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 will be the first to say that I love Christmas, maybe for reasons unbecoming of the RPW, but as I grow in the Reformed faith maybe some of that will get sorted out. But from where I sit today I do see value in the notion of Advent-as-memorial. It enables those of us who celebrate it to have a clearer vision of the incarnation and what it meant in the past and what it means to us now in-between the advents. Memorializing the incarnation is at least of some worth simply because it is the starting point of the Biblical Gospels, it began something that is leading into something greater. The memorial of the advent doesn’t have to generate rubber necking, it can place context to the notion of the humble inception of the eschaton, it’s current inconspicuous growth through the ministry of the church, and it’s glorious commencement at the second advent. Demarcating this season for this memorial seems to be benign and in fact beneficial when removed from its economic trappings. I am certainly open to correction on this, but I lack any current insight into how Advent subverts the spirituality of the church.
An emphasis on incarnation as the primary reconciling act will see Advent participation increase as Christmas would be presented as more central to the Gospel than Easter.
Then why didn’t our Lord take a creche and say, “do this in remembrance of me”?
But we can’t go back in time. We cannot exist in a state before Christ’s birth, which is what Advent encourages. And if Advent invites us to go back to a time when Israel was hoping for a Messiah, isn’t Advent making the world safe for theonomy, since theonomists want the safety and muscle that Israel had before Christ’s first advent?
Thanks for the book recommendation. Looks like a good work.
As far as Advent goes I agree wholeheartedly with you. Ironically, given your dig against theonomists the RPCUS (the only explicit Theonomist denomination) does not celebrate the church calender.
I would certainly like to read more about the “Christmas creep” in Reformed Protestant churches if you have any recommendations.
Leaving your theonomy comments aside (I’m a recovering Calvinist and theonomists aren’t even on my thought radar anymore), Advent doesn’t encourage us to “exist in a state before Christ’s birth”. To say it does is to pull one element of the Advent season and remove it from its wider liturgical context, both the full-caledar context and the local Sunday morning gathering context.
Advent, however, has a threefold meaning: (1) the advent of the incarnation, (2) the advent of the Lord in Word and Spirit, (3) and the advent of the Lord at the end of time.
Again, this first anticipation can only be viewed as “”exist[ing] in a state before Christ’s birth” if it’s removed from a wider context, which, meaning no foul here, I would expect a- or anti-liturgical Christians to do.
Dr. Hart,
The ordinances of communion and baptism call us to look back and forward. They don’t call us to exist back there. Even though Advent is not an ordinance and ought not be a binding practice on the church, I think the analogy holds true with Advent as well. I am a 2k-er who has no intent, or ability for that matter to usher in Christ’s second advent. I think that the RPW holds out the only solid argument against the celebration of Advent. At this point I am not sure I am comfortable with a carte blance subscribtion to the RPW for a variety of reasons that I am still sorting out at a biblical-theological level. When I attended a high(er)-church LCMS congregation several years ago, I was first exposed to Advent liturgies, and it has continued to be a meaningful form of worship for me to this day.
I eschew this Advent business in the stated worship service on the grounds of the RPW. I eschew it in the home on the grounds of “bah humbug”. I’m covered. Godfrey’s now famous “take Christ out of Christmas” advice is still tops but one of my buddies’ “winter is the reason for the season” is running a close second.
I’m anticipating a post in a few months on sightings of Lent in the Reformed world.
Thanks for the “winter is the reason for the season” quote. I’m stealing it.
Some other token benefits for celebrating 52 holidays instead of 2 or 4, just imagine all the money you’ll save this year when you stop celebrating. Also, you don’t have to miss out on the great shopping deals, you’ll just get to spend it on yourself! And if you have to work on Christmas, it’ll help you to be a good employee on that day and not gripe about it. Oh, and if you lose Christmas, you’ll probably lose the main practical objection against psalm-singing… the beloved Christmas carols.
Of course, the best part is having evangelical types wonder if you’ve become an atheist or secularist because you say ambiguous things like, “Seasons greetings” but never “Merry Christmas.”
Bah-humbug, indeed!
DGH, is it cool if I get a little irritated every time I see a church that’s neither Lutheran, Episcopalian, Catholic, or Orthodox with even a Christmas or Easter service because I know that even if they’ve done any kind of Advent or Lent, it’s a stripped-down, adulterated version grafted onto Methodism or Presbyterianism or Bapt(ism?)? If you’re going to be Reformed, just do it. Don’t take the best parts with the candles and beautiful paraments, while leaving the more terrifying Advent hymns (“O Day of Wrath, O Day of Mourning) or all 13 verses of “O Sacred Head Now Wounded” on Good Friday to the Lutherans.
On a different note, the Advent lectionary is centered on the first Advent of our Lord 2,000 years ago and also on the Second Coming, so it’s not really throwing anyone back into Old Testament times. We’ve been listening to Luther’s Advent sermons at my church during the midweek services over the past three weeks, and he’s been talking about the Annunciation, the Visitation, and the birth of St. John the Baptist. Pastors also connected the coming of our Lord to his coming in the Lord’s Supper, which we’ve celebrated throughout Advent. Rushdoony wouldn’t get any bad ideas about stoning adulterers, if the witch of Endor called him up and brought him to the midweek Divine Service.
None of the seasons celebrated by some parts of Christ’s church visible are found in Scripture, at least in the NT. But, from another perspective, I find the church year useful for celebrating the life of Christ. Advent is the really the end of the church year for it focuses on Christ’s coming. The irony of Advent is that we are led to anticipate the coming of Jesus in power, yet we are given a child in the manger.
Advent is the beginning of the calendar.
You’re right about the gospel irony, though!
Now to press the anti-Christmas/pro-winter solstice argument into the service of anti-Reformation Day/pro-Halloween. After all, does a guy with an unmarked grave really seem the type to look fondly upon Calvinpalooza’s?
Bah-humbug and trick-or-treat?
I’m torn on this.
On one hand, I think that Gary’s comment points to another unintended consequence of observing different seasons–that Christ’s work will be artificially dissected with the result that some part of His work for us will be deemed “the primary reconciling act.”
On the other hand, while Christ certainly did not teach us construct a nativity scene in remembrance of Him, He did exhort us to study the Law and the Prophets to understand how his life, suffering, death, and resurrection were necessary. So though we can’t (and shouldn’t want to) go back to a time before Christ’s birth, but we can (and I think should want to) contemplate that era and understand how the OT Scriptures created an expectation of a coming messiah so that we can understand how Christ fulfilled the prophecies and exceeded that expectation.
DGH and RSC say: “And here’s another thing I don’t like about everything…”
And here’s Christian who says, RSC and DGH are REformed academics, I don’t like REformed Academics, ergo, I don’t like RSC and DGH. Brilliant!
It does if Advent forbids the singing of Christmas carols “until” Jesus is born.
Your response is not on-the-mark. I made a comment about your knee-jerk negativity. You responded that I tend to find modern day Reformed seminary graduates to be shallow. Shallowness and knee-jerk negativity are two different things. You and Clark remind me of the PuritanBoard where every other post is: “And look at this that I found that is sad. Sadly, this is typical. It’s sad that this is the state that we’re in. It’s a good thing we have ritual sacraments though!”
Here’s something I like: I like Christmas lights, especially if they’re colorful and sparkly. Not dull yellow like so many are these days (who manufactures those? probably some atheist company). And who puts all blue lights on their house? Atheists? R. Scott Clark? It’s like the lighting in an underground parking garage.
I like Federal Theology. Classical Covenant Theology systematized. Powerful.
I like the Authorized Version. I like the Bible that makes other people mock and get angry. I like a Bible with no holes or authority of man in it.
I like double chocolate crisp PowerBars.
I like beach comber bicycles.
I like the fact that I can pray for everything, worry about nothing, and give God all the glory.
Those aren’t the only things I like (I am preparing for attack). It’s true that when you state what you like you open yourself up to attack. When you are critical always you maintain a fortress of defense against other critical types.
“I like the Authorized Version.” KJVO ALERT!!
“I like double chocolate crisp PowerBars.” So all you think about is junk food? Chocolate? What are you some rich, fat lady with a box of chocolates to make you happy?
“I like beach comber bicycles.” That sounds poofy. In Australia that’s not good.
“I like the fact that I can pray for everything, worry about nothing, and give God all the glory.” Is that all you get out of the Bible? Is that all you understand of doctrine? [Actually I just saw it on somebody's signature on a forum once.]
Christian,
What about pina coladas and getting caught in the rain? Health food? Yoga? Champagne?
Your ad hominem attacks and odd list of likes and dislikes add nothing to the conversation. If you’re looking for someone took take bike rides on the beach with you, you should check out a dating site. Otherwise, please try to focus on relevant issues.
I just wanted to let you know that many Hispanic Pentecostal congregations I grew up in were implicitly, if not explicitly, anti-Christmas; and this was within the past two decades. It was just gradually introduced as acceptable in the churches I attended as a kid, but you will still find strong opposition to it among some Hispanic Pentecostals.
Perhaps some of us should join the war on Christmas?
In the opposition you mention among the Reformed Dr. Hart, the post you link to is specifically speaking of English and Scottish Presbyterians, and not of other Reformed, right? I think the same link mentions other Reformed that continued observing holy days.
RL, how does it feel to be anticipated? You couldn’t control yourself nevertheless.
I’m making a rare point. A point really never made anywhere: it’s easy to be critical because when you are positive you get attacked. Just like you’ve done here to me. Despite anticipating you and thinking that would stop you you’ve nevertheless play a useful role anyway.
>What about pina coladas
Couldn’t identify the ingredients if you put a gun to my head. Sounds like they have little umbrellas though. Whatever makes you happy, RL.
>and getting caught in the rain?
I don’t usually give a…
>Health food?
90% of it is a scam, sorry to inform you. If it says ‘organic’ think peace sign in velvet sold on a corner of Haight Ashbury.
>Yoga?
My brother is a yoga teacher. He’s a godless moron who calls himself a ‘yogi’ and thinks there is something called ‘yogi food’. He shows incredible contempt for me; me being the only Christian and conservative in my family. He’s a really nice guy. He’s not even knowledgeable in New Age material, let alone ancient Hindu or Buddhist (or whatever) writings. Suffice to say I have a low opinion. Stretching is always a positive thing though.
>Champagne?
Never understood it. Any alcohol tastes like poison to me anyway. ‘Lyric poets drink wine from the bottle; epic poets drink water from a wooden bowl.’ – Milton. Guess I’m – or Christians in general are – more epic poet than lyric.
Apparently you missed “Update: Lunch with Cordelia.” You’re so negative.
Robert Jackson Xian,
You missed all the fun of RL’s question. Maybe late 70s pop rock isn’t your cup of meat.
But haven’t you and DGH fallen into the same old dull routine?
You keep writing to the blog, taking out personal ads.
You’re still nobody’s poet, and your contributions are more than half bad.
Maybe you can meet us by tomorrow noon,
And cut through all this red tape,
And a bar called O’Malley’s,
Where we’ll plan our escape?
To all those who reacted negatively to the piece, why so so, negatively?
The Scriptures record a lot of births, e.g. Cain, Moses, John the Baptist, Christ. If the mere recording of the event were a command to celebrate it why not celebrate the birth of Moses? With respect tot he Lord’s Supper, Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” He specifically commands the preaching the Word and baptism in the Matt 28. He specifically says that the Sabbath was made for man, and earlier commanded us to to “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”. So with regard to Xmas exactly where in Scripture is that command, or from where is it by good and necessary consequence deduced? Where is the condemnation of the Westminster Assembly and the Presbyterians of the Reformation up to the late 19th century for failing to obey God by failing to celebrate the birth of Christ on the 25th of December?
I get the feeling that a lot of the reactions are like that of Jonah when the gourd died. All DGH did was suggest perhaps there was no gourd (command for Xmas) in the first place, and suddenly lots are hot under the collar.
There are pretty good folk tunes called Christmas carols. They have Christian themes. Hark the herald angels sing glory to the new born King. Not a bad tune. What shall be done with it? Going to go Mao on our culture? We have a second amendment.
No, there was no fun in his question. Just a predictable and humorless response. And yes I’m familiar with RL’s song. One of the worst songs ever to hit the airwaves, IMHO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDPwNPAV6tA
Pardon me, I should have enquired: do Reformed seminary graduates believe in angels?
As long as it is cool to misrepresent people I’ll feel the need to defend.
Rushdoony never would have stoned anyone, capital punishment is the job of the state not the Church, as Rushdoony taught. But why let someone’s actual writings and thoughts get in the way of a well-placed dig at a brother-in-Christ?
It was an over statement to say that DGH may be suggesting there was no command for Xmas, as it is likely as not that he wrote his posting warmed by the burning of the yule log in the fireplace,and by the lights of his tree. Then again he can be pretty old side, so he might wait until the 24th to put the tree up.
Well those songs are hardly commanded either (at any time of year) are they, at least if you follow the Westminster formulations with respect to the 2nd Commandment. On the other hand, I have no issue with singing Psalm 87 in December.
Funny how I ask for a scriptural defence of your practice, but instead you talk about folk songs. Hmm.
Is there no singing in the Bible? No worshiping of God in song?
By the way, do you believe in angels, Andrew?
@C Did you miss the part where I said “… I have no issue with singing Psalm 87 in December.”? Of course there is singing. God commanded us to sing in His worship (Col 3:16), and even gave us the Hymnal He wanted us to use. It is called the book of Psalms. Why would you think I didn’t “believe in” angels, if by that you mean, do I believe there are spirit only creatures that serve God? Well, since the existence of angels is taught in both the Old e.g. Ps 91, and New e.g. Mt 4 (quoting Ps 91), Mt 26:53, Testaments, I would of course say I believe that angels exist. I don’t however, believe in them, since my faith is in Christ alone.
Angels worship/serve God how God requires them to do so. What God requires of man is distinct from what God requires of angels. Christian ethics are not governed by the actions or behavior of angels, but by the Word of God.
(1) Dr. Hart, would you agree that we can distinguish between observing Advent in church and observing Advent in the privacy of one’s own home?
Given that you believe that the RPW applies to the church only, it seems like we ought to have liberty to hang Advent calendars on the wall.
(My daughter has a really cool Lego advent calendar …)
(2) It seems also that there are degrees of observing Advent, ranging from “Oh look — it’s Advent.” all the way up to a High Holy Month.
I don’t know that reading a Scripture from the birth narratives, singing Christmas carols, and preaching sermons from the Gospels during the month of December constitutes a violation of the RPW — but it is an “observation” of Advent.
(Unless one thinks that singing hymns is contrary to the RPW, in which case we can take up a Col 3 debate at some other time. Perhaps Lent?
)
Jeff Cagle
Lego Advent calendar? Need I say more?
I do. You may observen Advent in the privacy of your home. But isn’t that dualistic?
@Jeff,
The question is does DGH actually have warrant for that belief from what the Westminster Standards teach? The RPW is expressed succinctly in WSC 50 & 51, and does not qualify worship with “public”. Is there a distinction between public and private worship – sure. WSC 60 mentions both public and private worship, but when it comes to the RPW and the 2nd commandment, the Westminster Standards don’t allow for the idea that anything goes in private worship. Certain elements of worship are not applicable to individual/family private worship, e.g. the sacraments, but how a distinction between public and private worship turns into license for will worship in private is beyond me.
“No, there was no fun in his question. Just a predictable and humorless response. And yes I’m familiar with RL’s song. One of the worst songs ever to hit the airwaves, IMHO.”
Wait just a minute there, Robt. Jackson. Like nobody is familiar with the “you’re all just papist presbyterians aka romanist ritual paedobaptists for which there is no room in the Reformed Baptist heavenly mansion because you are not saved” song?
Oh. OK. Just checking.
As I understand it, the Dutch Reformed did and still do observe five holy days. I believe this goes back to the Synod of Dort. And from what I learned from my favorite church history professor, this was a concession to popular demands for the church calendar. In other words, it was a compromise. But many “old school” Dutch did not want to observe the liturgical year.
@Andrew:
He’ll be able to respond to the warrant aspect, but I do know that DGH is quite opposed to letting the RPW run rampant in private lives. He considers this to be Frame’s fundamental error, I believe. If we let all of life be worship, we let worship draw from all of life, and there goes the RPW — and pretty soon, we’re writing bad books on worship (or so the argument goes).
So I’m interested in this new wrinkle … DGH, do the Standards require the RPW in private worship?
But in any event, the Lego advent calendar is not a form of worship in any way, shape, or form. It’s a fun exercise for 5 minutes at breakfast. And it’s about as far from worshipful as Santa Claus and Easter eggs. I don’t think there’s an iota of danger here.
@DGH:
Thank you for your permission.
Is it dualistic? No, we sprinkled holy water on the whole thing, so it’s fine.
JRC
DGH, I have a historical question with a theological undercurrent:
Which books would you recommend on the Old-Side / New-Side controversy?
Here’s the undercurrent. In my church history class (taught, BTW, by a relative friend to the Klinian point of view), we learned that Old-Siders like Charles Chauncy eventually moved into Arminian and ultimately Unitarian theology.
Given that you are no friend to either Arminian or Unitarian theology, and given that you also really like arguments that lump movements together, I assume that there’s some reason that you *do not* fear that an Old-Side position would lead ultimately to Unitarianism or some such.
What is that reason? Do you as a historian disagree with what we learned, or do you see some barrier that prevents the slippery slope?
Thanks,
Jeff Cagle
>>Christian: “How does it feel to be anticipated?”
I didn’t feel a thing.
>>I’m making a rare point. A point really never made anywhere.
A point never made anywhere? Now you’ve got my attention.
>>It’s easy to be critical because when you are positive you get attacked.
This is how I understand your argument: People who are positive get attacked more frequently than people who are critical, so being critical is easy in the sense that critical people escape the sort of attack that you are talking about.
Whether or not its true, your point is out of place on this blog. It assumes that at least one of Mr. Hart’s goals in making his posts is to avoid attack, and to that end he makes critical points instead of positive points. I’m not sure how you define “attack.” You seem to define it as any statement that causes a dispute or disagreement. I don’t think that Mr. Hart seeks to avoid these. I do not know Mr. Hart personally, but it seems to me that he uses this forum to to engage with those with whom he disagrees. In your terms, he is inviting an attack, not avoiding one. I may be out of step with the times, but I think it an honorable endeavor. I quote C.S. Lewis to the point:
” In any fairly large and talkative community such as a university [or Internet], there is always the danger that those who think alike should gravitate together into ‘coteries’ where they will henceforth encounter opposition only in the emasculated form of rumor that the outsiders say thus and thus. The absent are easily refuted, complacent dogmatism thrives, and differences of opinion are embittered by group hostility. Each group hears not the best, but the worst, that the other groups can say.â€
>>Just like you’ve [attacked] me.
I did not attack you. I attacked the logical boobytraps that planted in your comments. Specifically, your use of argumentum ad hominem (or argument against the man).
Your comments were not a response to the merits of the post; instead, you simply said, “DGH and RSC say: “And here’s another thing I don’t like about everything…†Later, you clarified that you were focusing on Mr. Hart’s “knee-jerk negativity.” In a nice little one-two combination, you used the two most popular ad hominem subtypes–guilt by association and poisoning the well. Both run through all of your posts.
You first associated Mr. Hart with Mr. Clark. Then you associated both of them with the Puritan Board. You continued, in a later post, by associating Mr. Clark with blue lights and Atheists. As far as I can tell, the “blue lights” comment was the first time you mentioned anything remotely relevant to the post’s topic.
Your poisoning the well technique seems well practiced. It really is good enough to be used in a textbook. The way it’s most commonly used these days (especially in politics) involves two steps: first, shift the discussion away from the merits and make it about a personal trait of the opponent; second, shift the discussion to one’s own character and then present one’s self as a victim.
Here’s how you did it. You asserted that Mr. Hart’s argument wasn’t the product of evidence and reason, but rather a result of his knee-jerk negativity. The implication is that no one should trust anything he says because he’s just a curmudgeon and faultfinder. (In your own terms, how do characterize your first two comments? Are they attacks? Are they something positive?). This is a boobytrap. If one responds by challenging your comments, you will undoubtedly respond with, “Aha! Just as I predicted, another negative comment.”
Your next step was to make it personal. You feigned bravery by exposing yourself to an attack by telling us your favorite flavor of Power Bar and style of Bicycle. Having bluntly inserted irrelevant personal information into your comment, you set the stage for claiming that not only has your next opponent challenged your argument, but he’s also attacked you personally. Having seen this a thousand times, I knew what I was getting into, but I was willing to risk an insult to expose this non-argument.
My attempt at humor may not have been funny, for that I won’t apologize. If it offended, I certainly do apologize. Through the dating site reference, I meant to highlight the difference between those sites and sites like this. This site teaches and invites discussion and debate. The proper response is to comment on the arguments, not the arguer. Dating sites are concerned with personal preferences and member profiles; that is, the people involved. Your personal profile is as out of place on this site as a debate about theonomy at Match.com.
All arguments stand or fall on their own. It matters not who makes them.
>>Despite anticipating you and thinking that would stop you you’ve nevertheless play a useful role anyway.
Glad I could help.
You’re quite mistaken about Advent. According to the Catholic Missal Advent is the beginning of the Church Calendar, and as such is designed to help the faithful look forward to Christ coming as Judge.
As to the rest of your comment, Sacred Theology is indeed practical, but is never meant to make us pragmatic.
>Why would you think I didn’t “believe in†angels, if by that you mean, do I believe there are spirit only creatures that serve God? Well, since the existence of angels is taught in both the Old e.g. Ps 91, and New e.g. Mt 4 (quoting Ps 91), Mt 26:53, Testaments, I would of course say I believe that angels exist. I don’t however, believe in them, since my faith is in Christ alone. Angels worship/serve God how God requires them to do so. What God requires of man is distinct from what God requires of
angels. Christian ethics are not governed by the actions or behavior of angels, but by the Word of God.
Yes, I was referring to the existence of angels, not angels as God. Why would I think you possibly didn’t? Because there are many self-identified Christians, even ones in Reformed seminaries, who don’t think the Word of God is even the Word of God. And for those types the subject of angels, their existence, makes them screw up their mouth and get a wry grin.
Angels minister to those who believe in Christ, by the way. It’s not just a future thing, it’s a now and future thing.
Psa 34:7 The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
If you didn’t believe in the existence of angels you wouldn’t believe the Word of God. Again, even the term ‘reformed’ attracts teachers and church leaders who don’t believe the Word of God. Since I referenced a Christian hymn that referenced angels I thought I’d enquire…
How about this version:
I was tired of praise bands and liturgical dance.
My worship was shallow, and I knew it was wrong.
My hymnal had less meaning than a Taylor Swift song.
To look for an answer, I turned to the Web.
I found an interesting site, and this is what it said:
“If you like singing Psalms and worshiping God with your brain,
If you think that Christ is the balm for your spiritual pain,
If you like worship Sunday morning and catechism class at night,
Then, you’ll like my blog, come read what I write”
So filled with high hopes, I scoured the site.
I learned that pure worship was God’s sole delight.
Since even man’s best efforts are polluted with pride,
On Scripture only should we use as a guide.
This is how I discovered Reformed Faith and Practice,
Blooming in later Winter, like a Redbird Cactus..
RL, I should have clarified and saved you time: being attacked for being critical is a wholly different thing from being attacked for being positive. In the former case you are already in a cave, well-protected, probably in a posture where your soft underbelly is not exposed and probably holding one or two sharp objects in your hands and perhaps a club too. In the latter case you are most likely mid-smile with your arms out-stretched in an embrace-the-world gesture, your neck down to your abdomen are exposed, and your posture is such that pretty much anybody can come along and knock you off balance sending you reeling to the ground.
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, [...]