# Christkindl Worship



## TylerRay (Dec 23, 2012)

Dear brothers and sisters,

After some digging and some consideration, I have become convinced that many of the Carols sung this time of year call the singers to worship a different deity than our Lord. I don't write this because I want to sound like a Scrooge, or as though I have a "more puritanical than thou" attitude. I simply write this pleading with you to consider the songs that you may be encouraged or disposed to sing this time of year.

Jesus is not a baby. He is the risen and exalted King of Heaven and Earth. He _was_ a baby, but is not anymore. Therefore we cannot worship "baby Jesus." Any attempt to do so would be to erect a false deity _based on_ Jesus when he was a baby. This is exactly what many of the Carols associated with Christmas/Nativity call us to do ("Come and worship, worship Christ the newborn King").

Please consider this, and evaluate your songs before you sing them.


----------



## Tim (Dec 23, 2012)

Yes. I am convinced that some of these songs taint our understanding of the Biblical events surrounding the incarnation by adding extra-Biblical details (or perhaps even contra-Biblical) details.


----------



## kodos (Dec 23, 2012)

Amen. It is grievous when these uninspired songwriters make God's people break the 9th commandment in worship. And I am convinced that many are ensnared in idol worship of the "baby Jesus".


----------



## Eoghan (Dec 23, 2012)

Our Baptist church kids service/sermon was on the fourth advent candle. 

As a reformed baptist attending a non-reformed baptist church this does not surprise me, but it still rankles.


----------



## Elizabeth (Dec 23, 2012)

I've always rather liked Angels From the Realms of Glory. Never gave thought of worshipping a false deity(most Christians realize that Jesus did not remain an infant, I think) when singing it. Isn't it more a carol relating to the occurrences of the Incarnation, in time and space? I don't think it is calling upon us _now_ to worship our Lord as a baby. 

More, it brings to mind the astonishing fact of the Incarnation. That He was a babe. A newborn King, worthy _even then_ of praise.

There are some carols that are really loathsome, but I don't see Angels as one of them. But we are a carol-singing family, so my view is kind of skewed thataway.


----------



## Zach (Dec 23, 2012)

I agree with Elizabeth. What is remarkable is that even as an infant a _multitude_ of the heavenly host sang praises to the newborn King. Surely it is not sinful to remember that truth and sing, as our Congregation sang this morning: "Come and worship, come and worship, Worship Christ, the newborn King!"


----------



## kodos (Dec 23, 2012)

The problem tends to be that many find the "helpless baby Jesus" cutely portrayed in a nativity scene more to their liking than the one portrayed in glory. The "newborn King" is more palatable than the one seated at the right hand of the Father who will come to judge the living and the dead. This is why the golden calf charge is not without merit in my opinion. 

Rev 1:12ff
12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and this face was like the sun shining in full strength. 
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead.


----------



## Zach (Dec 23, 2012)

I don't think it is charitable to assume that the singing of hymns about the incarnation of Christ makes us like Ricky Bobby from _Talladaga Nights_.


----------



## kodos (Dec 23, 2012)

This charge is not against you, brother - forgive me if you thought it was directed personally against you. But it is an undeniable fact that many more people are in love with baby Jesus than the one in glory. This season is proof of that, and the fact that more people visit churches during this time should also tell us something.

The scene in Talladega Nights is actually quite instructive - he literally is painting a picture of the golden calf that many do worship, particularly in this time. 



Zach said:


> I don't think it is charitable to assume that the singing of hymns about the incarnation of Christ
> makes us like Ricky Bobby from _Talladaga Nights_.


----------



## Zach (Dec 23, 2012)

kodos said:


> This charge is not against you, brother - forgive me if you thought it was directed personally against you. But it is an undeniable fact that many more people are in love with baby Jesus than the one in glory. This season is proof of that, and the fact that more people visit churches during this time should also tell us something.
> 
> The scene in Talladega Nights is actually quite instructive - he literally is painting a picture of the golden calf that many do worship, particularly in this time.
> 
> ...



Rom, I didn't take offense to what you said and I know you weren't directing it toward anyone here. It is true that there are many who like the idea of a harmless Jesus much more than the idea of the risen King and it is troubling. But, your logic seems to be that because some prefer to view Jesus as a helpless babe rather than the King of glory and would rather sing about the helpless babe because they hate the idea of King of glory, it is irreverent worship to sing hymns about the Christ child. The exclusive Psalmody arguments aside, I don't see how it is unacceptable to sing, "Worship Christ the newborn King!" when remembering the incarnation of the Lord.

Blessings, brother! I'm very glad that a place where we can exchange ideas and agree and disagree, like the PuritanBoard, exists for the reformed church.


----------



## jambo (Dec 23, 2012)

I agree that some carols are questionable not by any means all of them. I agree with Elizabeth in that it brings out the wonder of the incarnation. Whilst the shepherds may have worshiped the babe in the manger, no one thinks if him still as that babe. (Except in Catholicism where Christ is mostly presented as either a babe in his mothers arms or as dying on a cross)

I marvel that as Jesus lay in the manger he was the image of the invisible God. He was the one in whom the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form. This was the word becoming flesh and dwelling among us. As I think of some of the lines from the hymn writers, it does make as marvel at the fact of the incarnation

Our God Contracted to a span
Incomprehensiely made man 

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
hail the incarnate deity

God of God
Light of Light
Lo he abhors not the virgin's womb
Very God
Begotten not created

That said I cringe at the sentimentality of

The cattle are lowing the baby awakes
but little Lord Jesus no crying he makes.

Some folk think Martin Luther wrote this carol, but that one line is enough to convince me otherwise.


----------



## kodos (Dec 23, 2012)

Stuart,
That line is not just sentimental, it is a falsehood. Which is the original point. That line actually does away with everything the Incarnation is all about - that God became a man just like us, yet without sin. If Jesus didn't cry, then he wasn't truly man. 

Zach,
I agree with you - this place is such a blessing! I am an EP guy only because of the PB, so my disagreement as you might expect goes deeper than just Christmas hymns but man made hymns of all kinds.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 23, 2012)

Zach said:


> multitude of the heavenly host sang praises



A minor point, perhaps, but were the angels singing? In Luke, the text has them "saying." 

I wonder if anyone were singing that evening.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 23, 2012)

Zach said:


> I agree with Elizabeth. What is remarkable is that even as an infant a _multitude_ of the heavenly host sang praises to the newborn King. Surely it is not sinful to remember that truth and sing, as our Congregation sang this morning: "Come and worship, come and worship, Worship Christ, the newborn King!"



Of course, it is true He is not a newborn king now...He is a Mighty King, King of Kings.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 23, 2012)

I am grateful that so many of you took my post seriously. Although I am an exclusive Psalmodist, and against the celebration of Christmas, I was not intending to argue for either one here. I was simply encouraging those who do sing uninspired hymns in worship, and anyone who (like me) doesn't mind singing them outside of worship, to examine them carefully, so as not to blaspheme.

Let's be careful to remember that many popular Christmas Carols come from the Roman Catholic Church, which worships icons of the Christ-child.

By the way, I had totally forgotten about the scene in Talladega Knights! I meant no reference to the film; although, as Rom noted, it can be rather instructive.

Again, lets examine whatever we sing line-for-line to find out if it's honoring to God. Does the song presume about angels singing, about animals bowing down, about Jesus not crying, or anything else? Then it is speaking lightly of the incarnation of our Lord. Does the song have a line like "Christ was born on Christmas day?" Then it is a plain lie. Does the song call us to worship Jesus as a baby, exchanging the Christ-child for the exalted King and Bethlehem for Mount Zion? Then it is idolatry.

Thank you all for your input.


----------



## Zach (Dec 23, 2012)

VictorBravo said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > multitude of the heavenly host sang praises
> ...



Fair point, Victor. Sorry for my mistake.



Romans922 said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Elizabeth. What is remarkable is that even as an infant a _multitude_ of the heavenly host sang praises to the newborn King. Surely it is not sinful to remember that truth and sing, as our Congregation sang this morning: "Come and worship, come and worship, Worship Christ, the newborn King!"
> ...



Christ was the Mighty King, King of Kings when he was the newborn King also. He is not the newborn king now, but when we remember the incarnation of Christ I don't see how we are forbidden in Scripture (unless one is an exclusive Psalmist) from singing of Christ as a baby.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 23, 2012)

Zach said:


> I don't see how we are forbidden in Scripture (unless one is an exclusive Psalmist) from singing of Christ as a baby.



It's not singing _of_ Christ as a baby (meaning, singing about his past infancy), but singing _to_ Christ as a baby (which he is not), and rendering worship to him as such, that is problematic. Note my original post.


----------



## newcreature (Dec 23, 2012)

I feel privileged to have happened upon this post. As one who is newly reforming I find I am guilty of many of the sins discussed here. These are things I also need to be teaching my children.


----------



## Zach (Dec 24, 2012)

TylerRay said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how we are forbidden in Scripture (unless one is an exclusive Psalmist) from singing of Christ as a baby.
> ...



I see your point, brother. I do not thing that it is idolatrous, after all, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but I understand from where you are coming.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 24, 2012)

It's true: many Christmas carols are sappy and, in practice, singing them becomes for many people a pursuit of sentimentality rather than worship of Christ. That's wrong.

It's true: many Christmas carols are filled with historical errors and sentimental assumptions about the nativity. That bugs me.

It's true: many people would rather worship a babyish Jesus than the fearsome warrior of Revelation. That's a problem.

But... Jesus _did_ become a baby, without ceasing in the least to be worthy of worship at that time. When you think about it, that's remarkable. It speaks to his greatness every bit as much as the sword-weilding warrior imagery does. To remember that event and express our worship today as if we were there does not necessarily cheapen our appreciation of him—not unless, in doing so, we choose to ignore other aspects of his whole person.


----------



## Rich Koster (Dec 24, 2012)

I am not yet in the EP camp. However, under Semper Reformanda, I would take an Exacto knife and cut a few hymns out of the Trinity Hymnal. This is my personal conviction, and I'm not going to start a movement to do so. My grinchy non-participation is enough to satisfy conscience, but I do let people know why when they ask why I don't participate. Tradition should never override sound doctrine, or inject sentimentality where scripture is silent.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 24, 2012)

Zach said:


> after all, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever



Not in his humanity. He's not a baby yesterday, today, and forever.


----------



## Zach (Dec 24, 2012)

TylerRay said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > after all, Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever
> ...



I agree. But I do not believe that we can show from scripture (unless one holds to exclusive Psalmody) that it is sinful to sing and remember the incarnation in singing to him who was a baby and is our King.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 25, 2012)

Zach said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > Zach said:
> ...



Again, there is no problem with singing about and remembering the incarnation. There is no problem singing to he who _was_ a baby and is our King. I do both of these regularly (Psalm 8 is a great example, as Hebrews 2:7 shows quite clearly). There IS a problem singing to Him as though he _is_ a baby, because he isn't one.


----------

