25 comments

1. Just a reminder: In the Dutch Reformed tradition, holding services on the “Christological” holy days, i.e., the days which can be connected to the life and work of Jesus Christ, was not optional. Citing Article 67 of the Church Order of Dordt: “The congregations shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, with the following days. Since in most cities and Provinces of the Netherlands, besides these the days of the Circumcision and Ascension of Christ are also observed, all ministers, wherever this is still the custom, shall put forth effort with the authorities that they may conform with the others.” The URC church order allows local option in Article 37: “The Consistory shall call the congregation together for corporate worship twice on each Lord’s Day. Special services may be called in observance of Christmas Day, Good Friday, Ascension Day, a day of prayer, the national Thanksgiving Day, New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, as well as in times of great distress or blessing. Attention should also be given to Easter and Pentecost on their respective Lord’s Days.”

   We can argue for or against that — and I’ve been on both sides of that debate — but I don’t think we want to declare that either Knox or the fathers of Dordt were outside the boundaries of the Reformed faith.

   An interesting irony: While Italy is far from a center of the Reformed faith, Italian Protestants outside the Anglican and Lutheran traditions have a long history of opposing Christmas observances, including Protestants who have no particular affinity to the Reformed faith or the regulative principle. Given the extreme syncretism of folk Catholicism in much of Italy, a syncretism that goes far beyond official Roman Catholic doctrine and includes outright pagan customs such as La Befana, the Italian “Christmas Witch” which comes from pre-Roman paganism dating back to the Celts, it seems fairly clear that Italian evangelicals who are not committed to the regulative principle have good reason to run away from such practices that are connected in the popular mind with Christmas.

   Here’s a link to a Christianity Today article on the subject of Italian evangelical rejection of Christmas:

   https://www.christianitytoday.com/2024/12/italy-evangelicals-war-christmas-too-catholic/

   As for me, I plan to surprise my Waldensian elders and deacons with a gift of both traditional and chocolate panettone tomorrow. (None of them read the Heidelblog so I feel safe posting this.) My pastor and his wife got their panettone last week, as did those attending our church outreach work at Hazelgreen near Fort Leonard Wood.

   I have better things to do in the Missouri Ozarks than argue against Christmas. I’d probably take a different position if I were in Italy.

   I do think that the closer a community is to the semi-pagan syncretistic practices against which the Reformers fought, the more important it becomes to insist on rejection of the pagan practices for the same reasons that the Reformers rejected them. That’s more of an issue in Latin America and in traditionally Catholic parts of Europe than it is in the American Bible Belt, where a “War on Christmas” is associated with left-wing liberalism, not Christian conservatives.

   • Darrell,

     Thanks for sharing.

     We should always seriously consider what our forefathers did and did not do, for better and for worse, while being careful not to demonize or deify them. Knox, the Dutch fathers, Calvin, along with us today, all have clay feet.

     I try to call it the Reformed tradition or being confessionally Reformed and not the “Reformed Faith” for this reason among others—disagreeing with what such men have done/taught in the past doesn’t necessarily put them outside of the faith (especially not on this issue). But certainly they could have been acting/teaching in ways inconsistent with Scripture and our confession (and for various reasons that probably made a lot of sense, even if still erroneous). Since we believe that we sin daily in thought, word, and deed, it is entirely appropriate to acknowledge that we all are open to being critiqued by those today, and in years to come, for the ways in which we too appear to be inconsistent in our confession.

     May we all be open to such correction and discussion. And may we thank God all the more for his amazing grace in Christ in spite of our sin and folly.

     • Thank you as well for your response, Rev. Souve.

       I do think you raise an interesting point about the term “Reformed faith” and using that term rather than the “Reformed tradition.” You may note above that I used the term “Reformed faith” and “Dutch Reformed tradition.” That was intentional, though I have not always been consistent on this point.

       I think in common parlance, we need to understand that the word “tradition,” in Protestant circles generally and American evangelical circles more particularly, carries a negative connotation and is associated in the popular mind with “Catholic tradition,” i.e., the authority of ancient usage, and/or mainline “traditionalism,” i.e., doing things because “they’ve always been done that way.”

       I don’t buy into the underlying assumptions — obviously I am confessional and Reformed — but we need to understand how the words we use will be understood by those who hear and read us.

       When I refer to the “Reformed faith,” I mean by that a higher level of truth claims than I do when I refer to the “Dutch Reformed tradition” or the “German Reformed tradition” or the “New England Puritan tradition.” What I mean by those three terms (and others) is a specific subset of the broader and commonly shared understanding of what the Reformed faith means, while recognizing that there are certainly differences within, for example the “Dutch Reformed tradition.” Kuyper is most emphatically not Kersten, and 1619 was not 1886 or 1834. However, in the context of the 1500s and 1600s, the Dutch Reformed, the German Reformed, the Scots Presbyterians, and the English and New England Puritans viewed themselves as having a common faith but disagreeing on details of how to apply it.

       I realize the use of terms like “tradition,” “traditionalism” and “faith” goes beyond your point on Christmas observance, but it’s an interesting point and wanted to comment on it.

       I need to get the Italian panettone ready to bring to church along with the Korean chapchae for a church potluck! Have a good Lord’s Day — which is far more important than any day designated (or not designated) to observe our Lord’s birth, which almost certainly was not on Dec. 25.

       • All I need now is that chocolate panettone! Sounds delicious!

         • Rev. Souve, that’s actually easy! If you don’t have a local Italian bakery (patronize local businesses whenever you can), Walmart has figured out that if they sign contracts with specialty companies for ethnic holidays, they can make a ton of money providing things that lots of people remember from their childhood but can’t get where they live now.

           Here’s a link. It probably won’t work very long after Christmas, but panettone ships well and will arrive at your home in good condition — and maybe even before Christmas if you order today.

           Some quick crosschecking will find other brands and also the traditional flavor of panettone produced by this brand. But you asked for chocolate, so here goes!

           https://www.walmart.com/ip/Bauducco-Chocottone-Fudge-Coating-16oz/17256161469?classType=REGULAR&from=/search

           Whatever we think about Christmas and Italian observances of it, they’re experts at producing things like art, music, and food, all of which are present in abundance around the traditional religious holidays of Italy.

           After all, someone had to figure out how to keep full employment of the artisans and tradesmen after Constantine and his successors made certain types of art, music, and food unprofitable. That little fact of history (with less-than-subtle allusions to Artemis of the Ephesians) gives credibility to your point, which is one with which I don’t really disagree in a context where pagan religious practices entering the church is a very real problem.

           I’m more concerned about trying to explain sovereign grace in the Bible Belt than a war on Christmas. I’d have a quite different approach in a context where children are taught careful reverence toward a plaster image of “Jesus” in a nativity scene, with a level of superstition not far removed from that of the statuary of Ephesus. Again, I suspect we’re closer than might appear, with our differences being ones of prioritization and not really of principle.

2. Just came to say I’m proud of you ❤️

   • ❤️

3. Thank you for this article!

   I know many P&R churches will have a Christmas Eve service in just a few days, incorporating a number of elements unauthorized for public worship on the Lord’s Day: bells, candle lighting, special music, and laity giving the public reading of Scripture (including women), and the like.

   Since such services (and others that follow a man-made liturgical calendar) typically do not fall on the Lord’s Day, would you regard this as a matter of liberty and wisdom? I ask because your article seems aimed primarily at those who wish to incorporate these elements into the Lord’s Day service itself, whereas others within the P&R world appear content simply to relocate them to one of the other six days.

   If these gatherings are still understood as worship of the church, it seems the RPW should still apply. Simply moving them off Sunday risks functioning as an excuse to employ the NPW in full—allowing us to have our Big Eva/NPW cake and eat it too 🙂. Additionally, it raises the question of whether this practice unintentionally cultivates an appetite for Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, or Big Eva, rather than guarding the simplicity and divine warrant of Reformed worship.

   • Brandon,

     If a service is not obligatory, i.e., no one will be disciplined for not attending, then that relieves one of the problems with such services but it raises another question: is it a worship service? If the consistory/session is declaring it a called service then they are obligated to adhere to the rule of worship as expressed in our confessions (e.g., Heidelberg 96-98; WCF 21.1). In that case, they do not have freedom to have laity reading Scripture during the service or light candles as an act of religious devotion, etc.

     If they do not declare it a called service and if it is just families of the church coming together to use a common space for an informal hymn sing etc, then they may do, within the bounds of wisdom and the moral law, what they will.

     • Brandon,

       Scott answers this very well.

       In short, if the session is calling for worship, even on other days, it must adhere to our standards (esp. the DW), regardless of the day. If it is simply an organic gathering of Christians, they are free from session oversight/discipline. Of course, they are always required to love God with all they are and so do what he desires with prudence. I would advise following the consistory’s/session’s advice and/or standard practice.

       Additionally, private and family worship are necessarily not bound like public worship. For example, fathers are not the pastor or ruling elder of their house. They (even if they are the pastor or elder in a given church) do not function as such in private/family worship. So, for example, no sacraments may be administered and other family members may read and pray.

       Simpler the better. Pray, read, sing (form of prayer). The dialogical principles applies in all forms of worship.

       Hope that helps.

       • Appreciate the insights from both of you. Thanks for taking the time to interact with the commenters!

4. Former OPC minister G.I. Williamson wrote about this in the OPC magazine New Horizons eight years ago.
   Anyone have an estimate of the percentage of OPC churches observing a Christmas season/etc?
   — Warren Van Wyck, Ferrisburgh, Vermont

   • Warren,

     G. I. was a voice crying in the wilderness on this issue, as was Mr Murray.

     • May the voices increase today.

5. I really appreciate this explanation of the Reformed view on celebrating holy days and the origin of Christmas. Thank you for reminding us of the RPW as it is so easy to get caught up in the emotions and nostalgia of the Christmas season.

   • Thank you for your kind words.

6. I think I understand the position being advocated here, but the evangelical feast days did play a role in historic confessional Reformed piety and practice in some places. More examples could be given, but here are a few:

   “We observe the festivals of Christ’s birth, circumcision, passion, Easter, and Pentecost for certain reasons, without superstition.” – The Hungarian Confessio Catholica (1562)

   “Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly.” – The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

   “we also keep and celebrate the days of Christ’s birth, circumcision, death, resurrection, and ascension, and of the sending of the Holy Spirit, because first they contain to a great extent the nurture of our faith, and second because in them are contained all the things of our redemption and religion.” – The Synod of Hercegszoloski (1576)

   “There were formerly in this and other churches, besides Sundays and the feasts of Christ, also all manner of other holidays which were kept annually. But now the superfluous holidays for the apostles and for other deceased saints, enacted in past ages, have been for the most part suppressed and abolished in the churches of this land for these reasons…Thus in a like manner, the celebration of the apostles’ days is discontinued in the most closely adjoining Hessian churches. And Dr. Luther himself writes in his church order: ‘We Wittenbergers intend to celebrate only Sundays and the feasts for our Lord Jesus Christ. For we hold that the feast for the saints should be wholly abrogated. Or if there is something in them worth mentioning, one allows for the same thing otherwise on Sundays under the preaching.’” – The Nassau Confession (1578)

   “48. All days celebrating the saints and all abuse of public holidays shall be abolished, and only Sundays and festivals of Christ shall be retained.” – General Synod of Herborn (1586)

   “Certain times are also to be named for public worship. We observe the day of the Lord throughout the entire year, as well as certain feast days, such as the birth, circumcision, passion and resurrection, the ascension, Pentecost, and so forth.” – Common Confession of the Doctrine of the Reformed Church in the Kingdom of Poland, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Respective Provinces of the Kingdom, for the Clarification of Disputed Point at the Colloquy of Thorn in 1645

   Keeping the evangelical feast days was accepted practice among the French Reformed, as indicated in Jean Claude’s Essay on the Composition of a Sermon: “It is not so with particular times which belong to ourselves, which are of two sorts, ordinary, which we call stata tempora, which every year return at the same seasons; or extraordinary, which fall out by accident, or, to speak more properly, when it pleases God. Of the first kind of Lord’s supper days; or days which are solemnized among us, as Christmas Day, Easter, Whitsuntide, Ascension Day, New-Years’ Day, and Good Friday, as it is called. On these days particular texts should be chosen, which suit the service of the day; for it would discover great negligence to take on such days texts which have no relation them. It is not to be questioned but on these peculiar efforts ought to be made, because then the hearers come with raised expectations, which, if not satisfied, turn into contempt, and a kind of indignation against the preacher.”

   • Neil,

     You’re correct. There is an unresolved tension among the Reformed as to “evangelical holy days” but it should be observed that our celebration of Christmas is rather different from older the observance of the birth of Christ, his death, resurrection, and ascension.

     In general, I’m with Calvin on these. He was forced to observe them by the City Council and he did so, grudgingly. I suspect that these observances were probably the result of pressure from the people rather than a considered exegetical or theological judgment. I say this because this is what happened in the Netherlands re instruments and the the inclusion of a communion hymn in the Church Order of Dort. There was something of a war between the magistrates (and with them, the people) and the clergy. The people liked these things and the clergy opposed them. It’s possible that, in Zurich, the clergy were more populist. The Hungarians were quite rigorous on the rule of worship so their use of them is most interesting.

     • Scott,

       This is helpful further insight. Thank you.

       Neil,

       Thanks for sharing these.

       That our forefathers did or did not do certain things should be acknowledged and seriously considered. And yet it cannot rise to the level of our three primary standards (not saying you were doing this).

7. Excellent article.

   • Thank you

8. Thank you. Well said.

   • Thank you

9. Rev. Souve,
   Thank you for this well-considered and gentle reminder. As you rightly indicated, there was/is only one holy day in the apostolic or heavenly church, though it is celebrated 52 times annually. In 1899, to an overture to the General Assembly asking “a pronounced and explicit deliverance” against the recognition of “Christmas and Easter as religious days,” the following answer was given: “There is no warrant in the Scriptures for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holy days, but rather the contrary (see Galatians iv. 9-11; Colossians ii. 16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed faith, conducive to will-worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” This view was upheld by the Assembly as late as 1916 (See A Digest of the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. . . . G. F. Nicolassen. Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1923).
   To my knowledge, no Presbyterian General Assembly ever changed the deliverances in 1899 or 1916; people just don’t care. After the second World War, people appear to have lost their interest in disagreeing, even when/where the disagreement was charitable and humble. In the nine years that I pastored in New Hampshire, we only observed the first day of the week; nobody left the church or their faith.
   T. David Gordon

   • Thank you for the kind words and insightful historical detail. I wish I would’ve known this sooner to have included it! I’ll certainly note this in the future.

     Sadly, I run into these problem a lot—indifference, unwillingness to discuss charitably, and when they do “care”, it’s predominantly an expression of emotionalism and nostalgia.

     “Tradition!” – Tevye

Comments are closed.