You Might Have a Liturgical Calendar
If you have Easter and Christmas on your calendar, you have a liturgical calendar. You might not call it one, but it still is. Should you though? Is it permissible or maybe even of value for a church to keep a liturgical calendar every year?
Let’s say that you mark Easter and Christmas at their traditional and maybe historical times. That means every year you acknowledge that Jesus rose from the dead and was born of a virgin in Bethlehem about nine months apart. You do more than that. You make those a major emphasis in every aspect of the service on those days. That is liturgy.
The Liturgical Calendar, Per Se, Not in Bible, But…
Regulative Principle
Scripture doesn’t teach a New Testament, Christian, or church calendar of any kind. Based on that, I understand a rejection of these special days under a regulative principle of worship. The Bible does not regulate a Christian calendar. Is that end of discussion? I don’t think so.
I would still argue for a liturgical calendar, even if you don’t want to call it a liturgical calendar. The Bible does not require it either by precept, principle, or example. It also does not require using hymn books, offering plates, even the construction of church buildings for worship.
You can plan worship days on a calendar around the events of Jesus’ life, but the Bible doesn’t tell you to do that. Prayers, preaching, and singing in a true church should on a continual basis emphasize especially certain events in Jesus’ life. Biblical events really occurred. Churches should treat them like they did. It is right to do that.
Circumstances of Worship
Our church celebrated Christmas this year on December 24th. We went out and caroled on December 21st at the houses of seven different people or families. I did a three part Christmas series with sermons on December 10, 17, and 24. I would call that liturgy.
Even though a liturgical calendar, I contend, is not an element of worship, it does fall under a sub-category of a circumstance for worship. Every theme of a liturgical calendar fits within the elements of worship. As an example, for Christmas a church can bring Jesus’ birth into prayer, preaching, and singing. That is still regulating the service based on scripture.
I would further contend that the order of a calendar gives more necessary order to the worship of God. Order is in the nature of God. Worship in truth should reflect the truth about God. Liturgy itself is an order of service. Service should be orderly.
The Use of the Term “Liturgy”
Most Baptists do not use and have not used the term, “liturgy.” Professing Christians define liturgy as the standard order of events in a gathering of worship. When people attend church, they do things. They might start with prayer, sing a psalm, then sing a hymn, take up an offering, read scripture, pray again, preach a sermon, and then end in prayer. This order of events, planning out what the church will do in worship, is liturgy.
“Liturgy” is the transliteration of a Greek word in the New Testament, leitourgia. BDAG, the foremost New Testament lexicon says the word primarily means: “service of a public or formal type.” In certain instances, the word “minister” is the translation of leitourgos, another form of the word. This is “one engaged in administrative service.”
Here are three usages of leitourgia as “service of a public or formal type,” translated “ministration,” “service,” or “ministry”:
Luke 1:23, “And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
Philippians 2:17, “Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.”
Hebrews 8:6, “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
All three of the usages relate to worship of God. They are service of a public or formal type.
Roman Catholic Liturgy?
Some oppose liturgy, because Roman Catholics use the word. Some would say liturgy originated out of Roman Catholicism. In the most fundamental way, liturgy is order of service. If you plan an order of service with prayer, singing, reading, and preaching, you prepared liturgy. If you plan that out further in a general way for your year, that’s a liturgical calendar.
Historical evidence exists for pre Roman Catholic liturgy. Of course, this isn’t the English word “liturgy” from the first three centuries, because English didn’t exist. However, liturgy in its most fundamental understanding existed in the first few centuries. Scripture also reveals the liturgical aspects of a worship service.
Liturgy of American Consumerism?
After preparing with many thoughts on this subject of liturgy, I read these paragraphs by Scott Aniol:
I always find it ironic when I hear Christians in America state with conviction—and a little bit of piety—that they won’t be tied down by “Catholic” traditions like the Church Calendar, and yet through their actual practices they prove to be constrained by a liturgical calendar of another sort—The Liturgical Calendar of American Consumerism.
They insist that they won’t celebrate Epiphany, the Baptism of Christ, Palm Sunday, Holy Week, Eastertide, Pentecost, Ascension Day, Trinity Sunday, Advent, or the traditional Twelve Days of Christmas.
And yet instead, their churches celebrate New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day, Easter Bunny Day, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Father’s Day, Independence Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and a Christmas season stretching from Thanksgiving to Christmas Day—days with customs rooted not in biblical events or Christian tradition, but in the tradition of American commercialism.
His article and a few to which he linked argues for liturgy in churches. A church could opt to plan out the traditions of American commercialism and plan into the calendar the events of Jesus’ life.
(More to Come)
The Regulative Principle appears sound in principle. In practice, it is difficult, because the distinction between “element” and “circumstance” is awkward.
In principle, that distinction makes sense. God does not, I believe, give instructions for where we meet, and John 4:20-23 would support that. He does not tell us to use air conditioning, but in certain places, if AC is available, Christian charity to those of our brothers and sisters who have health difficulties might dictate we use it. I don’t think anyone would say AC is an element of worship.
But how does one exactly define the difference? And if true practice of the RP requires a definition of the difference between what we have called “elements” and “circumstances” (and I think it must require that definition), doesn’t the RP itself, as well as the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, require that the distinction be clearly outlined in Scripture? If the RP is authoritative, doesn’t the RP itself demand some authoritative guidance as to how it should be practiced, how we tell the difference between “elements” and “circumstances”? Yet, if the Scripture provides that, I seem to have missed it.
We can’t hold tightly to the Regulative Principle AND hold to a liturgical calendar without a clear Biblical basis for assuming that a liturgical calendar is “circumstance.” I agree with this article, that it is circumstance, and in this case I also believe there are some Scriptural principles / examples that point in that direction. But this and other issues are going to continue to be controversial unless/until someone gives a clearly Biblically-based definition for the distinction.
For myself, this “element” / “circumstance” distinction, and the absence of a clear definition of it in Scripture, means I still hold to the RP, but I do so lightly rather than tightly. I believe the Baptist teachings of Individual Soul Liberty and the Autonomy of the Local Church means individual accountability and local church accountability on some of these questions is pleasing to God. He didn’t nail everything down for us, and the use (misuse?) of the RP to claim He did is not, I think, fully consistent with Biblical / Baptist doctrine.
And I also believe, as with my AC illustration above, that in many churches, that which is “circumstance” must be driven by Biblical principles as well. Sometimes, our freedom in “circumstance” must be restricted by Christian charity or other sound Biblical principles. Thus, our “liturgical calendar” in our church in Scotland changed over time based on the membership of the congregation and their views of different “holidays.” We should not decide that something is “circumstance” and thus it doesn’t matter much what we do. Often, it does matter very much.
I preached on the example of Joseph the husband of Mary on the 17th. This week, Lord willing, I plan to preach on Philippians 3, a good passage as people think about moving into a new year. Is it “liturgical calendar” to preach that kind of sermon just before the calendar flips, or is it merely “addressing the elephant in the room” and helping people to think Biblically about events in their lives and in the world around them?
As usual, I’m rather long-winded. 🙂 My blog comments have nothing on my sermons, though!
Hi Bro Gleason,
There’s nothing you said that I disagreed with. I might have a stronger acceptance of the regulative principle of worship, but then I would add, “as I understand it.” Maybe as it is understood historically. The circumstance aspect of it is helpful, as you said. Philippians 3 is a good chapter to preach for goals, I believe. Thanks for the comment.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
I appreciate that you at least–unlike so many Baptists today–are aware of the Regulative Principle and care about being Biblical in your worship. That is very good.
A circumstance is typically defined as something that comes along with engaging in an element of worship. For example, singing psalms and hymns is an element, but whether the songs are in a book or on an Ipad is a circumstance. The songs must be somewhere–where they are is the circumstance. Similarly, whether a congregation meets in a church building or in a home or in an open field is a circumstance, but they must meet somewhere.
You properly recognize that “Scripture doesn’t teach a New Testament, Christian, or church calendar of any kind.” To say that instituting one is a circumstance is to say that it is necessary in order to engage in the Biblical elements of worship. How is it necessary to have a liturgy in order to practice the elements God has actually commanded?
I would note as well that your argument would not just justify Xmas and Easter, but also Epiphany, the Baptism of Christ, Palm Sunday, Holy Week, Eastertide, Pentecost, Ascension Day, Trinity Sunday, Advent, or the traditional Twelve Days of Xmas, as you mention in your post. Indeed, it would also justify New Year’s Eve, Valentine’s Day, Easter Bunny Day, Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Father’s Day, Independence Day, and all the rest. After all, God tells us to honor mothers, and to love one another, and to pray for our country, so why not bring in Memorial Day, Mother’s Day, Valentine’s Day, and all the rest alongside of Pentecost, Advent, and the rest of the Roman liturgy?
Dear Bro Gleason,
There is nothing special about the words “element” and “circumstance,” but would you not agree that there is something unavoidable between things that God actually commands in worship–to add to which are “strange fire” (Leviticus 10:1ff)–and things that are not worship but are necessary to practice the elements? Why is that an unclear distinction? The distinction between drinking the fruit of the vine in the Supper (element) and whether the fruit of the vine is in a ceramic or plastic cup (circumstance) does not seem to me to be hard to distinguish at all.
I’m just confused as to why you keep saying “Xmas”?
Dear Tim,
I personally do not like combining the lovely name of my Lord Jesus Christ and the abomination of the Mass into one word. I like to keep reverence—Christ—and disgust—the Mass—separate. I do not believe I need to convince everyone else to do the same thing in this specific matter.
Brother Ross,
A regular time to meet for worship each week is “circumstance.” I think all would agree.
A regular time to focus on giving thanks in worship each year is “element,” though, and so also is a regular time to focus on the Incarnation in worship each year, and a regular time to focus on the Resurrection in worship each year, etc. This is, I believe, your view. I disagree. Where does the Bible help us decide? Where does it tell us that time of day is circumstance but time of year is element? I know you will probably cite I Kings 12 but that doesn’t get you there. That was a replacement attempt (to replace true worship with false worship) as verse 28 makes clear.
Surely it is necessary to teach on, and rejoice in, the Incarnation. We remember it every time we take the Lord’s Supper, after all. Without it, there is no salvation. Teaching on it and rejoicing in it is element — it is not optional. Scheduling when we will do so is circumstance. Except it isn’t according to many. And the Bible doesn’t nail this down clearly for us anywhere.
No one would dispute that the nature of the cup used at the Supper is circumstance. Some would, however, dispute that the fruit of the vine should be red grape juice rather than white grape juice because it symbolizes the blood of Christ. Is the color of that fruit of the vine “element” or “circumstance”? Not everyone agrees on that question and the Scripture doesn’t answer it so clearly and unmistakably that no one should get it wrong. You may have a view and I may have a view, but does Scripture tell us clearly that white grape juice is or is not unacceptable?
(This is not an empty question, though it may seem one to many Americans who don’t realize how spoiled they are in this country. For a time, the stores in our town in Scotland were only carrying white grape juice.)
Dear Bro Gleason,
Thank you for your reply.
The 2nd London Baptist Confession, article 22, states:
[T]he acceptable way of Worshipping the the true God, is2 instituted by himself; and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations, and [page] devices of Men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or3 any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. …
2 Deut. 12:32.
3 Exo. 20:4, 5, 6.
The17 reading of the Scriptures, Preaching, and18 hearing the word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual songs, singing with grace in our Hearts to19 the Lord; as also the Administration20 of Baptism, and21 the Lords Supper are all parts of Religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear
17 1 Tim. 4:13.
18 2 Tim. 4:2; Luk. 8:18.
19 Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19.
20 Mat. 28:19, 20.
21 1 Cor. 11:26.
W. J. McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia; Boston; Chicago; St. Louis; Toronto: American Baptist Publication Society, 1911), 259-260.
I have never heard of the view that setting aside a specific time once a year to give thanks in worship is an “element” of worship ordained by God in the NT. What sources have you seen making this argument among advocates of the Regulative Principle?
I have also not heard of the view that meeting on the Lord’s Day each week is a “circumstance.” I would view it as a command to come to public religious worship, rather than being itself an act of public religious worship. It seems to me like it is clearly neither an element of worship nor a circumstance of worship, but a simple command like the command to honor one’s parents or to not murder. What advocates of the Regulative Principle have argued that meeting weekly is a “circumstance,” while having a special service once a year to give thanks is an “element”?
I cannot think of any verse in Scripture that says that on a particular service once a year we need to preach on the Incarnation or on the Resurrection. Rather, we remember the resurrection each Lord’s Day (and the resurrection is impossible without the incarnation). The incarnation is involved when we do what Christ said to do in remembrance of Him in the Lord’s Supper and when we immerse people as a picture of the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son of God. If we obey the Biblical commands to preach “the Word,” namely, “all Scripture,” 2 Tim 3:16, 4:2, we will certainly preach on passages that teach the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, but what passage of Scripture are you referring to when you say it is an element of worship to preach on the Incarnation and on the Resurrection one special holy day a year? In the OT there were specific yearly festival days where Israel needed to celebrate the Passover, Tabernacles, etc. In the NT the Apostles tell us that all those holy days are abolished, and they never breathe a hint that new holy days have replaced them, but teach instead that all holy days are abolished. When Christ said “this do in remembrance of me,” He told us to break bread and drink the fruit of the vine. Where did He say to establish yearly festival days in remembrance of Him?
Using white grape juice does not violate the specific ordained command to use “fruit of the vine.” However, it may not be a fitting picture of Christ’s blood, as blood is not white. I believe one could make a case that it is not fitting, or at least it is not offering God excellence, our very best. I would rather pay a shipping fee to have grape juice that actually is close to the color of blood shipped in internationally for a much smaller fee than what is used, for example, to keep the lights on or the temperature right. I think this is a good question, but I do not see how it makes the definitions of element or circumstance fuzzy, nor establishes that Christ commands churches, in addition to having preaching, singing, baptism, and the Supper, to establish yearly festival days that match the highlights of the liturgical calendar established by the Whore of Babylon, or any other liturgical calendar. But perhaps if I see what your sources are among classical Baptist or Protestant advocates of the RP who make your claims about having festival days once a year as an “element” of worship I can evaluate your argument better. I have never heard of such a position before, to my recollection.
Brother Ross, almost every advocate of the RP that I have ever read has argued that having a regular time of our Sunday meetings is “circumstance.”
Since Scripture never tells us to have a mid-week prayer meeting, the universal assumption among RP advocates I have read who discuss it is that the day of the week of that meeting, and the time, is “circumstance.”
I may have misremembered something you have said / written previously regarding Thanksgiving. So you would not argue against a thanksgiving service every year on the fourth Thursday in November (or earlier or later that same week)? You are content that this would be consistent with the RP?
Dear Bro Gleason,
Thanks for your reply. I can only say something very brief now. But I thought you were saying that meeting on the Lord’s Day at all was just a circumstance. The time of the meeting is indeed not an element of worship; 9 am or 9:30 am, or like the early Christians who were often slaves and could only meet before dawn, the time on the Lord’s Day is indeed not an element of worship. So please forgive me if so misunderstood what you were saying. Thank you.
Brother Ross, thank you for your response. I am more interested in your view on an annual Thanksgiving service the fourth week of November.
That said, I may not be able to respond further here anytime in the near future. I simply can’t give much focus to Internet discussions even on important topics.
Hi Thomas,
I might be dealing with some of your concerns in the future in this series. Since this is the worship of God, I thought it would be helpful to write about this. Even though a liturgical calendar is not required in scripture, perhaps saying that it is not prescribed, maybe it is described through principle and not precept. If we’re having a calendar, it would be better, it seems, to schedule it on something scriptural rather than events outside of the Bible. I’ll explore this further in this series hopefully.
Dear Bro Gleason,
Thanks for your response. I think it is noteworthy that the Puritans, staunch Regulative Principle advocates who were ejected from Anglicanism eventually because of their unwillingness to celebrate liturgical festival days, and who universally opposed Xmas, were generally willing to recognize Thanksgiving, because it was viewed as a civil festival, not a religious one. It was right for the State to give thanks to God, and so its members assembled in the meeting house to do that, just as it was right for the State to call for times of special fasting and prayer when there was a temporal need. I would also note that it is not even on a Lord’s Day, but on a weekday–a Thursday.
Perhaps one can try to get out of it, but simply opening an encyclopedia on the origins of Xmas will almost surely say it has pagan connections, and it indisputably has connections to Roman Catholicism (nobody picks every May 21st to celebrate the incarnation–it is the day the fourth-century Roman State-church picked that is used, one with winter solstice associations); none of that is present with Thanksgiving, a civil holiday inaugurated by people who wanted to worship the true God without idolatry and believed in justification by faith alone instead of the idolatry and abominations of Catholicism. There are no symbols with pagan origins in Thanksgiving. So many of the arguments against Xmas do not work for Thanksgiving.
I believe the state does have the authority to call on people to voluntarily and without compulsion humble themselves before, pray to, and give thanks to God. It would be great if the state did that more often. Having a day where the United States calls on people to (voluntarily because of religious freedom) give thanks to God is good.
I would view that as different from the church establishing a religious festival and making one Lord’s Day a year holy, not because it is the Lord’s Day instituted by Christ, but for some other reason.
So, in my view, can the state establish civil holidays? Yes. They have legislative authority for the government of a nation. Can the church establish religious holidays? No. The sole legislative authority for the church is the Bible.
Thank you for wanting to honor the Lord who is jealous for His holy name and worship.
Hi,
I’ll come back later for this, but I find it a very weak argument for advocating celebrating Thanksgiving on a certain day of the year in the church because the government said it, but to celebrate the birth of Christ on a prescribed day, because the church wants to do that, that’s a no-no. It’s weak to me, but I don’t have time to write what was written to Brother Gleason by Brother Ross. I’ll come back later, even though I’ve got more parts to this series that will be coming.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
While I believe Thanksgiving as a civil holiday is justifiable like New Years Day or Independence Day as a civil holiday, if people conclude from it that the church has legislative, rather than merely executive authority from Christ, and they conclude from it that they can create their own religious holy days, it would be better to abolish it in the church. The brazen serpent was specifically ordained by God, blessed by God for the healing of many, and a picture of Christ. Yet when it was made an occasion of spiritual misuse it was good for godly king Josiah to destroy it. If that was true for a work specifically ordained by God through Moses, how much the more for anything merely ordained by the civil government?
Hi Thomas,
I’m going to answer both your recent comments here with one comment.
Were the Puritans staunch advocates of the Regulative Principle? They sprinkled infants. That’s not regulated by scripture. Their churches many times were state churches. That’s not regulated by scripture. Sometimes they over regulated, much like Peter not eating with the Gentiles in Antioch. That is not showing Christian liberty. They also many times were total Psalmody, which is not regulated by scripture. Puritans like Richard Baxter were ejected from the “Church” of England. Why were he and others in the Church of England in the first place? Isn’t that an apostate institution? Isn’t there much bigger fish related to God and pleasing Him than their thoughts about the Book of Common Prayer? The Roman state church you would call the whore of Babylon, but what is the Church of England relative to that? What about “come out from among them and be ye separate?” The Puritans then come to America, these Regulative Principle followers, and they set up their own state church in the colonies? They whip Baptists for immersing believers and not sprinkling infants. There is some historical value, which I will express in a future post, but the history doesn’t persuade on this issue like you want.
You, Thomas, say that the observance of a Day of Thanks, a special occasion, is permissible if the state says to do it. Where does scripture regulate that? Where does scripture say that as long as the state says, “Here’s a Day of Thanks,” the church can do that? This is still not a regulation of scripture. It sounds like you selectively support a version of state churchism, where in the hierarchy, the state is over the church. Maybe Christian nationalism of sorts?
If a church wants to set apart a day of thanks, that’s permissible, because thanks is scriptural. Look all over the New Testament. Having a Day of Thanks doesn’t violate the Regulative Principle. Notice how that Jesus accepted the Feast of Dedication in John 10. That’s not a feast anywhere in the Old Testament. Whatever view of the Regulative Principle in the New Testament, one must take into consideration what Jesus did there. He also met in synagogues, which I’m not going to address here now, as that relates to the regulative principle. We must take all the passages into consideration. This is why there is a lot of disagreement about this even among reformed or Protestant types and Baptists.
Christmas this year was not on a Sunday. So the fact that Thanksgiving is not on a Sunday doesn’t change anything. The point is whether a church should emphasize Thanks on a proximate Sunday to that day. Can a church emphasize the Lord’s nativity in December? You don’t just come out and say, “No.” You give the strong impression of “No,” and a confusing ambivalence. That’s easy to do, to give strong impressions, enough for people to think they’re supposed to feel guilty about something, but they’re not sure what it is. By prohibiting a church from emphasizing the birth in late December does someone restrict where there is liberty? Is this teaching for doctrines the commandments of men? Adding to scripture is also a violation. Revelation 22:18-19.
Brother Gleason asked a very narrow question about Thanksgiving, but you, Thomas, in answer to that question, write about Christmas, actually writing to me. You talk about “trying to get out of it.” What do you mean by that? Trying to get out of it? Got out of what? Nobody knows for sure the day Christ was born. People know that. We had a lady who came to our church in the Bay Area. She didn’t know her birthday. We celebrated it on December 31. We called that day her birthday. We all knew it wasn’t, but we could still honor her on that day. It’s not being dishonest. We don’t know.
There is a place in Bethlehem, you’ve probably been there. Was Christ born right there? It seems like it. I’m not actually sure that December 25th was picked because of Winter Solstice or whether pagans started their own day to compete with the one celebrating the birth of Christ. Romans 14:5 applies here, I believe. There is nothing pagan about acknowledging Jesus was born of a virgin, the true Messiah, in Bethlehem in fulfillment of prophecy, the seed of the woman. That is Christian. It is very possible that men can develop a more strict standard than scripture and by doing so, they signal their own virtue. People can do that. They can mute the color of their clothes so as to signal how separate from the world they are. They can look at a David, rejoicing over the return of the ark, and be upset about that, like Micah. God didn’t regulate a day to worship Him for the return of the ark. I don’t think we should integrate non-scriptural elements into worship.
I believe there is almost no one, a mere handful of people, who think the state today is calling for America to Thank God. Thanksgiving is under Civil jurisdiction?
I’ve not written one thing about establishing a “holy day,” on the level of the Lord’s Day. I’m open to anyone showing me that. However, I think that we can use the calendar to emphasize a particular scriptural event. We can treat events in Jesus life in a more holy way, because it is Him. We be purposeful, orderly, and acknowledge these events happened in the real world on a calendar in real time. It is true that Jesus was born, that He died, that He rose again, that He ascended into heaven, that He’s coming back, and that the Holy Spirit descended on believers on the Day of Pentecost. We treat that like it’s historical and true. Do we know that exact date? No. But we can set apart that event, that teaching in a unique way. I believe in what I’m writing. I also believe it fits within the regulative principle of worship more than this civil law thing you’re writing, Thomas.
Are you sure that you want to call Thanksgiving a holiday, Thomas? Is it really holy? Where does the Bible indicate that day is holy? I think this is actually you trying something. I don’t get how you treat the church like it has no authority. Christ has authority, but the church doesn’t? The church is an authority. God gives it authority. It’s the pillar and ground of the truth. We say the autonomy of the church, a Baptist distinctive. You say Christ has it, but the church has none? Christ gave the church authority. And churches have liberty from Christ, not to sin, but to apply scripture. A church can decide to use offering plates. A church can decide to have quarterly business meetings. A church can decide to emphasize the resurrection on a given day. None of this is unscriptural. All of it is scriptural, at least in the following of biblical principles.
You’ve been unpersuasive to me. You have a way of taking shots that might make someone feel guilty. I’m ready to feel guilty for something, but I’ve got to see if it isn’t just a scruple unsupported by the argument. That’s where I’m at with you on this. I think you are over scrupulous on this. You want your scruples to be mine, and I’m not convinced of them. There are verses on that too in scripture. Maybe you’re convinced. I’m not sure what you’re convinced of, really. But whatever it is, it’s not convincing to me.
Well, brethren, I don’t really have time to respond in depth but I do agree with much of this comment.
I do not see how it is ok, based on the RP, to have a regularly scheduled service of thanks in the fourth week of November but not a regularly scheduled remembrance of the incarnation anytime we choose, including December.
I CAN see the argument if one is persuaded that a remembrance of the incarnation of Christ in December is a pagan or Roman Catholic thing to do, which Brother Ross has argued. But that is NOT a Regulative Principle argument, and those arguments properly belong in a separate discussion.
And my experience repeatedly is that those who try to argue against December remembrances of the incarnation based on the RP either also exclude annual services for the giving of thanks in November or they end up falling back on the “it’s pagan” and/or “it’s Catholic” arguments. Those arguments are certainly worth considering but it’s off-topic to this post, has no place in this comment thread, and I’d just be reinventing a wheel I’ve been driving on for years to address it here anyway.
I also pay attention to the extra-biblical calendar used in our society, though I realize it has no Biblical authority, and thus I pray you all have a blessed year in serving the Lord going forward.
Dear Bro Brandenburg,
Thank you for taking the time to write your long comment. I appreciate the many hours you have thought about Biblical worship.
The Puritans were inconsistent in their application of the Regulative Principle in their allowance of infant baptism. That does not prove they were wrong in what they said about religious holy days.
The Church of England is a Protestant daughter of the Whore of Babylon from which everyone should come out and be separate.
I do not understand how the Puritan failure to be consistent with the Regulative Principle proves that they were wrong on festival days, but it certainly does show that sinners can fail to be consistent in how they practice what they believe. May God help me to be as consistent as possible for His glory.
The State does not have to follow the Regulative Principle of worship. Only in worship is everything forbidden that is not specifically commanded. Outside of worship we have greater liberty. The State has power to tell people to take New Years Day off, or Independence Day, or Thanksgiving Day. If they did not, it would not prove that these should be made into religious holy days, but that they should be removed from the calendar; I do not see how that would help the argument. Furthermore, we can see in Esther that the Jews had a special day of celebration after they were delivered from their enemies. That was fine, and it was appropriate. It does not say that they had the power to make any day they wished comparable to Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, the Sabbath, etc. There is a clear difference.
I do not see anywhere in John 10 where the Apostle says that Christ celebrated or authorized a feast not ordained in the Old Testament. At best it would be something like a street preacher mentioning the incarnation on December 25 on a public sidewalk outside a shopping mall.
A preacher can preach on the incarnation whenever he wants to the glory of God. I fail to see how this fact means that we can add festival days that are not ordained by God in the New Testament.
I used the “get out of it” phrase here (I had to search back in the comments to find it):
Perhaps one can try to get out of it, but simply opening an encyclopedia on the origins of Xmas will almost surely say it has pagan connections, and it indisputably has connections to Roman Catholicism (nobody picks every May 21st to celebrate the incarnation–it is the day the fourth-century Roman State-church picked that is used, one with winter solstice associations); none of that is present with Thanksgiving, a civil holiday inaugurated by people who wanted to worship the true God without idolatry and believed in justification by faith alone instead of the idolatry and abominations of Catholicism. There are no symbols with pagan origins in Thanksgiving. So many of the arguments against Xmas do not work for Thanksgiving.
What I meant by that phrase is that Bro Gleason has attempted to show on his blog that there are no pagan origins for Xmas, arguing that the encyclopedias are incorrect on this issue. I appreciate that he does not want to do something pagan, and thus finds it important to argue that the dominant historiography is incorrect.
It was right to rejoice over the ark coming back. When they brought it back the wrong way, and someone touched it–with the good motive of keeping it from falling on the ground–he got killed, as you know, and thousands of people died in a plague. Thus, we both know we need to be extremely careful here.
Yes, Thanksgiving is a civil holiday. Governor Bradford issued the proclamation for the first one and the government made it a holiday. If you work on that day in California, you need to get 1.5x pay, just like New Year’s Day. I am not clear what is confusing on this. Of course, nobody is arguing that the government is consistent in offering thanks to God on one day and on other days doing things that are evil.
We set apart the events of Christ’s life by preaching and teaching on them in the way Christ has specifically commanded in Scripture, not in some other way.
Thanksgiving is not more holy than any other day of the year. It is not a religious festival ordained by Christ for His church.
The church has executive, not legislative authority. If I ever said it has “no authority,” I meant that it has no legislative authority. All the legislation is in the Bible, and the Bible alone.
Let me also point out that, in my opinion, Romans 14:5 is the best argument one can make for the church having the authority to establish non-authorized festival days. I relied on that for a long time. However, it looks to me like, in context, the point is that individual Jews had the authority in their own homes to celebrate the festivals specifically ordained by God (Passover, Tabernacles, etc.) if they wanted to. The church as a whole did not have the authority to introduce these into the public worship, and individual Jews celebrating Passover in their homes does not seem to provide any warrant at all for people creating their own festival days that were never commanded in any dispensation. So I abandoned my Romans 14:5 argument. If it actually is valid, I would be happy to hear about it, as it would be easier to just go with 21st century culture in Christendom instead of the position held by nearly 100% of Baptists for centuries against festival days.
Let me add, in conclusion, that I appreciate, Bro Brandenburg, that you acknowledge and attempt to argue for liturgy from the Bible. You are correct that following the liturgical calendar of Catholicism to make Easter and Xmas into holy days is a form of liturgy, and it would be better to argue for liturgy and say that liturgy is different from Roman Catholic liturgy and attempt to defend liturgy than to just follow popular culture and do it because everyone is doing it. We know that everyone doing it cuts both ways, as while most Baptists today do have this kind of liturgy, for centuries almost 100% of Baptists did not because they practiced the Regulative Principle in the way that I believe is the consistent way.
Thanks again for wanting us to think carefully.
I’m going to come back and answer this comment, and that will be it for commentary on this post.
I decided not now to answer this comment, because of the previous apology by Bro Ross. I’m not sure that he completely gets what I’m writing, but he gets it better than before. So, yes, I disagree with lots of points above, but I’m not going to take the time to answer them anymore and just contribute to potential unnecessary contention.
“What I meant by that phrase is that Bro Gleason has attempted to show on his blog that there are no pagan origins for Xmas, arguing that the encyclopedias are incorrect on this issue. I appreciate that he does not want to do something pagan, and thus finds it important to argue that the dominant historiography is incorrect.”
Brother Ross, I’m quite disappointed in this statement. You are a careful researcher in so many ways. You shouldn’t attribute to someone something that they haven’t said.
You are also a logical man. You know that there is a significant difference between doubting whether extra-Biblical things are true and arguing that they are not true.
I have stated that I am “skeptical” of these accounts. That does not mean I have argued they are not true. I know they come from sources that lie sometimes about history related to Christianity. I do not trust the encyclopedias nor am I quick to let ANYTHING they say influence my choices.
More substantively, I most certainly have argued that this is a moot point. I have argued that “Doctrine by Speculative History” is not taught in Scripture. I have argued that the “Doctrine of Discernment of Origins” is directly contrary to Scripture. Neither you nor anyone else who has commented on my blog on those points has actually supported either doctrinal approach from Scripture.
If anyone is still reading this comment thread and cares to see, my article on pagan/Catholic origins of Christmas is here: https://mindrenewers.com/2012/12/11/flawed-reasons-to-abandon-christmas-2-it-is-pagancatholic/
It does not say what Brother Ross alleges. It says what I’ve said here.
I just want to say, brethren, that I have benefited from reading all of this discussion and I thank every single one of you for your time. I’m not on your level and can’t hope to get my mind around everything you all do, but you at least expose me to some questions and interpretations so that as I read the Word of God I can notice things I didn’t see before, or see different perspectives I never had.
I know it takes a lot of time to create useful content you have thought through and think is biblical. Thank you! May God bless you in 2024 with more and more of His amazing grace through our Lord Jesus Christ! He loved us, He saved us, and He’s willing to use us. Amazing grace!
Thanks E. T.!
Thanks, Bro Chapman!
If one reads the book Perspectives on Christian Worship, 5 Views, ed. Pinson, the views listed are:
Liturgical Worship
Traditional Evangelical Worship
Contemporary Worship
Blended Worship
Emerging Worship
J. Ligon Duncan et al., Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009), v.
In this book, the advocate for Liturgical Worship argues:
The Liturgy Uses the Church Year and Lectionary
The liturgical church year orders our worship and entire life around Jesus Christ and His person and saving deeds. The lectionary assures us that the church will proclaim the entire counsel of God and all the saving deeds of Christ. It serves the teaching task of the church, yet it is more than a mere educational issue. The lectionary is built on Christ’s life, work, and nature, and on the belief that the risen Lord Jesus is truly present among His people in Word, body, and blood. If you want a bigger faith, then get a bigger Jesus. The church year gives you a big Jesus. Over the course of each year, the people hear and celebrate His entire life and saving works: His miraculous birth, baptism, public ministry, miracles, teachings, transfiguration, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension, heavenly enthronement, and second coming. The liturgical church year celebrates what He did and still does for His church.
J. Ligon Duncan et al., Perspectives on Christian Worship: 5 Views, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009), 40–41.
The advocate for Traditional Evangelical worship in this book opposes a liturgical calendar and advocates the regulative principle of worship (e. g., pgs. 109-110).
In an earlier version of this comment, I said that Bro Brandenburg advocated “liturgical worship” based on the fact that liturgical worship is highly tied into the liturgical calendar. However, this statement was not accurate. If I understand him correctly, he would agree with a liturgical calendar–probably one that is more a Reformed or Lutheran one and thus free from many of the abuses found in a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox one, as his citation from the liturgical calendar of the Synod of Dort’s celebration of Xmas, Easter, and Pentecost in part 3 of this series indicates, and his reference in this part to “Epiphany, the Baptism of Christ, Palm Sunday, Holy Week, Eastertide, Pentecost, Ascension Day, Trinity Sunday, Advent, or the traditional Twelve Days of Christmas”–but would strongly disagree with many other aspects of what would be advocated by many advocates of liturgical worship, such as baptismal regeneration, the use of images in worship, etc.
It was a wrong over-generalization for me to state that agreeing with one aspect of liturgical worship, the calendar, means that one accepts liturgical worship in general. Bro Brandenburg’s advocacy of some form of the Regulative Principle, which is usually seen as the opposite of liturgical worship, would have made it clear that this was not the case, and I should not have made this over-generalization.
I was wrong to do this. Please forgive me, Bro Brandenburg.
I deleted the earlier comment that had the inaccurate statement.
Thank you.
Dear Brother Ross,
I have no problem with calling you Thomas or your calling me Kent. However, I upgraded this comment as I have some others. I won’t do it all the time, but I’m doing it to make a point. Your apology to me and Bro Gleason were great. Thank you. I accept. You were right on with that. I get what you believe. You have a problem with what I believe in a very narrow way, I think. You would not mention Christmas or Easter or any other event in Jesus life at a particular time of the year. You would preach those events like they happened. But you wouldn’t put them on a calendar, because you think it violates the RPW and associates with Catholicism. I’ve thought this the whole time, but you were arguing mainly against something I did not write. It was hard to take it, but this was a break through in my opinion.
Dear Bro Gleason,
Thank you for the clarification. I was going off my memory and did not go back and re-read your post.
From statements in your post such as: “Even if we knew Christmas was an attempt to “Christianise” Saturnalia, Saturn died and Christ won,” “Christians under severe persecution by pagans wouldn’t adopt a pagan holiday,” etc. I drew the conclusion that you were arguing that Christendom did not adopt a pagan holiday when they started celebrating Xmas. Thank you for your clarification that I misunderstood your point.
I would encourage interested readers to read Bro Gleason’s argument and evaluate it Biblically and historically. For myself, I do not find it convincing, as Catholicism almost never says openly that it is adopting something pagan when it is adopting something pagan, and it would seem to prove too much to say that under severe persecution Christendom would not adopt anything pagan as the very fact that a high percentage of Christendom lapsed and offered sacrifice to the emperor to avoid getting killed is prima facie evidence to the contrary, and there is a battle with pagan influences even in the NT itself, although they are under persecution. Furthermore, at least in that blog post I did not see where you argued extensively that Xmas did not have Catholic origins, as it seemed mainly about not having pagan origins (perhaps you address that somewhere else on your blog and I am not aware of this resource).
Nevertheless, whether or not I found it convincing, I should not misrepresent what you are arguing for. Thank you for your clarification, and I retract my statement that you were arguing that Xmas did not have a Catholic and pagan origin; you were arguing, instead, that a pagan or Catholic origin is unproven.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness and desire to honor the Lord.
I agree that we should exercise discernment and care when evaluating historical sources and evaluate them for anti-Biblical bias.
Thanks again.
Thank you, and blessings to you!