# The Puritans and Christmas



## James Swan (Dec 23, 2019)

Greetings: I'm super-busy and not willing to take the time to research this out for myself (yes, I'm admitting my agenda: selfishness).

I just saw a report on a conservative news TV channel that the contemporary "war on Christmas" has roots that go back the original Puritans that settled in the new world. The report noted that the Puritans had fines against anyone found celebrating Christmas. Then the report said something like, after about 20 years of this, under British rule, Christmas was allowed to be celebrated. 

Would someone be willing to provide a brief explanation as to the truth or falsity of this? 

Thanks.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 23, 2019)

I don't know about when it was allowed, but New England famously ignored the day for a long time. I've been wanting to link to naphtali.com several times this morning for which see the American xmas article, but the cite is down and my tech is off somewhere for some reason this week.


James Swan said:


> Greetings: I'm super-busy and not willing to take the time to research this out for myself (yes, I'm admitting my agenda: selfishness).
> 
> I just saw a report on a conservative news TV channel that the contemporary "war on Christmas" has roots that go back the original Puritans that settled in the new world. The report noted that the Puritans had fines against anyone found celebrating Christmas. Then the report said something like, after about 20 years of this, under British rule, Christmas was allowed to be celebrated.
> 
> ...


----------



## James Swan (Dec 23, 2019)

Thanks.

When websites are down, I find the Internet Archive "Wayback Machine" useful in retrieving pages that either down or no longer exist. For instance. Maybe you mean this page?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 23, 2019)

Use all the time but for some reason never occurred to use on my own site. https://webcache.googleusercontent....vance-of-christmas/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


James Swan said:


> Thanks.
> 
> When websites are down, I find the Internet Archive "Wayback Machine" useful in retrieving pages that either down or no longer exist. For instance.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Jack K (Dec 23, 2019)

It's probably safe to say that the comment you saw is not really enlightening. The Puritans had different reasons for opposing Christmas than we find in today's secular "war on Christmas." The Puritans saw the day's observance as a part of Roman Catholic idolatry, and opposed it because they wanted to honor Christ. The secularists today oppose it because they want to keep Christ from being honored.

_Why_ one opposes the day matters a great deal. It is not fair to suggest the Puritans were like modern secularists.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## James Swan (Dec 24, 2019)

Jack K said:


> The Puritans saw the day's observance as a part of Roman Catholic idolatry, and opposed it because they wanted to honor Christ. The secularists today oppose it because they want to keep Christ from being honored._Why_ one opposes the day matters a great deal. It is not fair to suggest the Puritans were like modern secularists.



Would you (or anyone here) know of any "modern day" "Puritans" that do not celebrate Christmas because of the influx of secularism? I'm particularly interested in any Reformed sects that do not celebrate Christmas.

Thanks. JS


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 24, 2019)

James Swan said:


> Would you (or anyone here) know of any "modern day" "Puritans" that do not celebrate Christmas because of the influx of secularism? I'm particularly interested in any Reformed sects that do not celebrate Christmas.
> 
> Thanks. JS


Present! However, it's not that we abstain from celebrating because of secularism. It's because we're convinced from Scripture that only God can set a day apart as holy. For the church to do so without Divine sanction is idolatry.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## James Swan (Dec 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Present! However, it's not that we abstain from celebrating because of secularism. It's because we're convinced from Scripture that only God can set a day apart as holy. For the church to do so without Divine sanction is idolatry.



Hi Tyler, 

Is this belief only located in your present church, or is it denominational? 

Thanks, JS


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 24, 2019)

@James Swan, here are some excellent sermons on the subject.

Holy Days of God, Holy Days of Men by Todd Ruddell: Part I, Part II.

A Holy God and Holy Days by Rob McCurley.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 24, 2019)

James Swan said:


> Hi Tyler,
> 
> Is this belief only located in your present church, or is it denominational?
> 
> Thanks, JS


My entire denomination rejects the celebration of man-made holy days.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jack K (Dec 24, 2019)

James Swan said:


> Would you (or anyone here) know of any "modern day" "Puritans" that do not celebrate Christmas because of the influx of secularism? I'm particularly interested in any Reformed sects that do not celebrate Christmas.
> 
> Thanks. JS



When I was a kid, we were in Dutch Reformed circles where the issue was different from what we see here coming from the Presbyterian side of things. The continental Reformed tradition has been more accepting of church holidays, but concerned about secularization. Some of our Dutch Reformed friends would absolutely go to church on Christmas but would refuse to take part in anything that seemed to secularize the day: so no gifts, no tree, no holiday specials on TV, no fancy meals, no fruitcakes, no Christmas cards (unless they contained Scripture verses), no plastic reindeer in the front yard, certainly no talk of Santa Claus. The debates over what was allowable could get heated at times.

I don't recall knowing of any folks who refused to attend church on Christmas because the day had been secularized. There may have been some. But it was more common _to_ attend church proudly as a statement that the day should _not_ be secularized.

The fervor was similar to what I see in the Presbyterian debates over whether or not Christmas is appropriate in church—but it was all about Christmas outside of church.

I find the variety of positions and issues in the broader Reformed world to be an interesting phenomenon. This board has a lot of Presbyterian/Puritan influence (it's in our very name). I do love the Puritans. But as one whose spiritual roots are on the other side of the Channel, I also occasionally feel a bit discombobulated here. A few things—and Christmas is one of them—get approached from a very different angle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 24, 2019)

This is a limited list of some denominations that at least seem to have mostly rejected the 'Christian' aspects of Christmas. They reject all on varying degrees of severity, and this is all based on my own personal observations of members and churches from these denominations:

Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
Presbyterian Reformed Church
American Presbyterian Church
Westminster Presbyterian Church of the United States
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
Heritage Reformed Church
-
Now here is a list of churches I've had less interaction with its members but I assume feel similarly in general:

Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly
United Reformed Church of North America
Protestant Reformed Church

__

Let me point out once more, not every single member/church feels the same way about the holiday, but from my personal experience the rejection of celebrating Christmas within the church seems mainstream within the churches I mentioned. Celebrations within the home is a different story however.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 24, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> This is a limited list of some denominations that at least seem to have mostly rejected the 'Christian' aspects of Christmas. They reject all on varying degrees of severity, and this is all based on my own personal observations of members and churches from these denominations:
> 
> Orthodox Presbyterian Church
> Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
> ...


The HRC (like all traditional Dutch churches) observes a church calendar that includes Chrismas.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> The HRC (like all traditional Dutch churches) observes a church calendar that includes Chrismas.



True but their websites declares they highly discourage any celebration in the home, hence the inclusion. Also brother I forgot your church, the FCS(C)


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 24, 2019)

A little off topic, but does anyone know what the early Reformed Baptist position was on Christmas? I haven’t seen any writing about it before. I’m talking Baptists in the 1600’s.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 24, 2019)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> A little off topic, but does anyone know what the early Reformed Baptist position was on Christmas? I haven’t seen any writing about it before. I’m talking Baptists in the 1600’s.


They held the puritan view.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 24, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> United Reformed Church of North America



No, they're from the Dutch Reformed side of things. You shouldn't list them as being against the religious side of Christmas. They might discourage secular celebrations, as I mentioned the continentals are inclined to do, but they tend to favor church observance. They've backed off a bit from the old Church Order that _mandated_ Christmas services, but Christmas services are still mentioned. From the URCNA Church Order:

Article 37 – Corporate Worship and Special Services The Consistory shall call the congregation together for corporate worship twice on each Lord's Day. Special services may be called in observance of Christmas Day, Good Friday, Ascension Day, a day of prayer, the national Thanksgiving Day, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day, as well as in times of great distress or blessing. Attention should also be given to Easter and Pentecost on their respective Lord's Days.​

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 24, 2019)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> A little off topic, but does anyone know what the early Reformed Baptist position was on Christmas? I haven’t seen any writing about it before. I’m talking Baptists in the 1600’s.


For a more contemporary RB view of Christmas, Albert N. Martin's "Christmas and the Christian" series of sermons, which unsurprisingly morphed into a whole series on Christian liberty in general, is very good. His view is mine also, and I earnestly wish that more people who called themselves Reformed Baptists held it as well.


----------



## A.Joseph (Dec 24, 2019)

Jack K said:


> When I was a kid, we were in Dutch Reformed circles where the issue was different from what we see here coming from the Presbyterian side of things. The continental Reformed tradition has been more accepting of church holidays, but concerned about secularization. Some of our Dutch Reformed friends would absolutely go to church on Christmas but would refuse to take part in anything that seemed to secularize the day: so no gifts, no tree, no holiday specials on TV, no fancy meals, no fruitcakes, no Christmas cards (unless they contained Scripture verses), no plastic reindeer in the front yard, certainly no talk of Santa Claus. The debates over what was allowable could get heated at times.
> 
> I don't recall knowing of any folks who refused to attend church on Christmas because the day had been secularized. There may have been some. But it was more common _to_ attend church proudly as a statement that the day should _not_ be secularized.
> 
> ...


What you described is peculiar though, it was a statement that the day shouldn’t be secularized, but they don’t believe it to be a God-sanctioned official day of public worship (rightly so). The truth is they don’t want any day to be secularized. This is both noble and virtually impossible. The intent is good but I fear it could potentially be a fruit of faulty, man-centered doctrine. You can’t manufacture these things from the outside like cleaning the outer cup. I'm not sure what the balance should be. Obviously, we should always keep our hearts and minds fixed on the Lord and live accordingly as our regenerated hearts are inclined and moved by the Holy Spirit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L. (Dec 24, 2019)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> A little off topic, but does anyone know what the early Reformed Baptist position was on Christmas? I haven’t seen any writing about it before. I’m talking Baptists in the 1600’s.



A much later era than what you are interested in, but here is an article that provides a very interesting history of Southern Baptists and how their view of Christmas has changed since the mid-1800s. A thought provoking read if interested.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 24, 2019)

B.L. McDonald said:


> A much later era than what you are interested in, but here is an article that provides a very interesting history of Southern Baptists and how their view of Christmas has changed since the mid-1800s. A thought provoking read if interested.


Interesting. Thank you.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 24, 2019)

I tried to pick the best fit among the many recent threads on this topic
for a thought I had today. As I was thinking about these discussions I was struck that Christ’s direction to the gathered Church is specifically to remember his _death_, and show it forth, until he comes. The church isn’t commanded to perform any remembrance of his incarnation, or the resurrection for that matter. And so it seems to me the church should tremble to be found doing so.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 24, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I tried to pick the best fit among the many recent threads on this topic
> for a thought I had today. As I was thinking about these discussions I was struck that Christ’s direction to the gathered Church is specifically to remember his _death_, and show it forth, until he comes. The church isn’t commanded to perform any remembrance of his incarnation, or the resurrection for that matter. And so it seems to me the church should tremble to be found doing so.


I’m not arguing in favour of anything when I say this, but by that logic, a Good Friday service is the _creme de la creme_.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 24, 2019)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I’m not arguing in favour of anything when I say this, but by that logic, a Good Friday service is the _creme de la creme_.


Well, not sure about all my logic p’s and q’s per se, but the instituted remembrance and showing forth of the Lord’s death is, of course, the Lord’s supper. Not a whole stated meeting/worship service.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 25, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Well, not sure about all my logic p’s and q’s per se, but the instituted remembrance and showing forth of the Lord’s death is, of course, the Lord’s supper. Not a whole stated meeting/worship service.


Ah, of course.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Dec 25, 2019)

Jack K said:


> Article 37 – Corporate Worship and Special Services The Consistory shall call the congregation together for corporate worship twice on each Lord's Day. Special services may be called in observance of Christmas Day, Good Friday, Ascension Day, a day of prayer, the national Thanksgiving Day, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day, as well as in times of great distress or blessing. Attention should also be given to Easter and Pentecost on their respective Lord's Days.​



So I take it if they call the people are under duty to attend?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Relztrah (Dec 25, 2019)

Jack K said:


> Some of our Dutch Reformed friends would absolutely go to church on Christmas but would refuse to take part in anything that seemed to secularize the day: so no gifts, no tree, no holiday specials on TV, no fancy meals, no fruitcakes, no Christmas cards (unless they contained Scripture verses), no plastic reindeer in the front yard, certainly no talk of Santa Claus.


Sign me up!


----------



## Poimen (Dec 25, 2019)

earl40 said:


> So I take it if they call the people are under duty to attend?



Strictly speaking there would be no requirement for the laity, but there is a cultural obligation and expectation that one would attend. I do know of one URC elder who does not attend such services but the minister would have no choice in the matter.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 25, 2019)

Poimen said:


> Strictly speaking there would be no requirement for the laity, but there is a cultural obligation and expectation that one would attend. I do know of one URC elder who does not attend such services but the minister would have no choice in the matter.


Daniel, do you know if there is a history in those first instituting the four evangelical feasts on the continent of doing so only for policy and order as the saying goes or was it common to use the Anglican defense from Esther and Purim to defend the church having actual authority to institute the keeping of these as some one noted here or another thread?


----------



## earl40 (Dec 25, 2019)

Poimen said:


> Strictly speaking there would be no requirement for the laity, but there is a cultural obligation and expectation that one would attend. I do know of one URC elder who does not attend such services but the minister would have no choice in the matter.



So the expectation, or duty, comes from the culture? Also a "call" to worship I believe places an obligation on the laity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poimen (Dec 25, 2019)

earl40 said:


> So the expectation, or duty, comes from the culture? Also a "call" to worship I believe places an obligation on the laity.



The Church Order simply does not require attendance at the feast days. There may be a tacit obligation, but not one which would require church discipline if ignored.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 25, 2019)

Poimen said:


> The Church Order simply does not require attendance at the feast days. There may be a tacit obligation, but not one which would require church discipline if ignored.



A "tacit" obligation is still a duty...so says the man married to a girl named Tina.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 25, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Daniel, do you know if there is a history in those first instituting the four evangelical feasts on the continent of doing so only for policy and order as the saying goes or was it common to use the Anglican defense from Esther and Purim to defend the church having actual authority to institute the keeping of these as some one noted here or another thread?



No, I don't. From my understanding of the time, there were two parties on this matter from the earliest days of the church and the pro-feast day lobby eventually won the day through the hand of the magistrate. That is why it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about a "Continental tradition" when the church did not, and in some cases, could not, speak univocally without a kind of Erastian interference. 

For what it is worth, I looked at the notes from the 17th Dort Annotations and they do not address the matter of feast days in Esther 9&10.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 25, 2019)

earl40 said:


> A "tacit" obligation is still a duty...so says the man married to a girl named Tina.



Fair enough. Nevertheless I am glad they changed the Church Order from "shall" to "may."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 25, 2019)

Poimen said:


> No, I don't. From my understanding of the time, there were two parties on this matter from the earliest days of the church and the pro-feast day lobby eventually won the day through the hand of the magistrate. That is why it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about a "Continental tradition" when the church did not, and in some cases, could not, speak univocally without a kind of Erastian interference.
> 
> For what it is worth, I looked at the notes from the 17th Dort Annotations and they do not address the matter of feast days in Esther 9&10.


So basically, the Continental Reformed had their Anglican branch w.r.t. such things. That's going to make it pretty hard to do a parallel reading like Lane suggested on his recommendation thead. Or easy; Gillespie repeats the Anglican arguments. @greenbaggins Good to see that didn't get into the Dutch Annotations (I assume in Dutch as well as in puritan English!).


----------



## Poimen (Dec 25, 2019)

@NaphtaliPress 

Source:H. Bouwman "Gereformeerd Kerkrecht" (translated from the Dutch by Google)
http://kerkrecht.nl/node/2734

"Also in the Netherlands the church leaders initially tried to abolish all the holidays. The synod of 1574 determined that one would be satisfied with Sunday alone, and that on the Sunday before Christmas Day the birth of Christ would be dealt with, but it allowed the servants on Easter and Pentecost. the history of the resurrection and mission of the Holy Spirit would preach. But because some other feast days were maintained by authority of the government, the synod of 1578 allowed preaching on the second feast days, as well as on New Year's Day and Ascension Day, to prevent idleness and debauchery. But the churches would try to abolish the holidays as much as possible apart from 'the Christday.' The synod of Middelburg (1581, Art. 50) also included the Ascension Day among the obligatory holidays. But the synod of 1586 in The Hague limited the recognized holidays only to Sunday, Christmas Day, Passover and Pentecost. But in places where - by order of the government - more feast days in memory of the mercies of Christ, such as those of the circumcision of Christ and the Ascension Day, were held, the preachers had to preach "the membership of the people in a holy and useful service change." The situation was thus at the beginning of the 17th century such that Christmas Day, Passover and Pentecost were generally maintained for the following days, but there was a difference over the circumcision day of Christ or the New Year's Day and the Ascension Day. In some places in Utrecht and in South Holland they began to also celebrate Good Friday, but there was serious opposition to this. And then when several provinces put a question to the General Synod of Dordrecht (1618/19) to come to unanimous observance of the feast days, the synod decided, the celebration of New Year's Day or the day of the circumcision of Christ and the Ascension Day, which was already maintained in most Dutch cities and provinces, to sanction, especially to meet the wishes of the government. The churches were in principle against it, but the government was there for, not only to satisfy the people, but also because, according to the old custom, she then held vacation days. And because on those days the people were at risk of going into idleness or unrestrained frenzy, the ecclesiastics thought it better to tolerate these days as religious holidays, and to accustom the people to preaching on those days. Yet the voice of the opposition continued to rise. Voetius declares that the holidays have been tolerated by the churches, but have not been approved in any way. And it took a long time before people in all provinces had conformed to the decision of the Dordrecht synod. In some places the Circumcision Festival, such as in Dordrecht, was introduced very late, while in Amsterdam and in Zeeland it was not celebrated at all."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 25, 2019)

Voetius says the holy days were retained because of the magistrates and "stubborn people." 


Poimen said:


> @NaphtaliPress
> 
> Source:H. Bouwman "Gereformeerd Kerkrecht" (translated from the Dutch by Google)
> http://kerkrecht.nl/node/2734
> ...


----------



## Poimen (Dec 25, 2019)

NaphtaliPress said:


> So basically, the Continental Reformed had their Anglican branch w.r.t. such things. That's going to make it pretty hard to do a parallel reading like Lane suggested on his recommendation thead. Or easy; Gillespie repeats the Anglican arguments. @greenbaggins Good to see that didn't get into the Dutch Annotations (I assume in Dutch as well as in puritan English!).



It would seem so. I have the read the same analysis from those indifferent to, opposed to and supportive of holy days.


----------



## A.Joseph (Dec 25, 2019)

“to prevent idleness and debauchery.”
“And because on those days the people were at risk of going into idleness or unrestrained frenzy”

Strange trend here of church as almost a type of behavior modification. So the government encouraged the church to help prevent unrestrained sin? I thought we meet to worship and reflect? I know times were different but seems like strange motivations.


----------

