What would Paul say of those who would borrow from
Hellenistic practice and try to bring it into the Church? Actually I think that
very thing was happening in Colossae and in the letters to the Seven Churches
and let's just say that neither Paul nor Christ (via John) have any time for
it.
And then to add wonder to amazement the very people who
profess to be heirs of the Puritans, the people who make a great fuss and put
great stock in their Confessional tradition, swear oaths to it all the rest
will look at you with a straight face and argue that what they're doing with
regard to Christmas and the principles they use to justify their practice are
in keeping with that tradition. Church history condemns them as the celebration
of Christmas was born of the Constantinian era and is part and parcel of the
wave of innovations which came in during that period. The Puritans certainly
had no time for the Roman Catholic Christ-mass. Today's advocates are condemned
by their own Confession. Its addenda (which function as a commentary on the
text) also condemn them and yet if someone attends their churches and refuses
to bend to this tradition, it is they who are the troublemakers, the weak, the
legalists and the fanatics.
In terms of history our modern Christmas
celebration is really a child of the Victorian Age. The emotion of most
churchgoers attached to the day is related to what we could call the Victorian
elements as opposed to the old (if flawed) ecclesiastical practice. If 'Old
Christmas' (as it were), the old ecclesiastical-liturgical Christmas were the
issue, the tone and tenor of the discussion would certainly change. Generally
speaking what people are really in love with is the consumer sentimental Christmas
that's been sold to them. Weaving Christ into the narrative as much as possible
they've merely heightened their emotion and yet have (and continue) to move
away from the text of Scripture and the principles of the New Testament.
Hodge's argument is more in keeping with the thought of
someone like the Mercersburg theologian John Nevin. Nevin is wrong but at least
honest in his approach to Church History and tradition and his theological principles
will certainly allow for development. And yet I can assure any reader not
already familiar with Nevin that Hodge would not want to count himself part of
Nevin's camp. Nevin of course lambasted the Puritan view of Scripture and
Church history and while Hodge is the 'stalwart' in this regard, I'm afraid
he's much closer to Nevin (on this point) than he would be the men who drafted
the Westminster Confession.
Hodge says the practice of Christmas could be a 'means of
preserving and promoting knowledge'.
Really? Does Hodge not realise he has just functionally
denied the Sufficiency of Scripture? Apparently the New Testament isn't enough.
When Paul wrote that apparently he didn't know that we would need to make up
things, make up days and create rites and rituals, seasons and other practices
in order to 'flesh out' the Christian experience and to preserve and promote
knowledge.
Once again Hodge is revealed as deficient when it comes to
understanding the core concepts, motivations and prolegomenical commitments of
the Reformers... at least with regard to the Calvinistic wing. Hodge on the
contrary sounds a lot more like someone who has crept into the crypto-Lutheran
camp. The compromise that would become so apparent in post-WWII Evangelicalism
was already at work in Princeton and just as Princeton succumbed to theological
liberalism, so it goes with the Evangelical movement.
In terms of the 'uses' cited by Hodge what is most striking
is that the 19th century Calvinist theologian par excellence
apparently makes no connection between the items he delineates and the outward
signs and seals that we are already given. His argument smacks of sophistry and
rationalist deduction, not anything resembling exegesis or even a principled
systematic.
Do you want to celebrate and call attention to the
Incarnation? All well and good. God has already provided the means to do this.
Every time the Church meets we are to feast on the flesh and blood of Christ,
the Bread of Life and the Cup of Blessing. Is that not a potent recognition and
veneration of the Incarnate Christ? The impoverished sacramentology of
Princeton is on display here... once again a foreshadowing of 20th
century Evangelicalism.
The gospel communicated through Christ preached and
proclaimed, Word and Sacrament is apparently deficient or in need of
augmentation. Hodge makes none of these connections but instead lamely follows
the cultural trajectory and embraces the commonplace and tiresome theological
arguments rooted in rationalist conjecture and inferential presumption.
His arguments in support of Christmas are all points which
testify to the gospel. Adding to the gospel by the creation of an additional
ecclesiastical order (day(s), season, customs, rites) does not augment it but
in fact detracts from it and begins to undermine the foundations of authority.
Auxiliary questions and questions generated by innovation interacting with
innovation take the discussion (and the whole trajectory of theology) in a
different direction... one ever removed from the text.
The problem here is that honesty demands a negative read of
Hodge and a critique of Princeton which goes against the glory-narrative which dominates
Confessional Presbyterianism. During the 19th century there was some
insight with regard to Biblical Theology and the flow of Redemptive-History. A
dynamic time to be sure, there were many negative trajectories at work as the
changing epistemological climate drove men away from the supernatural and the
academy was certainly at war with the Scriptures. Nevertheless as the
Reformation had lost its lustre and Christendom was on the wane there were also
positive developments and some were returning to the Scriptures with renewed
vigour. Liberalism (of both the theological and philosophical stripes),
Finneyism and many other unfortunate developments would cloud and obfuscate the
efforts of those seeking a return to the Scripture but nevertheless the period
is not all darkness. For my part the 'light' of the period (as it were) is not
found in the likes of Princeton Seminary. While I'm critical here I am
nevertheless appreciative of certain aspects of the school and the conservatism
it represented and yet I believe that more positive developments were taking
place elsewhere. They too would be corrupted by the aforementioned forces and
certainly by the overwhelming events of the early 20th century.
But with regard to 19th century developments in
the realm of Biblical Theology, those who began to pursue a thematic study of
Scripture and to re-think the structuring and even the nature of doctrine, men
like Keil and Delitzsch are to be commended even though they were not untainted
by the toxins of German Higher Criticism. Nevertheless their insights and
methods got the ball rolling as it were. The Princeton professor Geerhardus Vos
occupies a unique position. On the one hand he can be indentified (broadly
speaking) as the last of the 'conservatives' at Princeton. And yet at the same
time the creation of his Biblical Theology chair in 1892 marked a shift, a
break with the Anglo-American Reformed tradition. Building on certain aspects
of the Dutch Reformed tradition, the work done in Germany and embracing an
epistemology more in keeping with the categories of Continental Philosophy, Vos
was in some ways an anomaly with regard to the Princeton legacy. The
Princetonian meta-narrative may 'claim' him and yet I think in many respects
the theological developments which came to loom large in the latter half of 20th
century Confessional Reformed thought, namely the influence of both Vos and Van
Til represent a break with Princeton, a positive break it must be said.
Redemptive-Historical methodology came into its own during
the latter half of the 20th century and for the first time in
probably centuries the Church witnessed profound doctrinal insight and growth.
This is not to say that every development has been positive but for the most
part the disciples of Vos and some of the disciples of Van Til have moved the
discussion and study of Scripture and questions of epistemology and
hermeneutics in a positive direction.
I say this knowing full well that many if not most of the men
who belong to these categories would in fact agree with Hodge on Christmas. To
which I will reply that not everyone is consistent in their thinking nor in
their application.*** And indeed many are still straddling fences
and while gains have been made at the same time seeds have been planted that
represent potential dangers. The battle rages on but I can say that thankfully (at
least in many quarters), the legacy of Hodge and Old Princeton has faded.
Would that it were it so simple. The problem is the
meta-narrative still exists, especially within Anglo-American Presbyterianism
and all the more in light of the Calvin vs. the Calvinist controversies. And so
we find (at times) anachronistic readings being imposed on the Princeton
theologians and many others have sought to formulate a synthesis, a watering
down of the Vos/Van Til/Continental influence combined with an augmentation
(and perhaps exaggeration) of some Princetonian statements and principles.
Others (and I think there their numbers are significant) pay lip service to
what I've called the Vos/Van Til/Continental influence in the realm of the
Biblical Theology and Prolegomena (which by implication includes epistemology,
hermeneutics and apologetics) and yet I believe their support and affirmations
to be somewhat hollow and disingenuous due to a lack of understanding or
conflict with other commitments. They are in the end Old Princetonian in their
ethos or represent some form of hybrid.
But these are ongoing debates. For me this piece on Hodge was
telling and in keeping with a realisation that I have gradually come to
understand over the past two decades.
I do not wish to completely discount the Hodges or Warfield
but at the same time I reject the way in which they are lionised. Their
writings still possess a value to be sure, some more than others. They were men
of their time (a difficult time to be sure) and thus they had their blind spots.
All would acknowledge this point I'm sure and yet I would belong to a camp that
views them as well meaning but flawed, men who possess a certain wisdom and yet
also as men whose legacy will continue to fade... and rightly so.
----
***And there is a sort of crisis to the metanarrative,
perhaps even for a commentator such as myself. On the one hand I am critical of
Reformed Scholasticism, the milieu which birthed the Puritans and yet I hold
with them on certain points, certainly with regard to Christmas vis-à-vis
theological principles in general and Redemptive-History in particular. On the
other hand I heartily embrace the 'Continental' shift in Anglo-American
Reformed thought and the rise of Redemptive-Historical/Biblical theology. As I
don't embrace Confessionalism (in theory or practice) I am able to hold to a
somewhat radical position in this regard. I don't have to try and synthesize
the Puritan/Reformed Scholastic prolegomena with that of Vos and Van Til, a
task I think impossible and yet when the two camps are compared to 19th
century Princeton... both the Puritan and Redemptive-Historical methodologies
are to be preferred. To weave these movements seamlessly into one grand
meta-narrative is only possible by painting with very broad strokes. They're
all part of the larger Reformed tradition but the monolithic depiction of the
tradition so common in Confessional presentation isn't accurate or honest.
See also: