Of candlelight and incense in public worship

[NaphtaliPress]

What's the difference in argument in saying we can make a worship service "more special" by having candles (as in a candle lite xmas eve service), and we warrantably can make it special by using incense to make it smell "special"? I can understand if there is no electricity and candles become necessary, and likewise if there's a smelly situation where sweetening the air might be called for. But that isn't why these things are usually done, correct?

 

[Skyler]

I suppose it's similar to picking certain styles of music for the singing. It helps create a worshipful attitude.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

So, maybe special minister's clothing for the same reasoning?

 

[Skyler]

I'm sorry, were you contrasting the candlelight and the incense in the first post? I missed that. But yes, I have heard that reasoning given to support wearing robes while preaching.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I might be able to stomach a candle-lit meeting room, for "old time's sake," but the ceremonious candle business seems kinda smells-and-bells-ish.

Maybe, if some 3yr old drops his wick and scorches the rug (or worse...) this practice will be re-thought? Or has this happened already?

 

[SolaScriptura]

It is, in my opinion, important to note that the Romanists (indeed the Orthodox as well) place spiritual significance in the presence of candles, incense, etc. They DON'T do it for ambiance.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Sproul had a talk about this a while back.

My old pastor was anglican-leaning.... the 'bells and smells' were done on purpose to train people: when you smell X and hear Y, think Upward.

 

[Wayne]

[video=youtube;RmwqnqL3Hbg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg[/video]

 

[KMK]

If you have taken the plunge into Christmas Eve services, you may as well go all the way and give everyone a candle. Tradition is tradition.

 

[jogri17]

No Christmas services unless it falls on Sunday then keep normal times.

 

[Scottish Lass]

I don't see how either is permissible; one is merely more common (unfortunately) than the other.

 

[toddpedlar]

It is, in my opinion, important to note that the Romanists (indeed the Orthodox as well) place spiritual significance in the presence of candles, incense, etc. They DON'T do it for ambiance.

But doing it for ambiance is PRECISELY doing it for "spiritual significance".

If the candles placed there are not there to "make things seem more spiritually inviting", or to set a particularly "worshipful" mood, or
to set apart the room in a particular way for worship purposes..... that has quite deep spiritual implications. It is, in its own way without
being called "ceremonial", precisely that. The only real difference between the presence of candles to set a particular tone, and the
so-called "spiritual significance" that you claim the Romanists put on the candles is that the Romanists recognize it for what it is and are
willing to say that it's spiritually significant. What the extent or variety of the spiritual significance is doesn't delineate between acts being
spiritually significant (the incense carrying Romanist prayers to God) or not (the 'ambiance' factor of evangelical candle-lighting and incense
usage).

 

[SolaScriptura]

It is, in my opinion, important to note that the Romanists (indeed the Orthodox as well) place spiritual significance in the presence of candles, incense, etc. They DON'T do it for ambiance.

But doing it for ambiance is PRECISELY doing it for "spiritual significance".

If the candles placed there are not there to "make things seem more spiritually inviting", or to set a particularly "worshipful" mood, or
to set apart the room in a particular way for worship purposes..... that has quite deep spiritual implications. It is, in its own way without
being called "ceremonial", precisely that. The only real difference between the presence of candles to set a particular tone, and the
so-called "spiritual significance" that you claim the Romanists put on the candles is that the Romanists recognize it for what it is and are
willing to say that it's spiritually significant. What the extent or variety of the spiritual significance is doesn't delineate between acts being
spiritually significant (the incense carrying Romanist prayers to God) or not (the 'ambiance' factor of evangelical candle-lighting and incense
usage).

You've got it wrong.
What I meant by "spiritual significance" is that they do it to convey spiritual truths or pictures of heavenly realities. When most evangelicals do it, the candles carry the same significance (in their thinking, however correct or incorrect it may be) of plants or some other type of greenery.

So I can be clear: Are you implying that it is wrong to consider/do ANYTHING to help create an atmosphere conducive to leading our people to worship with reverence and awe?

 

[Tripel]

Can someone please explain what a candlelight service is? Does that just mean that the room is illuminated with candlelight as opposed to electrical?

We have a Christmas Eve service, but candles aren't involved.

 

[jwithnell]

Rev. 5 refers to incense as the "prayers of God's people." Given it's place in the temple, the imagery of this verse should be important and should not be supplanted with actual incense any more than we should have a service for circumcision or a passover meal. The new covenant and the eschatological significance that comes out of that covenant should not be supplemented by earthly means.

Candles? They were used of necessity in churches for years. I don't know that they can be ruled outside the regulative principle any more than the color of the carpet or the height of the ceiling. We have significance in how our churches are arranged but that should not be viewed as somehow adding to what God has commanded in worship. (No where does it say in the Bible that the pulpit should be in the center of the front, but most reformed churches do so to show the centrality of the word; same with placing the Lord's table in front and down with the congregation.) Using candles as a way of remembering Christ came as the light of the world? How is that communicating anything more than where the pulpit is located?

 

[Austin]

For my 2 cents, I am a HUGE fan of smells & bells. Call me a crypto-Anglican, but I see no reason to follow the Puritans in these matters.

After a lot of reflection, prayer, study of history and worship, etc, I have adopted several 'traditional' aspects of worship. To wit:

-As a Prison chaplain, I wear all black except for a white clerical collar (Anglican/Presbyterian collar, not RC). You would be amazed at how effective this is. I have far more evangelistic conversations, both at work and in the community, wearing a collar than I ever did wearing "street clothes." Also, it is beneficial to have a 'uniform.' I feel better when I see a physician wearing a lab coat, a policeman wearing a uniform, or a soldier wearing his uniform. Why shouldn't we, who hold the most important offices in this world, wear a uniform?

-When I preach or lead worship, I ALWAYS wear a Geneva gown. The minister should be set apart in his prophetic and priestly office. After all, when we lead worship or deliver the Word, it is important to emphasize that it is not the minister-as-a-man who does the work, but the office of presbyter who does so. There is good reason for the minister to don the robe immediately before worship and to doff it immediately afterward. In that sacred time, he stands in the pulpit upon the chancel and is used by the Lord to bring the people of the New Israel into the presence of their King.

-I try to always have two candles on the Communion Table, one on either side of the Bible. Christ is the Light of the World, His Word reveals Him, why not?

-If I had my druthers, I would always have a menorah on the chancel. We are Israel, the embodiment of Christ's Body in this world, and the light of His Kingdom.

-I am sitting here right now burning a candle that is warming a pile of frankincense and myrrh. This is the smell of the Temple. The prayers of God's people ascend to Christ's Throne as the incense wafted up from the Temple. Revelation affirms this use. Why should we not use it?

-Candlelit Christmas Eve services are a reminder to us that out of the darkness of the fallen world God brought forth light through the birth of His Son, the Messiah.

-As a Covenantalist, I hold that it is INCREDIBLY important to teach our children. Science has demonstrated that visual memories are powerful, and that the sense of smell is the single most powerful memory function of the human body. Should we not train up our children with every facet of their senses? I therefore wholeheartedly affirm using wine & matzo in Communion, immersion (even of infants) in Baptism, incense and candles in worship, and anything else that the Church has learned through her ages to teach them of Christ.

 

[JP Wallace]

Austin

I know it's just a turn of phrase, and you're using it that way, but whatever you think of smells you shouldn't love the bells (in this context) as Rome uses the ringing of the bells (sanctus) to signify the transubstantiation of the bread into the literal blood of Christ, so I hope you don't love that!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The last candlelight services I went to were at an evangelical PCUS church (which became PCA while I was in college). Everyone was given a candle. The pastor lit his from one of the advent candles that they had been lighting one by one all month and lit the first person's candle and that person turned and said something (can't recall now what) to the person seated beside them and lit their candle, and so on until all the candles were aflame (there were several hundred plus folks). It was most surely a ceremony, evangelical church or not. As to Bruce's comment; the Fire Marshall put an end to the practice. Thirty years later I'm not sure what is legal and what not in the city limits. Any way; the candles in my experience were not simply circumstantial; nor do I think in this instance can they be. But I'm not going to beat this to death. Here are some PB golden oldies on the same subject.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/candles-rpw-26359/
Family Worship and Candlight

I might be able to stomach a candle-lit meeting room, for "old time's sake," but the ceremonious candle business seems kinda smells-and-bells-ish.

Maybe, if some 3yr old drops his wick and scorches the rug (or worse...) this practice will be re-thought? Or has this happened already?

What I meant by "spiritual significance" is that they do it to convey spiritual truths or pictures of heavenly realities. When most evangelicals do it, the candles carry the same significance (in their thinking, however correct or incorrect it may be) of plants or some other type of greenery.

 

[JennyG]

Science has demonstrated that visual memories are powerful, and that the sense of smell is the single most powerful memory function of the human body. Should we not train up our children with every facet of their senses?

What you say about the power of the sense of smell is very true, but there are two sides to that of course - It's the reason I hate the smell of incense so much! it stinks of Romanism/paganism

 

[Austin]

RE: bells, I hope that it goes w/o saying that I don't believe in the abomination of the mass. After all, I subscribe to the Westminster Stds.

As for the incense, it's the smell of the Temple. Frankincense & myrrh were burned in God's temple in His appointed fashion. Surely there's nothing beyond our anti-Romanist prejudice that prohibits it. It's kind of like folks who omit the word "catholic" from the creeds. As I tell the inmates on the prison yard I serve, just b/c someone else has stolen a good word doesn't mean that we shouldn't use it. As Reformed Presbyterians we are, par excellence, catholic. But of course, we aren't Romanists.

I am a firm believer that we should engage all of the senses in our worship. After all, as laudatory as our Reformed emphasis on the preaching of the Word is, there are those amongst the Covenant people who are either young or slow whom we ought to impact in every way we can. (This is, of course, why the WSC was written!)

And if I may bring in a theme from another thread, Christmas trees, Advent wreaths, liturgical colors, and the Church calendar are all wonderful things in my book. (Of course, I'm w/ John Frame when it comes to the RPW, so I know I'm in the minority on PB.)

Shalom y'all,

 

[Wayne]

Somewhere William Cunningham has a great summary statement on how things introduced into worship as adiaphora, so often move next to the level of necessity and then finally come to hold a mandatory, even doctrinal place.

Can one of our PB readers provide the quote I have in mind, or one similar?

 

[VictorBravo]

The last candlelight services I went to were at an evangelical PCUS church (which became PCA while I was in college). Everyone was given a candle. The pastor lit his from one of the advent candles that they had been lighting one by one all month and lit the first person's candle and that person turned and said something (can't recall now what) to the person seated beside them and lit their candle, and so on until all the candles were aflame (there were several hundred plus folks). It was most surely a ceremony, evangelical church or not. As to Bruce's comment; the Fire Marshall put an end to the practice. Thirty years later I'm not sure what is legal and what not in the city limits. Any way; the candles in my experience were not simply circumstantial; nor do I think in this instance can they be. But I'm not going to beat this to death. Here are some PB golden oldies on the same subject.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/candles-rpw-26359/
Family Worship and Candlight

I might be able to stomach a candle-lit meeting room, for "old time's sake," but the ceremonious candle business seems kinda smells-and-bells-ish.

Maybe, if some 3yr old drops his wick and scorches the rug (or worse...) this practice will be re-thought? Or has this happened already?

What I meant by "spiritual significance" is that they do it to convey spiritual truths or pictures of heavenly realities. When most evangelicals do it, the candles carry the same significance (in their thinking, however correct or incorrect it may be) of plants or some other type of greenery.

I didn't really want to weigh in with my personal anecdote, but Chris's and Bruce's observations swayed me. For years, growing up, my Mom would take us to candle-light Christmas eve midnight services. She thought they were beautiful and we kids thought they were pretty neat--especially because almost every time somebody's hair would get singed and make the sanctuary smell like a branding corral.

My sister and I would discuss in eager anticipation which big-bun-haired lady would get singed and how we might dowse the fire if it got out of hand. Christmas Eve was always high drama for us.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Somewhere William Cunningham has a great summary statement on how things introduced into worship as adiaphora, so often move next to the level of necessity and then finally come to hold a mandatory, even doctrinal place.

Can one of our PB readers provide the quote I have in mind, or one similar?

This may be the passage you had in mind Wayne. Good one; a keeper.

[FONT=&quot]William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principlesopish, Erastian, and Presbyterian ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]T. & T. Clark, 1863) 250–251.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is one of the points above stated which entered so largely[/FONT][FONT=&quot] into the discussion between the Reformers and the Romanists,—has been so much discussed since, especially in the controversy between the Conformists and Nonconformists in England,—and is of so much practical importance at all times, that I will make a few observations upon it. I mean the power claimed for the church to introduce new rites and ceremonies into the worship of God. The extravagant multiplication of unauthorized rites and ceremonies in the worship of God forms one of the leading characteristics of the Papacy. This tendency, indeed, was early exhibited in the church, and continued to be more fully developed with increasing injury to the interests of religion. They were first introduced as things indifferent in themselves, but fitted, it was alleged, to impress men's minds, and to make the worship of God more solemn and becoming. Then they came to be represented as forming a direct and necessary part of the proper worship which God required, and at length they came to be generally regarded in the Church of Rome, like almost everything else which men did, as meritorious, as peculiarly pleasing to God, and peculiarly fitted to procure tokens of His favour. The climax of these corruptions in the worship of God was the introduction of what was directly and immediately idolatrous, in the worship of angels, saints, and images. All this was in full accordance with the general character and tendency of the Papal system, and fitted to exert a most injurious influence upon men's spiritual welfare.[/FONT]​

 

[KMK]

Thanks for that, Chris!

 

[Augusta]

The last candlelight services I went to were at an evangelical PCUS church (which became PCA while I was in college). Everyone was given a candle. The pastor lit his from one of the advent candles that they had been lighting one by one all month and lit the first person's candle and that person turned and said something (can't recall now what) to the person seated beside them and lit their candle, and so on until all the candles were aflame (there were several hundred plus folks). It was most surely a ceremony, evangelical church or not. As to Bruce's comment; the Fire Marshall put an end to the practice. Thirty years later I'm not sure what is legal and what not in the city limits. Any way; the candles in my experience were not simply circumstantial; nor do I think in this instance can they be. But I'm not going to beat this to death. Here are some PB golden oldies on the same subject.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/candles-rpw-26359/
Family Worship and Candlight

I might be able to stomach a candle-lit meeting room, for "old time's sake," but the ceremonious candle business seems kinda smells-and-bells-ish.

Maybe, if some 3yr old drops his wick and scorches the rug (or worse...) this practice will be re-thought? Or has this happened already?

What I meant by "spiritual significance" is that they do it to convey spiritual truths or pictures of heavenly realities. When most evangelicals do it, the candles carry the same significance (in their thinking, however correct or incorrect it may be) of plants or some other type of greenery.

I didn't really want to weigh in with my personal anecdote, but Chris's and Bruce's observations swayed me. For years, growing up, my Mom would take us to candle-light Christmas eve midnight services. She thought they were beautiful and we kids thought they were pretty neat--especially because almost every time somebody's hair would get singed and make the sanctuary smell like a branding corral.

My sister and I would discuss in eager anticipation which big-bun-haired lady would get singed and how we might dowse the fire if it got out of hand. Christmas Eve was always high drama for us.

I was singed my first candlelight carol sing at our current church. Talk about smells, it really does stink up the whole room. Thankfully when our church does this it is after the service has ended and is a separate event. It only ever accompanies carol singing.

 

[Wayne]

I found this thought-provoking:

"It is the universal experience of Christian people that the more the senses are attracted, fascinated, and occupied, the less room there is for the action of the soul. The teaching of Christian History points very clearly to the fact that simplicity of outward ceremonial has been usually unaccompanied by the reality of the inward spirit of worship."

- W. H. Griffith Thomas

[as cited by Andrew Barnes on Facebook]

 

[dudley]

Somewhere William Cunningham has a great summary statement on how things introduced into worship as adiaphora, so often move next to the level of necessity and then finally come to hold a mandatory, even doctrinal place.

Can one of our PB readers provide the quote I have in mind, or one similar?

This may be the passage you had in mind Wayne. Good one; a keeper.

[FONT=&quot]William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principlesopish, Erastian, and Presbyterian ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]T. & T. Clark, 1863) 250–251.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There is one of the points above stated which entered so largely[/FONT][FONT=&quot] into the discussion between the Reformers and the Romanists,—has been so much discussed since, especially in the controversy between the Conformists and Nonconformists in England,—and is of so much practical importance at all times, that I will make a few observations upon it. I mean the power claimed for the church to introduce new rites and ceremonies into the worship of God. The extravagant multiplication of unauthorized rites and ceremonies in the worship of God forms one of the leading characteristics of the Papacy. This tendency, indeed, was early exhibited in the church, and continued to be more fully developed with increasing injury to the interests of religion. They were first introduced as things indifferent in themselves, but fitted, it was alleged, to impress men's minds, and to make the worship of God more solemn and becoming. Then they came to be represented as forming a direct and necessary part of the proper worship which God required, and at length they came to be generally regarded in the Church of Rome, like almost everything else which men did, as meritorious, as peculiarly pleasing to God, and peculiarly fitted to procure tokens of His favour. The climax of these corruptions in the worship of God was the introduction of what was directly and immediately idolatrous, in the worship of angels, saints, and images. All this was in full accordance with the general character and tendency of the Papal system, and fitted to exert a most injurious influence upon men's spiritual welfare.[/FONT]​

The above discussion also brought to my mind a piece I remember reading in J A Wylie's "The History Orf Protestantism"

The following is a selection from The History of Protestantism, by J.A. Wylie which I have currently been reading. The following tonight struck me and I could again relate with Calvin and what Olivetan said:

"There are but two religions in the world," we hear Olivetan saying. "The one class of religions are those which men have invented, in all of which man saves himself by ceremonies and good works; the other is that one religion which is revealed in the Bible, and which teaches man to look for salvation solely from the free grace of God." "I will have none of your new doctrines," Calvin sharply rejoins; "think you that I have lived in error all my days?" But Calvin is not so sure of the matter as he looks. The words of his cousin have gone deeper into his heart than he is willing to admit even to himself; and when Olivetan has taken farewell for the day, scarce has the door been closed behind him when Calvin, bursting into tears, falls upon his knees, and gives vent in prayer to the doubts and anxieties that agitate him.

Source: The History of Protestantism, by J.A. Wylie

Calvin said concerning his conversion: "By a sudden conversion, God subdued and reduced to docility my soul, which was more hardened against such things than one would expect of my youthful years."

"Like a flash of light, I realized in what an abyss of errors, in what chaos I was."

Calvin broke with the Roman Church.