Modern Christmas practices go against Christian teachings
Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.
Email This Story
As a Christian, I find the celebration of Christmas abhorrent. When considering the holiday’s pagan roots and practices it can hardly be considered Christian.
The modern celebration of the holiday encourages greed and a sense of entitlement to material goods, both of which are antithetical to Christian teaching.
The obligation to try and experience joy at this time of year causes it to be the most stressful season and consequently has more suicide incidents than any other part of the year. For some people, Christmas is the only day they attend church, debasing the practice of church attendance to ritual status, which strips it of its value and purpose.
Consider the trappings that are associated with Christmas: putting an evergreen tree in one’s house, the holiday’s association with the Santa Claus icon, even the date on which Christmas is set. There is no obvious connection between these and the birth of Christ.
Still, those who assert that Christmas is the celebration of the birth of the Messiah seem attached to these traditions. Ironically, they are non-Christian in origin.
Pagans used to, and in some cases still, take trees into their homes and decorate them during the time of the winter solstice, which falls approximately between the 21st and 23rd of December. Similarly, ancient Romans used to bring clippings of evergreens into their homes for the celebration of Saturnalia, the holiday that honored the god Saturn, which ran from December 17th to the 23rd.
Recognizing these origins, many early American Puritans actually banned the practice of bringing a tree into one’s home as part of the celebration of Christ’s birth.
Though St. Nicholas’ origins are not heathen in nature, the bastardization of his name and image for commercial purposes, particularly by Coca-Cola, detract from his message of charitable giving.
The iconography of Christmas, though purported as a holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ, seems to focus on St. Nicholas.
The very date that Christmas is set upon is a reaction to heathen traditions. The Roman Catholic Church decided to add two more days to the celebration of Saturnalia under the guise of celebrating Christ’s birth.
In reality, they were just trying to attract those who celebrated the Saturnalia into the church.
It should be noted that the weeklong Saturnalia was comprised of lewd acts and debauchery; something the church should have distanced itself from rather than embracing.
Apart from the moral issues associated with the origins of Christmas, the obligation to give gifts puts unnecessary stress on people who may be financially strained. This is made worse if they have kids who feel entitled to gifts during the holiday season.
Entitlement is not easily shaken, and it breeds a prolonged attitude of being malcontent. It is my belief that gifts should not be expected, but given either out of affection or because the recipient has earned them.
Christmas teaches children that regardless of their conduct, they will receive presents. Maybe it would do them some good if they actually received lumps of coal.
For many, December 25th is the only day of the year, with the possible exception of Easter that they attend church. Personally, I don’t even like the phrase “attend church.” Church isn’t a spectacle to be observed so much as it is a group with which to be actively involved.
Only going to church one day a year is the complete opposite of active involvement. If the purpose of a church is for instruction and moral accountability, how can that possibly be achieved without regular attendance?
I think it would be wise of churches to forego Christmas services so as to discourage the ritualization of church involvement.
Comments, questions and criticisms of this column can be sent to rosstripi@gmail.com.
This is preposterous. Are we not supposed to mission and make disciples of all nations as Christians? Were we not called to spread the Good News? To claim that the one service that brings the most people to a Christian community worship service (church) should be cancelled is effectively saying that you really only want a certain type of people in your church.
I can agree that the meaning of Christmas tends to be lost amid the commercialization of it, but why bash the symbols and metaphors that we hold near and dear? By saying that we can’t celebrate Christmas as in celebrating the birth of the Messiah and the beginning of the new Covenant because it is too closely associated with some pagan holiday is like saying that we cannot partake in the Eucharist to remember the Lord’s Supper because it too closely resembles cannibalism.I feel that your claim that moral accountability is only possible within regular attendance of a church is flawed. Churches are staging blocks for outreach and missions to your local community, a place where you can interact with fellow Christians and prepare to go into the world AND it is a place where people can come to seek refuge and answers. To block that is to say that the Gospel is selective. You might believe in the Elect and the Chosen, but that still is beyond Christmas.Furthermore, Coca-Cola is one of the most charitable companies advertisement wise. While I do not know about their company policies, their video advertisements and all seem to suggest bonds forming between different peoples and coming together and all. Often, I see someone giving a lesser character a coke. Is this not charitable giving?
Most people know Christmas was originally a pagan holiday (from my experience). However, this doesn’t mean you pick and choose when you can be a loving Christian to them. I guess what I am trying to say is that Christmas services can be important, and refusing access to them based on attendance in the previous year is wrong.
I’ll reply privately as I don’t want to create another public spectacle.
Yes, we as individual Christians are supposed to emulate Christ in a
way so as to draw people towards Christianity by way of our
lifestyles. In the words of St. Francis, “Preach the gospel at all
times, and when necessary use words.”
Church as an institution is meant for two things, as I think I
mentioned in my article: discipleship and accountability. Someone who
is reprobate cannot be discipled, as he is not a Christian. Likewise,
you cannot keep someone accountable who does not adhere to
Christianity already because he doesn’t share our sense of ethics and
therefore cannot be expected to do as we do (I Corinthians 5).
Church does not exist as an instrument of conversion, neither is it
meat to be a spectacle (which on Christmas is all it amounts to). The
Holy Spirit is the instrument of conversion, and seeds are to be
planted by individual Christians living godly lives so as to
potentially influence others to eventually believe in Christ. Church,
as in a pastor speaking to a bunch of people, cannot do that because
there is a certain one-on-one Christian to non-Christian element that
is missing; there is a disconnect when just going to listen to someone
speak compared to having a relationship with someone, which is, if we
are to follow Christ and the Apostles’ examples, is how conversion is
supposed to happen. There is a certain amount of candor and
vulnerability that is requisite for true conversion to happen, and
merely going to listen to someone speak cannot achieve that, as it
will only amount to being a spectacle.
There is only a certain type of people that I want in my church:
Christians. What is a church? It is an organized gathering of
like-minded Christians. A non-Christian cannot possibly benefit from
attending a church because he is not a Christian; churches exist to
keep Christians accountable unto each other and to Christ, but you
can’t expect that from someone who doesn’t claim Christ. ergo, it
only makes sense that Church is only for Christians. If you want to
evangelize others, live a godly lifestyle. That’s the best way one
can possibly witness to others. Taking them to church will only
confuse them with the jargon and terms we use that only we understand,
and it wouldn’t benefit them anyways.
Celebrating the birth of Christ is in no way wrong. You may do that
if you wish. I was merely expressing my opinion that the current
celebration of Christmas is too wrought with pagan iconography for me
to, in good conscience, celebrate it. Santa Claus and evergreen trees
have no direct relationship to Christ’s birth, so I disregard them.
In keeping with Romans 14, do what you think is right; I can only call
you out if you are a fellow Christian who I know well and if you are
doing something that is outright sin (Matthew 18 and I Corinthians 5);
and I’m not entirely sure that invoking modern Christmas imagery is
sin, it just rubs me the wrong way and I want nothing to do with it.
With regard to Coca-Cola, I was merely trying to assert that they take
an allegedly Christian icon (Santa) and use him for commercial gain,
much like how I’d argue many “Christian bands” use the name of Christ
for monetary gain, but I digress.
I do not deny that Christians are called to care for the widows,
orphans and downtrodden of the world. How does this relate to my
assertion that Church membership only benefits Christians?
I never said that people should be banned from attending church on
Christmas if they didn’t attend for the rest of the year. What I did
say was that it’d be wise to not have church at all on Christmas so as
not to allow church attendance to become a ritual, thereby stripping
its values as an institution of discipleship and accountability.
I think we have a disagreement on the role of the church, as an
institution. We both agree that the church, as a body of Christians,
is to go into the world and live godly lives and take care of the
destitute. I do think, however, that as soon as you take away
accountability within a church (which can only be achieved when
membership is only allowed to confirmed believers), you no longer have
a church, if church is to be defined as a group of like-minded
Christians.
Please remember that this article was entirely an expression of my
opinion on the Christmas subject. If anyone wants to disagree, that’s
their right, just as it is my right to find like-minded people and
join a church with them.
Garrett, I can’t help but feel like you largely missed the point of Ross’ brief article.
From what I gathered from the article, Ross does not at all intend to “exclude” people from Christmas services as you claim, and it is quite a stretch to claim that the ‘actions’ he encourages will do so. He thinks that Christmas services as a whole are simply preposterous and should be done away with outright, because Christmas is falsely based upon a pagan holiday with no true Christian significance and idolizes qualities counter to Christian teachings, as you are well aware. You claim that getting rid of the theological significance of Christmas will turn people away from the church. I disagree wholeheartedly.
In cancelling Christmas services, you are not at all “effectively saying that you really only want a certain type of people in your church.” The people who only come once a year are already obviously not dedicated to the church, so it isn’t like you are turning anybody away. Whoever truly wants to be in the presence of Christ of their own desire will go without the pressure of a Holiday.
When you get down to it, there really is no purpose in having some special day that is “more Christian” than any others. By acknowledging that Christmas is not nearly the event that it is acclaimed to be, you change nothing about the significance of Christ’s coming. Instead, you are preserving the actual intent of Jesus’ birth by disassociating it from pagan holidays, and instead turning what has been so bizarrely classified as “The Christmas Spirit” of giving and charity that only comes around once a year, into the true Christian joy and love that should be practiced daily.
The way I see it, Ross’ point is: Why just Christmas? Why just this one day of the year do we decide to care about Jesus and then simply return to our natural sinful lives once it’s done? December 25th has no historical or doctrinal significance to warrant any special attention from the church, and Christmas does not encourage anything beyond what we are already called to do every day of our lives by the Bible. Are we not called to “spread the good news” every day of our lives, not just during the Holiday season? Personally, I have no real problems with Christmas, but it does seem curious how culture has warped “The Good News” and slapped a “DO NOT OPEN UNTIL CHRISTMAS” label on it.
I enjoyed the article. It raises several very interesting points.
(And Garrett, your Eucharist metaphor doesn’t perfectly hold water. Not everyone is Catholic. Haha)
First of all, I definitely want to congratulate Ross on writing something that might be one of the most contentious pieces of the year. That’s pretty cool. Also, I want to make sure it is known that I completely and totally respect both what Ross said and his right to do so. I think a major issue that comes across for us here is our idea of the role of the church. I am a bit privileged right now, as I received a reply back from Ross himself. Definitely ask him to put his reply online. I know it’s difficult to got out publicly on what you say (I felt the same way three years ago), but it’s a great tool to become a better writer. Anyway, that’s just some opening comments.
Haha, I used the word Eucharist simply because it was an all-encompassing word for the Lord’s Supper. But you’re definitely right, we aren’t all Catholics (I’m not) so that doesn’t hold true. However, that’s the point, and Ross saw this as well in his reply to me.
We hold different ideas of the Church’s role in society. Also, we’re very influenced as Americans in a good and bad way. I definitely enjoyed the article.
Culture is important. I spoke to a professor last night over Facebook, and we had a good debate over the fact that there are other gift-giving holidays that are more steeped in scripture and the faith as opposed to the origins of Christmas. You’re right, it is pagan. However, why are we not also arguing about the Easter Bunny? I know Santa Claus was based off of St. Nicholas, but I don’t think the Easter bunny has any origins other than Germans and Bavarians who used decorative eggs to celebrate Easter (I might be wrong here).
We can argue ideology all day and should. It helps us all grow in the faith that we hold.
My last statement/claim is that the church does hold some sense of refuge and all. You never know what could be said at one random church service, so I have a spot near and dear to my heart for that.
All in all, this is fun. I’ve enjoyed this.