I continue to scratch my head that low-church Protestants are as attached as they are to the calendar of the Roman Catholic church. They don’t think of Christmas or Easter as part of Roman Catholic liturgical practices. But assigning Christ’s birth to December 25th and Christ’s resurrection to the fortunes of the lunar calender and the ides of March is not a project that leaps immediately from the pages of the New Testament as a must. That is why Christmas and Easter greatly expanded their appeal when businessmen like the Presbyterian, John Wanamaker, recognized the big holiday’s of Christ’s life as good for big business. Wanamaker’s department store in center city Philadelphia featured a main hall complete with a grand pipe organ and various forms of musical and holiday festivities (the store’s current owner, Macy’s, continues some of the rituals holiday commerce). The best book on the commercialization of Christian holidays and the high-churchification of low-church Protestants (implicitly) is Leigh Schmidt’s, Consumer Rights: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays.
Some Reformed Protestants will be quick to point out that various churches, such as the Netherlands State Church, included in their church order instructions to observe five days from the Roman calendar – Christmas, Epiphany, Good Friday, Easter, and Pentecost. Reformed church historians will shoot back that the Dutch authorities were not the most reliable magistrates ever to oversee a Reformed church – they let Descartes live among the Dutch observers of Christmas and Epiphany, after all. These historians will also argue that the retention of these five holy days was a concession to keep the former Roman Catholic – now Protestant – population happy.
Historical and commercial reflections aside, the one argument for retaining Christmas and Easter that makes the most sense is the difficulty in answering simply the question, “what’s wrong with once a year calling attention to the birth and resurrection of Christ?†That question invites other questions: what’s wrong with observing once a year the announcement to the virgin Mary of her conception? And by what criteria do we decide which once-a-year observances are wrong?
To these questions the good Heidelberg Catechism has the answer. Divided into 52 Lord’s Days, most print versions break down the 129 questions and answers into units that Reformed pastors were expected to preach in the second Sunday service. Those were the same expectations that brought Christmas, Epiphany, Good Friday, Easter, and Pentecost into the Reformed church. For a second service with a catechetical sermon every Sunday in every Reformed church that observed Christmas and Easter, I might be prepared to swallow the Roman Catholic origins of the Christian “holidays.â€
But I’m still holding out hope that catechetical preaching will make Christmas and Easter unnecessary. The reason is that every fourteenth Lord’s Day of the year the Heidelberg Catechism explains the significance of Christ’s birth. And every seventeenth Lord’s Day Heidelberg teaches the meaning of Christ’s resurrection. That means that Christians would have the opportunity to see that nothing is wrong with reflecting once a year on Christ’s birth and resurrection.
The question for those who want to retain the annual festivities is whether they would be comfortable celebrating Christ’s birth in mid-April (14th Sunday), and Christ’s resurrection in early May (17th). (They don’t seem to realize that they already celebrate Christ’s resurrection fifty-two days a year.) That would make for a rushed holiday season among low-church Protestants. But if Jews can squeeze Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur into two weeks of Indian Summer, surely Reformed Protestants can gear up for three weeks of celebrations. And just imagine how merchants will benefit from a Spring-time boost in sales.
Old Life 
Thanks for this! You might be interested to read article 53 of the CanRC CO:
“Each year the churches shall, in the manner decided upon by the consistory, commemorate the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as his outpouring of the Holy Spirit.”
No mention of Christmas, Easter, etc. A consistory could decide to commemorate these events solely through the catechism preaching. I think one of our churches does exactly that.
LikeLike
Good points. My experience with many protestants has been their sometimes rabid dedication and expectations (almost a QIRE as S Clark would say)when it comes to the Christmas season especially. Their dedication to this holiday and the manditory joy that must follow as we gather around the manger is astounding. If only the observation of the 52 sabbaths given us by God were guarded with equal zeal.
LikeLike
Here! Here! Dr. Hart. A hearty Amen!
LikeLike
Darryl, it just so happens that when I start (which I will) preaching through the Heidelberg with LD 1 on the first Lord’s Day of the year, I will hit LD 17 on Easter Sunday… All coincidence, as Ursinus would have said! 🙂
LikeLike
Sebastien, I was afraid of that. I was hoping to stick it to “the man.”
LikeLike
While I’m happy to celebrate the birth of our Lord in mid-April, I can’t for the life of me figure out why you think this is more “a project that leaps immediately from the pages of the New Testament” than celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25th.
So long as the elements of public worship are governed by Scripture, the rest can rightly be left to the prudential judgment of Sessions.
LikeLike
The regulative principle enthusiast really can have his cake and eat it too! Unfortunately the slippery slope argument cuts both ways. To allow the Heidelberg Catechism to dictate Sunday’s liturgy (or at least the sermon) but to disapprove of a fixed church calendar is a distinction without a difference. This sounds suspiciously like the argument of Campbellites who insist there is no support for the use of musical accompaniment in worship to be found in the New Testatment.
And what about the Old Testament’s examples of various feasts and fasts? Has that no application?
LikeLike
Forgive my ignorance — what exactly do you mean by “Catechetal preaching”? Topical sermons? Using the Catechism as the text?
LikeLike
Kane, whatever you make of the Campbellites, they were closer to Geneva and Zurich on musical instruments than we are.
And if you are going to use OT holidays as precedent, what are you going to do with all those bulls and goats’ carcasses that come with OT worship? In which case, since Christ fulfilled the sacrifices of the OT, he also fulfilled Israel’s liturgical calendar, which leaves us with 52 holy days.
LikeLike
Jeff, The Reformed churches have historically practiced preaching through Heidelberg once a year in the evening service. That is why HC is divided into 52 Lord’s Days. A catechetical sermon is an exposition of the doctrine and Scripture encapsulated in the Catechism.
LikeLike
So a kind of systematic-topical sermon?
LikeLike
Jeff:
It depends on the individual pastor for the most part. Since most federations (some Reformed Churches don’t like the concept “denomination”) have a set of texts associated with the Catechism answers, one might pick a particular text as the way to enter into the world of a given “Lord’s Day.”
There’s lots of room for variety. Most of the Lord’s Days have more than one Q/A, so the topic can be viewed broadly. Some men will do 2 sermons in a row on a give LD in order to feel they’ve covered it as needed. Some topics cover more than 1 LD – Baptism and Lord’s Supper, for instance.
The wise preacher will realize that he is coming back to this same LD in another 52 weeks or so and will not try to save everything all at once. So that helps them not be systematic theol lectures or mere topical talks. My former pastor would come up with a theme that would tie together the whole year’s series. Since the opening of the HC is “what is your only comfort in life & death” Ans: “That I am not my own, but belong, body & soul, in life & in death to my faithful savior…” Well that focus on comfort was used for the theme and headings of the whole years sermons.
Something like, In LD 50 we confess that our only comfort comes from the Spirit’s application of Christ and his benefits to us. Then 2 sub-points to spell that out.
You have to spend some time reading the Heidelberg, and actively comparing it to the Westminster Catechisms to appreciate the “stylistic” differences in the catechisms that can help in a different kind of catechetical sermon . See the translation at http://www.canrc.org
One fun thing: if a minister tends to take his PTO at same time each year, there might be a little section of the catechism he rarely preaches on because he is always on vacation. No one stays on the same schedule due to PTO, pulpit exchanges, etc. So Church A is on a rotation that starts off in February, Church B has a cycle that starts in January, etc.
Another fun thing: Reformed ministers can joke about once they’ve gone thru their stack of 4 sets of Catechism sermons, they move to a new church and start over. Mostly a joke, eh?
Cathechism sermons can be done poorly, as can any other type of sermon.
LikeLike
Chris, we all know catechism sermons “can be done poorly”, the question is, can the church be well (bene esse) without catechetical preaching in some shape or form, especially in these days we live in?
LikeLike
Sebastian,
Well, I wasn’t trying to focus on the ones done poorly. Since you phrased your question very broadly, “some shape or form” of catechetical preaching, one could say no, the church can’t be well (do well) without some form of catechetical preaching. But that wouldn’t require a formal or explicit catechism document that is announced, responsively read, etc. It could all be done by the planning and organization of the minister(s). With careful and thoughtful paraphrasing of “topics” one could follow the Heidelberg through its 52 sections without showing your hand as to source of your sermon choices. Some folks would figure out what’s below the surface/behind the scene, but others wouldn’t.
The Church is best served by having an organized (systematic as opposed to haphazard) rehearsal and instruction in the truths of Scripture that it confesses. The scripturally-mandated arena for that is the public assembly and worship of the Church. Sunday School, catechism classes, mid-week small groups are all good, ok, helpful, but not mandated.
Given your broad question, I give a nuanced agreement.
-=Cris=-
LikeLike
Well-put, Chris. While I would solidly oppose using the *text* of a confession for a sermon, it does make lots of sense to having an “organized rehearsal in the truths of Scripture.”
LikeLike
If folks want to see “how it’s done,” you could check out some of the catechism sermons at this website: http://www.theseed.info
LikeLike
Gentlemen,
May I kindly offer a pet peave? I hear the Lord’s Day spoken of as the “Sabbath” by many of my brothers, and I am puzzled by it. Terminology is important, and I don’t see the Heidelberg’ divided into Sabbaths, I see it divided into Lord’s Days. We don’t alternately call certain church furniture ‘the pulpit’ and ‘the altar.’ Why so in this case?
LikeLike
David, at least among Presbyterians, we have the Standards talking about the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath.
LikeLike
Thank you Darryl.
LikeLike
Interesting how Monocovenantalism leads to both 1 Kingdom theology, and a Lutheran/Anglican view of liturgy….
How does the OT relate to the NT? The fallout from how you answer that question is staggering.
It just amazes me though how so many who laud the Confessions somehow think they teach a Lutheran view of Adiaphora and Worship.
LikeLike
I just learned of this particular post. I’ve been speaking and blogging against the Church Calendar for years. I think you have put your finger onto something critical regarding regular catechetical preaching solves this unholy devotion to these man-made “holy days.” As a new Presbyterian (but Reformed for over a decade), I find it bewildering that confessional Presbyterians choose to have a selected Church calendar. No biblical evidence of Dec 25 as Christ’s birth; why do Presbyterians celebrate Easter when it fluctuates according to the lunar calendar. Unthinking, and traditional. Thanks so much.
LikeLike