By David Crank
As the Christmas season approaches, so does the issue of how, or if, we should celebrate Christmas.
Reasons to Not Celebrate
Some brethren argue that Christians should not celebrate Christmas at all. Though that may seem very odd to some (i.e. Christians not wanting to celebrate the birth of Christ or participate in a holiday named for Christ), there are some pretty good reasons for this position. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever asked us to commemorate Jesus’ birth. We were never told when Jesus’ birthday was. The date chosen for Christmas was apparently selected because it coincided with a pagan Roman holiday (an attempt to displace the pagan holiday).
It is also noted that some Christmas traditions are from the prior pagan celebration and have nothing to do with Christ. Some also look to the New England Puritans and those coming out of the Reformation who refused to celebrate Christmas, regarding it as a pagan holiday.
Reasons to Celebrate
On the other side, are arguments that there is no Biblical prohibition against celebrating Jesus’ birth. Two of the gospel writers gave us many of the details of Jesus’ birth, giving us a "Christmas story" to recount and remember. Certainly Jesus’ coming to earth was a great event, long prophesied beforehand, and one especially announced by God to a select few. When the focus is truly on God’s great gift and Jesus’ great sacrifice - coming to earth to live and die as a man, what could be wrong with remembering these events and giving thanks to God?
The acceptance of Christmas as a national holiday also creates opportunities to reach out to others with the gospel. For example: through acts of charity, with Christmas cards containing a gospel message, by inviting folks (who otherwise wouldn’t come) to church or a church Christmas presentation, and by creating more opportunities to bring up Christ in conversations with unbelievers.
Differences Over Whether to Celebrate
The Apostle Paul had to deal with differences such as these in Romans 14. Besides the issue of food, there was the issue of whether to observe certain days. Perhaps the celebrations in dispute were the Jewish festivals, or perhaps they were even secular ones in their community. In such matters it is good to remember Paul’s words:
"Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s." - Rom 14:4-8 (NAS)
Let’s each examine and consider these things and become convinced in our own minds, but let’s not make them an issue of contention, nor separate from our brothers over them.
If You Celebrate, How to Celebrate?
Customs, Meals, Decorations. If you do choose to celebrate Christmas, there remains the question of how to. Many customs surrounding Christmas have little or nothing to do with Jesus’ birth. Some of these customs may seem good for any sort of holiday – such as gathering the family together and sharing a special meal. You may choose to eat traditional foods just to keep the tradition, whether they have any other significance or not. What about Christmas decorations? Again many have absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Some will choose to only include those that remind of Jesus’ birth. Others will retain certain decorations merely for tradition’s sake. Does the decoration take away from celebrating Christ’s birth by focusing us on something else? If not, does it make any difference?
Customs, Meals, Decorations. If you do choose to celebrate Christmas, there remains the question of how to. Many customs surrounding Christmas have little or nothing to do with Jesus’ birth. Some of these customs may seem good for any sort of holiday – such as gathering the family together and sharing a special meal. You may choose to eat traditional foods just to keep the tradition, whether they have any other significance or not. What about Christmas decorations? Again many have absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Some will choose to only include those that remind of Jesus’ birth. Others will retain certain decorations merely for tradition’s sake. Does the decoration take away from celebrating Christ’s birth by focusing us on something else? If not, does it make any difference?
Giving Gifts. Then there is the custom of giving gifts. Though the Magi brought gifts to the baby Jesus, and though Jesus may be seen as God’s gift to us, these are not the reasons for giving gifts at Christmas. Yet, there is certainly nothing wrong with giving gifts to others – acts of selfless generosity and kindness are appropriate at any time of the year. So is there anything wrong with choosing to give gifts at Christmas? There is no Biblical command to not give to others, but Biblical wisdom might lead you to approach holiday gift giving somewhat differently than the world around you.
For most in our culture, Christmas is all about getting, not giving. The total focus of the holiday has become materialistic and commercial. People are encouraged to spend large sums of money giving gifts, whether or not the gifts are really useful or needed. It is taken to excess, especially with gifts given to one’s own children. For children especially, the focus of Christmas often becomes the gifts received – encouraging greed. It doesn’t have to be this way, but if we follow too closely the practices of our culture, it can easily become so.
I believe we can give gifts, in moderation, while still maintaining a strong focus on Christ’s birth as the reason for the celebration. Some families decide that it is best not to give gifts at all to each other. Others may purposefully limit the number and/or dollar value of gifts given. Still others may limit the type of gifts, such as requiring that all gifts be things you yourself have made, or focusing on specific needed items (i.e. clothing). Families can plan their Christmas celebration in a way that emphasizes Christ and de-emphasizes gifts. Children can be encouraged to focus on giving good gifts to others rather that on receiving themselves.
Santa Claus
Lastly, we must address the Santa Claus tradition. It seems that there was a man named Nicholas who did good deeds from which this tradition first sprang. However, the Santa Claus of today bears little resemblance to St. Nicholas and is portrayed as a super or supra human being. A great many children are told that this man is the source of many of the gifts they receive, and that in a single night, he distributes these gifts all over the world. He is somehow able to gain entrance into all homes (by chimney or otherwise), he knows just what gifts are desired by each person, and knows all about the good and bad that each child has done. (Consider this message of rewards based on "being good," rather than unmerited gifts given in love).
Santa Claus seems to have replaced Jesus as the focus of Christmas. Xmas may be a better name for the sort of holiday many celebrate in late December. If we, as Christians, choose to celebrate Christmas at all, I think it is best to make Jesus the main focus, not a fictional Santa.
We have not had "Santa" at our house. Others may accuse us of denying our children a great source of fun and excitement. Perhaps, but we believe there are more important things than such fun and excitement. Our policy has been to always speak truthfully to our children. We tell them clearly what is make believe and what is not. We do not deceive them with "fairy stories" of any kind. We make it very clear when something is fiction or fantasy, from the earliest age. So this reason alone would have been sufficient for our family not doing Santa Claus.
My Experience with Santa Claus
Sure, I was excited about gifts at Christmas and this guy Santa Claus really sounded neat – until I thought about it more, and finally learned that it wasn’t true. I may have been the one-in-a-million, but I reacted very badly upon discovering I had been deceived about Santa Claus. I felt my parents had violated my trust. I depended on them to teach me about this world and to teach me truly. They had purposefully lied to me and deceived me, though with good motives. I wondered whether what I had been told about God was also a lie. Santa Claus and God were two persons I had been taught about that I had never personally seen. Santa Claus had almost god-like abilities to know all the children of the world and to somehow go to all of their homes in one night. Was God also a fairly tale made up for children?
Sure, I was excited about gifts at Christmas and this guy Santa Claus really sounded neat – until I thought about it more, and finally learned that it wasn’t true. I may have been the one-in-a-million, but I reacted very badly upon discovering I had been deceived about Santa Claus. I felt my parents had violated my trust. I depended on them to teach me about this world and to teach me truly. They had purposefully lied to me and deceived me, though with good motives. I wondered whether what I had been told about God was also a lie. Santa Claus and God were two persons I had been taught about that I had never personally seen. Santa Claus had almost god-like abilities to know all the children of the world and to somehow go to all of their homes in one night. Was God also a fairly tale made up for children?
As a child, I had increasingly struggled with the concept of Santa Claus. I totally believed because my parents said it was so – the same parents who had taught me not to lie. Yet things just didn’t make sense! When I learned it was a lie, I felt my whole understanding of the world had been distorted and delayed by this lie. I was also so embarrassed that I had believed such a lie and that some other children had been told the truth earlier than I.
Perhaps such a reaction is exceedingly rare. Nevertheless, consider its seriousness. I was very close to throwing out both my belief in God and my belief in my own parents. If I had gone just a little further and stepped off of that cliff, I shudder to think what might have become of me.
So when I became a father, I never wanted to so damage my credibility with my children. I decided to always answer them truthfully and never to purposefully lie to them for the sake of fun or fantasy. I want them to have a true understanding of this world, never a false one. Yes, there are some evils of this world that I am not too quick to tell them details about, but neither do I hide that such evil exists (just as the Bible does not hide it). I see it as my duty, as their father, to teach them wisdom and understanding and do nothing to distort or hinder a proper understanding. They should know that they can depend on me to speak truthfully, even when all others are speaking lies.
I know others may think Santa Claus is so much fun and such a delight, that they want their children to have this experience. I’m not denying the fun and excitement of Santa. But is the fun worth the price? And what sort of excitement are we encouraging? Is it a selfish, lusting excitement – based on what good things I am going to get from Santa? Is this the sort of spirit and enjoyment of Christmas we truly want to engender in our children? I also think it is best when children know that their gifts are gifts of love from their own parents.
Conclusion
I am not writing to condemn anyone’s celebrating or not celebrating, or celebrating in one way versus some other way. My purpose is to help you think through this issue for yourself, stepping a little outside the frame of reference of your own culture, and perhaps seeing this holiday and its traditional practices through the eyes of others who may see things very differently from you. Whatever you decide for your own family, if you celebrate the day or do not celebrate, or if you celebrate one way, but not another way, let all that you do be for the Lord and for His glory.
"The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves." - Rom 14:22 (NAS)
22 comments:
Thanks for this! As Paul wrote, we must all be persuaded in our own minds. In order to do that, we must have our facts straight. Did Christmas really develop from Pagan roots or was it designed to offer an alternative to the Pagan festivals? I have an article about this on my web site:
http://godskingdomfirst.org/Christmas.htm
BTW, I also discovered that "Xmas" is not a secular attempt at removing Christ from Christmas, as is commonly thought. It has been an acceptable abbreviation for Christmas for hundreds of years. The X represents the Greek letter chi, the first letter of Christ in Greek.
Great article Mark, very in tune with Crank's one. The way I see it is, just as Paganism usurped the true Christianity of the Apostolic age, now they [traditional "Christendome"] have usurped Christmas as some type of Christian event.
If we celebrate Christmas with only the "Christian customs/traditions" [of which I can only think the Nativity scene applies], you really would not have anything left. I mean, what would THIS particular "Christmas" look like? I guess all it would be is getting together with family and friends in some type of fellowship/giving of gifts [even, though, this isn't a particular Christian custom as well].
Thank you Mark and David, enjoyed both your articles. Also, thanks Mark for showing me your lovely website, which I didn't know about before.
As an exJW, I am admitted biased anti-Christmas. (I'm trying hard to get rid of the bias!). Here are a few points that strike me.
1. If we know, with relative certainty, the Jesus was not born on 25 December, why would we want to celebrate it then at all? Why not celebrate it as close as is possibly estimated to his actual date of birth? Then it would really give a good opportunity to explain to friends, family or whoever exactly why you are NOT doing it on Christmas day.
2.The only people giving gifts were the Magi, who only reached Jesus long after his birth, when he had left the stable/manger (So, Carlos, even the traditional nativity scene is flawed, as it normally shows the Magi at the manger)
3.I don't want to "stumble" any fellow Christians by adopting any traditionally Christmas type things, just in case they REALLY are pagan.I have found, from experience, that gifts, big or small, given unexpectedly, are far more welcome, and because they can be given as funds allow, also provide an opportunity to give things to needy strangers.
OK, I'll get off the soapbox now..
Thanks again, Fiona
fiona1956, how do you know that the Magi "only reached Jesus long after his birth, when he had left the stable/manger"?
By the Nativity scene I was not implying the traditional one with the Magi, just alluding to a scene of the birth of Jesus. Although its true they all have the Magi, shepherds etc.
Xavier,
I wouldn't say that Paganism usurped Christianity so much as Christianity was heavily influenced by Pagan thought. And as Dr. Bucher showed in the stuff I included in my article, Christendom didn't usurp Christmas from the Pagans, but offered an alternative.
As for what a Christian-only holiday would look like, remember the origins of the Christmas tree in my article? Reminders of Adam and Eve's sin and our redemption from it, as well as the birth of Christ can be a great source of celebration.
BTW, we know that the Magi got to Bethlehem a long time after his birth because Matthew 2 several times refers to Jesus as a "young child" - the Greek word used there is paidion, meaning a toddler not an infant. Also the Magi came to "the HOUSE" where he and his parents were (v. 11) not the stable where he had been born.
fiona1956,
Christians have celebrated Dec. 25 as Christ's birthday for hundreds of years and it takes a lot to change such deeply entrenched traditions. And it was only very recently that anything like an accurate estimation of the actual date has been made. And even then there are some scientists who disagree.
Still, if you checked out the reference in my article to Ernest Martin's web site, you know that he made a good case for Christ being born on September 11. And with the negative association that date has had since 2001, it might not be a bad idea to try to call attention to Christ's birth on that date as an alternative to the sadness. But I don't know how well that would be accepted.
While it was the Magi who gave gifts at Christ's birth, gift giving in light of celebration has been a part of many different cultures, including Christmas for several hundred years. But if people you associate with also have a JW background and would be offended by your celebration of Christmas, then it would be in the interest of not causing a stumbling block to at least not make a huge deal out of it. But at the same time it can be an opportunity to teach them about the freedom we have in Christ. But there are no laws. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
Mark,
Its clear that the true Christian faith of the Jerusalem-Apostolic church of the mid-late 1st century had pretty much vanished by the time the early [so-called] Church Fathers appeared [i.e. Papyas, Iraeneus, Ignatius etc.]. Its interesting that most of these venerated "Fathers" were ALL Gentiles, where are the Jewish-Christian writers?
You can't really say "Christianity was heavily influenced by Pagan thought" when the "Christianity" we speak of was already loaded with Gnostic, pagan, philosophical mumbo jumbo. The injection of Gentile groups into the nascent, Jewish-Christian Church created an aberrant form of Evangelism which catered to the deep seated pagan Greek-Roman world of 1st century europe/Middle East.
"“The Apologists [‘church fathers’ like Justin Martyr, mid-2nd century] laid the foundation for the perversion/corruption (Verkehrung) of Christianity into a revealed [philosophical] teaching. Specifically, their Christology affected the later development disastrously...They caused a shift in the point of departure of Christological thinking — away from the historical Christ and onto the issue of preexistence. They thus shifted attention away from the historical life of Jesus, putting it into the shadow and promoting instead the Incarnation. They tied Christology to cosmology and could not tie it to soteriology...In addition, the suppression of economic-trinitarian ideas by metaphysical-pluralistic concepts of the divine triad (trias) can be traced to the Apologists." Friedrich Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium des Dogmengeschichte [manual for the study of the history of dogma] (1890), part 1 ch. 2, section 18: “Christianity as a Revealed Philosophy. The Greek Apologists,” Niemeyer Verlag, 1951, p. 97.
"By their intellectualism and exclusive theories the Apologists founded the philosophic and dogmatic Christianity...Thus was created the future dogmatic in the form which still prevails in the Churches and which presupposes the Platonic and Stoic conception of the world long overthrown by science. The attempt made at the beginning of the Reformation to free the Christian faith from this amalgamation remained at first without success." History of Dogma, 1900, Vol. 2, ch. iv, pp. 228-229.
"From the second century… after the New Testament period — in the time of the Apostolic Fathers and the early Christian Apologists, the spiritual climate changed completely… a fixation and gradual Hellenization of Christianity as a doctrine set in.’ This, too, is decisive for Harnack, and continues to shape his further work: from the second century on, a dangerous Hellenization took place in Christianity…thus delivering Christianity over to philosophical, cosmological and speculative systems of thought...Justin in particular indicates that ‘a Christianity without belief in the preexistence of Christ was really inconceivable. What was the consequence of such ‘spiritual Christology’? Jesus Christ was now increasingly torn from his Jewish-Old Testament roots and transplanted to Hellenistic, cosmological soil...In short the categories of Harnack’s criticism of preexistence in the history of Christological dogma are shift, transference, suppression, overpainting..." Kuschel, Born Before All Time, p 43-51.
RE: the Magi, what's a "long time" to you? The Mattean text does not tell me it was such a "long time" between the birth and the Magi finally getting to the "child". Also, do we know what age range the Hebrews meant by "young child". Certainly, the Magi were not there for the birth itself or immediately after as it is traditionally depicted. Therefore, its an amalgation of both the Mattean and Lukan accounts we have in our modern Nativity scene, where we see the shepherds, Magi etc...
Xavier,
All the things you refer to are what I had in mind when I said Christianity was "heavily influenced by Pagan thought." The point was that the Christian Church was gradually influenced by Pagan thought, rather than a Pagan religion usurping Christianity (i.e. taking its place by force). And as I said, Christianity didn't usurp Christmas from the Pagans, but offered an alternative to Pagan festivals.
As for the Magi, Matthew doesn't say anything about the time directly, but the word for child used there is one that usually refers to a toddler rather than an infant. Plus they lived in a house by then, not in the stable. As for how long the time was, we can't tell from the Scriptures themselves, but Ernest Martin's research about the signs in the heavens indicates that it was a little over a year later.
(BTW, I have occasionally seen simplified nativity scenes with only the parents and shepherds, and no Magi. Not very often though.)
PS - I should clarify what I said about the word paidion. It USUALLY refers to a child older than an infant, but sometimes refers to a child as young as 8 days, at his circumcision (Luke 2:21). So in and of itself the word is too broad to exactly indicate Jesus' age. But the Gospels seem to make a distinction between the baby (Greek, brepho) that the Shepherds saw and the child (paidion) that the Magi saw. This is in addition to the points I made above.
Mark,
I could argue that Constantine and the later "Christian" Roman Emperors did institute what would become the Catholic Church by force from the 4th century onwards [see the Theodotian code and its laws regarding heretics etc.].
As for the Magi, and the words "baby/young child", I still do not think we should surmise that the Magi encountered a 1-2 year old Jesus, if anything he was a couple of months old. Note also the distance travelled by the Magi:
"The wise men likely traveled with a large number of attendants and guards for the long journey, which would have taken several weeks. For example, if they had come from Babylon by the main trade route of about 800 miles (1,288 km), averaging 20 miles (32 km) per day, the trip would have taken about 40 days." ESV Study Bible, Mat 2.2
Anyways, the text is unclear as you said, I am just weary of falling into an eisegesis of the text as opposed to a proper exegetical interpretation.
Hi you guys
Between the two of you, you have very neatly and precisely given answers to the Magi, Jesus's age, etc. I had a long power failure, hence delayed. I would just like to add one snippet of info:Herod acted on the advice of the Magi when he ordered that all boys in the Bethlehem district, of two years or younger, were to be killed.(Matt.2:1,11,16).It cuts down the timeline a bit, but as Mark says, He was probably a toddler
A months' or years old toddler though? Herod was a ruthless and cold blooded despot [killer], which would make it reasonable to think that he wanted to make sure he got Jesus killed. If anything, the Magi would've encountered a months' old Jesus.
fiona1956,
Thanks, I had forgotten that point.
Xavier,
Even a cold blooded despot would have some reason for specifying "2 years old and under." Check out what Ernest Martin wrote about the signs in the heavens and the timing. It makes a lot of sense.
fiona1956,
Thanks, I had forgotten that point.
Xavier,
Even a cold blooded despot would have some reason for specifying "Two years or younger." Check out what Ernest Martin wrote about the signs and the timing; it makes a lot of sense.
So the Maggi stuck around Jerusalem for close to 2 years? Text just doesn't say that...
anyways, agree to disagree.
Xavier,
No, they didn't get there until close to two years after his birth, according to the signs in the heavens. Before you disagree, consider Ernest Martin's theory.
To my way of thinking about christmas, is that
we do not celebrate Jesus' birth, but Nimrods
child that he had with his mother. After all
Jesus was born in September/October time.
Your comments please
virgi1
According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, article on Constantine the Great:
"Besides, the Sol Invictus had been adopted by the Christians in a Christian sense, as demonstrated in the Christ as Apollo-Helios in a mausoleum (c. 250) discovered beneath St. Peter's in the Vatican."
Indeed "...from the beginning of the 3rd century "Sun of Justice" appears as a title of Christ"[40]. Some consider this to be in opposition to Sol Invictus[citation needed]. Some see an allusion to Malachi 4:2.
The date for Christmas may also bear a relation to the sun worship. According to the scholiast on the Syriac bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi, writing in the twelfth century:
"It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." [41] However, this statement directly conflicts with what we know of the early Christians, namely, that they were ridiculed, tortured, and cast apart from operative society precisely because they would not participate in the pagan feasts and celebrations. The early Christians set themselves directly in opposition to the paganism which ruled the day. "Since Christians worshipped an invisible God, pagans often declared them to be atheists." [42]
This pagan feast is first documented only in the Chronography of 354, which also contains the earliest certain reference to 25 December as the feast of the birth of Christ. [Wikipedia]
virgi1,
There is no historical evidence of any connection between Nimrod and the Christmas celebration. This notion was first put forth by Alexander Hislop in "The Two Babylons" but has been shown to be unsound. See my article, linked in my first comment.
Xavier,
Thanks again for the reference. I'm not sure if you meant it to, but it actually supports my position. The Christians would not participate in pagan festivals, but designated the birth of Christ on Dec. 25 as an alternative.
The "early Christians" referred to are those not associated with ANY Christmas or "birth of Christ" festivities. If not, it wouldn't make any sense for them to later choose a date loaded with pagan symbolism and the birth of many other gods [Mithra, Sol Invictus, etc.] as that for Christ.
These later Christians [orthodox to be sure] of the 3rd-4th centuries did not have a problem with the clearly pagan rituals associated with Christ. They would have if they had been of the "sound doctrine", don't you think? I think the article leads to this distinction of two different time periods with 2 different TYPES of Christians [biblical vs. orthodox catholic].
"The reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 remains uncertain, but most probably the reason is that early Christians wished the date to coincide with the pagan Roman festival marking the “birthday of the unconquered sun” (natalis solis invicti); this festival celebrated the winter solstice...as a result of the coincidence [?] of the celebration of the birth of Christ with the pagan agricultural and solar observances at midwinter...December 25 was also regarded as the birth date of the Iranian mystery god Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness. On the Roman New Year (January 1), houses were decorated with greenery and lights, and gifts were given to children and the poor. To these observances were added the German and Celtic Yule rites when the Teutonic tribes penetrated into Gaul, Britain and central Europe. Food and good fellowship, the Yule log and Yule cakes, greenery and fir trees, gifts and greetings all commemorated different aspects of this festive season." Britannica, Christmas
"The use of evergreen trees, wreaths, and garlands as a symbol of eternal life was an ancient custom of the Egyptians, Chinese and Hebrews. Tree worship, common among the pagan Europeans, survived after their conversion to Christianity in the Scandinavian customs of decorating the house and barn with evergreens at the New Year to scare away the devil and of setting up a tree for the birds during Christmastime; it survived further in the custom, also observed in Germany, of placing a Yule tree at an entrance or inside the house in the midwinter holidays." Britannica, Christmas tree.
Xavier,
I don't know what "pagan rituals associated with Christ" you're referring to. It's simple. Nearly everybody in Rome was celebrating the birth of Mithra or Sol Invictus. The Christian church said, we are going to celebrate the birth of Christ instead. And we will do it on the same date to compete with the pagan festival. I really don't see what is so difficult about this.
What Christian church are you referring to Mark, the orthodox Catholic one Constantine entered into? Or the Arian one which followed? Surely we can agree that the true Apostolic Church was not the dominant strain by the 4th century. I would argue if it ever was, just read the Johannine letters of c.90AD. How do we know this? Just read the history books [i.e. "Ecumenical Councils"], orthodox and Arians were battling it out. I do not see any "biblical unitarians", do you?
But if they were the dominant, do you really think an Apostolic Church founded on the sound doctrine would agree on Dec. 25? Or the winter solstice?
The Bible does not "compete with paganism" Mark, it does away with it and admonishes us to RUN AWAY FROM IT!!
Yip, have to agree with you 100% on that one,Xavier!
Post a Comment