Jehovah's Witnesses and the Armstrong Churches of God teach that Christmas is derived from pagan practices and should not be celebrated by Christians. They claim that Scripture doesn't say anything about celebrating Christ's birth and actually commanded Christians to commemorate his death. They point out that early Christians did not celebrate Christmas, and that we don't even know the real date of Christ's birth. They also go on to point out the commercialization of the holiday, and the greed which they claim is an integral part of the day. In one of his booklets on the subject, Herbert Armstrong even suggested that the money spent on gift giving would be better spent in assisting "God's work" (meaning his church organization)!
Well, what about all of these claims against Christmas? Are they true? If they are true, do they provide sufficient justification for Christians to shun the observance of this holiday?
Once upon a time, I accepted their narrative against Christmas. Although I had loved the holiday as a child and had been the chief proponent of its observance within our family, after reading some of Herbert Armstrong's literature on the subject, I decided that Christmas was evil and shouldn't be celebrated by "TRUE" Christians. However, after many years of study and soul searching, things have come full circle for me - I am joyfully celebrating Christmas again! How did I get there? There are numerous posts on this blog which explain the historical and spiritual calculations which got me to the place I am today.
Nevertheless, for the sake of those who do not have the time or the inclination to look up all of those posts, a brief summary of the evidence which I uncovered will suffice for the purposes of this post. After an intensive study of the history of the holiday, I learned that the overwhelming majority of the practices associated with our observance of Christmas belong to the Christian era. Indeed, my studies led me to the conclusion that over 90% of our observances were generated within the last 500 years! The truth is that most of our notions about Santa, gift-giving, Christmas cards, poinsettias, and feasting belong to developments of the 19th Century. Likewise, the vast majority of our holiday traditions relative to Rudolph, the Grinch, songs, and movies belong to the 20th Century! The truth is that there is much more paganism related to the calendar that we currently use than can justly be attributed to the Christmas holiday!
Moreover, it's NOT very honest to say that Scripture has NOTHING to say about the celebration of Christ's birth. The TRUTH is that two of the four canonical gospels give rather extensive accounts of the events surrounding Christ's birth (see Matthew 1, 2 and Luke 1, 2). And, BOTH of those accounts are overtly celebratory of that event! Additionally, we know that both the Torah and many of the prophets of the Old Testament pointed to the coming of the Christ and characterized that as a blessed event! You remember, of course, that famous passage from Isaiah: "For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) Indeed, one of the Torah festivals which Herbert Armstrong taught that Christians were obligated to observe pictured Christ's coming to this earth!
Still, there are even some atheists and progressive Christians who insist that the whole mother and child/virgin birth/visiting magi narrative outlined in Matthew and Luke was borrowed from much older, pagan religions. However, it should be noted that the objective of most of the folks who point this out is to discredit Scripture and/or the existence of a historical Jesus. Hence, whatever inspired the stories in Matthew and Luke, Christians are left with the fact that they are included in two of the canonical gospels! And what if these accounts are metaphorical/highly symbolic? Does that automatically disqualify them? It certainly wouldn't be the first time that God had employed metaphor and symbolism in Scripture to make a larger spiritual point!
Many folks before me have commented about the Christmas spirit. It has been characterized as joyful, hopeful. nostalgic, giving, inspirational, peaceful, kind, generous, family-oriented, magical, miraculous, wonderous, and Holy (among many other equally nice adjectives). What's wrong with these things? Are these sentiments evil? Are these things that are unworthy of Christian interest or participation?
We went to a performance of the Nutcracker earlier today with our eldest daughter and her four children. It is a tradition which we have observed for many years now, and it is pure joy to behold the looks of rapture and enjoyment on the faces of our grandchildren while the ballet is being performed. The smiles on their little faces are priceless. Would the money for those tickets have been better spent by contributing it to one of the ACOGs? I don't think so! Indeed, I would challenge anyone to say that we weren't doing God's work today!
As I write this post tonight, I'm thinking about all of those celebrations of Christmas that I missed during my years under the spell of Herbert Armstrong's teaching, and it makes me sick. I think about the years that my own children went without this wonderful holiday, and I am ashamed of my self-righteous, self-centered delusion! I can't ever get those years back, but I thank God that I can enjoy this holiday with my children and grandchildren in the present! For whatever time I have left on this earth, I have the privilege of celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ with these loved ones.
Fortunately, for me, it wasn't too late to shun the mistakes of the past and begin again - in a better and more wholesome spirit. Like Ebeneezer Scrooge (which I once played in a fifth-grade production of Dickens' A Christmas Carol), I have made a promise to myself: "I will honor Christmas in my heart and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach."
From my perspective, the birth of Jesus Christ is one of the three greatest events in the history of humankind (his death and resurrection being the other two). For me, the story of the angel's appearance to the shepherds is the epitome of how all TRUE Christians should regard the birth of Christ. In the Gospel of Luke, we read: "That night there were shepherds staying in the fields nearby, guarding their flocks of sheep. Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and the radiance of the Lord’s glory surrounded them. They were terrified, but the angel reassured them. 'Don’t be afraid!' he said. 'I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David! And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger.' Suddenly, the angel was joined by a vast host of others—the armies of heaven—praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased.'" (2:8-14) Now, that is worth celebrating!
Lonnie, I disagree. The whole history of Christmas is a distortion of fact according to countless references on google and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly right.
DeleteThe case against Christmas is an example in logic of Genetic Fallacy (q.v. Wikipedia). Christmas is evaluated by its critics on its irrelevant origins rather than on its current merit. The Armstrongist handling of policy derived from genetic fallacy is sloppy. They condemn Christmas but they permit their women to take advantage of post-Christmas sales. These sales are just as much connected to Christmas as pre-Christmas sales. They do not apply the policy comprehensively. I know Armstrongists back last century who would not wear wedding rings because of their pagan origin. That was a step in the direction of comprehensive, non-selective application.
ReplyDeleteIf Armstrongists were really convinced of the pagan origins argument, they would have a panel of judges who did nothing but evaluate what has pagan roots and what does not. Instead, they just shoot for a few high profile concerns and let everything else slide like classical Laodiceans (in their terminology). If they did have such a panel of judges, dispensing picayune judgments on what must be avoided, they would quickly discover how meager the “purist” life can become.
I evaluate Christmas on its present merits. My criticism is that it is way too commercialized and should emphasize the spiritual dimensions of the Advent. I am sure lots of people think that. The near forgotten pagan connections are inconsequential. Nobody would even think about these connections except for the arm waving of a few people on the fringe. Rather than attacking something that is bad, they sully what is good.
After my family left Armstrongism back in 1995, I was unable to recover Christmas. One family member became an agnostic so that presents a complication. The other family member has no interest in any holiday. It has become a time for me to quietly reflect on the Advent. Not so bad, really.
Neo read history.com and other sources.
Delete— "Christmas is really about bringing out your inner pagan," historian Kenneth C. Davis told "CBS This Morning
Delete'It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part. '
DeleteThat's your belief but the facts stand strong.
Delete