Celebrating Christmas: Is There a Biblical Warrant for it?
Celebrating Christmas: Is There a Biblical Warrant for it?
We have just celebrated the birth of Christ again. Most of us, I'm sure, went to church on Saturday, December 25, 1999 and heard a sermon on Luke 2:7 or some other passage dealing with the incarnation of the Son of God. It was a regular worship service beginning with the votum and salutation and concluding with the benediction. The only thing missing was the reading of the Decalogue for that is done only on Sunday mornings. Were we right in doing this? Does the consistory have the authority to call the congregation to worship on Christmas day? Is there a Biblical warrant for this?
There was a time, not all that long ago, when this question never even came up in our circles. Having immigrated from the Netherlands where Christmas and other Christian feast days are firmly established traditions, we simply continued this practice on the assumption that it was all part of the old and tried ways of our Reformed forefathers. This assumption is being challenged today. Living as we do in North America, we are increasingly coming in contact with Christians from different traditions than our own. I am thinking especially of certain branches of the Presbyterian family of churches whose background is in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Free Presbyterians and members of the Free Church of Scotland as well as other smaller fellowships from a similar background, strongly oppose the celebration of Christmas and other Christian feast days. Their rationale for not observing Christmas is that Scripture nowhere commands us to commemorate Christ's birth and because it is associated with pagan customs. Even though the Bible does exhort us to remember Christ's death, this refers to what Christians do at the Lord's Supper and not to Good Friday services. The same applies to Easter, Ascension Day and Pentecost, they say.
The underlying issue is whether Scripture prescribes any other worship services than those on the Lord's Day. The Presbyterians referred to believe that generally speaking, the answer is no. Believers may meet during the week, of course, for Bible study or lectures on religious topics, etc., but these should not be viewed as worship services. That is why they also object to Christmas worship services on a weekday because that involves binding the consciences of believers to do something Scripture does not require.
What are we to think about these arguments? Let us say at the outset that they have some validity. One can make a case for saying that Scripture does not require celebrating Christmas and other special days. But does this imply that it is therefore forbidden to do so?
To get a handle on this rather complicated issue we have to go back to the 16th century and see how the early Reformers dealt with the matter of Christian feast days. As far as the Reformed or Calvinistic branch of the Reformation is concerned, one of the first effects of the break with Rome was that all special days sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church were set aside. In Geneva this was done already before the arrival of Calvin under the leadership of Farel and Viret. Calvin was in full agreement with this decision. So was Knox, the Reformer of Scotland, who studied under Calvin in Geneva. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Scottish churches also banned the Roman sacred days, and as it turned out, they did so with even more thoroughness than the Continental Reformed Churches.
The Reformers rejected all special feast days on the following grounds: 1) they are not ordained by God but invented by man; 2) they tend to minimize the Lord's Day, the divinely ordained weekly day of rest; and 3) they often involve pagan practices and easily lead to licentiousness.
It cannot be denied that these arguments are weighty; history has only confirmed their validity. Also today, we see that Christmas and Easter are often celebrated in ways that are more pagan than Christian. There is no doubt that many hold these festivals in higher esteem than the Lord's Day. It was for these as well as other reasons that the Synod of Dort (1574) declared that the weekly Sabbath alone should be observed and that the observance of all other days should be discouraged.
Yet it seems the Reformed fathers had second thoughts on the issue, because four years later we find another Synod held in the same city, at the same place, Dordrecht, stating that it would be desirable to celebrate Sunday only according to God's ordinance. But, since Christmas Day and the day after Christmas, as well as the days following Easter and Pentecost and in some places also New Year's Day and Ascension Day were statutory holidays, the ministers were advised to preach on subjects appropriate to the occasion.
What accounts for this apparent softening in approach? Well, the government was reluctant to do away with these Christian festivals because they were very popular, especially with government officials and employees who hated to give up the holidays connected with these religious feast days.
The Reformed Church therefore gave in to this pressure, not so much out of fear, but for pragmatic reasons. Rather than see these special days given over to the danger of abuse and licentiousness, it accommodated itself to the situation at hand and tried to make the best of it. Subsequent Synods fine-tuned the issue of feast days and tried to reduce them to a minimum. Eventually, the Reformed Church came to recognize two categories of special days. The first category consisted of Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day and Pentecost. Some of these events always fall on Sunday, others on weekdays. In either case, the feast day in question was to be observed during a worship service. The second category of special days included Old and New Year's Day and annual days of prayer and thanksgiving.
This rule, laid down in its final form in the Church Order of Dort, drawn up by the famous Synod of 1618/19, has been observed until this day in Reformed churches with a continental background. Our Free Reformed Church Order accordingly states in Article 67: "The churches shall hallow the Lord's Day according to God's Law. The congregations shall also gather for worship on recognized Christian feast days." Article 64 stipulates the times for the annual Prayer Day and Thanksgiving Day and lays down the procedure to be followed in case special prayer days are required in emergency situations.
The Canadian Reformed Churches are more specific and state in Article 53 of their Church Order: "Each year the churches shall, in the manner decided upon by the consistory, commemorate the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as His outpouring of the Holy Spirit" (Book of Praise: Anglo-Genevan Psalter, rev. ed., Winnipeg, Manitoba: Premier Printing Ltd., 1984, 1995).
It was not only the Dutch Reformed Church that recognized the importance of a reverent observance of God's redemptive acts in Christ. In Switzerland the Reformed churches drew up The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) in which we find the following statement regarding Christian feast days: "Moreover, if in Christian Liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly." Composed by Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), this confession was widely received among the Reformed Churches.
As mentioned already, Presbyterians of the stricter sort take strong exception to this line of thought which prevails among Continental Reformed Churches. Yet the interesting thing is that the Westminster Confession also allows for worship services other than those prescribed for the Lord's Day. In chapter 21 entitled "Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day," we read "in addition to ordinary religious worship of God" on the Lord's Day, there are also "solemn fastings and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner." One of the proof texts for this statement is Esther 9:22: "As the days wherein the Jews rested from their enemies and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions to one another, and gifts to the poor."
If it is appropriate for God's people to engage collectively in "solemn fastings and thanksgivings" in connection with a notable event such as a natural calamity of enormous proportions or a signal victory over one's enemies, can it be wrong to gather for worship to thank the Lord for His great redemptive acts in history such as the incarnation of His Son as well as His death, resurrection and ascension?
Admittedly, the Westminster Directory for Public Worship bans all other festival days beside the Lord's Day. But this Directory does not have the same authority in Presbyterian churches, as does the Westminster Confession. The Confession does not explicitly ban Christmas, and seems to leave it to the exercise of Christian liberty to observe it or not. The objection, made by the opponents of special feast days, that the statement in question only gives the Church the authority to call for single times of thanksgivings in response to special acts of providence, is not very convincing. If the Church has the authority to make up ad hoc holy days, what prevents her from establishing annual days of celebration such as Christmas or Good Friday? The "Lord's Day only" principle, if followed consistently, eliminates both. Surely, those who see a fundamental difference between occasional and regular special services are guilty of exaggeration. If a special worship time on Christmas Day constitutes an infringement on Christian liberty, then the occasional service of fasting or thanksgiving is no less a violation of the believer's conscience.
To suggest that the Reformed Churches were unanimous in condemning Christmas and other Christian feast days is simply not true. At first, indeed, there was a considerable consensus on the issue. But as time went on and calm reflection replaced knee-jerk reaction, the earlier radical position was seen to be an over-reaction to Rome and its errors. The result was a more balanced position which has proved to be very beneficial to the churches.
By having our annual Christmas services the wonder of Christ's birth is presented to our minds, and hopefully our hearts as well, under the blessing of the Holy Spirit. To say as some do, "we can have sermons on Christ's birth in April or August just as well as in December," sounds nice, but how practical is it? Also, what do people do on Christmas Day if they don't go to church? It is a statutory holiday, so how do Christians fill that day? What do the children do? Read the Christmas story and sing Christmas carols? Fine, but why not do this in church and at the Sunday school program together with other children?
Some parents will no doubt say: the Bible doesn't command it; therefore we won't do it. So they take their children skating or they find some other way to entertain them. The long-term effect of this approach, however, may be that the wonder of Christ's incarnation and its meaning will fade from children's minds and that they will end up with the very secular mind-set from which their conscientious parents are trying to shield them. How much wiser was Spurgeon who, although he had little use for ecclesiastical traditions and decrees, nevertheless was willing to preach on the birth of Christ during the Christmas season. His rationale for this was that Christmas Day was as good a day to celebrate Christ's birth as any other. In a sermon on Luke 2:10 he writes, "as the thoughts of a great many Christian people will run at this time towards the birth of Christ and as this cannot be wrong, I judge it meet to avail ourselves of the prevailing current and float down the stream of thought. Our minds will run that way, because so many around us are following customs suggestive of it, therefore let us get what good we can get out of the occasion" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 22, pp. 709-10).
There is still another reason why Christians ought to celebrate the birth of Christ. Unlike in Spurgeon's time, when everyone was thinking about the birth of Christ, be it in a sentimental and unscriptural way, we are now living in a society that celebrates Christmas without any references to the incarnation of God's Son.
There was a time when conservative Christians felt they had to object to and warn against public displays ofsuch as nativity scenes complete with the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, shepherds, angels and animals. They were right in doing so, of course. Today few such scenes are seen any more. They are gone from department stores and other public places. Traditional Christmas carols, most of which reflect fairly sound theology, are on their way out. So are greetings like "Merry Christmas" or "A Blessed Christmas." It is "Happy Holidays" now or "Season's Greetings." Good riddance, some will say. But should we not ask why these outward signs are disappearing from public life?
The reason for this is clear enough. It is no longer politically correct to use explicit Christian symbols in our multi-cultural society. All the more reason then for us to continue our Christmas celebrations privately and publicly, testifying that our hope is focused on the Babe in the manger whose Name is Jesus, for He came to save His people from their sins. Those who refuse to do this for ostensibly spiritual reasons may by their nonobservance contribute to the disappearance from the public square of one of the last vestiges of Christianity.
Add new comment