The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The church calender helps us to be balanced - I disagree

In scrolling through my FB news feed this morning, I ran into an article giving 5 points of why it is beneficial to observe Lent. I do not observe Lent as I think it is tradition, not biblical. On point 5, "The church calender helps us to be balanced", I wholeheartedly disagree with. In my mind the church calendars approach do a terrible job in teaching someone the whole gospel of God.

Can anyone name some resources that will back up my thoughts. I guess, if there is any credible resources, any that disagrees with me as well.

One of the questions I had on the use of the church calendar is this. It seems that it would be impossible to preach expositionally with a calendar. I mean at best, the exposition of a few chapters of book, but not all the book. Isn't preaching through the entire book a part of expository preaching. If expository preaching is impractical in the practice of the church calendar, then how can anyone claim that the church calendar gives balance.

Well, see here is the problem... What is one's accepted definition of "Expository Preaching"? It is probably the case that most people understand the term as referring to a "verse-by-verse" approach. I am not one of them. My working definition of "Expository Preaching" is the "expounding" on a particular text/passage of Scripture with appropriate application. Therefore, one could preach a topical series, or a thematic series, etc. vs. preaching through an entire book or chapter systematically.

Okay, in regard to observing the Church Calendar, I'm agin it for various reasons, the main one being much of the calendar isn't warranted biblically. Secondly, you should NOT preach on the Church Calendar nor any other man-made document, e.g., it is customary in the more traditional Dutch Reformed churches to preach through the Heidelberg Catechism during the evening worship service. This to me is absolutely unbiblical. I have had some rather 'hot' discussions with a number of pastors who adhere to this 'tradition' and suggested that their responsibility is to PREACH THE WORD and not a catechism. My suggestion has always been to select one of the proof texts of the creed, confession or catechism and preach on that.

That's my

Pilgrim
Although I am in general agreement that the responsibility of an elder is to preach the Word. I am sure you would agree that a good Catechism can be a valuable tool would you not? If that is the case, would your problem be teaching a Catechism in a formal worship service such as Sunday night?
I am reminded of what CH Spurgeon said concerning a good Catechism.
http://www.spurgeon.org/catechis.htm

Hmmmmmm, my comment was in regard to the OP, i.e., the preaching of the Word, ascertaining its meaning and making a proper application of it.

1. I am not averse at all in using a catechism for teaching purposes in the home and in the churches educational program. Men called to the ministry are to preach the WORD of God not some man-made document regardless how faithful it might be to the Bible's teaching.

2. So, yes I am 100% opposed to the preaching of a catechism, e.g., the Dutch churches' tradition is to preach through the Heidelberg Catechism in the evening service. As I have already mentioned, what should be done is to preach on one of the proof texts that is used for a particular section of the catechism or confession.... "faith come by hearing and that by the Word of God". Not everything in any confession is infallibly true, e.g., Chapter I, Article 17 of the Canons of Dordt has no biblical support whatsoever and interestingly enough not one passage of Scripture is offered to substantiate that article.

3. Preaching the WORD also provides a most valuable asset to those who are present; assuming of course that the one preaching is faithful to the Word in its interpretation and application, for it also serves as an example for the proper way to read and understand that Word. Preaching a catechism offers no such asset, which I believe is one of God's intentions of having the WORD preached; i.e., that the people of God may learn how to 'rightly divide the Word of truth'.

Pilgrim
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you.
My purpose in asking the question was I was not completely sure I understood you.

I would certainly be very much opposed to observing Lent. If you have a bad habit of some sort, why wait until Lent to give it up and why start it again after Easter? If it's not a bad habit, why are you giving it up? Whom are you trying to impress?

On the other hand, I think it would be silly to preach anything else but the Resurrection on Easter Sunday. You may have unchurched newcomers in your congregation that day and they'll be puzzled if you just carry on with your series on Deuteronomy or whatever.

On the third hand (!), I wouldn't even know when Trinity Sunday is. Any day is good for preaching the Trinity.