The celebration of Advent used to raise eyebrows in
Evangelical circles.
The response usually was "What, are you Catholic or
Episcopalian or something?" While the practice has precedent in Church
History and thus must on some level be reckoned with it hardly deserves the
pass it seems to receive today. The practice of Christmas itself is of course
dubious when compared not only to the New Testament but to history. Sure it's
ancient but its 'advent' can be traced and it appears right about the same time
a lot of other dubious practices began to enter the Church. Neither the New
Testament Church nor the pre-Constantinian Church of the Persecution knew
anything of it... and apparently they got on just fine without it.
Protestants and particularly those descended from British
Non-Conformity should understand why their forefathers rejected it but today,
in this age of politicised culture war, dominionism and Evangelical compromise,
almost everyone has gone over to the Canterbury-Rome axis, at least on this
point. Christmas has become a deep act of piety and now advent has crept in.
I'm surprised the so-called Twelve Days of Christmas haven't become the norm
but give it some time.*
In the Fundamentalist circles of my youth, I certainly grew
up with Christmas even though there were still Presbyterians and others
refusing the practice well into the 20th century. Consumerism and
the pull of culture did the trick. Just the other night I found myself
transfixed as I stumbled upon Santa Claus
is Comin' to Town, the old stop motion featuring Fred Astaire and Mickey
Rooney. It rekindled childhood memories and I must confess I enjoyed the trip
down memory lane. The pull of the Christmas season is strong and as I've
expressed elsewhere if it was just winter traditions and seasonal custom, that
would be fine. But once Christ is inserted, there are doctrinal elements that
have to be considered, all the more when we look at the confusion which has
ensued. Get Christ out of Christmas
and I might be willing to decorate and give gifts. But because I'm the servant
of Christ, I examine all things and I see a dangerous form of syncretism and
all the more as I'm free in Christ, I will not be brought into bondage, even if
it's a bondage that seems pleasant to some. That's part of the self-deception.
I must say I dispensed with Christmas 25 years ago and I've never regretted it.
In fact as the years go by I'm ever the more comfortable and at peace with my
decision. Additionally it is only by breaking with the practice that you can
begin to see it anew and see it for what it really is... a sham.
Christmas was common enough in Evangelical and Fundamentalist
circles by the early to mid 20th century, although there were
certainly some Fundamentalists that balked at certain aspects of it. Some had
problems with the tree for example, and rightly so. But sadly in recent years
the few that I've found that hold to that older position have embraced an even
worse option... promoting nativity scenes. Sacrilegious and frankly idolatrous
images of Christ are not the answer. Some readers will recall my story from
years ago. I was doing electrical work in a Baptist pastor's basement and I had
to move his big tacky plastic nativity set out of the way so that I could run
some wires. I moved the wise men, the donkey etc. but then I saw something that
puzzled me. It was (as best as I can remember) a pillow case or some kind of
cloth covering. What's this? I picked it up and either the flap fell back or it
almost slid out. Anyway, inside the cloth was the baby 'Jesus' from the
nativity set, an awful light-up plastic thing, hideous in every way. If it is
Jesus then you had best revere it, if not, then it's a false representation and
something abominable.
The guy couldn't help it. It just didn't seem right to him
that the plastic Jesus should get covered with cobwebs and the mildewy grime so
common in many basements. Without meaning to, he fell into idolatry showing
reverence to a cheap, gaudy (and doctrinally deviant) piece of plastic. I've
thought about it many times since.
It's all the more striking when I consider how casual many
Baptists and Evangelicals are when it comes to handling the elements of the Lord's
Supper or with regard to the actual rite of Baptism. They goof off, get silly
and fall prey to distraction and yet instinct told the Baptist pastor, if
that's Jesus, then it should be reverenced. I still shake my head over it. The
symbols given by God that the Scriptures refer to as holy are discounted but a statue
associated with a man-made tradition is treated with reverence and respect.
But until just a few years ago, no one talked about Advent or
Lent or any of these other practices that have since crept into Evangelical and
even Calvinist circles. Most Confessionalists still seem to be somewhat restrained
in this regard but New Calvinism (as represented by Challies)... it's a
different animal and approaches these things in a totally different way. As a
movement it proclaims a regard and connection to historic Calvinism, but such
connections are in fact tenuous and paper thin and in other cases contrived.
They've embraced doctrines that represent an improvement on the Evangelicalism
from which they have emerged but they have not understood the motivations and
principles of the Reformed mindset. Given the somewhat degenerate state of the
Reformed world in general, maybe the onus for this should not entirely be
placed upon them.
The problem is, once you start promoting Advent you've denied
not only your Calvinist heritage but the Sufficiency of Scripture. What you're
saying is that we need to keep times and seasons in order to experience a
richer and fuller worship. And you're also saying that Church leaders have the
authority to bring these things into the Church. I'm sure Challies et al.
wouldn't 'impose' these things on their congregation in the sense of
threatening discipline toward those who refused to go along with it.
Nevertheless as leaders they believe they have the authority to bring them into
the gathering, into the life and worship of the Church. Where did they get that
right? Why does my gathering-worship experience now have to be subject to such
impositions, to rites and practices that cannot be anywhere found or
demonstrated from Scripture?
Romans 14 doesn't actually apply here. Read the passage
carefully and you'll discover Paul is interacting with Jewish practice, arguing
for a tolerance toward the Jewish converts who (in their weak conscience) felt
compelled to still keep the Jewish calendar... Passover, the Sabbath etc. Paul
is not for a moment suggesting that the Church appropriate pagan holidays,
attempt to Christianise their symbols and then argue that such days are 'kept
to the Lord' and those who refuse are weak and must be tolerated. This passage
has been completely turned on its head as have the related passages in
Colossians and Galatians.
It's one thing to eat meat from the shambles, but it's
another to bring the pagan-blessed meats into the worship of Christ, to treat them
as a new element of worship. Paul (in 1 Corinthians) wasn't suggesting that even for a moment. I'll
eat Christmas candy if someone offers it but I'm not going to bring
Yule-Saturnalia-Sol Invictus or Madison Avenue into the Church. Such false
religions have no place there.
If we're free to make up days, times, seasons, practices,
rites and the rest, then we cannot say the Bible is our sole authority and
Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3 is false. We can (like Rome) insist the New
Testament is part of the equation but by no means the final story or statement
with regard to Christian life and doctrine. Clearly such an understanding
rejects the principle of Sufficiency and instead argues that augmentation is
needed and such augmentation is of course developed by means of philosophical
inference and exploration, the embrace of tradition, cultural appropriation and
just plain innovation. It's a principle, a mindset, an ethos that is quite
divergent from the historical witness of Sola Scriptura.**
Once again New Calvinism is revealed to be little more than a
slightly more robust Evangelicalism that acknowledges the Bible teaches
predestination. I can't say I'm terribly interested in that.
----
*There's an irony here too. The 12 days were tantamount to
the 12 'holy' days or holidays which ran until Epiphany in January. But now if
you say 'holidays' that's heard by Evangelical ears as a capitulation to
secularism. Indeed for many it is and smacks of political correctness and yet
in all actuality the 'holidays' language hearkens back to the wider Christmas
practice that Evangelicals have never quite embraced.
Why not? Because all their zeal and fanaticism regarding
contemporary Christmas celebration is actually a newer phenomenon. The a-historical
mindset of Evangelicalism frequently falls into such contradictions.
**Sadly the 'good and necessary' seeds that were planted
during the time of Reformed Scholasticism and Confessionalism have at last
borne fruit, a 'consequence' as it were. Westminster's concept of good and necessary consequence as a
right application of Sola Scriptura is reasonable (to a degree) and yet has
proven to be subject to great abuse. Today it is often used as a blanket
sanction or justification for practices the drafters of the Confession would
certainly find dubious, practices which are hardly good and certainly not
necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.