SOME THINGS ABOUT OBSERVING CHRISTMAS
By Bob W. Lovelace


   I've been asked to put something together on Christmas by one of our
members for a friend of theirs who wants to know why we, as Christians, do not
observe Christmas as a holy day.          
   While denominations will be having their Xmas services on the Sunday
nearest to our Christmas holiday (That's holiday not holy day -see our last
newsletter, "The Difference Between Holidays & Holy Days"), you will find us
content to worship God according to the New Testament patterns given through
the apostles and inspired prophets in the first century. (Ephesians 2:20)
   We do not have a special "Christmas Service" as others do. We welcome this
opportunity to explain why you will find us collectively as a local church
during the Xmas holiday, simply partaking of the Lord's Supper on the first
day of the week as we always do. Nothing will change with regard to our
engaging in the simple  acts of worship authorized in the New Testament for
Christ's church. 
   People need to realize how the so called "Christian church year" of events
developed as a result of apostasy from the first century pattern for the
worship and organization of the church. Pay close attention to this
explanation from Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Third Period,
A.D. 311-590, The Church Year. I've put some important points in italics.
Schaff says:  "The Christian church year, however, developed itself
spontaneously from the demands of the Christian worship and public life, after
the precedent of the Old Testament cultus, with no positive direction from
Christ or the apostles." He means that there was a desire to copy the Old
Testament and thus provide annual feasts or celebrations just like God gave
the Jews under the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses. Which is the greater
covenant the Old or the New? (Heb. 8:6; Matt. 26:28)
   Authority for what we do in worship to God does not come "spontaneously"
i.e. just because "man" desires to do such. 
   Going on Schaff states. "The New Testament contains no traces of annual
festivals; but so early as the second century we meet with the general
observance of Easter and Pentecost, founded on the Jewish passover and feasts
of harvest." Most people are not even aware today that the apostles never
commanded the observance of Pentecost or Easter for Christians either. And to
go back to Judaism as the basis for setting up (instituting) annual feasts
when the New Testament does not authorize such is just plain wrong! (Col.
2:14-17)
   Schaff explains as an historian that in "the fourth century the Christmas
festival was added" to the two former leading feasts (Easter and Pentecost),
and particularly took the place of the earlier feast of Epiphany (a
celebration of the birth and baptism of Jesus), which now came to be devoted
particularly to the manifestation of Christ among the Gentiles. What does the
Bible say about "adding to" God's Word? (Rev. 22:18; De. 4:2; Prov. 30:6) 
   To put it bluntly men shifted these feasts that "man" instituted, not God,
at will in order to satisfy themselves in forming the kind of "church
calendar" they desired in order to have annual feasts. They saw their own
development of a "calendar" with annual feasts as being for the glorification
of God. But Christ (God) the "head of the church" (Eph. 5:23) never authorized
any such thing! Who are we supposed to follow Christ or men?
   Furthermore, Schaff, in section 77, The Christmas Cycle, pg. 394f explains:
"The Christmas festival is the celebration of the incarnation of the Son of
God." He then in glowing terms tries to describe the grandeur of the
celebration,  "It is of all the festivals the one most thoroughly interwoven
with the popular family life, and stands at the head of the great feasts in
the Western church year. It continues to be, in the entire Catholic world and
in the greater part of Protestant Christendom, the grand jubilee of children,
on which innumerable gifts celebrate the infinite love of God in the gift of
his only-begotten Son. It kindles in mid-winter a holy fire of love and
gratitude, and preaches in the longest night the rising of the Sun of life and
the glory of the Lord. It denotes the advent of all the redeemed before God
and in God. No one can measure the joy and blessing which from year to year
flow forth upon all ages of life from the contemplation of the holy child
Jesus in his heavenly innocence and divine humility." 
   But these are just one man's words of praise for a religious observance
that man began and instituted not God. I could just as easily use negative
words and thoughts to describe the feeling of loneliness, being left out
because of  poverty, the materialism, manipulation and commercialization,
drunkenness and carnality of the same season! I  found it interesting that
after all of these glowing words of adoration for Christmas that he turns
right around and plainly states: "Notwithstanding this deep significance and
wide popularity, the festival of the birth of the Lord is of comparatively
late institution." That is a frank admission that Christmas was not a part of
the New Testament as revealed by the inspired apostles and prophets of the
first century church (Eph. 2:20).  Why didn't he just step forward and say
that there is no scriptural authority for it! 
   And next he says: "This may (the fact that it is of comparatively late
institution) doubtless be accounted for in the following manner: In the first
place, no corresponding festival was presented by the Old Testament, as in the
case of Easter and Pentecost." 
   You should be grasping somewhat the concept now that both the observance of
Easter and Pentecost related to man's desire to copy the Old Covenant given to
the Jews and thus provide annual feasts for the people. 
   Then he says: "In the second place, the day and month of the birth of
Christ are nowhere stated in the gospel history, and cannot be certainly
determined." Now can't you see dear friend that men  have made the
determination, not God, to set a date and have an annual observance at the
date they set. Such is not authorized by God!  
   Next, Schaff, states: "Again: the church lingered first of all about the
death and resurrection of Christ, the completed fact of redemption, and made
this this center of the weekly worship and the church year." In reply, I'd say
that the first century church recorded in your New Testament did not "linger"
but rather willingly and consistently observed the Supper on a weekly basis as
commanded by Christ and the apostles (Acts 2:42; 20:7) . Even Schaff admits
with regard to the observance of Easter:  "At first a free-will act, it
gradually assumed the character of a fixed custom and ordinance of the
church." (ibid., pg. 401) I don't know who's church this "custom" of Easter
observance first formed in but it was NOT authorized for the church Christ
built as recorded in your New Testament. Schaff shoots himself in the foot
once again! People you can't set around and speak in grandiose terms about
religious customs and practices men have added to the word of God and then on
the other hand try to act like you have respect for the kind of worship that
Christ instituted for His church as revealed in the New Testament. Which is
worship without additions! Respect for the authority of God's word does not
allow instituting and binding human traditions (Matt. 15:8-9).   
   And then Schaff says: "Finally: the earlier feast of Epiphany afforded a
substitute." And remember there is no authority for Epiphany either in your
New Testament!
   What you can say about one annual religious observance for Christians you
can say about all. They are all additions to the kind of worship revealed by
Christ in the New Testament. Schaff says Christmas was probably the Christian
transformation of  a series of kindred heathen festivals - the Saturnalia,
Sigillaria, Juvenalia, and Brumalia- kept in Rome in the month of December.