Skip to main content

Halloween, Reformation Day, & Presbyterian Destabilization

Warning: I'm about to get snarky!

The TR (Truly Reformed) boys were out in full force on October 31st.  They wanted to make sure that, whether you were celebrating Halloween or Reformation Day, you knew you were an evil papist, pagan, and/or idolater!  Like their spiritual forefather, The Grinch, they wanted to ensure that no fun was had and no joy was felt, but, I am happy to report, most people casually want about their business with little or no attention paid to these sourpusses.  

I am being overly harsh here for comedic effect, I admit, but I do have a point to make.  There are a variety of motivations (genuine piety, pride, tribalism, etc.) that lie behind this conservative cancel culture, but I believe that it is generally destructive and destabilizing.

That's a pretty bold statement, so allow me to explain.

I was raised within this segment of the Reformed community.  Many things can be said about it, but the simplest is that it is not a healthy place.  When I say healthy, I mean spiritually, emotionally, or culturally.  I hate oversimplifications, so I don't want to assert too much here, but I believe that one reason some of these ultra-conservative Presbyterians are seeing their children leave the Faith is the deconstructive nature of the movement.  

Eventually, kids get sick of hearing that everything is evil.

A brief survey of history reveals this inescapable principle--you cannot build anything permanent upon wholly negative ideals.  Movements like the French and Russian revolutions show us what happens when a thirst to destroy the establishment is unaccompanied by concrete alternatives.  Neo-Marxism in our own day is having the same effect.  The history of the British Isles, particularly Scotland and England, illustrate this point especially well.  When Reformers like Knox and Cromwell tried to circumvent centuries of Roman Catholicism by eliminating the traditions that formed the bedrock of their respective cultures, they discovered that instability and chaos ensued.  

Many Reformed families have found the same thing to be true in their own lives.

The Reformation was built upon the 5 Solas, which are positive affirmations, but some adherents to the Reformed tradition define themselves primarily by what they are not.  They are anti-papist, anti-pagan, anti-culture, etc.  They oppose Christian holidays.  They reject any man-made hymns.  They don't go out to eat or watch sports on Sundays.  They decry this political party, that political party, or the political system as a whole.  You get the point.  

They only seem to speak passionately about the practices and beliefs which they oppose. 

Now, these views may be right, wrong, or inconsequential, but the attitude--the ethos which which they apply their worldview--is dangerous.  They spend so much time ensuring that everyone, their kids included, knows what they are against, that they forget to build a positive, tangible culture in it's place.  What reconstruction they manage to do is lost in the flood of negativity.  Everything they do, their worship, childrearing, employment, etc., is laced with and evokes bitterness.  The result is destruction--destroyed churches, destroyed families, destroyed souls.

The cultural iconoclasts succumb to the conflagration they ignited.

To build a stable culture, you need shared conventions.  You have to have respect and morality, but you also need joy and festivity.  This, in turn, requires events, rituals, or observations that create a stable routine.  In order to maintain a worldview through generations, you have to have something tangible to which to connect it.  We are physical, as well as spiritual and intellectual, creatures. Whether as parents passing down the Faith, or framers of society attempting to build an empire, you must have something physical to pass down if you hope to pass down spiritual or intellectual concepts.  

It is no coincidence that our Savior, the second Person of the Trinity who took on human flesh, gave us two physical acts.  He knew that His body, real though mystical, would need physical signs to observe until His physical return.

We are not Gnostics, my friends.

Some Reformed Christians believe that the Sacraments, along with the Sabbath, nullify any need for further rituals, holidays, etc., but this mistaken.  The fact that Jesus gave us physical signs actually reinforces the practice of creating such commemorations.  Their beloved Sunday Sabbath, which actually developed through the centuries from the Lord's Day, especially illustrates the strength of this impulse to remember important events by regular ritual observations.  Within the lives of the Apostles the Church had already begun to celebrate Pascha (Easter) and The Lord's Day, commemorating weekly and annually the Person and Work of the Savior.  

Presbyterians may seem like robots sometimes, but they are human enough, which means that they are not exempt from this impulse.  Hence the advent of Reformation Day.  Their Reformed forbearers removed as many vestiges of the Christian calendar as they could, with varying results in different countries, but new holidays, precisely the thing they claimed to oppose, have slowly begun to fill the void.  The irony is enough to make you giggle, but I rejoice to see it. 

I want to conclude by re-clarifying that I am not describing all Reformed people or the Reformed tradition, per se.  I am particularly referring to a subset of the Reformed community that is known for being proudly outspoken against, well, just about everyone and everything.  I should also clarifying that this sort of fringe group exists within many Christian traditions.  Fundamentalist Baptists, I'm looking at you.

I hope I wasn't too offensive, but, what can I say, I've been listening to Doug Wilson's blog lately.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...