The New Testament calls Christians and Christian churches to
assemble regularly and to do so with the focus upon worshipping Christ for his
vicarious work (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:2; Matthew 28:1ff; Hebrews 10:24-25). The
church assembles in a formal manner on the first day of the week in order to
worship together. Such worship in the early church focused on his completed
work of redemption and is portrayed as the ongoing focus.
What is not given in the New Testament is any sort of
liturgical calendar. For example, the birth of Jesus was a definite cause for
celebration when it happened (cf. Matthew 1-2; Luke 1-2), but the church was
never instructed to pick a date on the calendar for an annualized celebration
of the event. Conversely, what is mandated and exemplified is a constant
emphasis upon the work of Christ (Colossians 1:28).
Further evidence of the church not having specified
religious holidays to observe are those biblical texts that declare all days
equal. Romans 14:5 is a case in point. The context demonstrates that the
immature Christian (the “weak in faith” of 14:1) who has come from a religious
background that mandated religious holidays is to be loved as a fellow believer
and member of the same local church, but is the one who has not matured into
understanding that such things are unnecessary for Christians. In Colossians,
religious holidays are things of the past as they are shadows finding their
fulfillment in Christ (2:16-17). Yes, the days in view in Colossians seem to be
Old Testament holy days, but nothing in the New Testament indicates that the
old are ever replaced. Instead, the substance is in Christ Himself. In
Galatians 4:9-10 Paul warns believers not to depend upon the spiritual
significance of observing holidays. This does not prove that Christian holidays
are wrong, but it does show that dependence upon a holy day is problematic.
Where did the so called church calendar or liturgical
calendar come from if it did not come from the Bible in the form of a
prescribed calendar? This is a difficult question to answer apart from a
doctoral dissertation unearthing loads of historical data. But with a Jewish
background in holy days, one can see how Christians might be prone to follow
the example. Likewise, the negative cultural influence of pagan festivals
likely contributed to the church’s desire to sanctify such practices and
declare them holy days. The third contributing strand is so called sacred
tradition whereby traditions are elevated to authoritative status because of
ecclesiastical decree. Finally, a need to simplify and control church practices
because of an uneducated and/or untrustworthy clergy may have contributed to
the formalization of a church calendar. This sort of background has led some in
history to purposely ignore any and all such holidays. The pastor would simply
preach the next passage in the book he happened to be preaching through even if
it was Christmas.
By and large, I do not want to follow the so called church
calendar. Here are several reasons: First, it is not a biblical mandate.
Second, it has a history that I am less than excited about being associated
with. Third, if we followed the plethora of liturgical holidays, it would be
impossible to cover the rest of the wealth of Scripture. Fourth, the liturgical
calendar is typically, though not exclusively, associated with sacramentalism
inseparably linking salvation to our religious performance.
Nevertheless, I think a day is a day (Romans 14:5) and given
the opportunity to proclaim Christ to some who would not typically listen,
Christmas and Easter are acknowledged as days where I will be sure to speak of
the birth and resurrection with extraordinary attention. But this is more of a
cultural accommodation than anything else and is not due to a mandate from
Jesus whose vicarious life, death, and resurrection I seek to always proclaim.
- Pastor Pat Abendroth