Pages

Monday, December 20, 2010

The Christmas wars

I’m going to briefly review some stock objections to Christmas:

1. The Constitutional objection:

According to this objection, a national Christmas holiday, as well as other official celebrations of Christmas (and Christianity), violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.

To my knowledge, that’s revisionist propaganda. To my knowledge, this is the original intent of the Establishment Clause:

Some of the Colonies had established churches. When the Colonies contemplated the prospect of confederated in a union of states, under a Federal gov’t, this raised the issue of whether they would lose their religious autonomy. Instead of several established churches, at the discretion of individual states, would a single national church be imposed on the country at large?

The point of the Establishment Clause, as I understand it, was to preserve the religious status quo ante. States could still disestablish their churches if that saw fit, but that was not a Constitutional mandate. Just the opposite.

The notion that our gov’t can’t sponsor or favor Christianity is, at best, a circular appeal to recent judicial precedent. And judicial precedent is reversible.

This is a separate question from whether or not it’s a good idea for gov’t to sponsor or favor Christianity. I’m just making the point that that’s Constitutionally permissible–liberal propaganda notwithstanding.

2. The Genetic objection

To take one example:

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to celebrate Christmas, birthdays, Easter, Thanksgiving, or any other holidays, claiming they all have pagan roots.


But there are two problems with this objection:

i) To my knowledge, the claim that Christmas co-opted a pagan festival is historically dubious. I’ve quoted Roger Beckwith on that issue.

ii) Even if the claim were historically sound, this commits the genetic fallacy. The meaning of a holiday depends on the meaning which God, the culture, or the celebrant assigns to the holiday.

Likewise, the meaning of a religious rite or holiday can be reassigned. Take circumcision. Circumcision antedated the Jewish rite. God co-opted a preexisting custom, and reassigned to circumcision a meaning distinctive to in-group (i.e. the covenant community). It meant what God intended it to mean for his people. It meant what the celebrants intended it to mean, when they performed the rite.

In the nature of the case, the significance of a symbolic observance is fluid. Take another example: Protestants continue to observe the Eucharist. This is something we inherited from the Latin church. But this doesn’t mean we continue to assign the same meaning to the Eucharist that Roman Catholics do. Presbyterians and Baptists (to take two examples) have reassigned to communion a different meaning than the hereditary meaning which the Latin church assigns to communion. Presbyterians and Baptists have reverted to what they deem to be the NT meaning of communion.

Even though there’s a sense in which we took over the rites of baptism and communion from the church of Rome, we didn’t feel committed to honor the meaning which Roman Catholic theology assigns to those observances.

3. The Calendrical objection

According to this objection, Jesus wasn’t born on December 25. He wasn’t even born in winter.

There are two problems with this objection:

i) It’s historically dubious. As Dan Wallace explains:

The tradition for December 25th is actually quite ancient. Hippolytus, in the second century A.D., argued that this was Christ's birthday. Meanwhile, in the eastern Church, January 6th was the date followed.
But in the fourth century, John Chrysostom argued that December 25th was the correct date and from that day till now, the Church in the East, as well as the West, has observed the 25th of December as the official date of Christ's birth.
In modern times, the traditional date has been challenged. Modern scholars point out that when Jesus was born, shepherds were watching their sheep in the hills around Bethlehem. Luke tells us that an angel appeared to "some shepherds staying out in the fields [who were] keeping watch over their flock by night" (2:8).
Some scholars feel that the sheep were usually brought under cover from November to March; as well, they were not normally in the field at night. But there is no hard evidence for this. In fact, early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. So you can see, December 25th fits both tradition and the biblical narrative well. There is no sound objection to it.
Now admittedly, the sheep around Bethlehem were the exception, not the rule. But these were no ordinary sheep. They were sacrificial lambs. In the early spring they would be slaughtered at the Passover.
And God first revealed the Messiah's birth to these shepherds--shepherds who protected harmless lambs which would soon die on behalf of sinful men. Whey they saw the baby, could they have known? Might they have whispered in their hearts what John the Baptist later thundered, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
Now, of course, we can't be absolutely certain of the day of Christ's birth. At least, not this side of heaven. But an early winter date seems as reasonable a guess as any. And December 25th has been the frontrunner for eighteen centuries. Without more evidence, there seems no good reason to change the celebration date now.


ii) More to the point, the objection is irrelevant. It misconceives the nature of a holiday. The date of a holiday is often conventional. For once again, the significance of any given holiday is symbolic. Being symbolic, it doesn’t matter when, exactly, the holiday is observed. For the meaning of the symbolism is culturally assigned.

iii) Indeed, the objection proves too much. Take Sunday worship. Christians traditionally worship on Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection.

However, this is customary rather than original. It’s not as if Sunday on the Gregorian calendar directly correlates with Sunday on the Julian calendar. It’s not as if you can start from Sunday on 12/26/10, then count back by intervals of 7 to arrive at the day when Jesus rose from the grave.

Likewise, Sunday doesn’t have the same significance on our calendar that it had to 1C Jews. Jesus rose on the “first day of the week.” But Sunday isn’t the first day of the week on the modern calendar. Monday is.

Yet that’s irrelevant since we’re dealing with symbolism. The emblematic significance of Sunday–not the historical significance of Sunday.

4. The Puritan objection

On this view, it is wrong to observe any (religious) holiday that isn’t commanded in Scripture.

But there are two problems with that objection:

i) This generates a false dichotomy, for there are three categories, not two: what is (a) commanded; (b) forbidden, or (c) permitted.

Put another way, the Reformed tradition (to take one example) has a category of adiaphora. Not every action is either commanded or forbidden. Some actions are permitted in the absence of a prohibition to the contrary.

So it’s fallacious to suppose that if something is not commanded, then the default assumption is that it must be forbidden. For what is proscribed is not the logical alternative to is not prescribed.

Of course, it would still be the case that Christmas is wrong. But you can’t validly infer that from the silence of Scripture. You need to mount a positive argument.

ii) In addition, the objection proves too much. For instance, the Puritans observed Sunday worship. Yet that lacks express warrant in Scripture. There’s no NT command to worship once a week on Sunday.

At best, that is merely consistent with some incidental statements regarding the practice of the NT church. But weekly Sunday worship is not a NT command. Not even by logical implication.

Likewise, Reformed pastors traditionally officiate at the Lord’s Supper. But, once again, that lacks express warrant in Scripture. At most, that is fitting or congruent with NT ecclesiology. But it’s not a command.

5. The “Baptist” objection

Some Baptists, as a matter of principle, accentuate separation of church and state. They object to nationalizing Christian holidays. Some of them also object to politicizing these issues. They object to the culture wars generally.

They think we should focus all our efforts on the spiritual side of things. On evangelizing the lost.

But I’ll just touch on one of the problems with that attitude: atheism is intolerant of Christianity. Militant atheism doesn’t approve of Christian homeschooling or Christian private schooling. It doesn’t approve of Christian “hate speech.”

If it had it’s way, militant atheism would require all children, including Christian children, to attend public school, where they would be coercively indoctrinated in secular values.

Peaceful coexistence between Christianity and atheism is not a live option. While many Christians take a live-and-let-live attitude, militant atheism vies for cultural supremacy. A totalitarian secular state.

6. The Commercial objection

Many Christians lament the commercialization, trivialization, and secularization of Christmas.

Up to a point, that objection is valid. However, in any culture where believers and unbelievers rub shoulders, Christian holidays will be abused by some members of society. So what?

Look at what unbelievers have done to Sunday? Does this mean we should cease to worship on Sunday?

7. The Politically Correct objection

Some unbelievers find Christian holidays offensive.

However, the important question is not whether somebody finds something offensive, but whether he’s entitled to be offended. If his has no right to be offended, then he has no right to impose his irrational scruples on the rest of us.

Of course, there are situations in which we may sometimes accommodate another party’s irrational scruples. But if we did that all the time, our lives would be dictated by our enemies. We could no longer practice our God-given faith.

8. The Ethical objection

Some Christians object to “lying” to their kids about Santa Claus.

But there are several problems with this objection:

i) Christmas is a bundle of customs. Christian parents are free to observe as much or as little of the Christmas season as they wish. If it comes to that, you can celebrate Christmas without the pop Santa Claus mythology. You can have a crèche without reindeer.

ii) Children have a vivid imagination. Play-acting comes naturally to little kids.

To accuse parents of “lying” to their children is pretty silly, since it fails to take into account the element of fantasy that is part and parcel of a young child’s mental life and cognitive development. This is harmless fun. It’s no more deceptive than reading bedtime stories to your kids.

iii) In addition, the objection can backfire. Wise parents pick their battles. Many parents have alienated their children from the Christian faith by being overly restrictive.

In my opinion, Christmas is a point of Christian liberty. We can take it or leave it. I think Christmas is permissible, but not obligatory. Participation ought to be voluntary.

Christmas can be edifying for Christians and their children. And it can also be a witness to the lost.

12 comments:

  1. Steve,
    I find in the Christmas tree itself with it's globular ornaments, a parallel to the Tree of Life which bears it's fruit every month, whose leaves were for the healing of the nations (Rev.22:2). The Tree of Life lost in Genesis, restored in Revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. “Some Christians object to “lying” to their kids about Santa Claus.

    But there are several problems with this objection:

    ...

    ii) Children have a vivid imagination. Play-acting comes naturally to little kids.

    To accuse parents of “lying” to their children is pretty silly, since it fails to take into account the element of fantasy that is part and parcel of a young child’s mental life and cognitive development. This is harmless fun. It’s no more deceptive than reading bedtime stories to your kids.”


    I was brought up believing in Santa Claus (my parents went for a C.S Lewis-esque approach by informing me that Jesus is so amazingly good that rather than receiving gifts on his birthday he gives us gifts! what a great God we serve!) and thought that anyone who considers telling kids about Santa as ‘lying’ was a pharisee but I have since changed my views. Now isn’t lying, in its most basic form, the act of telling someone some falsehood in order to deceive them into believing it is true? If that is what a lie is then I do not see how bringing in a child’s natural gravitation towards fantasy and imagination and cognitive development changes this fact. By all means, tell your children about Santa as a myth or talk about the historical figure of Saint Nicholas but how is telling them that he is not real harmful to their development? As for the bedtime stories, the stories are not intended as material for your children to absorb as fact. No one reads ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’ to their children with the intention of having them believe that there really are magic beans, a giant living in the clouds, a goose lays golden eggs, etc. Children should use their imagination but they should also recognize it as such.

    In the grand scheme of things this is really not a big deal and it certainly does not warrant the idea that celebrating Christmas is sinful or that members who do tell their children that Santa is real should be subject to church discipline but I do not believe that people who do see it as lying are being silly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I will rest in this Truth about any observance, staying open minded, as I have when reading this balanced chiefly thorough response to the multi-layered objections for and against observing Christmas:

    Rom 14:21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
    Rom 14:22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.
    Rom 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David,

    I've indirectly addressed your objection in my commentary on Clark's post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But, David, as a student of C. S. Lewis you surely realize that Father Christmas is a real person. I mean, it says so right in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve, I love your blog, and, while many of the points you raised concerning Christmas are valid, there is nothing remotely Biblical about the annual Christmas observance.
    Christ never commanded it, He never encouraged His disciples to co-opt the practices of the heathen, nor to set up their own holidays, nor to devise a form of worship suited to their own fleshly appetites. The New Testament church records no observance of "Christian" holidays among the early Christians—not Christmas, not Easter, not Lent, not Advent, not Michaelmass, nor even Peter's birthday. They observed some of the Jewish feast days, but this was apparently only as a means to reach the Jews (1 Cor 9:20).
    The world loves Christmas, but hates Christ. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that the pagan origins of the holiday answer this question? This is a genetic fallacy only if the pagan origins of Christmas are unrelated to its practice today. I submit that the so-called "Christmas Spirit" is not the Holy Spirit, but a most unholy Spirit that seeks to unite Christians with non-Christians, and to overwhelm truth with emotion and sensuality.
    When Constantine "sanctified" the Roman Saturnalia festivities—whitewashing them with Christian meanings—he not only allowed the pagan members of his empire to continue practicing their religion under a different name, but he also encouraged Christians to compromise with paganism, adopting some of its practices. Many of the customs of Christmas were borrowed from the pagan celebrations—the Christmas tree, the wassail bowl, the mistletoe, the Yule log, the exchanging of gifts, the lighting of candles, etc. (See Hislop's "The Two Babylons", Chapter 3). Christmas is popular for the same reason that the original pagan celebrations were popular—because it provides divine sanction for a time of merry-making, revelry and excess.
    Christmas creates a form of bondage—or at least, fertile ground for it. People often go into debt buying gifts that the recipients don't especially need and may not want, making the recipients feel indebted to give gifts of comparable worth. Depression is common during or after the holiday season. Pastors feel constrained to preach sermons on the Christmas story regardless of whether that is the subject their congregants most need to hear.
    If it were merely a matter of individual preference, Christmas might be relatively harmless. However, the pressure to conform—the accusations of being a "Scrooge" or a "Grinch" for objecting to the observance of Christmas—is more than some can bear. When the church general adopts an annual holiday never taught by scripture, it is getting its orders from a different source than Christ, the exalted Head of the Church, whose word is to be our supreme standard.
    I must admit that I was outraged to hear of the Popish decree of the Synod of Dordt, requiring (!!!) that all Reformed churches observe Christmas. Synods and councils exist to judge between what is permitted by scripture and what is not. What right have they to popishly mandate the observance of customs not explicitly commanded in scripture? How are they any different from the Roman Church in this respect?
    The Regulative Principle allows liberty in minor matters of the time, place and order of worship. To suggest that this liberty extends to arbitrarily setting aside entire seasons, on a perpetual, annual basis, for emphasizing one particular doctrine above all others, stretches the concept of "liberty" far beyond anything the principle will bear. To take it even further—creating an atmosphere of persecution and contempt toward those who will not conform, or mandating it on all the churches—surely violates the principles of Christian liberty, exhibiting more of a love for carnal religious observances than a genuine love and respect for our brothers in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mitch C,

    There's too much that's false or misleading in your post to correct everything. You don't offer much documentation, and what little you offer (e.g., from Alexander Hislop) is dubious. See the articles on the alleged pagan roots of Christmas here. December 25 and other dates for Jesus' birth were circulating before Constantine was even born. The ancient Christians cited a variety of reasons for the December 25 date: census records, the appropriateness of Jesus' conception on the same day the world was created (estimated at March 25), the appropriateness of Jesus' conception on the day He died (estimated at March 25), the appropriateness of Jesus' birth at the time when daylight lengthens in late December (in the context of passages like Malachi 4:2), etc. And the December 25 date and Christmas celebrations were implemented in different parts of the world at different times and under different circumstances. There wasn't anything like one decree from Constantine that established the holiday everywhere.

    If you're going to define pagan influence so loosely, and so stringently demand the support of Biblical commandments for your opponents' position, then you should answer some questions about your own life. Do you use the calendar that's popular in our culture today? If so, what do you make of the pagan origins of terms like Thursday and Sunday? Does your church use that calendar and its terminology ("Sunday school", etc.)? Do you and the people who attend your church eat food that originated in non-Christian cultures? Do you use computer technology that was invented or popularized by pornographers? Do you or your church greet people with a handshake, use a microphone, use extra-Biblical music to worship God, or do other things the Bible doesn't command?

    I could ask a lot of other questions along the same lines, but I think you get the point. If you want to know why supporters of Christmas don't find your arguments convincing, it's for much the same reason you haven't found such arguments convincing when applied to other areas of life.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jason, thank you for responding to my post.

    We are both handicapped by the constraints of the blog format from giving full documentation for our positions. I appealed to Hislop, who did a masterful job of documenting his claims--virtually every page of his book has supporting footnotes at the bottom, and in many cases, they occupy nearly half the page.

    Also, in such limited space, it is difficult to address all the relevant issues, but I will attempt to address a few.

    On your "Real Clear Theology" blog article, you say: "Setting up a Christian holiday to rival or replace a pagan holiday isn't equivalent to marrying Christianity to paganism." I cannot fully agree with this assertion, for if Christ did not intend for us to observe holidays, then setting up a rival holiday is following the pattern of pagan worship (i.e. holiday observance), as an alternative to a consistent daily life of spiritual worship as taught by Christ and modeled by his apostles.

    Your article claims that Christians were the first to observe December 25. However, the pagans were observing a holiday at this time of year long before the birth of Christ. Hislop traces the Mother-Child cult all the way back to Nimrod (Gen 10:8-9). His wife Semiramis is supposed to have miraculously given birth to a son named Tammuz, who later died and rose from the dead. The mother and child were worshiped, and the religion spread from Babylon to Assyria, Egypt, Greece and Rome. The mother and child went by various names in various countries. At the time of Christ's birth, the Romans were observing the Saturnalia feast in late December.

    Hislop (p. 92) critiques Chrysostom's claim that the date of Christ's birth was well known in the west: "... that is, the birth-day of our Lord, which was unknown at Antioch in the east, on the very borders of the Holy Land, where He was born, was perfectly known in all the European region of the west, from Thrace even to Spain!"

    Prior to Constantine, some Christians were observing a festival during this season. Tertullian lamented this practice, saying "By us, who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year's day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians." (Hislop, p. 93).

    The arguments that Christ was conceived on the same date as the creation of the world, or on the same date as His death are absurd. Is there any Biblical reason why we should expect this? This is unfounded speculation.

    Winter was not a fitting time to hold a census, requiring women and children to travel long distances, nor for shepherds to be tending their sheep in the fields. Jesus said "Pray that your flight may not be in winter" (Mt 24:20).

    The observance of Christmas is not equivalent to such mundane things as the names of the days of the week, eating food from non-Christian cultures, using computer technology, and the like. The crucial question has to do with the manner of our worship. To allow our worship to be regulated by the calendar, to emphasize a particular doctrine at a particular season of the year (thereby de-emphasizing other doctrines), adorning our sanctuaries with wreaths, trees and candles during this season--things which have no Biblical connection to the incarnation--impacts the way we worship our holy God, and departs from the pattern given in the New Testament, conforming it instead to the pattern of pagan worship.

    Finally, are you suggesting that Romans 14:5 gives us the liberty to bring pagan customs into the church?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mitch C wrote:

    "I cannot fully agree with this assertion, for if Christ did not intend for us to observe holidays, then setting up a rival holiday is following the pattern of pagan worship (i.e. holiday observance), as an alternative to a consistent daily life of spiritual worship as taught by Christ and modeled by his apostles."

    The term "Christ did not intend" is ambiguous. Scripture doesn't have to tell us that Jesus commanded something in order for it to be permissible or for it to be what He intended people to do.

    Observing holidays isn't pagan. It's something that's been done by humans in general, including Jews and Christians.

    And I haven't argued that we should neglect "a consistent daily life of spiritual worship as taught by Christ and modeled by his apostles". If you're suggesting that Jesus and the apostles must have done activity X or directly commanded it in order for us to be allowed to do X today, then why are you writing in an online forum? Jesus didn't do that, nor did the apostles, and they didn't directly command you to write in an online forum. The same can be said of a lot of other things that you and your church do. I've already given some examples.

    You write:

    "Your article claims that Christians were the first to observe December 25. However, the pagans were observing a holiday at this time of year long before the birth of Christ."

    You're changing the subject.

    And pagans celebrated holidays at many times of the year, not just around Christmas time. So did Israel. So did the early Christians. Do you avoid birthdays, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving, etc. if any pagans ever celebrated a holiday around that time of year?

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  10. (continued from above)

    You write:

    "Hislop traces the Mother-Child cult all the way back to Nimrod (Gen 10:8-9). His wife Semiramis is supposed to have miraculously given birth to a son named Tammuz, who later died and rose from the dead."

    Ralph Woodrow writes:

    "Hislop’s 'history' was often only an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths. He claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes. But she was a back­slider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy....They [Nimrod and Semiramis] did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions....Hislop taught that Tammuz (whom he says was Nimrod) was born on December 25, and this is the origin of the date on which Christmas is observed. Yet his supposed proof for this is taken out of context. Having taught that Isis and her infant son Horus were the Egyptian version of Semiramis and her son Tammuz, he cites a reference that the son of Isis was born 'about the time of the winter solstice.' When we actually look up the reference he gives for this (Wilkin­son’s Ancient Egyptians, vol. 4, 405), the son of Isis who was born 'about the time of the winter solstice' was not Horus, her older son, but Harpocrates. The reference also explains this was a premature birth, causing him to be lame, and that the Egyptians celebrated the feast of his mother’s delivery in spring. Taken in context, this has nothing to do with a December celebration or with Christmas as it is known today."

    You write:

    "The arguments that Christ was conceived on the same date as the creation of the world, or on the same date as His death are absurd. Is there any Biblical reason why we should expect this? This is unfounded speculation."

    You're changing the subject again. Calling a Christian argument for December 25 "absurd" doesn't address the issue of how that date relates to paganism. In other words, whether December 25 was borrowed from paganism in some inappropriate way is a different issue than whether December 25 makes sense. The date can be "absurd", as you put it, without being derived from paganism.

    And an argument that it would be fitting for Jesus to be born on a particular day isn't the same as a claim to know that He was born then. If an ancient source did claim to know the date of His birth for some faulty reason, then we can criticize that source for his erroneous argument. But using an erroneous argument isn't the same as borrowing something from paganism.

    I haven't argued that December 25 is the date when Jesus was born. I think it's an acceptable day on which to celebrate His birth, and I think it's an appropriate date in some ways (e.g., the lengthening of daylight), but it doesn't follow that I'm claiming to know that He was born on that day. Holidays can commemorate something that happened on an unknown date. But we have to choose a date for the holiday. I don't think there's sufficient reason to change a date that's become as well established as December 25. Even if a date in, say, May or November would be better in some ways, changing the date wouldn't make sense at this point.

    (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  11. (continued from above)

    You write:

    "The observance of Christmas is not equivalent to such mundane things as the names of the days of the week, eating food from non-Christian cultures, using computer technology, and the like. The crucial question has to do with the manner of our worship. To allow our worship to be regulated by the calendar, to emphasize a particular doctrine at a particular season of the year (thereby de-emphasizing other doctrines), adorning our sanctuaries with wreaths, trees and candles during this season--things which have no Biblical connection to the incarnation--impacts the way we worship our holy God, and departs from the pattern given in the New Testament, conforming it instead to the pattern of pagan worship."

    Worship occurs outside of the church as well, not just within it. Is it acceptable for you to incorporate paganism in your life as long as you're not worshiping in a church at the time?

    And the calendar, with its pagan associations, is used within the church. So are computers and other things you're dismissing as "mundane".

    Your argument about "de-emphasizing other doctrines" doesn't make sense. Just as the celebration of Christmas emphasizes some doctrines more than others, so do other church practices, like baptism, the eucharist, and a sermon that's about one subject rather than another. Given the limitations of human communication and the human mind, how can we not limit which Biblical issues we address at a given time?

    You'll have to explain why a Christmas tree within a church is unacceptable, whereas the use of a calendar with pagan associations isn't. And document that things like wreaths and Christmas trees are inappropriately pagan. Don't cite Hislop. Give us something more reliable. And don't just tell us about the pagan associations these things allegedly had in the past. Explain how they supposedly have unacceptable pagan associations today as well. If you can use a calendar that has distant pagan associations, then explain why something like a wreath couldn't be used as well, despite its alleged pagan associations in the past.

    Besides, the celebration of Christmas doesn't require us to have sermons about the holiday, put up a Christmas tree, decorate our church with wreaths, etc. A church could celebrate Christmas without doing those things.

    Much of what you're saying has already been addressed by me, by Steve, or by others in previous posts. You aren't interacting much with what's already been said.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The Christmas Wars"

    Might as well add this to the list of "culture wars" that Christians are engaged in.

    Merry Christmas everyone!

    ReplyDelete