This was a rather lackluster attempt by the author but it's
useful in that these trite, silly and erroneous pro-Christmas arguments are
commonly used and thus must be answered. I thought it worth taking a moment to
examine and interact with them.
In the introduction we're assured that we can celebrate Christmas. Well indeed one
can celebrate the day, but that's not
really the question is it? Should one do it? Does it please God? It is it in
accord with His will as revealed in Scripture?
The answer is an unequivocal no.
We're told in argument #1 that Christmas is not a pagan
festival. Constantine instituted Christmas to eradicate paganism from the Roman
Empire.
Well, actually it is a pagan festival or rather is built atop
pagan foundations. There's a reason why this festival arose in conjunction with
Saturnalia and the Solstice. It was part of the syncretism which took off in
earnest right around the time of Constantine's consolidation of power and the
shift in imperial policy toward Christians. The 4th century was
glorious in that the persecution stopped but it's also one of the darkest
chapters in the history of the Church. Because of Constantine's move, the world
entered the Church en masse, and the
period represents a rapid defection. There's a reason why Biblicists refer to
this period as the Constantinian Shift and at other times The Great Apostasy.
The historical origins of Christmas are really quite dubious
and most theologians and even many Church historians will concede this point.
Those who insist on defending it will argue from another basis, not the one
cited here.
There is no evidence to suggest that the feast was initiated
or instituted by Constantine. The fact that the holiday has come down through
history as the Christ-mass is also an indicator as to its dubious pedigree.
In argument #2 the author effectively repudiates the
Sufficiency of Scripture in that he argues that since the Bible doesn't forbid
us buying mobile phones and using Facebook we therefore can celebrate Christmas.
This is apples and oranges. Phones and Facebook have nothing
to do with how we gather as the Church, how the Church determines doctrine and
how we corporately worship. What a disingenuous and even juvenile argument. He
tries to dismiss the anti-Christmas argument out of hand and yet has shown us
his hand... that he either is being frightfully irresponsible as a teacher or
is ignorant of the larger issues. So it is with modern Evangelicalism.
The Scriptures don't forbid us venerating relics, praying
with rosaries or for that matter inventing 1001 new ideas and innovations in
how we gather, worship and learn about God. That's not the point. There's a
doctrine called Sola Scriptura that is precious to those who would know and
follow Christ. Thousands have died for it. This author treats it as something
flippant.
Many will employ the argument (#3) that Jesus wasn't born in
December. It's true, he probably was not but I will freely grant that's not
really the issue here. It's but another layer of innovation and
disingenuousness to the whole Christmas paradigm. It's not of the essence as to
why it is rightly rejected but at the same time it's not an insignificant
point.
If we did know the exact day, we still (for Biblical reasons)
wouldn't set apart the day. But the fact that we don't, may indeed point to a
larger category of Providence regarding the matter. It wasn't meant to be kept
and venerated.
Point #4 is particularly disingenuous on the part of the
author. He says that anti-Christmas proponents will say 'The tree is a pagan
symbol'.
He then proceeds to defend trees as being created by God and
therefore aren't evil.
Is this a serious person? Was this piece meant to be satire?
Has anyone ever suggested the problem with Christmas trees is related to
tree-ness? Has anyone ever said that trees are intrinsically evil?
Of course not. But when a tree is decorated, embellished with
symbolism and then specifically named and identified as an item that bears the
name of Christ and is additionally wed to a larger category of worship and
veneration... the keeping of the day, then it's not mere tree anymore. It is
being used as a religious and devotional symbol. I don't think anyone is
praying to or worshipping the tree. Rather it's part of a general piety
associated with the keeping of Christmas and is therefore religious in nature.
If you don't think it's religious then why do so many congregations put them up
in the auditorium, or even worse how it is often referred to, the sanctuary or
holy place?
Mark this well. Anything
religious, anything that names Christ and claims to help me know Him better,
honour him in some way, worship him to a greater degree, represents Him or some
aspect of His Kingdom MUST be evaluated vis-à-vis the Scriptures.
And in the case of the tree it falls under a wide array of
condemnations... in which God rejects their worship because they teach for
doctrines the commandments of men.
Clearly the author is unfamiliar with his own Evangelical
history and how the authority of Scripture has been historically understood.
Someone might claim Sola Scriptura and still make an argument for Christmas but
that's not what is happening here.
Argument #5 is juvenile and not one I've ever encountered but
the author's response is equally so.
In argument #6 the author dismisses concerns that Christmas
is materialistic. It's true, this point is not really salient but I will say
this, modern Christmas as we know it today is a progeny of Victorian
capitalism. Its widespread ubiquitous celebration was in the end a marketing
ploy and continues to be. Aside from the many ideological points, this
practical one is but another historical and ethical reason to reject the day.
Argument #7 says that opponents of Christmas argue that 'We
don't have to celebrate special days'.
This is interesting if slippery wording. It's not only that
we don't have to celebrate special days but additionally that we simply don't.
There's no Scriptural warrant to create them.
We're given a 'simple' appeal to Romans 14 but I'm afraid the
author needs to return to the passage and read it more carefully. Romans 14 is
commonly weaponised and used as a means to flip the argument on its head. Many
will patronisingly pat one on the head and effectively say, 'We know we can
keep this day (since we keep it to the Lord) and we'll even put up with your
weakness in thinking that you can't.'
This is to misread the passage. Paul is not siding with the
people who keep days. Those who have scruples about diet and keeping days are
the weak. Read the passage carefully. Keeping days is grouped with food
prohibition.
Additionally we find clean/unclean language telling us this
about questions regarding the Jewish Law. Paul is addressing people in Rome who
believe that they must still keep (fully or in part) the laws of the Old
Testament which includes things like the Sabbath Day and the kosher laws.
We New Testament Christians know better but must patiently
endure those who are struggling with the transition. I don't think this applies
in quite the same way today. This was during the early days of the Church and
prior to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Judaism was still viable
to some degree. Today, there's really no excuse for those who would resurrect
the Law and place it upon the believer.
But it's nowhere in
Paul's mind or in his imagination that Christians in Rome should borrow from
pagan holy days and syncretise them with Christian doctrines. It's not even in
the scope of his thought that they would innovate and create a Church calendar
with special feast and holy days. It's nowhere in his thinking and in fact you can look
elsewhere in his writings to demonstrate that Paul had little time for such
innovations, for such will-worship and self-imposed religion. And in fact he
warns Christians to not fool around with idolatry. You can eat the meat from
the marketplace that was probably 'blessed' by pagan priests (which might be
part of the issue in Romans 14) but don't cross the line and partake of their
idolatrous rites. That's taking 'liberty' too far.
What would Paul say to those who borrow from these rites and
practices and dare to bring them in the gathering of the Church? I think in
Colossians such practices are condemned in toto. Additionally I think a case
can be made that the 'fornication' mentioned by John in reference to Pergamos
and Thyatira in the Book of Revelation relate to these very questions of
syncretism. Christmas, Advent and all the other innovations and borrowings from
pagan custom are just this kind of spiritual fornication and represent the beguiling
poison of philosophical, theological and liturgical speculation and novelty,
not an obedience and submission to Divine Revelation.
Romans 14 is not on the side of those who argue for
Christmas. If anything it's against them.
I will raise an additional point. Many argue that it's
legalistic to teach that Christmas shouldn't be celebrated, that we're binding
where the Scriptures don't bind.
On the contrary it is the proponents of Christmas that have
fallen into legalism.
I stayed home from church this last Sunday. Why? Because if I
went, if I showed up expecting a normal, normative gathering of the church that
accords with the pattern of the New Testament I would be in for a
disappointment. Suddenly on this day, this Sunday (or Sundays) nearest to this
extra-Scriptural innovative feast/holy day, the whole nature of the meeting is
transformed. The day is filled with all kinds of silliness, entertainment and
other things that normally wouldn't be tolerated. I'm just trying to come to church
and meet and assemble as normal and follow the Scripture but I can't do that.
Why? Because suddenly a cabal has taken over and demands that on this day all
these 'other' things be done and everyone is forced to accept them and even
sanction them.... even though they have no Scriptural warrant or justification.
Now I will grant that at this point in time there is very
little opposition and for the most part these things are welcomed but that
really isn't the point. Biblical truth is not determined by popular vote.
But who's being the legalist? All I want is for someone to
open their Bible and show me the justification for doing what they're doing.
Since they have no justification it is they who have become the legalists. They
are the ones imposing a regime upon the consciences of all present. They are
trying to bind my conscience and insist that at this time of the year, this is
how we are to worship and honour God and if you don't go along with it...
you're the one with the problem. That's the legalism of the Pharisees that was
condemned by Christ, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
With Arthur Pink, the Pilgrims and many other faithful
Christians I can say, I am the Lord's free man. I will not be brought into
bondage. No one will tyrannise my conscience and force me to accept rites and
doctrines which have no basis in Scripture. I praise God I was liberated over
two decades ago from this form of religious and cultural bondage.
Of course the common defense is to turn all of this on its
head and place the blame not on those who add to Scripture but on those who
simply want to stick with Scripture and rely on its sufficiency.
As far as point #8, no, I do not think Santa Claus is the
antichrist. I'm pleased to see the author didn't attempt to appeal to the cult
of saints (Nicholas and all that) as is often the case with today's
Evangelicals. However Santa Claus is a
pretty sick thing. I cannot understand parents who lie to their children and
certainly the popular songs and conceptualisations of Santa are sacrilegious if
not blasphemous at times.
It would seem the author is really just trying to dodge the
issues, the Santa issue is no exception.
We're told by the author that we're being illogical and yet
where has the author even remotely made his point? What logic has he employed?
It's embarrassing. I guess if it just comes down to calling each other names,
we can play the same game and insist that Will Graham's problem is that he's
'illogical' too but that's far from helpful. But I don't think Graham ever
intended to genuinely wrestle with the issue, let alone the logic of it and
dare I say, I'm not sure he's capable or competent enough to do so. This piece
doesn't give one much hope in that regard.
Paul concludes Romans 14 with the rule of faith...whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Unless you can justify your practices 'in faith' or in accord with the
doctrines given by the Apostles, i.e. the Scriptures, then there rightly should
be some doubt. You ought to question your motives. Graham seems to believe that
just because we want to and our motives our right... that's good enough.
Do you think Uzzah's motives were wrong when he tried to
steady the ark? That wasn't the point.
The real issue is not whether Christmas is fully pagan,
half-pagan or something in between. The issue is the Sufficiency of Scripture.
Graham demonstrates the claims to Sola Scriptura or scriptural authority, minus
a solid doctrine of sufficiency are effectively meaningless. Graham does not
believe that the Scriptures are the Church's authority. He believes they play a
part but reason, tradition and even volition, appetite and inclination play an
equal if not larger role. He wants to do
this and can come up with philosophical justifications for it and he can
appeal to tradition. So for him, it's a done deal.
But this to reject Paul's words in 2 Timothy 3.16. More could
be said but this should be enough to give any professed Evangelical a reason to
pause.