What Kind of Witness Do Presbyterians Have Anymore?

Published on by D. G. Hart

Over at the Imaginative Conservative I ran across this intriguing tidbit of church history:

Did you know that Christmas celebrations were banned in Scotland until 1958? I certainly didn’t, not until my son started working on his sixth grade “Christmas around the World” report. I haven’t looked up what the English did in this regard (Scotland always has had a good deal of autonomy within Britain, and never stopped following its own legal code). But it seems the good Presbyterians of the established Church of Scotland (“the Kirk,” ironically enough for traditional conservatives) thought Christmas was a Catholic holiday, best stamped out with criminal penalties for unwholesome celebrations (pretty much anything outside of church), along with persistent tolling of bells to make sure everybody went to work on the day.

Bruce Frohnen, the author who uses this piece of trivia to introduce reasons for celebrating Christmas and Epiphany, goes on to say that times have changed and the old reasons for Presbyterians not celebrating Christmas have changed as well:

None of this is intended as a complaint against Presbyterians. In our secular age those of us who’ve “got religion” need to let bygones be bygones—especially when it comes to wrongs with their origins dating back a long way, and which aren’t really relevant to the character of people or religious practice today. What’s more, as they say, “at least they took us seriously.”

This is a curious line of reasoning since it suggests that those who take religion seriously (the “got religionists”) have no reason to take the old reasons for differences between Presbyterians and Roman Catholics seriously. But if the “got religion” crowd does believe religion to be important, then doesn’t that belief extend beyond a generic conservative Christianity doing battle with secularists and egalitarians? Doesn’t it lead all the way to what traditional Presbyterians and traditional Roman Catholics have believed traditionally about practices like the church calendar (redundancy intended)? This is not to say that beliefs change. Presbyterians (in the U.S. anyway) revised their confession in 1789 on the subject of the civil magistrate. Roman Catholics “developed” their doctrine of the church at Vatican II such that salvation now is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church. Still, despite changes and developments, what is a traditional Presbyterian to do who still objects to the “doctrines and commandments of men” implied in the liturgical calendar used by Rome, Moscow, and Canterbury (not to mention Dort)? Can confessional Presbyterians find a seat at the pro-religion, cultural conservative table if they bring up objections to other conservative faiths on the basis of their own conservative faith?

This is, by the way, an important example of why religion — at least conservative faith — is not glue that keeps cultural conservatives together that many scholars and journalists suppose. The religion of the culture warriors (in James Davison Hunter’s old categories) may bring them together, but it is more likely going to be some kind of ecumenical, broadly tolerant religion that stresses morality (the way the old liberal Protestants did), not one that tells Protestants they are in danger if they don’t fellowship with the Bishop of Rome or that tells Presbyterians they should not observe man-made holidays.

Either way, it is remarkable that even mainline Presbyterian churches like the Kirk as little as a half-century ago would not observe the liturgical calendar. Not even the Orthodox Presbyterian Church had that kind of tenacity — just look at the hymns devoted to the birth of the baby Jesus in the Trinity Hymnal.

But if you are thinking about holidays and wondering how to bring in the New Year with a good movie, the Harts recommend Hudsucker Proxy (1994), a Coen Brothers production that ranks right up there with Miller’s Crossing. Hudsucker is set at the end of 1958 — talk about harmonic convergence — the year that the Kirk started observing Christmas, and stars Tim Robbins and Paul Newman. We are planning on some sparkling shiraz to go with the popcorn and should be in bed by 10:30. Woot!

36 thoughts on “What Kind of Witness Do Presbyterians Have Anymore?”

  1. DGH,

    Is Hudsucker available on Netflix? If my wife and I can make it to 10:30 we’d like to take in a movie – preferably not one that costs us the $5 On Demand charge.

    Like

  2. BTW,

    I have been curious since following OldLife – does the Hart household celebrate Christmas in any way? I’d be delighted to hear it was with a sneer, and a healthy dose of harumphing. Unfortunately, 2 young children require a little more Christmas cheer than I’d prefer. If I had my druthers, we’d celebrate Christmas like the end of any good day – a couple of fingers of good Bourbon and a decent meal – like BBQ Tri-Tip (Santa Maria style since I am of Californian extraction), guacamole, and a nice merely of peppers and pan fried potatoes. None of the exchange of wallet busting gifts, and annoying Santa hats.

    Like

  3. “what is a traditional Presbyterian to do who still objects to the “doctrines and commandments of men” implied in the liturgical calendar used by Rome, Moscow, and Canterbury (not to mention Dort)?”

    When did Wilson develop a liturgical calendar? Oh, the other Moscow.

    Since when did Lebowski become insufficient for New Year’s celebrations? So much for tradition.

    10:30 will be pushing it at our house. The 10th grade daughter had 5 friends over night last night. Giggling coming up through the vent all night long.

    Like

  4. Jed,

    You might applaud my brother’s Christmas gesture. His contribution to the family gift exchange was 2 Justin Bieber tickets and a box of condoms. I don’t know who was madder at him, my wife or my mother. What a knucklehead. Fortunately we kept all the kids from seeing the condoms, thus avoiding any difficult questions or explanations.

    Like

  8. D.G. Hart quoting the Imaginative Conservative: Did you know that Christmas celebrations were banned in Scotland until 1958? I certainly didn’t, not until my son started working on his sixth grade “Christmas around the World” report. I haven’t looked up what the English did in this regard (Scotland always has had a good deal of autonomy within Britain, and never stopped following its own legal code). But it seems the good Presbyterians of the established Church of Scotland (“the Kirk,” ironically enough for traditional conservatives) thought Christmas was a Catholic holiday, best stamped out with criminal penalties for unwholesome celebrations (pretty much anything outside of church), along with persistent tolling of bells to make sure everybody went to work on the day.

    RS: I have also read that in the 1600’s if not into the 1700’s they would exercise church discipline on people if they “celebrated” the holiday in their own homes. After all, if one is to believe in the Regulative Principle one should believe it all the way. If we are to truly hallow the name of God and all that is to do with Him in accordance with the 3rd Commandment, then why should we tack the blasphemous “mass” to the holy name of Christ?

    Like

  9. “RS: I have also read that in the 1600′s if not into the 1700′s they would exercise church discipline on people if they “celebrated” the holiday in their own homes. After all, if one is to believe in the Regulative Principle one should believe it all the way. If we are to truly hallow the name of God and all that is to do with Him in accordance with the 3rd Commandment, then why should we tack the blasphemous “mass” to the holy name of Christ?”

    GW: It is my understanding that, historically speaking, the term “Mass” was a perfectly acceptable term that used to be used simply to designate a Christian service of worship. Thus, while Luther was certainly opposed to the Roman doctrine of the Mass (with its blasphemous denigration of Christ’s finished work), his liturgical reformation included “An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg” (see pp. 449-470 in “Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings”, Ed. by Timothy F. Lull, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).

    If we lived in a historical context where the celebration of “Christmas” was inextricably tied to the celebration and legitimization of the Roman Mass and viewed by the general public as a “holy day of obligation” (i.e., you are believed to be in sin if you don’t celebrate it), then I would argue that confessional Protestant Christians would have a moral obligation in such circumstances NOT to celebrate Christmas (as a witness and protest against Romish idolatry). But we do not live in such a context today, and I would argue that any church in today’s setting which would bring church censure against members who choose to celebrate Christmas in a spirit of Christian liberty (and not as a legalistic “holy day of obligation”) would be guilty of grossly abusing the ministerial and declarative authority which Christ has entrusted to the church.

    Like

  10. My thoughts about Christmas are a little different each year. This year I’m thinking its a secular holiday. Think about it: presents, greenery, ornaments, elves, Santa Claus, Rudolph, the Grinch, I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas, egg nog, and the State recognizes it. It’s a time for family, for eating and regressing back to childhood. To fight over it or to take it away from our kids seems like a bad way to spend the season. Take Christ out of Christmas, leave Christ in the Church, and just enjoy the season. In this sense its no more regulated by the scriptures than Independence Day.

    I’ve more or less had this approach for two years running. To my kids I’m noticeably more cheerful, and I don’t have any internal conflicts about trying to reconcile our cultural celebration and the Christ of the scriptures.

    Like

  12. Jed,

    See my blog and click on “Monthly Movie & Television Watch Lists” for about 100 suggestions. You could also go down in my basement and pick a VHS or DVD like my inlaws/next door neighbors are always doing. It would be well worth the flight.

    Like

  14. M&M, bingo on Xmas. That posture also works for the secularized fright fest they call Halloween. But I have you beat by a few years, nyah.

    Like

  15. Erik,

    Next time I have a spare $400 to fly to Iowa, my first stop after the airport will be your basement, but if you don’t have Goonies on VHS, I’ll rue the day I bought that ticket.

    Like

  17. MM,

    The last film I really enjoyed on Netflix was “The Hunter” with Willem Dafoe. Between the story and the cinematography, it was a solid film. But, I’ll give Barton Fink a looking over.

    Like

  19. Jed, I don’t consider it to be a great film, but it’s an interesting attempt. It’s exceptional on a visual level, anyway.

    Like

  20. mikelmann: My thoughts about Christmas are a little different each year. This year I’m thinking its a secular holiday. Think about it: presents, greenery, ornaments, elves, Santa Claus, Rudolph, the Grinch, I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas, egg nog, and the State recognizes it. It’s a time for family, for eating and regressing back to childhood. To fight over it or to take it away from our kids seems like a bad way to spend the season. Take Christ out of Christmas, leave Christ in the Church, and just enjoy the season. In this sense its no more regulated by the scriptures than Independence Day.

    RS: Great idea. Since it is basically a secular holiday, just leave it that way.

    Like

  21. MM,

    I don’t consider it to be great either, but great and entertaining are two very different categories. I reserve greatness for titles like Mighty Ducks 3.

    Like

  23. M&M, the problem even with this approach is all the effort that goes with Christmas. Compared to Thanksgiving it is a week (at least) of preparations, spending, watching my wife write the cards, on and on. Thanksgiving is a day of eating and then you get a three-day weekend to digest. I heard a report on a radio-cooking show about Christmas among the French. It sounded a lot like our Thanksgiving — a day of meals and special recipes with families — and that’s it. Plus, there is that incessant holiday music by every artist who ever broke to the top-forty charts.

    One good thing — Christmas naturally brings out my vinegary side (which doesn’t need much encouragement).

    Like

  27. M&M, Yahtzee then.

    Darryl, that’s why we need Festivus installed somewhere between Thanksgiving and Xmas–a sort of stopgap to cut down on the encroachment of the latter.

    Like

  29. I think I get it, DGH. There are themes there that are difficult to pick up on in one watching. Or,since I watched it last night, two viewings.
    In some ways it is like Woody Allen’s Zelig, an off-the-beaten-track experiment on what can be done in a film. I enjoy that kind of experimentation. If I was back in undergraduate studies it would be fun to do an essay on just the hallway.

    Like

  31. DGH, you get stressed by watching your wife do cards? That is funny. But really, the holiday can be managed, since most women like to shop anyway. My shopping is targeted like a laser, so I get the whole thing done in about two hours. Of course, I’m mostly just shopping for my wife’s presents.

    Like

  33. Darryl, baby Jesus is mentioned in the Bible and the Incarnation is part of our Christology. Do you think a good Presbyterian could sing those hymns as long as it was in July? I think the “real” Trinity Hymnal even has Christmas hymns.

    Like

  35. Darryl, I did know that! They did sing Epiphany hymns, though (Psalm 72). Didn’t they sing the Magnificat and the Benedictus?

    I didn’t know you were arguing for EP. I thought Old Lifers gave up on that one in when the Old Side and New Side Presbterians got back together in 1758.

    Like

  36. What about the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14? Machen comments that although it is possible to read the Virgin Birth back into this passage after the Gospel account was already known and believed, “it never could have produced that story; and indeed the pre-Christian interpretation of prophecy was moving in an entirely different direction.” Is the Virgin Birth unnecessary? If so, Machen says, then so is the very existence of Jesus. We end up with a “Christless Christianity” (a term Machen borrows from Warfield) that is independent of events in the external world.
    It requires no intellectual dishonesty to believe that Jesus was conceived and born without the help of any human male, by miracle of God. It does require a measure of dishonesty to deny this truth, and still claim to believe the historic faith of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tomhobson/2017/12/logical-grounds-jesus-virgin-birth/

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.