James McGrath recently wrote an article about the dechristianizing of Christmas. John Loftus linked the article, and I've commented on it in the thread at Debunking Christianity.
Even if some Christians mishandle an issue like saying "merry Christmas" rather than "happy holidays", I do think the general trend toward dechristianizing the holiday is significant and should be opposed. It's about much more than things like what a store clerk says to you during the Christmas season. People like McGrath and Loftus wouldn't stop there. Their disagreements with traditional Christianity go much deeper.
Actually, I think the "deChristianizing of Christmas" stands in opposition to things like saying "Happy Holidays". DeChristianizing was most evident when Christmas largely became associated with Santa Claus, Rudolph, all kinds of 'Christmas' goods and events, as opposed to Christ's birth. And I'd say the fact that Christmas has been so inundated with those elements for quite a while now - and STILL some people are so freaked out at the very word 'Christmas' that they want to avoid all reference to it whenever possible - stands in part as a testament to some failure of secularization. Or at least its failure for many secularists.
ReplyDeletePut another way, I think secularists have given up on trying to secularize Christmas. They tried it, they failed. Now they're looking for alternatives, for some way to replace it. The fact that they had to retreat to that sort of move is instructive.
Honestly, I like having Christmas as a Christian holiday, but when it comes down to it, there is no real biblical mandate which obligates us as Christians to fight for the Christianization of a holiday that doesn't even need to be held, didn't exist until mere humans made it up, and might disappear in the future with Christians being none-the-worse for it since they got along fine without it for hundreds of years.
ReplyDeleteIf people en mass want to change the meaning of Christmas to tales of Santa Clause rather than Christ, it's no skin off my nose because it makes no difference one way or the other in regards to our Christian duties. Heck, if Christians didn't want to celebrate Christ's birth and simply wanted to give gifts and eat good food, they can do that too. Since there's no mandate to celebrate Christ's birth with a holiday like Christmas, even Christians could push for a non-Christian Christmas holiday.
Though I do empathize with those who go out of their way to keep Christmas 'Christian', I ultimately just see a struggle like this as unnecessary.
I'm with Matt.
ReplyDeleteNot only did the church get along fine without it for hundreds of years before it was invented by men, the Puritans and their heirs were none the worse without it either.
I've yet to hear a reasonable argument demonstrating how the spiritual benefits of Christmas outweigh its syncretistic demerits from a Biblical perspective.
In Christ,
CD
Matt,
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you're referring to what's "mandated", what "duties" we have, etc. Something doesn't have to be required in order to be beneficial. You say that you "like having Christmas as a Christian holiday", but then say that "it makes no difference one way or the other in regards to our Christian duties". But you think it makes a difference outside of that context, since you say that you enjoy the holiday. Scripture doesn't command us to celebrate holidays like Memorial Day and Thanksgiving. Would that prevent you from objecting if people opposed to the military tried to redefine Memorial Day or if atheists attempted to redefine Thanksgiving?
You say that Christmas "might disappear in the future with Christians being none-the-worse for it since they got along fine without it for hundreds of years". Since you've said that you "like having Christmas as a Christian holiday", how can removing something you like make you "none-the-worse"? Christianity existed without the printing press, airplanes, some of the political freedoms we have in the United States and other nations, modern medicine, and other things that we often use today in evangelism, missions, and other Christian work. Would you say that we'd be "none-the-worse" without those things? Do you think Christians who work to preserve and promote such things are wasting their time?
There are a lot of things we do in life that aren't directly commanded by scripture. An example is using computers to read and post at Christian web sites. But you do it anyway. And I doubt you think you're "none-the-worse" either way, since you wouldn't be posting here if you thought it makes no difference.
In your post, you keep going back and forth between what you "like" and what's "obligated", what you "empathize with" and what's "necessary". If you like the holiday and empathize with those working to preserve and promote it, then why say that it makes no difference?
Coram Deo,
ReplyDeleteYou should address the same issues I raised in response to Matt.
And you'll have to explain what "syncretistic demerits" you have in mind and how you apply the same principles to other areas of life. Do you avoid using the popular calendar system because of the "syncretistic demerits" of terms like Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday? Why do you use computers, given how much computers have been abused by pornographers, atheists, etc.?
The potential benefits of celebrating Jesus' birth for the individual Christian should need no defense. Even if the surrounding culture abuses the holiday, an individual Christian doesn't have to abuse it just because other people do. Your objection would have to be based on the overall use of the holiday, since you can't deny that it can be used well by individuals.
Is the overall effect of the holiday more negative than positive? I don't see why we should think so. Most people don't know much about the alleged pagan roots of the holiday or the alleged pagan roots of things that are associated with the holiday. People sometimes use Christmas as an opportunity to get drunk or sin in some other way, but they do the same with other holidays and when there is no holiday. It's not something Christmas itself is producing. On the other hand, billions of people are being reminded of Jesus' birth and related concepts, hearing scripture being read, listening to Christian music, etc. The negative things we can associate with Christmas tend to be more distantly related to the holiday, whereas the positive things are more closely related to it. There are a lot of negative things that occur in the name of Christmas, but a lot of positive things as well. I think the balance is more positive than negative.
But even if we were to assume that the balance is negative, it could still make sense for an individual or family to celebrate the holiday or to work at improving the holiday for the potential benefits that could be derived from it in the future. We do similar things in other areas of life, like technology. That's why I've been citing the example of computers, which all of us use. Even if some type of technology is abused by some people or initially is being used for more harm than good, it can still be used for good by an individual or group, and it can result in more good than harm over the long run. We don't just look at how something is being used in the present or how most people use it. We also consider how something might be used in the future and whether individuals or groups can use it in ways that are better than how most people use it.
We don't need Christmas to celebrate Christ's birth. It's fine as a cultural holiday, just like calendars and airplanes are socially beneficial as well. But that is a different matter from observing it in the church, or insisting on its Christian character. That's to say nothing of the biblical issue.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you're referring to what's "mandated", what "duties" we have, etc.
ReplyDeleteI simply mean is there a command from God that we hold holidays like Christmas?
You say that you "like having Christmas as a Christian holiday", but then say that "it makes no difference one way or the other in regards to our Christian duties".
Right. Again, since we have no command from God to celebrate Christmas, my liking having it as a Christian holiday is a purely subjective preference of mine, which is why we as Christians won't suffer any loss.
Would that prevent you from objecting if people opposed to the military tried to redefine Memorial Day or if atheists attempted to redefine Thanksgiving?
As simplistic as the word object goes, then yes, I might "object." However, will I go out of my way to debate and argue that Christmas must only be a Christian holiday and that if you're going to celebrate Christmas you must make it revolve around Christ? Then no. It's never been a scriptural obligation on our part to do so.
You say that Christmas "might disappear in the future with Christians being none-the-worse for it since they got along fine without it for hundreds of years".
Right, and I stand by that statement.
Since you've said that you "like having Christmas as a Christian holiday", how can removing something you like make you "none-the-worse"?
Again, the only thing that would be affected is my subjective preference, which is ultimately just that- a subjective preference. My responsibility to obey God's word isn't affected one way or the other since my ability to do so doesn't hinge upon my pushing for a Christianized holiday.
Christianity existed without the printing press, airplanes, some of the political freedoms we have in the United States and other nations, modern medicine, and other things that we often use today in evangelism, missions, and other Christian work. Would you say that we'd be "none-the-worse" without those things? Do you think Christians who work to preserve and promote such things are wasting their time?
I wouldn't say they're wasting their time, no. What I would argue though is that comparing Christmas to the printing press is an invalid parallel. Such practical tools help Christians carry out their REAL Christian duties. Can Christmas be used as a tool to carry out our duties? Yes. Will we be less able to do so if Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday? No.
And I doubt you think you're "none-the-worse" either way, since you wouldn't be posting here if you thought it makes no difference.
Ibid. my response just above this one.
If you like the holiday and empathize with those working to preserve and promote it, then why say that it makes no difference?
Because once again, Christians won't suddenly be less able to obey God's word and commandments if Christmas goes unchristianized. I wouldn't have pushed to establish Christmas the way it is anymore than I would seek out other pagan holidays and hold a Christian celebration on those days. We never needed to do it, and we can do fine without it, so why this special push for Christmas?
"...so why this special push for Christmas?"
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you give up the culture war way too quickly.
When society is Christianized, it's like a tide that raises all the boats, even those of the pagans. History is replete with examples of how Christianity has made the world better even for secularists. Consider the fact that before Christianity, temple prostitution with children was common in Greece, there were human sacrifices in the Celtic-controlled parts of the United Kingdom, oppression was the norm, etc. I think it's pretty obvious that Christianity is a good thing and any time that it's shoved out, it's going to be a negative.
I simply mean is there a command from God that we hold holidays like Christmas?
ReplyDeleteI think this misses the point. No one is claiming Christians are commanded to celebrate Christmas. The point, I think, is simply that celebrating Christmas can be a good thing.
Consider your father's birthday. There is no command for you to celebrate that. However, celebrating it could be a good thing. And wouldn't it be a bit odd for someone to go out of their way to argue against celebrating their father's birthday?
...will I go out of my way to debate and argue that Christmas must only be a Christian holiday and that if you're going to celebrate Christmas you must make it revolve around Christ? Then no. It's never been a scriptural obligation on our part to do so.
Suppose your brother (or sister) suggests that on your father's birthday we continue to eat cake and have a good time, but not for your father. Or suppose your friend wants to be a part of the party too. He wants to come and have some cake, but not because it's to honor your dad's birthday. He just wants the cake.
Again, you have no scriptural obligation to eat cake and celebrate your dad's birthday and you have no scriptural obligation to keep your friend from showing up solely for the cake's sake… but it strikes me as an odd attitude for someone to be so nonchalant about it. I don't see why someone wouldn't want to celebrate their dad's birthday and I don't see why someone would be ambivalent about another person dishonoring it.
Or if you have a son, tell him that you only celebrate his birthday because you are commanded to and that, if you weren't obligated to do so, you wouldn't. Do you think your son would find something wrong with that attitude? My point with that is only that making the command aspect the center of your argument looks off.
but when it comes down to it, there is no real biblical mandate which obligates us as Christians to fight for the Christianization of a holiday that doesn't even need to be held
ReplyDeleteThis is an unfortunate comment -- if you can't celebrate the birth of Christ, then pray tell what can you celebrate?
Even the wise men celebrated the birth of Jesus.
I am finding some edification reading this thread, especially the comments that follow it.
ReplyDeleteThe last I recalled, my Biblically called, chosen and elected life is transforming me from being a believer in darkness under the power of Satan to becoming "daily" a cross bearing spirit, soul and body under the inspiration of the Light of His Spirit as He leads me sojourning through this world. While I am not perfect, my intent is to bring God the Glory due His Name in whatever I do in word or deed.
Seeing the special people under the written code given by Moses did nothing to destroy their sinful behavior, it just amplified the nature of it, it makes no sense that de-christianizing Christmas will make sinful behavior worse!
I have a couple of Scriptural ideas in mind.
One idea comes from the Apostle's point made when writing to the Roman church, see Romans 7:4-6; and, see Philippians 1:12-19 for my other idea!
One would be devoid of the Spirit to believe Jesus Christ was not born of the Virgin and resided in Israel two thousand years ago and suffered at the hands of godless men saving His people from their sins, the Children of God, who also were born of the same flesh and blood.
One would not be devoid of the Spirit to enhance Christ's birth in the societal practice brought about by the hands of men, Christmas, by telling the story of the birth of Christ to one's neighbors and friends or doing some public presentation at a shopping mall once a week for 6 weeks leading up to December 25th!
Again, we ought to die daily to our sinful behavior, by the new way of the Spirit, not by practicing the written code useful to the flesh to see one's sinful nature and behavior.
Again, we ought to take every opportunity to pray for our leaders in the country we currently reside in, both spiritual and civil so that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way as we go about, with Godly Spiritual Wisdom, proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom to all nations making disciples of those called out of darkness into His marvelous Light by such proclamations.
It seems to me, whether or not Christians should be less or more concerned about the de-christianizing of Christmas, Christians should be ever increasing in concern to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom to every creature for a witness to the birth, life, sufferings, death and resurrection of Christ the Lord of lords and King of kings so that the end may come about bringing in a new heavens and earth wherein Righteousness dwells!
louis wrote:
ReplyDelete"We don't need Christmas to celebrate Christ's birth. It's fine as a cultural holiday, just like calendars and airplanes are socially beneficial as well. But that is a different matter from observing it in the church, or insisting on its Christian character. That's to say nothing of the biblical issue."
The issue isn't what's needed. A man doesn't need to marry his wife, and scripture doesn't command him to marry that particular woman, but it doesn't follow that there's no benefit to marrying her or that he should be indifferent about it. There's a big gray area that the critics of Christmas in this thread keep ignoring.
You've given us no reason to think that observing Christmas in church is inappropriate. And even if we were to keep it out of the church, the issue of how to best observe it outside the church would remain.
Why shouldn't we consider the holiday Christian? Traditionally, it affirms some of the most foundational beliefs of Christianity, and it doesn't contradict anything scripture teaches, much less any foundational doctrines.
You say that the use of calendars is acceptable, but you don't address that issue in the context in which I raised it. If the calendar is inappropriate in the church, why would it be appropriate outside the church? Is associating with paganism (as critics of Christmas define that concept) acceptable as long as you do it outside of the church? And we do use the calendar in the church. We commonly refer to "Sunday school", "Sunday school teachers", church services that will be held on "Thursday", etc. Why isn't that an unacceptable involvement in paganism?
Matt wrote:
ReplyDelete"I simply mean is there a command from God that we hold holidays like Christmas?"
No. Why would there need to be in order for my argument to stand?
You write:
"Again, since we have no command from God to celebrate Christmas, my liking having it as a Christian holiday is a purely subjective preference of mine, which is why we as Christians won't suffer any loss."
There are objective benefits to celebrating Christmas. I mentioned some of them above.
But even as far as subjective factors are concerned, a subjective loss is still a loss. I don't see how it makes sense for you to make comments about liking Christmas, empathizing with its defenders, etc. while saying, at the same time, that losing the holiday would make no difference to you.
You write:
"Again, the only thing that would be affected is my subjective preference, which is ultimately just that- a subjective preference. My responsibility to obey God's word isn't affected one way or the other since my ability to do so doesn't hinge upon my pushing for a Christianized holiday."
Would you say that your marriage to woman X or your friendship with person Y is a "subjective preference" that makes no difference to you, since scripture doesn't command you to marry that woman or be that person's friend? What would your wife think if you spoke of losing her in a similar way to how you speak of losing Christmas? I'm not saying that a wife and Christmas are the same, but they are similar in that your relationship with both isn't commanded by scripture. As I told louis, there's a large gray area that you and other critics of Christmas keep ignoring. The fact that something isn't commanded by scripture doesn't make it as insignificant as you're suggesting in your comments about Christmas.
You write:
"What I would argue though is that comparing Christmas to the printing press is an invalid parallel. Such practical tools help Christians carry out their REAL Christian duties. Can Christmas be used as a tool to carry out our duties? Yes. Will we be less able to do so if Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday? No."
Again, something can be beneficial without being necessary. Our ability to teach the incarnation, evangelize, worship God through music, etc. apart from Christmas doesn't change the fact that Christmas helps advance such things. We could copy scripture and other literature without the printing press. Christians got along for hundreds of years without that technology, to paraphrase what you said earlier about Christmas. We can do better with the printing press than without it, but the same is true of Christmas.
You write:
"I wouldn't have pushed to establish Christmas the way it is anymore than I would seek out other pagan holidays and hold a Christian celebration on those days."
I've already answered the "pagan holiday" charge, and none of the critics of Christmas in this thread are interacting with what I've said about the subject. Aside from what I said in the Debunking Christianity thread linked above, see my material linked here.
I'm glad to see Triablogue taking up the issue of Christmas once again.
ReplyDeleteJason, I read all of your posts and supporting links from his "Material on Christmas Apologetics" post including the sub-links - yes all of them!
And BTW your links to William Tighe and Richard Ostlings articles are broken from your 2005 post - maybe no real surprise there - but I was able to track down the link to the Tighe article here: http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-it-permissible-for-christians-to.html. Sadly I was unable to locate the Ostling piece.
Anyway, I found the material quite interesting and well researched, although I admittedly looked a bit askance at the Touchstone piece by Tighe, but that probably says more about my reservations about Romanist scholarship than anything else.
For my part I view Christmas as something Christians have the liberty to observe if they wish, and the liberty not to observe if they wish. I certainly see it as a matter of liberty, and indifference as far as the Scriptures go.
This being said I still stand by my assertion that I've yet to hear a reasonable argument demonstrating how the spiritual benefits of Christmas outweigh its syncretistic demerits from a Biblical perspective, and I don't say that smugly, but rather with a sense of dismay.
I agree that are many potential benefits to be derived from an observance of our Lord's Incarnation, and Christmas has sort of become that de facto observation culturally, and within the broader professing church; but it seems to me that the more militant legalistic types set forth a much stronger case (perhaps only at an emotional level, I'm not sure) about the demerits of Christmas (alleged pagan origins and syncretistic accretions of the holiday, etc.) than the live-and-let-live Christians set forth.
Perhaps there are similarities with the militant atheistic approach mentioned in Steve's separate post.
Among the reasons I've been more interested in the subject this year is due to some very heated discussions that have been taking place over at DefCon recently.
A.W. Pink and Spurgeon in addition to the Puritans have been brought out as "big gun" appeals to authority on the subject.
I'll continue reading, but frankly I'm a bit disappointed by the stock objections to the stock objections I've seen thus far at T-blogue.
In particular your responses in this thread seemed to be mostly category errors.
Given the current state of Christmas it doesn't seem a genetic fallacy for Christians to consider the origins of many of its various accretions.
I hope to learn more on the subject from T-blogue because I'd personally like to find some reasons to advocate for the observance of a holiday for which I have a sentimental soft spot, but it's at that very point that I begin questioning myself as to why. Is it appealing to my flesh? Do I simply enjoy the smells and bells? Is it sentimental spirituality based on my positive feelings?
In Christ,
CD
On a related note to all Triabloggers and readers, have any of you ever read anything that would suggest, for example, that as a typical Jewish boy in 1st century Israel the Lord Jesus Christ would have observed the non-Biblically-commanded feasts/celebrations of Hanukkah and Purim?
ReplyDeleteIf so I'd be most interested in exploring the material as it seems quite relevant to the Christmas question.
In Christ,
CD
Purim has its origins in the Book of Esther. Jn 9 develops Hanukkah typology.
ReplyDeleteYes I'm familiar with the origins of Purim, Steve; however it wasn't one of the OT commanded feasts for all males to observe, nor was Hanukkah.
ReplyDeleteIn other words the observance of a special festival for these special days was extra-biblical in the sense that said observances weren't explicitly commanded (nor forbidden).
Assuming Jesus was a typical Jewish boy in 1st century Israel it would seem unlikely that he would not have participated in Purim or Hanukkah festivities, all things being equal.
In this there seems to be a potential parallel to Christmas, or at least to some observance of the Incarnation given the angelic hosts, rejoicing shepherds, and wise men who attended/honored/worshipped the new born King.
I seriously doubt I'm the first person to think of this, so I was hoping to find some material where the subject has been explored.
In Him,
CD
Coram Deo,
ReplyDeleteI wrote specific responses to specific claims made by you and by another poster you said you agreed with (Matt). You aren't interacting much with what I said. Instead, you're giving us generalities about your own conclusions without supporting arguments. When we cite non-pagan reasons for using the December 25 date, cite examples of pagan influence on the opponents of Christmas (their use of our culture's calendar, for example), etc., those are specific arguments that warrant a specific response. Merely telling us that you don't find our side of the dispute convincing isn't enough. You need to explain why and interact with the arguments. Why would you say "I'm a bit disappointed by the stock objections to the stock objections I've seen thus far at T-blogue" when we've offered far more support for our conclusions than you've offered for yours?
Before you even get to a question like whether Jesus observed extra-Biblical holidays, you should address the issue of whether we would need any such warrant for observing holidays. Why would we need a Biblical example or command to begin with? Do you apply that reasoning consistently to everything your church does and everything you do as an individual? I doubt it. How do you even make sense of a passage like Romans 14:5-6 if there has to be something like a Biblical command for a holiday or an example taken from Jesus' life?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs I said earlier Jason, I've read through all your material, and now all the most recent material posted here at T-blogue, so with that in mind I'll do my best to categorize the myriad stonger/weaker arguments (at least as I see them) as presented by what I perceive as the legalistic "do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" crowd, not to be contentious, but to examine your rejoinders.
ReplyDeleteIn many cases your material has addressed specific complaints/objections by the legalists, and in many cases they seem to side-step the issues.
As I said, I'll work to categorize these more formally in the near future so we can work through them (assuming you have the time and inclination), but if you're just going to send me links to prior posts - been there done that - I'd like some real interaction; and preferably not as your enemy but as someone taking the "negative" side of an argument so you can set forth the "positive" side for the edification of Christ's people, not to win an argument. In fact this is an argument I actually hope to lose, which is a rare thing for me.
In Him,
CD
To Peter Pike: Point taken, and if someone were pushing for some pagan alternative to replace Christmas, I probably would push for a Christian Christmas. I see no such alternative being pushed, however, and that pathetic attempt to turn Christmas into Wintermas during the mid two-thousands makes me think that a Christianized Christmas will be around for quite a while.
ReplyDeleteTo Jonathan: I'm not arguing against celebrating Christmas in a Christian-based manner, and I don't argue against celebrating birthdays. On the other hand, I've never held a birthday or any other holiday specifically to protest the lack of such celebrations in Jehovah's Witness's lifestyle. Ultimately it's just a liberty to which we have the right to enjoy or not to enjoy.
To Cory: I didn't say you can't celebrate Christmas. You misunderstood me.
To Jason Engwer:
No. Why would there need to be in order for my argument to stand?
Because the theme of your article is to answer why Christians should push to keep Christmas Christianized. Should is a moral term indicating an imperative on our part, hence my asking for a command from God.
But even as far as subjective factors are concerned, a subjective loss is still a loss. I don't see how it makes sense for you to make comments about liking Christmas, empathizing with its defenders, etc. while saying, at the same time, that losing the holiday would make no difference to you.
I consider a mere subjective preference negligible. I don't know why that should be difficult to understand. If we lose the ability to cater to a subjective preference, what big deal is it if we lose the subjective preference to practice our faith in a particular way when other ways will work just as well?
I'm not saying that a wife and Christmas are the same, but they are similar in that your relationship with both isn't commanded by scripture. As I told louis, there's a large gray area that you and other critics of Christmas keep ignoring. The fact that something isn't commanded by scripture doesn't make it as insignificant as you're suggesting in your comments about Christmas.
One, I'm not a critic of Christmas. Two, I'm talking about something that makes no difference in our ability to carry out our Christian duties. Marriage is like that, yes, but just like Christmas, I'm not pushing for my other brothers and sisters in Christ to marry anymore than I would attempt to compel them to Christianize Christmas.
Again, something can be beneficial without being necessary. Our ability to teach the incarnation, evangelize, worship God through music, etc. apart from Christmas doesn't change the fact that Christmas helps advance such things.
I agree. However, here comes the main point where you and I disagree. I see the energy and focus people pour into Christianizing Christmas in particular as energy that could simply be turned around into teaching the incarnation, etc. That's what Christians did beforehand, and it worked just fine even though they lacked the backdrop of a Christian holiday.
It it, at the very least, free advertising so to speak. That is, it's an opportunity to voice the true meaning of Christmas in the public square in such a way as to have it readily absorbed by the population in general. I doubt it is helpful to the enemy for people to have to think about it even if they end up rejecting the incarnation of Christ. Imagine the common sentiment: "Well we all KNOW what Christmas is supposed to be about." So we absolutely ought to continue to speak out if only so that people know that they have devolved from the true meaning of Christmas. That tacit acknowledgment of such truth as we are not what we ought to be is the first assent toward accepting the gospel.
ReplyDeleteCoram Deo wrote:
ReplyDelete"As I said, I'll work to categorize these more formally in the near future so we can work through them (assuming you have the time and inclination), but if you're just going to send me links to prior posts - been there done that - I'd like some real interaction; and preferably not as your enemy but as someone taking the 'negative' side of an argument so you can set forth the 'positive' side for the edification of Christ's people, not to win an argument. In fact this is an argument I actually hope to lose, which is a rare thing for me."
Telling me not to post links, then telling me that you "hope to lose", gives me reason to avoid the discussion rather than participate in it. If I've already addressed a subject, then there's nothing wrong with my linking to those posts. You say you want "real interaction", but you've been making dismissive comments about our arguments without doing much to interact with those arguments. You've been making claims that you didn't support to begin with and still aren't supporting. And now you want to move on to presenting a list of more objections for me to respond to, and you don't want to be held accountable for defending those objections either. Instead of doing more research yourself and defending the claims you've already made, you want me to keep writing new responses (no links) to more and more objections that you've distanced yourself from before you've even posted them.
I am interested in "the edification of Christ's people". That's one of the reasons why I put so much time into this ministry and similar work. But one of my responsibilities is to be wise in my time management. Another is to not encourage the behavior of people who aren't doing enough research and aren't making enough of an effort to support their own claims. You're largely ignoring the work I've already done on these Christmas issues, and you're asking me to go on to reply to more of your material while you continue neglecting what I've already written. That's not promising.
I don't consider you "my enemy". I'm glad you're here, and I hope you'll stay. But you ought to take another look at how this discussion has gone so far. If our positions were reversed, how would you react? What if I expected you to keep responding to more and more arguments (and ones I don't necessarily even believe in) while I kept ignoring what you had already written and hadn't yet defended the claims I'd already made?
I don't consider you "my enemy".
ReplyDeleteThat's good.
I'm glad you're here, and I hope you'll stay.
Thanks, I'd like that.
But you ought to take another look at how this discussion has gone so far.
With your indulgence I thought it was about to start, but I don't want to presume upon your time or patience.
If our positions were reversed, how would you react? What if I expected you to keep responding to more and more arguments (and ones I don't necessarily even believe in) while I kept ignoring what you had already written and hadn't yet defended the claims I'd already made?
I would take you at your word that you had read what I had written, as claimed, and that you had further requests to clarify items that you felt I hadn't addressed clearly, or had side-stepped in my prior arguments, as you had indicated to me and wanted to clarify with further interaction, if I was willing and had time to engage in further dialogue.
But based on your last comment I don't think further discussion would be productive. Thanks for taking the time to make that much clear.
In Him,
CD
Matt wrote:
ReplyDelete"Because the theme of your article is to answer why Christians should push to keep Christmas Christianized. Should is a moral term indicating an imperative on our part, hence my asking for a command from God."
People ask whether they should marry a particular person, should change jobs, should eat one thing for dinner rather than another, etc. The term "should" is used in a moral context sometimes, but not always.
When people ask for a commandment from God pertaining to something, they're usually asking for one command that directly addresses the issue in question. They aren't asking for a broader principle (or series of broader principles) that indirectly makes one course of action more appropriate than another. We're commanded to be wise, to make the most of our resources, etc. Those general principles can be applied across our lives. In that sense, everything we do in life can be said to fall under the commandments of God. Choosing to marry one person rather than another is wiser. Taking one job rather than another is a better use of our time. Eating one type of food instead of another is healthier and, thus, a better management of our body. Etc. But we can't cite any one commandment of scripture that directly tells us who to marry, what job to take, what to eat for supper, etc. I wasn't denying that there are broader principles of scripture that are applicable to the celebration of Christmas. I was denying that there's a direct commandment. That's why I used the "directly commanded by scripture" qualifier in my first response to you.
Surely you aren't suggesting that even the broader principles of scripture aren't applicable to celebrating Christmas? If you are suggesting that, then why are you giving your time and effort to discussing an issue that isn't significant in either sense I've referred to above?
I'm also distinguishing between what an individual is obligated to do and what makes sense for the church or society. Celebrating a holiday like Christmas may make sense for the church and society, yet, at the same time, it makes sense for an individual to not celebrate it due to his particular circumstances. I'm not arguing that every individual should celebrate Christmas. I do think it makes more sense to celebrate it in general, though.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"I consider a mere subjective preference negligible. I don't know why that should be difficult to understand. If we lose the ability to cater to a subjective preference, what big deal is it if we lose the subjective preference to practice our faith in a particular way when other ways will work just as well?"
I've already explained why the celebration of Christmas should be considered more than a matter of negligible subjective preference. And saying that it isn't a "big deal" is different than your initial claim that it doesn't make any difference.
You write:
"Marriage is like that, yes, but just like Christmas, I'm not pushing for my other brothers and sisters in Christ to marry anymore than I would attempt to compel them to Christianize Christmas."
Would you say that deciding whether to marry a woman is a negligible subjective preference that doesn't make any difference to you?
You write:
"I see the energy and focus people pour into Christianizing Christmas in particular as energy that could simply be turned around into teaching the incarnation, etc. That's what Christians did beforehand, and it worked just fine even though they lacked the backdrop of a Christian holiday."
The incarnation is taught in the process of celebrating Christmas, and many other things are added to that teaching (music, artwork, a coordinated recognition with the rest of our society, etc.). There are benefits to holidays that we don't get from teaching alone. That's why Israel and the church over the centuries have had so many holidays. That's why spouses celebrate anniversaries, nations have holidays to honor their military, etc. Different people are at different stages of life and are influenced in different ways than other people. Something like music or a public acknowledgement of the significance of an event (like Jesus' birth) can influence people who won't be influenced by other means.
Coram Deo wrote:
ReplyDelete"With your indulgence I thought it was about to start"
If you're several posts into an exchange and you haven't started acting like you're in a discussion yet, isn't that a problem?
If you're several posts into an exchange and you haven't started acting like you're in a discussion yet, isn't that a problem?
ReplyDeleteIt could be yes, especially if before proceeding the party of the first part was unclear if the party of the second part had either time and/or inclination to interact, and upon inquiring about said time and/or inclination the party of the second part seemed rather irritated by the party of the first part's inquiry.
My research into the matter is what led me to T-blogue in the first place, so I'll continue conducting my own research, and I'll re-read your prior links for more information.
Anywho, Merry Christmas and thanks for your service to the Lord.
In Christ,
CD
Sorry for not replying earlier. I was in the process of moving and only just last night got connected to the internet on my computer.
ReplyDeleteSurely you aren't suggesting that even the broader principles of scripture aren't applicable to celebrating Christmas? If you are suggesting that, then why are you giving your time and effort to discussing an issue that isn't significant in either sense I've referred to above?
No, I think they are applicable to celebrating Christmas. My whole position though is that we don't need Christmas and would be better off not worrying if we have a backdrop of a holiday to obey those principles. Oh, and I'm giving time and effort to discuss this issue for the same reasons I'd give to anyone who wishes to impose extra rules on the part of other Christians. I see keeping Christmas Christianized as an extra rule which we need not follow, and that adding extra rules will, in the long run, leave us worse off and not better off in the end.
Would you say that deciding whether to marry a woman is a negligible subjective preference that doesn't make any difference to you?
No, but to put it in perspective: If you're asking if I think my ability to obey God's principles hinges upon my marrying any particular woman, then my answer is yes. I can be a Christian and obey God without a wife, and I doubt you would dispute that. I just wonder why you think my ability to do the same is somehow less possible or more difficult if Christmas loses its reputation as a Christian-specific holiday.
The incarnation is taught in the process of celebrating Christmas, and many other things are added to that teaching (music, artwork, a coordinated recognition with the rest of our society, etc.). There are benefits to holidays that we don't get from teaching alone.
True, however, rather than pushing to have a once a year period where we might get a temporary spike of ease for spreading the Christian faith, why not instead direct that effort into regularly doing all the things you just mentioned, but throughout the whole year?
Matt wrote:
ReplyDelete"Oh, and I'm giving time and effort to discuss this issue for the same reasons I'd give to anyone who wishes to impose extra rules on the part of other Christians. I see keeping Christmas Christianized as an extra rule which we need not follow, and that adding extra rules will, in the long run, leave us worse off and not better off in the end."
Is that an "extra rule" that you're "adding"?
You write:
"No, but to put it in perspective: If you're asking if I think my ability to obey God's principles hinges upon my marrying any particular woman, then my answer is yes."
You say "no", then you say "yes". You aren't explaining how the two answers relate to each other. You seem to want to avoid saying about marriage what you said about Christmas. Why not just dismiss both as a "negligible subjective preference"? You're right to resist saying it about marriage. You should also resist saying it about Christmas.
You write:
"True, however, rather than pushing to have a once a year period where we might get a temporary spike of ease for spreading the Christian faith, why not instead direct that effort into regularly doing all the things you just mentioned, but throughout the whole year?"
It can't be done "throughout the whole year". When employers give their employees a day off for Christmas, that's not something that can be done throughout the year. Are churches supposed to have the equivalent of a Christmas concert every day? If not every day, then why would something like once a week or once a month be acceptable, whereas once a year should be avoided?
One of the reasons why Christmas receives so much attention is because it involves things that aren't done throughout the year. And some things take a long time to plan and implement, so they can't be done every day. Christian worship on Sundays receives more attention because it's something that isn't done every day. As I said before, ancient Israel had holidays by Divine command. Since ancient times, Christians have done some things less than every day (baptisms, communion, Sunday services, etc.) and have celebrated holidays. Societies around the world celebrate anniversaries, set aside times to honor their military, etc.
Christmas is celebrated by billions of people and receives a tremendous amount of attention from society. The same isn't true of books on the incarnation, commentaries on Matthew and Luke, and other material related to Christmas that's produced more often than Christmas is celebrated. Many people will be influenced by Christmas in ways in which they aren't influenced by the sort of teaching throughout the year that you want us to focus on instead.
Is that an "extra rule" that you're "adding"?
ReplyDeleteIs what an extra rule?
You say "no", then you say "yes". You aren't explaining how the two answers relate to each other.
Um, yes I did. I said no as a blunt, simple, unqualified response, and then I followed that up with 'yes' as I added more qualifiers to what I perceived your question to include. Again, how hard is that to understand? I don't get why you don't see the distinguishing characteristics that I myself make.
You seem to want to avoid saying about marriage what you said about Christmas. Why not just dismiss both as a "negligible subjective preference"? You're right to resist saying it about marriage. You should also resist saying it about Christmas.
Wait, so it's RIGHT to say my ability to carry about my Christian duties hinges upon my marrying? What?
It can't be done "throughout the whole year". When employers give their employees a day off for Christmas, that's not something that can be done throughout the year.
Which, of course, is overly simplistic. There are various and diverse days off throughout the year not counting earned vacation time on top of the typical Sunday off. Not only that, but a lot of people don't get Christmas off, my Dad (who works at Radioshack) being just one example among many.
Are churches supposed to have the equivalent of a Christmas concert every day?
No, and that doesn't follow from what I said.
If not every day, then why would something like once a week or once a month be acceptable, whereas once a year should be avoided?
And when did I say that? I didn't say once a year should be avoided. If it were once a year, which would be kind of odd, then it could still be fine if people weren't insisting that alongside evangelizing, preaching, etc. we should also be driving our efforts into making the public see one particular day of the year as a holiday to celebrate Christianity. I see that effort better spent elsewhere.
One of the reasons why Christmas receives so much attention is because it involves things that aren't done throughout the year. And some things take a long time to plan and implement, so they can't be done every day.
Again, not everyone gets the day off on Christmas, so even then your argument is faulty. Not only that, but if those things that take a long time to plan and implement involve working to impose this obligation on Christians to keep Christmas Christianized, than that's irrelevant since the question of the discussion is whether Christians are supposed to do that.
Christmas is celebrated by billions of people and receives a tremendous amount of attention from society. The same isn't true of books on the incarnation, commentaries on Matthew and Luke, and other material related to Christmas that's produced more often than Christmas is celebrated. Many people will be influenced by Christmas in ways in which they aren't influenced by the sort of teaching throughout the year that you want us to focus on instead..
Which is just begging the question.
Matt wrote:
ReplyDelete"Is what an extra rule?"
You said that "adding extra rules will, in the long run, leave us worse off and not better off in the end". If arguing that it's better to work to preserve Christmas as a Christian holiday is "adding extra rules", then why isn't it "adding extra rules" to argue that it's better to not do such work?
You write:
"I said no as a blunt, simple, unqualified response, and then I followed that up with 'yes' as I added more qualifiers to what I perceived your question to include. Again, how hard is that to understand? I don't get why you don't see the distinguishing characteristics that I myself make."
If you answer my question about marriage in the negative and in the positive, but only expand on the positive response, then it's reasonable for me to question what you mean. You only expanded on part of your answer, not the whole thing. If you're giving a negative response to my question about marriage for a reason similar to why I would give a negative response to the same question regarding the celebration of Christmas, then that agreement is significant.
You write:
"There are various and diverse days off throughout the year not counting earned vacation time on top of the typical Sunday off. Not only that, but a lot of people don't get Christmas off, my Dad (who works at Radioshack) being just one example among many."
The other days off only cover a small minority of the year, and they aren't about Christmas. And the fact that some people don't have Christmas off doesn't change the general principle. A day off for most people is significant, even though not everybody has the day off.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"I didn't say once a year should be avoided. If it were once a year, which would be kind of odd, then it could still be fine if people weren't insisting that alongside evangelizing, preaching, etc. we should also be driving our efforts into making the public see one particular day of the year as a holiday to celebrate Christianity."
You can change your argument if you want, but it should be noted that you are changing it. You've gone from saying that "all the things" I mentioned should be done "throughout the whole year" to saying that "once a year" is acceptable.
You write:
"Not only that, but if those things that take a long time to plan and implement involve working to impose this obligation on Christians to keep Christmas Christianized, than that's irrelevant since the question of the discussion is whether Christians are supposed to do that."
But that's a different objection. In the comments you were responding to, I was addressing the problems with trying to spread the elements of the Christmas holiday throughout the year. If I was right about those problems, then trying to shift our attention to a different objection to my position isn't much of a response.
You write:
"Which is just begging the question."
You say that after I've offered more support for my position than you've offered for yours. You keep telling us that we'd be better off not working to maintain Christmas as a Christian holiday, but what evidence have you offered? I can give details, and have given some, about how widely Christmas is celebrated, specific contexts in which scripture is read to celebrate the holiday, hymns are sung, etc. It's a holiday that's already established and is celebrated by billions of people. Your proposed alternative is vague and unimplemented.
If arguing that it's better to work to preserve Christmas as a Christian holiday is "adding extra rules", then why isn't it "adding extra rules" to argue that it's better to not do such work?
ReplyDeleteYou're not just saying it's better; you're imposing a rule while begging the question of the superiority of your one-day-per-year model against (as of yet) largely unimplemented alternatives. I don't present an anti-thesis as a mandate since the Bible makes no such rule. My argument isn't against your one day per year practice, but that you're attempting to impose that as a rule upon others.
The other days off only cover a small minority of the year, and they aren't about Christmas. And the fact that some people don't have Christmas off doesn't change the general principle. A day off for most people is significant, even though not everybody has the day off.
It's still a flaw in your argument from people getting the day off.
You can change your argument if you want, but it should be noted that you are changing it. You've gone from saying that "all the things" I mentioned should be done "throughout the whole year" to saying that "once a year" is acceptable.
As per my response above, I don't say that once a year is unacceptable. In that particular response I merely posed the question as a better alternative, not that it couldn't be done once a year. This is what I've been trying to show in this discussion is that you're attempting to make your method a mandate whereas I am not. Yes, once a year is acceptable; is it mandatory? No, that's where we disagree.
But that's a different objection. In the comments you were responding to, I was addressing the problems with trying to spread the elements of the Christmas holiday throughout the year. If I was right about those problems, then trying to shift our attention to a different objection to my position isn't much of a response.
I don't intend to shift your attention. I answered that specific response and entered an extra objection on the side. If you don't like that, that's fine, but I didn't intend to shift your attention, and I do stand by what I said in the very beginning there.
Your proposed alternative is vague and unimplemented.
Duh it's not implemented. That's my point. You can claim all you want that people will be influenced more or better through celebrating Christmas, and certainly I affirm your examples of people being influenced through Christmas, but that just proves that people en mass hold your position. Who knows that if there was a massive paradigm shift in people's positions to celebrate Christianity over a broader scope of time that more good would be the result?
Matt wrote:
ReplyDelete"You're not just saying it's better; you're imposing a rule while begging the question of the superiority of your one-day-per-year model against (as of yet) largely unimplemented alternatives. I don't present an anti-thesis as a mandate since the Bible makes no such rule. My argument isn't against your one day per year practice, but that you're attempting to impose that as a rule upon others."
I made a distinction between direct commandments and broader principles in my 8:01 P.M. post on December 21. You said you agreed with that distinction in your 3:09 P.M. post on December 24. What you need to do is explain how my appeal to such broader principles is an unacceptable "mandate", whereas yours isn't. Presumably, you agree with me that scripture commands us to be wise, to make the most of our time, etc. Earlier, you said that you did agree with me about the existence of such broader principles and their applicability to the celebration of Christmas. If both of us believe that such principles apply to Christmas celebration, but we disagree about which approach better conforms to those principles, then why should anybody believe your claim that our disagreement is over whether there's a "mandate" involved? That's not where the disagreement exists. You're framing the issue the wrong way.
You wrote:
"It's still a flaw in your argument from people getting the day off."
Since the issue is which approach toward Christmas is better, an advantage to my approach doesn't have to be universal in order to be favorable to my position. Saying that some people don't get a day off work for Christmas doesn't address the generality I was appealing to, and saying that employers give people days off for other reasons doesn't address what I said about days off for Christmas.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"As per my response above, I don't say that once a year is unacceptable. In that particular response I merely posed the question as a better alternative, not that it couldn't be done once a year. This is what I've been trying to show in this discussion is that you're attempting to make your method a mandate whereas I am not. Yes, once a year is acceptable; is it mandatory? No, that's where we disagree."
See my comments above about a "mandate". In your last response to me, you said "I didn't say once a year should be avoided." That's why I cited your earlier comments in which you did argue that it should be avoided. Now you're saying that you allow for something to be done once a year, even though it would be worse to do it that way. But the issue under dispute is which approach is better. That's what the "should" is about. If you're redefining "should" as a reference to the "mandate" you keep referring to, then you're changing the subject.
You wrote:
"Who knows that if there was a massive paradigm shift in people's positions to celebrate Christianity over a broader scope of time that more good would be the result?"
You've been arguing that we would be better off if there was such a change. You didn't just say "who knows". In your 3:09 P.M. post on December 24, you said, "we don't need Christmas and would be better off not worrying if we have a backdrop of a holiday to obey those principles". In your 12:02 P.M. post on December 31, you commented, "I see that effort [keeping Christmas Christian] better spent elsewhere".
I've mentioned some of the positive results of having Christmas as a Christian holiday. Those results have already occurred many times, and the framework for them is already in place and influencing billions of people. If you want us to think that it would be better to give those benefits up for an alternative, then you should argue for your alternative rather than just telling us that you think it would be better. I said that your alternative is vague and unimplemented, and you responded by saying "duh" about my unimplemented comment. You ignored what I said about the vagueness of your position. If your alternative is unimplemented and you're being so vague about it at the theoretical level, why is anybody supposed to find your position convincing?
I made a distinction between direct commandments and broader principles in my 8:01 P.M. post on December 21. You said you agreed with that distinction in your 3:09 P.M. post on December 24.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny, I can't remember reading that distinction or even agreeing with it. I just read it now though... Huh. I wonder how I missed responding to that. Let me quote it and respond to it now:
I'm also distinguishing between what an individual is obligated to do and what makes sense for the church or society. Celebrating a holiday like Christmas may make sense for the church and society, yet, at the same time, it makes sense for an individual to not celebrate it due to his particular circumstances. I'm not arguing that every individual should celebrate Christmas. I do think it makes more sense to celebrate it in general, though.
I agree with that. Maybe our disagreements over the past few weeks have stemmed from my missing that entire paragraph. I've been seeing your pushing for the Christianization of Christmas as an imposed rule when I entirely missed that section of your post.
Since the issue is which approach toward Christmas is better, an advantage to my approach doesn't have to be universal in order to be favorable to my position. Saying that some people don't get a day off work for Christmas doesn't address the generality I was appealing to, and saying that employers give people days off for other reasons doesn't address what I said about days off for Christmas.
Very well. I'll give you that.
(continued below)
(Continued from above)
ReplyDeleteI was going to respond more fully, but after reading your last remark, I decided the rest weren't relevant- at least at this time. I'm going to skip to my response to some of your last words in your most recent response:
Those results have already occurred many times, and the framework for them is already in place and influencing billions of people. If you want us to think that it would be better to give those benefits up for an alternative, then you should argue for your alternative rather than just telling us that you think it would be better.
That's a fair point. I don't have much beyond the mere assertion that a year-long celebration would work better. I'll need to develop a more sophisticated alternative that would be good enough to make the departure from the one day of Christmas... Or just stick with Chrismas. I think I may wind up agreeing that we should keep Christmas after all. It seems now like it would be easier.