Spider Pig

Is Christmas Christian? - Part XI

Continued from Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV,, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, and Part X.

A Parking Lot Parable
(Slightly Revised)

Once upon a time, Jeff Meyers and Tony Rollins—old friends who had not seen each other for a few years—met in the parking lot of a neighborhood church. They were dropping off their preschool children at the church for Mother's Day Out. (They were such conscientious and helpful fathers.) As they were walking into the church, Tony pointed at the church's sign with a grimace and a confident wag of his head: "Is that biblical?"

"What?" Jeff asked. "The sign?"

"No," Tony replied. "The sign says that this church has Advent services every Wednesday evening. Is that biblical?"

It was early in the day and Jeff was feeling frisky, so he answered with a few of his own questions. Somewhere in the middle of this conversation, the two conscientious fathers remembered to sign their children in. They continued their friendly discussion once they were outside again.

JM: Is there something unbiblical about having church services on Wednesday?

TR: No, no, that's not what I mean. I mean Advent services. Is that biblical?

JM: What makes meeting on Wednesday evenings for a month or so to commemorate the sufferings of Jesus unbiblical?

TR: It's not the Wednesday meetings that I'm concerned about. Let's leave that out of it. It's the celebration of the season of Advent. The Bible says nothing about such annual events. Presumably this church celebrates Advent for a period of time on Sunday, too. And they probably also observe Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, and all of those other man made seasons. Right?

JM: Sure. So, let me get this straight. Because the Bible doesn't explicitly say anything about a yearly observance of Advent (that is, meeting together to commemorate Jesus' coming), therefore it is unbiblical? Furthermore, the Bible doesn't command us to reflect upon the birth of Christ in corporate worship, therefore Advent and Christmas are unbiblical and forbidden as well. Is that what you mean?

TR: Yeah, that's what I mean. The Bible does not command that kind of worship. It's unbiblical for a church to think it is pleasing God by observing Advent, or for that matter, Christmas, Lent, or Easter services. God has commanded no such thing.

JM: Wait a minute, let's not muddy the waters. It's not the "kind of worship" that is under discussion, but the time and theme of worship. This church does not get together on Advent to engage in a different kind of worship. Rather, the people gather to hear the Word, meditate, pray, sing—all the normal activities of worship. Advent does not actually change the worship, but the theme of the worship, especially the Scriptures that are read, the psalms and hymns that are sung, the content of the prayers that are offered up, and the subject matter of the sermons.

TR: That may be true. I don't have a lot of experience with these kinds of worship services.

JM: Well, let's assume for the sake of the discussion that no new elements of worship, no new worship practices are introduced. What if I frame the issue this way: during Advent some Christians focus their meditations, Scripture readings, and prayers on the coming of Jesus. Is that unbiblical?

TR: But that's the problem—the Bible does not command the church to celebrate a season of Advent.

JM: Granted. But does that make it wrong to observe such a season? Is it dangerous and unbiblical for the Christian community to set aside a particular time to read, meditate, sing, and pray about Jesus’ coming?

TR: Yes. When it comes to worship, whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden. Advent, Christmas, and Lent are not commanded, therefore they are forbidden. When church leaders invent man made seasons like this and impose them on congregations, they are binding their people's consciences where God has not bound them.

JM: That's interesting. Tell me about your church, won't you? What has your pastor been preaching about?

TR: I'm a member of Calvin Reformed Memorial Church. My pastor is Rev. Regulative. He's been preaching through the book of Romans for quite some time. We've been in chapter 9 for a few months.

JM: How long has he been preaching from Romans?

TR: For about three years now. We believe in preaching straight through books of the Bible.

JM: Wow! How much longer till he finishes Romans?

TR: He estimates that it will take him about two more years’—five years total.

JM: Does the pastor choose hymns and compose his prayers each Sunday such that they support whatever theme he is preaching from Romans?

TR: Yes, that's the general practice.

JM: Is that biblical? Where in the Bible has God commanded that pastors preach through entire books of the Bible like that? Where has God commanded that a pastor select hymns and readings based on his own man made preaching scheme and then impose them upon the consciences of worshipers gathered on the Lord's Day for church?

TR: Oh, I see! You were trying to set me up, weren't you?

JM: I confess. You caught me. But, let's not get sidetracked. I asked you whether your church's way of ordering its worship was biblical. I am referring to the time and themes of your services. Where does God command that the pastor order the Scripture readings, sermons, hymns, and prayers according to this method of continuous preaching?

TR: Off the top of my head, I don't know. But this has been the Reformed way since the Reformation. Our church is being true to a venerable Reformed legacy when we follow the lectio continua ("continuous reading") method of preaching.

JM: A venerable legacy, huh? Isn't that kind of like an "old tradition"?

TR: It's more than just a tradition. We believe that it's the best way of teaching people the Bible.

JM: Maybe so, but my point is that it is nowhere commanded in the Scriptures. Is it? You say it's the best way, but I ask: Is it the biblical way? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that either Peter or Paul preached verse by verse through entire Old Testament books. The Bible does not command pastors to select themes for their worship services—readings, prayers, and hymns—according to this method of preaching, does it? My bottom line question to you is: what really differentiates your church's way of ordering Scripture readings, hymns, and prayers from one that uses the traditional church year? Your pastor "forces" five years of Romans on his congregation's worship and this other church's pastor "forces" a year of the life of Christ on his. What's the essential difference?

TR: When you put it like that, you make it sound like the church year is primarily a way for the church to order its readings, prayers, and hymns over time. Are you suggesting that it's not all that different from what Reformed pastors do when they choose themes for their worship service based on their preaching texts?

JM: Exactly. The church is free to order her readings, prayers, and hymns according to the preaching texts chosen by the pastor and she is also free to order its readings, prayers, and hymns according to the life of Christ as embodied in the traditional church year. If your church can emphasize the truth of God's election (Romans 9) in a worship service with preaching, prayers, readings, psalms, and hymns appropriate to such an emphasis, then this church can also choose to commemorate the Lord's advent (Matt 1, Luke 2, etc.) and adorn the celebration with appropriate preaching, hymns, readings, and prayers. What's the difference?

TR: I guess that makes sense to me, but I'm not so sure that you haven't tricked me somehow. I've always been suspicious of the church year because Catholics and Episcopalians do it. Don't they force the churches to keep the church calendar? I don't think I would appreciate being mandated to celebrate something that the Bible doesn't command.

JM: Whoa, do we have to go through the Bible doesn't command it routine again?

TR: No, I don't think so. But I am concerned about binding people's consciences with extra biblical requirements.

JM: You mean like imposing the epistle of Romans on people for five years?

TR: Ha, ha. Very funny.

JM: I'm serious. Why do you submit to such an imposition on your conscience? The Bible does not command pastors to preach through Romans for five years. Your pastor has chosen to order your church's services according to a man made, extra biblical scheme. The people are subjected to a five year diet of Romans. Is that biblical? What makes this scheme more biblical than Lent or Advent? Why couldn't your pastor choose to preach through the life of Christ in a year and lead the congregation through meditations, Scripture readings, and prayers keyed into the life of Christ? That's precisely what the church year is designed to do! Why do you object to Lent and not to Romans? What's the difference?

TR: Hey, aren't you doing graduate work at that Lutheran seminary?

JM: You mean Concordia? Yeah, why?

TR: That's where you're getting all of these liturgical ideas! They'd never teach this kind of thing at a Reformed seminary, would they?

JM: Look, Tony, sometimes you need to step outside of your own tradition so that you can think objectively about it. Besides, why do you think Reformed Christians have such divergent liturgical practices? It may have something to do with the fact that Reformed seminaries don't teach students to think about worship and liturgy at all. I don't need to convert to Lutheranism to appreciate many of their insights into corporate worship. We seem to have forgotten that the Reformation itself was a liturgical renewal as much as anything else. By the way, I am not suggesting that the received church year is flawless; but I do believe that the Bible gives churches the freedom to use it if they so choose.

TR: Goodness, time has gotten away from me! I've got to run. My wife is helping to plan our church's Vacation Bible School today, and I promised to help.

JM: Is that biblical?

TR: What? Me helping my wife?

JM: No. VBS. Is Vacation Bible School biblical? If it's not commanded in the Bible, it's forbidden, right?

TR: Yikes!

JM: Well . . . where is VBS commanded in the Bible?

TR: You are ruthless!

JM: See you later, Tony. Go help your wife!

TR: Thanks. Let’s talk about this again sometime soon.

JM: Sure.

(This is slightly revised from chapter 18 in my book The Lord's Service

Thank God that somebody at the church had a GUN

That's right. A firearm. Only someone with gun can stop a madman with his own gun. That's how it works. Imagine what it would have been like if nobody at this church was carrying a gun. I have to wonder if before this incident people might have balked at an armed security guard at this church. From The Denver News:

Jeanne Assam appeared before the news media for the first time Monday and said she "did not think for a minute to run away" when a gunman entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and started shooting.

There was applause as Assam spoke to reporters and TV cameras saying, "God guided me and protected me."

New Life's Senior Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam "a real hero" because Murray "had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage."

When asked by a reporter if she felt like a hero, Assam said, "I wasn't just going to wait for him to do further damage."
"I give credit to God," she said.

Assam described how the gunman, Matthew Murray, entered the east entrance of the church firing his rifle.

"There was chaos," Assam said, as parishioners ran away, "I will never forget the gunshots. They were so loud."

"I saw him coming through the doors" and took cover, Assam said. "I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down."

"God was with me," Assam said. "I didn't think for a minute to run away."

Assam said she believes God gave her the strength to confront Murray, keeping her calm and focused even though he appeared to be twice her size and was more heavily armed.

Murray was carrying two handguns, an assault rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition, said Sgt. Jeff Johnson of the Colorado Springs Police Department.

"It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God," she said.

Luther's Two Kingdoms - Kinda

There is a fascinating article in the most recent edition of Concordia Theological Quarterly 71.1 (Jan. 2007): 3-28. Cameron MacKenzie analyses Luther's "two kingdoms" theology and discovers that it's not exactly like what is being taught today.

I don't want to repeat all of his arguments. You can read it for yourself. But I will quote a few of MacKenzie's juicy conclusions:

For Luther, "mixing" the kingdoms did not occur when rulers promoted and protected preachers of the gospel nor when preachers rebuked temporal rulers for transgressing the legitimate bounds of their authority. As far as Luther was concerned, "two kingdoms" theology was no reason for silence in the face of wickedness in high places (p. 25).

Here's another fascinating assertion based on Luther's letter to Duke Henry (1539):

Clearly, Luther still did not see a ruler's promoting true religion in his territory as a violation of the "two kingdoms" theology that he had described in his sermon the year before (p. 26)

Commenting on the fact that although the "two kingdoms" theology of the first version (1530) of the Augsburg Confession (in Articles 16 and 28) was not altered by Melanchthon in 1540, he nevertheless did add to Article 26 statements about the responsibility of rulers toward the church, MacKenzie says:

Clearly, such a statement constitutes just one more piece of evidence that, throughout the Reformation period, no one understood the two kingdoms theology as requiring a Christian ruler to refrain from establishing Christianity in his state. Indeed, quite the opposite, temporal rulers were supposed to support and maintain the Church.

Well, it's not so clear these days. It seems that everyone understands "two kingdom" theology to forbid just such establishments. MacKenzie's final paragraph:

Obviously, then, the first Lutherans drew the line between the two kingdoms in a far different way from what we know today as the separation of church and state in the United States. For Luther, temporal rulers who promoted true religion even to the point of punishing heretics were not mixing the kingdoms but those who took measures that inhibited the gospel were. In our times, therefore, we cannot really use this instance of historical theology very effectively as a model for structuring our relationships between church and state. Luther and the Confessions help us to identify the essential functions of each but do not permit us to draw conclusions that we must rigorously separate them. While clergy must preach the gospel and administer the sacraments, they may also exercise temporal power by human arrangement. While rulers must use their power to punish evildoers and to protect the lives and property of their people, as Christians they should also use their authority to establish and care for the church in their lands. If then we wish to use the two kingdoms theology as the first Lutherans conceived it, we must do so very modestly. We can be clear about what both Church and state must do. Depending upon circumstances and institutional arrangements, however, each may do a great deal more" (pp. 27-28).

Yeah. It's called Christendom. Let's restore it.

Fireballs!

I finally got a chance to process some of these images I took back in October. I think they turned out great.

We were out at John Keane's property with the boys for youth deer season. I bought some fireworks and took these photos as we shot them out over the lake. Nathan Keane was my assistant. I wouldn't have been able to get the timing right without him.

Check out all 8 of the fireballs and firespiders here.

A 1960's Christmas

This year we decided to go with a retro aluminum Christmas tree. We had one of these when I was growing up in the '60's, maybe even in the 70's. But I'm not sure. Things get fuzzy for me thinking about the past. We're able to do this because one of the families in the church heard me tell a story about how as a kid I loved to sit under the rotating aluminum tree and watch the shiny ornaments pass over me with the color wheel spinning off to the side. So a few years ago they got me one for Christmas. Now this year since we gave our artificial green tree to Becky for her apartment in San Antonio last year, and we didn't want to spend $75 for a fresh tree, we got this one out and set it up. I think it's pretty cool.

Here's the silver tree.

























Now, let's spin it.

















And spinning even faster!











Click any of the picts for larger images or go here.

Is Christmas Christian? - Part X

Continued from Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV,, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, and Part IX

In the past 9 posts I have asked and answered 9 questions/objections often raised against the celebration of Christmas. I have address three major areas of concern:

1. Anti-Christmas Arguments Based on the Supposed Historic Practice of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches.
2. Arguments based on the alleged Roman Catholic character of Christmas.
3. Arguments based on presumed pagan roots of Christmas symbols and ceremonies.

It's time to move to another set of objections made by many Reformed Christians against Christmas. This is the argument based on "the regulative principle of worship" and the absence of a biblical commandment to celebrate christmas. The regulative principle of worship is often misunderstood and misapplied in very narrow ways. I have addressed this problem in chapter 16 of my book The Lord's Service. In the next few posts I will apply what I've said there to the specific issue of celebrating Christmas.

Q. 11. Doesn't Christmas violate the "regulative principle of worship"?

The argument runs something like this: we must follow only what the Bible mandates in our worship. Therefore, since the Bible says nothing about Christmas, we may not observe such a celebration. Kevin Reed writes:

A consistent application of Reformed and Presbyterian principles of worship requires the repudiation of Christmas. Answer 109 of the Westminster Larger Catechism forbids "any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself." The issue is not a matter of indifference. Since Christmas was not instituted by God, it should not be approved or tolerated in the official practices of the Church. Ministers and church officers are not being true to their ordination vows, if they encourage or tolerate Christmas observance in their congregations.

Excuse me, but where have those who celebrate Christmas established or approved worship not instituted by God himself? What exactly is the new mode or manner of worship that has slipped in during Christmas?

Are any of us Presbyterians praying to or through our Christmas trees? Shame on us. Are we lighting votive candles as offerings to Christ for specific prayers? We should stop. Are we praying to St. Nicholas or to his image? I hope not.

What new worship practices have we instituted by celebrating the birth of our Lord? Not one. Nothing. What do we actually do during Advent and Christmas? As I have indicated already we select Scripture readings that highlight the coming of Christ and tell the story of his conception and birth, we pray prayers appropriate to the theme of Jesus' coming, we sign hymns that celebrate his birth, and we decorate our homes and churches with symbols that help focus our attention on the light, life, and joy he has brought to us when he assumed our human flesh in order to die and rise for the salvation of the world.

Exactly what is the innovation in our manner of worship? Other than the fact that we have chosen a specific theme for a few weeks each year, what is the problem here? How is that idolatry? Popery? Paganism? It's not.

If you've never read my "Parking Lot Parable," well, I think I'll make a few changes to that and post it next.

Thomas F. Torrance (1913-2007)

I wish I had more time to write about the death of Thomas F. Torrance this past Sunday. Well, not so much about his death but about his life and writings. His work has made a big impact on me. But he is not always appreciated by contemporary conservative Reformed pastors and theologians. If you know anything about the current controversies that plague our little corner of Christendom, you know that's an understatement. Presbyterians that appreciate Torrance's insights have to be careful.

A number of years ago a respected member of the Reformed academic community preached at our presbytery's Reformation day worship service. At one point in the sermon he told a story about a chaplain in WWII. He also quoted that chaplain. Of course, I immediately recognized that he was talking about Thomas F. Torrance. But he never mentioned him by name. And I understood why. After the service I spoke with him and told him I appreciated the story about Torrance. He tensed up and looked at me sideways with a bit of suspicion. I assured him that my appreciation was genuine. I had learned a lot from reading Torrance, etc. I listed the books I had read and loved. Then he winked and said something like, "Well, you can't be too careful these days."

That incident still makes me mad. I'm not angry with the speaker. I understand his situation. What burns me up is the petty little index of approved and disapproved authors and theologians that most conservative presbyters use to judge another man's theological commitments. Oh, you've read and liked portions of Karl Barth. You are dangerous. So you say you've read Pannenberg and learned something from him, too. Hmmm, that can't be good. You are recommending books by Thomas F. Torrance on the trinity? How dare you support someone who denies the covenant of works!

Spare me. Deliver me. Better yet: O Lord, deliver us all.

Torrance was a giant of a theologian, surely the greatest British theologian of the 20th century. Sure, he got things wrong. At least, I believe he did. He was on the wrong side of women's ordination debate. No question about it. When his masterful little book on the theology of the ordained ministry The Royal Priesthood was republished with a new forward by him promoting the ordination of women, I was very disappointed. The book is still worth reading. Sometimes his philosophical presuppositions restricted his theological vision. But after all, who can claim to be free from this error?

His studies of the history of Reformed theology were a bit one-sided. Even so, his Scottish Theology provides us with a anti-hagiographic account that so many American conservative Presbyterians so desperately need.

But above all, his works on theology proper, the doctrine of God, are priceless. I cut my trinitarian teeth reading Torrance's works on the Trinity. He's not usually easy to read. But it's grade A prime red meat for those who wish to theologize on the Trinity. Torrance's work inspired a trinitarian theological revival in recent years.

It was a delight to read Alister McGrath's intellectual biography of Torrance a few years ago. It's worth reading.

Like I said, I wish I had more time to talk about Thomas F. Torrance. Here and there on the net eulogies will be available. When I find them, I'll post them here.

George Hunsinger on Torrance

Thomas F. Torrance

You Can Do It, Too!

This is fascinating. Make your own Stonehenge—all by yourself.



But someone needs to tell Wally that when the Space Aliens built stonehenge 4000 years ago they probably used tractor beams and anti-gravity ray guns.

For Sure

You need to have been caught up in the whole Late Great Planet Earth idiocy in the 70's—like I was—to know just how tragically funny this is.



Well, the ending is a bit scary. I must confess that I'm quite happy not to know what the preacher who came after the song said about Daniel and the "end times."

But if you really, really want to know about Daniel and the end times, make sure you get a copy of James B. Jordan's new commentary The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel.

Check out David Field's first look at Jordan's commentary.