Celebrating Christmas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jer 10:1 Hear the word that the LORD speaks to you, O house of Israel.
Jer 10:2 Thus says the LORD: "Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them,
Jer 10:3 for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman.
Jer 10:4 They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move.
Jer 10:5 Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good."
Jer 10:6 There is none like you, O LORD; you are great, and your name is great in might.
 
the Jeremiah passage has nothing to do with Christmas Trees (which originated with Luther did they not?). It is a passage about cutting down a tree to craft an idol out of it to set up in your home an worship. The only way this does apply to Christmas trees is if people are indeed making them idols, giving them names, setting up an altar around them, and worshipping them and sacrificing to them in their living rooms.

A Christmas tree is not a false god carved from a tree.

Phillip
 
Originally posted by pastorway
the Jeremiah passage has nothing to do with Christmas Trees (which originated with Luther did they not?). It is a passage about cutting down a tree to craft an idol out of it to set up in your home an worship. The only way this does apply to Christmas trees is if people are indeed making them idols, giving them names, setting up an altar around them, and worshipping them and sacrificing to them in their living rooms.

A Christmas tree is not a false god carved from a tree.

Phillip

I agree with you. But it is foolish for a number of reasons to then go to the leap of having them in the worship of God.

But hey, if we like the way they look, and make us feel mall gushy and nice inside, why shouldn't we? After all, Uzzah was only trying to help wasn't he?
 
:ditto: Just like the Israelites at Sinai with the calf (which was Yahweh) and Cain with his vegetation offering...but hey, they were all well-intentioned toward God, so...
 
The point is, the holiday can be in many ways an idol in some peoples hearts, especially the children. Face it, Christmas is a pagan holiday and we should avoid it. In the least to protect our children from sinning.

Mat 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
 
Originally posted by Goosha
As I was worshipping Christ this past sabbath, I thought of this discussion board as I noticed the several large Christmas trees up against the wall behind the pulpit of our church. I am thinking of taking a picture of it and making it my avatar for the sake of this discussion:p

Oh great, Jayson. You told them about the Christmas trees? Now you've done it. St Paul's will never be vindicated after this atrocity. ;)
 
With all due respect to everyone whom is involved with this discussion; Is not our goal to reform? How far are we willing to compromise? Would the reformers of the past encourage us along these lines? Instead of taking such a relativistic attitude, let us endeavor to weed out items that are in now way scriptural, Christian or profitable. Surely, we do not extend our same gratitude when we speak of Halloween. They are not that much different.
 
Reform is good and necessary, but the areas that a person thinks need to be reformed will depend on the perspective he is coming from. If you side with the Puritans, then of course you think the views that support Christmas need to be weeded out. But what if you don't side with them? The Reformed tradition is bigger than the Puritans.
 
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Reform is good and necessary, but the areas that a person thinks need to be reformed will depend on the perspective he is coming from. If you side with the Puritans, then of course you think the views that support Christmas need to be weeded out. But what if you don't side with them? The Reformed tradition is bigger than the Puritans.

Craig,
Is your thinking contemporary? Were the men of the past more faithful than us? I would say they were. We do not see anywhere in scripture where men took part in secular holidays. There are no examples even when considering the gentiles who were grafted into the faith. We do not see them partaking of holidays from their past lives, do we? All I am saying, is that we need to draw some lines. Generations from now will in fact be worshipping the tree.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Generations from now will in fact be worshipping the tree.

Furthermore, even if one does not personally intend to "worship" it or the holiday in general, inclusion of it in a church service inevitably does at least one of two things: 1) Associates it with worship, or 2) Makes the church service something other than worship.

Scott, just for clarification, some of your recent comments here seem to imply that you are either against or at least leaning against acknowledging the holiday at all, even on one's own in a secular fashion, whereas early in the thread you said you had no problem with it as long as Christ was kept out of it. Is that still what you're holding?
 
Chris,
Essentially, yes. My wife is enamored by it; the tree and the holiday itself. If it was up to me, out it would go. I'm praying that she will eventually be convicted.

[Edited on 11-29-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Originally posted by Goosha
As I was worshipping Christ this past sabbath, I thought of this discussion board as I noticed the several large Christmas trees up against the wall behind the pulpit of our church. I am thinking of taking a picture of it and making it my avatar for the sake of this discussion:p

Oh great, Jayson. You told them about the Christmas trees? Now you've done it. St Paul's will never be vindicated after this atrocity. ;)

They were already suspect. :lol:
 
:barfy:

Wow. I really don't think its very loving to heap mean sarcasm on people no matter what theological or practical position they may have. The whole point of dialoging like this should be to build and encourage, or correct and redirect. I'm not 100% against satire, but I think there is a lot of justification being used for its excesses.
 
I probably shouldn't bother posting as everything has been discussed...in fact, I will say nothing new:

To those who say Christmas shouldn't be part of the Ecclessia...I agree, in part. No ornaments, no manger scene, no Christmas trees. However, I find the Incarnation so wonderful, that preaching on it around Christmas time would be very beneficial...no one preaches in a cultural vacuum. How many of us celebrated Reformation Day? How many had a Sunday school, or, egads, a sermon touch upon the Reformation on Oct 31? If we can for this unofficial holiday, why not Christmas?

In regards to celebrating outside of worship, by actually acknowledging the holiday, it should be left to conscience as each man may consider it worthwhile or not worthwhile to regard as "holy".
 
Originally posted by Ianterrell
:barfy:

Wow. I really don't think its very loving to heap mean sarcasm on people no matter what theological or practical position they may have. The whole point of dialoging like this should be to build and encourage, or correct and redirect. I'm not 100% against satire, but I think there is a lot of justification being used for its excesses.

"...a word spoken in due season, how good is it!" (Prov. 15.23)
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Reform is good and necessary, but the areas that a person thinks need to be reformed will depend on the perspective he is coming from. If you side with the Puritans, then of course you think the views that support Christmas need to be weeded out. But what if you don't side with them? The Reformed tradition is bigger than the Puritans.

Craig,
Is your thinking contemporary? Were the men of the past more faithful than us? I would say they were. We do not see anywhere in scripture where men took part in secular holidays. There are no examples even when considering the gentiles who were grafted into the faith. We do not see them partaking of holidays from their past lives, do we? All I am saying, is that we need to draw some lines. Generations from now will in fact be worshipping the tree.

Scott,

There are some assumptions there that I have already dealt with, I think, and I'm not going to launch into my case for celebrating Christmas again. But I will be up front and just say that, yes, in part my thinking is contemporary, but in part it is not. I, and at least one other person, have pointed to Turretin, Bullinger (2nd Helvetic Confession), Dordt, and even Calvin himself (sorry, but nobody demonstrated that Calvin was against the celebration of Christmas). These men felt that churches were at liberty to celebrate the ecclesiastical holidays, and I agree with them. Granted, they come from a different time period than we do today and they were not dealing with all the same issues we do today concerning holidays, but the fundamental view is the same: we have liberty. But is anybody going to say that these men are not Reformed in their worship?

And I will forever oppose this idea that some people in this board seem to have that the Puritans acheived some kind of theological enlightenment. The Puritans do not represent the whole of Reformed theology. Yet I was criticized for referring to the Continental Reformers because they represent the early stages of Reformed theology (which I guess is supposed to automatically mean that the Puritans are more trustworthy than the Continental Reformers since they came later). Calvin himself differed with the Puritans on things, and I think it is just naive to think that if somebody like Gillespie could have gone back in time and sat down with Calvin that he would have "straightened him out" on such issues as the Sabbath and holidays. Calvin might have been the one straightening out Gillespie. Yes, the Puritans are good. In fact, one profits richly from reading them. But as Richard Pratt would say, they ain't all that. The Puritans had their own issues in their day that influenced the way they looked at theological issues (Can anyone seriously deny the profound impact that the oppression by the Church of England had on the Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians?).

I agree with you that lines should be drawn. I also agree with you that Reform is good and necessary. But to say that this means we should throw out Christmas trees altogether is just arbitrary. Why draw the line at the Christmas tree? Let's throw out church buildings too. One day, people will be worshipping them too (In fact, they already do... how often have you heard somebody say, "You shouldn't do that in a church!" ).

Also, I second Paul's post.
 
It is quite possible Paul that your son idolizes the tree and that which it brings. By you encouraging it, are you attributing to the possibility of sin? I don't think there are any days in the calendar that your child compares with Christmas. There are probably tv shows he loves also, not in the same way he see's the tree, what it represents and what it brings though.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here, mind you. As stated, follow your conscinece and convictions. My complaint is the relativistic and complacent attitudes. Paul you say, all the days of the week are named after pagan gods; we should stop using them. I appreciate your contrast although this may not be as practical as tossin' the tree. The are many believers whom watch their favorite football teams on the Sabbath. This is sin and practically, this can be easily hedged out of one's life; possible easier that taking away the television set altogether or than changing the day of the week. We should start small.

1 Cor 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1 Cor 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:


[Edited on 11-30-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Actually, I'm utterly amazed. The people who invoke the reformation are guilty of one of the main things the reformation stood against: binding others conscious with rules that are not in the Bible. You can make yourself feel better because you cite some reformers who agree with you, pick out a passage and then try to put it on a procrustian bed so it says what you want it to and tell others they violate the RP.


If people want me to I'll rack my brain with different practices that have "bad" origens. Let's start with the "Olympics." Games designed for emperor worship. Don't watch those anymore. I'm tired of the inconsistancyies. All this reminds me of is someone wanting to be different than the rest of the kids and be "cool" in that he doesn't follow the crowd. I bet you guys were the ones wearing leather jackets and dying your hair when you were in highschool, huh?

Talk about majoring on the minors, SHEESH! When was the last time a ripping of pagan apologetics practices went 9 pages? When was the last time a discussion about God's holiness went 9 pages? When was the last time a discussion of God's covenant faithfulness went 9 pages?

(Feeling myself getting sucked back in...)

Paul,

The subject of Christ-mass celebration (whether in a worship service or outside the worship service) is about the worship of God and whether it is a help or a hindrance to true worship according to Biblical principles. Although there are many other issues out there to be discussed, this happens to be a major issue at this time of year. Obviously, people on this board on all sides are passionate about it. Is that a bad thing? I think we ought to be greatly concerned with worship. There is no higher calling. For you, Christ-mass is a matter of Christian liberty which you feel is being impinged. For others, it is idolatry which ought to be resisted by Christians. You can dismiss the Biblical and Reformation arguments all you like, but they do exist, they have merit and certainly Christ-mass celebration along with all the other dredges of Popery were historically major targets of the Reformation. It says something that this thread has lasted so long. Worship is a matter of great importance and you may not see Christ-mass in that light, but others do. Not everything on this thread has been edifying to read, but a lot of people have certainly given the arguments on all sides much thought and consideration, and what's wrong with that, I'd like to know. Yes, we can talk about consistency and the Olympics and football and all sorts of things, but this is a Christ-mass thread and nobody is forcing you to keep posting. You mentioned that you post sarcastically in order to break up the monotony. Well, if it is monotonous to you, feel free to post elsewhere. For people who are concerned about matters of worship, this thread has much to offer.

(Exit stage left...)
 
...and for thos of us who believe that it is only concerned with worship as much as is any other extra-church activity unless made to be more by people, :banghead: comes to mind at times. How does the fact that much of the secular world associates it with pagan worship and treat it as a "holy day" make it inevitably so for all of us any more than some people's elevation of sports or sex or alcohol to a level of worship makes it inevitably so for all of us? As Paul said, the inconsistency gets annoying. Why the holidays? Why not the Olympics? Why not sex? Why not music? All of those things have repeatedly been elevated to a place of worship by unregenerate pagans, and yet we have no problem holding that those things need not be worship for us if we do not make them so. But when it comes to holidays for some reason, all of a sudden some treat it as if we inevitably have to make it what many unregenerate in the world make it.
 
In all due respect, debate is wonderful but there comes a point where the debate gets montrously bloated by an attempt to apply the infinitisimal filter of the RWP. Sometimes it seems that if a turn to the right or the left someone yells it's 'offering strange fire'.

Paul doesn't need me to defend him but I don't believe he's rediculing the debate, just the absurd proportions that it takes on after 10 pages of talmudic dissection.

:2cents:
 
Originally posted by Paul manata

Talk about majoring on the minors, SHEESH! When was the last time a ripping of pagan apologetics practices went 9 pages? When was the last time a discussion about God's holiness went 9 pages? When was the last time a discussion of God's covenant faithfulness went 9 pages?

Paul while I understand your point, and while I agree with you about binding the conscience of men outside of worship, please consider two last things:

1. Whenever we introduce anything in worship, it is the introducers who bind the consciences of men. That is why the RPW of WCF 21 follows immediately and logically from WCF 20.

2. Consider that one of only a couple of threads to exceed this one in length was the one on theonomy. I understand your frustration, but see with me the greater frustration of those theonomists like Bahnsen, et al who cry "don't bind me" on the 2nd (and often 4th) commandments, yet tell me I have to follow every last aspect of the civil law. That is maddeningly frustrating. When you have this thread get you down, go read the "Theonomy: What is it?" thread, and see the tables turned.

Respectfully and lovingly,
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
I'll only adress 2. We don't say that. We say it should be upheld but your understanding and application of it is wrong. Now I know we will debate that, but the point is I'm not saying that 2c or 4c is an issue of liberty. I would say that there are areas where some could apply it and take it out of its context, thus binding the conscious. There are people, you know, who think that you cannot have images of birds or mountains or *any* created thing because it violates 2c. I'm sure you would say that they applied it wrong.

And I would say the EXACT same thing with respect to the civil law. The only difference is that for theonomists, the civil law issue is more important than the 2nd/4th issue. Thus the emphasis.

My point is that it is a fallacy to say that something is wrong because people get worked up over it. the last time I looked, very few (if any) churches were divided/imploded over Christmas. But that happens all the time with theonomy. There are whole Presbyteries where men do not speak to each other over the issue of theonomy.
 
(Picking my way carefully through the debris left by the grenade that I tossed into the room...)

This debate over Christ-mass has been conducted on different levels by different parties. Some have argued in favor of the right of individual Christians and churches to declare holy days. Some have argued or advocated for Christ-mass trees, candles, and other paraphenalia in worship services. Some have argued for the liberty celebrate Christ-mass as long as Christ is kept out of it. Regarding this last point, here is how the debate between Paul and I started:

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by Paul manata
So let me get this straight? You guys are just saying a Church shouldn;t celebrate it, but it's not a problem for families and yourself to celebrate it outside of church? Or, a Christian shouldn't celebrate it at all?

My view is that it should not be celebrated by Christians at all, but especially not in the church.

I emphasized that my primary disagreement with Christ-mass celebration has to do with its violation of the Second Commandment and the Regulative Principle of Worship. On a secondary level, I opposed Christ-mass celebration for a variety of reasons which are dependent upon the specific practices that are on the table, so to speak.

I object to the glorification of Santa Claus for reasons that are more significant (and spelled out previously) than my objection to candy canes. If a general answer is asked, a general answer is given. However, I have tried to address practices which vary widely with as much attention to detail as possible. I have asked people to clarify what they mean by secular observance of Christ-mass and the responses have been either sarcastic, incomplete or non-existent. That has made the discussion more difficult than it needs to be. It is my general contention (as I have stated often before) that all "celebration" (including those things which are normally indifferent such as gift-giving, having an evergreen tree, etc.) and particularly that which is done "religiously" to observe December 25 as a day apart from others is inherently wrapped up in the religious appointment of the day to the church calendar by the Pope. In fact, I have challenged some to try to observe their secular customs on a different day to prove that they are not yoked to the Roman Catholic holiday and no one has taken me up on the challenge. To me, this is an illustration of the bondage of the holiday. The Pope has decreed this day to celebrate, so as a Protestant I'll celebrate it not in the church but outside the church, yet on the day appointed by the Pope and no other day. I ask, what is the point of the Christ-mass tree or the gift-giving or the stockings or the special feast tied to this one day? I hear different answers in response from different sources: it's a fun custom, it reminds me that God is the giver of all good gifts, it reminds me that Jesus is the root and we are the branches. If we are really honest, all the secular customs are not really secular at all. Forgetting their pagan origin for a moment (just for a moment), if everything that we do is religious, and it is (keeping in mind, as I do, the difference between set times of worship and all of life), then I point to the principle that says "the unexamined life is not worth living" (I know, the quote comes from an extra-Biblical source, but I find it consistent with the Biblical principle of doing all things to the glory of God). Why do it? Because I can (ok, but why?), because it's fun, because it points me closer to God - these reasons are not good enough to justify special observance of a day that the Pope says is Jesus' birthday. I am not here to judge others, bind another's conscience or take joy out of anyone's family time. Christian liberty says I can eat a turkey on December 25 if I want to without it being tied to celebration of Christ-mass; when I do it to specifically to celebrate Christ-mass, I am shifting my justification from private matters of conscience to honoring a day because it is a "holy" day on the church calendar. Santa Claus is an abomination on any level and is not a matter of Christian liberty. The Christ-mass tree is not wrong only when people bow down and worship it directly; it is wrong because people say it points them to Christ (in a way that is different than just observing nature at any time of the year). If the tree is in the house in March because someone likes the scent, that's something completely (in)different. There is a whole litany of "secular" customs that can be scrutinzed and I have attempted to do so partially because I think it's a good thing to question our customs and see if we have a good reason for the things that we do or whether we are just blindly following the crowd. I have no desire to critique things indifferent; I have a desire to critique things that are yoked to false worship or hinder true worship.

The subject of consistency has been raised and I can address that but I would point out that inconsistency in the messenger's practice is not a sufficient reason to reject the message. I have posted previously my thoughts on the Olympics and music in different threads or forums which are devoted to those subjects. I am strongly critical of the pagan aspects of the Olympics and if one is forced to condone or participate in pagan rituals to be a part of the Olympics, I say that one should abstain. To the extent that false worship is involved in the Olympics, I say it should be condemned, not approved; to the extent that commercialism is involved, I have separate objections; to the extent that women and skimpy clothing is involved, I have further objections; to the extent that Sabbath-breaking is involved, I point to Eric Liddell as a great example; to the extent that it's just about healthy competition, I'm all for it. Music is a broad subject so I don't know what the specific "consistency" argument has to say there. The fact remains, this is a Christ-mass thread and those issues can be discussed in more detail elsewhere (as in some cases I already have).

I view Christ-mass as more than a potential idol; I view it as fundamentally religious (hence, the term holiday) and therefore, not really about Christian liberty but about religious worship, and I hold it to the standard of the Second Commandment. That is the basis of my argument, and why I view both religious and "secular" observance of the day as I do.

In the "spirit" of charity, I would like to add that I would be delighted to join with Paul and Bob and others in sharing a beer any day of the year, even December 25 (if they would have me). I know that we have so much in common as brothers in Christ despite our disagreements over this holiday. That's my Olympic-style olive branch.

Peace.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
In the "spirit" of charity, I would like to add that I would be delighted to join with Paul and Bob and others in sharing a beer any day of the year, even December 25 (if they would have me).

I would! As long as you will drink a kiltlifter with me. And the bottle has a green kilt in the spirit of evergreens!:lol: So, you could kindof "cheat."

Heh, heh, cool! :lol:

Cheers, prost and sante, brother! (where's the "bottoms up!" emoticon?)

:detective:
 
Originally posted by luvroftheWord
So are we gonna keep this thread going to try to set another Puritanboard "longest thread" record? ;)

The two threads are neck-and-neck now. It will interesting to see which one "wins"!
 
Actually, I think the Theonomy thread is winning now. If I had been involved in that discussion, that thread would be winning hands down. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top