It's a
little disturbing to me but for some the idea seems to be that if Charles Hodge
said Christmas was okay, then it's okay. I suppose some might feel they have
some ammunition for their pro-Christmas/revisionist argument if they can pull
out a 'big gun' like Hodge.
And yet as I've indicated elsewhere I'm less and less
impressed with the legacy of Old Princeton. What was once for me a source of
awe has grown dim indeed and for more than one reason. It had been years since
I had picked up AA Hodge's Outlines of
Theology but I did so awhile back. I was really disappointed. I had already
grown weary of his father's scientific-theological method in his famous 3-volume
Systematics and I did not find the son to be an improvement. In fact he may
have been worse, although Charles Hodge's prolegomena in his systematics
represents perhaps the nadir in post-Confessional Reformed theology, the last
stage of a hollow and compromised conservatism. He and the other Princeton
theologians (like Warfield) are held up as the 'stalwarts'. Really they're the
last holdouts and in many respects their record is less than impressive. From
my vantage point they were attempting to 'hold on' even while they were
(unwittingly to be sure) opening the door to theological liberalism which took
over a generation later.
At one time I shook my head at the rapidity of the liberal
takeover of Princeton. I don't find it surprising any more. It happened for a
reason and part of that reason, part of the equation is the testimony of the so-called
'stalwarts'. Hodge's notes on Christmas are but one example of this downward
trajectory and are in fact revealing.
In some respects I think they represent a kind of degenerate
Confessional Calvinism, a Calvinism that has bowed to the Enlightenment on
multiple fronts. From theology to the text to a reliance upon certain schools,
traditions and trajectories in philosophy which overshadow everything other
issue... the Calvinism of the 19th century, both of Princeton and
the so-called 'Southern Tradition' departed from the spirit and even the letter
of the 16th century.
At this point many informed readers might say there were
differences in form but not in substance. Those bound to a particular narrative
will argue for complete continuity though no serious study can come to that
conclusion. I would in fact argue that while there was some continuity in form,
the real change was actually in substance. The theologians of the 19th
century were cut from a different epistemological cloth and reasoned and
thought differently. On one level this is to be expected. A lot had happened
since the 16th century, in every respect.
Nevertheless some basic prolegomenical concepts had been
lost. While I don't think the Reformers were as good as they could have been in
understanding Redemptive-History and typology, they were in many respects
better (as in more Biblical) than the theologians of both the 17th
and 19th centuries. In some respects we're back to the Calvin vs.
the Calvinists argument. For those (like this author) who advocate the
historical tension, the 19th century represents a degenerate form of
17th century Protestant Scholasticism which itself was already
something of a departure from the 16th century. Even if one were to
set aside such value judgments, not a few historians and historical theologians
will admit there were significant changes in trajectory, approach and in how fundamental
epistemological questions were dealt with. Contemporary Confessionalists of
course largely reject this line of discussion. Their own narratives and
confirmatory research will not allow for it.
The funny thing is when it comes to something like Christmas,
Hodge isn't even as solid in his principles as the men of the17th century were.
To draw comparisons with national thanksgiving? Is he serious? That's a case of
apples and oranges. He may acknowledge that Christmas can't be made obligatory
but then to compare the day with a civil holiday set by the magistrate? This is
muddled thinking at best.
I would also point out that practically speaking this is
deceptive anyway.*
Hodge appeals to liberty of conscience? Would he say the same
with regard to adoration of relics, pilgrimages, Lent or the Rosary? The Church
calendar in general? Fine, strip away the Marian adoration from the rosary,
what then? What of the principle behind the rosary in terms of introducing a
method, a tool for the practice and 'improvement' of prayer? The Scriptures
grant no 'liberty of conscience' when it comes to worship, to approaching God.
Where's the liberty of conscience in the Old Testament? In the New? Romans 14?
Only the sloppy exegete can use that passage as a justification for innovative
practice. The idea that Paul was permitting Roman Christians to go out and
appropriate pagan practices or dream up new ones is a case of eisegesis on a
massive scale. Paul was dealing with those still bound to Jewish practice and
given that it was pre-AD70, such practices, such keeping of days was still
tolerated. After AD70 the question was largely moot.
With regard to Old Testament obligations there was no liberty
of conscience. The New Testament speaks of freedom from bondage and ordinances
and in terms of ethical practice (as the Christian is not bound by the
schoolmaster-legal code) there is a type of liberty in how one interacts with
the world, a point Confessional Presbyterianism buries under its contrived
Threefold Division of the Law. But nowhere is there liberty of conscience when
it comes to the ordering of the Church, its rites, symbols and the like. The
main elements of worship afford no
liberty or innovation. Contrary to Hodge this is the position of Anglo-American
Reformed Orthodoxy, the theology of the Calvinist Scholastics. On this point I
agree with them. It is Hodge who seems to be abandoning or perhaps
demonstrating a deficient understanding of the Regulative Principle of Worship.
There are inconsequential things or questions of circumstance like the time of day we
meet, when we stand and when we sit and things of that nature. The New
Testament order is simple but the pro-Christmas argument employed by Hodge
echoes the seed form of the Roman Catholic principle and it certainly opens the
door to all that happened in the wake of the 4th century.
In one sense I hesitate to employ the terms 'element' and
'circumstance' because it opens the door to those who would innovate and then
leverage these terms, doing all they can to place their innovations in the
category of circumstance. But when
the keeping of a day (25 December for example) dominates the meeting, shapes
its liturgy... it's speech, songs, prayers, Scripture readings, sermon etc.,
then it is no longer circumstance. It is in fact the central element of that
day. The argument against Christmas is frequently enveloped by a cloud of
self-deception on the part of its apologists, a failure to acknowledge what the
day is, what it means to them and the rest of the congregation, and the deeply
religious nature of the practices.
Hodge speaks of the analogy of the Old Testament. Really?
Where in the Old Testament did the Jews have the right to make up holy days and
rites to accompany them? The only possible answer is an appeal to Purim to
which I can say that the holiday is nowhere sanctioned. Someone might point to Hanukah
or the Feast of Dedication and yet there is an argument to suggest the practice
was a modification of the Feast of Booths and not viewed as pure innovation. Or
more probably some Jews might have argued for its validity on the basis of the
miracle connected to its genesis, a sign of Divine action and sanction. Christ's
own actions regarding it are curious to say the least. Many read his presence in
Jerusalem as an endorsement but his rapid departure may indicate that he was
less than dedicated to its practice. Toleration is not the same as endorsement.
And indeed many false practices had crept into Old Testament worship. The
faithful had to navigate this reality. The history of the Church and the
practices of our contemporary churches are no exception.
Additionally the character of the old dispensation was such
that an argument could (possibly) be made for the development of calendar
traditions (again especially if associated with a miracle), a practice that (if
granted) would still run contrary to the simplicity and essential finality of
the New Covenant epoch and its near-consummate/consummate pilgrim order.
Paul is baffled by the Galatian desire to bring themselves
into bondage to the elements of this world, to weak and beggarly things. Of
course in light of today's dominionist orthodoxy Paul's argument strikes many
contemporaries as quasi-Gnostic and so modern exegetes tend to re-work the
Apostle's words even though he touches on this principle of the corrupted,
temporary and cursed world, creation and even our bodies in multiple epistles.
The matter of this world is not intrinsically evil, not something to be escaped
in itself but it is (according to Paul) of a lower order. Today many misquote
and misuse the 'good' declaration of Genesis 1. They forget or ignore the Fall
and the subsequent curse and grossly fail to appreciate its effects on this
'present evil age' and how the question is viewed through the lens of the New
Testament. And thus they also fail to properly appreciate the eschatological
nature of our salvation and the Kingdom itself. Matter is not evil but the
things of this aeon, this order are weak, temporal and thus passing away. To
what extent this reality is due to the Fall or reflects a pre-lapsarian provisionality
is open for debate. The rites given and commanded by God are directly connected
to the eternal, they are communal mysteries which connect us directly to
heaven, to union with Christ and to His mystical body.
To turn to the keeping of days and frankly trivial and tacky
innovations and trappings is something Paul would not have understood. And with
regard to the Galatians their pseudo-Judaism and pseudo-law keeping was just
that... fake. It's all or nothing. It's a package that cannot be parsed and
picked over, borrowing bits and pieces even while leaving aside the rest. This
too is a condemnation of Reformed Orthodoxy, the Scholasticism as represented
by Westminster and many aspects of its understanding of the Law and the Old
Testament. But the theologians of the 17th century still possessed a
nuance and allowed for dualities that (practically speaking) by Hodge's day
seemed to have all but disappeared.**
Hodge's appeal to the Old Testament with regard to Christmas
demonstrates an impoverished hermeneutic, a very poor grasp of
Redemptive-History and the very nature of the New Testament, its doctrine and
certainly its superseding and interpretive authority.
With regard to the question of obligation, when I enter a
church service and am surrounded by the trappings of Christmas I am effectively
being compelled to participate. 'Oh no', someone will say. 'We're not making
you do it.'
Really? I'm showing up to church with the expectation that
what happens there is grounded in Scriptural authority. At least that's the claim
within churches that profess Sola
Scriptura. The things we do are commanded and ordained by God but of course
Sola Scriptura means different things
to different people and there's been a migration in thought. Many in the
Reformed world have slowly crept toward the Lutheran position which actually
something quite different.
But here I am attending church and what has been the norm all
year is no longer the practice. Suddenly all these other 'things' are happening
and while I'm told I don't have to 'participate', what am I to do? I either
have to bend and allow these other persons to lord over my conscience and bind
me (in some sense) to their practices... practices which cannot be demonstrated
in Scripture or I have to stay home which presents other problems doesn't it?
There's a message being communicated and it's this...
We've discovered (via
tradition, inference or whatever) that we can worship God better than what has
been revealed in the New Covenant writings of the Apostles. We've introduced
this form of high worship... and despite what they say, it is high because they add all
the 'extras', all the tactile additions to the service which are meant to
'heighten' the experience and give it an air of majesty and spirituality that supersedes
the norm.
You can join us but we
won't make you... even though we sort of are.
But if you don't want
to join us, then you're the one with the problem. You're the spoilsport. You're
the 'weak' brother. You're the one in bondage. You're to be pitied.
Paul's words in Galatians come to mind once more for the
Judaizers in Galatia also used rites (at least they were presumably God
ordained, though superseded) to bully and lord over the Galatians. Their 'super
spirituality' created a clique that put a lot of pressure on the Gentile
Galatians to conform and get on board. Paul emphasises liberty in Christ. How
much more then with regard to a syncretic innovation like Christmas? Rejecters
of such innovations aren't the weak ones, they're the free men. The weak are
those who bring themselves into bondage, again that being a reference to Old
Covenant practice. And may I say this is true even if those in bondage find it
to be desirable and pleasant. The Pharisees and Galatian infiltrators were in
bondage to be sure and you can also be sure they gloried in it. How one 'feels'
is not a determining factor when it comes to such questions.
----
*I will say that I've attended Church of Christ congregations
where I'm sure everyone there keeps Christmas but they at least know to do it
at home. It has no place in the gathering of the Church. Why? Well, on this
point they don't need scholastic theology to tell them there's no evidence for
it in the New Testament and while they certainly succumb to philosophical
influence on certain theological points, they do not have a tradition of 'good
and necessary consequence' like the Reformed do, an inferential principle which
continues to be used to justify a host of extra- and even anti-Biblical
practices, a concept certainly run amok by the 19th century as Hodge
demonstrates.
** There is the additional irony with regard to Southern
Presbyterianism. By the 19th century the Southern Tradition had
moved even further in terms of rationalist and reductionist tendency. Their
theology reflects this and I think the overwhelming move toward a more Baptist
position over the course of the 20th century has borne this out.
Nevertheless the South retained a dogged conservatism with regard to the text
and the Authority of Scripture. The reasons for this are the source of many an
interesting discussion and exploration and probably cannot be divorced from
their sociological context and even the post-bellum
metanarrative. Nevertheless the Southern Church resisted the encroachments of
Christmas and the Church calendar far longer than the North, with sections of
the Church still refusing to bend as late as the interwar period of the 20th
century.