Essays on Celebrating Christmas

Recent years have seen unrelenting assaults on the public display of Christian images at Christmas. The Whitehouse (and other governmental agencies) and major retailers have substituted “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas,” even renaming “Christmas” trees to “Holiday” trees. Courtesy of the ACLU, there is also the ever popular “traditional” holiday game of finding and eradicating local nativity displays. And then of course, there are the many examples of public school children being forced to change the words from “Silent Night” to “Cold Light” so they can sing in a “Winter Festival” pageant. Even the Salvation Army has come under attack as their aid workers have been denied access to the sidewalks outside of certain department stores.

Some of the attacks on Christmas use a more indirect approach by trying to elevate “pseudo” or “wannabe” holidays” such as “Kwanza” and “Chanukah” as a part of the national celebration. I really do not mean to be offensive here but am at a loss for better ways to describe these “holidays.”

Chanukah, (the “Festival of Lights)” is a legitimate part of the Jewish liturgical calendar commemorating the great miracle in purifying the temple after its defilement by the Greeks. But in terms of religious importance it is the “St. Crispin’s Day” of Judaism; a non-Biblical, uninspired (i.e., God did not command it), minor historical celebration. In terms of the great Jewish “holy days” of Passover and Yom Kippur, Chanukah is simply, religiously, insignificant. Christians celebrate Christmas because it is the pivotal moment in human history where God became flesh and dwelt among us. Jews celebrate Chanukah as a reminder of God’s providence in preserving their religion and culture. The two simply do not compare in terms of importance.

Does anyone seriously believe that Chanukah would have any prominence if it did not happen to coincide with the Christian celebration of Christmas? I suspect that the only reason that the forces of Political Correctness require us to recognize Chanukah at all is that Jewish kids were pushing their parents for some of the external things that make Christmas so popular. Let us be honest; we have a Christian celebration with special music, decorated trees, colorful lights, wonderful presents all celebrating “peace on earth and good will to men. They have a minor Jewish “ritual” that consists of lighting some candles and playing with a dradle! Of course Jewish kids feel as if they are getting the short end of the stick!

Kwanza on the other hand is a purely invented “holiday” created by a 1960’s radical who wanted an African alternative to “Christmas.” There is nothing inherently wrong in trying to connect with one’s historical and cultural roots; however, Kwanza was not derived from any actual African celebration, religion or custom. Africa is a large continent with a wide variety of religions, traditions and practices, most of which would not sit well in any modern Western nation (can we say, “ritual scarification”). There certainly was no celebration on the same level as “Christmas.” So one was created and we are supposed to respect it as a legitimate expression of African-American culture. To call Kwanza what it is (a made up holiday that would have been nothing more than an irrelevant reference in African American Studies classes until the media started pushing it) risks being labeled as a racist.

While not a conspiracy type, I suspect that both Chanukah and Kwanza are being deliberately promoted not on their own merits (i.e., as legitimate, important religious celebrations on the level of Christmas), but rather as just another subtle attack on the overt, public display of Christianity that comes with Christmas every year. In effect, we are being told that since there are other, “religious” winter festivals that people celebrate, therefore, Christmas must not be given any precedence in the public square. The fact that in one case, Kwanza, there is no religious significance, or that with Chanukah, the number of Jews who actually celebrate it as a religious (rather than as simply a cultural expression of being Jewish) “holiday” (and a relatively insignificant one at that), is irrelevant. No weapon is to be left unused in the war against Christianity and its most popular public expression.

As a result, many Christian leaders are outraged and outspoken on the need to “save” Christmas. In the past, these same leaders often argued against the commercialization of Christmas; now however the demon to be fought is a self-conscious attempt to completely “secularize” the celebration by removing ALL Christian references. Consequently, many leaders are locked and loaded, “drawing a line in the sand,” exhorting the Christian community to actively battle to “save” Christmas. President Bush once came under enormous fire for his comments when lighting the national “holiday tree” for saying something to the effect “we remember how one humble person can change the world-Thank you Santa!” For what it is worth, I think the President’s comment was brilliant, intentional satire, recognizing the forces that would attempt to deny Jesus as Lord by showing their absurdity. I think he was misunderstood here and some people need to develop a sense of humor. Clearly, Christmas is the most important holiday in American culture; watered down, secularized, debased and distorted as it may be. But in some dim way, it always points back to Jesus and that the secularists cannot stand.

President Bush was not the only one to receive flak on the way he acknowledged the importance of Christmas in American culture. In one incident several years ago, a staffer for the governor of Georgia mistakenly sent out an “official” “Happy Holidays” email only to have the email subsequently repudiated by the Governor. The Governor wanted his constituency to know that HE wished them a “Merry Christmas” and suggested that all complaints be sent directly to the now disgraced staffer who was sent to “Alaska” as punishment! Now, there is a man with a sense of humor!

The vehement response to these political figures demonstrates that Christians see the attacks on Christmas as inherently an attack on Christianity. Believers are finally catching on that the most recent attempt to remove “Christ” from “Christmas” is more than just political correctness gone to a ridiculous extreme - but the end result of a systematic assault against the visible symbols of Christian faith in American society. The Humanists have already taken over the public schools and universities we built, absorbed the hospitals, orphanages and welfare services we began, and they have successfully cowered judges and law-makers from acknowledging Christ as the source of American morality. The ONLY visible expressions of Christianity left in American culture is the motto “In God We Trust” on our money and the national celebration of “Christmas;” and now they will not be satisfied until these are gone too.

Thus by “secularizing” Christmas, the Humanist agenda is shoving Christianity into a purely subjective, inner sphere of life that no matter how personally meaningful or significant, is simply irrelevant and inappropriate in the public sphere of life. Confusion in the popular mind already exists between “Christmas” as a religious celebration and “Christmas” as a mid-winter, non-religious festival. We saw just one small example of this when we tried to buy a “Christmas” CD. Literally, there were stacks and stacks of “Christmas” music from almost every artist imaginable (and if you haven’t heard the “Rap” version of favorite Christmas tunes you haven’t lived!). However, on the same album right along with “Joy to the World” and “Silent Night” were “Frosty the Snowman,” “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and “Santa Claus is Coming to Town.” In other words, both religious AND secular music were intermixed and treated as equally about “Christmas.” The inevitable end result was that the “religious” aspects become simply nostalgic; of no more real significance than Californians, who have never shivered through a Northern winter, appreciating “White Christmas.”

As those who are dedicated to proclaiming and living the crown rights of King Jesus, the question becomes “what SHOULD be our response to both the subtle as well as the overt attacks against Christmas?” What should we think about what is happening in the broader culture; more importantly, what should we be doing about it?

Christmas is NOT a Biblical “Holy-Day” Colossians 2:26-29

As we all know, Christmas, while a “Christian” holiday (”holy day”) is not a Biblical one. The Lord God never commanded, endorsed, suggested or specifically approved of recognizing a “special” day to celebrate the birth of His Son, Jesus. The only day that we are required to keep “holy” is the Lord’s Day, Sunday. For some Reformed Christians, this one simple, often neglected fact is all that is necessary to renounce the entire idea of Christmas and move on to more important issues.

And of course, they have a point. While the origins of “Christmas” as a religious festival are murky, we do know that the “Feast of the Nativity” was apparently celebrated secretly before it became “official” in the fifth century (see “Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas”). After the nominal Christianization of the Empire, it became a required feast day in the Roman church; however, the Roman “holy day” has almost nothing in common with our modern celebration.

In so far as I have been able to determine from research (and the sources themselves are often confused), a strong case can be made that every single distinctive practice associated with our modern celebration of Christmas was a self-conscious creation of the Victorians. Trees, ornaments, lights, holly, mistletoe, cards, even presents were all essentially unknown until the middle of the 19th century when the Romantic Victorians began associating them with what had previously been a simple part of the Roman, Anglican and Lutheran liturgical year; and they did so specifically to “create” a festive season for their children.

The only actual parts of a “traditional Christmas” that have any historical connection are (1) certain “carols” concerning the incarnation that came to be reserved for “Christmas” and (2) an annual tradition of drunkenness and gluttony associated with the religious “feast” day. However, please do not confuse the first Christmas “carolers” with our modern sanitized church people; originally, “Carolers” were actually gangs of drunken louts who went from house to house demanding free drinks (which gives the old song “Here we go a wassailing” a whole different context).

The English and Scottish traditions of drunkenness and rioting were so disreputable that the Puritans and Presbyterians banned the celebration of Christmas. Granted, the early British Reformers were also against anything in the old Roman liturgical calendar because there was no Biblical basis for binding men’s consciences that certain days were somehow more “holy” or “special” than others. From historical records we can fairly confidently state that Christmas was not celebrated in the colonies or the early Republic by other than a few Roman Catholics and Episcopalians as a part of the liturgical calendar. If you look for anything like a “traditional” Christmas celebration in the 17th and 18th century American experience, you simply will not find it.

Thus the question that needs to be asked is; “Why are Christians so offended by the secularists and the humanists attacking a â€˜holiday’ that in effect has no more religious, historical or spiritual significance than Kwanza?” Look, I made some fairly critical comments about “Kwanza” earlier but in reality, is the modern celebration of Christmas all that different? Christmas went from a fairly obscure feast day in Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Episcopal churches (all three of which were tiny, almost insignificant influences in American culture until the latter part of the 19th century). Then, literally, within a decade or so, Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Baptist churches picked up the celebration and then created all the customs and traditions we associate with Christmas today. Yet, within just a few years of inventing the modern celebration of Christmas, the Victorians were already complaining of its “commercialization” and that it was losing its “meaning.”

This has been a recurring theme ever since. Miracle on 34th Street (the original version with Natalie Wood) is a beloved “classic” holiday film made back in the 1940’s about losing the Christmas “Spirit.” And every year, TV constantly bombards us with variations of “holiday specials” wherein someone has to “save” Christmas. Since Christ is never mentioned in these films, what “spirit” is it exactly that all these people want to save?

Is Christmas Even Worthy of Being Saved?

Perhaps it is time for Christians to ask (since we invented this holiday) whether it even worth saving? Think I am being too cynical; well just consider that when Christmas falls on a Sunday, many mega-churches actually cancel their services since it would conflict with people’s celebration of Christmas! The hypocrisy here is astounding! Christians invent a “holiday” to celebrate the incarnation, create a whole series of customs and traditions to supposedly remember the Savior’s birth, but when it conflicts with actually worshipping God on His day as He commands, why we stay home so we can unwrap our presents! The Mega-churches are not being anti-Christian, just recognizing that if they held services with the type of people that they attract, nobody would come! And since so many Christian pastors and elders want THEIR churches to be mega-churches, one really does have to wonder whether the problem is Christmas, or the kind of Christians the modern church is producing?

Thus, let me suggest that perhaps the real issue has nothing to do with the secularist trying to ban Christmas but rather that Christians refuse to actually stand for anything! If Christians are so lazy and self-indulgent that they will not even go to church on Christmas, then why expect them to act as salt and light in the world? We are losing the symbols of Christ in the culture, because we have already lost the reality of Christ in our churches.

Hence, removing Christmas from the public square is not the problem; it is the modern day sub-Biblical understanding and application of the Christian faith. First, we allowed our consciences to be bound to a religious celebration that has no Biblical warrant. Then we allowed the retailers to crassly commercialize that “holy day” by willingly giving ourselves over to indulgence. Now, we are at the point where some Christians are upset about the secular world attempting to remove Christian Christmas symbols!

Christmas since its inception, has always been about self indulgence, thinly covered with a “spiritual” veneer of Christianity. In earlier times, it was gluttony and drunkenness. The romantic and highly sentimental Victorians cleaned this up a bit and repackaged it so they could dote on their children (which social mores at the time would otherwise prohibit). The birth of Christ provided a religiously acceptable means of giving into this “indulgence.” However, the law of unintended consequences came into play as the children grew up and started their own families. They wanted to recapture something of the “magic” and “lost” innocence of childhood and ended up over-compensating with conspicuous consumption. Hence (though I can already hear the screams of “Scrooge”) I am suggesting that at heart, the modern celebration of Christmas has never really been about Christ but always about, well, an excuse to celebrate!

Thus, the Victorians created religious rituals to disguise and justify a form of self-indulgence; rituals which we have inherited. It is these rituals that are now under attack from the secularists and God-haters who nevertheless have already accepted the substance of “Christmas” by having parties and presents and trees and decorations. For example, the Japanese have enthusiastically adopted all the secular symbols and practices of Christmas without any relationship to the birth of Christ what-so-ever!

So really, the battle is not about saving “Christmas” but rather rescuing the last remnants of a Victorian religious veneer consisting of certain customs and rituals they used to justify creating a sentimental celebration for their children. Now, religious ritual, even good rituals are at best a type, a shadow or a picture of the ultimate reality of God in Christ. Paganism creates idols, false religions and even practice the occult as a way of suppressing the truth about God that is clearly evident to all men in all ages (Rms 1:18-20).

Christians are susceptible to this same temptation by creating new religious rituals that make us feel a certain way and then offer those “feelings” to God, expecting Him to like it or lump it (like Cain offering fruits and vegetables when a blood sacrifice was required). Sometimes, we even borrow rituals from pagan religions, thinking that somehow God will be satisfied (as in syncretism, idolatry, etc.). However, Biblically, Christ forbids all man-made religion as a way to approach Him. He Himself provided all the “rituals” He desires (and we need) in the Lord’s Supper and Baptism; and He consecrated the only day He wants specially kept.

However, we sinners do not want to worship God in Spirit and Truth; no we want something more; something mystical, something magical, something “meaningful.” Years ago, when I was so much younger and far more naÃ¯ve, I was ministering in a broad evangelical church that had a strong tradition of sentimental Christmas Eve services. It was a moderately successful church as such things go with choirs, talented musicians and the like. Since I was the new pastor, I thought I had to WOW them for my first “Christmas” special. So, using my theatre background, I designed a candle-lit, choral service with choirs, soloists, instrumentalists and “dramatic” readings all designed for maximum psychological effect (i.e., this music will generate that response, which when added to this dramatic reading will build to that intended emotional response). We ended with the lights slowly being turned down while the congregation sang “Silent Night.” Then, starting in the front, I lit a candle and used that to light a candle being held by someone in the front row - who then lit the candle of another, who lit another, etc. As the “house” lights dimmed to total darkness, the lights from the candles spread from the front of the sanctuary to the back. By the end of the hymn, people were openly weeping and no one said a word as they exited the building.

Yup, I sure wowed them; apparently people talked about that service for years. However, it pains me to say, that most of that congregation loved religion, but hated Christ. You see the real problem is that many “Christians” confuse their feelings about Jesus, with actually loving and obeying Him. If a worship service, a religious ritual and yes, even a Christmas celebration makes them feel a certain way, then by their definition, it is good, proper and holy. Of course the Biblical test is whether or not a person is changed from a self-oriented, Christ-denying rebel into a humble, Christ obeying saint. And friends, Christmas, no matter how wonderful it may make you feel, simply cannot do what so many of us want and expect from it. Only Christ, through His Spirit can bring a spiritually dead heart to life and fill that person with peace and wisdom and goodness.

Thus, Christians do not need to battle to “save Christmas” but rather simply proclaim the crown rights of King Jesus over every area of life. When we learn to tremble at His word, repent from our self-absorption, cry out for mercy and then, by His Spirit, bring every thought and action captive to Him (2 Cor 10:4-5), THEN the lights, the decorations and the presents can become another way of enjoying His gracious blessings. We do not have to “save Christmas” but restore the historic Christian message that Jesus is Lord.

Conclusion

Thus far this essay has been fairly critical of Christmas and many Reformed brothers have and will continue to argue that as a “holiday,” it is innately and irreparably flawed and must be abandoned. However, as I have written elsewhere, as long as we do not bind another’s conscience, celebrating the birth of Christ cannot be inherently unlawful even if He did not command us to do so; we celebrate the births of our children, our spouses and our friends with joy, thanksgiving and appreciation-surely we may lawfully do the same with the Son of God. Recognizing formally that God became flesh and dwelt among us is basic, orthodox Christianity. Singing “Joy to the World” is inherently a postmillennial hymn looking in faith to the inevitable spread of His kingdom. Having a Christmas tree in one’s home is NOT idolatry (unless of course one is tempted to bow down before it; but in so far as I know that has not been a problem even in Mega-churches). Buying presents for loved ones, giving special gifts to the needy and enjoying a season of celebration is not a sin and recognized as such even by such anti-Christmas documents as the Westminster Confession! (Remember the Puritans who hated Christmas and banned it whenever possible did NOT write those bans into their most comprehensive creed!). Remember, God required Israel to TITHE every year to finance their religious celebrations before the Lord; and the most extravagant Christian probably does not come near spending 10% of his income on Christmas!

However, if we think that by doing ANY of these things, somehow we bring Christ closer, or are more acceptable to Him or in some way make our worship of Him more effectual, then we are self-deceived. Yes, Christmas services (and hopefully even sometimes, Christmas essays) can be rich, meaningful and significant; but Jesus is the Christ every day of the year. No, there is nothing religiously special about Christmas or Christmas services; yet even so, we ought to be able to celebrate our Lord’s blessings, give gifts to our family and friends, and enjoy the blessings that come so freely from the hand of a kind, providential God without having to create some sort of “religious” ritual to justify it. And once we start LIVING like Christians, we will not have to fight to preserve the empty symbols of it.

Rethinking the Pagan Origins of Christmas

Reformed believers have never liked Christmas. The Regulative Principle states that what God has not commanded in worship, is forbidden; since there is no command to celebrate Christmas, many Reformed folks think Christians shouldn’t either. The more historically minded will cite the Puritans and Presbyterians who denounced Christmas and banned it when they could. Some will even seriously insist that Christmas is really a Popish plot to seduce Protestants back into Romanism. Furthermore, they often point out that most of our Christmas traditions derive from pagan sources and surely, no right-thinking Christian would want to participate in an essentially, idolatrous celebration, would they?

Yet many other Christians, without a particular theological axe to grind, are also very uncomfortable with celebrating Christmas. Every year I get at least one email or letter from some concerned reader quoting those verses in Jeremiah about the foolish idolater who cuts down a tree and worships it. And I am not above criticism here; a number of years ago I wrote an article for a national magazine explaining how most of our Christmas traditions actually arose out of Roman and Celtic nature worship.

I first began my campaign to “expose” the “pagan origins” of Christmas back in the early seventies. Fairly quickly after becoming a believer I discovered that many Christians actually knew very little about their faith. They took certain things for granted (things that I had struggled to understand) and seemed unwilling to think through their faith. I rather enjoyed debunking this most sentimental of holidays to smug, self-satisfied Christians who never thought about why they were doing, what they were doing. The Apostle Paul warned about those who thought they knew something (1 Cor 8:1) because even a little knowledge can make a man arrogant. And, to be honest, there was more than a little arrogance on my part over the years when I would sit down with someone and take an unholy delight in telling them that all their holiday traditions were little more than demonic inspired pagan rituals baptized with the thinnest veneer of “Popish” Christianity.

However, as I have had a chance to read more, think more and reconsider whether the dubious pleasures of being cynical, condescending and self-righteous is worth the cost of God’s eternal judgment (it isn’t): eventually I concluded that I needed to re-think these issues from the bottom up. First, there is a legitimate theological question on whether or not it is ethically appropriate for Christians to celebrate Christmas, since we have no explicit command to do so. But as I am going to try and demonstrate in this essay, in reality, MOST of the reasons given against Christmas are misinformed at best; and sometimes are mere rationalizations to justify something a bit unsavory in our characters. So if you think you already KNOW all about “Christmas” and its “pagan past” maybe I can help you to rethink some things.

Historical Origins

When people debunk Christmas, usually they begin with calling the date into question. It is often said that while no one is sure exactly when the Lord Jesus was born, it probably wasn’t in December since shepherds did not keep flocks outside during the winter therefore, being no need to watch them. So how did we arrive at December 25 as Christmas? The traditional debunker’s answer is that the early church chose December twenty-fifth because it was part of the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, a celebration of the birth of the unconquerable Sun god.

At this point, the reasonably astute scholar will cite sociological or psychological factors demonstrating the widespread celebrations of the winter solstice in European pagan cultures. For example, in primitive times, winter was always the low point of the year; the harvests were all in, and no further sources of food would be available until the next harvest. If the harvest was not sufficient, starvation was inevitable Furthermore, modern research only now is beginning to understand the serious physiological and psychological effects of the lack of sunlight.

The pagan presupposition of the prime nature of reality meant that the gradual darkening of the days until the winter solstice was an implicit threat that spring might never come. Supposedly, somewhere in the dim, dark past when our ancestors squatted in caves and the height of erudite conversation consisted of “Ug,” they feared that the spring would never return. Often, human sacrifices were made to ensure that the days would again lengthen and spring with its new life would return. And sure enough, once the sacrifices were made, the days starting getting longer again! Thus it is said that many pagan cultures over time, developed the custom to celebrate some sort of midwinter festival; a festival that came down to us as (dire music here) Christmas!

However, let’s think about this for a moment shall we? This approach is based essentially on an evolutionary presupposition about the origins and development of human culture. Winter solstice festivals, especially in Northern Europe are assumed to evolve out of the recurring fear that the world was headed into eternal winter and therefore, when the days began to lengthen, and enough food was on hand to provide assurance of surviving until spring, it became a time of celebration. Rome is assumed to have had this same tradition and being a civilized and depraved society, turned it into a rowdy orgy. Gifts were freely exchanged, slaves often exchanged places with their masters for the day, and drunkenness and debauchery were common.

Most Christmas detractors cite the above as reason enough to regard celebrating the nativity as just another example of the Church compromising with paganism. There is some merit here; there is ample evidence that the Roman church “baptized” some aspects of pagan religion and made them a part of the faith. The question for us though is whether they did this to create Christmas?

New research is coming out that is overturning this “traditional” view of the holiday’s origins. First, some writers seem to jump between what may have been certain Celtic or Norse traditions and Roman ones without really thinking about the differences. The Mediterranean winter is considerably different than the ones experienced in Northern Europe and it is unlikely that different environmental factors would have resulted in similar social customs; i.e., there is a big difference in surviving a frozen winter in Northern Germany and a wet, but reasonably warm winter in Rome! Yet, debunkers switch between the two traditions without really seeming to appreciate the differences between the cultures.

Secondly, the assumption that Christians “baptized” a pagan holiday appears to be the work of two scholars each with an axe to grind. Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wanted to show that the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25th was one of the many “paganizations” transforming “pure” apostolic Christianity into Roman Catholicism. Since he was already predisposed to hate Christmas (and Catholicism), he sought arguments why Christians should not celebrate it; attributing its origins to paganism is an effective way to poison the well. The second scholar was a Roman Catholic, Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, who tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the gospel.

However, there is now available good evidence that rather than Christians copying a pagan festival, that the Romans actually copied the celebration of Christmas from Christians! The below quote is quite long but well worth the read.

“But in fact, the date [December 25th] had no religious significance in the Roman pagan festal calendar before Aurelian’s time, nor did the cult of the sun play a prominent role in Rome before him. There were two temples of the sun in Rome, one of which (maintained by the clan into which Aurelian was born or adopted) celebrated its dedication festival on August 9th, the other of which celebrated its dedication festival on August 28th. But both of these cults fell into neglect in the second century, when eastern cults of the sun, such as Mithraism, began to win a following in Rome. And in any case, none of these cults, old or new, had festivals associated with solstices or equinoxes.

As things actually happened, Aurelian, who ruled from 270 until his assassination in 275, was hostile to Christianity and appears to have promoted the establishment of the festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” as a device to unify the various pagan cults of the Roman Empire around a commemoration of the annual “rebirth” of the sun. He led an empire that appeared to be collapsing in the face of internal unrest, rebellions in the provinces, economic decay, and repeated attacks from German tribes to the north and the Persian Empire to the east.

In creating the new feast, he intended the beginning of the lengthening of the daylight, and the arresting of the lengthening of darkness, on December 25th to be a symbol of the hoped-for “rebirth,” or perpetual rejuvenation, of the Roman Empire, resulting from the maintenance of the worship of the gods whose tutelage (the Romans thought) had brought Rome to greatness and world-rule. If it co-opted the Christian celebration, so much the better.”

Thus rather than Christians adopting some pagan festival, it looks as if the pagans stole one from us! The old evolutionary assumption of primitive, superstitious pagans creating a festival back in the dim dawn of human history in response to misunderstood environmental forces must give way to an advanced culture intentionally creating a religious celebration for purely civil purposes. Therefore the widespread assumption is that Christmas is just a baptized version of “Saturnalia” is not historically maintainable.

It has been argued that the “Feast of the Nativity” seems to have sprung full blown in the fourth century (AD 336); yet a moment’s reflection shows that this assumption is unwarranted. It implies a degree of centrality of power that the Church would not have until many centuries later. The fourth century church was not the monolithic institution it became in the late Middle Ages; the “pope” at this point was simply the bishop of Rome. Therefore to assume that a brand new feast could be created out of whole cloth and imposed on the entire church is stretching things a bit.

Furthermore, in days before newspapers, magazines and other forms of mass communication, if a festival appears suddenly with liturgies and traditions already in place, then it is highly unlikely that it is something new. It is more probably that the festival had been celebrated quietly for a long time before it became publicly acceptable. Remember, the real reason why Christianity was suppressed under the Roman Empire, was for civil, not theological reasons. Rome required an annual sacrifice to the Emperor recognizing him as “Lord;” the ultimate connection between heaven and earth. Christians could not in conscience offer a pinch of incense to a statue of the Emperor and call him “Lord” because Jesus, and Jesus alone was Lord. Thus, Christianity was seen as a revolutionary movement and its members as traitors to the Empire.

In antiquity, celebrating the birthday of the King or Emperor was more than just a social custom, but an important political reality; it demonstrated one’s allegiance and submission to the civil order. Thus for Christians to openly celebrate the birth of Christ would have been to invite intense persecution because the culture of the day would have seen it as a treasonable act. Hence, the nativity was not openly celebrated for several hundred years.

Yet, when Christianity became legal in the fourth century, the church fathers openly admitted that Christmas had been recognized and celebrated for a very long time-and that December 25 was widely held to be the Lord’s birthday (and thanks to Valerie Jacobson for doing the research on these).

Augustine (354-430) of Hippo, On the Psalms, Psalm 133 “For from Christ comes the dew. No light is set on a high place, save Christ. How is He set on high? First on the cross, afterwards in heaven. Set on high on the cross when He was humbled; humbled, but His humiliation could not but be high. The ministry of man grew less and less, as was signified in John; the ministry of God in our Lord Jesus Christ increased, as was shown at their birth. The former was born, as the tradition of the Church shows, on the 24th of June, when the days begin to shorten. The Lord was born on the 25th of December, when the days begin to lengthen”

Augustine also specifically titled one of his points of Sermon 22, “The Festival Has Nothing to Do with Sun-worship, as Some Maintain.” Thus, in the late fourth century, Augustine both refuted that Christmas had its origins in Saturnalia while also clearly attributing the Lord’s birth to December 25th as the “tradition of the church.” Why December 25? Well, the argument is too long and complex to go into here except to say that it had to do with trying to reconcile Roman and Jewish calendars; a headache for everyone involved. Furthermore, Christians at the time had certain theological presuppositions that governed how they actually dated certain events; they assumed a relationship between the death of the Lord Jesus and when He would have been born; and by carefully calculating the dates of certain “known” events, they arrived at December 25th as the day of His birth. Whether their calculations were based on a sound basis is really immaterial; the point is that the Lord’s birth was not celebrated just because it coincided with a Roman pagan festival. Their calculations might have been wrong, but they were not blindly being subverted by pagan influences or accommodation to cultural norms.

Despite this, many debunkers insist that when the gospel penetrated Northern Europe, many of those winter solstice customs found their way into Christmas celebrations, thus unwittingly introducing paganism into the church. Again, this is not quite so easy to determine as some have assumed. Granted, there was a tradition of a religious and cultural customs of feasting and merry making that had long been a part of European culture, but how much of the actual customs and traditions actually derived from pagan sources just cannot be determined. Did the pagans influence Christians or did Christians influence the pagans? Which came first?

For example, St. Boniface is usually credited with the idea of “Christmas trees” as he cut down Druid groves and secured the decorated trees in Christian homes to prevent pagans from worshipping them. So, does the “custom” of having Christmas trees come from pagan, Druid tree worship, or is it a Christian custom? Or is there even another explanation altogether?

Christmas as the Creation of the Victorians

Most people assume that our current Christmas customs come down from pagan history, passed down from generation to generation with their origins being lost in the mist of times (until the debunkers write articles exposing the pagan origins of Christmas). However, what few Christians seem to appreciate is that almost ALL of our modern day Christmas traditions only came into existence in the 19th century when Queen Victoria brought her new German husband, Albert, to England. Albert introduced Christmas trees to English and American homes. Germans had a long history of Christmas trees that was unknown in Britain; in fact Martin Luther is usually credited with putting the first lights on trees to show his children the glory of God he witnessed one night by glimpsing stars through the trees one dark night. Albert brought this custom to England, and suddenly, everyone else wanted Christmas trees to!

If you remember your Dickens, try to reconcile the “traditional” Christmas celebration of today, with what happened in Ebenezer Scrooge’s experience. Despite the cultural differences between middle 19th century England and modern America, is there anything in Dickens that looks like our Christmas? Scrooge is vilified because he is a miser who takes no joy in life, lives in a cold, unheated home, eats gruel and only grudgingly gives his workers the day off. After his “conversion” he buys Bob Cratchet a goose and eats dinner with his nephew (at least I think that is what happened; I’ve seen too many movies to distinguish between the book and film versions). But notice; in Dickens, there is no tree, no presents, no mistletoe, holly, ivy, etc. There is no Santa Claus and the holiday has nothing to do with children. When a film version is made of the “Christmas Carol” the director has to inserts all these elements because that is what we expect “Christmas” to be like; but in original tale, they are conspicuously absent. The story is in reality about a grumpy, nasty old man learning how to lighten up, become a bit more cheerful and nice to others while enjoying a feast with his family.

Victoria and Albert’s Christmas celebration changed all that when it was popularized in a British magazine. Literally, within a decade, a whole new tradition was created, almost out of whole cloth. Christmas became popular and new customs were invented to make it a “richer” and more “traditional” celebration. There is even evidence that some people self-consciously tried to create the appearance that certain symbols were ancient ways to celebrate Christmas, just to give the new holiday some sort of authenticity and credibility. Thus mistletoe, holly, ivy, wreathes, etc., all within just a decade or two, were deliberately chosen as Christmas “symbols” and accepted by the public just because they gave the feeling of antiquity (and authenticity). In fact, an argument can be made that it was only later on that some scholars made a connection between these symbols and how some ancient pagans might have used them. But the connection is tenuous at best; it is simply inaccurate to say that somehow these customs originated in ancient pagan religion and survived down into the present time. In reality, they were not a common part of Christmas celebrations until the late 19th century! Thus our modern celebration of Christmas has NO direct connection with ancient pagan religion or their symbols because most of what defines a “traditional” Christmas was in fact deliberately and self-consciously created by the Victorians!

Santa Claus or Satan Claws?

Even the history of the much maligned Santa Claus who began life as a Celtic version of Bacchus, the god of wine and drunkenness is not quite what you think. In England, going back to the Dark Ages, traveling groups of actors made a living by putting on various religious plays. One of the favorite recurring characters that showed up around Christmas time was “Father Christmas” who was portrayed as a crude, drunken, lecherous individual. He was a comic relief kind of character, and probably was in fact intended to be a Christian ridicule of ancient pagan religion and excesses. He was never taken seriously, never honored and he certainly was not the sort of person you would want to dangle your children on his lap.

However, though there is some connection between “Father Christmas” (as he is still called in England) and Santa Claus, the two are still distinct individuals. Santa is a creation of good old American ingenuity and is an amalgamation of a number of different European traditions, “Father Christmas” being only one dim source for the legend. The Dutch who settled New York had their traditions of “Saint Nicolas,” a fourth century bishop who had a special affection for little children. “Nicholas” was far more influential in creating the myth of “Santa Claus” than “Father Christmas.” In fact, it is likely that the British inflated their traditional “Father Christmas” as their own version of the American “Santa Claus” (the Brits are very sensitive about American cultural subversion).

But most of what constitutes the “Santa Claus tradition” was actually the result of an invented, fictional character no more intended to be considered “authentic” or as a tie to Christmas past than Superman! The point being is that there was no history of some jolly old elf who gave toys to good little boys and girls until what’s his name wrote “The Night before Christmas.” Identifying Santa Claus with “Father Christmas” or “St. Nicholas” is revisionist history pure and simple; an attempt to give some credibility and historicity to a created character intended to be no more real than Winnie the Pooh!

And so for all the rest of the “traditional” customs that are so often associated with paganism. So what if a Christmas wreaths looks like the sign of Oromous: the snake that swallows its own tail (hence a pagan symbol of eternity, i.e., a circle has no beginning or end) or that Christmas colors are red and green, both of which had profound magical meaning in ancient cultures. So what if the first “Christmas” trees were originally literally living idols, or that holly and ivy had some association with Druid worship, or that mistletoe, according to ancient Nordic myths, was placed over marriage beds so that the couple might be fruitful and bear many children. None of these “symbols” were in fact commonly observed until the Victorians decided to invent a whole new holiday and needed things that would make Christmas look “traditional.”

Why Have Some Christians Hated Christmas?

So if Christmas is so innocent, why were the Puritans and Presbyterians in the 17th century so opposed to its celebration? We must never forget that we are all subject to historical conditioning; that the events we see around us can and do have a profound effect on our perceptions and ideas. Please let us all keep in mind that “Christmas” has always consisted of two distinct aspects; a religious observance combined with a completely secular winter festival. The Puritans and Presbyterians had serious problems with both.

The English Reformers insisted that Christmas was not to be celebrated because they were trying to purify the worship of God from all the man-made rules and regulations that had grown up under the Roman church. Remember, the primary cause of division between Protestants and Catholics was the issue of authority. Rome insisted that authority was vested in the church and therefore could change doctrine and bind men’s consciences at will. The Reformers insisted that final authority rested in the Word of God.

Therefore in the 16th and 17th century, men literally fought and died over this issue of authority. The Roman church had created all sorts of feasts and festivals demanding that Christians celebrate them or suffer temporal and eternal sanctions. The Reformers insisted that only God, through His Word had proper authority to bind men’s consciences. Since God did not command Christmas, Easter and other feasts, fasts and festivals of the church calendar, these were infringements of the doctrine of the liberty of conscience. Therefore, the Reformers insisted that Christians should not celebrate Christmas because there was no specific Biblical warrant for doing so.

However, there was also another reason for the Puritan hatred of Christmas; the secular customs that had grown up around it. Christmas as a feast day, was notorious for being a time of drunkenness and debauchery, with the church often turning a blind eye. Even in the early 19th century, “Christmas Carolers” were composed of gangs of rowdy young men going house to house demanding free drinks; and they were perfectly willing to rough up those who refused to “celebrate” the custom. Thus, the Puritans and Presbyterians wanted to stamp out an ungodly practice that was associated with the worst sorts of behavior. It is just folly to look at our modern celebration of Christmas and assume that this was what the English Reformers were so concerned about. I doubt if there is an American evangelical alive today whose conscience is bound that if he does not celebrate Christmas, God will be displeased with him and he might lose his salvation. And the last time Christmas carolers came to my door, hardly any of them threatened to burn my house down if I refused to give them free liquor!

Thanks to the sentimentality of the Victorians, Christmas was trasnformed into a family-oriented holiday, focusing on children. They were a religious people (and revivalism had deeply stamped all evangelical Christianity with a strong emotive cast by the end of the 19^th century) so the Victorians made a clear connection between the birth of Christ and the emotional bonds towards their own families. Christmas thus was no longer an adult festival, but a family one.

Frankly, if I had lived in the 17th century I too would have preached against Christmas because at that time, it was a hindrance to sanctification; both religiously and practically. But that is not the case today; history has moved on and so should we. Granted, there is much today to criticize in the way that even Christians celebrate Christmas; for example, going into credit card debt to buy unneeded presents is irresponsible. Materialism is a common sin today and many Christians equate happiness with possessions. Christmas celebrations could become sinful if people spent money they did not have, or used the office party as an excuse for drunkenness or lechery, kissing other men’s wives under mistletoe; but then the problem, quite frankly is NOT Christmas, but of a lack of basic Christian character.

But What about the Regulative Principle?

But what about the worship issue; where do we get the right to celebrate Christmas since we have no Biblical command to celebrate the birth of Christ as a religious ordinance? Seriously though, who in this day, outside of the Roman church is celebrating Christmas as a divine command? Are there any Protestants in your experience who think that they might lose their salvation if they did not attend Christmas services? Granted, in many churches and communities, there are a lot of people who only come to church at Christmas and Easter. Often, they attend church services out of a sense of obligation to other family members, or perhaps, out of nostalgia. Obviously, these people have something lacking in their “faith.” Most of us would agree that these people need evangelizing; but the problem is not the celebration of Christmas but whether or not the gospel is being proclaimed. The “culture” of Christmas, regardless of its origins, has actually created a time, during the year, when we Christians are actually expected to talk about Jesus and demonstrate His love and grace to others!

In a related vein, how can it be sin, to celebrate an historical event? Can Christians lawfully celebrate Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, Reformation Day, or Mothers’ Day? Why or why not? A few years ago, after publishing a piece on Christmas, I received a letter from a “truly reformed” sort who was anti-Christmas and took exception to my writing that it was OK to recognize the Savior’s birth. He even included with his letter a copy of his church’s bulletin to show me what a “really” Reformed worship service looked like. In the announcement section was a blurb for their annual upcoming “Reformation Day” celebration with a special speaker in the morning, and a costume party for the kids after the evening service. Now just hold on a moment; where in Scripture did this truly Reformed brother receive a command to celebrate the Reformation? What divine mandate makes it acceptable to dress kids up in costumes and have special games? Did you see what he has done? Celebrating the birth of Christ is somehow bad and evil; but it is OK to celebrate the Reformation! “Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle on line two” If we can lawfully celebrate ANY event in history, such as the Reformation, or the American War of Independence, then we can also lawfully celebrate the birth of Christ.

No, December 25th is NOT a “religious” holiday in that God has commanded us to do certain things on that day and if we do not do those things, we incur His wrath. A “Christmas” worship service is bound just like any other worship service to be conducted in certain ways; i.e., we sing, pray, read the Word, preach the Word and administer the sacraments. Sure, Christians ought to be careful not to introduce elements into the worship service such as advent candles and plays that replace the preaching of the Word-all things that would be unlawful in ANY worship service. Christmas trees and Santa Claus are just as inappropriate in worship services as idol worship or temple prostitution (and yes, I am referring to YOU; roller-blading down the sanctuary dressed as Santa Claus-what were you thinking!).

We are NOT free to create new elements of worship just because we think they might be nice or aesthetically pleasing. Worship is our religious duty to give to God that which He has demanded of us; and if He hasn’t commanded it, we have no right to offer it; sorry, the theology of the Little Drummer boy is saccharine sweet but heretical. There is a recurring problem of sinful men wanting to create worship services that please us rather than God-but really, that’s a whole different issue. But come on people, why is it that I can preach messages about mothers on Mother’s Day, sermons on patriotism on Veteran’s Day, sermons emphasizing the Reformation on Reformation day, but I cannot preach on the incarnation in December! Give me a break!

Furthermore, there are many things we may lawfully do outside of worship that are forbidden IN worship. For example, do you celebrate birthdays? Can you give your wife or children birthday presents, sing a special song to them, have a special cake with candles that can be blown out after they make a wish? If so, what is your Biblical mandate for doing so? What, God has not bound your conscience regarding celebrating birthdays and leaves it up to your personal choice? I agree; God is neither pleased nor displeased with you celebrating someone’s birthday other than whether the general provisions of His law are obeyed. However, if we can lawfully celebrate our birthdays, why can we not celebrate the birthday of the Lord Jesus just as long as we do not bind men’s consciences or break God’s law in worship?

But what about all the parties and gifts and special meals; surely all this consumption is unholy and displeasing to God. However, is it? God gave the ancient Israelites many different feasts and festivals; in fact they had to even set aside a third of a tithe so that every third year they could hold a big party! God certainly does NOT object to feasts and festivals, to enjoying the good things he provides, to remembering the weak and downtrodden, to giving gifts in memorial to His gracious gift to us.

And that is really the unspoken problem that a lot of Christians have with Christmas despite their theological or historical rationalizations. They don’t like feasts and festivals; somehow being happy and joyous seems “unspiritual” to them. They may well have unconsciously adopted a Greek mindset that sees the body as inherently inferior, therefore making physical pleasures innately sinful. They conclude that there must be something wrong with people laughing and feasting, giving and receiving presents and having a good time! I am dead serious here; over the years when I talk to many, many Christians, it appears that the real reason why they hate Christmas is because they think that it is wrong to have fun. There really are a lot more people like Scrooge, and the Grinch than we think.

The twenty-fifth of December as just another day, and has no religious significance. There is nothing “holy” about it, and despite the efforts of the Church Fathers to calculate the right date, probably was not the day Jesus was actually born. However If the angels of heaven could publicly proclaim His birth, what possible problem can there be for us to likewise commemorate that wondrous event? How can it be wrong to sing those wonderful, postmillennial hymns which celebrate the birth of Christ during the month of December? And since the incarnation is so central to human history, then where is the problem with preaching a special series of sermons exploring the implications of the advent of the Lord Jesus?

And though most of what we think of as “traditional” Christmas customs are less than 150 years old, how is anyone violating God’s law by putting up a Christmas tree or giving kids some special presents on December 25th?” Where does Scripture say that God is offended if wives make some special foods for dinner that day? Where does He forbid us to invite friends, neighbors or members of the church over to laugh and joke and play silly games and rejoice in all the blessings that He gave this past year?

So maybe we all need to just lighten up a bit, rejoice in our liberty of conscience in Christ and not judge others. If you choose not to celebrate Christmas, then Lord bless you-take advantage of having the day off and read a good book or something. But grant your brother the same liberty of conscience-and literally, for God’s sake, do not create a law where He Himself has not done so. But as for me and my house, we intend to feast and celebrate and rejoice that the Lord has come into the world with a cheerful heart and a good conscience.

Christmas Symbols

Introduction and Review

In a previous essay (”The Battle to Save Christmas”), we examined the fact that Christmas, while a Christian holiday, is not a Biblical one; essentially being a creation of the 19th century overly sentimental Victorians. We also saw that often, people want something from Christmas that it cannot provide; almost from its inception, Christians have looked nostalgically at Christmas feeling that “something” special, precious, yes, even “magical” was being lost. Within a decade of creating this “holiday” Victorian Christians were already complaining that the real “meaning” was being replaced by consumerism; a theme repeatedly witnessed right down to the modern day. However, recently the fear of “losing” Christmas took an ominous turn when the forces of secularization openly attempted to remove all Christian elements of the Christmas celebration. The last essay ended with attempting to place the celebration of Christmas within the context of a consistent Biblical worldview. Now, let us build on that basis and explore some of the implications.

The Nature of Symbols

The presuppositions with which we begin, will invariably determine the conclusions we eventually reach. Hence many sincere Christians, who really do want to please God, end up with ungodly beliefs and practices because unconsciously, they start from the wrong basis. First among these is the ongoing tendency (inherited from our father Adam’s sin) to think about God, the world and our relationship to both from the wrong perspective; i.e., that life revolves around us. However Christians must begin with the right presuppositions and foremost among those is that we live in a “theocentric” universe created by the Living and True God Who made all things to reveal His nature and glory (Psa 19:1ff, Acts Col.1:13-19). The Bible begins with the solemn pronouncement that God created the heavens and the earth. The “glory” of God is the visible manifestation of His invisible nature seen as light (1 Jn 1:5). It is interesting to note that we do not see “things” -we see light reflected off things. In the same way God’s glory is “reflected” in creation. Thus everything beautiful, awesome, marvelous and wonderful that we experience in life is in some way a reflection of His glory.

Now, God’s glory is both a beautiful “thing” and a consuming fire- sinful men cannot “see” God with their naked eyes, lest it destroy them. However, the “beatific” vision is a theological term referring to the ultimate bliss of redeemed Man being able to bask in the full, unadulterated glory of God in eternity.

While human sin twists, distorts and mars the image of God, both in our own nature as well as the natural world, the image is still there. We can recognize and approve of honor, courage, dedication and self-sacrifice because all these moral traits are a reflection of the unchanging nature of God. At the same time, we can look at the wonders of creation, stars, mountains, oceans and autumn trees rich with foliage and know that these are all beautiful and yes, even “glorious.” Since we were designed for God, to love Him and enjoy Him forever, innately within every human soul is a hunger for that beauty and glory of God which creation was intended to reflect.

Sinful men seek to suppress the truth so clearly revealed by God in creation (Rms 1:28-20) but they cannot deny its power and draw. Instead of submitting to the one, true God, they attempt to feed their thirst for wonder, beauty and God’s glory through various wicked and perverse means; i.e., the occult, idolatry, false religion, art, fiction, etc., But even sinful men in SOME way are seeking SOMETHING of God no matter how wicked and perverse because “in Him we live and move and have our being” As Christians we can approve of the work of even unrepentant sinners who “create” beauty in painting, architecture, sculpture, poetry and fiction; for the glory of God is an objective “thing” that exists whether or not men acknowledge the God it reflects. Granted, we argue that when ungodly men “create” beautiful things it is only by being inconsistent with their own presuppositions; but our point here is that all men, can appreciate beauty because every moment of every day they LIVE in that glory!

The Symbol and the Word

Though the image of God is clearly seen in His creation (Romans 1:18-20), God speaks definitively and clearly through His Word. Psalm 19 begins with the glory of God seen in the Heavens but ends with the glory of God in the perfection of His Law. Men knew of God before the Law, but God was pleased to speak even more clearly through His written revelation. David’s Psalm is a wonderful poem about the glory of God revealed in the stars, sun and moon; yet it is only in the Law of God that we find it completion.

One of the supreme aspects of His nature that God displays in His written revelation that could not be fully appreciated just through creation is His trinity; that He is One God in three distinct persons. The Apostle Paul can rightly state that all things were created BY Christ, FOR Christ to the glory of God (Col 1:16). It was God’s desire to unfold this revelation of His Son over time, and He did so through stories, poems, prophecies and religious rituals from Genesis through Malachi. Some may wonder “why” God just did not come right out and say it; however, His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa 55:8-9). Hence it is futile to speculate about why God chose to reveal His Son the way He did; the fact is, He is God and we are not- and whatever He does must be the proper right and good thing judged only by His standards.

In Genesis 1:26 God reveals Himself as both Unity and Plurality when He said, “Let Us make Man in Our image” Then, when Man rebelled, God revealed that His Son would become flesh as the Seed of the Woman (Gen 3: 15). As I argue in my “Hebrew Bible” college course, the entire revelation of the “Old” Testament at least in one sense, is the ongoing battle as the Seed of the Serpent attempts to subvert, destroy or compromise the Seed of the Woman. Hence, Christ can be seen in every “chapter” of the “Old” Testament; but He is pictured there in shadows, types, and images -symbols, if you will. The writers of the “New” Testament often pick up these “symbols” or “pictures” of Jesus in the “Old” Testament and apply them to Him in ways that often, we find difficult to understand. For example, the New Testament clearly identifies Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophecy of a “virgin-birth” but the actual “Old” Testament fulfillment was a married woman! This was NOT a case of the “New” Testament writers making a mistake or twisting the text but rather that the entire “Old” Testament is a picture, shadow or type revealing Jesus!

While the “Old” Testament ends with a defeated, depleted people of God looking forward to the promised Seed of the Woman, the “New” Testament opens with God’s promise in Genesis 3:15 being fulfilled. Hence what was once an “image” has now become “reality;” Jesus has become flesh and dwelt among us. Yet even here we often think of Jesus in anthropocentric terms; we focus on what He did to save us, rather than on what He did to reveal Himself and the glory of God. Yes, we needed Him to come and do what He did; but His coming is primarily about revealing the love, mercy and justice of the one true God -not that we have been saved.

Thus, God chose to reveal His Son Jesus as one of His primary purposes in creation. Through Jesus He created the heavens and the earth. Through Jesus, He redeems His creation, cursed because of our sin. Hence, all of human history is about Him; and the highest and holiest calling of all men, in all ages is to know that which Almighty God has chosen to reveal; “and this is eternal life, that men might know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent” (Jn 17:3).

The Analogical Knowledge of God

Yet, our knowledge about God must by necessity be “analogical;” i.e., (a simple picture explaining a more complex reality). His essence, His true nature is impossible for even perfected men to fully comprehend or appreciate because we must think within the categories of creation and creation is only a reflection, an image of God. Now there are several ways of looking at this (and we do not want to wander too far afield examining issues of epistemology). However consider this; is God’s revelation of Himself as a Father and Jesus as His Son an analogy of human father and son relationships? In other words, did God choose to reveal this aspect of His own inner nature in the closest possible analogy that humans could understand? Or, is it the other way around? Is there something about the nature of God that is imprinted into creation and manifests itself most powerfully through the “father-son” experience? I would argue the latter; that since all creation was made by Him and for Him to reveal Him, then everything in some way is an aspect of His glory and nature.

Thus, the godly man will see “Jesus” in every thing he does and every event that happens; not in some “mystical” sense as in a transcendent “spiritual” experience- and not as a voice whispering things into his ear- but in that all there is was made by Jesus, for Jesus to the glory of God the Father. Furthermore, as the Lord of Heaven and Earth, sitting at the right hand of God, King Jesus is right now ruling all creation according to His will, subduing His enemies, protecting His people and spreading His Kingdom. It does not matter one whit whether or not we understand why He is doing whatever He is doing, or even whether we can make sense out of His reign; after all, to understand why God does whatever He does, you would have to be God-and it was that little presumption that created this mess in the first place!

Every moment of every day, we live “in” Jesus who is working His will in the world. Now, in the process of self-revelation, as mentioned previously, God gave us “symbols” in the form of the temple, circumcision, Passover and the like. In the “New” Testament, Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us. After ascending into heaven, He left us with two “symbols” (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) which are the ongoing, visible reminders of His nature and acts which are also, in some sense, “seals” of His grace, love and fulfillment of His covenant promises to His people.

Yet the richness of God’s revelation of Jesus is so powerful that it permeates every aspect of our lives and thus, over time men cannot help but find other pictures of Him. Symbols are not “secret codes” with a one-for-one correspondence between the symbol and the entity being pictured. For example, in the rural Northwest one can quite often see bald eagles flying or perched in trees. They are huge birds and have a solemn dignity about them that makes one think of honor, courage and stern attention to duty. Yet, the American bald eagle is a carrion eater that will never attack anything anywhere near its own size. Supposedly when the bald eagle was being considered as our national emblem, Ben Franklin objected and suggested the turkey as an alternative. In one sense, Old Ben was right; in reality the turkey is a nobler bird than an eagle; however, it does not stimulate within us the same kind of response that the bald eagle does!

The symbols do not work on a straight-forward intellectual level, but at a “deeper” more “intuitive” level. Hence the world in which we live is a vast sea of unimaginable depths all designed by a sovereign, wondrous God to display His marvelous nature and being. For what it is worth, I think the most pathetic kind of person is the one who is utterly pragmatic, whose life is so infused with the “natural” that he can no longer “see” the mystery and yes, even “magic” that surrounds even the most prosaic of life-events. We live in a picture and we cannot help but create pictures to make sense out of that which God has revealed about Himself.

Christmas “Symbols”

Sometimes these “pictures” are idolatrous and forbidden because Man attempts to worship God according to his own desires. Never underestimate the subtly of human sin; from the beginning we have been slyly finding ways to do our will, rather than God’s. However, there are special times of thanksgiving, praise and worship that may be lawful and approved by God, even though not instituted by Him; i.e., the use of wine at the Passover. If you know the original story of Passover, there is no mention of wine. Yet by the time of the Lord Jesus, wine had become a feature of the Passover Meal. Jesus did not rebuke the Israelites for “adding” to His original requirements, but instead took the cup of wine and transformed it into an essential part of the Lord’s Supper.

In the same way, while there is no Biblical warrant for any of our Christmas celebrations, yet, even so in some sense, Christians are practically compelled to celebrate that God sent His Son into history to live for us and die for us. However, as in all things, sinful men can pervert that which is meant to be good; e.g., in the old Roman church, it literally did become a “compulsion” as the church attempted to bind men’s consciences. Hence the English and Scottish Reformers banned Christmas just so that they could liberate the Christian’s conscience from unwarranted ecclesiastical legalism. Yet, within a hundred and fifty years, Christians went right back to celebrating “Christmas;” was this a defection from the Reformed faith or simply the inevitable result of Christians finding Christ all around them?

Many Christians attempt to rehabilitate “Christmas” by “finding” symbols in Christmas trees and decorations, feasting, presents, etc. I have done so myself in the past; e.g., the evergreen tree is a “picture” of eternal life, the “spikes” a reminder of the crown of thorns, the lights and decorations a “symbol” of the glory of God. Yet, let me suggest that this is too superficial, too much like that “code” we dismissed earlier. Instead, perhaps the truth is that since we live and move and breathe in Him in every moment in every day, everything is an expression of Him. Thus, we do not have to “find” Jesus in the tree (which always struck me as a bit too close to idolatry anyway) but we can still enjoy what has become an annual custom. Decorated Christmas trees can be simply fun and beautiful (though some may be tacky and garish). Yet is not beauty, and the desire for it, and the quest to “create it” in and of itself, a reflection of His beauty?

Granted, Christmas can just as easily hide Christ by focusing on our desires, our indulgence or even our feelings about God! This seems to be the real danger; we “sanitize” the annual celebration with a veneer of “spirituality” so that then we can focus on what we want. Some people want expensive presents; some people want an excuse to indulge in gluttony, drunkenness or even debauchery (the mistletoe custom has always struck me as godless to the extreme). Some people want an experience that takes them back to a more innocent time.

Or, perhaps we can take a step back during this time of the year and reflect on God’s great love, of His gracious gift to us in Christ, of the sacrifice that He made on our behalf and of our need to be humble before God because He is Lord. Christmas presents can be indulgence and examples of crass materialism, or a healthy, hearty rejoicing in the gifts that God gives us; not only His Son, but eternal life, blessedness, and joy (remember God required Israel to TITHE every year for a great festival of rejoicing before the Lord).

Let me suggest that the real issue is one of the heart; we can use Christmas as an excuse to “party” and then try to “spiritualize” it by giving Jesus a passing nod; or we can use this as a special time of the year to reflect on Who He is and Why He came. We can look at our own hearts; do we think we are approved by God for who and what we are, or for Who Christ is and what He did for us?

Thus, Christmas can be a time of joyful proclamation of the coming of the King of Glory- that Jesus Christ is the King of King and Lord of Lords. However, if we celebrate in “word” but not in truth, we simply call down His judgment on our own heads- for after the packages have all been unwrapped, the decorations put away, do we also put Jesus away as well? Celebrating His Lordship means nothing unless we live that Lordship every day of our lives.

We cannot escape Christ; He is all around us, His Spirit gives us life and every moment of every day we exist because of His grace and mercy. Every nanosecond all of creation is screaming out that Jesus is Lord; the question is, are you listening?

If you've enjoyed this article, and would like to support Dr. B's ministry, please consider a contribution. Thank you for your support.

Brian Abshire

"Dr. B" has served as a Biblical counselor, lecturer in theology, youth, singles, young married and senior pastor. He is currently the Teaching Elder at Highlands Reformed Church, (Hanover Presbytery, Reformed Presbyterian Church).

News Add to del.icio.us Digg This Subscribe to RSS feed •

Email This Post

Institute for Christian Culture