The Reverend Harold A. Linn, Pastor

Christmas is Not Pagan - Part II

By Dr. Richard P. Bucher

The Arguments Put Forth By Those Who Oppose Christmas

The first part of the argument that the anti-Christmas literature makes is:

(1) Christmas is obviously pagan because there is neither Biblical command nor precedent for celebrating Christ's birth.

This is often stated in the literature. Characteristic of this argument are these comments in "Tis the Season for Pagan Worship":

There is no Biblical warrant, precedent, nor precept for remembrance of the day of Christ's birth as a day of special religious celebration. This is not to say that we shouldn't remember Christ's birth and its significance, but for religious commemorations or celebrations, we must have Biblical command or precedent!

Someone says, "I know Christmas is of pagan origin, but I still think it's not wrong for a church to have a special time for honoring Christ's birth." But since when did Protestants believe that Christians have the right to add to the Bible? Is the church a legislative body? Are we to follow the Bible in our faith and practice, or the thinking of fallible men? If we have the right to add a special holy day to the Christian economy, then we can add 10,000 other things. Then we will be no better than the false cults and the Roman Catholics who follow heathen traditions!

Notice though, that we are commanded to remember Him in His death (but no special day was specified for this either)--"Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; this DO in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:18,19; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). To commemorate His death is Scriptural. Any day of the year will do. To commemorate His birth is non-Scriptural, even extra-Scriptural (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:19), whether one chooses December 25th or any other day.

Later the same author favorably quotes a 1871 sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas . . . because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Saviour; and consequently, its observance is a superstition, because [it's] not of divine authority.

Now it is certainly true that the Bible does not command the celebration of Christ's birth in specific words, and I won't pretend that there is. Is it not true, however, that Matthew and Luke included their accounts of Christ's birth, at least in part to be read in worship? As the people responded to such readings of God's Word in worship with their praise, were they not celebrating Christ's birth? Moreover, it is well known that the portions of New Testament were from a very early period incorporated into the worship of the Church (e.g., the Magnificat, Mary's song of praise in Luke 1:46-55; and the Benedictus in Luke 1:68-79); it is also well known that portions of the New Testament contain hymns or confessions used already in the Apostolic age (e.g., Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16).

More to the point, however, does the silence of Scripture make celebrating Christ's birth wrong? Is it true that when it comes to religious celebrations, the Bible must specifically give command or precedent? Is it true that creating a Christian festival is the same as adding to Scripture?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding, "No!" To say that Christians are forbidden to create a special day for worship unless it is specifically commanded in the Scriptures is ludicrous. Where did they get this idea? Actually there is a word for this: biblicism. Biblicism is the legalistic error that Christians can only do what the Bible specifically says to do. This led some of the radical reformers in the Sixteenth Century to rid their churches of organs, crosses, clergy vestments, and many other things because the Bible did not command such things.

Have these authors never heard of Christian freedom? Yes, the doctrine of the Christian Church must be based only on Scripture alone and we dare not add to or subtract from it. But in matters that do not involve doctrine, in matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden, Christians have freedom in the Church to do or say, add or create, or subtract and delete anything -- unless, as I said, it clearly contradicts an essential teaching of the Christian faith, or is found by the majority not to be edifying.

This, by the way, is the meaning of our Lord's words in Mark, which these anti-Christmas writers love to quote: "You lay aside the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men . . . making the Word of God of no effect through your tradition" (Mark 7:8,13). Jesus was not scolding the Pharisees because they had traditions. He was scolding them because (1) their man-made traditions contradicted the commandment of God and (2) they told those who didn't follow their traditions that they were sinning, thus making them necessary matters of conscience.

Does annually celebrating Christ's birth contradict a commandment of God or violate an essential teaching of the Bible? Not at all. Do Pastors tell their parishioners that if they do not observe Christmas they are sinning? If they do, they are wrong. Since we are not commanded to celebrate Christ's birth annually, we are not sinning if we choose not to. But neither are we sinning if we choose to observe it. It should not be made a matter of conscience, a matter of sin, in either case.

Now some within the anti-Christmas camp would respond by saying, "Ah, but there is a passage that commands us not observe special holy days. It is wrong to celebrate Christmas because the Bible commands us not to observe "days, months, seasons, and years" in Gal. 4:9-11.

Thus, we find in "Is Christmas Christian?":

Paul wrote to the Galatians in dismay, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years! I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain" (Gal. 4:10-11). He wasn't condemning them for observing those institutions commanded by God, but for observing those of man's making, contrary to God's law.

Actually, the "days, months, and times, and years" to which Paul referred were Jewish holy days, about which the vast majority of Biblical commentators agree. When this passage is placed in the context of the entire letter to the Galatians, this becomes obvious. The Galatians were being taught by Jewish-Christian false teachers that faith in Jesus Christ was not enough to be justified before God, that they also had to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. Paul focuses on this issue in 5:2-4:

Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

The problem was not that the Galatians were observing holy days and seasons. It is that they were being taught that such observances were necessary for their salvation, a complete contradiction of the Gospel that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Similarly, to observe Christmas because you believe to not do so would be sinful is wrong and you would fall under Paul's exhortation in Gal. 4 & 5. But to observe Christmas in your Christian freedom, because you choose to, not because you have to, is completely permitted before God.

In some of the literature in question, we are also informed that the Sixteenth Century reformers rejected Christmas because it was pagan, as did the Puritans in the Seventeenth. Moreover, it is stated that it wasn't until the Nineteenth Century that Christmas was observed in Protestant denominations. The idea is, if these Bible-believing scholars rejected Christmas, shouldn't we?

So, for example, we read in "Is Christmas Christian?"

It was for this very reason that in Calvin's Geneva you could have been fined or imprisoned for celebrating Christmas. It was at the request of the Westminster Assembly that the English Parliament in 1644 passed an act forbidding the observance of Christmas, calling it a heathen holiday

. . . When the Puritans came to America they passed similar laws. The early New Englanders worked steadily through December 25, 1620, in studied neglect of the day. About 40 years later the General Court of Massachusetts decreed punishment for those who kept the season: "...anyone who is found observing, by abstinence from labor, feasting, or any other way, any such days as Christmas Day, shall pay for every such offense five shillings."

It was not until the 19th century that Christmas had any religious significance in Protestant churches. Even as late as 1900, Christmas services were not held in Southern Presbyterian churches. The pcus General Assembly of 1899 declared: "There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holydays (sic), rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed faith, conducive to will-worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

There is an element of truth in the above statements. It is true that many of the Reformation churches rejected or outlawed the celebration of Christmas, as did the Puritans, and some Protestant denominations after them. It is disingenuous, however, to claim that they did so because they believed Christmas to be pagan. Rather, as their statements show, they refused to observe Christmas because (1) they believed that Scripture forbade special holy days; (2) they perceived Christmas to be "Roman Catholic" based on non-Scriptural tradition; and (3) they rejected Christ-mass because they considered the Church of Rome's mass to be contrary to the Gospel.

That reformation movements strove to distance themselves from the Pope and the Church of Rome is not at all surprising. The whole point of the Sixteenth Century Reformation was to "reform" the abuses and errors in the Christian Church of their day, which in Europe was the Church of Rome. With the resurgence of Biblical scholarship and Biblical authority, these reformers began to see that there were a multitude of teachings and practices in the Church of Rome that were "doctrines of men," that were not found in or supported by the Word of God. In their zeal for Biblical truth, however, many of these groups tried to remove all doctrines of men and everything that smacked of the Church of Rome, including Christmas and other major holy days, ceremonies, and fasts.

But not all reformers took this approach. In fact, the original reformer, the one who launched the Reformation, Martin Luther, did not. Luther, and the reformation that followed him, only discarded those human teachings and traditions that directly contradicted the Gospel and the Scriptures. All other traditions within the Roman Church were retained if they were found to be helpful and edifying. For Luther, the doctrines of men became problematic when they made matters of conscience out of things that were not articles of faith, such as food, drink, clothing, and days. According to Luther:

We do not condemn the doctrines of men just because they are the doctrines of men, for we would gladly put up with them. But we condemn them because they are contrary to the gospel and the Scriptures. While the Scriptures liberate consciences and forbid that they be taken captive by the doctrines of men, these doctrines of men captivate the conscience anyhow (A Reply to the Texts, LW 35:153; WA 10II:91).

For this reason Luther retained many things in the Roman Church that did not contradict the Gospel, such as the liturgical calendar, some holy days, and yes, Christmas. In fact, Luther wrote many beautiful Christmas sermons (which you can read at www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/mlserms.html) and hymns.

This was followed by the Lutheran Church. In one of their official confessions of faith, The Augsburg Confession of 1530, it states:

Concerning church regulations made by human beings, it is taught to keep those that may be kept without sin and that serve to maintain peace and good order in the church, such as specific celebrations, festivals, etc. However, people are also instructed not to burden consciences with them as if such things were necessary for salvation (Augsburg Confession, XV, Book of Concord. Kolb-Wengert edition).

Though at this time the Lutherans abolished numerous saints' days, they kept other festivals, such as Christmas, because they saw them as wonderful opportunities to teach about events in the life of Christ. What the Lutherans did reject was the Church's of Rome's version of the mass, which made the Lord's Supper into a re-sacrificing of Christ in order to merit God's favor. They also wanted to see unChristian legends and songs removed from the Church's celebration of Christmas. And they repeatedly stated that it was not sinful to fail to observe Christmas (See Instructions to Visitors, LW 40:298-299).

Table of Contents

<<Previous   Next>>

The Introduction (Part I)

"Christmas is Obviously Pagan Because:

There is No Biblical Command or Precedent for It (Part II)

Christians Did Not Celebrate Christ's Birth Until the Time of Constantine (313 AD) (Part III)

The Date of Christmas and its Many Customs Come from Paganism" (Part IV)