Rejecting Christmas for its papal origins

The Public Square
21

Indeed, those thoughts are very helpful. Thanks for this, brother. Good stuff to chew on here.

If this is demonstrably the case, then I believe this argument has some definite weight. After all, our logic for accepting the New Testament canon as acknowledged by the Synod of Hippo is largely the same. We don’t believe our church fathers decreed what the books of the New Testament ought to be. Rather, we believe that what they did was recognize the canon that God had already demonstrated to be authoritative in the life of the church.

Still, I say the argument has some weight, but not decisive weight, only in that church history cannot be taken as a governing authority for the life of the church. Just because our fathers adopted a practice doesn’t mean they should have. Otherwise, we’d still be papists, wouldn’t we? Scripture alone is the rule of the church.

Amen. This was one of the things I was quickly convicted of when I was first exposed to and considered Spurgeon and Calvin’s words on the topic. Whether intended or not, one of the effects that our self-prescribed holy days creates is the devaluation of the Lord’s Day. This was seen most clearly in medieval Catholicism, where I read somewhere that there was a time when it was expected that the peasants would come to mass on Easter and Christmas, but were acquitted from attendance at mass – and sometimes even barred from it – at other times of the year. Clearly, this is sacramentalism at its finest.

But it seems just as clear to me that these effects carry over even into modern day Reformed protestantism. We make much in our hearts of the liturgical holy days of Easter and Christmas, while the Lord’s Day is viewed as common. Is it not worthy of our consideration that maybe we’ve been duped? What if the Lord actually gives us fifty-two holy days per year, and we have robbed ourselves of great joy by relegating the count to only two? This is worth thinking about, I believe. Especially if you claim to be a good WCF or 1689 LBCF adherent, with their sabbatarianism and all that jazz. :wink:

I agree. And this is where the rubber starts to meet the road for me.

If a church wants to reject Christmas in their liturgical practices, citing the regulative principle, I can get behind that. I believe that Spurgeon and Calvin are correct in their objection to the practice of Christians establishing an extrabiblical holy day for the church. Accordingly, I think it’s worth challenging the traditions of bringing in advent candles to our corporate worship gatherings and the like. It’s important that our worship be targeting that which Christ commands for the church, and not that which fits our own personal fancies or sentimentalities. Amen, and amen.

But the question becomes… then what? How far is it fitting for you to go in your rejection of Christmas – whether as elders leading the church, or as laymen? What ought it practically look like? Do pastors go so far as to refrain from even discussing the advent in the weeks of late November and December, lest they risk the appearance of being popish? Do we jettison the entire body of glorious advent hymns that have been woven into the history of the church? Do we turn our heads away from seeing Christmas lights, and guard our hearts from the enjoyment of eggnog? Do we ban the Grinch from our movie cabinets? Do we avoid wearing the colors of red and green in church? Do we abstain from gathering with our believing and unbelieving family on December 25th to make a statement? Do we close ourselves off from all the merriments of the season?

In short, how do you reject Christmas without being a dope about it? Because ironically, rejecting Christmas can quickly become a bigger problem than embracing it, where your entire Christian life starts to be come defined by the very thing which you argue ought not to be given the time of day. I love how Spurgeon concluded here:

There are no probabilities whatever that our Savior Jesus Christ was born on that day and the observance of it is purely of Popish origin; doubtless those who are Catholics have a right to hallow it, but I do not see how consistent Protestants can account it in the least sacred. However, I wish there were ten or a dozen Christmas-days in the year; for there is work enough in the world, and a little more rest would not hurt laboring people. Christmas-day is really a boon to us, particularly as it enables us to assemble round the family hearth and meet our friends once more. Still, although we do not fall exactly in the track of other people, I see no harm in thinking of the incarnation and birth of the Lord Jesus. We do not wish to be classed with those “Who with more care keep holiday the wrong, than others the right way.”

3 Likes
22

FWIW, we do advent candles, but perhaps my defense of that would defend too much.

Not sure about all the other questions, but as for this one, the answer is clearly yes. :upside_down_face:

Yeah, I think our holy of holies in the US today is the home and family, whether we are reformed or otherwise. We have no doctrine of the church. In other words, I think people staying home from church just goes to show to a certain extent that they really consider this a holy day—a day set apart from the ordinary humdrum of normal life, which includes church.

Edit: I don’t think that means I’m contradicting myself. I think that people staying home on Christmas demonstrates their idolatry just as effectively as if they only came to church that day. I will also add that in RC areas such as Cincinnati, there are definitely those who still only go on the high holy days.

6 Likes
23

Keep in mind that neither Calvin nor Luther were sabbatarians. Both viewed the Lord’s day as a good time to hold worship and said everyone should attend, but not from sabbatarianism.

Going in a different direction, I’ve always thought it humorous how firm anti-sabbatarians are in their observance of Sunday as a set-apart or holy “family day.”

5 Likes
24

Yep, a new friend at the dog park just last night sincerely declined my invitation to church because of COVID. Afterward, she mentioned she will watch something online like she did for Easter.

2 Likes
25

Come on, brother. I’m counting on you to straighten me out on this one. :wink:

1 Like
26

Indeed. But consider . . . we do not reject in the Roman Catechism what we reject merely because the Roman church promulgates it. For we manifestly contend for many things which the Roman church also contends.

If you are going to be a valid Protestant, you must know why you reject this or that in the Roman magisterium. And, you must be candidly enthusiastic about those things which both you and the Roman church confess, teach, and defend.

7 Likes
27

I grew up in a very Roman Catholic area and attending church only on Christmas or on Christmas and Easter was very common among both Catholics and Protestants. Where I live now this practice seems less common but I’m not sure why. It may be the increasing secularization of the culture over the 20 or 30 years since I was young.

1 Like
28

Wait, are you trying to tell me that the point of protestantism isn’t to be as un-Catholic as possible?

Feels like an opportunity for an obligatory reference to one of my favorite Lutheran Satire videos.

2 Likes
29

A point of difference between Charles Spurgeon and Calvin is that CS held to the weird baptist trail of blood theory of church history. He held that Baptists were always outside of Rome. This would definitely impact his view of anything that may have been established from within it. This hits at the comment above that we don’t just reject something because Rome did it.

5 Likes
30

As far as Advent candles or candle lighting services, I would love a reformed defense of them that is in keeping with the regulative principle but I haven’t heard of one. I don’t know how you could defend those in worship while also consistently denying something like incense for example. The closest thing I could get to would be candles merely as decor. But then you wouldn’t need to light them in the service for some religious purpose.

I’d be interested to hear thoughts on this.

3 Likes
31

I’m not so keen on associating everything early church with ‘Roman Catholicism’ or ‘papal’ this or that. It’s simplistic historically and theologically. Doesn’t mean we uncritically accept everything early church (as @sbaker once said, ‘everyone claims the early church, and they’re all a mixed bag.’)

In other words, it’s dubious at best and dangerous at worst to read the early church in light of medieval or reformation Catholicism. Christmas in the early church was vastly different to what the Reformers and Puritans railed against.

4 Likes
32

Yeah, definitely agreed. But it still doesn’t seem to really serve as a pro-Christmas argument. Even if Christmas hadn’t been codified by Rome, it doesn’t necessarily prove that our early church fathers were right to carve have carved out a holy day – assuming that’s what even happened – which, as you note, is difficult to really put a finger on.

Any way you slice it, it seems to me that in God’s providence, the only Christmas we have to interact with is the one that owes its existence and history to Rome. I don’t know that any appeals to early church practice can really avail us here way or the other.

33

Do you feel similarly about Easter in light of Carnivál and Mardi Gras?

I think that’s the nub of the disagreement. I don’t see Christmas as having a ‘Roman’ origin. It has an early church origin, and one that’s pretty close (relatively speaking) to the time of the Apostles. I agree an early church origin isn’t a slam dunk proof. But I’m dealing primarily with the claim that Christmas is problematic for papal reasons. There may or may not be exegetical concerns with Christmas. But papal origins is a bit of a non starter. To me at least.

2 Likes
34

Maybe a similar illustration is the use of church buildings. No command to have them. Developed relatively early in the history of the church, but certainly after the apostolic period.

Permissible or not?

1 Like
35

I believe the same arguments applied in this thread to Christmas also apply to Easter, yes. But with no regard to the other worldly celebrations you mention.

I think it’s undeniable that were it not for the papal decree in the 4th century, Christmas would not have been codified into the liturgical calendar of the church as a holy day. The point of issue is whether or not the church, or its bishops, have the authority to declare a holy day, and bind the church to observation of it.

I don’t believe that the topic of location of church gatherings is categorically the same as the discussion or pronouncement of holy days for the church. If anything, the New Testament demonstrates that the location of church gatherings is immaterial from the standpoint of acceptable worship. We see churches meeting everywhere from the temple in Jerusalem, to homes, to meeting in secret, outdoors, etc.

No instruction is given to the church concerning where it shall gather, only that the church is to understand that she, herself, is the temple of God, and is being built up as a temple for God. While Israel was to worship at the place in which God would cause his name to dwell (Shiloh/Jerusalem), the church is the place in which God has caused his name to dwell.

By contrast, no discussion is given to the church concerning the observance of holy days – other than that there is no such practice for the church, with the possible exception of the Lord’s Day.

36

I don’t think that’s the question. No Protestant acknowledges the pope or bishops’ authority to create holy days. We’ve rejected thousands upon thousands of them.

Can your church make a holy day? I don’t think so. Can your church declare a day of solemn assembly? Sure. Can your church decide to celebrate Christmas at any given time? Sure. Is it normal for churches around the world to do so on Dec 25? Yes. Is that influenced by the RCC? Sure, whether partly or mostly doesn’t matter.

4 Likes
37

We command observance of the Lord’s Day. Sundays aren’t optional for believers. Setting aside a few weeks a year focusing on our Saviour’s advent or the incarnation troubles my conscience not a bit. Nor does a special time of focus on atonement and resurrection in the spring. I don’t know anyone who would oppose setting aside a month or so for each topic. So ‘celebrating’ the theology of Easter or Christmas in the church isn’t at all problematic regarding the regulative principle.

Christmas Day and Good Friday services are encouraged but not commanded, in that we can’t bind consciences regarding attendance outside of the Sabbath. But we can call days of solemn assembly as @jtbayly mentioned (it’s in the WCF somewhere…don’t have the citation to hand. This isn’t contentious historical or confessionally from a reformed perspective).

Carol services, nativity plays, advent candles, Christmas trees in church…these start getting into cloudier water. But I’m comfortable making ‘exceptions’ (or choosing not to!) on these issues and being a wee bit inconsistent now and then. (I heard a wise pastor once say that ‘a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.’ That’s advice I definitely need!) Godly men can disagree here.

But I do think it would to foolish to ignore gift-wrapped (ha!) opportunities to focus on the incarnation or the atonement simply because someone gets (or got) it wrong.

And again, if you’re going to quote Calvin and Spurgeon, you need to also look at what precisely they opposed (hint: it wasn’t a focus on our Saviour’s advent and sacrifice.) Otherwise it’s a false appeal to authority.

7 Likes
38

I haven’t quoted Calvin and Spurgeon in the manner you appear to be suggesting I have. I think I have consistently noted throughout this thread that their words do not demonstrate an opposition to spending time focusing on the advent. And I’m not making any appeal to their authority, but if I was, I don’t think I’m making a false one that’s twisting their positions.

With respect, I don’t understand how this is an argument. Are you asserting that inconsistency in our theology is a virtue? I acknowledge that in the life of any given church, reformation on any particular topic doesn’t necessarily come overnight. We all have many diverse histories, experiences, and particular propensities toward particular sins. We also have soft spots for our own traditions and sentimentalities. Mix all these things together and I acknowledge that getting even the elders of a church to agree on the particulars of worship is difficult.

I very much acknowledge the danger of zealous, idealistic, smarty-pants, know-it-alls who think they have in their minds the perfect standard of worship which the church should be called to. And even when such men make good points, wise older men would do well to remind them that even when a righteous king ruled in Israel, the high places didn’t all come down. So it is within every church, I would assert. There is a mixture of proper worship and wrong worship present with us at all times, and we would do well to remember it.

One of the points I’ve argued against die-hard regulative principleism is that people can be so zealous about the concept of perfect worship before God that they seem to adopt the illusion that perfect worship is even possible, on our part. I remind them that our worship is acceptable to the Father precisely because we worship in and through the Son. The church’s worship is acceptable only because the Lord Jesus is acceptable. So let’s not think too highly of ourselves, but judge with right judgment, lest our quest for perfect worship end up being the worship of whitewashed tombs, and we thumb our noses at all the other churches in the world who don’t follow in the exact same practices we do. Coherent fellowship between churches or even individual churchmen is only possible because of the perfect mediation of Christ.

But what doesn’t follow is that we would create a category in our theology where high places are permissible, in moderation, or at our whims, for the sake of peace. If, for example, advent candles in the corporate liturgy of the church are an offense to God and a snare for the body, then we ought not have them. Any whims and sentimentalities that we possess which stand at odds with truth need to be challenged and checked, if that’s indeed what’s going on. We aren’t allowed to be content to be inconsistent when the call of Christ is to be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

I agree, and I think this is what I ultimately take from Spurgeon and Calvin’s examples. It’s one thing to reject the holy day, as they did. But it doesn’t seem to follow that we would then reject the opportunity that Christmas affords us to preach into that which is naturally on men’s minds. Another way to think of it would be that if you, as a pastor, were willing to give a sermon related to any current event – such as the election, or an active war in the world – but you weren’t willing to preach concerning the advent during Christmas time, then you are being inconsistent. Because even if you resent the popish holy day, providence has dealt you the hand such that every December, the world is thinking about Christmas. Seize on it, don’t recoil against it, and take your objections up with the Lord who governs the ages.