The Narrow Path Ministries

Thanks Steve for having me on the morning show. Here were the points I made again. Could you and others in disagreement, detail where my argument falls short as to the subject heading?:

Why I personally DO NOT celebrate Dec 25th. Nor do I consider such to make me "weak" nor "legalistic" - but rather loving.

This misuses the name of "Christ"
-has an unbiblical date and many details
-has pagan history undeniably
-poses an unnecessary risk to stumble a weak believer

Romans 14:17-20 (NIV) "...Let us therefore ***make every effort*** to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is
***wrong*** for a man to eat anything that
**causes someone else to stumble."**

1 Thes 5:22 "*Abstain* from every form [or APPEARANCE] of evil" (e.g. Winter Solstice; Greed)

at least in public (e.g. trees, lights and decorations have both the potential flaunt, confuse and stumble)

In PRIVATE I can see the points of those who disagree. In private there is NONE to stumble.

I believe this also applies to even "moderate" consumption of alcohol.

Again the keyword here is "publicly" and "appearances of evil"

Please address this word in whatever response you give to avoid generalizing.

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for posting. I am not seeing the matter in the same manner as you do, so I will respond to your points:

This misuses the name of "Christ"

I am not sure that it does. Christ can be honored in the hearts of Christians any day of the year—including December 25th. If the Christian claims to be celebrating the birth of Jesus, and is doing so in spirit and in truth, this can hardly be regarded as a misuse of Christ's name, just because the date on the calendar says "December 25."

On the other hand, if non-believers celebrate something they call "Christ-mas," and if they recognize that the day is named after Jesus Christ, then they are taking the name of the Lord in vain—a bad thing to do, but probably not the worst of their sins. They would be doing the same thing if they attended a church and sang from the hymnal.

-has an unbiblical date and many details

Yes, it does. Though this does not, in itself, make it evil. One could celebrate the birth of Jesus, if one wished, any day of any month he/she chooses, since there are no biblical instructions about the celebration, nor the non-celebration, of Christ's birth.

Many harmless Christian practices are, in their detail, not supported by scripture. For example, the early Christians adopted the symbol of a fish to secretly identify themselves to each other, adopted Sundays as a weekly meeting day, and crossed themselves (like Catholics do) when they prayed. There was no biblical basis for their doing these things, but they seem harmless enough.

Most aspects of our present church services—the seating arrangement, the building itself, the program, the Power-Point presentations, etc.—do not correspond to any biblical details of church gatherings. We might think it would be better to do things in the biblical way, but it would not be possible to prove that these extra-biblical features are "evil"—nor necessarily displeasing to God.

has pagan history undeniably

This is increasingly well-known among evangelical Christians. However, when it come to cultural things, present realities often have little relevance to their origins. Many people in our churches have a personal history of having been servants of Satan, but this does not describe them today. They have been redeemed. One could well argue the same for many incidentals in Western Society. The days of our week, and the months of our year, are mostly named after Roman and Norse gods. However, these associations have long-since been abandoned as a result of the supplanting of paganism by Christianity. Nobody today venerates Thor on Thursday, though we still call it by that name.

Similarly, for over 1,600 years, no one (with the exception of a handful of modern pagans) has celebrated the winter solstice, or the pagan deities formerly associated with it, on December 25th. Certainly, not one person in a thousand associates the Christmas tree, the presents, the wreaths, etc. with their original pagan uses. Today (and for a very long time) they are, in all hearts and minds, either associated with Christ—or with nothing at all. They are no longer pagan practices.

Let me give an analogy from a different realm of behavior. Since the Bible says that a woman should not wear what pertains to a man, there are some Christians who believe that women should not wear pants. However, pants are no longer a distinctly male style. Perhaps the first person to introduce the wearing of pants by women in our society was in violation of this command, but the woman who wears pants today is no longer doing so. Not only are pants today an acceptable style for women, but there are styles of pants that no self-respecting male would wear. Customs change. The first innovators of the change may, at times, be rebels who violate the spirit and the letter of biblical instructions, but once the change has become established in the culture, there is no longer the same meaning to the actions. The meanings of some things change with the change of culture, which transforms their moral and spiritual significance.

Christian influence in Western Society, long-ago conquered paganism and redeemed many mundane practices which used to be done to honor evil deities. The kingdoms of this world [are destined to] become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ" (Rev.11:15). Over 1,600 years ago, when someone wrongly syncretized Christianity with paganism—relabeling pagan customs as Christian ones—it was, no doubt, a bad decision. But that was long ago, and the taint of original pagan associations has dissipated over the centuries.

The introduction of pagan elements into Christianity cannot be recommended, but whoever did that has been dead for a millennium and a half, and when we bring a tree into our home, it is not a pagan action, but an act of Christian intention,for many—and, for others, a mere interior decorating decision. In the worst-case scenario, it is the bringing of an idol into the home. However, I don't think I have yet met a family that worships their tree, so this must be incredibly rare, if it happens at all. We could as justly condemn the introduction of potted house plants.

I suppose the most valid criticism of modern Christmas would not be of its corrupt religious origins, but its present secular commercialism. Even this, though, can only be a valid criticism if we are supposed to be keeping Christmas a sacred day—and you and I agree that there is no biblical obligation to do so. If we are not required to have a religious holiday on December 25th, who can object that it should become a secular occasion for unsurpassed gift-purchasing and giving?

(C.S. Lewis wrote a humorous satire on the commercialism of Christmas, which can be read here: https://twog.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/c ... s-and-xmas )

Not only has Christmas lost, to our culture, all of its former pagan associations, but it has also taken on specifically Christian ones—e.g., the ubiquitous manger scenes, and cards depicting scenes from the biblical birth narratives, the singing of overtly Christian "carols" in secular shopping malls, the lionizing and legendizing of a Christian saint known for his generosity, etc. All of these reflect distinctively Christian influences upon the holiday. No self-respecting pagan would own the day in its present form.

poses an unnecessary risk to stumble a weak believer

I have a hard time seeing this possibility. There are very few people whose consciences oppose these customs. The few who do are usually pretty strongly opinionated about the matter, and are not likely to cave-in and get a tree, just because they see others do so. If there are people who think these things to be sin, then it is more likely that they would be influenced to go against their conscience by the generality of Western Civilization's Christmas practices than by their knowledge that you, personally, happen to have gotten a Christmas tree.

Steve,

I am currently listening to your series on "Toward a Radically Christian Counterculture". I see this Christmas issue as fitting in a similar category to a number of the points that you make in that series. I think the questions should be what is wise? What did the early Christians do and was it correct? How did this Christmas thing come about? What good is it doing us now? What harm is it causing?

Do we think people should be fighting over Christmas gifts to give their children? Should we lie or let others lie to our children that Santa brings them gifts? Should we have our children focus on material gifts and yearn for them? I have family members who don't feel as convicted on these items as I do. It kind of makes me the grinch who stole Christmas. Can we just take the few good aspects of Christmas that remain? Would it be better to just do away with it entirely rather than having to figure out which parts of it are okay and which parts aren't?

Most of Christmas boils down to traditions of men. Many of these traditions are sins (Santa myth, greed of children, covertness, etc.) . Many people have fond memories of Christmas so it is hard to keep the good and do away with the bad. Would a former drunkard be wise to go to a bar and stay out with his friends all night and fight not to sin? Wouldn't it be smarter not to go into the bar in the first place? If Christians did away with Christmas entirely would it be easier to stay away from the aspects that are sin?

I wish there were more who were at least speaking out against the bad aspects of Christmas. I don't know of any churches that remind their members that telling their children there is a Santa Claus is a really bad idea. When they find out he isn't real they will question other things you have told them. Many will even question if God is real. Why on earth would anyone want to be put in that situation. I spoke to a Christian recently who is in the situation right now. Yet since Church leaders aren't speaking out against this, those around me think I am some kind of Radical Christian. I am far from Radical though I wish I were. How am I going to convince other family members that home schooling isn't radical either when I am just working on immediate family members not lying to my child (once he is born).

I have shared all your concerns, and do not have any attachment at all to Christmas celebrations. I am simply not willing to condemn other Christians for doing what is not condemned in scripture.

Covetousness is condemned in scripture.

Fighting over gifts in the store would be condemned in scripture.

Lying to kids about Santa would be condemned in scripture.

These things should not be controversial, as they are plainly contrary to Christian morality. Your Christian friends and relatives should see this immediately, and should not consider you a fanatic for merely being a Christian.

However, I have sometimes celebrated Christmas with family (and sometimes not). I have never found it necessary to engage in any of these sins, in the process.

steve wrote: These things should not be controversial, as they are plainly contrary to Christian morality. Your Christian friends and relatives should see this immediately, and should not consider you a fanatic for merely being a Christian.

Yes, I agree this shouldn't be controversial if most professing Christians knew the bible. For many the most Christian thing they do all year is Christmas. I don't know if the caller was responding to an earlier statement or topic of debate. I just listened to the show and there wasn't much time for discussion so I don't know if there is more to listen to on this topic. I would be interested to listening to other shows or topics where this has come up.

I could easily picture a Church having children's time and asking kids if they got anything special for Christmas. A child might say "Santa brought me ....". I don't think they would correct them "No your parents did. There is no Santa". They would merely move on to "God gave us something very special for Christmas too....".

Just like I think Muslims should be adamant against other Muslims to stop using their name in association with terrorism rather then arguing their religion is peaceful to non Muslim. Christians should be adamant to other Christians to stop using our name in association with at least most of the things associated with Christmas. Even most of the Christmas music isn't about Jesus. Many are about Santa. Even the ones that aren't I am not sure are good. The "Little Drummer Boy" for example gives a romantic picture of the birth of Christ that is not the case. "Mary did you know?" are we supposed to sing to the dead? Where is the line is on these I don't know.

I would like it if one Christmas all of the preachers or pastors would speak out against all of the evils of Christmas for their Christmas service. They might touch on the fighting over presents or something but I believe it should cover everything. I don't see that happening because most "Christians" would not be back next year if they did. People go to church these days to feel good. If they don't feel good they wont be back. If they don't come back the church will go broke. How do we fix this?

Any time we are presented with a cultural reality, we have 4 choices

Adapt to it (there's nothing wrong with it, so we are free to stay in step with the culture here)
Boycott it (there's something wrong with it, so we stand against the culture here)
Cultivate it (there's something right with it, so we help develop the culture here)
Destroy it (there's nothing right with it, so we try to defeat the culture here)

"Christmas" in America is a cultural reality. Since our culture is an odd-mixture of Judeo-Christian roots and Satanic systems, their may be elements of each of these choices in our treatment of Christmas. For example, we should boycott ridiculous consumerism, refusing to spoil our children with hundreds of dollars of presents (often going into debt to do so!). We are free to adapt to certain features (like Christmas trees and lights on our houses) because those things do bring beauty to our neighborhoods. We should cultivate the themes of humility and peace and joy that accompany cultural Christmas, providing them with their proper foundations.

It seems like some in this thread are more of the mentality to boycott and destroy Christmas (B&D). I would be more inclined to use a combination of A&B&C. I think this is an area where Christians should allow each other freedom to respond to the cultural text as their convictions lead.

Good break down on the options. I agree that basically those are the choices that we have. I am not sure that Christmas trees are okay and not Pagan. What I see in churches today is they are 99% A. I would go so far as to say they are even advocating it and promoting all aspects of it except for maybe some of the worst aspects like fighting over presents.

The reason that I think it is so important is that for non Christians or new Christians, Christmas is front and center on what it means to be Christian. For many more so than Jesus. In order to correctly cultivate it, I think we would need to do the following:

1) Move it to Sept or early October so it is closer to a time when most Christians believe he was born and remove it from the Pagan roots from which it came
2) Do away with giving material presents and only give acts of kindness and compassion (which we should do all the time anyway). Gathering as families is (should be?) wonderful too.
3) Get rid of Santa, Rudolf, etc.
4) Tell the story of Christ's life and what it meant to us rather than just his birth. If this is all that most professing Christians hear let's focus on the important stuff. For many it is their one shot at coming to Christ each year.
5) We may even have to do away with the Christmas tree

Am I doing all of these things myself? No. I give presents to some relatives who don't have the same opinion on this as I do. My opinion on this mater is fairly recent so I am not sure how to address it. I see people who are far better Christians than I am not making any move in this direction what so ever. I grew up with all the bad aspects of Christmas as my primary relationship with the Church. Though I read the bible through once as a child my parents really only attended church on holidays once we were out of elementary school. I continued this way myself until I stopped attending or reading the bible. It is only recently that I have returned to having a regular focus on God. I don't attend a church now because I don't see any that are less earthly than Godly. "Come to our bible study weekend camp. We have ESPN corner so you wont miss a minute of the game." What? At least sports is one area I never felt temped by idols.

If we don't fix what is to the rest of society one of the main things it means to be Christian how can we fix anything else?

Your suggestions for an alternative "Christmas" are good ones. However, they still assume some value in celebrating the birth of Christ on a certain day. I don't find this necessary, but if others are doing so, I will usually join with them in their celebration.

You mentioned that your childhood experience included all that is wrong with Christmas. I can see, then, why you would see it negatively. I never saw, in my home, any such negatives. We never believed in Santa, and he was never a factor—not even mentioned—in our Christmas. We were not rich, so there were never any really expensive gifts. We went to church, as a family, every Sunday of the year (sometimes multiple times per week), so we never associated Christmas with anything like the "core" of our Christianity. In fact, I have never considered Christmas to be transcendentally different from any other day of the year. It was a day when we harmlessly got together with family, and when I got several (mostly token) gifts from relatives.

Your childhood experience has, no doubt, tainted your perception of Christmas, just as the pre-conversion paganism of many early gentile Christians tainted their view of eating meat sacrificed to idols. This is very understandable and excusable—though not necessarily an attitude to be cultivated as a feature of spirituality. "To the pure, all things are pure," would seem to be the attitudinal goal at which to aim. A. W. Tozer suggested adopting the attitude: "Others may; I cannot."

In the original post of this thread, Jonathan said that publicly celebrating Christmas might stumble certain other people. I assume that the people vulnerable to such stumbling woud be the people with a background like yours, whose childhood was associated with bad elements of the cultural Christmas experience. Yours is an experience and attitude that I can understand, but with which I do not relate. If I ever celebrate Christmas, it is with family and friends—all of whom happen to be Christians, and do not seem to carry in their minds the misgivings you describe.

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Thanks Steve. You are right I was assuming the value in celebrating the birth of Jesus as the only Cultivate option based on Matt's good list of our options. I am in favor of doing away with or cultivating if the cultivating is radical.

I wish more were raised as you were then it wouldn't be an issue at all. Today what I see is that at least half of "Christians" are only Christmas and Easter Christians. There is even the joke about the church that got rid of their rat problem by making the rats members so now they are only there 2 times a year. Maybe I was one of the rats of which they speak.

Even some of those who go every week let their children believe in Santa Claus. My parents did at the point we were still going every week. They never told me they believed in Santa only that some people believe in Santa. I believe I have even heard Santa mentioned in church and not in a "no he doesn't exist" kind of way. Many churches have twice as many or more services for Christmas as they do normal weeks and generally those services are packed full where most weekly services aren't. I don't see any churches today where members give only modest gifts and there are no stories of Santa and Rudolf if not in the church at least in the homes of the members. It isn't the eating of the meat that I see the churches doing; it is the sacrificing itself in many cases.

The weekly services tend to be those with young children and the old. Part of why I stopped going once I was old enough to not have Sunday school as an option was I didn't like being the only person in my age group at church and there by myself. Not a very comfortable situation for a shy person. The troubling part too is I am not sure I would have gotten anything out of it had on gone. When I do try to go to churches the services they seem to be "church light" so as not to offend anyone. They make sure we are out in time for the more important things like the football game. They bring up secular movies and not as "this is another sign that Satan is in charge of Hollywood" kind of way. Repentance, humility, poor in spirit, really any of the B attitudes are they front and center in churches today? Unfortunately not in the ones I can find. There are good things on the web such as your site and some others. I wish there were more local resources. If Christmas is the biggest event for many people who think they are Christians but might not really be shouldn't we start with fixing it first to begin repairing the church?