How many celebrate Christmas as a "cultural" event?

Cultural Celebration of "Christmas".


  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't mean to put the two side by side, but we earlier spoke of Christmas' origins as a pagan practise, which was then plastered over with Christianity by the RCC. What is the difference with taking a pagan symbol and plastering that over with Christian meaning as well? Pagan origin is pagan origin; I am not trying to tie Christ to the Black Mass by any means. Sorry if I gave that impression.

As I said earlier, we do presents on the 5th and religious celebration only on the 25th. On the 24th we might open a stocking and read from Luke. BUT this thread raises (annually) some issues that I am not comfortable with and should personally look at in more of a Scriptural light and less of a cultural one. :handshake:
 
Last edited:
It was for this reason that I was tempted to post the quote without specific reference to Schwertley. I know many people don't care for the way he presents truth. But at the end of the day, we do well to consider the content of the message rather than the imperfections of the messenger.

By the way, Davidus, the former pastor of your Church, Doug Comin, is a good friend of mine. He also wrote a good paper on the subject available here: What Fellowship Hath Christ and Belial

You may have misread my post. I said nothing about the way Mr. Schwertley presents truth. In fact, I did so purposefully because I understand that the content of the message is ultimately more important than the messenger's imperfection. If you look at my post you will see that the source of my being disconcerted was the game of hop-scotch he's played across the denominational spectrum, ending up in one of his own creation at the end, and if we are to judge people and teachings by the fruits, then I find this phenomenon important. Something like that certainly causes bells to go off in my head and makes me want to shy away from his teaching because, honestly, I don't want to end up like he has. And if adopting such pet doctrines could cause me to become more of that person from which I must constantly be on guard, as one who accepts doctrines such as predestination, infant baptism and exclusive psalmody, then I would rather not even consider the matter at all and focus on something more worth while. "But aha!" Schwertley will say. "Obviously your priorities are out of order and you fail to understand how important this is! Obviously the 'Christmas question' is dearly important to questions of worship! If you really cared, you would be willing to take up the matter." I disagree. It already pains me enough to be at odds with so much of the Church; I'm going to let issues such as those I mentioned earlier remain the source of contention and ostracism for now.

By the way, I previewed Mr. Comin's article and wanted to mention that most here are not advocating "religious celebration" of Christmas. The survey specifically mentioned "culture." And I don't buy the argument that it's still religious even if we celebrate the day for cultural reasons. Thanksgiving is an even clearer example of how this is possible.

It's tough being newly Reformed and trying to grapple with formulations of really important doctrines like justification, sanctification, election, ecclesiology, sacramentology, pneumatology, exclusive psalmody, etc. all the while being introduced to many lesser quibbles. Already in the past year I've been nearly driven to cynicism several times. One truly gets fed up and wonders what the point is of even trying because, as I mentioned earlier to Max, one can never be Reformed enough.
 
Last edited:
Just thought about this, but there is no good answer for the 'No' category.

Because to do nothing would be to sin. We are called to work 6 days and rest 1 day.
 
You may have misread my post. I said nothing about the way Mr. Schwertley presents truth. In fact, I did so purposefully because I understand that the content of the message is ultimately more important than the messenger's imperfection.
We are indeed supposed to present truth, but we have a responsibility to speak the truth in love. Two responsibilities; content, and manner. We err one way we teach falsehood, we err another, we do more harm than good by making the truth odious. :2cents:
 
It was for this reason that I was tempted to post the quote without specific reference to Schwertley. I know many people don't care for the way he presents truth. But at the end of the day, we do well to consider the content of the message rather than the imperfections of the messenger.

By the way, Davidus, the former pastor of your Church, Doug Comin, is a good friend of mine. He also wrote a good paper on the subject available here: What Fellowship Hath Christ and Belial

You may have misread my post. I said nothing about the way Mr. Schwertley presents truth. In fact, I did so purposefully because I understand that the content of the message is ultimately more important than the messenger's imperfection. If you look at my post you will see that the source of my being disconcerted was the game of hop-scotch he's played across the denominational spectrum, ending up in one of his own creation at the end, and if we are to judge people and teachings by the fruits, then I find this phenomenon important. Something like that certainly causes bells to go off in my head and makes me want to shy away from his teaching because, honestly, I don't want to end up like he has. And if adopting such pet doctrines could cause me to become more of that person from which I must constantly be on guard, as one who accepts doctrines such as predestination, infant baptism and exclusive psalmody, then I would rather not even consider the matter at all and focus on something more worth while. "But aha!" Schwertley will say. "Obviously your priorities are out of order and you fail to understand how important this is! Obviously the 'Christmas question' is dearly important to questions of worship! If you really cared, you would be willing to take up the matter." I disagree. It already pains me enough to be at odds with so much of the Church; I'm going to let issues such as those I mentioned earlier remain the source of contention and ostracism for now.

By the way, I previewed Mr. Comin's article and wanted to mention that most here are not advocating "religious celebration" of Christmas. The survey specifically mentioned "culture." And I don't buy the argument that it's still religious even if we celebrate the day for cultural reasons. Thanksgiving is an even clearer example of how this is possible.

It's tough being newly Reformed and trying to grapple with formulations of really important doctrines like justification, sanctification, election, ecclesiology, sacramentology, pneumatology, exclusive psalmody, etc. all the while being introduced to many other petty quibbles. Already in the past year I've been nearly driven to cynicism several times. One truly gets fed up and wonders what the point is of even trying because, as I mentioned earlier to Max, one can never be Reformed enough.

David, I can't recall whether or not we met when my family and I worshipped at Triangle a couple months ago. But if we did meet, then I hope you will be able to read this post in a manner consistent with how I presented myself then. I like to think that I'm an easygoing guy; unfortunately, this medium oftentimes makes it difficult to know...

Brother, I pray that this issue doesn't push you away from the Reformed faith or from your efforts to persevere in your study of the Scriptures. I'm very glad to know that the Lord has brought you to where you are today and I trust He will continue to sanctify you and me in the time to come. That said, my hope for all of us is not that we might be able to boast in being the most Reformed on the block. As I'm sure you agree, labels aren't the goal; God's glory and our sanctification leading to glorification are the goal.

The subject of Christmas is not a petty matter. If it's roots are truly a mixture Paganism and Popery, then it's quite important for us to give some thought as to what role we will allow it play in our homes, cultural or religious.

You say that you don't buy the arguments presented. That's fine; you're not alone in your opinion (as the poll clearly shows). However, there are others who are studying the issue and the papers and arguments provided may be a help to them.

David, perhaps I wasn't clear in my previous post, but the point I was making in my comment about the manner in which Brian communicates truth was meant to remind us more generally of the fallacy of ad hominem arguments. I think your response about Shwertley's bouncing around and landing in a microdenomination and your fear of ending up like him, would still fall under the category of an ad hominem argument. For example, there are things I don't like about a number of leaders in our faith, past and present; like you, I don't want to end up like them. But reading them doesn't mean we will become like them. Their teachings are either true or not regardless of their character, actions, or other beliefs they hold.

By the way, this may be another tidbit of interest to you... Your associate pastor, Greg Cumbee, was very influential in my studying of this subject (we went to seminary together and were members of the same congregation). As you well know, he's a very gracious and godly man. If you don't care for Schwertley's approach (again, I readily acknowledge that he can be hard to read given his tone at times), then I would recommend talking with Greg. I'm sure the discussion would prove to be helpful, even if you remain unpersuaded.

Furthermore, I think we need to be careful in speaking about Brian, especially in assuming to know how he might respond to you if he had the opportunity. Like you and me, the Lord is sanctifying our brother. Hopefully, even if he were to answer you as you have suggested, it would be done with grace (love hopes all things:D). I can tell you that we don't know all the details behind his having left the RPCNA and his current place in the microdenomination to which he currently belongs; I'm not sure it comes down to him simply thinking that we're all "whack." There are many details about all of that that we're not privy to. That said, I certainly share your dislike for microdenominations. The RPCNA is about as small a denomination as I ever hope to belong to and we're quite small.

I simply offered Comin's paper as another resource on the subject. His paper combined with Schwertley's and Coldwell's clearly show the roots of Christmas, which is important to understand as we give thought to this subject. Yes, these resources mainly deal with the regulative principle and worship, but they go beyond worship as well. As I stated before, they can be an aid for others who are giving further thought to it all.

Blessings brother. I hope this post comes across in the loving manner that I intended as I wrote.
 
Last edited:
I haven't celebrated Christmas since I was eighteen. I don't need it and I don't want it. If I ever have a family I don't plan to celebrate it with them either.

I believe the best way to avoid the so-called 'secularization' of Christmas is to avoid the matter altogether. In reality it is a very religious holiday for Christians and non-Christians alike. But my faith doesn't depend upon the recognition of the day but what Christ did which itself, is foundational to all of our worship.

"IF I ever have a family..."

Brother, if you ever hope to get married, please refrain from pontificating about how your (future, thus non present, i.e. non existent) wife will, or will not eschew the celebration of the Nativity of our Saviour.

Rather, please seek out those of our sisters who love the Christ (and his birth) trusting that God will prepare one for you that is "suitable". If she is a true child of our Lord, she will defer to your foibles.

:2cents:

Whatever foibles I have are overshadowed by the plain and simple fact that marriage to me should be defined as "cruel and unusual punishment".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top