God from Eden to the New Jerusalem, but not such that we are blind to the transcendent glory of the New Covenant.  We study to rightly teach the real center of the Scriptural doctrine of covenantal continuity and covenantal distinction.

On this basis it is clearly the case that our professed "Regulative Principle of Worship" (RPW) needs re-thinking.  This is because our tradition of the RPW unduly discounts the worship principles of the Old Testament when formulating the worship principles of the New.  That is, there is too much covenantal discontinuity.

In Reformation time, the thought in Lutheranism was to very conservatively reform the inherited catholicism, especially after the fruits of radicalism were seen.  The thought in "reformed" areas, on the other hand, was to almost entirely "reboot" the church on Scriptural principles, which, in liturgical detail, mainly meant New Testament principles of worship.

The downside of the "reformed" approach is that there isn't a lot of data in the New Testament which can thoroughly and cogently define what the whole, integrated New Testament order of worship should look like, in the very practical sense.  We just have pieces of it.  The implementation of the RPW on this ground tends to be accomplished by looking for things that are essential elements (such as Paul's recitation of the history of the institution of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11), and making use of hints and remarks in the Scripture text about various ongoing practices in the churches.  However, these may often not be explained in enough detail to enable us to understand how to formulate a whole worship service.  Clearly, the church had a form of worship, but it is hard to tell what it was in detail from the New Testament only.

We can say for sure, however, that Jewish worship informed church worship.  And, Jewish worship which was imitated by the church wasn't limited to the synagogue, as some try to teach.  The New Testament is full of "temple language" when referring to the church, and it is therefore clear that the New Testament "synagogues of God" partook of both the practice of the synagogue and the practice of the Temple.

It has to be the case, then, that the reformation of New Testament worship must take into account the moral law inherited in the worship principles which are found in both Testaments!  The church's worship is connected with the sacrifice our Lord made as high priest in the Temple of Heaven, to which we ascend each Lord's day!

The original conception of the RPW was, I suppose, a good experiment.  But, a thorough inspection of that early history shows that in the most idealistic sense, the experiment was a failure (see Horton Davies, Worship of the English Puritans, for a sympathetic but revealing disclosure of this).  Surely, some of the reasons for this failure were due to the reaction against incorporating historic principles of worship (from the Temple) into the worship of the New Covenant.

Nowadays, most talk about the RPW among Reformed folks (or the "Church of Christ," which also has a stake in this) has hardened into a tradition -- a tradition which differs a good deal from church to church, in those churches which profess to abide by it.  Therefore, it has been, and is, an excuse for personal and corporate schism, and is so even today with some of my own friends.

This RPW tradition has historically served to drive out much art and beauty, often instruments and choirs, sometimes hymns, almost always cyclic feasts centered on the life of Christ, and much verbal congregational participation in the worship of God.  Until the liturgical revolution of the 20th century (which didn't happen in "evangelical" churches), the RPW tradition often served to make the protestant church into primarily a lecture hall.  Much of the breezy mod worship seen today, and perhaps much of pentecostalism, too, could be a reaction against this error, but they have not found the way to go.

What we need to discern in Scripture is the true RPW -- not just an aesthetic jump to ancient forms.  We need a thinking reformation of worship, which incorporates beauty and corporate response as a reflection of God and his Glory -- based on the whole Scripture.

-------------------------------------------------------------

It is said that the last Mass in Zurich was very well attended.

After that, the activity at church meetings seems not to have been described by ordinary citizens as "worship."  It was described as "listening to sermons."  They certainly needed the sermons for their basic instruction, because Scripture teaching had been absent from the church so long.  We need the sermons, too.  But we ought to get back to a holistic conception of worship!

It's been 50 years since this goy was last invited to worship in the (conservative) synagogue (kippa and all).  And, of course, the "modern" synagogue is certainly not the ancient synagogue, but it used a prayer book, appeared to be extremely ritualistic to that low-church protestant, a good deal of everything was sung, and almost all the words were, I think, in Hebrew.