Since most of us have grown up with the Thanksgiving Holiday, it is easy for us to assume that this is the way things are and should be, but it has not always been so nor is it necessarily so. The American Thanksgiving holiday is the result of a series of presidential proclamations. It became a federal holiday in the mid-twentieth century. The apostolic churches in the first century, however, experienced no such national or official affirmation of their faith. The apostle Peter called the Christians of Asia Minor “strangers and exiles” (1 Pet 2:11). Indeed, they were. They had much for which to be thankful. Peter reminded them that they had been redeemed (1 Pet 1:18–19) by the blood of God the Son incarnate.
The modern American national civil religion, which many seek to defend and which many assume as a given, is largely the result of Cold War reactions to Soviet communism and rising and justifiable fears of aggressive secularism at home and abroad. It would be a grave error, however, to mistake that bland mid-twentieth-century civil piety for Christianity.
The apostolic church did not face this temptation. The civil religion of their day was not a weak, watered-down version of Christianity. It was obviously pagan. Whether it was acknowledging the deity of Caesar, or putting a pinch of incense on a fire, or giving pro forma honor to the Roman gods (essentially the same as the Greek pantheon), there was no confusing it with the Trinitarian faith of the Christians who worshipped, in the power of the Spirit, a crucified Messiah, whom they confessed to be God the Son incarnate raised on the third day and ascended to the right hand of the Father.
Even though they had not moved an inch geographically, the Christians of Asia Minor became strangers and exiles the moment they trusted Christ and repented of their unbelief and idolatry. Their alien status was ratified when the minister baptized them in the Triune name of God and it was sealed by the low-level persecution they suffered at the hands of family, former friends, and employers.
In a few decades, however, that unofficial, low-level persecution would become more official. A dull bureaucrat, Pliny the Younger, would gain literary immortality for describing in a single letter to the emperor how he had arrested Christian servant girls and had tortured them to gain information about this “dangerous” new sect. Why were the Christians deemed “dangerous” in the early second century? Because they refused to give formal religious honors to Caesar and to the gods. They refused to go along with the national civil religion. They refused to confuse “cult” (religion) with “culture” (civil, common life).
Mind you, no one expected them to believe the cultural religion—they only had to conform. But some of the Christians of Asia Minor refused and it cost them dearly. They only had to deny that they were Christians. Those without Roman citizenship who refused to submit were murdered on the spot. Those citizens who refused were sent to Rome for trial. Christianity was regarded as sedition and treason—aliens and exiles indeed. How easy it would have been to say the words, “I renounce Christ,” or to say the words, “Caesar is lord,” or to put a pinch of incense on the altar. Some Christians did. The rationale is easy to imagine: “We all know that Caesar isn’t a god. It’s just a formality. It’s harmless. It’s just words. I love Jesus in my heart.” Some of the Christians, however, understood that Christ is Lord of our hearts and our mouths and that, though it is true that Caesar is no god, nevertheless we cannot say that he is. Many early Christians understood that civil religion is idolatry and that it is not an option.
I am not saying that you should not eat and enjoy your meal today, nor am I saying that you should not give thanks. You should. I am encouraging you, however, to be very careful to distinguish your transient civil citizenship from the permanent citizenship you have in heaven. Be careful not to confuse the Christian faith with “Christian America.” The apostle Paul did not advocate for a “Christian Empire.” He advocated for the Kingdom of God (Rom 14:17), which is a heavenly (eschatological) kingdom (1 Cor 15:50) that has broken into history, in Christ, in the gospel, and which is manifested every Sabbath in the Word, sacraments, and discipline.
In light of those transcendent realities he reminded another congregation in Asia Minor that they had once been “strangers and aliens” (Eph 2:11–19), not to the powers of this age, but to the covenant of Yahweh. Now, however, as he wrote to the Philippians (3:20), we are citizens of the city of God and sons of God and members of the covenant of grace, and those relationships far transcend all civil religion, even that civil religion which today may seem friendly and harmless.
©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Heidelblog in 2009.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Dear Scott,
You are preaching to the choir here; in the nine years I pastored, we had two things that distinguished us from some PCA churches: we celebrated the Supper weekly, and we celebrated no days other than the Lord’s Day. There are, in my judgment, two errors in WCF 21:5, which mentions first the regular elements of worship, then adds: “…religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.” The first error is the omission of any reference to the apostolic practice of taking collections on the first day of the week, an omission probably due to the Erastian church/state confusion. The second error, I believe, is “solemn fastings,” which, from my reading of the OT Scriptures, were always a manner of expressing national repentance after divine judgment on the nation of Israel. But there is no nation today that is (properly) theocratic, and no nation that is judged as guilty by the divine office of prophet. If—as Paul said—Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), then we who believe in Christ are not suffering divine curses, either as individuals or, surely, as a nation, since our Saviour suffered such curses for us. Westminster was still sufficiently Erastian to confuse church and state, and to approve therefore of “solemn fastings” to respond to national difficulty. When the American Presbyterians revised Chapter 23 on the civil magistrate, they ought also to have revised 21:5, both by including collections as a regular part of worship, and by excluding provisions for “solemn fastings.” The other occasional elements (“religious oaths, vows, … and thanksgivings”) can be perfectly fine as long as their “religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings” are not geo-politically determined. It is surely hubristic, and possibly a violation of the third commandment, to presume that any nation now enjoys a peculiar relation to God.
T. David
T. David,
We’re agreed re the national covenant, which expired at Calvary.
Where we may disagree. I’m not entirely certain.
It’s one thing to observe, as the church, only the Christian Sabbath. That is a perfectly reasonable thing. It’s another to say that the language of the 21.5 is in error. The church as church is free to call days of thanksgiving and to hold other services. That sort of language is in the Dort Church Order. We ought to distinguish between those services and the Sabbath day services. I don’t think the church may discipline someone for failing to attend services outside of the Sabbath day services.
It doesn’t seem obvious to me that it is inherently Erastian to pray for the welfare of the nation in which the church finds itself. I think we probably agree on that. We are explicitly called to pray for the emperor by both Paul and Peter. We do that corporately in our services on the Sabbath. May we not do that in solemn special assembly outside of the Sabbath?
Re offerings, I’m with the divines. You are right, as a matter of history, that state-churches of Europe and the British Isles took only what we call diaconal or benevolent offerings. I doubt that the offering system instituted by the free churches in the USA can be justified from Scripture.
The principal (as distinct from principled) reason most pastors have told me that they take offerings during the service is that they didn’t trust the people to support the church without them. Covid demonstrated that fear to be unfounded, at least as far as I can tell. So, the practical grounds are gone.
The only principled argument I’ve read/heard is that the new covenant church receives financial offerings, in praise to God, in place of the blood offerings of the types and shadows. This is a nice parallelism but I don’t see it from Scripture. There’s clear evidence of diaconal offerings (Phil 4:18). I’m happier with the practice of receiving offerings (diaconal and general) in a box in the back or in the narthex after the service.
What an excellent reminder of the dangers of these sorts of ‘civic’ days.
We see this playing out right before our eyes in some instances in 2024 (young families being sucked into the CN cult).
Scott, our church, probably like a lot of other PCA churches, have a Thanksgiving service which is very God-centered. We read scripture, have a homily on a thanksgiving psalm and allow the congregants to stand and publicly give thanks. I think this is fine. It does not feel like civil religion even if done on Thanksgiving–the “government holiday.”
Last week, in a mid-week service, a women played the role of Priscilla Mullins, a Pilgrim who told of God’s providence in saving the the Pilgrims prior to the first Thanksgiving.
Her husband, at the Thanksgiving service I mentioned above, from a historical perspective told of how God providentially perserved William Bradford’s diary. It is quite a story. (It also was God-centered and did not replace scripture or the homily.)
Would you have a problem with what I have described?
I agree that we should be careful to keep our churches God-centered, that the church’s main task is to point its members to God through the preaching of the Word and through the administration of the sacraments.
Two further comments and a question
1. GGillespie pretty much gives the classic reformed argument against an annual automatic day of thanksgiving in his Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies I:7-9 (see the Naptali rpt. ’93). Only God has the power to do that and he has already given us one day in seven to give thanks for his mercy in Christ.
For that matter, the P&R already celebrate the resurrection of Christ once a week; a special observance once a year, i.e. Easter is unnecessary and uncommanded. Likewise Christmas, while the reason for Good Friday is subsumed in the Lord’s Supper.
2. It is erastian – at the very least in ordinary times – for the civil magistrate to determine days of thanksgiving that the church is to observe.
3. If the 2 kingdom paradigm over rules the Reformation POV on the separation of church and state, does the civil magistrate ever have reason to call for a day of thanksgiving/prayer and fasting? Does the church?
Hi Bob,
This is helpful.
I think the church can certainly call itself to thanksgiving.
On the other hand, although the official Thanksgiving Day is the child of political proclamations, it does have roots in the meal the Pilgrims shared with the Indians in which they openly (as a witness to those Indians) gave thanks to God for having survived their first winter in the New World. About 50% of the original band did not survive, yet those who lived used this meal to praise and thank God for their survival. As an extension of this, Christians today (along with the unbelievers – however they understand the holiday) give thanks to God for His provision in their lives.
Yes, Thanksgiving Day is the closest thing we have to a nation-oriented holiday in the United States, a day that is almost uniquely identified with this country (Canada also celebrates it). However, as stated above, it does have roots in the explicit celebration of our Puritan and Pilgrim national ancestors.
Unbelievers may consider Thanksgiving to be part of a civil relgion, but I don’t think, based on this history, that Christians are obligated to do so.
Scott:
I understand your point, distinction and calls to Churchly duties–Word, Sacrament, Prayer and Koinonia. I share it.
Yet, in the OT, God judges nations outside the visible covenant community–frighteningly so.
The Church needs to preach the Law and Gospel to outsiders including politicians, but not for political power, legislative agendas and certainly not for theocratic aims.
I think I get your sense of it.
Phil
Pretty strained analogies….
Dr. Clark,
Thanks for your piece on Thanksgiving and American civil religion. I did some reading on Pliny the Younger, specifically his letter to Trajan on how to handle Christians under his authority.
I found interesting parallels to the Apostle Peter’s behavior when denying Christ, and also similarities between Pontius Pilate’s treatment of Jesus and Pliny’s finding of no real grounds to execute those who participated in this “extravagant superstition”.
America today certainly isn’t Rome in the second or third century.
Scott,
Is your picture Norman Rockwell’s “Pythagorean thanksgiving”?
Over on the civilized side of the Pond, I am reading Bartholomew and Goheen’s ‘Living at the Crossroads’. It is Kuyperian in perspective. A book that you may wish to review some time.
Dr. Clark,
Do you see any similarities between the Romans expecting certain things that confused “cult” with “culture” from Christians to demonstrate allegiance to Rome, and the politically conservative of today’s America. I’ve heard some conservatives criticize people for considering themselves members of their respective religions first and Americans second; I understand why that might make some uneasy, particularly in light of Islamic terrorism, but I can’t say that I am an an American first.
And I hope you have a nice Thanksgiving.
Alberto,
Getting right the relationship between “cult” (religious allegiance; worship) and “culture” (common, civil life) is always a challenge. It’s an intense challenge in small-town America where to exercise church discipline is also taken as a statement to and about the community. To excommunicate the local hardware shop owner is a big deal. It might mean having to drive 50 miles to the nearest hardware store. Refusing the play on the community softball team on the sabbath might be taken as disloyalty to the town. Refusing to “go along to get along” may breed suspicion of “elitism.” The same problem existed in the early 2nd century when Christians were accused of being “uncivil” and “inhuman’ for refusing to support the butcher by buying meat for sacrifice to idols.