Written by Benjamin T. Inman |
Monday, March 13, 2023
Will the Presbyterian Church in America allow the teaching and practice of the Church Year to be promulgated in its bounds? I believe that my essay dismantles the recently offered exegetical argument. I believe that my essay removes the plausibility of the recently offered ‘Confessional’ opinion. I believe that my essay identifies the corrupting influence for the PCA promised by this model of piety. The controversy must turn, as TE LeCroy recognizes, on whether the Church Year is “hostile to the system” or “strikes at the vitals of religion.”

This is an invitation to controversy; my full-length contribution is available here. I offer a response to what I perceive to be a high point of advocacy for the Church Year in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). During my 30 years in the denomination, without difficulty I have politely abstained around various holiday practices. I felt neither desire nor obligation to be obstreperous. The controversy needed now is not about bits and bobs of calendars and services. This is about a model of piety being smuggled into the PCA.
After twenty years of unruffled tolerance for various particulars, I read the following words from a Senior Pastor in the PCA:
“We as Christians cannot keep our heads in the sand and pretend that we don’t need a Christian calendar to provide balance to the worldly calendars all around us. If we do not offer a counter-formation to the liturgies of the world, then we as the church will be producing disciples that are no different from those in the world around us. We will be self-centered, greedy, entertainment hungry, individualistic, sex crazed, bloodthirsty robots. And isn’t this who we are already? Aren’t these the kinds of disciples our churches are already churning out? Is this what we want to be like? What we want our children to be like?”
I take no offense at the accusation of denominational degeneracy. I haven’t read that in ByFaith magazine, but some things will never be published in some places. It is a stark assessment, yet I doubt many of us would dismiss it without some thought. Is the PCA so indifferent that presbyteries and General Assembly aren’t marked with the weeping and pleading that matches such a claim? A permutation is a possibility. The PCA is far larger than my familiarity; so I’ll not receive the ill report, nor dismiss the substantial man who brought it. Eyes open for now.
I do take offense at the claim made for the Church Year. Compared to ever so many moments in April or December, this calls for interruption. However legitimate may be the diagnosis, the prescription is quackery. Of course, one person’s quackery is another’s alternative treatment or traditional healing practice. The PCA’s understanding of the wholesome and the healing is expressed in the Westminster Standards. How could anyone with significant knowledge of the Westminster Standards – assuming that knowledge is agreement – offer the regular and careful observance of the Church Year as an urgent and necessary tool for sanctification? The divines all grew up under the Church Year, yet they neglected to include something so necessary for godliness?
I leave the author his modesty for now. Such a “gotcha” quote should not be bandied about without context. Lacking context, you might think the quote a bit of ex tempore opinion. You might focus on the laudable concern which provokes it. You might think it a strident comment from someone neither learned nor honored in the PCA. Without context, it might be framed as merely “overemphasis” or “a blemish of excess not corruption.” For 30 years, I have not commented loudly on the ephemera of eclectic Presbyterianism. This is not the bit of gristle politely set aside as you enjoy the steak. I am commenting now. I am controverting now. I am calling out the context now.[1]
My essay here is a rejoinder to Tim LeCroy’s “A Reformed Defense of the Church Year.” Such an earnest defense deserves a proper attack, rather than the piecemeal and spontaneous discussion that appears to have prompted it. He offers a Biblical case, which involves rather common specious claims. He provides an inadequate historical case to provide plausibility for his ‘Confessional’ opinion. The latter, he does not argue so much as assert. He assumes the Church Year is valuable for piety. It is not just true or allowable. It is useful.
Read More
[1] To examine the context of the here unattributed quote, you will need to read my essay here.
Related Posts:

A church generally will follow the example of its pastor. Through their teaching, through their example, pastors play a huge role in setting the culture of the church. Whatever the pastor is passionate about, that will come through, and the congregation usually will follow. As a general rule, the pastor will generally be the most spiritually-minded person in the congregation, because they’re the ones giving themselves to studying and preaching God’s Word. Which means how we live really matters. We want pastors to be men of “eminent piety.”

For Spurgeon, the Pastors’ College, out of all the many institutions of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, was the one that was “dearest to his heart.” Every Friday afternoon, after a long week of study, one of the favorite times of the students was when Spurgeon would lecture on a variety of topics related to pastoral ministry. And out of the many topics that he preached on, the one that he emphasized the most was the importance of the pastor’s “eminent piety,” that is his character.
We live in a day when so many gifted pastors and church leaders with large public ministries go astray in their private lives, in their character. And as a result, all that public ministry comes crashing down. This was no different in the 19th century. Spurgeon understood this well and he placed “eminent piety” as his first qualification for his students who were aspiring to be teachers. All who find themselves in the position of being a teacher of God’s Word should follow Paul’s admonition to Timothy: “Pay close attention to your life and your teaching.” This is what Spurgeon called “the minister’s self-watch.”
But why does a pastor’s character matter?
We Are Our Own Tools
Spurgeon puts it this way:
We are, in a certain sense, our own tools, and therefore must keep ourselves in order. If I want to preach the gospel, I can only use my own voice; therefore I must train my vocal powers. I can only think with my own brains, and feel with my own heart, and therefore I must educate my intellectual and emotional faculties. I can only weep and agonize for souls in my own renewed nature, therefore must I watchfully maintain the tenderness which was in Christ Jesus. It will be in vain for me to stock my library, or organize societies, or project schemes, if I neglect the culture of myself; for books, and agencies, and systems, are only remotely the instruments of my holy calling; my own spirit, soul, and body, are my nearest machinery for sacred service; my spiritual faculties, and my inner life, are my battle ax and weapons of war.
When it comes to the ministry of the Word, we are the tool, the instrument for conveying the gospel. That’s not to say that we ourselves are the Good News. No, we are jars of clay, bearing the treasure of the gospel. But at the same time, it matters how we conduct our lives. I think of Paul’s words to Timothy
2Tim. 2:20       In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. 21 If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.
It is interesting to think about all the other things we think make for an effective minister: the latest laptop, a massive pastoral library, a powerful Bible study software tool, resources to help with sermon illustrations, on and on it goes. There is no shortage of pastoral tools and resources that Lifeway, Crossway, Logos, and everybody else wants to sell you. And in one sense, all those things are fine. But at the end of the day, as a minister of God’s Word, those things are not what carry the gospel. You are the vessel, the instrument of the gospel. As a pastor who owned thousands of books, Spurgeon reminds us that in the end, it’s character and life that matter.
Robert Murray M’Cheyne writing to a minister friend who had gone to study German theology put it like this,
I know you will apply hard to German, but do not forget the culture of the inner man — I mean of the heart.
Read More

When you see Christ as he is, for who he is, you will not be neutral. Your response will not be tepid. No one will equivocate or find some middle ground. You will either thrill to realize that this is the One you have loved and have longed to look upon, or you will hate to look on One so lovely when you’d rather be looking at yourself.

Then there came-at first from very off-sounds of wailing and then, from every direction, a rustling and a pattering and a sound of wings.  It came nearer and nearer.  Soon one could distinguish the scamper of little feet from the padding of big paws, and the clack-clack of light little hoofs from the thunder of great ones.  And then one could see thousands of pairs of eyes gleaming.  And at last, out of the shadow of the trees, racing up the hill for dear life, by thousands and by millions, came all kinds of creatures — Talking Beasts, Dwarfs, Satyrs, Fauns, Giants, Calormenes, men from Archenland, Monopods, and strange unearthly things from the remote islands or the unknown Western lands.  And all these ran up to the doorway where Aslan stood.
 The creatures came rushing on, their eyes brighter and brighter as they drew nearer and nearer to the standing Stars.  But as they came right up to Aslan one or other of two things happened to each of them.  They all looked straight in his face, I don’t think they had any choice about that.  And when some looked, the expression of their faces changed terribly – it was fear and hatred. . . .and all the creatures who looked at Aslan in that way swerved to their right, his left, and disappeared into his huge black shadow, which (as you have heard) streamed away to the left of the doorway.  The children never saw them again.  I don’t know what became of them. But the others looked in the face of Aslan and loved him, though some of them were very frightened at the same time.  And all these came in at the door, in on Aslan’s right (C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle).
No matter what you think of him now, one day you will stand before Jesus. And on that day you will not see him as a little baby or as a dying man on a cross. He will stand before you as the glorious and exalted Son of Man. You will see the nail marks in his hands, but instead of a crown of thorns, a crown of glory will rest upon his brow. He will be more dazzling than you imagined, his splendor more radiant than you thought possible.
Read More
Related Posts: