The Church Year is for Us catholics

Why the Christmas Season 
but only Easter Day?

Last week Kevin Trax over at the Gospel Coalition asserted:"Easter isn’t a big enough deal for evangelicals in the West." He asked:

Why do we spend an entire season of the year thinking about and celebrating Christmas, but just a weekend thinking about and celebrating the impact of the resurrection?

He followed up with additional questions:

Since we sing Christmas songs in church for several weeks leading up Christmas, why can’t we sing Easter songs for a few weeks after the resurrection?

Since we’re used to hearing Christmas music for weeks around Christmas, why can’t we create playlists and sing Easter music this time of year?

Since we have traditions for our Christmas celebrations – some with the church and others with our families, why can’t maintain and extend these traditions for Easter?

Some of my Presbyterian friends will respond to such questions with scoffing. They will argue: "There is no justification for Christmas or Easter or any special Days or Seasons, which are 'man-made holy days.' The only holy day God authorizes is the weekly Sabbath which, by the way, is a weekly celebration of the Resurrection. All additions to the Sabbath day are violations of the Second Commandment, which teaches the Regulative Principle of Worship (God strictly regulates what may be done in worship by direct command or approved example). Special days and seasons are 'will worship' (worship established by the will of man, not God), a return to the fleshly worship of the Old Testament, a denial of the spirituality and simplicity of the Gospel, and idolatrous."

Those who believe in and practise the Regulative Principle with such precision and strictness are a rather small group even among the Presbyterians. Most Presbyterians and other evangelicals will allow some observance of Christmas and Easter, though some may avoid using those terms. They probably would not take any notice of Epiphany, Ascension, Pentecost, or Trinity. Many would observe Advent as the "Christmas Season" but would draw the line at Lent as a bridge too far. Some would take notice of Palm Sunday and either Maundy Thursday or Good Friday, seldom both. 

In other words most Presbyterians belong to the camp Trevin Wax refers to as "evangelicals in the West." Evangelicals in the West do what they want when it comes to the Church Year. They do some, perhaps only a few, maybe a lot, of the special days, but they operate by one of two principles: (1) What do we want to do? ("Let's observe Christmas and sing carols for the Sundays in December leading up to Christmas Day.") (2) What must we do in light of the people's expecting that we take some notice of special days? ("The people want Christmas and Easter so we'll give one Sunday to each and ignore the rest.") Quite a few will observe the high holy days of Mother's Day (the third biggest attendance Sunday in the U.S.) and with less hoopla Father's Day.

Now in the interests of full disclosure I confess that, when it comes to the Christian Year, during my Presbyterian years I led congregations to observe Advent, Christmas, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, and Trinity. I tried to take as little notice as possible, preferably none, of the civil calendar of Mother's Day, Father's Day, and the Fourth of July. 

It is worth noting, perhaps, that the PCA-OPC Hymnal has a section of hymns dealing with our Lord's Advent (193-198), Birth (199- 233), Life (234-241), Atonement (242-246), Sufferings (247-250), Death (251-264), Resurrection (265-288), Ascension (289-294), and Heavenly Session (295-302). And, of course, there are sections on the Holy Spirit (329-341) and on the Holy Trinity (100-107). In other words Trinity Hymnal is organized in such a way as to serve, if not outright encourage, the observance of the Church Year by Presbyterians. Further, as I have noted before, those in the first generation of students at Reformed Theological Seminary were taught

worship by use of Princeton's Donald Macleod's Presbyterian Worship:It's Meaning and Method which included a chapter on "The Christian Year" (it is notable how closely Robert Rayburn's Evangelical Worship follows Macleod)  and the 1946 Presbyterian Book of Common Worship (which borrowed heavily from The Book of Common Prayer) which provided for the observance of the Church Year with a two year lectionary.

Now, as it turns out, Mr. Wax has experienced a prolonged Easter Season and misses it:

Easter is a season, not just a day. And as someone who has experienced Eastertide firsthand, I confess that I miss it terribly. 

In Romania, the evangelical churches (influenced by the Orthodox emphasis on the resurrection) gave much more attention to Easter. 

Our taste buds knew it was Easter when we savored the lamb.

Our ears knew it was Easter because the greeting “Christ is risen, He is risen indeed” was standard for more than a month after Easter Sunday had passed.

For weeks after Easter, the sermons and songs followed the story of the risen Lord. (The Sunday after Easter usually made mention of Jesus’ appearance to doubting Thomas.) 

We heard the great resurrection stories and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus again and again.
When I lived in Romania, I remember thinking, Easter is a big deal. 

I miss Eastertide. I miss the 50 days between Easter and Pentecost. And it’s not because I don’t have my own Easter playlist going full blast during this time. I do, and I love it. It’s because I feel like I’m on my own. Everyone else seems to have moved on from Easter already.

Where did Mr. Wax experience Eastertide? When he was part of a form of evangelicalism that, because of the influence of Orthodoxy on the culture, observed more of the Church Year than evangelicalism in the U.S. In other words he got used to the extended celebration of Easter because the evangelicalism of which he was a part in Romania was more in touch with and influenced by catholic Christianity - at least with regard to the liturgical calendar. 

And that's point. There is small minority of Presbyterians who observe no Church Year as a matter of principle. They believe it would be sin so to do. Then there is the broader evangelicalism in the U.S. which has no scruples against the Church Year, but flies by the seat of its pants, guided by no more than preferences, feelings, and whims. These evangelicals in matters of the church year, as in so many matters, do what they please. 

Then there is catholic Christianity which from ancient times spends the time from Advent to Trinity rehearsing, reliving, learning about, and celebrating who Jesus Christ is, what he has done for our salvation, and the fulness of the revelation of God that is found in him. 

Most of Christianity in the world follows such such an annual and orderly calendar. Roman Catholicism. Orthodoxy. Anglicanism. Lutheranism. Methodism. Many of the continental Reformed. Not a few Presbyterians with British roots. Then there are the evangelicals of the sort Mr. Wax experienced in Romania who sort of follow such a calendar. 

The most strict of the Presbyterians who roll out the canons and lay down a barrage of warning and condemnation at Christmas and Easter and most especially at the beginning of Lent can only conclude that the overwhelming majority of Christians are at best disobedient and unfaithful and at worst apostate and no Christians at all.

For my part I increasingly had the sense that Christianity must be more historically grounded and more connected with worldwide Christianity than I previously thought. Dick Bodey and Al Fruendt at RTS planted those seeds in classes on liturgics and church history. In the 90s I expressed my growing conviction as I wrote a concurring opinion in the case of a Presbyterian minister who had converted to Roman Catholicism, and I suggested that the attraction of Roman Catholicism lay in part in a desire for historical roots, ecumenical connection, and liturgical logic. 

I am Anglican who is a convinced Protestant. I believe the 39 Articles with their unambiguous Protestant teaching. I am not among those who would like to reset the Anglican clock to the time of the so-called "undivided church" as the Anglo-catholics desire. I am, further, a Protestant who does not think the Articles got doctrines such justification wrong and that we needed N.T. Wright to come along and set us straight. 

But I am an Anglican Christian who believes there are far more Christians in the world stretched across time and space than I used to believe. And I am a Christian who heartily embraces the blessings of the annual rhythm of the Christian Year with its focus on the person, work, and revelation of Jesus Christ. The Church Year is the practice of the church catholic in nearly all its branches.

Up with the Establishment and Other Heresies

One Toke Over the Line

The are many conservative Republicans (including friends of mine) whose talk would make you think you're in a group wearing beads and Roman sandals with flowers in their long scraggly hair and a cloud of sweet smoke surrounding their heads. They're chanting, "Down with the establishment!" Far out, man!

I have spent most of my life as a contrarian which puts me on the "bad list" of some establishments. 

I have experienced the ugly side of ecclesial establishments. Before the PCA existed there was in Central Mississippi Presbytery of the old PCUS a conservative caucus that met in advance of Presbytery meetings to determine how to vote, to plan strategy and tactics, and to decide whom would be elected. When the PCA came into existence and Central Mississippi was replaced by Mississippi Valley, it became obvious that the caucus still existed and was protective of its privileges, positions, and powers. A Presbytery elected officer retired. The nominating committee brought forth the name of a young (mid-30s) man, well-qualified by gifts and experience, irenic of temperament, fair and impartial. But the old "establishment" would not have it. They nominated one of their own, a far more political man, and they held on to their territory. Ugly. Distasteful. 

You can always count on Chris McDaniel, Mississippi purist, almost the lone elected true conservative and conservatism's savior, to attack the "establishment." Yesterday he posted:

Would someone kindly please tell Mitt Romney to go away? And take Lindsey Graham with him?

...it's not simply his words; it's that he assumes himself to be relevant. When will they finally understand? The establishment and the corrupt system they've perpetrated must come to an end.

John Kasich says he can get cross-over votes. Of course he can. Like Thad Cochran, he clearly appeals to Democrats. Why? Perhaps he's in the wrong Party.

McDaniel thinks: "Let's have a smaller party without any elder statesmen and with no one allowed who does not meet the McDaniel standards of ideological purity." Of course, McDaniel's only candidate is Mr. Anti-Establishment, Ted Cruz, who has spent his time in the Senate alienating almost every one of  his Republican colleagues.

I hate, loathe, despise, and abominate the kind of ecclesial establishments I describe above. And, while I am a bona fide member of the "down with the establishment generation," I believe in establishments. I do not consider the word "establishment" a pejorative. Every organization needs an establishment. A establishment is the keeper of corporate memory. Establishments conserve and transmit the organization's values and traditions. Establishments provide continuity and stability. Establishments have the apparatus by which to run and win elections. Establishments make it possible to run a government and to govern effectively. Establishments are organization parents - the kids indulge themselves while the adults keep things stable. This year, if the Republican Party survives, and it may not (the insurgents would really like to see it burned to the ground), and if either Trump or Cruz gets the nomination and the expected disaster follows, the Republican establishment will have to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild the Party.

The Establishment, its allies, and those it favors are the evil "RINOs." , I think this RINO business is misguided. For one thing what are called RINOs today are largely modern Reagan conservatives. But think also about the meaning of "RINO" - Republican in Name Only. Is Romney a RINO? Kasich? Rubio? A real RINO in my opinion is Cruz who has no loyalty to his Party, a fact proved repeatedly by his relations and conduct in Senate. 

The Republican Party today is more conservative than it was in 1980. There are no liberal/progressives and very few moderates left. No Jacob Javits, no Nelson Rockefeller, no John Heinz, no Edward Brooke, no Charles Mathias, et al. When people like Jeb Bush are called RINOs, you have entered the world of Alice in Wonderland.

One of the things that anti-Establishment types like to say is: "How has nominating RINOs worked out? Such folks have a selective memory. Who has won since 1950? Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43. The Establishment RINOs have won as much as they've lost.

And in terms of the standards applied by the anti-Establishment crowd, its hard not to think of Reagan as having one foot in the RINO camp. He was accused by the anti-Establishment folks of his day of selling out. He was a pragmatic conservative and big tent Republican who never thought about purging the Party. You can't imagine Reagan telling Romney to go away or Kasich to become a Democrat.

What about the RINO losses? Bob Dole (who by the way was a conservative budget hawk) was not going to win against an incumbent charismatic Clinton. There is a good chance that McCain would have won, had not the economy collapsed (but he also had going against him the fact that voters usually don't give a party a 3rd term). Romney did not run a stellar campaign, had trouble identifying with the "regular guy," and had to take positions to satisfy the "base" that made it hard to appeal to the general non-ideological electorate. He also faced an incumbent, an economy showing signs of life, and an extremely well run Obama campaign.

I think one reason the Party is fractured is that the unrealistic expectations of the "further right" were encouraged by the "Establishment right." People really thought that Obamacare could be repealed (de-funded), that a budget deal conservatives would love and liberals hate could be reached, that executive orders could be overturned. The real question should have been, though questions like this do not rally the troops, "What really can be done?" Rather people expected big victories and, if victories could not be won, the thing to do was, like Cruz, to fall on one's sword. Reagan had to face this very kind of thing and spoke about how he did not believe in the strategy of dying on a hill but of living to fight another day.

The establishment had remarkable success in 2014 - in fact unprecedented. We were poised for a big victory in 2016. Now we are looking at disaster. I blame (1) unrealistic expectations, (2) a rigid, absolutist conservatism of the Cruz sort, and (3) the strange irrational acceptance of Trump. We are managing to snag defeat from the jaws of victory. We are looking at the real possibility of losing the Presidency, losing the Senate, putting the House in play, seeing conservatism set back for a generation or two, and maybe the dissolution of the Party that has been the vehicle of conservatism.

A big price all of us will pay for the anti-Establishmentarians to have their way.

Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs

Thabiti and Mike: What Would Jesus Preach?

WWJP?

On March 1 Christianity today published, How 11 Pastors Preach Politics (Or Don’t). I was interested in two responses.

Mike Higgins, Lead Pastor at South City Church (PCA), in St. Louis answered:

Never expressly preached about politics. As a black pastor in a predominantly white, conservative denomination, there is no good way to do that.

I wonder if that was intended as a tongue in cheek comment. But, if it is meant literally:

(1) If Mr. Higgins has not “preached” on politics, he certainly has written about (to his congregation) and practiced politics, even going to the point of getting himself arrested.

(2) If Mr. Higgins does not preach politics, his daughter Michelle, Director of Worship and Outreach at her father’s church, surely preaches politics, as she infamously did at Urbana last December.

(3) Mr. Higgins says there is no good way for a black pastor a predominantly white conservative denomination to preach politics from the pulpit. This implies that his reasons for refraining from preaching politics are practical, and that is hard to understand. It does not fit with his otherwise outspoken political rhetoric and practice.

Thabiti Anyabwile, pastor at Anacostia Baptist Church in Washington D.C., answered:

Since we launched Anacostia River Church last April, there’s hardly been a month wherein I haven’t preached “something political.” I don’t think it can be avoided if

you’re committed to expositional preaching of the sort that makes contact with contemporary life. The gospels, for example, are explosive in their political import. Preaching “something political” is necessary if we are to live under Christ’s lordship in every area of life. Not doing so means Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and other secular news outlets disciple us instead. I fear that’s been the case far too long and to disastrous effect for the church and the country.

I have a few questions for Mr. Anyabwile:

(1) You say “the Gospels are explosive in their political import.” I assume this means that you find in the Gospels much material that suggests application having to do with political issues. But I have this question: Could you give a few examples, not saying with political import, but of our Lord directly addressing political issues of his day? About which political issues of his day did he preach? I am wondering about things our Lord said in his preaching and teaching that give us concrete illustrations of preaching politics and how do do it.

(2) You say that you are “committed to the kind of expositional preaching that makes contact with contemporary life”, that preaching politics is necessary “if we are to live under Christ’s Lordship in every area of life,”

and that the alternative is between (a) preaching politics as an aspect of discipling Christians, or (b) letting the secular media do the work of  discipling Christians. So let me put a few questions along the lines of, “What would Jesus preach?”:

a) What would Jesus preach about Black lives matter?

b) What would Jesus preach about the economic system in the United States?

c) What would Jesus preach about Wall Street?

d) What would Jesus preach about healthcare? Would he want to repeal, maintain, or expand the ACA?

e) What would Jesus preach about the upcoming national election? Would he preach that one party serves the interests of righteousness and justice better than the other?

f) What would Jesus preach about Islamist terrorists? the godly U.S. response?

e) What would Jesus preach about voter registration, voter ID, etc.?

g) What would Jesus preach about military readiness, the military budget, and the use of military power?

h) What would Jesus preach about foreign aid?

i) What programs to aid the poor would Jesus endorse in his preaching?

j) What would Jesus preach about immigration? Would he preach in support of a wall? of barring Muslim refugees? Would he preach in favor of deporting, granting citizenship, or granting permanent residence to illegal immigrants?

k) What would Jesus preach about gun control?

l) What would Jesus preach about the vacancy on the Supreme Court?

There are few to get started. Now, I would ask that you avoid generalities such as, “Jesus favors life,” or,“Jesus cares about the poor.” Application is concrete and specific. So, for instance would Jesus say, “The government should protect human life by banning the sale and possession of assault weapons,” or, “Voter ID laws are an assault on the full human personhood and rights of minorities who are made in the image of God” or, “U.S. society is permeated by institutional racism, which must be uprooted if here is to be Biblical justice”?

(3) You say that preaching on politics is required for the discipling of God’s people and for God’s people’s living under Christ’s lordship. This kind of world-and-life-view understanding is associated mostly with neo-Calvinism (whether or not that is the self-conscious understanding of its proponents and disciples) and in the U.S. it goes in a generally rightward direction.

For instance, someone preaching from our Lord’s telling his disciples on the night he was betrayed to buy a sword is Jesus’s direction to believers to arm themselves. Another man preaching on the parable of the workers who all received the same pay regardless of when they entered the field, might say that our Lord teaches us that employee pay is entirely at the discretion of the employer. Or someone preaching on the 8th commandment might say that socialism or taxation for the purpose welfare programs are stealing. Or someone preaching on the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah might say the United States has a duty to build a strong national defense. Another might preach that, since the Bible gives us personal freedom and demands of us personal responsibility, it violates the Bible for the government to have any role in provision of healthcare.

So how do you explain the different directions in which people go preaching on politics from the Bible?