I remember a time when Advent was foreign to most Protestants except for Episcopalians and a few Lutherans. Now one hears regularly of the Advent season in conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches. Some even bring out the wreaths, the candles, and orchestrate Hallmark moments where an entire family will be involved in a reading and lighting that Sunday’s candle. The observance of Advent among the low-church Christians are usually ham fisted, of course, because technically Christmas carols should not be sung until December 25th – and that’s because Jesus isn’t born until then. Before Christmas, expectations of Christ’s advent are supposed to be properly advental, which makes “Come Thou Long Expected Jesus†an Advent hymn, and “Joy To the World†a Christmas hymn. How the liturgical calendar comes back to bite.
The objections to Advent – not to mention Christmas – are legion in the Reformed tradition. The regulative principle is one of those reasons.
But beyond the obvious confessional concerns are some more trivial and some more substantial. Among the trivial is the idea that Advent has become the commercial bridge between the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday and Christmas, thus baptizing a time of much consuming, both by the mouth and the wallet, with the religious patina of “Come, Lord Jesus, Come Quickly†(but not so fast that merchants fail to generate the seasonal profits on which their enterprises depend). Leigh Eric Schmidt’s book, Consumer Rites, is among the best on the commodification of holidays in American history and he notes the following:
In a market philosophy organized on the guiding priniciple of growth, every year Christmas advertizing was said to get “bigger and better,†and seemingly the only question that remained was how early in November to begin the blitz. The Dry Good Economist candidly noted in 1902 that many retailers consider 15 November or even 1 November “none too early†to open the “Holiday Campaign.â€
One of the merchants that Schmidt includes was the New School Presbyterian and financial sponsor of Dwight L. Moody, John Wanamaker, of the famous Philadelphia department store that bore his name. According to Schmidt, “As one of the most influential and powerful merchants of his day, Wanamaker was rarely outdone, and at Christmas he kept up a formidable flow of store souvenirs, gift catalogues, newspaper advertisements, trade cards, window decorations, musical concerts, Santa Claus stunts, and other holiday entertainments.†Wanamaker even had Christmas hymnals printed for use in the store, and also wrote messages appropriate to the season such as the following: “To get right with Christmas would make men right with one another, nation with nation, and . . . put right this old world, almost falling to pieces.†Didn’t the baby Jesus as a grown man turn out merchants from the Temple for making profits off religion?
A more substantive concern about creeping Adventism among Presbyterians is that because Christmas follows Advent, hard pressed are many believers not to think that the coming of the Lord upon which they are meditating in December is the Advent that took place two millennia ago — thus causing eschatological rubber-necking. Of course, we can sing Advent hymns (if we are going to sing hymns) with Christ’s return in view, and believers should be encouraged to live expectantly, hoping for their Lord’s second coming. Mind you, this is a remarkable disincentive for commerce since living in the light of Christ’s imminent return leads to prayers like Calvin’s – “let us not become too deeply attached to earthly and perishable things.†But if we were going to sing Advent hymns it would make more sense to sing them as far away from Christmas as possible, so that folks don’t lose track of where they are in redemptive history.
We live in the inter-advental period – period. Christ has come. He is coming again. We are not awaiting his birth. Been there, done that. In which case, why don’t we sing all those Advent hymns at General Assembly and Synod, a time when Christmas is a distant memory and when commissioners would do well to consider their work in the light of “the fullness of timeâ€?
88 Comments
I’ll confess to not having a heart big enough to love the world. I pray that when I’m called to glory I’ll know what that’s like.
Once again you avoid the merits and resort to name calling.
Do you really see yourself as exhibiting martyr-like bravery and love for the world for world?
Do you really see people who disagree with you as spear-throwing cavemen?
Adam
You don’t, by any chance, know where I can get an MP3 of “Day of Wrath, O Day of Mourning”? It is indeed a great hymn and iTunes doesn’t seem to have it.
Jeff C,
I can’t and won’t speak for dgh, but arguably Frame’s fundamental errors are in the plural.
The first might be that the RPW is divorced from the Second Commandment. Consequently the RPW is NOT the good and necessary consequences of the Second as confessed in the reformed creeds and catechisms, but rather some amorphous overly philosophical principle dreamed up by scholastic Puritans.
Another would be Frame’s confusion of worship with our call to glorify God in all our life.
IOW Frame is a latitudinarian who wishes to blur received distinctions and definitions. But whatever his erroneous beliefs, I think it would be rather difficult on the basis of WCF 21, which begins with defining religious worship before going on to state the necessity of daily private/family worship and weekly public worship, to say the RPW does not apply to private worship.
Bob, I wasn’t trying to raise here a defense or discussion of Frame. I was just curious about Dr. Hart’s view of private worship. I agree with you that it appears to fall under the RPW. Nevertheless, it also falls outside of church proper.
And thus we have a curious “bubble” in which something (clearly?) under the RPW is also outside the kingdom of the Church and more in the kingdom of … well, not the secular, clearly …
Just wondered about Dr. Hart’s thoughts on this.
JRC
I don’t even say in any of the above that I’m a positive type. You don’t know me. My initial comment to DGH (and RSC) was in a long line of jabs. It’s easy to get into the “Enough of this thing that is wrong, let be bring to your attention something else that is wrong…”
I was also merely pointing out the fact that being negative is a safer position regarding attacks or backlash than being positive about something. It’s something people don’t usually think about, if they’ve thought about it at all.
Jeff,
“I wasn’t trying to raise here a defense or discussion of Frame.”
Granted, but the question is not that hard to figure out, regardless and with all due respect if Dr. Hart doesn’t concur. Two, the elders ought to be inquiring and instructing about these issues, as well the pulpit, when home visitation is conducted, the last being a requirement I take it in P&R churches. Three, the church either reforms family and private worship or eventually private and family worship will deform public worship, if the first two are deformed to begin with.
>>I was also merely pointing out the fact that being negative is a safer position regarding attacks or backlash than being positive about something.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time thinking about arguments and how people respond to them. And, I’ve reached a far different conclusion. I’m genuinely interested in this topic, so I’d really like to understand how you reached that conclusion. I’m not trying to pick a fight. I’m inviting you to convince me by telling me what convinced you.
It’s been my experience, that most people look beyond whether an argument is framed positively or negatively and judge in light of the evidence and reasons presented. Consider the following pair of statements: “My client is innocent; He’s a good man” and “My Client did not commit this crime; he’s no murderer.” The first pair is framed positively, and the second pair is framed negatively. I think, however, that the difference doesn’t matter. A jury of reasonable adults would look past how the statements were framed and decide the case based on the evidence.
It’s further been my experience that when people do have a reaction to how an argument is framed, they generally find negative phrasing more controversial or offensive than positive phrasing. The opposite of what you contend. The most obvious evidence of this is the constant complaining about politicians being too negative. Recently, the Democrats have tried to score rhetorical points by labeling the Republican party as “The Party of No” and “The Opposition Party.” I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a politician being criticized or attacked for being too positive. Those who use negative language are more open to attack. Even this, I think is rare. Again, I think it matters little whether a politician frames his position as “supporting a quick withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan” or as “opposing the war in Afghanistan.”
So relating this specifically to this post, is there really a difference between saying, “I believe that Presbyterian worship was more faithful before Advent services crept into our churches” and “I believe that Advent services are harmful and dangerous”? I don’t think there is. So I can’t see where one is safer than another.
RL, the phenomenon is real. People get in a groove of constantly observing what is wrong about this or that. It is common among Christians on internet forums and blogs and whatnot. Part of the reason it is popular, as I’ve stated, is because it’s a more defended stance in terms of one’s vanity being harassed. Pointing out something wrong or negative is easier to defend; saying something positive opens you up to myriad questioning and accusation, genuine and disingenuous.
Let me give you an example: Michael Horton recently gave a positive blurb to a Scott Hahn book. (Whether you think that is wise or not – I don’t – set that aside.) Suddenly Horton is inundated with questions and accusations and insinuations that he is soft on Romanism, or is ignorant of Scott Hahn and the tactics of Romanist apologists allowing himself to be used as a useful idiot, or is a closet Romanist himself, etc. I.e. the incoming is from myriad angles, he’s totally opened up as a target, fairly or not.
If Horton had said: “I was asked to give a blurb to a Scott Hahn book. Scott Hahn promotes a false Gospel. I don’t lend my support or name in any way to anything that promotes a false Gospel.” Now try to assail that. That’s a closed, poised, fighting stance.
Take away the merits of the position and just see how it is more comfortable to be in one and not the other.
Jeff, as Bob S. indicates, the problem in Frame’s views on worship are legion. One is the denial of a difference between corporate worship and the rest of life — everything is worship, and so everything must be governed by the Bible, thus allowing for his confounding defense of biblicism. Another is that he doesn’t recognize that the RPW inherently makes a distinction between corporate worship and other areas of life, as in insisting that the church must have a biblical warrant for what it does, while believers have liberty either where Scripture is silent or in applying biblical teaching.
I’m also with Andrew that private worship should not be purposefully different from corporate worship. Granted, no sacraments at home, no invocation, benediction, etc. But I’d hope for Scripture centered worship, teaching that conforms to the creed, songs that are sung at church, and similar reverence and awe (making allowances, of course, for children).
So once again Jeff I sense you’ve isolated one remark I’ve made as if it is tension with other remarks. Never. I’m completely consistent, all the time. Just ask my wife.
Jeff,
There is no good history of colonial Presbyterianism other than Trinterud’s The Forming of An American Tradition. It is biased toward the New Side, and behind that point lies the great irony for experimental Calvinists that the mainline church historians of the mid-20th century (like Trinterud) were pro-First Great Awakening even while being against Machen and the OPC. But it remains the best book on the colonial era.
I sure do hope your professor is teaching you that Charles Chauncy was a Congregationalist and not a Presbyterian. Old Side and New Side are Presbyterian categories. New Light and Old Light are Congregationalist/New England categories. It is simply wrong to assume that the News and Olds line up in the same way in those different communions — another reason for distinguishing Presbyterians and Puritans. In New England the revivals produced greater extremes both for and against revival, thus making Edwards a moderate. But in the Presbyterian setting Edwards would have been on the New Side side.
Christian, let me say again, it is wonderful and heart-warming to see you on the side of positivity and charity. I assume that you have also had a change of heart about Reformed academics and the ESV. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
I’m sure that he gave me correct information (it was Dr. Jue, now at Westminister) … I was relying on my memory from four years ago.
Thanks for the additional info.
JRC
Christian, I think you assume (or fear) that all of us look at aggressive comments and do not see them for what they are.
But rest assured that many of us heavily discount negative statements as being, well, negative and therefore devoid of positive content. The guarded stance that you describe (which is very real) is a liability in the eyes of many.
Jeff Cagle
Hah! Well, Merry Christmas … or Happy Sunday … or Season’s Greetings … (is an internet theology blog a part of kingdom 1 or kingdom 2?) to you.
Jeff Cagle
(My inner physicist wants to amend: “Axial tilt is the reason for the season”)
Christian,
I’m not convinced. Though I’m not one of them, there are millions of people worldwide who would assail the proposition that the Roman Catholic Church teaches a distorted gospel. Scott Hahn, for example, would attack such a statement. He might even write an entire book about it.
The context of a statement and the disposition of the audience determine the response more than whether the statement is framed positively or negatively. We’d expect Roman Catholics to defend their doctrine, and we’d expect Reformed Theologians to defend our doctrine.
It seems to me that the best way to protect one’s vanity–which you seem to insinuate is an important goal of Mr. Hart and Mr. Clark–would be to not say anything publicly. Why even have a blog, if you are worried about a fragile vanity? Why expose yourself to millions of anonymous comments?
Instead of being a defense of vanity, I see Mr. Hart’s and Mr. Clark’s blogs as being an antidote to it. They along with many of those who comment on their blogs, strip arguments of pride and sentimentality. All arguments are judged by the same standard–Scripture and Reason. If one wants to object to what they say, it must be done on those terms. Pride, ego, and vanity have no room in such discussions.
Sometimes they use strong language. But I am happy for that. Not because I think it wounds the pride of another, but because I am rather dull and slow to understand things. I need Truth pounded into my head, my pride resists it at every turn. Though some may respond better to a lighthearted cantata (which is fine), I need the sharp staccato of Scripture and reason unadorned. So to them I am grateful both for what they say and how they say it.
RL, if you think I use strong language here, you should talk sometime to Cordelia, our demon kitten, about how I sometimes address her.
I think everybody here knows what my initial point here was. You’re trying to stretch it out and apply to myself generic examples I give, or make me an advocate of one example or another when I am just giving examples. The initial observation was: it’s easy to get stuck in a groove that is, basically: “Enough about this wrong thing, allow me to draw your attention to something else that is wrong.”
If you want to make a statement about me then apply my criticism to myself, as I’m as guilty as anybody (DHG does that above some). I’m not as guilty as DGH or RSC. I make stands in areas they can only mock (politics, for instance). But I do tend to have an ability to find the 2% that is off-the-mark in a person who, in the general run of Christianity, is 98% on-the-mark.
Christian: don’t take this the wrong way. You really are superior to all of us.
As much as I appreciate your work, DGH, it saddens me that you do not seem to be able to see the possible benefits or the beauty of observing the church calendar. Advent, Lent, and etc. need not be anymore confusing to our sense of eschatological time than the creeds, liturgy, or reading the gospels (surely you do not think the laity are dim?). May I ask you to reconsider your position and examine the benefits of the church calendar?
In my view, the observance of the church seasons teaches/catechizes, and reinforces/deepens faith and understanding. Advent like Lent gives Christians a wonderful extended focus or long gaze (if you will) upon Christ, who he is, and all he has done, is doing, and will yet do for us. It casts the frantic Americanized holiday nonsense aside. Advent is like a calm oasis in a storm.
I am not asking you to embrace the church calendar, but only ask if you can see it’s possible benefits? The church calendar does give the Christian life a rhythm and beauty during the year that draws one unto Christ to adore and worship him in all (If you can appreciate Wendell Berry, why not the church calendar?).
On my part, I see no good arguments against Advent or the church calendar. The regulatory principle seems incredibly odd and in danger of becoming moralistic, but that is probably because I am a Lutherette? Anywho, I mean to pose my questions as a friend and not an adversary. May God richly bless you in all and may he inspire you to look into the beauty of the church calendar through confessional Lutheran eyes.
This is not much, but perhaps this mini-explanation will help clarify why Christmas songs are not sung in Lutheran churches until Christmas and why concerns about eschatology are unnecessary:
The word “advent” is from the Latin word for “coming,” and as such, describes the “coming” of our Lord Jesus Christ into the flesh. Advent begins the church year because the church year begins where Jesus’ earthly life began–in the Old Testament prophecies of his incarnation. After Advent comes Christmas, which is about his birth; then Epiphany, about his miracles and ministry; then Lent, about his Calvary-bound mission; then Easter, about his resurrection and the sending of the apostles; and then Ascension (40 days after Easter) and Pentecost, with the sending of the Holy Spirit.
Advent specifically focuses on Christ’s “coming,” but Christ’s coming manifests itself among us in three ways–past, present, and future. The readings which highlight Christ’s coming in the past focus on the Old Testament prophecies of his incarnation at Bethlehem. The readings which highlight Christ’s coming in the future focus on his “second coming” on the Last Day at the end of time. And the readings which highlight Christ’s coming in the present focus on his ministry among us through Word and Sacrament today.
By the grace of God.
Hello Lily,
They’re all over at the Machen Public School thread vigorously hashing it out (and I do mean). You may or may not want to join in, Lutheran day schools or no.
The reformed answer to the question in a nutshell is Col.2, Rom. 14. The OT feastdays have been nailed to the cross with Christ and we are not to reintroduce them – or anything like them into the worship of the church. The one in seven Lord’s Day is sufficient along with allowance for occasional days of prayer or thanksgiving as providence warrants; not the rote yearly anniversary days/seasons of Advent, Christmas, Easter etc.. Calvin said the Jews at least had divine warrant for their festivals; those who aped them, the papists, not so.
But as you probably know, this is one of the dividing lines between the Lutheran/Anglican and Calvinist Reformed/Presbyterian. Worship and government were an indifferent concern for the L/A, while the P&R considered that Scripture was a rule for worship and govt. as well as the gospel and doctrine. Consequently L/A took over many aspects of Roman worship that wasn’t blatantly forbidden. As someone originally born in the Roman communion, I was somewhat surprised myself at this when visiting an evangelical Lutheran church. I was even more surprised when I found out P&R churches observed Advent, Christmas etc. Not cool.
Reformed, in doctrine, worship and government. As in the practical outworking of the sovereignty of God in doctrine, worship and govt. or sola scriptura, the reg.principle of worship and jus divinum ch. govt.
Hi Bill,
I appreciate your reply and looked at the scripture passages. I don’t agree with the way the passages are applied to the church calendar and I think both passages could be used to support the calendar since the calendar specifically directs us to teach Christ in all of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. The point of the calendar is to keep Christ and his gospel central and to grow in grace and the knowledge of Christ. Al Mohler’s recent article caught the spirit of what confessional Lutherans teach during Advent. [See here: http://tinyurl.com/ylhvzhy
Anywho, I did not comment in order to start an argument. I was surprised (and still am) at the misunderstanding surrounding Advent and the church calendar and meant to add (hopefully) to the discussion in order to clear up any misunderstanding. I was probably surprised because the Presbyterians I know do observe Advent.
Like the Reformed, the bible is the Lutheran’s rule for life & faith, and we test traditions by scripture and seek to keep Christ and his gospel central in all. But, both the Reformed and the Lutherans have their own distinctives and these distinctives separate us. I did not realize that it applied to the calendar, too. It would have been better for me to remain silent.
May you have a blessed and merry Christmas.
Lily, go ahead and start an argument. Oldlife is a place for that — meanies that we are. The question for Reformed Protestants on holidays has really been about church power and whether a church has biblical warrant for holding a service. I think it used to be the case, at least with Rome, that members were required to attend services on high holy days. Reformed believed that the Bible only gave a warrant for requiring services on Sundays.
That’s not to say that having services on other days may not be a good idea. But as a matter of potential discipline, the church may only require of her members what Scripture requires. The difference between Reformed and Lutherans here is that Lutherans have generally found more freedom to observe certain practices as long as Scripture does not forbid them. Reformed go the other way, needing biblical warrant to do anything — unless of course you’re a faux Reformed observing Advent.
Hi DGH,
The tidbit on church power/mandates helps me start to better understand where you are coming from in your tradition. The need for biblical warrant to do anything seems wise in some ways, but not in others, and as far as I know, the confessional Lutherans and the confessional Reformed are pretty much agreed on the matter of what would instigate church discipline. As for the Lutheran freedom to observe certain traditions, well… I am beginning to feel a bit like Babette in Babette’s Feast in this discussion.
In Lutheranism, no one is required to come to Advent or the other calendar services. My puzzlement seems to fall more into the realm of why anyone would want to miss the full menu of the delicious feast prepared? [See Al Mohler's article for the carte de jour]
As I said in an earlier comment, Advent is like a calm oasis this time of year and the beauty and rhythm that the church calendar offers the Christian life can be a tremendous blessing. Since that is my perspective, it makes me curious as to why you appreciate Wendell Berry’s philosophy on family, place, and story, yet seem to shy away from these similar attributes/benefits in the communal nature of the church calendar? It does puzzle me even with your explanation, but I can accept our differences and have no desire to force you to dine upon my turtle soup.
Lily, doesn’t Berry’s view make room for different families, places, and stories? I doubt his kin or Baptist church observed Advent.
Anyway, what for you is calm, beauty, and rhythm is for me agitation. It would be like trying to serve Babbette’s feast at the Lord’s table. For us Presbyterians, the menu and hourse of service are fixed. We eat turtle soup at home.
Rushdoony never would have stoned anyone, capital punishment is the job of the state not the Church, as Rushdoony taught.
Still, one wonders in this season what would have happened to Mary had Joseph been theonomically inclined instead of “a righteous man.”
Natch, you are right about there being oodles of room for all of us, DGH. I was looking at Berry in a different way, but somehow I do not think you missed that, you artful dodger.
Yet, I think that we most likely have had a failure to communicate about Babette’s Feast (or am I dense)? It can be seen as an allegory to the Lord’s Supper, but perhaps even more than that, it can be seen as the meta-narrative (love story) of the Bible. For God so loved the world… it is that story from A to Z that is told and loved during church calendar year – the ever rich feast of the Word [crowned by the Lord's Supper, of course].
You do make me smile at your allusion to a restaurant with fixed hours of service and limited courses offered within the menu. A Lutherette could starve at that type of restaurant (we love our pot-lucks before our additional services, too!) whereas you feel agitated at our restaurant. It will be fun to see what the Lord has to say about all of our practices and non-practices when that time arrives, though I cannot imagine his disapproval of our exercise of Christian liberty in this area. In the meantime, I will continue to appreciate my confessional Reformed relatives, even if I do think they could use a few more calories with their meals and more snacks to prevent scurvy. [Sorry, I could not resist joshing you here].
May you be richly blessed in the days ahead.
Eech, those smiley faces are annoying. Is there a better way to show one desires to engage in a friendly exchange so it is not mistaken for orneriness or trollishness? Those awful grins reinforce my Luddite proclivities. Ugh!
Lily, well there is always Nadab and Abihu to consider. Maybe that’s what animates Reformed worries about God not being impressed with our pious intentions.
As for the smiley faces, in the spirit of Luther just go ahead and offend boldly. We can take it here. We’re Calvinists.
Nadab and Abihu? Pious intentions? Now you’ve really gone to meddling, dear friend!
Truly, these men are an example worth considering, especially in this era of putrid worship practices, and pious intentions are but filthy rags. But I would guess you are aware that Confessional Lutherans do have a long history of being quite persnickety, polemic, and unmovable about worship practices? It is why we practice close communion and believe the doctrine of justification is the article upon which the church stands or falls. It is why we are wary of ecumenical movements (or papers like the Manhattan Declaration) and believe the true church is where the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly. Truly, we are as big a pain in the tush as the Reformed when it comes to doctrine!
Then again, we also like to quote Luther’s words to Melanchthon and risk being accused of antinomianism, “God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.”
And to quote Luther’s last words, “We are beggars, this is true.” Which may help explain why Lutherans need the church calendar with all of it’s additional church services. We are wicked sinners and know our desperate need to be forgiven much and to be fed the Bread of Life by our Savior (John 6:53-58). But here, again, is an area of doctrinal difference. I do look forward to heaven where there will no longer be any divisions that separate us. Until then, I can only imagine that both the Calvinists and the Lutherans will continue to think the other is misguided (even woefully) in certain areas and will continue to sin boldly in faith! I am thankful for all of the areas where we do agree and to make it through this spiel without one smiley face. Yep, He is risen indeed
Lily, And I like Lutherans for all those reasons — many in my neck of the church accuse me (not compliment but ACCUSE) of being Lutheran. And I also agree that we need services. That’s why Presbyterians have two services every Sunday (at least the good ones). That’s 104 meetings with God a year. At the risk of sounding self-righteous, I bet that’s more worship than any of the liturgical churches offer.
DGH,
You are very right about the benefits of your Sunday evening services (and no, I do not consider that self-righteous to say so!). If I could have both the calendar and Sunday nights, I might think I’d died and gone to heaven. I had the privilege of hearing Sinclair Ferguson teach for several months before he accepted a pastorate in South Carolina (my Presbyterian friends who observe Advent invited me). I very much appreciate his insights, his rich Scottish brogue, and expository (?) style of preaching. He is a gem.
I had to smile at your dilemma of being accused of being Lutheran. I suspected you were one of the good guys! On my side, I have made my staunch Lutheran pastor’s eyes cross more than once because I enjoy grazing in the Reformed and Anglican pastures (Bishop FitzSimons Allison is another gem). But he puts up with me without too much fuss and sometimes sees the benefits. He enjoyed Michael Horton’s insights on Charles Finney so much that he taught it to our men’s group. Perhaps there is hope that more Christians will learn to appreciate what is good in the different traditions while being faithful to their own?
I have read your work off and on for several years because I love history and thank-you for all of the ways you have challenged my thinking and let me learn from you. I would like to ask if you have studied European church history under fascism and communism? That is becoming a large interest of mine because of the times we live in. On the Lutheran side, I’ve looked at Sasse, Boenhoeffer, and Thielicke (with sprinklings of Barth) during WWII, and most recently read, The Struggle of the Hungarian Lutherans Under Communism (2006) by H. David Baer (a must read for all confessional Christians IMO and it has fabulous primary research). Baer’s bibliographic essay recommends, The Lean Years: A Study of Hungarian Calvinism in Crisis (1960) by Gyula Gombos. I haven’t laid my hands upon a copy yet, but I would also like to read a book(s) that are more recent. May I ask for your recommendations on books, if it is not too much to ask?
I do apologize for my ignorance about the Reformed and the church calendar. This is a good example of why I have never commented before (and should not) on a Reformed blog. I do not want my ignorance and lack of understanding in Reformed distinctives to cause offense or start arguments, especially on their blogs! May you and your family be richly blessed this Christmas and in the coming year.
Lily, I have taught church in the modern age but only dabble in modern European church history. I have a volume or two of Sasse. Thanks for tip on the Baer and Gombos. I’ll need some guides for my next writing project.
Mmm! I hope you will enjoy this project and will look forward to reading your work on this subject. I have found the history of the church under fascism and communism utterly fascinating. I couldn’t put down Baer’s book and ended up reading until the wee hours of the morning to finish it. I hope you find it as engaging as I did (I also found the story heart-breaking in places). I pray your research will be fruitful.
Re: Sasse, as far as I know, Dr. Ron Feuerhahn (Retired Concordia Seminary) is the best expert on Sasse and if you are interested, Matt Harrison (LCMS World Relief) would be able to put you in contact with him or offer suggestions on Lutheran resources (even those overseas) for this time frame. Both Ron and Matt have reputations for being generous churchmen/theologians. I think you might enjoy both men. Confessionals are hoping to make Matt the new president of the LCMS next year, if that helps outline Matt’s character qualities. Kyrie eleison, we need him.
Adieu and may God haunt you if you do not write a book on this topic.
P.S. I did not mean sound like I was imposing Lutheran resources upon you. I imagine that you are exceptionally well-equipped with Reformed resources which is why I offered an avenue for Lutheran resources. Hey, a researcher can never have too many options can he? Especially when it comes to Eastern Europe, right? Or am I the only bibliophile who struggles with gluttony?
7 Trackbacks
[...] Old Life on the appearance of Advent observance in Reformed protestant churches. Read it here. Old Life Theological Society Blog Archive When Did Reformed Christians Become Adventists? __________________ Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian [...]
[...] Hart asks when Presbyterians became Adventists? With the help of Leigh Eric Schmidt makes some very interesting and important points about the way [...]
[...] long way away from our Biblical and theological roots. At the Old Life website Darryl Hart wonders “When Did Reformed Christians Become Adventists?” As someone who grew up in a very ‘low church’ Presbyterian tradition the first time I [...]
[...] When Did Reformed Christians Become Adventists? [...]
[...] 18, 2009 by gairneybridge Here is an interesting article which asks the important question, “When Did Reformed Christians Become Adventists?” [...]
[...] one unto Christ to adore and worship him†(says Lily, a contrasting commenter at D.G. Hart’s OldLife [...]
[...] for their festivals; those who aped them, the papists, not so.†– Bob Suden, commenter on the OldLife [Scripture links, [...]