It obviously pains these gentlemen that neither their
tradition, hermeneutic nor their professed commitment to Sola Scriptura will afford
them an open embrace of the Christmas holiday.
The truth is that in terms of Sola Scriptura, the keeping of
days, let alone 25 December... has no leg to stand on.
What was unique about this somewhat frustrating discussion
was the way they brought the Lord's Day into the equation.
While I was once a vigorous Westminster Sabbatarian, I
abandoned that position long ago. Seventeenth century Reformed Scholasticism
was many things, and can be admired from certain vantage points but their grasp
of Redemptive-History was shall we say, somewhat wanting.
The retention and necessary modification of the Decalogue
that produced the Reformed Sunday Sabbath or Lord's Day is a spurious argument
based on a Non-redemptive-historical understanding of both the Covenants and
the Law of Moses. The Westminster Confession's teaching on the Three-fold
division of the law is fundamentally flawed and this plays out in its
expression of what it identifies as the 'Moral Law', namely the Ten
Commandments. The Fourth Commandment is retained as part of this claimed Eternal
construct but then promptly modified from the Seventh to the First day without
Scriptural warrant. The argument is flimsy at best. The Sunday Sabbath is a
child of philosophical speculative deduction and when based on its premise... it
becomes something of a necessity.
Unfortunately both the premise, the grounds of the premise
and thus the conclusion are flawed... as is the whole of this podcast
discussion.
Nevertheless it does contain some items of interest,
especially for those who take Sola Scriptura seriously and wrestle with the issue
of Christmas and the host of other questions surrounding it.
One of the main arguments considered is the question of
celebrating the nativity of Christ. This is said to be mandated. Christians
must acknowledge this and it is argued that in acknowledging it, praise and
adoration are necessary responses. It is then insinuated that special times
might be set apart for this practice.
If I might frame this in a slightly different manner, the
real issue with regard to the nativity of Christ is the reality and wonder of
the Incarnation. Do we need separate special times to celebrate this? One of
the guests seems to think so.
And yet Scripture has already provided the answer. We
celebrate the Incarnation every time
we worship... especially when we celebrate the Lord's Supper. Now, the fact
that most Churches have a low view of the holy rite and fail to include it as
part of their regular worship is another issue. But even if (for the sake of
argument) it was celebrated infrequently, certainly every congregation does it
at least a few times a year. Does that not meet the suggested requirement?
There's no case to be made for something like Christmas. This is an invented
problem fed by a desired conclusion.
Is the problem a lack of New Testament provision or perhaps
it's a failure on the part of Church leaders to properly expound the signs and
seals given to us by the Spirit as revealed in the New Testament?
To ponder whether or not Christmas can be considered like a
non-Sunday or non-Lord's Day service is merely to expand this exercise in
question begging but brings us no closer to the relevant issues at stake.
Nowhere does the New Testament teach a 'high' worship on
Sunday or that it is somehow 'obligatory' and yet other days are not. These are
contrived categories.
Reformation Day and Thanksgiving Day services are also
appealed to as examples of special non-Sunday worship but in all honesty it
must be admitted these 'special' services are also without warrant. They are
cultural accommodations, concepts and categories unknown to New Testament
worship.
In fact this whole notion of differing types of services is
without warrant.
Christians should of course be gathering with the Church as
often as they can. Obligation isn't really part of the equation. Certainly
there should be desire, and yet this podcast discussion strays into this odd
territory of optional non-obligatory 'special' services... a house of cards
that (apart from everything else) quickly collapses once the Lord's Day
assumption is dispensed with.
Even with the assumption, the trajectory of the conversation
is without merit and there's a reason why Scripture cannot be appealed to and
largely isn't. The whole discussion is extra-Scriptural and speculative.
This is why the real question is never approached. What do
the Scriptures say? There's no spirit of 'Ad Fontes', let alone Sola Scriptura.
Are these questions the fruit of Biblical study? Are these
questions that the text raises and that we must therefore wrestle with? Is this
not an exercise in seeking justification for these traditions? It would seem
they already have established the desired conclusion viz. Christmas
celebration, and now they're looking (painfully) for Scriptural justification.
Because of this, their quest for Biblical support is futile.
The New Testament heartily rejects not only Jewish holy days
but certainly man-made holy days, rites, rituals and exercises in piety.
Christmas represents all of these elements and explicitly borrows from
paganism. The fact that it no longer carries pagan meaning for today's
participants is beside the point. As those renewed in our minds and with
Scripture as our authority, all questions concerning the life of the Church and
the believer are considered in its light and are placed under its authority.
Using the Lord's Day as a way to separate worship services
into obligatory and what we might call secondary status is a clever ploy but
exegetically indefensible, as is the whole of the Church calendar upon which
Christmas rests.
On a practical level I must ask... what are they afraid of?
Will people leave their congregations if Christmas celebration ceases or is
discouraged? Will people refuse to follow their leadership because Christmas is
so dominant in the culture?
At that point I must ask... what sort of leaders are you?
What sort of congregations do you have? Should we be afraid to be
counter-cultural? Are we afraid to be considered odd and peculiar?
Though the issue did not come up in this particular
discussion I must say I am convinced that in addition to the various pragmatic
concerns which govern the thought of paid denominational clergy there is the
additional assumption and desire for cultural relevance and impact. Being so
out of the mainstream is (in a worldly-wise sense) an admission of defeat. It
is willingly consigning one's self to obscurity, almost like self-imposed
exile.
If the Church can't even begin to wrestle with easy questions
like Christmas, what will happen when the real questions come to the fore?