Every year Christmas (and Easter) are assailed by a small, but very vocal group of very sincere and pious Christians that allege that many of us are participants in paganism. Some of those persons are my close friends.
What follows is a response I once wrote to a dear friend that holds this position. Here, I reply to the eight most common objections to celebrating these occasions on the "Christian Calendar."
1. The
etymology of both the words “Christmas” and “Easter” is problematic; Christmas
contains the root “mass,” a false and abominable sacrifice of the Roman
Catholic Church, and Easter is derived from the name of a pagan god, worshipped
in ancient times.
RESPONSE: While the etymology of many words is important, it is not ultimately
determinative for the meaning of any given word. Moreover, words can and
do change meanings over time, and the meaning that was once imputed to a word
does not necessarily govern its current meaning. Much more so with words many centuries
old. For instance, the word “gay” once meant happy. Rarely does it have that
meaning anymore. Although both the words Christmas and Easter have suspicious
roots, it can hardly be argued that the common evangelical usage of the word
“Easter,” for instance, is in reference to the pagan god. So too with
Christmas; most evangelicals do not regard the word as having reference to the sacrifice
of the mass as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church either before or after
the Reformation.
Obviously, the sacrifice of the mass is not a part of
Protestant worship at all. Neither does the celebration of the Resurrection of
Jesus, held on the day commonly called Easter, retain any aspects of pagan
worship whatsoever. To hold otherwise is disingenuous. If the common
evangelical is asked today about the meaning of either word, he is far more
likely—almost certain in fact—to respond with regard to the birth and
resurrection of Christ. We ought to allow the simple fact that these two words
have dramatically changed meanings today from ancient times for evangelicals,
and no longer bear any resemblance of their ancient etymological roots. If this
objection above be granted, we must also immediately abandon the names of
certain days of the week (i.e. Saturday) and some of the months of the year
(i.e. August) which have historical roots with the god Saturn and Augustus
Caesar respectively.
2. Neither
the practice of Christmas nor Easter are commanded in Scripture and therefore
are not warranted by the Regulative Principle of Worship (See the Westminster Confession of Faith 21.1).
RESPONSE: I regard this charge to be largely
misdirected. Both the birth of Jesus and the resurrection of Jesus inspire our
worship and are encouraged to be pondered deeply in Scripture. The magi,
angels, and shepherds worshipped the new born Christ. So too Simeon and Anna.
Certainly the gospel writers hold these examples up as commendable, and not as
counterexamples. Too, the disciples and the early church worshipped the
resurrected Christ. Thomas is a notable example (John 20) as are the whole
group of apostles in Matthew 28. These two doctrines (the incarnation and
resurrection) are both worthy of much preaching and instruction and should be
brought to the attention of the church regularly, even seasonally. Both are
intricately tied to the very Gospel itself. The fact that they are celebrated
at certain times of the year is arbitrary. It should be kept in mind that the
Reformed tradition makes a distinction between “elements” (the practices of
gathered worship such as preaching, prayer, benedictions, blessings, sacraments
etc.) and “circumstances” (where to meet, what time, how long sermons should
last, what passages to select for preaching or study, how much of a passage is
to be read etc.). If this objection above be taken to its logical conclusion,
it would be impossible to call a meeting at all today as Scripture nowhere
commands us what specific location or times the church is to meet
regularly.
3. Both
Christmas and Easter contain pagan symbolism; the former retains the use of the
so-called “Christmas Tree” and Easter retains usage of the “egg” and other
fertility-cult symbolism.
RESPONSE: If this objection be taken to its logical conclusion, neither
could the Christian church utilize the rainbow since it is used by homosexual
groups as their symbol, nor the cross since it too is often perverted and
misused by the wicked.
I find
this objection ironic as both the tree and the egg are created by God and
pronounced to be “good” in the Genesis account along with all other creatures.
They cannot be regarded as intrinsically evil, as to make this claim
would be to deny the goodness of creation. If we hold a general principle that
any article that was once used in paganism can never therefore be redeemed for
Christian worship on that account, not much is left for use in worship at all.
The name of God would be off limits as it has been grossly blasphemed. If it be
argued that trees are immoral because pagans have used both the tree and the
egg in their false worship, then we can hardly use anything created at all in
worship; not even our bodies (as they too are worshipped by pagans), could be
used in worship.
The
tree, to which much strenuous objection has been given, however is positively a
symbol of life, eternity, and justice in Scripture (see both the Genesis and
Revelation accounts of the Garden of Eden and the New Heavens and New Earth).
Surprising to some, trees were even one of the few symbols used in decorating
the temple of God (1 Kings 6). If it be argued that evergreen or pine trees in particular
have become essentially pagan by their usage in historical paganism, one
wonders where that line of argumentation could possibly stop. What genus has
become "off limits"? What species? Would it be true of all
trees in general? Even all plant life? Can we allow evergreen trees on our
church grounds at all? On our personal properties? Should all evergreen trees
be destroyed? Are we obliged to cut them all down wherever they be found as the
OT saints cut down Asherah poles? Here the objection verges on the ridiculous.
If it
be alleged that Christians actually worship Christmas trees, as it is
slanderously reported that we do, I would deny this in the most emphatic terms.
We do not pray to them, impute power to them, come to them for healing, attempt
to obtain merit from them, make sacrifices to them or from them, or any other
form of inward or outward worship. We use them as decorations. Nothing more. To
assert more than this on the part of our detractors is simply unfair and goes
beyond the bounds of Christian charity.
4. Both
Christmas and Easter are often attended by ridiculous and childish customs i.e.
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, which detract from the worship of the
Trinitarian God. Many churches that purport to be "evangelical" have
even brought such nonsense into the very sanctuary and perverted the holy
worship of God!
RESPONSE: I grant that this is entierly inappropriate and sacreligious. Yet this
objection as an argument against Christmas and Easter may commit the logical
fallacy of the straw man. In this fallacy, the worst and most easily defeated
example is held up and given as representative of the whole. However, we ought
not to judge any one practice or belief based solely by the worst and
most blatant practitioners of the same.
For
example, it is true that some Presbyterians ordain homosexuals (the PCUSA). But
this does not mean that we should no longer practice ordination because
it is or has been misused by some. This objection assumes that if a certain
belief or practice (such as Christmas) has been misused or perverted by some
group, it is impossible to be redeemed by others who could practice it more
responsibly. Clearly this is unsustainable logic. In the case of Faith Church,
it would be impossible to maintain any objection against us that we have used
such ridiculous and stupid characters such as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny
in our worship services. To hold us accountable for the stupidity of others is
unfair in the highest degree.
5. Both
Christmas and Easter are practiced by the Roman Catholic Church which has so
far distorted the Gospel as to be no Gospel at all and therefore their
historical practices ought not to be carried forward by Protestants.
RESPONSE: This objection commits the fallacy of
the “fruit of the polluted tree.” Briefly, this fallacy holds that if Mr. X has
a particular belief (or practice), and Mr. X is a very bad man, then the given
belief (or practice) is also bad too by extension. This fallacy is easily
exposed, though, when we consider that the Roman Catholic Church also holds
some very orthodox doctrines, such as that of the Trinity and the incarnation
of Christ, and that it professes the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian
Creed, and Chalcedonian Creed, as we do. If we are to reject everything the
Roman Catholic Church has ever done, on the sole condition that they have done
it, surely we would be throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. On
the contrary, the individual beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic
Church, heretical though that branch has become as a whole, should be
considered on their own weight and rejected if and when they are shown to be
unbiblical.
6. Both
Christmas and Easter encourage consumerism and materialism and ought to be
rejected upon the grounds of being a distraction from the Gospel.
RESPONSE: This objection is granted. But this
writer does not believe that the complete abandonment of the practices of
Christmas and Easter is the best response to this problem. I believe, on the
contrary, that better preaching and catechetical instruction, along with
exhortation and admonishment, is a better course to correct the misapplication
of these Gospel events (viz. the birth and resurrection of Jesus). If we reject
any practice that has been utilized in some misguided way, we ought to reject
the preaching of sermons too, since many contemporary sermons are unhelpful,
unbiblical, and even heretical. My contention is that the best response to
misapplication is better application! Paul does not reject the practice of the
Lord’s Supper en toto on the basis that the Corinthians have grossly
distorted it. On the contrary, he corrects and reproves their behavior, while
affirming the practice.
7. Both
Christmas and Easter are inconsistent with the practice of the English Puritan
heritage from whence the American Presbyterian heritage derives.
RESPONSE: This objection is granted. But neither
is the English Puritan heritage the sole influence of American evangelicalism
in general or Presbyterianism in particular; nor is it the authoritative
arbiter of the same. Our heritage also has been greatly impacted by the
Continental Reformers who along with German Lutheran groups did in fact retain
the practice of the Christian calendar year. Moreover, although we greatly
regard our English Puritan forefathers, we do not regard them as infallible,
and in retrospect find them to sometimes verge on legalism, as for instance, in
their practice of the Lord’s Day Sabbath. Even our Puritan heritage, greatly
beloved as it is, is not beyond our dissent and even correction. If English Presbyterianism is to be heeded as
authoritative, so too should we disapprove of all decorations in the sanctuary
including: stained glass, crosses, and even wedding rings (historically
rejected by the Puritans as “Papist”). These great exemplars, our Puritan
forbearers, even insisted that all table tops be covered with cloths as exposed
wooden table legs might insight a man to sexual lust! No historical expression
of the Reformed faith is to be regarded as authoritative or normative
unquestioningly.
8. Both
Christmas and Easter are practiced during times of the solar year related to
the solstice, at which times pagan festivals have been historically linked.
RESPONSE: This too is related to the “fruit of
the poisoned tree” fallacy (see above). If we ought not to worship the Lord
Jesus on times, dates, and seasons that have been historically used by pagans,
we would have no available dates in which to worship God at all since every
conceivable time, month, cycle of the sun and moon, and occasion has at some
time in history been used for pagan worship. On the contrary, we ought to
redeem these pagan times by diverting attention from false gods and giving our
attention to the one and true Lord.
It it
be suggested that Christmas is inappropriate because we do not know the day or
date on which Christ was truly born, I would ask whether we may only
preach events on the very day of the year in which it historically happened.
Obviously this is false, for them we would only preach the cross on Good
Friday.
We must
insist that all days of the year, including whatever day the solstice happens
to occur, be devoted to Christ our Supreme King. How appropriate, then, is the
preaching of the Gospel on these formerly paganized days, as we claim all
things in Heaven and on Earth for the honor of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Concluding
Text
Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before
his own master that he stands or falls. And he
will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One
person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days
alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The
one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats,
eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who
abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God (Romans
14:4-6).
-Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. He is the author of several books, including his newly finished eBook trilogy, Unprecious, Unknown, and Undeserved.
x
