greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
To all those who wish to debate the season, I have a proposal.
Background: the fact of the matter is that both the abstention from Christmas and the celebration of Christmas are present in the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. There are reasons and arguments that can be made on both sides. Unfortunately, some from both sides seem to want to refuse to believe that people of the other persuasion even exist.
To those who celebrate Christmas, you really need to know that there is a sizable chunk of Reformed argumentation and tradition that argues against all holy days, Christmas included. George Gillespie cannot be written off as some kook-head! It is time to respect the entirety of the Reformed tradition. I say this as someone who has celebrated Christmas all my life. Treat the Puritan position with respect, even if some of those who argue for it do so in a less than winsome way. That is no reason for you not to be winsome. Those who hold the Puritan position do so for reasons that are based on biblical argumentation. They believe firmly that they hold to biblical truth, and they believe that we are violating the RPW. This is a serious matter, therefore, and reading the best motivations into those who differ would posit that they have our best interests at heart. Suppose we are wrong? They are trying to save us from idolatry, if we are!
To those who do not celebrate Christmas, it is easy to come off as curmudgeonly when you post stuff against Christmas every single year right at Christmas time, even if it is not your intent to be curmudgeonly, but rather to seek to reduce idolatry (which is the motivation I would much prefer to believe!). Some of you manage to avoid looking as a curmudgeon, but precious few, and you aren't doing any favors for your position by your timing. Whom do you expect to convince? For those who have done this sort of thing for years, and everyone already knows what your position is, what does it look like? It can be interpreted as virtue signalling, even if that is not your intent. However, my gentle suggestion would be to argue the points at some other time in the year, when the emotions of Christmas are not operative, and folk might be more responsive to the logical and biblical argumentation. I know that the answer could come back, "But this is when the violation occurs." From your perspective, I can see that. However, others, in good conscience, do not see things that way, and you are only making them upset, not convincing them. Is it not better to lure people to a position by being winsome about it? Don't forget that, even though you believe that Christmas is a pagan residue of the Roman Catholic Church, the people against whom you argue today are not Roman Catholics, and have far more in common with you than differences. Many of you know this already, of course, but sometimes it is not obvious to the other side that you do know this.
My proposal is for winsomeness on both sides. We both rejoice that Jesus came to earth to be fully incarnated as a full human being. We both rejoice that the cradle led to the cross and the empty tomb, and the good news that is for sinners.
I do not pretend to be unbiased in this discussion. Nor am I seeking for some mythical middle position, or some other such nonsense. It is a simple plea for Christian charity on both sides.
Background: the fact of the matter is that both the abstention from Christmas and the celebration of Christmas are present in the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. There are reasons and arguments that can be made on both sides. Unfortunately, some from both sides seem to want to refuse to believe that people of the other persuasion even exist.
To those who celebrate Christmas, you really need to know that there is a sizable chunk of Reformed argumentation and tradition that argues against all holy days, Christmas included. George Gillespie cannot be written off as some kook-head! It is time to respect the entirety of the Reformed tradition. I say this as someone who has celebrated Christmas all my life. Treat the Puritan position with respect, even if some of those who argue for it do so in a less than winsome way. That is no reason for you not to be winsome. Those who hold the Puritan position do so for reasons that are based on biblical argumentation. They believe firmly that they hold to biblical truth, and they believe that we are violating the RPW. This is a serious matter, therefore, and reading the best motivations into those who differ would posit that they have our best interests at heart. Suppose we are wrong? They are trying to save us from idolatry, if we are!
To those who do not celebrate Christmas, it is easy to come off as curmudgeonly when you post stuff against Christmas every single year right at Christmas time, even if it is not your intent to be curmudgeonly, but rather to seek to reduce idolatry (which is the motivation I would much prefer to believe!). Some of you manage to avoid looking as a curmudgeon, but precious few, and you aren't doing any favors for your position by your timing. Whom do you expect to convince? For those who have done this sort of thing for years, and everyone already knows what your position is, what does it look like? It can be interpreted as virtue signalling, even if that is not your intent. However, my gentle suggestion would be to argue the points at some other time in the year, when the emotions of Christmas are not operative, and folk might be more responsive to the logical and biblical argumentation. I know that the answer could come back, "But this is when the violation occurs." From your perspective, I can see that. However, others, in good conscience, do not see things that way, and you are only making them upset, not convincing them. Is it not better to lure people to a position by being winsome about it? Don't forget that, even though you believe that Christmas is a pagan residue of the Roman Catholic Church, the people against whom you argue today are not Roman Catholics, and have far more in common with you than differences. Many of you know this already, of course, but sometimes it is not obvious to the other side that you do know this.
My proposal is for winsomeness on both sides. We both rejoice that Jesus came to earth to be fully incarnated as a full human being. We both rejoice that the cradle led to the cross and the empty tomb, and the good news that is for sinners.
I do not pretend to be unbiased in this discussion. Nor am I seeking for some mythical middle position, or some other such nonsense. It is a simple plea for Christian charity on both sides.