Reformed churches everywhere are observing Christmas. They claim that it is a good opportunity to commemorate Christ’s birth. The word “Christmas” combines two words – “Christ” and “mass” – because the Roman Catholic Church holds a special mass to commemorate His birth. The Scottish Reformers were only stating the obvious when they declared: “…the Papists have invented…Christmas” (The First Book of Discipline, First Head).
We should therefore expect Reformed Christians to protest against the very concept. Why? Their creeds and catechisms teach that the mass is a form of gross idolatry. (See Question 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29, sections 2 and 6.)
More to the point: Scripture nowhere commands us to devote a day to remembering Christ’s birth. Yet rarely do we hear protests against Christmas. Today’s Reformed churches sharply differ with Scottish Presbyterianism, which, until about the turn of the 20th century, shunned Christmas observance.
They also differ from the Northern States of the USA until the American Civil War (1861-1865). Puritan New England held that Christmas observance was sinful, with Massachusetts passing a law against observing it. (Christmas observance was more common in the South, due in part to the strength of the Anglican Church.)
One defender of Christmas observance is none other than Sinclair Ferguson, a gifted and well-known Reformed writer. Mr Ferguson is a minister who was originally in the Church of Scotland and a student of church history. He is therefore well-aware of the historic position of the Scottish Reformers against Christmas observance. Yet he argues that, whatever connections it may have with paganism or Romanism, we may now use it as an opportunity to remember Christ’s birth.
An old argument
This argument may seem convincing at first, but it is not new. It resembles chapter 24 of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), which says:
“Moreover, if the churches do religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven, and sending the Holy Ghost upon His disciples, according to Christian liberty, we do very well approve of it.”
When Theodore Beza sent this Confession to John Knox and the Church of Scotland for their approval, their reply was courteous but firm:
“…these festivals at the present time obtain no place among us; for we dare not religiously celebrate any other feast-day than what the divine oracles have prescribed. Everything else, as we have said, we teach, approve, and most willingly embrace” (The Works of John Knox, Vol. 6, pp. 547-548).
Scripture requires us to remember faithful preachers who have spoken unto us the Word of God, and to follow their faith (Heb. 13:7). We should therefore examine the Scriptural reasons that the Scottish Reformers gave for rejecting Christmas.
The Biblical case against Christmas
We begin to understand why Christmas is wrong by asking two questions.
1. Which events in Christ’s life, death and resurrection does the Word of God require us to commemorate?
Answer: Only two – His death (commemorated in the Lord’s Supper) and His resurrection on the first day of the week (commemorated every Christian Sabbath).
Of course, all events in Christ’s life – and all of Scripture – should be considered, meditated upon, and believed. But the key question is why God commands only Christ’s death and resurrection to be religiously commemorated in a specific way. Setting apart a specific day each year to commemorate Christ’s birth gives it a place which God does not.
Unauthorized commemorations are not only superstitious in themselves; they also tempt the Christian to adopt other superstitions. The festivities of December 25th have long been interwoven with pagan and Roman Catholic rituals. Consequently, Protestants struggle in vain to “keep Christ in Christmas,” and keep out the materialism and paganism that comes with the festive season. No doubt Roman Catholics would say that Protestants struggle in vain because attendance at “mass” is not part of their Christmas observance. Both forget that God never put Christ nor mass into the ritual known as Christmas.
2. Why does Scripture command that only these two events should be commemorated?
The answer is two-fold. First, God requires that when we worship Him, we must only do what He commands – nothing more and nothing less (Deut. 4:2 and Deut. 12:32). This means that only His death and resurrection must be commemorated – and commemorated exactly as the Lord specifies.
Second, when we attempt to religiously commemorate other events in Christ’s life, an imbalance enters our understanding of sound doctrine and Christian experience. This imbalance develops into errors which work like leaven, until the worship and doctrine of the Church is deeply corrupted. Unscriptural additions to God’s worship distort our understanding of God, Christ, and the gospel.
(For other arguments against Christmas, see this article: Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?)
Christmas: a distortion of the incarnation
For wise and holy reasons, God commands us to commemorate only Christ’s death and resurrection in a special way. And He has wise and holy reasons for not requiring us to commemorate Christ’s birth in a special way.
So what happens when Christians set aside a particular day each year to remember Christ’s birth? Their focus is turned away from Christ crucified, contrary to Paul’s determination: “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). It is the doctrine of Christ crucified that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16 and 1 Cor. 1:23-24). Unbiblical commemorations of Christ’s birth, therefore, rob the Church of the power she needs to win souls to Christ.
Christmas tempts us to view the Lord Jesus apart from His atoning death. When our attention is drawn to “the babe in the manger” – along with the nearly inseparable presence of wreaths, soothing music, decorated trees, colorful lights, and merry feasting and exchange of gifts, the sole purpose of Christ’s incarnation is forgotten. The offense of the cross has disappeared.
Why did Christ, the eternal Son of God, become incarnate? To be made under the law and redeem them that are under the law (Gal. 4:4). In other words, He became man to be that one sacrifice to take away sins (see Heb. 10:4-13). Christ’s incarnation and atonement, therefore, go together. Christ’s birth cannot be understood correctly without considering His death at the same time. But it is His death at Calvary that is so offensive to the carnal mind. Yes, His substitutionary death reveals God’s infinite love, grace and mercy to perishing sinners. But it also confronts us with His holiness, justice, and wrath. There at Calvary, the sword of divine justice awakened against the man that is God’s fellow, because the sins of His people had been imputed to Him.
The Christmas commemoration of Christ’s birth sets aside these solemn truths. People forget about God’s wrath against sin, and often speak of Christ’s birth as proof that God loves everyone.
This explains in part why churches that have denied the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His substitutionary death, eternal punishment, etc., still zealously observe Christmas. This fact alone should make us uneasy with the whole concept of Christmas. Why are churches willing to give up almost every doctrine and precept of Scripture, but not Christmas? Why have so many churches given up Sabbath observance, but would protest loudly against giving up Christmas observance? Strict observance of Christ’s resurrection every week is legalism, they would say, but faithful observance of Christmas every year is the essence of Christianity!
Christmas and Christian experience
Other Reformed churches insist that they can commemorate the birth of Christ without getting entangled in the doctrinal errors, materialism, and paganism that so often accompany Christmas celebrations. Christmas, they claim, is a time to meditate not just on Christ’s birth, but also on our need to have Christ “formed in us” (Gal. 4:19). They also insist that other feast days can be used to reflect on Christian experience. For example, they see Easter as a time not only for commemorating Christ’s resurrection, but also for examining whether we are “risen with Him” (Col. 2:12).
Apart from the main problem with these practices – that God has not commanded us to remember Christ’s birth and resurrection in these ways – there is another problem. The work of the Holy Spirit in God’s people is not identical to Christ’s work for them. Granted, there are some parallels (or analogies) between Christ’s work and the Spirit’s work. Christ must indeed dwell in our hearts by the almighty power of the Spirit (Eph. 3:16-17). We must be “risen with Christ.” But all these things happen immediately when the Holy Spirit unites sinners to Christ by working faith in them. They are not completely separate events in Christian experience – as if Christ is first formed in us (referred to as “Christmas in the soul”) and then some time later we rise with Him spiritually (“Easter in the soul”).
In effectual calling, the Holy Spirit unites us to the whole Person of Christ, who was born, crucified, buried, risen, ascended, and now seated at the right hand of the Father. Believers must grow in believing understanding of their union with Christ – but only by using the means that God has appointed. Spiritual experience shaped by a pagan and papist calendar cannot be healthy.
A poor attempt to defend Christmas
Mr Ferguson tries to argue that churches that observe Christmas are not setting apart December 25th as a holy day. But he appears to argue that Christians may still sanctify it by remembering Christ’s birth.
“…Christmas day isn’t any more holy than any other day of the year. Christmas dinner isn’t actually more sacred than yesterday’s dinner. But like that food, it can be sanctified in special ways by the Word of God in prayer and praise because the Lord Jesus came into the world to be our Savior” (source).
Ambiguity abounds in these sentences. First, to sanctify means “to make holy or to set apart.” In the case of holy days, it means “to set apart the day for a specific religious purpose.” Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that churches are sanctifying Christmas Day by using it to commemorate the birth of Christ, and yet not observing it as a “holy day.”
Second, food and Christmas are very different things. Food is a creation of God and therefore can be sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Tim 4:4-5). The festivity of December 25th was a creation of God’s enemies and therefore cannot be sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.
Conclusion
Many Christians feel uncomfortable when they learn about the history of Christmas and its associations with paganism and Romanism. But devoting December 25th to the remembrance of Christ’s birth, without Scriptural warrant, will not bring true peace to their consciences. Nor will they secure the approval of God. Rather, they bring upon themselves the displeasure of Him Who is a jealous God – righteously zealous over how He is worshipped and served.
– Rev C J Hembd