A review article on Christmas-Keeping and the Reformed Faith by David C. Cason. Published by Presbyterian Heritage Publications, USA. Thick booklet, 64 pages, price £2.25. Available from The Free Presbyterian Bookroom, 133 Woodlands Road, Glasgow, G3 6LE.
IN Scotland, the Reformation was more thorough than in other countries, as was confirmed by the Scottish Church’s rejection of unscriptural, pseudo-Christian and Romish “holy days”, although these were being observed by Reformed churches in other countries. When the General Assembly of the Scottish Church had considered the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, it wrote to Beza that the Confession was perfectly scriptural, except in what it said about such festivals as that of “our Lord’s nativity… 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…”
Today, we see even some who claim to be Reformed, and once rejected Christmas-keeping, now happily participating in not only the usual festivities but also in such religious observances as Christmas services and carol concerts. The pressure of popular opinion makes some of them observe what they once avoided. Their fear of being thought odd if they hold to former convictions makes them cave in and go with the crowd. Others justify their Christmas-keeping by religious arguments – and in this they are bolstered by professedly Reformed ministers who defend Christmas.
Last year, Professor David J. Engelsma of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) gave a plausible defence of Christmas-keeping in the PRC magazine, The Standard Bearer. His arguments have been answered by David W. Cason, a teacher in Dallas, USA, in his booklet, Christmas-Keeping and the Reformed Faith. Cason argues closely, and in our judgement effectively refutes the points made by Prof. Engelsma.
The observance of Christmas by the PRC, says Prof. Engelsma, “is a long and honourable tradition.” Tradition, of course, cannot establish what is right in the worship of God, and in any case, says Cason, Prof. Engelsma is condemned out of his own mouth when he says elsewhere that “Jesus pitilessly condemned this holding of traditions as hypocrisy”.
Prof. Engelsma adds that the Synod of Dordt required that “the Reformed churches shall observe, in addition to the Sunday, also Christmas…”, and saw no conflict between the Synod’s requirement and the regulative principle. He argues that Christmas-keeping is permissible because the regulative principle allows the church to gather for worship on other days besides Sabbath — and that the Westminster Assembly allowed the observance of days of public fasting and thanksgiving.
What Prof. Engelsma does not show, and cannot show, is that God, in His Word, actually requires the Church to observe Christmas Day. Indeed, as Cason points out, Prof. Engelsma denies any such origin for the practice, when he says, “There is no basis in Scripture for the Reformed churches’ commemoration of Christ’s birth on December 25.” But the professor is quite mistaken when he also asserts that there is no basis in Scripture for the days of public prayer and thanksgiving which the Westminster Assembly allows. As Joel 2:15 shows, there are occasions when it is the duty laid upon the church and nation by God, to “sanctify a fast” and to “call a solemn assembly”.
“Prof. Engelsma,” says Cason, “professes to believe in Christmas-keeping as a matter of liberty,” that is, as Cason explains, “the liberty of the government of the church to require Christmas-keeping.” But, of course, in granting this liberty to the government of the church, Prof. Engelsma denies liberty to her subjects should they not wish to keep Christmas. “This,” Cason rightly says, “is the very opposite of the Biblical and confessional doctrine of Christian liberty.”
Cason concludes that Prof. Engelsma’s “arguments are both erroneous in themselves, and based upon principles harmful to the liberty of Christ’s church, the purity of God’s instituted worship, and the kingly prerogatives of Christ. Furthermore, in presenting his arguments, Prof. Engelsma has made misrepresentations of important reformed figures, doctrines and events… The professor’s defence is likely both to mislead many [in the reformed community], and to perpetuate the darkness and confusion which have overtaken the church of Christ today with regard to those truths.”
We believe that this valuable publication will be helpful to many. □