Calendar
Setting
This is a continuation of a conversation in Facebook,
between Arnold
Robertstad[1] and Herb
Swanson[2], in
which Chris Coldwell[3], and
several others have now made significant contributions.
Mr. Coldwell has contributed measurably to the historical
development of this discussion: especially that development in England,
Ireland, and Scotland, as well as in Colonial America. I think it important to the understanding of
all, that the paper trail for this discussion not be lost. We begin with the following crucial article and
the definition of a few terms that may not be familiar ones to all.[4]
http://www.naphtali.com/articles/chris-coldwell/the-religious-observance-of-christmas-and-holy-days-in-american-presbyterianism/
The Scots Second Reformation (1637)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanter#Upheaval_and_the_Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms[6]
The Second Reformation (1820-1860)[7]
Whitsun and Whitsuntide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitsun
Villeins or Villain (or Civilians?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom#Villeins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England
Old Side–New Side Controversy (1741-1758)[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Side%E2%80%93New_Side_Controversy
Commentary on
the Article
This article shows the historical development of the “regulative principle
of worship” beginning with the divided churches of England, Ireland, and
Scotland. At the outset a great deal of
concern is expressed for finding common ground, for avoiding topics that only
relate to one body and not others, and refraining from further disturbances of
the flocks involved.[10] This was especially true of the “Directory
for the Public Worship of God” with its Appendix (1645), which had widespread
acceptance, and authority in England, yet was by no means without opposition.[11] The WCF (1647) would restate similar issues,
but find slightly less widespread acceptance.
At these early dates Bible studies are a relatively new thing and command
of Greek idiom among any of the reformation parties is less than complete. It will take many centuries to scratch this
surface. Doubtless, the behavior of the
populace was wildly pagan in most regions, and clerics everywhere groped for
means to mend bad behavior with correct teaching.
As pure as this motivation would be, many obvious mistakes were made. The place of the Septuagint would be usurped
by the Masoretic Text. Words like holy,
took on a superstitious life of their own.
Ignorance of Byzantine history lead to various wildly fantastic theories
of liturgical development. The newfound
resources of learning, made possible by the printing press (1450, centuries
behind the Orient), would provide fertile fields for the wildest speculation
among novitiate students. In spite of problems,
the WCF would become a notable Christian, albeit a less than perfect document. By the time of the colonization of America
the WCF will become the authoritative standard among Presbyterians, but not
among others. At present the only group
still thoroughly loyal to the “regulative principle” is probably the group
still know by the name, Covenanters.
The environment of the seventeenth century was marked by turmoil, not by
humility. Recovery would be a slow and
painful process. The Second Reformation
was extremely divisive, and left many parties in bitterness. The Bank of England would soon become
entrenched; and usurious practices would take a grip on England’s worship. As with anything else the motivation of
mammon has always been a powerful force within and without of the church. As always, money, power, and politics were at
the center of all activities.
Perhaps the most ironic result of this development is the steadfast defense
of the idea that no argument from scripture will be prohibited. In spite of this, as soon as arguments from
scripture are adduced in support of the church calendar, they are immediately
silenced as irrelevant, by reference to WCF.
Thus the very opposition to the much hated old tradition within Catholic
and Orthodox churches, was replaced by the dogmatic new tradition of the
WCF. A similar historic development has
taken place with Lutherans and Concordia.
This impasse effectively prevents the establishment of any conciliatory
movement, wherein the scriptures may be examined afresh, and new evidence
brought to light, in which, hope might arise that all would come to agreement.
Moreover, the stench of modernism and liberalism has so tainted any new evidence
that even what is true is viewed with distrust and suspicion. Resolution cannot come without a better
understanding of the history involved, as well as a better understanding of
scripture. Nevertheless, this is
unlikely to develop since anyone daring to think outside of the box will most
likely “lose their livings.” Thus an
oppressive force remains in play that suppresses thinking, and reinforces that
infernal quagmire of refighting sixteenth century arguments until the end of
time.
On yet another level of complexity, puritanism is tainted by avarice,
cruelty, and other vices, so that WCF is not cultivated in a healthy spiritual
environment, rather in an environment of greed, turmoil, and war. One need only read the telling analyses of Nathaniel
Hawthorne to realize that puritan vices often outnumbered their virtues. Puritanism was all about power, politics, and
wealth. Any idea of the pristine purity
of the WCF is purely illusory: it is at least in part a document intended to
take control of government. It is the
new Magisterium, or at least its wannabe.
The “regulative principle” may very well be an acceptable option among
those who prefer it. That being
conceded, it can never be the undeniable principle of scripture or dogma which
WCF seems to claim it to be. For the
“regulative principle” to be the undeniable principle of scripture or dogmatic
truth that WCF seems to claim for it, one would have to believe that
Christianity begins and ends with the Covenanters. How does this have any particular advantage
over Landmarkism or Mormonism? These latter
things are not Christianity.
Christianity must find a way to come to hearty agreement. Insofar as WCF seems to promote highly
contested dogmas, it seems to deviate from biblical Christianity.
It appears that Calvinists, by and large, have assigned an
almost magical quality to the word, holy, and its relatives. Perhaps this meaning was partially
invited. In any case, Christians do not
believe in magic. Magic either describes
a deception[13] or
a demonic lying miracle.
1.
Holy describes something
inspiring a sense of awe, as when one beholds the Grand Canyon, El Capitan, or
Niagara Falls for the first time and exclaims, “That is beautiful, awesome, magnificent,
or wonderful!” The Greeks might have
said, “That is holy!” We would simply
say, “Wow!”
2.
Holy distinguishes
something as a person’s property, a relative, or that which is dedicated to
special service or use. Both God and man
are said to be agents in such setting apart.
The process of setting apart does not change the nature of the object,
but merely determines use, which may or may not depend on the object’s
attributes.
3.
Holy relates to the
atonement process as a product, in which case it can only be applied to
mankind, never to angels, animals, or inanimate objects. In this case God is invariably the one who
makes Holy. Similarly, Holy relates to
creation, except on a broader scale for the recipients. The holiness related to creation sets mankind
apart as distinct from the rest of creation; and all of creation as distinct
from the Creator: very many passages of scripture depend on this
distinction. The holiness related to
atonement sets mankind apart for eternal life and service within the body of
Christ.
4.
Holy may involve being set
apart for purity, yet purity is a distinct idea, with a far different meaning. God is not pure because He is holy. God is holy (different, set apart from all
others) because He is pure. Christians,
on the other hand, are holy because God has set them apart from the rest of
mankind; He is in the process of making them pure: yet, these two ideas are
distinct and unrelated. Spaces and times
are set apart, not to make them pure, or somehow more worthy than other times:
they are set apart because of the necessities of material beings. Material beings cannot meet without a time
and place; nor can they prepare without a prearranged agenda. Holy spaces, as opposed to holy places are
set apart to teach specific spiritual principles: the curtains and the furniture
do not make the Oracle most holy; rather, they are set apart to teach about God’s
kingdom, and in the old days, to be the residence of God’s Presence, the Shəkinah.
5.
God and His name are said
to be holy, not because holiness defines God in any way. Rather, we must say that God, the Undefinable
One, Himself defines all other things (creation) and concepts, including
holiness. Ultimately, God does
distinguish all things, one from another.
Yet, man is created in the image and likeness of God, so that in his
first lesson, Adam is seen distinguish the animals, one from another. Thus the ability to declare or make holy, is
in part delegated by God to mankind. I
certainly have the authority to make a room in my house holy by calling it a
bedroom, and using it as such.
Christmas
Unlike the development of theology in the new world, the
addition of Christmas in the early church was inserted at a time appropriate to
reenacting the pageantry of the life of Christ.
It is necessary in the accurate telling of the gospel story that the major
events proceed in their historical order: for example, eternality and
monogenesis from the Father, participation in creation, oneness in essence with
the Father and the Spirit, descent from heaven, incarnation, birth, baptism,
life, ministry, transfiguration, trial, crucifixion, suffering, death, burial, resurrection,
ascension, seating, and the promise of His coming. For congregations, the greater part being
illiterate, it was necessary that these events be emphasized, by reenactment,
pictures, and reading aloud. The
inclusion of Christmas in the new world, except in the case of Catholics,
Episcopals, Lutherans, and Orthodox, was a completely different process:
Christmas was introduced into worship as a concession to the pagan desires of
the people, a kind of economia, a concession to weakness.
In none of this is there any excuse or reason to embrace
debauchery, gluttony, or any part of the Coca-Cola/Santa Clause mythology.
Changes in
Law
Of course there is a change in law wherever there is a
change in covenant. Of course the old
law is done away: yet, is it not better to see this doing away as the
fulfilling of the old? Did not Jesus the
Christ of God do away with the old law precisely by fulfilling it
perfectly? Yet if the old law was done
away, what was its original purpose? Was
not that original purpose to erect a sign, a symbol, a prototype, a typology to
point us to Christ? Nevertheless, if it
is such a type, such a schoolmaster, the school and all its instruments may be
removed, but none of its lessons may go unheeded in spiritual discipleship. The physical prototype must speak to a
spiritual fulfillment, which is Jesus, the coming of the Holy Ghost, life in
The Church (Hebrews 12), the second coming, and the eternal city of God. Where is the spiritual reality which finds
its prototypes in the three mandated feasts of the Israelites? Are the resurrection from Passover,
Pentecost, and Tabernacles unimportant to Christians? The issue at stake here is not whether we
mark them on a calendar or not. The
issue is if we are free to ignore them or not.
I completely agree that there is no new law[14] here, not a law which
must be obeyed by rote and works: that would be the work and method of the
schoolmaster. This being said, the
disciple eventually learns to love the lesson giver, as well as the lessons,
doing the spiritual requirements of the law through faith and love. This is accomplished in us by the grace of
God that grafts us into the Body of Christ, so that we become living active
members of that Body. Insofar as we are
in Christ, we can no more disobey the Ten Commandments than Christ can disobey
the Ten Commandments: but this is the outcome of the Body's function, not our
rote obedience. On the other hand, it is
impossible that the Body, refuse the promptings of the Head, so faith does what
it knows it must do, else it is not faith at all. The Ten Commandments are still the Ten
Commandments, and not the ten suggestions.
Unfortunately, our flesh has not yet died in this manner and still wars
against the spirit: all that the flesh can ever know, in and of itself, is rote
obedience and works. Still, I ought to
strive to do what I know to be right.
Granted, the tithe is pre-levitical. Is not the principle still true, "there
is a change in law wherever there is a change in covenant"? Does not the Mosaic covenant fulfill and see
the end of stipulations made in Jacob?
Does not Deuteronomy do away with and reenact the covenant at Sinai
because the old generation sinned and died so that the covenant had to be
renewed for the new generation, so that some of the stipulations were modified
because of the change of time and place; and because the new generation had
also raised from the dead, so to speak?
Does not the sin of the Israelites do away with the Deuteronomy
covenant, so that when David comes, new stipulations are required? And now we understand that from the beginning
God intended that Christ should be a king, but this lesson was too profound for
kindergarteners in Egypt to grasp, is was enough that they start to learn the
Passover lesson. How can we not say that
the tithe is also done away?
Liturgy
Liturgy is nothing more or less than the work of the people
in worship. Obviously, the people need
to worship. People may best worship in
congregation; yet, congregation requires time, place, and agenda. An agenda helps the people to read or study
the predetermined text(s), thus being prepared for worship. We fail to see what detriment is caused to
the congregation if the prearranged text(s) are published in the news, last
Sunday’s bulletin, or in a calendar. BTW
we hope that Calvinist churches are consistent in not publishing
calendars. All that international
calendars add to this situation is the ability for all people, everywhere to
gather as a single congregation, with singularity of worship as the earth proceeds
in its daily rotation. We might hope
that pagans would see this worship and be called to embrace it. We might hope that the body of Christ, going
out in the world as the body of Christ, might bring a singular unified
conversation to the watching world. Surely,
everybody discussing everything at once would be a disorderly cacophony confusing
the watching world, rather than edifying it.
Without a calendar it simply becomes impossible to preach the Gospel via
pageantry in any meaningful way. Without
a calendar it is simply impossible to participate in a liturgy of pageantry:
how can one possibly know which Psalms to pray, which hymns to sing? What difference does it make if that calendar
was established centuries ago, or if it was printed on a computer printer last
night?
[1] https://www.facebook.com/arnold.robertstad?fref=ufi
[2] https://www.facebook.com/herb.swanson.50
[3] https://www.facebook.com/ChrisMcColdwell?fref=ufi
[4]
These definitions are far from being chosen in a random manner. Pentecost and Passover are what this
conversation is all about. The critical
question that must be answered is: Do the three mandatory feasts of the
Israelites; namely, Passover, Weeks (Pentecost or Whitsun), and Tabernacles;
have anything to do with Christian worship?
More particularly: Is there a correspondence between the Spiritual
obedience of The Church, by faith, and the physical obedience of the
Israelites, which was and is fulfilled in Christ? If such a correspondence of material
prototype or typology and spiritual reality exists: What is its nature and
shape?
This is not merely a discussion about calendar: for calendars
are arbitrary, so that any group of ministers might properly decide to gather
for mutual edification and Bible study; and, as a result of such study agree to
preach on the same text, on the same day; thus bringing the entire community
into the fullness of the discussion. In
this case, the calendar of the churches would be nothing more than the same
harmless thing on a grander scale. It is
important to see that far more is at stake than this.
The articles concerning the Second Reformation and Villeins
are chosen to show that the discussion is set in a context of seething
political and economic forces. The old
saw cuts true, “Follow the money trail.”
It would be nice, but incredibly naïve, to believe that neither clergy,
nor churches, nor Christians are ever motivated by money. In reality, we are all motivated by money,
which has to a large extent brought to fulfillment Christ’s warning and
prophecy concerning the fruit of the good seed being choked out (Matthew 13).
[5] NB
the contents of this note are objections to points raised by the Coldwell
article. We regret that there is no
simple way to connect them to specific paragraphs.
The two passages cited for fasting, Mark 2:18-20 and Matthew
6:16-18, do seem to describe a perpetual fast in Jesus’ absence; or at the very
least, felt absences with the ebb and flow of the Holy Ghost, resulting in
yearning and fasting. This related
discussion ignores the administrative problem concerning appropriate means of
teaching fasting to congregations largely ignorant of its necessity. As a consequence, fasting is not practiced in
many places today, its observance is considered optional. Were this to happen to prayer, whole churches
would cease to exist. Have we thrown out
the baby with the bathwater?
So as long as we don’t give thanks “with binding authority” we
are free to celebrate Pascha (Easter), Pentecost, and Tabernacles on mutually
agreed dates, as long as these dates are not mandatory??? Thus the determination of Thanksgiving as the fourth Thursday of November is both
sinful and superstitious, because it does not coincide spontaneously with any
actual naturally occurring bounty or harvest.
The remembrance of Halloween as the anniversary of the Reformation is
also silly, sinful, and superstitious; as are birthdays, wedding anniversaries,
and many other such occasions. Indeed,
considering the state of Christianity in America, England, and most of the rest
of the world today, it would be appropriate to replace Thanksgiving with
Fast-giving: except that it is so very difficult to fast, pray, and weep, when
everyone else around us is indulging in a gluttonous orgy. Pan would be proud. Let us eat, drink, and be merry…. Or are all of the above to be approved as
long as the agreed upon days are not legislated nationally by any
denomination???
Since there are no
specifically “Holy Days”, how is it that a Lordian Day (Κυριακή, Revelation 1:10, a Sunday), a “Christian Sabbath”
could come about to be mandatory since the gatherings of early Christians were
voluntarily held on the day that follows the Israelite-Jewish Sabbath? How could this evolve? How did that which was originally voluntary, come
to be made compulsory, and why should the whole day be kept “Holy” in Bible
study and prayer? Incidentally, that which
is mandatory is the gathering, rather than the day (Hebrews 10:25). Christians are a united body, and the meeting
of that body is a nourishing and life supporting event, whenever and wherever
it occurs.
Since no place can be made “Holy” how is it that church
buildings be set aside for worship; especially, since the world “Holy” means
nothing more or less than to be set aside for a particular use? If particular buildings can be set aside, how
is it sinful, and superstitious to
set aside days, upon which there is similar agreement?
Without doubt, the
celebration of Christmas has, for the most part, been that of carnival, rather
than that of contemplation of Christ.
That being said, the teaching and emphasis of the Incarnation of Christ
remains a central emphasis of Christian doctrine. That Christmas has become paganized,
conforming to the debaucheries of winter solstice, is not an evidence that its
origins were such, or that anything related to the calendar is designed or intended
to promote such debauchery. The use of
such a line of support for the “regulative principle” defies all
rationality. It is nothing more than a
deceptive emotional prop: unfortunately, this prop can too easily find support
in actual practice everywhere.
It is difficult to
see how Galatians 4:9-11 and Colossians 2:16-23 can be adduced in
opposition to any calendar, without also defeating the idea of a “Christian
Sabbath” at the same time. In any case,
Paul’s context is not sufficiently clear, so that his prohibition could be
against the sort of moon and angel worship commonly associated with Astarte,
Baal, Dagon, Moloch, and other demonically base worship; especially since the
Greco-Romans had these demon idols by the hundreds. Where is the justification for a “Christian
Sabbath” in the Bible? The Church has
always taught that no such justification exists; that Jesus ends the seven days
of creation; introducing the eighth day of the new creation, the day that never
ends, the day that does not know night, the day that henceforth makes all
mortal earthly days alike. This theology
makes all matters concerning the use of calendars, or abstinence from calendars
a convenience for gathering based on faith and love. It seems to me that the “regulative
principle” introduces a rule that there must be no rule: thus being inherently
self-contradictory. Such a rule can
never replace the principle that all days, all hours, every second is a time of
worship, but the frailties of the flesh need both places, and times set aside,
sanctified, or made holy.
[6]
This whole article is essential to the understanding of the period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenanter
[7]
The Coldwell article obviously relates to the Scots Second Reformation and not
to the later one.
[8] Britain
used to be a Christian Country. Somewhere around 1694 England began to
transition into a Money Country. Given the choice between Christ and Mammon,
the English increasingly began to choose Mammon as their supreme deity. With
the standardization of paper, fiat money (ca. 1797) the transition was nearly
complete. While many in England faithfully hold out against this new cruel
oligarchy, they do so at their own peril. Today Mammon has all of the earthly
power; while sincere and faithful Christians are naught but slaves in Mammon's murderous
coils, the coils of a seemingly all-powerful constrictor. It may well be that
rescue will only come with the Second Coming of Christ.
[9] Of
particular interest is the discussion concerning, “preaching the ‘terrors of the law’.” While this may be more of a difference of
emphasis than of doctrine, it carries particular weight. The idea that conversion is necessarily
predicated on fear is at best dubious.
This seems to be the compelling reason for Luther treating the Decalogue
first in his small catechism. Doubtless,
children need to learn to take their lessons seriously, they cannot always be
at play or recess. Certainly, the
Philippian Jailer was driven by fear, but not by the fear of the Law of God, or
fear induced preaching. Motivation by
fear seems more man centered than God centered, in that the Sacramental coming
of the Holy Ghost is the gift of the Father to His child, with no more
motivation than the hunger of the child (Luke 11:9-13).
[10] Most
members of congregations
were held in a state of bondage known as villainy, a state near to slavery.
Provoking them only invited riot.
Such people were not especially well educated, reading was a relatively
new skill, so a considerable gulf existed between clergy and laity. Widespread superstition prevailed; and even
the practice of Druidism was still in play.
Public schools did not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_England#History_of_English_education
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_for_Public_Worship
[12]
TDNT, Volume I, pages 88-115
[13] For
example, as in slight-of-hand tricks, where distracting motions divert the eyes
from the real activity, so that the deceptive action is carried out in plain
sight. This is innocent enough in
entertainment, but it is merely deceptive, not really magical, it only seems
magical. Used in games such Pea in
Shell, or Three-card Monte it is fraudulent.
Christians are opposed to fraudulent deceptions in almost every form,
especially political ones used to dupe a gullible public.
[14]
The new law of both John and Jesus seems to be identical with the old law: Love
God and love your neighbor.
[15] If
you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost,
share, or use any of them as you wish.
No rights are reserved. They are
designed and intended for your free participation. They were freely received, and are freely
given. No other permission is required
for their use.
