Some Thoughts On Christmas

(Originally written 11/23/05)

Well, I know it's been a while, but I decided to sit down and write a blog entry. I just had some things on my mind I wanted to vent about, and they are concerning the celebration of holidays, and in particular, Christmas. Yes, it is getting closer to that time of year, and more and more people are starting to blog and post in messageboards about this issue and whether or not it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate Christmas. It is no stretch to say that these discussions are intense. The celebration of Christmas is an emotionally charged issue, and I will readily admit that for myself. I love Christmas. In fact, I love the entire church calendar and all the holidays it includes. The reason I love these things is because I believe I have been given freedom by God to enjoy such things. Now I know there are a great many individuals who are held in much higher esteem than myself by the church who oppose and argue against celebrating Christmas, and a great many of them come out of the Reformed tradition. Let me say up front that I do respect these people, but I cannot respect their reasoning on this issue. Frankly, I believe many of the arguments against Christmas are some of the silliest and worst arguments I have ever heard. They are all too often full of fallacies and misrepresentations. And what frustrates me more is how zealous and tenacious those More Reformed Than Thou types (hereafter MRTT's) are who use the arguments in spite of these things.

Let me first say that I believe the Scriptures are clear that such things as the celebration of different seasons and days are well within the bounds of liberty and freedom. And when I say clear, I mean crystal clear. Paul writes in Romans 14:5-10:

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

So there you have it. Paul tells us not to judge one another over the observance of days. I should not be judged for my observance of Christmas, and neither should my brethren who do not observe it because after all, we are all doing what we do as service rendered unto God. Could this be any clearer? Well, the MRTT's are not convinced by this. They try to say that Paul was addressing a unique situation in the church where the Jewish Christians were still observing the Old Testament feast days, while the rest of the church was not, and he was trying to stop the bickering between the two parties. Brian Schwertley elaborates further:

When Jesus Christ died on the cross, the ceremonial aspects of the law (e.g., animal sacrifices, Jewish holy days, circumcision, etc.) were done away with. Yet prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70, the apostles allowed certain practices by Jewish Christians as long as no works-righteousness was attributed to these practices. In Acts 21:26, we even encounter the apostle Paul going to the Temple "to announce the expiration of the days of purification." Jewish believers who were already accustomed to keeping certain holy days of the Mosaic economy were allowed to continue doing so for a time. But once the Temple was destroyed, the canon of Scripture was completed, and the church had existed for a whole generation, these unique historical circumstances ceased. (You can find the article against Christmas somewhere at www.reformed.com)

I'm not sure why the MRTT's think that the fact that Paul was talking about the Old Testament ceremonial days in Romans 14 somehow supports their position. Sure, that was the immediate issue that Paul was addressing in that day, but Paul addressed it with a timeless truth, an objective principle for the New Covenant:

"He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it."

And why?

"For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living."

This is Paul's point. And this point did not cease with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. It is for this reason that Paul asks, "But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." Contrary to Schwertley, Paul's point is not, "Well, we're living in these special, intertestamental times where it will be okay for you to keep Jewish holidays if you want to until the temple is destroyed". After all, the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not contingent upon nor was it affected by whether or not there was a temple standing. If Paul was really of the same opinion as the MRTT's, he would have put a stop to the animal sacrifices and festival days immediately, so as not to impugn the sacrifice of our Savior.

Furthermore, would one of the MRTT's care to demonstrate where there is even a hint anywhere in this text or anywhere else that after the temple would be destroyed that this "special intertestamental period" where we can celebrate holidays would cease? This is pure conjecture on the part of Schwertley and others who argue likewise. Who is adding to Scripture now? Certainly not those of the pro-Christmas persuasion.

Another common argument is that churches that celebrate Christmas unlawfully bind the consciences of God's people to celebrate a day that is not commanded by him. This argument is based upon the Regulative Principle of Worship (a.k.a. the MRTT's sacred cow), which states that whatever is not commanded by God in worship is forbidden.

Well, there are many things that could be said to such an argument (such as the fact that I don't even believe the Regulative Principle is biblical in the first place... but that's for another day). But first, I'd like to just point out what to me is highly ironic about this Regulative Principle argument. Schwertley himself states in an anti-Christmas article at www.reformedonline.com that the Regulative Principle was one of the two pillars of the Calvinistic branch of the Reformation. Indeed, it is very common to hear those who hold firmly to the Puritan Regulative Principle as laid out in the Westminster Confession that they are continuing the legacy of regulating worship that goes back to Calvin and the Reformers. But here is the part they always forget to tell you: Calvin and the Reformers celebrated Christmas!

Note Calvin's own words (see Calvin's Letters, Bonnet edition, January 2, 1551 to Haller and March, 1555 to Seigneurs of Bern):

Since my recall, I have pursued the moderate course of keeping Christ's birthday as you are used to doing.

And again, he says:

For the rest, my writings bear witness to my sentiments on these points, for in them I declare that a church is not to be despised or condemned, because it observes more festivals than the others.

Sound clear enough? It does to me. Calvin was a Christian holiday observer.

But there is more. Consider these words from Francis Turretin, perhaps the next great Continental Reformed systematician after Calvin, from his Institutes of Elenctic Theology:

The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord's day alone, and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ... ...we deny that those days are in themselves more holy than others; rather all are equal. If any sanctity is attributed to them, it does not belong to the time and the day, but to the divine worship. Thus, the observance of them among those who retain it, is only of positive right and ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept. (p. 101)

Then again he says:

Hence we cannot approve of the rigid judgment of those who charge such churches with idolatry (in which those days are still kept, the names of the saints being retained), since they agree with us in doctrine concerning the worship of God alone and detest the idolatry of the papists. (p. 104)

So Turretin had no qualms with celebrating Christmas. But he did have qualms with charging churches that do celebrate Christmas with idolatry. So perhaps I should start setting forth the argument that if you believe celebrating Christmas is idolatrous, then you are not really Reformed!!!

But wait, there's still more. From the Second Helvetic Confession, composed by Heinrich Bullinger:

Moreover, if in Christian Liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly.

And then there is the Church Order of Dordt. Would anybody accuse Dordt of being guilty of popery? Yet here is what they say:

Each year the churches shall, in the manner decided upon by the consistory, commemorate the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as His outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Now, my point in bringing all of this up is that if it is really true that the Regulative Principle that the MRTT's are using to argue against celebrating Christmas has its roots in the Calvinist Reformation, then one must wonder why the Continental Reformers celebrated Christmas at all. Or maybe it is the MRTT's who are mistaken in their rigid application of the Regulative Principle as being a litmus test to begin with.

The second point in response to this whole Regulative Principle argument is that nobody's consciences are bound like the MRTT's suggest because, at least as far as Protestants are concerned, Christmas is not a holiday that is morally required to be observed. Granted, in the Roman Catholic tradition, it is required to observe both Christmas and Easter, and one is required to partake of the mass on both of these holy days. Indeed, if one misses one of these holy days in the Roman tradition, one is sinning before God! But I don't need to remind anybody reading this that I am not a Romanist, nor am I defending the Roman view of holy days. Rather, I am defending the Protestant view of the observance of holidays as a free observance as part of our Christian liberty. And this is important because if nobody is required to observe Christmas, then nobody's conscience is being bound by its observance. Simply put, if you don't want to celebrate Christmas, then don't! Nobody is forcing you to. The only day that is required to be observed in Protestant and Reformed Christian theology is the Lord's Day, and that day alone.

But what if Christmas falls on the Lord's Day? Is a person's conscience bound to observe the holiday? Three things:

First, the person is still required to attend services, but not because of an obligation to celebrate Christmas, but because of their obligation to the Lord's Day.

Second, I would argue that nothing that takes place in a Christmas service (at least from a Reformed perspective) is contrary to the MRTT's Regulative Principle (assuming, of course, that exclusive psalmody is NOT biblical). There is nothing added to the commands of God in preaching a sermon about the birth of Jesus, singing songs about that event, praying prayers to that effect, and observing the sacraments. Christmas observance does not of necessity add any extra, man made ceremonies to the worship of God. Now, I grant that there are probably churches out there that have created new ceremonies in their worship on Christmas that might give the MRTT's headaches. If people are praying to God through candles or mistletoe or wreaths or trees or some other weird superstitious ritual, they should be ashamed and repent. But whatever these ceremonies are, they are not necessary for Christmas observance.

And third, and really this is my biggest gripe, if you know a particular church observes Christmas and other holidays, and you do not observe those days, then for crying out loud go to a different church! The quotes I provided above from historic Reformed documents and writings mention the liberty that not only individuals have, but particular churches as well. A church can choose to observe the holidays or not. And if a person does not feel that they can worship the Lord properly in one type of church, then they should go to the other. It really is as simple as that. I mean really, if you were attending a church that sang uninspired hymns, and suddenly one day you became convinced of exclusive psalmody, what would you do? Would you stay at the church and throw a temper tantrum every Sunday about how the whole church, which disagrees with your exclusive psalmody position, is violating your conscience? Or would you go to a different church that held to exclusive psalmody where you felt you could properly worship? If you have half a brain in your skull you will do the latter, rather than destroying the people of God with your schismatic behavior in doing the former.

Another thing I see far too often in the MRTT's argumentation is an unnecessarily long time spend demonstrating that the celebration of Christmas arose either of pagan or Roman Catholic origin, and therefore should not be observed by Christians at all. Unfortunately for them, this is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based upon its past. The fact that the Roman Catholics originated the observance of December 25th as a Christian festival says nothing whatsoever as to whether or not the observance of such a day in itself is either right or wrong.

Furthermore, the people who raise this argument, though it is fallacious, they still often fail to consistently apply it to other areas. On the same line of reasoning, I can condemn the Christian use of musical instruments altogether, be it in worship or for leisure, simply because we know from Genesis 4 that it was the pagan descendents of Cain who were the fathers of all who play such instruments. So since instruments have pagan origins, we dishonor God by our use of them.

In the same vein, not even God follows the line of reasoning that the MRTT's follow here, because God himself instituted the use of musical instruments in the Old Testament as part of temple worship! Here we have an infallible example of a practice with pagan origins being implemented by the people, and in the divine worship of God in the temple, no less! But since this is a fallacious line of reasoning, it really does not matter where instruments originated, since that has no bearing on their appropriateness in worship.

It also is not uncommon for MRTT's to assert that those who observe Christmas are guilty of turning such things as Christmas trees, candles, wreaths, etc. into sacraments or icons. Unfortunately, I witnessed an online conversation not too long ago where a person was labeled a papist because he used the various elements of a Christmas tree as a way to present the gospel to a lost person. But this is ludicrous. First of all, whoever made this argument has no clue what a sacrament is because sacraments are means of grace. Something mysterious and spiritual actually happens to us when baptism and the Lord's supper are observed. The sacraments are not dry ordinances where we simply remember Christ, at least not in Reformed Theology. Even the Westminster Confession XXVII.2 says that there is "a spiritual relation, or a sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." No one can say this of a tree or a candle, and the fact that some people may be superstitious and try to say something like this about these things doesn't change the fact that they are not and cannot be sacraments. So whoever thinks that the fact that a Christmas tree might remind a person of the work of Jesus makes the tree a sacrament either has a very un-Reformed view of what a sacrament is, or they are intentionally misrepresenting those who celebrate Christmas. (By the way, be careful when you stare at a beautiful sunset at night so that it doesn’t remind you of the Almighty Creator of the universe, which then reminds you of how you have sinned against him and how you stand in need of his grace, which then leads you to have a brief time of worship and fellowship with God as you thank him for saving you… you might just be turning that sunset into a sacrament!)

I suppose there are countless other things that could be said here, but right now I can't think of anymore, so I'll stop. For those of you who refrain from celebrating Christmas, I trust that you are doing so for the glory of God. For those of you who do celebrate Christmas, do it for the glory of God.

By the way, here is a helpful link I have found on this subject:

Jeffrey Meyer in Defense of Christmas