Initially, this little paper on Christmas celebration was a collection of thoughts arranged as a response to a respectful breakfast conversation on the topic. Since that morning, many podcasts and social media posts have made the rounds about the same concept. I have made no substantial edits to this in response to those modern discussions. I pray it is helpful to someone!
1
The Problem
When I became a pastor, I had no idea how often I would face challenges to Christmas, both from congregants under my care, and by pastors of other churches. Such Scrooges come in many shapes and sizes.
The first encounter I had as a pastor was with a miserly man who refused to attend church during the Advent and Christmas season, citing the regulative principle of worship as contrary to Christmas observances. He wanted to assure me that he didn’t want to force everyone else to quit, but that it did bother his conscience. I assumed this was the only type of anti-Christ(mas) argument I would encounter. The others were far worse.
The second “bah, humbug” I heard was an argument that Christmas was essentially a pagan holiday rebranded by the church to get along with the pagans. When I first encountered this argument, I laughed. Ask your average churchgoer: Do you plan to hoist an Asherah pole this season? What day are you going to worship the sun god this year? Obviously, no Christian is openly worshiping demons or nature, at least not on purpose.
The third example—and the one that led me to write this treatise—I find difficult to call Scrooge-ish. He was a well-meaning man with scruples about the decor. He wasn’t going to stop attending for the season, thereby making nonattendance a habit once a year; he wasn’t accusing anyone of Asherah worship for erecting a tree in their house. No, this man simply thought the lights, the trees, the decorations, and probably the songs, Advent candles, and other Christmas markers were all ill-suited for Christian worship. I am sympathetic to his plight.
However, I also pity him. Christmas shouldn’t be the time for dull, grey, scrupulous hand-wringing. Instead, we should be rejoicing in our Savior, who is Christ the Lord. It is my goal with this short treatise to defend Christmas celebration as right, good, and suitable for our public worship of the Lord. Perhaps you will be convinced and excited by a plan for devotion to the Lord through gingerbread and eggnog. More than likely, such a change will not take place.
If you are reading this as an anti-Christmas-er, I pray you will meditate on Christ, on the Scriptures I will bring up for our consideration, and on the invincibility of Christ’s holy Church in all ages. I am not asking for you to abandon your conscience or engage in intentional gluttony. I am simply asking that you taste and see whether these things are so.
2
A Call to Care
We will begin with the low-hanging fruit: the Incarnation of Christ. Obviously, it's not all that low-hanging in the theological sense. The Incarnation is tough sledding. How can a divine person become anything? How can one person possess two natures? Such is the reality that required definition—even Chalcedonian definition.
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. (Chalcedonian Definition, 451 AD)
This little paragraph, lifted from the Westminster Standard website, is an English translation of an ancient defining work of theology. The Council of Chalcedon (October 8–November 1, 451 AD) met to discuss Jesus. No worthier topic could have held their attention for nearly a month of deliberation. Any less scrupulous attention to this doctrine would have led to heresy, confusion, and division.
So, fellow Christian, this is a call to similar scruples—not over the practices of Christmas, but over its motivation. We will look at two passages of scripture that require praise and adoration for Christ’s birth, not just for His death and resurrection.
3
Glorious Incarnation
The two texts we will consider about the Incarnation are Galatians 4:4-5 and John 1:14. Both of these classic texts describe the reason for the season. We will carefully pull apart each of these in turn, discovering the required response the two most prominent New Testament authors, Paul and John, passed down through their writings.
First, Paul’s text.
When the time came to completion, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:4-5, CSB)
In these two verses, several important facts come to the surface. The easiest way to describe what is going on is to simplify the sentence and deal with each piece in its proper relation to the main clause. The main clause is as follows: God sent his Son. The subject of our sentence is God. He is the God of the universe, creator and sustainer of all things.
That God did something: he sent. God’s action is a sending action. One might think of a king sending an emissary or Jesus’ parable about the vineyard owner sending his son. In any case, God is the right recipient of praise for whatever action is described here because He is the one that accomplished it. God sent.
Then we see what He sent: His Son. The direct object of the verb “sent” is “son.” God didn’t sent a letter, a cassette tape, or an email; he sent the Son. Not only is it a son, it has a possessive attached to it. It is His Son. When we look at the manger scene in our mind’s eye, or in the words of Luke’s gospel, we are forced to see a gift from God. No, it doesn’t have a bow, but it does have swaddling clothes. No, this gift can’t be returned, but who would want to?
Now, what do we do with the rest of the passage in question? First of all, we have a fronted temporal frame. This just means that the timing of the simple sentence is listed first. God sent His Son “When the time came to completion.” In other words, at exactly the right time, when God pre-planned to send Him, God did send Him. God keeps His promises.
We then have an adjectival phrase describing the Son: born of a woman. Christ was not born of the dust. He didn’t descend from heaven physically. No, we have a real human boy, born of a woman just as we are.
Then comes a second adjectival phrase: born under the law. Jesus was born both as a human, and as a Jew. Jesus received the obligation to keep the entirety of the Law of God. This He did perfectly. But it would not have mattered how perfectly he kept the Law if it didn’t apply to Him.
Now, why does this matter? There are two reasons given. One is the purpose of the sending, and the other is its result. The purpose is “to redeem those under the law.” God sent Jesus to redeem people. He came to pay the price. To stand in our place. To be perfection for us. The result is “so that we might receive adoption as sons.” See the beautiful proportion. Jesus was under the Law, so that we might be saved under the Law. He was a Son so that we could be Sons. The obvious implication is meditation and rejoicing on the fact of God’s salvation through one like us.
Now, on to John:
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, CSB)
This verse is likewise full to the brim with truth. The Word (Jesus, cf. 1:1-3) became. This is a shocking word here. God doesn’t do becoming. God is. His chosen moniker is “I AM” because He just is. Nothing becomes God, and God experiences no succession of moments. He doesn’t become like you and me. But The Word became flesh. Jesus took on human nature that he did not have before. He was born of a woman (God had never done that!), and entered into His creation with a created form (not that Jesus was created, but that his body was).
And here is what John wants us to do about it: we observed His glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. Now, you and I didn’t see Jesus walking around on the earth, but John did. An John insists that grace and truth and glory is observable in Jesus for you. You can see God through Jesus (1:18).
If these two verses don’t point us to mark the Incarnation of God as unique and important on behalf of His people, then we need to check our hearts. We should be shaken to the core, moved to holy adoration, and prone to rejoicing when we meditate on these things. It may even take a month each year to do so.
4
What do we do with a rejoicing heart
The question framing this section is supposed to be silly. Obviously, nobody ever hated a rejoicing heart (except Scrooge, that is). But in the local church, many people see the glorious truths of the gospel, and then piously turn up their noses. They play hot potato with rejoicing instead of holding on contentedly. After all, if it seems too good to be true, we’d better not get too excited about it.
But this is contrary to the teachings of scripture. The Christian life should be filled with rejoicing (1 Thess 5:16-18). The tents of the righteous are not filled with sombre ashes, but rejoicing (Ps 118:15). God sits on a throne of the praises of His people (Ps 22:3).
Many try to capture this by striving to access the “divine.” By this, they mean “the liturgical.” While I am sympathetic to this viewpoint to some degree, the liturgical observances can easily tend to externalism or formalism. Our actions are not themselves venerable. We require the rejoicing of the heart to go along with it.
And that is why something like Christmas is so essential to the Christian faith. When we insist upon spontaneous religion, we are really insisting on no religion at all; when we insist on liturgical religion, we are relying on external, human realities for religious purposes. Both of these, in the final analysis, make about as much sense as a boat made out of swiss cheese. Instead, we need rhythms to train our hearts and vibrant hearts to utilize the rhythmic framework for the glory of God.
Two examples should suffice. One example of this is less obvious. In Colossians 3:16, we learn that Paul wants the “Word of Christ to dwell richly among” us in wisdom. How that occurs is not immediately obvious to the first-time reader. Perhaps that means memory? Maybe it is a supernatural imparting of wisdom and Scripture through prophetic utterances? Neither of this follows. Instead, Paul says that the teaching and admonishing happens “through Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” In other words, while didactic teaching and direct admonition is important, Paul’s method for rich Word-dwelling is through corporate singing. While this does not teach that Christmas lights are an effective teaching tool, it does indicate, at least indirectly, that artistic, creative endeavors can be effective for teaching. Noël Piper’s book, Treasuring God in our Traditions is a helpful tool to this end.
The second example is far more obvious. Though every Sunday, each local church has its own music, sermon text, leaders, and liturgical nuances, they nevertheless possess some key similarities. The most obvious is the Word and Sacrament. Every church ought to possess and teach the same deposit of Holy writ. Every church ought to partake of the body and blood of Christ through symbolic elements. Every Christian ought to experience identity with Christ through baptism. Granted, these things have different nuances in different locations. But there are clear touch points where, church to church, an attendee can recognize and identify with the patterns and practices implemented.
What these observations amount to is this: we’re gonna have to make some decisions. Every church is going to have some sort of calendar. We are going to celebrate something sometime. Churches are permitted to vary in their calendaring choices, but they should not pretend like they don’t have one. Unintentional calendars—the type I suspect many churches have—result in unintentional worship.
So what do we do with a rejoicing heart? I contend that we give it a context in which to rejoice. Let’s give it a calendar of rejoicings, rhythms of praise to frame and train the heart to love God and enjoy Him forever, starting now. Let’s treat feasting—intentional, reigned-in, feasting to God—as a Christian virtue.
5
Establishing Appropriate Holidays
The next part of a cohesive argument for Christmas is the biblical warrant for establishing feast days. If all we had before the New Testament was the Pentateuch, we would probably come to the conclusion that we may not establish our own calendars of celebration. In the first five books, only the days God institutes for His people are observed. That pattern looks like this:
God does something → God establishes a remembrance → God’s people celebrate
We actually do have this pattern established in the New Testament for two things: the Lord’s Day, and the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Day is a weekly celebration of the Resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. God did something (resurrection), God established a remembrance (Lord’s Day gatherings), and God’s people celebrate. This is one reason why our Sundays should not be sombre affairs, but a religious feast by a religious people. The Lord’s Supper is the same sort of thing. God did something (sacrifice of Jesus), God established a remembrance (bread and wine), so God’s people celebrate. That is one reason the shorthand for the act was Eucharist (Greek for Thanksgiving).
What are we missing for Christmas? Obviously, we have the act of God in the Incarnation. We certainly have the last step of celebration around the world. What is missing is the implementation of the remembrance by God.
However, we have an example in the Old Testament of a required religious celebration that God did not directly implement.
Mordecai recorded these events and sent letters to all the Jews in all of King Ahasuerus’s provinces, both near and far. He ordered them to celebrate the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar every year because during those days the Jews gained relief from their enemies. That was the month when their sorrow was turned into rejoicing and their mourning into a holiday. They were to be days of feasting, rejoicing, and of sending gifts to one another and to the poor. So the Jews agreed to continue the practice they had begun, as Mordecai had written them to do. For Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had plotted against the Jews to destroy them. He cast the pur—that is, the lot—to crush and destroy them. But when the matter was brought before the king, he commanded by letter that the evil plan Haman had devised against the Jews return on his own head and that he should be hanged with his sons on the gallows. For this reason these days are called Purim, from the word pur. Because of all the instructions in this letter as well as what they had witnessed and what had happened to them, the Jews bound themselves, their descendants, and all who joined with them to a commitment that they would not fail to celebrate these two days each and every year according to the written instructions and according to the time appointed. These days are remembered and celebrated by every generation, family, province, and city, so that these days of Purim will not lose their significance in Jewish life and their memory will not fade from their descendants. (Esther 9:20-28)
Pay careful attention here. The authoritative, infallible book of Esther states that Purim did not come from a command from Esther, Mordecai, the elders, or even God. The Jews bound themselves to this holiday. Not only this, their commitment applied to all their descendents from that day forward.
It applied to Jesus as well. He may have celebrated Purim (Jn 5:1 may reference Purim), but he definitely celebrated Hanukkah in its 1st Century form (Jn 10:22). This is striking because Jesus entered Jerusalem as a religious act to celebrate a holiday that was not mentioned in the Scriptures (its establishment is in Maccabees, which is not considered Scripture by the Jews).
So, here is the pattern, modified for Purim:
God does something → God’s people establish a remembrance → God’s people celebrate
What I am not advocating is that the church may establish a remembrance for any reason, but that certain acts of God may constitute a reasonable response by the church of regular remembrance. This can happen at the local level, such as a celebration of the church’s anniversary or particular trials that the local church has faced. But with Purim, we get a universal celebration across all Jews. It stands to reason that the universal church’s remembrances may be likewise established.
One more concept should be pulled from Purim. The Jews from one location to another may celebrate the remembrance differently. This sort of nuance between locations is not just acceptable, but reasonable and described for us in the text. What would have been unacceptable was intentional separation from the whole community. This unity/disunity consideration, I believe, should have some bearing on modern Christian practice.
6
Unity of the Universal Church
Several passages from Paul teach a unity of practice and doctrine across all churches. Below are just a few examples. Keep in mind that this is a representative list.
The first is found in the infamous head coverings passage, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Verse 16 in particular connects a practice (head coverings) to universal implementation (churches of God). I am not going to pretend to make an argument for one particular interpretation of this text. However, it doesn’t therefore mean nothing. No, it means one thing in particular, whatever it is, and that thing is to be universally understood and applied.
The second is found in Ephesians 4. Even though Ephesians is to the church at Ephesus in particular, the one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God do not belong exclusively to the saints at Ephesus. No, these “ones” serve to bind the church at Ephesus into essential unity with the other churches to whom they apply. Corinth and Colosse had the same Spirit, and therefore Ephesus should keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace with them as well as with their local church fellowship.
Finally, Colossians 2:1-4 teaches this global-church unity. Paul, struggling in prison for his faith, keeps in mind churches he has not seen. He says he wants “their hearts to be encouraged and joined together in love.” This Christian love and unity cannot just be among the Colossians; his argument before that included other Christians he has not seen. Instead, the point is that Paul wants to encourage and join together all churches under a unified, Apostolic teaching that involves them in a singular movement of fellowship and love. One could add that it is a movement of rejoicing and feasting as well.
Such vital connection to the global/universal Church is, “so that they may have all the riches of complete understanding and have the knowledge of God’s mystery—Christ.” The riches of Christ are found in connection to Christ, which involves connection to His body, the Church. If one would like the riches of knowledge and wisdom, they are hidden in Christ. If they want to avoid deceit and vain philosophy, they need Christ. And where is fellowship with Christ available? In the true fellowship of the Church.
I would contend that people who resist the Apostle’s Creed, orthodox language around the Incarnation, and historical practices of the church are resisting the unity and encouragement Paul suffered for. It is for this reason that one must have a pretty good reason to modify the historic practices surrounding Christmas. Things like a December 25th date, evergreen as decoration, and a Christmas Eve service are not benign trifles, but robust, time-tested traditions. They are not authoritative in the way the Bible is, but they are nevertheless important and should be honored as such. This goes back into Ephesians 4:7 & 11-13. God gives gifts to the church, one of which is pastors. Should we be so quick to write off the work of centuries of pastors?
9
Reformation or Restoration
Because of the historical and geographical unity of the church in all ages, we must now consider whether Reformation or Restoration is the right way of implementing change in the Body of Christ. These two opposing ideas were intentionally named for what they bring about. Reformation is so named because it forms the Church again from the existing Church, being sure to jettison anything contrary to the Word of God along the way. Restoration is the process by which the gospel is recovered from obscurity, having been eliminated from the earth for a time.
I hope it is clear which of these would be theologically faulty. The gospel has never left the earth since Christ. It has not failed to go forth. It is not hidden from all flesh. But it has been tainted, obscured, and opposed—even by those in the Church. Therefore, we are to set our sights on reforming that which already exists. We must build on the foundation that we did not lay, expecting a city built by God’s own hands alone.
With that in mind, we turn now to several of the arguments against Christmas. The point here is that reformation is necessary and possible, and that careful exegesis and consistent logic can reform our practices for the benefit of God’s people. Answering objections will come first, followed by a positive vision of where we should go in our local church worship.
10
Christian Origins
or
The Genetic Fallacy
By far the most common argument against Christmas celebrations is the concept that it has pagan origins. While this tendency is understandable, it does not stand on logical grounds. It is an argument that has a special name: the genetic fallacy. The origin of an idea or practice does not necessarily mean it is good or bad. For example, asceticism in the form of monasticism is of Christian origin; it is nevertheless against the teaching of Scripture. Likewise, fish and chips were born out of poverty; they are nonetheless delicious.
Even though we can dismiss this common argument out of hand, we must still address it here. Wes Huff has some helpful infographics on this topic on his website, which I highly recommend. For now, suffice it to say that there is no data to corroborate Christmas as a pagan holiday that was taken over by the Christians. Even the trappings of Christmas bear superficial or no resemblance to that of pagan religious feasts. For example, the use of evergreen boughs is not a feature of any known pagan religious practice. Oak trees receive veneration by pagans; Asherah poles are mentioned in the Old Testament. But evergreens, it seems, are unique in being passed over by pagans.
And finally, let’s entertain the idea that it did come from the pagans. What would that prove? Only that the Christians all over the world had triumphantly conquered against even worse odds than might be expected. We win at Christmastime. Everyone everywhere knows why we celebrate. Heathen pop singers sing about Jesus. Faceless corporate entities sell nativity scenes. The lights on the house down the street may not be the light of the world, but they certainly help.
This may come across as syncretism (combining faithful worship with false worship) or sacralism (combining religion and civic duty), but I am not advocating either of these. I am simply saying that everyone is saying something about Jesus at Christmas.
11
Regulative Principle
The second most common argument I come against, and one to which I am exceedingly sympathetic, is the regulative principle argument. Basically, it goes like this. Our worship ought to be regulated by the Word of God. The Word of God doesn’t mention Christmas or holy days as commands. Therefore, we may not engage in them.
Once again, I would like to state my affinity for this argument. The Regulative Principle is a central ideology for Baptist life. We have always preferred to stick to what is known and to avoid speculation when it comes to our relationship with God. He is king; we are not. Here it is in its formal description:
The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and does good to all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures (1689 2LBC, 22.1).
However, the historic definition and use of the Regulative Principle of worship is not nearly as far-reaching as one may expect. For example,
. . . moreover, solemn humiliation, with fastings, and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, ought to be used in an holy and religious manner (22.5).
And
. . . God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and in truth; as in private families daily, and in secret each one by himself; so more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly nor wilfully to be neglected or forsaken, when God by his word or providence calls thereunto (22.6).
Thus, the historic Reformed Regulative Principle has several limitations. The first is a distinction between the parts (elements) of worship and the circumstances of worship. Waldron helpfully states, “When the Confession says . . . that what is not commanded in public worship is forbidden, it is speaking of the substance and parts of worship, not its circumstances” (Waldron, How Then Should We Worship?, 120). He then goes on to describe the extent of that distinction: that it concerns the “incidental details necessary” to practice a part of worship, that circumstances are “those things which the church has in common with other societies,” that everything should be done according to the two rules in 1 Corinthians 14 (properly and in order), and that all circumstances must be “arranged in submission to the parts of worship,” (Waldron, 122-3). All this is helpful in clarifying the use of the Principle for local churches. Below are three conclusions that reveal Christmas celebrations are not contrary to the Regulative Principle.
First, Christmas celebration is a “special occasion,” not a normative practice. No one is asking to turn the worship of the church into a year-long Christmas party. Ok, maybe some people are—Bing Crosby’s “Secret of Christmas” is an example. But Christians put their ornaments and lights away. To the anti-Christmas-tree-in-the-sanctuary-and-epecially -not-on-the-platform-ers, I agree if you left it up all year. But for a special occasion, I do not think your conscience ought to be pricked.
Second, I do not know how anyone could call the decor or the calendar an element of worship. One caveat: the way many churches celebrate things like Christmas is both unintentional and irreligious. These churches run afoul of the regulative principle as a rule. However, intentional church services planned by doctrinally-sound pastors contain all sorts of circumstances differing from its neighboring congregations. This is not a bug, but a feature of Christian worship. Our weekly gatherings can accommodate anyone from any culture.
In addition, we are going to have a liturgy and a liturgical calendar. Those who would posit that the ideal church has no variation in the Sunday services hasn’t thought through the implications of such a position. Insisting that the circumstances remain consistent all year is insisting that they are, at least sometimes, ill-suited for the elements.
The real question, therefore, is whether our circumstances of worship are suitable for the elements to be exercised by the congregation. The thermostat, instrumentation, air freshener scent, and even the decor must be intentional so that they are all suitable and well-ordered.
Here is one final thought for those who make this argument: please change how you talk about it. Instead of accusing all pro-Christmas Christians of violating the regulative principle, maybe raise the question of the suitability of lights and trees to the worship of the Lord. I think you will lose that battle, but it will at least be an honest, consistent, and doctrinally sound one.
12
My Conscience
The final argument I will acknowledge is that Christmas celebration violates an individual Christian’s conscience. Someone like this says that they are not opposed to others celebrating, but they will not be a part of it. They may even remind others to “be sure that this right of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak,” (1 Corinthians 8:9).
They are right to suggest that other Christians must take care not to take their freedom out to whack their neighbors with it. However, I have a question for these brothers: do you concede you are, in this instance, the weaker brother? You don’t want a stumbling block from others; do you see yourself as prone to stumble?
It is my contention that many, if not all, of the Christians struggling against Christmas are not weak men in need of special consideration. In my experience, they are legalistic men more concerned with external behavior than internal holiness. They want to feel comfortable knowing they are doing the right thing and hate the idea of “gray area.”
13
A Proposal for Modern Churches
Ok, so the standard arguments aren’t sufficient to close down the toy shop. What are we supposed to do? In this last section, I will lay forth a brief, positive vision for Christmas in the 21st century Church.
First of all, consistently uphold the regulative principle. The elements of worship do not change because of the season. We have the same obligations during Advent as during the rest of the year.
Second, do not add any elements during worship. If you are going to light candles, do it as a circumstance of one of the elements (Scripture reading or prayer). It should not get its own slot in the service order. A good rule of thumb: if it would get a heading in the bulletin, it's probably an element.
Third, get the women involved in the circumstances of worship. My book, Keeping the Household of God is a defense of this concept.
Fourth, Advent should not be a penitential season. Fasting is a helpful topic for a different book. But if we are going to fast, it should be a temporary and intentional task. Likewise is celebration, except we are commanded to rejoice; we are never commanded to fast. Therefore, we should look at Advent and Christmas as feasting days of rejoicing for the Lord. Before you get hung up on the word ‘feast,’ just note that it is the other side of the coin to fasting. If fasting is refraining from food, the rejoicing shouldn’t have nothing to do with food.
Fifth, pay attention to whether your decor (and other circumstances) helps or harms the worship of the church. Lights may assist in the elements for a time, but gaudy lights may distract.
Sixth, don’t “save” Christmas songs or lessons because of the calendar. If it comes up in the text, preach it. If the song supports the rich-dwelling of the Word, sing it.
Seventh, it is not a problem to fit the sermon and songs to the calendar in general. We all understand preaching a sermon on Sovereignty the Sunday after 9/11. In my church, we often give a Sunday at the end of the year as an opportunity to look back at God’s faithfulness through the year. However, the primary question should still be whether the circumstances fit the parts/elements of worship.
Eighth, while we should not require people to violate their consciences, we should insist on growth. Weak brothers do not have permission to stay there.
Ninth, remind everyone that Christmas does not surpass Sunday. Sunday—every Sunday—is a celebration of God’s work in the Resurrection. Whether we like it or not, baby Jesus is a means to an end, and that end is Resurrection Sunday.
Tenth, don’t overdo it. There is no reason to stretch Christmas forever. And our tendency would be to have 52 (all) Sundays a year with a special bent. But God’s method is to use the regular, consistent, and (in an earthly sense) mundane to thwart the wisdom of the world. Keep the regular Sundays primary. For more on this, see Treasuring God in our Traditions by Noël Piper. She distinguishes between the “always” and the “especially,” helpful categories for Christmas and other celebrations.
14
Conclusion
It is my hope that Scrooges would come to this short work and walk away changed. Not by the spirit of charity, like in the story, but by the Scriptures. There are several reasons a pastor or parishioner might have for celebrating Christmas, and they are not stupid or uninformed reasons. Instead of pushing back, try participating. See if you experience Christ in a more or less fitting way through the rhythms of the church calendar.
In Christ,
Pastor Andrew