Xmas is almost upon us again...you need to watch this...read this...

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[video=vimeo;54249633]https://vimeo.com/54249633[/video]

ePub Version at the Puritan Shop
Bah Humbug: How Christians Should Think About the Christmas Holiday - by C. Matthew McMahon | The Puritan Shop

Kindle Version
Bah Humbug: How Christians Should Think About the Christmas Holiday: C. Matthew McMahon: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

Print Version
Bah Humbug: How Christians Should Think About the Christmas Holiday by C. Matthew McMahon (Paperback)

 

[OPC'n]

lol i always annoy ppl when i write Xmas glad to see someone else writes it that way too! Merry Xmas!

 

[nick]

Looking forward to watching this when I get on a better connection. (SPRINT!)

Have a lot of questions about this topic.

 

[Peccavi]

I tend towards total rejection of the holiday. I believe that there is an appropriate celebration of Christmas, but I tend toward thinking rather negatively of it because of the way our culture celebrates it. Materialism and hedonism are great enemies of the Christian faith, and both of these tend to be not only practiced but encouraged around the holiday season. Black Friday is an example of how our culture makes holidays about the purchasing of material goods. Even the giving of gifts to others, what ought to be reflective of the love we were given by Christ, has become about finding a great deal and getting the perfect material thing to please someone you care about. If there were ever a time for a Christian to begin to question their whole-hearted acceptance of "free market enterprise" the holiday season is that time. This is not a socialist position I am crafting, but rather a support for a certain kind of removal from embracing that which the world embraces. The birth of Christ can and should be celebrated always, and not in a fashion that co-opts pagan superstitions, values, and pleasures.

All this to say: If we are, as Christians, to celebrate Christmas, then we ought to do so with great caution.

 

[J. Dean]

I tend towards total rejection of the holiday. I believe that there is an appropriate celebration of Christmas, but I tend toward thinking rather negatively of it because of the way our culture celebrates it. Materialism and hedonism are great enemies of the Christian faith, and both of these tend to be not only practiced but encouraged around the holiday season. Black Friday is an example of how our culture makes holidays about the purchasing of material goods. Even the giving of gifts to others, what ought to be reflective of the love we were given by Christ, has become about finding a great deal and getting the perfect material thing to please someone you care about. If there were ever a time for a Christian to begin to question their whole-hearted acceptance of "free market enterprise" the holiday season is that time. This is not a socialist position I am crafting, but rather a support for a certain kind of removal from embracing that which the world embraces. The birth of Christ can and should be celebrated always, and not in a fashion that co-opts pagan superstitions, values, and pleasures.

All this to say: If we are, as Christians, to celebrate Christmas, then we ought to do so with great caution.

Just because something is abused does not make it inherently wrong. People have abused Calvinism for many years, but I don't think anybody here would ditch Calvinism as a result of the mishandling of it by others.

We need to be VERY careful that we are not legalistically binding another's conscience on matters we feel strongly about in the process of doing what we think is right.

 

[MW]

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ." You might choose to remove all religious significance in the holiday and celebrate it irreligiously, but then you join with pagans in failing to honour a religious festival, which is sacrilege. The only possible option for those who maintain the regulative principle of worship is to abandon Christmas and raise a testimony against its practice by professing Christians and pagans alike. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry," 1 Corinthians 10:14. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," 1 John 5:21.

 

[gordo]

Good book so far. Very well put together. Bought it this morning and almost half way through it. Easy to read in a few nights or even one night if you want. Very informative.

It jumped out at me as my wife and co-workers call me 'Scrooge'. When I saw the Bah Humbug title I had to read it.

 

[Afterthought]

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ."

Interestingly enough, most of the people I know who celebrate the holiday will insist on this point: "You can't take Christ out of Christmas", so they say. At least it makes it easier for me to explain why I do not participate (Gillespie's "Monument of Idolatry" argument can take more effort to rehearse sometimes, I think)... I wonder though about a portion of your argument above: is it really sacrilege to not honor a religious festival that had no authority or right to be appointed or celebrated to begin with (would you show/explain why it is sacrilege in such a case?)? I mean, something seems "odd" about irreligiously celebrating such anyway, but is the "odd" thing really that it is sacrilege to do so?

 

[Peccavi]

As I said, there is an appropriate celebration of the holiday.

 

[DeniseM]

We need to be VERY careful that we are not legalistically binding another's conscience on matters we feel strongly about in the process of doing what we think is right.

Logically, it would seem that those who attempt to appoint a holy day, where God has not appointed a holy day, would be the ones in danger of binding men's consciences. Those who oppose the appointing of holy days, not appointed by God himself, are standing for the sovereignty of God. Where he has not appointed a day, there is no day appointed.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This video makes me want to watch Christmas Carol tonight.

I love Christmastime!

 

[Kevin]

Very happy to preach my first Advent sermon (of 2012) this Sunday, to the Glory of God.

 

[N. Eshelman]

When I was having my ordination exams here in Los Angeles, one of the presbyters asked me if I was planning on preaching Christmas and Easter sermons. I told him, "no." I was a bit hesitant, truthfully, because I was not sure where all the pastors and elders stood on the issue (it is still not at all the universal practice to have these types of sermons in the RPCNA).

He said that when he was a young pastor he would always preach a resurrection sermon on Christmas (the Lord's Day prior) and preach an incarnation sermon on Easter Sunday. He went on to "not recommend that."

LOL

 

[Rom]

Actually what makes the Christ-Mass particularly wrong is celebrating it as a Holy Day that those in your congregation are *required* to participate. That is binding one's conscience and is a reason that I will not attend a special Christmas service.

Many Churches have become in essence Pharisaical by setting aside the Word of God for the Traditions of Men and it is rather sad to see the cultural infestation of men's traditions in Christ's Church.

That said, I think you can appropriately treat this holiday as a cultural tradition in your own private homes if you want to decorate and give presents. But please, leave Christ out of it and remove that idolatrous Pelagian demi-god known as Santa.

I tend towards total rejection of the holiday. I believe that there is an appropriate celebration of Christmas, but I tend toward thinking rather negatively of it because of the way our culture celebrates it. Materialism and hedonism are great enemies of the Christian faith, and both of these tend to be not only practiced but encouraged around the holiday season. Black Friday is an example of how our culture makes holidays about the purchasing of material goods. Even the giving of gifts to others, what ought to be reflective of the love we were given by Christ, has become about finding a great deal and getting the perfect material thing to please someone you care about. If there were ever a time for a Christian to begin to question their whole-hearted acceptance of "free market enterprise" the holiday season is that time. This is not a socialist position I am crafting, but rather a support for a certain kind of removal from embracing that which the world embraces. The birth of Christ can and should be celebrated always, and not in a fashion that co-opts pagan superstitions, values, and pleasures.

All this to say: If we are, as Christians, to celebrate Christmas, then we ought to do so with great caution.

Just because something is abused does not make it inherently wrong. People have abused Calvinism for many years, but I don't think anybody here would ditch Calvinism as a result of the mishandling of it by others.

We need to be VERY careful that we are not legalistically binding another's conscience on matters we feel strongly about in the process of doing what we think is right.

 

[OPC'n]

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ." You might choose to remove all religious significance in the holiday and celebrate it irreligiously, but then you join with pagans in failing to honour a religious festival, which is sacrilege. The only possible option for those who maintain the regulative principle of worship is to abandon Christmas and raise a testimony against its practice by professing Christians and pagans alike. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry," 1 Corinthians 10:14. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," 1 John 5:21.

Are you talking about not having it in church? I don't think it should be in church since it has nothing to do with Christ. Therefore, not only does it go against the RPW, but it would be like teaching about New Years Day in church...has nothing to do with Scripture. However, like NYD I don't see anything wrong with celebrating it with friends and family.

 

[timmopussycat]

Christmas is an ecclesiastical holiday. Neither Christ nor Mass can be taken out of it. You might change the "Christ" to "X," but it still stands for "Christ." You might choose to remove all religious significance in the holiday and celebrate it irreligiously, but then you join with pagans in failing to honour a religious festival, which is sacrilege. The only possible option for those who maintain the regulative principle of worship is to abandon Christmas and raise a testimony against its practice by professing Christians and pagans alike. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry," 1 Corinthians 10:14. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols," 1 John 5:21.

Please do not misunderstand what follows as advocacy of the way the world celebrates the winter solstice under the name Christmas. That celebration I have long detested. But I wonder about a couple of problems in the way this particular objection is expressed.
1) Christmas may have originated as an ecclesiastical feast, but it is not just an ecclesiastical feast today but a secular holiday as well
2) On the name of the festival: as I understand it the term "mass" began to be applied to Christian meetings, including the feast of Christ's nativity, a few hundred years before the erring Catholic theology of transubstantiation was explicitly proclaimed under that name. The word "mass" apparently derived from "missa" which was a word used in the dismissals (benedictions / blessings) of those services, not the false "sacrament." Thus the name itself is not inherently problematical.
3) The case might argued that with the advent of transubstantiation, the word mass has changed its meaning in Catholic circles and therefore Christians ought to avoid using the term. The answer to that is possible to point out the older usage of the word to practicing or lapsed Roman Catholics when evangelizing them, and to realize that "mass" has no specifically religious content for the non-historically educated pagans from non-Catholic backgrounds.
4)There may be an equivocation in the original post on the term sacrilege. If the RPW is correct, and Scripture (either by direct text or by GNC deduction), does not allow for a special celebration of the birth of Christ, then failing to honour the resulting festival cannot possibly be sacrilege in the sense of "the violation of anything truly sacred," which is the type of sacrilege that Christians must not commit. But we often commit "sacrilege" in the other sense of "the violation of things that pagans erroneously regard to be sacred" (e.g.,when we eat cows we commit what for a Hindu is sacrilege) so we need at least a more refined justification of this objection.
5) On the question of participation in a secularly instituted holiday with religious overtones deriving from the true religion: Jesus was sufficiently engaged in the Feast of Dedication that he was walking at the site of the centre of the celebration and began to teach. Christ's action here would seem to indicate that the RPW cannot be proven to stretch so far as to deny all participation in such holidays.
6) The question of what form Christian participation should take in such holidays is an entirely separate question.

 

[OPC'n]

However, like NYD I don't see anything wrong with celebrating it with friends and family.

Howdy, Sarah. I think what the pastor may be intending is that "Christ Mass" was initially taken from a pagan religion and "Christianized" or co-opted in order to be a religious "holy day" converts to the RCC in these heathen lands. Ergo, its original intention -at least, in its introduction to the Church- was to be recognized religiously, so that all of its practices, even those things which aren't particularly religious, should be avoided by Christians during such a time, due to the idolatrous association.

oh ok. I'll still celebrate it though cuz it doesn't have that meaning for me. I guess it's like meat offered to idols....if it bothered a person they weren't to eat it and if it didn't bother another person they could.

 

[DeniseM]

If we celebrate the day, as a purely secular one, then basically we're left with a fat, fictitious, old man, who miraculously slides down the chimney(if you have one) to bring toys to kids that are *good*(whatever that means without a Christian definition) and leaves a lump of coal for those who are *bad*.....and then of course, there is the greed, materialism, gluttony, and idleness that quite often attend the long drawn out celebration, that it so festive, that it can't possibly be confined to a single calendar day, and takes up an entire *season*.

I really like what William Bradford had to say on the matter, when he was governor of Plymouth Plantation.

"On Christmas Day, 1621, Governor William Bradford encountered a group of people who were taking the day off from work:

"And herewith I shall end this year [1621]. Only I shall remember one passage more, rather of mirth then of waight. One ye day called Christmas-day, ye Govr [William Bradford] caled them out to worke, (as was used,) but ye most of this new-company excused them selves and said it wente against their consciences to work on yt day. So ye Govr tould them that if they made it mater of conscience, he would spare them till they were better informed. So he led-away ye rest and left them; but when they came home at noone from their worke, he found them in ye streete at play, openly; somepitching ye barr, & some at stoole-ball, and shuch like sports. So he went to them, and tooke away their implements, and tould them that was against his conscience, that they should play & others worke. If they made ye keeping of it mater of devotion, let them kepe their houses, but ther should be no gameing or revelling in ye streets. Since which time nothing hath been atempted that way, at least openly."
American Puritanism

The beginning of a new year is a fact, it is also a fact that we are an independent nation(4th of July), the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth and later having a harvest feast is a fact, we have indeed had many Presidents in this nation(Presidents' Day), it is a fact there a great deal of veterans in this nation that have served this country(Veterans' Day)....Christmas(however you look at it) is a fable. You really can't even call it a national 'holiday'. It is celebrated by people of many nations, and yet not celebrated by many people in our own nation.

 

[OPC'n]

If we celebrate the day, as a purely secular one, then basically we're left with a fat, fictitious, old man, who miraculously slides down the chimney(if you have one) to bring toys to kids that are *good*(whatever that means without a Christian definition) and leaves a lump of coal for those who are *bad*.....and then of course, there is the greed, materialism, gluttony, and idleness that quite often attend the long drawn out celebration, that it so festive, that it can't possibly be confined to a single calendar day, and takes up an entire *season*.

I really like what William Bradford had to say on the matter, when he was governor of Plymouth Plantation.

"On Christmas Day, 1621, Governor William Bradford encountered a group of people who were taking the day off from work:

"And herewith I shall end this year [1621]. Only I shall remember one passage more, rather of mirth then of waight. One ye day called Christmas-day, ye Govr [William Bradford] caled them out to worke, (as was used,) but ye most of this new-company excused them selves and said it wente against their consciences to work on yt day. So ye Govr tould them that if they made it mater of conscience, he would spare them till they were better informed. So he led-away ye rest and left them; but when they came home at noone from their worke, he found them in ye streete at play, openly; somepitching ye barr, & some at stoole-ball, and shuch like sports. So he went to them, and tooke away their implements, and tould them that was against his conscience, that they should play & others worke. If they made ye keeping of it mater of devotion, let them kepe their houses, but ther should be no gameing or revelling in ye streets. Since which time nothing hath been atempted that way, at least openly."
American Puritanism

The beginning of a new year is a fact, it is also a fact that we are an independent nation(4th of July), the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth and later having a harvest feast is a fact, we have indeed had many Presidents in this nation(Presidents' Day), it is a fact there a great deal of veterans in this nation that have served this country(Veterans' Day)....Christmas(however you look at it) is a fable. You really can't even call it a national 'holiday'. It is celebrated by people of many nations, and yet not celebrated by many people in our own nation.

I guess I'm not understanding your Biblical support here. Are you saying that as long as a holiday is a national holiday we can celebrate it and if it's not then we can't so sayth Scripture? Also, idk about other ppl, but I don't celebrate it as Santa giving me anything (never have). My family and I celebrate it this way: we hang xmas lights, put up a gorgeous tree, have a great meal, then open presents and enjoy each others company. It has everything to do with family and friends and nothing to do with Christ or Santa. We can talk about God on that day like we would any other day but that's just bc we are Christians and he's apart of our lives.

 

[DeniseM]

I guess I'm not understanding your Biblical support here. Are you saying that as long as a holiday is a national holiday we can celebrate it and if it's not then we can't so sayth Scripture? Also, idk about other ppl, but I don't celebrate it as Santa giving me anything (never have). My family and I celebrate it this way: we hang xmas lights, put up a gorgeous tree, have a great meal, then open presents and enjoy each others company. It has everything to do with family and friends and nothing to do with Christ or Santa. We can talk about God on that day like we would any other day but that's just bc we are Christians and he's apart of our lives.

Sorry for not being clear, I believe that the RPW negates us from making holy days at all. The Lord has graciously given us 52 Lord's Days a year in which to pause and reflect upon the entire miracle of the Gospel. When the church sets up a holy day, other than the Lord's Day, it takes away from the blessing of God's appointed day. What I was trying to say is that I don't see Christmas as falling into either category, religious or national. I do respect your desire to get together with family at this time of year and even bless one another with gifts, if you feel led to do so. I certainly wouldn't be an advocate of avoiding family gatherings at this time of year, just because some people abuse certain gatherings.
Blessings, Sarah, and sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[OPC'n]

I guess I'm not understanding your Biblical support here. Are you saying that as long as a holiday is a national holiday we can celebrate it and if it's not then we can't so sayth Scripture? Also, idk about other ppl, but I don't celebrate it as Santa giving me anything (never have). My family and I celebrate it this way: we hang xmas lights, put up a gorgeous tree, have a great meal, then open presents and enjoy each others company. It has everything to do with family and friends and nothing to do with Christ or Santa. We can talk about God on that day like we would any other day but that's just bc we are Christians and he's apart of our lives.

Sorry for not being clear, I believe that the RPW negates us from making holy days at all. The Lord has graciously given us 52 Lord's Days a year in which to pause and reflect upon the entire miracle of the Gospel. When the church sets up a holy day, other than the Lord's Day, it takes away from the blessing of God's appointed day. What I was trying to say is that I don't see Christmas as falling into either category, religious or national. I do respect your desire to get together with family at this time of year and even bless one another with gifts, if you feel led to do so. I certainly wouldn't be an advocate of avoiding family gatherings at this time of year, just because some people abuse certain gatherings.
Blessings, Sarah, and sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's fine I just couldn't put together what you said with the quote you put up bc of his spelling. So his quote was about not preaching xmas in church? Then I agree.

 

[DeniseM]

Well, actually, I think the purpose of his statement was that men ought not to use religious observances as an excuse to get a day off, while our brethren are laboring. Six day shalt thou labor....it wasn't the Sabbath, they should have been working with the rest of the settlers to finish the much needed extra housing.

 

[proregno]

Geneva, December 25, 1551.

The reformer John Calvin preached a sermon on the book of Micah. Great lessons can we draw from the words contained in this snippet from the sermon.

May the Lord reach hearts through these few words, and make us meditate, the light of Scripture, on this day, which many have idolized him.

". . . Now I see here today more people than I am accustomed to having at the sermon. Why is that? It is Christmas day. And who told you this? You poor beasts. That is a fitting euphemism for all of you who have come here today to honor Noel. Did you think you would be honoring God? Consider what sort of obedience to God your coming displays. In your mind, you are celebrating a holiday for God, or turning today into one. But so much for that. In truth, as you have often been admonished, it is good to set aside one day out of the year in which we are reminded of all the good that has occurred because of Christ's birth in the world, and in which we hear the story of his birth retold, which will be done Sunday. But if you think that Jesus Christ was born today, you are as crazed as wild beasts. For when you elevate one day alone for the purpose of worshipping God, you have just turned it into an idol. True, you insist that you have done so for the honor of God, but is more for the honor of the Devil. ... "

Source: Fabio Martins at the 'Purity of Worship' facebook page.

 

[MW]

is it really sacrilege to not honor a religious festival that had no authority or right to be appointed or celebrated to begin with

Absolutely, it is not sacrilege, but then the only option is to abandon the day. Relatively, however, where an individual implicitly accepts the authority to appoint the day by his own observance of it, he effectively commits sacrilege because the authority which appointed the day did so for a religious purpose.

 

[MW]

Are you talking about not having it in church?

I am talking about not having it at all. The body of Christ is "the church." When we "go to church" we are simply gathering together as "the church."

 

[MW]

But I wonder about a couple of problems in the way this particular objection is expressed.

OK, I am happy to sharpen the objection.

1) Christmas may have originated as an ecclesiastical feast, but it is not just an ecclesiastical feast today but a secular holiday as well

By saying "as well," it seems that you are agreeing the secular holiday does not exist on its own without the ecclesiastical. Looking at the way the civil authorities have set apart the day historically, they recognised it is an ecclesiastical day and gave their sanction to it as such; for those who did not want to celebrate it religiously there was the option to treat it as a secular holiday, but the day itself was set apart because it was an ecclesiastical holiday.

Thus the name itself is not inherently problematical.

That is correct. The point is, it requires a meeting. It does not require a degenerate Roman Catholic meeting. But it does require a meeting in order to celebrate the nativity of Christ. Hence the very term charges sacrilege against those who accept the validity of the day but fail to celebrate Christ's nativity.

4)There may be an equivocation in the original post on the term sacrilege.

We must distinguish between an absolute and a relative. It was either lawfully or unlawfully appointed. Relatively, if one accepts the day it is sacrilege to rob it of its religious significance.

Jesus was sufficiently engaged in the Feast of Dedication that he was walking at the site of the centre of the celebration and began to teach. Christ's action here would seem to indicate that the RPW cannot be proven to stretch so far as to deny all participation in such holidays.

This is a disputed point relative to a discussion of the RPW. I leave it for its own place. Suffice to say, preaching is warranted from its own institution and has nothing to do with days of man's appointment.

6) The question of what form Christian participation should take in such holidays is an entirely separate question.

Fair enough! My comments, of course, need to be read in the context of this thread, where a secular celebration has been advocated.

 

[gordo]

..........

 

[OPC'n]

Are you talking about not having it in church?

I am talking about not having it at all. The body of Christ is "the church." When we "go to church" we are simply gathering together as "the church."

No presents or honey baked ham for you! lol

 

[timmopussycat]

But I wonder about a couple of problems in the way this particular objection is expressed.

OK, I am happy to sharpen the objection.

1) Christmas may have originated as an ecclesiastical feast, but it is not just an ecclesiastical feast today but a secular holiday as well

By saying "as well," it seems that you are agreeing the secular holiday does not exist on its own without the ecclesiastical. Looking at the way the civil authorities have set apart the day historically, they recognised it is an ecclesiastical day and gave their sanction to it as such; for those who did not want to celebrate it religiously there was the option to treat it as a secular holiday, but the day itself was set apart because it was an ecclesiastical holiday.

What you say the secular authorities did with Christmas seems to be exactly what Judas Maccabeus and his colleagues did when they set up the feast of Dedication.

Thus the name itself is not inherently problematical.

That is correct. The point is, it requires a meeting. It does not require a degenerate Roman Catholic meeting. But it does require a meeting in order to celebrate the nativity of Christ. Hence the very term charges sacrilege against those who accept the validity of the day but fail to celebrate Christ's nativity.

Does the name in itself require a meeting? I don't think so. It simply records that the early Church thought it appropriate to meet on the day. Would the term itself charge sacrilege against those who accept the validity of the day but fail to celebrate Christ's nativity by meeting together? I think that would only be true if the churches required participation in Christmas services of their members as a fundamental doctrinal commitment. I've never seen that level of commitment asked for in any of the churches I've been in, even if one assumes that the day must be celebrated by a meeting. What is mandated by Scripture is the regular assembly of believers, not a particular ecclesiastical calendar. In fact most of the churches I've seen celebrate the Christmas season (usually focusing on one of the two Advents in the sermons) but do not usually have services on Christmas day itself. And if churches decide that the day should be so celebrated, a regular service with the sermon focusing on the significance of his coming (and the significance of the fact that we don't know the real day on which Christ entered the world) would be appropriate. But this really moves us to the question of how to celebrate the day if we are going to do so, which as I said, was a separate question.

4)There may be an equivocation in the original post on the term sacrilege.

We must distinguish between an absolute and a relative. It was either lawfully or unlawfully appointed. Relatively, if one accepts the day it is sacrilege to rob it of its religious significance.

One may deny the doctrine of transubstantiation without robbing the day of any religious significance that it may have. But how one marks that religious significance, if the day is accepted is the question I said was entirely separate.

Jesus was sufficiently engaged in the Feast of Dedication that he was walking at the site of the centre of the celebration and began to teach. Christ's action here would seem to indicate that the RPW cannot be proven to stretch so far as to deny all participation in such holidays.

This is a disputed point relative to a discussion of the RPW. I leave it for its own place. Suffice to say, preaching is warranted from its own institution and has nothing to do with days of man's appointment.

Whether or not the RPW extends to days of man's appointment is what creates the entire issue of the validity of celebrating Christmas or Resurrection Day or other notable events in the progress of God's kingdom. So this is the place for its discussion. For the RPW, if correct, may not be so applied that it makes Christ the author of sin. The fact is that Christ preached (which does have its own warrant) from the epicentre of a humanly set up feast oriented toward the true religion that lacked specific divine authorization. At a minimum his participation extended to his presence at, and his engaging in an element of true worship at the time and site of a humanly instituted event. That he preached there is enough to prove that one of the principle elements, if not the principle element of Christian worship, is not sinful when done in such a context. By parity of reasoning then it would seem that any or all of the elements of Christian worship would not be sinful when done in such a context. Those who think otherwise will need to demonstrate by direct scripture quotation or deductions that really are good and necessary consequences from other Scriptural statements. Given Christ's example, I can't see at the moment how such a defense could be mounted successfully although I have seen some attempts to mount one.

 

[Jackie Kaulitz]

A friend of mine shared this thought-provoking video with me: Christmas Video