                     IS CHRISTMAS CHRISTIAN?

                      Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

     Should Christians celebrate Christmas? A number of unorthodox
new religions which profess to follow Christ insist that Christmas
is a pagan festival to be shunned by all true Christians. Probably
the most notable of these religions is the Jehovah's Witnesses, who
publish stinging attacks on the celebration of Christmas year after
year. Other religions that take the same position include the World
Wide Church of God (led by Herbert W. Armstrong) and the Assemblies
of Yahweh.
     However, these unorthodox religious groups are not alone in
their condemnation of this most popular of religious holidays. Many
evangelical Christians also believe that Christmas is a pagan
celebration dressed up in "Christian clothes." While many
Christians mark Christmas as a special day to worship Christ and
give thanks for His entrance into the world, they reject anything
to do with Santa Claus, Christmas trees, exchanging gifts, and the
like.
     Are there biblical grounds for rejecting all or part of
Christmas? What should be the attitude of Christians in this
matter? That is the question before us. The answer given here is
that while certain elements of Christmas tradition are essentially
pagan and should be rejected (especially the drinking and
immorality in which the world indulges at that time of year),
Christmas itself and many of the traditions associated with it may
be celebrated by Christians with a clear conscience. Those who are
inclined to reject out of hand such a position might be interested
to know that at one time this writer would have agreed with them.
A closer examination of the issues involved, however, leads to a
different conclusion.

Celebrating Jesus' Birthday

     The most basic and common argument brought against Christmas
is that it is not found in the Bible. Many Christians, as well as
groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, feel that because Christmas is
not mentioned in Scripture, it is therefore not to be observed. In
fact, the Witnesses argue that since the only people in the Bible
who celebrated their own birthdays were Pharaoh (Gen. 40:20-22) and
Herod (Matt. 14:6-10), God takes a dim view of celebrating
birthdays in general. That being so, they feel, God would hardly
approve of celebrating Jesus' birthday.
     In answer to these arguments, a few things need to be said.
First of all, the fact is that the Bible says nothing against the
practice of celebrating birthdays. What was bad in the cases of
Pharaoh and Herod was not that they celebrated their birthdays, but
that they did evil things on their birthdays (Pharaoh killed his
chief baker, and Herod killed John the Baptist). Second, what the
Bible does not forbid, either explicitly or by implication from
some moral principle, is permissible to the Christian, as long as
it is edifying (Rom. 13:10; 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 6:12; Col. 2:20-23;
etc.). Therefore, since the Bible does not forbid birthdays, and
they do not violate any biblical principle, there is no biblical
basis for rejecting birthdays. For the same reason, there is no
biblical reason to reject entirely the idea of celebrating Jesus'
birthday.

December 25

     Another common objection to Christmas relates to observing
December 25 as the birthday of Christ. It is frequently urged that
Christ could not have been born in December (usually because the
shepherds would supposedly not have had their flocks in the fields
at night in that month), so that December 25 could not have been
his birthday. As if that were not bad enough, it is also pointed
out that December 25 was the date of a pagan festival in the Roman
Empire in the fourth century, when Christmas began to be widely
celebrated on that day.
     It is true that there seems to be no evidence for December 25
as the actual birthday of Christ. On the other hand, it has been
shown that such a date is not impossible, as is so commonly
supposed.{1} Nevertheless, it may be granted that is highly
improbable that Christ was actually born on December 25. Does this
fact invalidate Christmas? Actually, no. It is not essential to the
celebration of someone's birth that it be commemorated on the same
date as his birth. Americans commemorate Washington's and Lincoln's
birthdays on the third Monday of February every year, even though
Lincoln's birthdate was February 14 and Washington's was February
22. If it were to become certain that Christ was actually born on,
say, April 30, should we then celebrate Christmas on that day?
While there would be nothing wrong with such a change, it would not
be necessary. The intent or purpose is what matters, not the actual
date.
     But what of the fact that December 25 was the date of a pagan
festival? Does this not prove that Christmas is pagan? No, it does
not. Instead, it proves that Christmas was established as a rival
celebration to the pagan festival. That is, what Christians did was
to say, "Rather than celebrate in immorality the birth of Mithra,
a false god who was never really born and who cannot save you, let
us celebrate in joyful righteousness the birth of Jesus, the true
God incarnate who is the Saviour of the world."
     Sometimes it is urged that to take a pagan festival and try to
"Christianize" it is folly. However, God Himself did exactly that
in the Old Testament. Historical evidence shows conclusively that
some of the feasts given to Israel by God through Moses were
originally pagan agricultural festivals, which were filled with
idolatrous imagery and practices.{2} What God did, in effect, was
to establish feasts which would replace the pagan festivals without
adopting any of the idolatry or immorality associated with them. It
would appear, then, that in principle there is nothing wrong with
doing so in the case of Christmas.
     
Santa Claus

     Perhaps the thing that bother Christians about Christmas more
than anything else is the Santa Claus tradition. Objections to this
tradition include the following: (1) Santa Claus is a mythical
figure endowed with godlike attributes, including omniscience and
omnipotence; (2) when children learn that Santa Claus is not real,
they lose faith in their parent's word and in supernatural beings;
(3) Santa Claus distracts children from Christ; (4) the Santa Claus
story teaches children to be materialistic. In the face of such
weighty objections, can anything good be said about Santa Claus?
     Before examining each of these objections, let it be noted
that Christmas can be celebrated without Santa Claus. Take Santa
out of Christmas and Christmas remains intact. Take Christ out of
Christmas, however, and all that remains is a pagan festival.
Whatever our individual differences over how best to handle Santa
Claus with our children may be, as Christians we should be able to
agree on this much.
     (1) There is no doubt that Santa Claus in its present form is
a fairy tale or myth. However, there really was a Santa Claus. The
name "Santa Claus" is an Anglicized form of the Dutch Sinter Klass,
which in turn meant "Saint Nicholas." Nicholas was a Christian
bishop in the fourth century about whom we know little for sure. He
apparently attended the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, and a very
strong tradition suggests that he did show unusual kindness toward
children. While the red-suited old man in a sled pulled by flying
reindeer is a myth, the story of a children-loving old man who
brought them gifts probably is not -- and in many countries, that
is all there is to "Santa Claus."
     It must be admitted that telling children that Santa can see
them at all times, that he knows if they have been bad or good,
etc., is wrong. It is also true that parents should not tell their
children the Santa Claus story as if it were literal truth.
However, children under seven or eight years of age can play "let's
pretend" and derive just as much fun from it as if they thought it
was real. Indeed, at that age they are learning the difference
between make-believe and reality. Much younger children will be
fascinated by presents that are discovered Christmas morning under
the tree that they are told are from "Santa," but they will not
draw any conclusions about the reality of Santa Claus from those
discoveries.
     (2) When children learn that Santa Claus is not real, this
will upset them only if they have been told by their parents that
he really exists and does all that he is purported to do. That is
why children should be told that Santa is make-believe as soon as
they are old enough to ask questions about reality. Rather than a
stumbling block to belief in the supernatural, Santa can be a
stepping stone. Tell your children that while Santa Claus is make-
believe, God and Jesus are not. Tell them that while Santa can only
bring things that parents can buy or make, Jesus can give them
things no one else can -- a friend who is always with them,
forgiveness of the bad things they do, life in a wonderful place
with God forever, etc.
     (3) Follow the suggestions above, and Santa Claus will not be
a distraction from Christ. Tell your children that the reason
"Santa" gives gifts is because God gave us the wonderful gift of
Jesus.
     (4) On the contrary, the Santa Claus story is best told when
it is used to encourage children to be selfless and giving. For an
example of how to teach your inquiring child about Santa Claus, see
the book, Santa Are You Real? by Harold Myra (Thomas Nelson, 1977).

Christmas Trees

     One of the few elements of the traditional celebration of
Christmas which those opposed to it can claim is spoken of in
Scripture is the Christmas tree. Specifically, it is thought that
in Jeremiah 10:2-4 God explicitly condemned Christmas trees:

     Thus says the LORD...
     "For the customs of the peoples are delusion,
     Because it is wood cut from the forest
     The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool,
     They decorate it with silver and with gold,
     They fasten it with nails and with hammers
     So that it will not totter."

There certainly is a resemblance between the thing described in
Jeremiah 10 and the Christmas tree. Resemblance, however, does not
equal identity. What Jeremiah described was an idol -- a
representation of a false god -- as the next verse shows (Jer.
10:5):

     "Like a scarecrow in a field are they,
     And they cannot speak;
     They must be carried,
     Because they cannot walk!
     Do not fear them,
     For they can do no harm,
     Neither can they do any good."

The parallel passage in Isaiah 40:18-20 makes it clear that the
sort of thing Jeremiah 10 has in mind is an actual object of
worship:

     To whom then will you liken God?
     Or what likeness will you compare with Him?
     As for the idol, a craftsman casts it,
     A goldsmith plates it with gold,
     And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.
     He who is too impoverished for such an offering
     Selects a tree that does not rot.
     He seeks our for himself a skilled craftsman
     To prepare an idol that will not totter.

     Thus, the resemblance is merely superficial. The Christmas
tree does not originate from pagan worship of trees (which was
practised), but from two explicitly Christian symbols in medieval
western Germany. The Encyclopedia Britannica{3} explains as
follows:

          The modern Christmas tree, though, originated in western
     Germany. The main prop of a popular medieval play about Adam
     and Eve was a fir tree hung with apples (Paradise tree)
     representing the Garden of Eden. The Germans set up a
     "Paradise tree" in their homes on December 24, the religious
     feast day of Adam and Eve. They hung wafers on it (symbolizing
     the host, the Christian sign of redemption); the hosts
     eventually became cookies of various shapes. Candles, too,
     were often added as a symbol of Christ. In the same room,
     during the Christmas season, was the Christmas pyramid, a
     triangular construction of wood, with shelves to hold
     Christmas figurines, decorated with evergreens, candles and a
     star. By the 16th century, the Christmas pyramid and Paradise
     tree had merged, becoming the Christmas tree.

     Once again, this is nothing essential about the Christmas tree
to the celebration of Christmas. Like the modern Santa Claus myth,
it is a relatively recent tradition; people celebrated Christmas
for centuries without the tree and without the semi-divine resident
of the North Pole. What is essential to Christmas is Christ. Yet
that does not mean that we must throw Santa and the tree out
altogether. In this matter we have Christian liberty to adopt these
traditions and use them to teach our children about Christ, or to
celebrate Christ's birth without them. For that matter, there is no
compulsion to celebrate His birthday at all, since it is not
commanded of us in Scripture. Nevertheless, it would be strange
indeed if someone saved by the Son of God would not rejoice in
thinking of the day that His incarnation was first manifested to
the world on that holy night.

NOTES:

1.  Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ
(Zondervan, 1977).

2.  The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, Vol. 4
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1981), p. 601.

3.  The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Micropaedia, Vol. II
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1981), p. 904.

 