Powerful theological and historical positions make for continued resistance to the Christian year among the (Plymouth) Brethren. Christmas and Easter are viewed mainly as opportunities for evangelism.
The (Plymouth) Brethren, in the tradition of free-church Protestantism, have historically been adverse to practices such as the Christian year that they cannot justify with a direct appeal to Scripture. They have given minimal recognition to Christmas and Easter as Christian holidays and have observed these days more for their evangelistic potential than as a celebration of the lordship of Christ over time. The reason that since many unbelieving persons in North America still have some consciousness of the importance of going to church on these holidays, Christmas and Easter are opportune times to preach the gospel themes of Incarnation and Crucifixion/Resurrection to a larger-than-normal audience. But, for the most part, the Christian year is completely ignored by the Brethren.
Resistance to the Christian Year
Several reasons may account for this avoidance. First, the early Brethren were strict biblicists who had little room for extra-biblical traditions. They followed the principle that practices not found in Scripture must be disallowed rather than simply left as a matter of preference. Among their leaders were former Anglicans who were well-acquainted with the ecclesiastical calendar, but the strict model of sola scriptura they adopted left them without justification for following it.
John Nelson Darby, a former Anglican priest, and the dominant early Brethren leader explained their position in a response to a Roman Catholic priest regarding the historic practice of Lent: “tradition is obscure, variable, and establishes nothing—can demonstrate nothing—which Scripture does not prove; and that Scripture is clear and simple. For Lent, there is no warrant, and it is not in Scripture … ” (Collected Writings, 18:76). This kind of thinking was natural to the early Brethren who came from dissenting church bodies (such as Edward Cronin and Edward Wilson) and reinforced their disdain for “unbiblical” traditions.
A second reason why the Brethren disregard the Christian year is their tendency to identify the leading of the Spirit with that which is spontaneous in worship. This conviction led them not only to abandon or minimize any structure and planning in their worship (and sometimes preaching) but also to avoid the use of a liturgical calendar or set prayers. The Spirit of God was understood as only or predominantly manifest in spontaneous and immediate work in the assembly rather than in the planned or humanly-guided actions. If Christ is Lord of the assembly, then he is to lead the worship rather than any human leader who sets a pattern for the year or even the week.
A third factor is the tendency to follow a heavenly/earthly or spiritual/fleshly dichotomy. Liturgical practice is associated with the material or this-worldly, which must be avoided in favor of the “heavenly reality” and the eschatological hope that will at any moment swallow up the “evils of this world.” John Darby expressed this bifurcation with this appeal: “It is time to be entirely heavenly, for the earth is far from God, and daily its darkness closes in, but we belong to the light, and await another day” (Letters, 1:188).
A fourth reason for the avoidance of the Christian year can be found in the sectarian emphasis that developed particularly among the Exclusive Brethren under the dominant influence of John Darby and his form of dispensational thought. Darby taught that the church was “in ruins” at the end of its dispensation, simply awaiting the judgment of God. In his thinking, the Brethren were largely those who “came out” of the tradition-infested and degradation-infested ecclesiastical structures to “gather in twos or threes” so as to gather to Christ alone, and to await his soon return (see, in this regard, Darby’s 1840 essay “On the Formation of Churches” in his Collected Writings, 1:138–55).
Thus, to “bring over” any ecclesiastical baggage, such as a liturgical calendar that reflects the Christian year, would simply be unacceptable. Since the church is understood to be in ruins, believers ought not even attempt to imitate structures found in the New Testament church, much less the structures of the contaminated descendant of that church in the contemporary world. And this kind of thinking is not restricted to the Exclusive Brethren, in view of the cross-pollination that occurred (especially in North America) between Exclusive and Open Brethren.
A final reason is the dominant Brethren value of “simplicity.” To the Brethren, anything highly organized or structured makes the Christian faith too complex, and obscures the need for maintaining a simple and unabashed faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his Word alone. With this dominating value, motivation toward any kind of liturgical calendar can find no room.
Prospects for Change
Little change in attitude toward the Christian year has occurred among the Brethren in recent years except for scattered interest by “radical” Open Brethren assemblies that feel free to employ elements from the historic churches that may enhance or broaden their worship experience. But such attempts have brought the authenticity of these more progressive assemblies into question by others in the movement. The use of traditional elements such as the Christian year is viewed, all too often, as retrogressive: it represents what was “left behind” when the Brethren movement emerged.
Therefore, unless there is a fresh resurgence of biblical values among segments of the Brethren that are compatible with the historic core values they hold, there is not likely to be much collective appreciation of the Christian year in the near future. Additionally, the absence of an ecclesiastical hierarchy means there is no structure higher than the local congregation to encourage or impose such a practice. And, with the emphasis on lay eldership over theologically-trained leadership, it is unlikely that the Brethren will develop much interest in the broader church’s understanding and appreciation of the Christian year and the philosophy behind it.