ARTICLE: Is Christmas Pagan?

[STR Ambassador]

Is Christmas Pagan?

by Greg Koukl

The question of whether Christmas is pagan enters into the idea of cultural practices. Some have made the assertion that Christmas has pagan origins. Christmas does not have pagan origins, but there are winter celebrations that are pagan. There was, for example, a saturnal celebration around the time of Christmas that pagans celebrated, which was actually a temptation for Christians to participate in that had pagan content to it. So the church changed the day that they celebrated the birth of Christ. They used to celebrate it in the Spring. But the church said, We can celebrate it any time we want. Let's celebrate it at the same time the pagans are celebrating their pagan festival. It'll act as a contrast to that pagan festival because our celebration is the birth of the God-man, Jesus Christ. It has Biblical content. Plus it will protect Christians from being wooed away by this other celebration to participate in what was a pagan celebration.

It was really a wise thing that they did and the kind of thing that many missionaries do even nowadays. They take the momentum of a cultural practice--a cultural practice that may even have religious content to it, offensive religious content--and they redeem that for Christianity. They redefine what people have been doing. They reinvest it with new meaning. They capture the cultural form and they reinvest it with spiritual meaning.

By the way, there is an example of this in the Bible. Circumcision was practiced by the Egyptians before it was practiced by the Jews. It was a cultural practice which had some religious significance. God captured the practice, gave it to Abraham, reinvested it with new meaning and it became a religious rite for Abraham to worship his creator.

We think of circumcision as this really holy thing in the Old Testament associated with the covenant, which it was. But it wasn't that way originally. By golly, it seems to me that if God can do such a thing--take a practice that had heathen content to it, save the practice, reinvest new information to it--then it certainly is okay for the church to do it.

We've done that many times. We've done that in other cultures and it served to offer a springboard for us into cultures using cultural forms and reinvesting them with new meaning. If you read Don Richardson's books Eternity in Their Hearts or Peace Child, this is what he talks about. They captured cultural forms that had one meaning and reinvested it with a new meaning, and this became a springboard to reach into these cultures with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And we've done the same thing with Christmas.

Now there is nothing at all wrong with that. We're not celebrating a pagan holiday because the pagan holiday was the saturnal and we're not worshipping the god of Saturn, or whatever the content was. We are not doing that. If you listen to the words of the song "Oh Christmas Tree, Oh Christmas Tree," the original was written with the Christmas tree being a type of Jesus Christ. You look at the words and the gospel is in the words of the Christmas tree. So this is not a Christmas tree that we're putting in our house as an idol to some tree god, or something like that. No, this is a tree that we are using as a cultural expression that can be invested with religious meaning for the Christian.

The same thing with the giving of gifts. That may have had a pagan meaning for others who practiced the other holiday. But for us giving of gifts is appropriate because it reflects the gift that God gave us in the person of Jesus.

My point is that we have liberty in reinvesting cultural forms with spiritual meaning. We have done that with Christmas. I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all. I think it's good and healthy for us to do so.

I think it can be legalistic to say one should not celebrate Christmas. There are different ways the term legalism can be used. One way it's used is to mean that we take laws that aren't God's laws, but are in fact man's laws, and we make them equal with God's laws. For example, we take a man's law that says we shouldn't smoke. Now the Bible doesn't say we shouldn't smoke, it doesn't say you shouldn't drink, it doesn't say you shouldn't go to movies. We take our rules that we apply in our church or denomination and apply it to all Christians. That's a type of legalism. In other words, we make things wrong that the Bible doesn't make wrong.

It appears that is what is going on with Christmas. If you celebrate the birth of Christ, then you're doing something wrong. My point is, this view is legalistic in that it makes things that aren't Scripturally wrong and it makes them wrong. It makes something a rule to apply to men when God didn't give them that rule.

I think the practice of Christmas is fully legitimate even though there may have some pagan elements that were originally associated with a celebration at this time. That doesn't make our celebration of Christmas the same as that old celebration. In fact, it's quite different. We are celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Now, we aren't obliged to do so. There is nothing in the Scripture that says that we ought to, but it strikes me that it is entirely appropriate. It is appropriate, but not obligatory. If you look back in the Old Testament, one of the things that God did is He arranged for the Jews to celebrate festivals that He established to remind themselves of the significance of that event by participating in these annual festivals year to year.

Even Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, wasn't given by God in the Scriptures. It's something that they do to recollect a deliverance, a special deliverance, that God gave them during what we call the inter-testamental period, those 400 years between Malachi and Jesus. Theirs is a festival that is commonplace now but which doesn't have its source in a direct command in Scripture; but it does function like many of those other things that are in Scripture. It reminds people year to year of God's faithfulness and His goodness.

What we do on Christmas is focus on the birth of Jesus Christ. I don't understand how anyone can look at the Christmas carols that we sing during this time and say that this is pagan.

Even if the word Christmas came from the Catholic Christ Mass, it doesn't mean that now. This is a fallacy--going back to the original etymology of the word, and holding that if you say this word you are affirming that meaning instead of the meaning that you hold the word to have at the present moment. Words don't work that way. What the word Christmas means is the day that Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. That is what it means. There is not a bit of paganism in that, and for anyone to say that 500 years ago it meant this is inconsequential. It doesn't mean that anymore. When we say the word Christmas, we are not blaspheming. It just doesn't mean that. It just seems to be much ado about nothing.

Should a Christian celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ? That's really what we are talking about. Some say no. Why? Because when you celebrate the birth of the Messiah, you are doing something pagan. How does that make any sense? Should someone have a Christmas tree or stockings? That's a separate question. But should someone celebrate the birth of Christ? How could anybody object to that. I don't agree with the assessment of the stockings or Christmas tree either. Frankly, there are probably all kinds of things I could find in their daily life--their little habits and things that they do--that if you went back to their beginnings their foundation has all kinds of questionable ideology, but they don't have that significance for people now.

Actually, the language thing is a real important parallel because our words change meaning as time goes on. They are tokens for a particular meaning. At one point in history a word meant a particular thing, at a later point that word means something different so you can't say that when you use the term later on you're referring to the earlier meaning. That doesn't make sense.

By the same token, Christmas trees and gifts and stockings, and that kind of thing, are tokens also. Now tokens are only things that represent something else, like a bus token. A bus token represents a ticket to ride on the bus. It doesn't have meaning or value in itself; it's simply a token of something else. Technically, this other thing is called a type. Now it may have been that a Christmas tree was a token in the past of a pagan type. It betokened worshipping nature, for example. The Christmas tree for a Christian no longer betokens worshipping nature. It betokens worshipping Jesus.

A Christmas tree doesn't mean anything to me. It means Christmas trees are part of Christmas. The significant point here is that my tree has no pagan content. That's the critical issue. There is a difference between the true meaning of Christmas and the spirit of Christmas. They are entirely different things. One of them is theological, the second one is emotional.

The true meaning of Christmas has to do with Jesus Christ. It isn't about love, it isn't about giving, it isn't about peace on earth, it is about Jesus Christ. The other things may be related, but it isn't about those things.

The spirit of Christmas, in my view, has to do with the feeling you have. The feeling is a result of your past experiences with Christmas. For me, the spirit of Christmas has nothing to do with Jesus. But this is why I can say, I have a Christmas tree not because the Christmas tree reminds me of Jesus, though I could imagine for some people it does, and if you were taught early on that the Christmas tree is representative of theological truth, then that becomes a theological meaning for you. But for me a tree and ornaments are just my cultural expression that has to do with the emotional impact with Christmas, and I think that's fine.


Stand to Reason - Training Christians to be Ambassadors for Christ - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/chrpagan.htm

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[Durthorin]

An if we Pagans still celibrate this time for our old reasons you won't mind will you?

Danu Bless, Dur

[montoyama]

Greg,

Thanks for the clear thinking on Christmas. I seem to struggle with this every year, and I just needed to recognize that the content of my celebration, not that of those who worshipped Saturn, determines whether it is paganism or a worthwhile observance of Christ's Advent.

Yes, it's OK for Christians to celebrate Christmas, but not to idolize shopping and gift-giving, or to worship "Mother Nature."

--Mark

[STR Ambassador]

When it comes to deciding on the appropriateness of Christians celebrating different holidays, it's important to remember that you can't celebrate something that is not part of your intention of your celebration. Sometimes the morality of an act doesn't include the intention, for instance, if you could foresee consequences occurring as a result of your action despite that not being your intention. But the celebration of a holiday is almost identical with your intention. A good parallel to this might be Paul's discussion about eating meat sacrificed to idols.

STR Ambassador

[Non-Trinitarian]

Did first century Christians celebrate Jesus' birth?

[Non-Trinitarian]

01-07-2004 @ 06:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=366948#post366948)
Non-Trinitarian:

Did first century Christians celebrate Jesus' birth?

Since STR hasn't answered this, I will. The answer is a resounding no, based on multiple historical documents. In fact, early Christians wouldn't even celebrate birthdays.

[AcousticJS]

Sorry, just wondering, do you actually have a source that says early Christians didn't celebrate birthdays?

And, sorry if this takes the discussion of the article off-topic, would you say that celebrating birthdays are wrong?

[dizzle]

01-13-2004 @ 08:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=375660#post375660)
Non-Trinitarian:



Since STR hasn't answered this, I will. The answer is a resounding no, based on multiple historical documents. In fact, early Christians wouldn't even celebrate birthdays.

The early JWs certainly did. Such legalism is unfathomable.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 11:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=389611#post389611)
Dee Dee Warren:



The early JWs certainly did. Such legalism is unfathomable.

Commenting on what a particular religion did/does in modern times is not an answer to the question and is really an avoidance of it.


Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Celebrate Birthdays?

Enjoying a feast or a party and generous giving to loved ones are certainly not wrong. (Luke 15:22-25; Acts 20:35) Jehovah’s Witnesses enjoy giving gifts and having good times together throughout the year. However, the only two birthday celebrations mentioned in the Bible involved people who were not true believers. They were a Pharaoh of Egypt and the Roman ruler Herod Antipas. There are no accounts of anyone who worshipped God celebrating his birthday. (Genesis 40:18-22; Mark 6:21-28) So it is not surprising to see these historical references to the attitude of early Christians toward birthday celebrations:

“The later Hebrews looked on the celebration of birth-days as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days.”-The Imperial Bible Dictionary (London, 1874), edited by Patrick Fairbairn, Vol. I, p. 225

‘The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general.”—The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander (translated by Henry John Rose), p. 190.

“the Jews regarded birthday celebrations as parts of idolatrous worship . . . , and this probably on account of the idolatrous rites with which they were observed in honor of those who were regarded as the patron gods of the day on which the party was born.”- Mc’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1882, Vol. I, p. 817

“Of all the holy people in the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod) who make great rejoicings over the day on which they were born into this world below."-The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1911), Volume X, page 709

“The early Christians did not celebrate His [Christ’s] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom.”— The World Book Encyclopedia: Volume 3, page 416.


“Christians of the first century did not celebrate the festival honoring the birth of Jesus—for the same reason they honored no other birthday anniversary. It was the feeling at that time by all Christians that the celebration of all birthdays (even the Lord’s) was a custom of the pagans.”- The Christian Book of Why

“To the early Christians, birthdays were a pagan custom. It was unthinkable to celebrate one’s own birthday, much less the birthday of Christ.”-Frontier Magazine

“The celebration of the anniversary of an individual’s birth, though
customary among the ancients, was originally frowned upon by the Christians,” -Curiosities of Popular Customs

“The annual celebration of a person's birth probably originated in Egypt, where the birthdays of rulers and gods were celebrated with feasts. The early Christians did not celebrate birthdays at all." Encyclopedia of Days

"The ancient world of Egypt, Greece, Rome and Persia celebrated the birthdays of gods, kings, and nobles...Although the ancient Israelis kept records of the ages of their male citizens, there is no evidence that they had any festivities on the anniversary of the birth date" -Encyclopedia Americana 1991

Even Jesus’ birthday was not celebrated:
“The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of NT origin. The day of Christ's birth cannot be ascertained from the NT, or, indeed, from any other source. The fathers of the first three centuries do not speak of any special observance of the nativity."-Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1981 reprint), by John McClintock and James Strong, Volume II, page 276


As far a ‘legalism’, that word is thrown around by a lot of people when they don’t like a principle in God’s Word. I’ve talked to Methodists and Presbyterians that call us “legalists” because we refuse to accept that pre-marital sex is acceptable. Their theory (not necessarily all Methodist and Presbyterians but some) is that as long as two people are in love and “plan” on getting married, it’s okay for them to have sex. Their call of us being “legalists” insults us in no way.

Is it wrong to celebrate birthdays today? I’m not going to get into a debate about whether it is or isn’t. But it is obvious early Christians did think it was wrong. If we pattern ourselves after them and thus earn the title “legalists”, so be it.

[dizzle]

I have no opinion on your source material as to whether or not the early Christians celebrated birthdays. However, the JWs who have claimed to have been dispensing the right food at the right time, at time of such claim, were in fact celebrating birthdays, and allegedly Christ saw fit to make them His sole voice for His Kingdom in the world, now if Christ did not not make such a big deal out of it back in 1919, it seems strange that JWs today do.

Assuming arguendo your source material (I notice NO scholarly work but rather simply encyclopedia type items), the early Christians were not infallible, and could quite simply have been wrong. The Bible is our standard, and the birth of the Messiah was most certainly celebrated.

To say that to honor one's birth or one's mother is idolatry is simple idolatry of legalism, and thus a form of idolatry itself, setting up barriers to the Kingdom and a yoke that Christ never intended.

[Non-Trinitarian]

Today @ 02:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=389687#post389687)
Dee Dee Warren:

I have no opinion on your source material as to whether or not the early Christians celebrated birthdays...

Assuming arguendo your source material (I notice NO scholarly work but rather simply encyclopedia type items), the early Christians were not infallible, and could quite simply have been wrong. The Bible is our standard, and the birth of the Messiah was most certainly celebrated.

That's your argument? The early Christians may have been wrong? Yes, they celebrated the initial birth of the Messiah, but if the Bible is your standard, where does anyone celebrate his birthday? The only accounts of birthdays being celebrated in your standard (mine too)were done by pagans.

I beleive the sources quoted are quite reputable. I think it should be obvious to all that early Christians didn't celebrate birthdays nor Christmas. If they were wrong in doing that, I'll be glad to be wrong with them.


To say that to honor one's birth or one's mother is idolatry is simple idolatry of legalism, and thus a form of idolatry itself, setting up barriers to the Kingdom and a yoke that Christ never intended.

Then the early Christians put themselves under the same yoke. I'm fine with that. The end result is: Who is like the early Christians in this matter?

[Socrates]

Talk about arguing from silence. The JWs are as crass as those Church of Christ types who ban musical instruments. But if Sola Scriptura is true (as these people claim to follow as well), then is something is wrong it would be stated to be wrong, or it could be logically derived to be wrong. Birthdays, Christmas and musical instruments are NOT condemned anywhere in Scripture, and nor can any condemnation be reasonably inferred.

[dizzle]

Today @ 10:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=389777#post389777)
Non-Trinitarian:


That's your argument? The early Christians may have been wrong?

You are using them as your argument by authority, and without any further scholarly support I view encycopedia entries with a jaundiced eye.


Yes, they celebrated the initial birth of the Messiah....

That is a birthday isn't it? So you have just refutred yourself.



, but if the Bible is your standard, where does anyone celebrate his birthday?

Was the Bible the standard of the 1919 Watchtower?



The only accounts of birthdays being celebrated in your standard (mine too)were done by pagans.

No Christ's birth was celebrated and only one other was mentioned and not condemned. Are you assuming that all things pagans do are wrong? Some things are simply neutral. Nice argument from evidence which cancels each other out.

I beleive the sources quoted are quite reputable. I think it should be obvious to all that early Christians didn't celebrate birthdays nor Christmas. If they were wrong in doing that, I'll be glad to be wrong with them.

You should be so glad to worship Jesus as they did, and as the 1919 Watchtower did. This cherry picking will not do.



Then the early Christians put themselves under the same yoke. I'm fine with that. The end result is: Who is like the early Christians in this matter?

They also unaminously prohibited any form of birth control. Are you going to concede that point to the Catholics?

[Non-Trinitarian]

You have nothing to argue. I can't help it if you don't accept encyclopedias and other books on the early Christians. People can judge between the sources I've offered and what they say versus the sources you've offered.

And I think it is obvious, or at least should be, that there is a difference between celebrating the initial birth of a child and celebrating birthdays. Surely you can see that. As far as actually celebrating the annual birthday, there were TWO mentioned in the Bible. Pharoah's and Herod's. Neither of whom were a worshipper of God.

Again, the fundamental truth, whether you like it or not, is that early Christians did not celebrate birthdays. The reason is because of all the pagan practices and spiritistic beliefs associated with it. Where did the cake come from? What did the candles stand for? The blowing them out and making a "wish"? What about giving gifts and the reason for having all your friends gather with you on your birthday in the first place? Do research on this and you will understand why early Christians felt about them the way they did.

Now does it matter today if we celebrate birthdays? Maybe not but we believe it does. If Jesus refused to celebrate birthdays due to the paganism associated with it, we feel best to go the same route.

I'm not going to keep debating this issue. Unless you have sound sources that back up your point, I see no reason to continue. If you want to celebrate birthdays, that's fine. The whole reason I brought up the question on whether Christians celebrated birthdays is because Greg Koukl said Christmas was not of pagan origin. He couldn't see why "anyone" would object to celebrating Jesus' birth. His attitude, even if he didn't say it, comes across as 'only an aetheist would object to celebrating Christ's birth.' Go back above and read his article. Do you see any scholarly quotes? Any historical references to defend his arguments? No. What we have is the opinion of Greg Koukl, who apparenlty is totally unaware that early Christians REFUSED to celebrate Jesus' birthday by all historical records.

In fact, he has a number of twisted reasonings in that one write-up, but that's beside the point. Since he had no support for his arguments other than the "but I think..." saying, I thought I'd bring a little more information to the table.

[musicman]

Dear "non-Trinitarian",

I think you missed the whole point of Greg's article. "Christmas" was never a pagan celebration. Yes, there were pagan celebrations going on at the same time - but pagans never celebrated the birth of Christ - only Christians did that.

You make much of the "fact" that first century Christians did not celebrate birthdays, or even Christ's birthday. What you are doing is equating cultural practices of first century Christians with the commands of Christ from scripture. Are the cultural practices of the early Christians to be considered equally inspired along with the Bible?

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, said that women should have their head covered when praying or prophesying in the worship service - if you are a woman, do you cover your head in the worship services where you attend? He said that men should not have long hair - do you know what length a man's hair was in the first century? Are men today sinning against Christ if their hair is longer than that of first century Christians? (How long was their hair anyway?).

I think you are making much ado about nothing. Jesus never said that we should or should not celebrate his (or anyone elses birthday). If it was that important, don't you think He would have mentioned it - (or the Apostles?).

You mention Pharoah and Herod as being the only ones mentioned in Scripture as having celebrated birthdays. I grant you these guys were not heroes of the faith, but aren't you giving birthdays a black eye only through guilt by association?

Even if your sources are correct that early Christians felt birthdays were pagan, you are resting your argument completely on (possibly) first century cultural practices/beliefs, not on Scripture.

If celebrating birthdays is pagan, then wouldn't also using the modern names for the days of the week be pagan too? Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc. are all English versions of the names of pagan gods. And how about the names of the months of the year? When you use them, aren't you giving indirect praise to these defunct pagan gods and Roman Emperors?

Musicman

[rmwilliamsjr]

I have no doubt that the process of syncretism is a normal response of human beings to the collision of rituals and therefore of the underlying ideas that are represented by these rituals. The problem is that this process you describe as:


It was really a wise thing that they did and the kind of thing that many missionaries do even nowadays. They take the momentum of a cultural practice--a cultural practice that may even have religious content to it, offensive religious content--and they redeem that for Christianity. They redefine what people have been doing. They reinvest it with new meaning. They capture the cultural form and they reinvest it with spiritual meaning.

is not really what happens, nor is it really the intention of the syncretism to operate in this way.

The birth of Mithras was not emptied of pagan content, the Christian ideas were rather amalgamated with those of the previous 'owners' of the day. The evidence for this is long after syncretism the original content is still evident. A further evidence is that people are confused about the 'new syncretic faith'. In our day we see it in 'silly' answers that children give like Santa Claus on the cross, but this betrays a deep and long lasting confusion. Roman Catholism is a very syncretistic faith. Much of the accumulated mixtures of the ages was the battle of the Reformation. Where did indulgences and purgatory come from?

but that is just the first problem with your justification of syncretism, more importantly is the idea that cross-cultural evangelism requires this process. The process of syncretism is the gradual co-adaptation (or is it co-option?) of current feelings, of strong cultural connections and significant cultural elements, and put them into the service of the new incoming faith. This is fundamentally your argument. And there is a very signficant truth in it, for as the Gospel left it's Greco-Hebrew roots and went into the world, what was important to be transmitted to the new adherents? Being Hebrew? Being 1st century Greek converts to Hebraic thought patterns? Is there rather a core of ideas that need to be transmitted, or a central set of ideas that make a person a Christian? But if there is, it seldom gets transmitted as such, but rather the missionaries strive to put blouses on the Hawaiians, or pants on the New Guineas, all a process not just of missionary work to make Christians but rather a cultural imperialism that is transmitted as if the whole complex is what the faith consists of.

Like Constantine captured the church of piety and produced the church of power, like current American social values to a great extent capture the evangelical church to a new Americanish captivity, analogous to the Babylonian captivity of the RC upto the Reformation. We allow the faith to be surrounded by unimportant cultural elements and essentially baptise them, thinking that since we are Christians and we believe these things to be true that all Christians ought to be like us.

So along with the problems presented to the faith over the century's due to the syncretism never really emptying the old forms but retain much in conflict with the new faith, there are the problems with the motivations of the people doing these things. oftentimes the motivation is numbers, influence. if you can coopt a big religious festival like Saturnalia, there will be many people in the parades that believe the old ways but are counted as within the new religion because they showed up.

My evidence would be that were faiths clash are a significant syncretism. Moslem-Hindi yields Sikh, for instance. Christian and Buddhism leads naturally to the Cao Dai (http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/vb/Caodai.htm) in VietNam. but not just new faiths, but the old ones are modified in extraordinary ways by their collision with each other. And the process in loaded with danger for a faith like Christianity which has a very high historical component, an accent on orthodox rather than orthopraxis. Christmas is just the tip of the iceberg on the issue, and it is not as clear cut as your essay would have us believe, but rather is a serious route for error and heresy to deeply penetrate the visible Church.

[musicman]

rmwilliamsjr writes:

I have no doubt that the process of syncretism is a normal response of human beings to the collision of rituals and therefore of the underlying ideas that are represented by these rituals. The problem is that this process you describe is not really what happens, nor is it really the intention of the syncretism to operate in this way.

musicman responds:

I don't think Greg was attempting give a syncretistic explanation of the celebration of Christmas. He was merely observing that Christians have many times in the past made use of pagan celebrations and symbols to illustrate the truths of the Gospel to pagans themselves. The Christian theology illustrated by these symbols many times was so powerful as to have divested these symbols of their original pagan roots (i.e. evergreen boughs, holly, gving of gifts, etc.).

Greg made mention of two books, Eternity in Their Hearts and The Peace Child. The author, a missionary, points out that since humanity is God's creation, His fingerprints show up even in many pagan practices and symbols. For example, Paul, when he was in Athens, used the Greek's idol, "To the Unknown God", as a point of "meeting" with the Greeks in order to find some common ground upon which to present the Gospel to them. The author (I think his name was Richardson) had a similar experience in his work with a tribal group in his use of their custom of the "peace child".

I think if you read those books, you would get what Greg was talking about. I agree with you that Christians must be careful in this process of finding the proper cultural "points of meeting", but it is not impossible.

[dizzle]

Musicman your prior post made my Post of the Day pick (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19567).

[musicman]

Dee Dee,

Thank you for your very kind compliment in selecting my post for POTD. I'm still trying to figure out how to use the format of this web site so please be patient with me if I put this in the wrong place.

Thanks Again,
musicman

[dizzle]

No problem musicman. If you have any questoins you can send a private message to our new member moderators Xavier and luv1another who would be more then happy to assist you in whatever way they can.

[rmwilliamsjr]

I don't think Greg was attempting give a syncretistic explanation of the celebration of Christmas. He was merely observing that Christians have many times in the past made use of pagan celebrations and symbols to illustrate the truths of the Gospel to pagans themselves. The Christian theology illustrated by these symbols many times was so powerful as to have divested these symbols of their original pagan roots (i.e. evergreen boughs, holly, gving of gifts, etc.).


but that is what the essay is. a defense of the syncretism surrounding the forms of Christmas. the main point is that Christian 'empties' the forms of content and refills them with Christian meaning.

My point is that this is the a problem of old wineskins. That it is difficult (maybe not impossible, but certainly dangerous) to take forms, empty them of content, and reuse the forms in the service of radically different contents. But rather then the new contents bursting the old wineskins, (to continue the metaphor) the remnant of the old wine causes the new wine to spoil.

A beautiful example is the extreme syncretism of the Mexican R.C. The processions continue to weave their way through the streets after the Conquest, only now the idols are various saints. but they are decorated with the same flowers, have the same popcorn balls as did the ancient gods, all that changed are the names, often even the faces are similiar. The dates are often the same, the saints whose days fell on native Indian gods days are the ones paraded on those same days. Holy days, holidays, are a very important point of contact between cultures and religions. Dec 25th had a very ancient tradition before the Church saw fit to, empty its pagan content, and refill it with Christian content. The names of our days of the week, of our months, are forms, in the same way, attempts to co-opt very old, very ancient ways to be put into the service of the new missionary faith. Does it work? i however would prefer the Hebrew method of day 1, day 2 etc. and do away with all traces of the old paganism. so that nothing remains to seduce people away.

[musicman]

but that is what the essay is. a defense of the syncretism surrounding the forms of Christmas. the main point is that Christian 'empties' the forms of content and refills them with Christian meaning.

My point is that this is the a problem of old wineskins. That it is difficult (maybe not impossible, but certainly dangerous) to take forms, empty them of content, and reuse the forms in the service of radically different contents. But rather then the new contents bursting the old wineskins, (to continue the metaphor) the remnant of the old wine causes the new wine to spoil.

A beautiful example is the extreme syncretism of the Mexican R.C. The processions continue to weave their way through the streets after the Conquest, only now the idols are various saints. but they are decorated with the same flowers, have the same popcorn balls as did the ancient gods, all that changed are the names, often even the faces are similiar. The dates are often the same, the saints whose days fell on native Indian gods days are the ones paraded on those same days. Holy days, holidays, are a very important point of contact between cultures and religions. Dec 25th had a very ancient tradition before the Church saw fit to, empty its pagan content, and refill it with Christian content. The names of our days of the week, of our months, are forms, in the same way, attempts to co-opt very old, very ancient ways to be put into the service of the new missionary faith. Does it work? i however would prefer the Hebrew method of day 1, day 2 etc. and do away with all traces of the old paganism. so that nothing remains to seduce people away.


I think you are reading in something that really isn’t there in regard to Greg's explanation of why Christmas is not a pagan celebration. I grant you that the process he describes is somewhat similar to "syncretism", but I'm not sure that syncretism, in the strictest sense of the word, is what really happened.



Let me explain. First of all, I must admit that I had to look up the meaning of syncretism (the “attempt or process of reconciling/fusing two differing beliefs”). Now, I completely agree with you that there are disturbing examples of syncretism that occurred in Church history. The example you gave regarding the mixing of pagan holidays, rituals, and statues with the worship of Christian saints seem to fit what you are warning us about.



That being said, however, if syncretism means the attempt to reconcile or fuse two opposing beliefs together, then I think that is something different from what Greg describes in his essay on Christmas and paganism.



I believe it is different in at least two ways. First, the examples you give regarding certain practices of the Roman Catholic are activities that have no basis in Scripture, (i.e. the worship of saints). Worshipping or praying to Christian saints is completely against Scriptural teaching to begin with – only God is to receive such worship and our prayers. Anything else is already idolatry. What I am saying is that your example of syncretism is an attempt to mix two practices from two differing beliefs which are both non-Biblical. So, I don’t see a “true” mixing or reconciliation of Christian belief with pagan belief. I see error being combined with error.



Now, I realize that the celebration of Christ’s birthday is nowhere mentioned in Scripture either, but at least the idea of celebrating or commemorating the Incarnation and birth of our Savior is not violating any Biblical teaching (except in Non-Trinitarian’s view) that I am aware of.



Second, the pagan symbols (holly, evergreen branches and garland, trees etc.) are not innately “pagan” in and of themselves (as opposed to statues of idols, human sacrifice, etc.). An evergreen tree is merely an evergreen tree. We can put whatever symbolism we want on it, but the tree itself is not “pagan”. So, if Christians take these items and give new meanings to them, that is not “syncretism” or a “reconciling” of two opposing beliefs – it is the expunging (or ignoring) of the old with the new. I don’t see any reconciling going on with paganism in the development of the Christmas celebration. However, I do see Christians “redeeming” symbols that were formerly pagan and giving true meaning to them in order to glorify God. As a result, the old pagan meanings for those symbols have died out (except for a very, very small number of modern, westernized pagans of today). This is not the same as taking a pagan, man-made idol and attempting to “Christianize” it.



Paul, the Apostle, discussed the issue of eating meat offered to idols (1 Corinthians) because it was causing dissension in the church at Corinth. Remember that he pointed out that since idols were really nothing, eating meat sacrificed to an idol or not eating meat offered to an idol didn’t help or hurt us spiritually (our motive for eating or not eating could though, but that’s another issue). Similarly, I think whether you do or don’t celebrate Christmas is not going to “hurt” you spiritually one way or the other.



Anyway, I must respectfully disagree with you regarding your analysis of Greg’s essay. I don’t believe that “syncretism” as it is strictly defined, was what happened with Christmas. Maybe it has with other practices, but I don’t believe it did here.

[rmwilliamsjr]

thanks for the insightful reply.
it gets me thinking about about we attach meaning to symbols.
for instance i remember reading a sunday school lesson years ago about boniface cutting down a sacred tree. (http://users.erols.com/bcccsbs/christmas/tree.htm)
i wondered if that was the tree we had in the living room for christmas. i asked my folk but they didnt really have a answer other than it wasnt the same tree.

over the years as i read about topics like syncretism or the desacralization of nature, i think about my parent's response to that simply childish question--they were culturally christian, interested in preserving forms and inculcating ethics in us kids, but uninterested in theology. these are big issues in theology but i really dont know anything about what is in the man-in-the-pew's mind. i can only quess.

[musicman]

thanks for the insightful reply.
it gets me thinking about how we attach meaning to symbols.

Thank you for introducing me to a new word, "syncretism". It is an interesting concept that I had never thought about. Thank you, too, for the very civil debate. I think there is a verse from Proverbs that talks about healthy discussion and rebuttal being like sharpening a sword. Hopefully we'll both be a little "sharper" in our service for our Lord.

musicman

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi Musicman,

I think you missed the whole point of Greg's article. "Christmas" was never
a pagan celebration. Yes, there were pagan celebrations going on at the same
time - but pagans never celebrated the birth of Christ - only Christians did
that.But this is the whole argument, isn’t it? “Christians” did not celebrate
Jesus’ birth. They didn’t celebrate anyone's birth.


You make much of the "fact" that first century Christians did not celebrate
birthdays, or even Christ's birthday. What you are doing is equating
cultural practices of first century Christians with the commands of Christ
from scripture. Are the cultural practices of the early Christians to be
considered equally inspired along with the Bible? What you are missing is “why” early Christians didn’t celebrate birthdays.
It wasn’t because of their “culture” not celebrating birthdays. The
celebration of birthdays was quite common back then. If they went with their
“culture”, they WOULD celebrate birthdays. It was because they considered
the practice as pagan and unchristian. Read the sources above again. The
Bible doesn’t have to list every wrong or every right. Smoking and many
other things are not mentioned but many professed Christians believe these
are wrong. The scriptures tell us to stay away from false worship. How
familiar are you with the relationship between celebrating birthdays and
false worship?


Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, said that women should have their head covered
when praying or prophesying in the worship service - if you are a woman, do
you cover your head in the worship services where you attend? I’m not a woman but yes, there are situations where sisters will cover their
heads when praying, etc.


He said that men should not have long hair - do you know what length a man's
hair was in the first century? Are men today sinning against Christ if their
hair is longer than that of first century Christians? (How long was their
hair anyway?).I don’t know how long their hair was. The principle is to make sure that men
are separate from women in appearance.


I think you are making much ado about nothing. Jesus never said that we
should or should not celebrate his (or anyone elses birthday). If it was
that important, don't you think He would have mentioned it - (or the
Apostles?). Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. If homosexuality was that important…
My point is that there are a number of things Jesus didn’t mention. And a
number of specifics no one mentioned but via principles we can understand.
Early Christians shunned birthdays, not because of the culture they lived
in, but because of the paganism of it.


You mention Pharoah and Herod as being the only ones mentioned in Scripture
as having celebrated birthdays. I grant you these guys were not heroes of
the faith, but aren't you giving birthdays a black eye only through guilt by
association? My point was not to condemn birthdays BECAUSE these men did celebrate them. It was merely to show that there is no record of God’s servants celebrating them and in fact, the historical records show they did not. Even though the cultures around them did.


Even if your sources are correct that early Christians felt birthdays were
pagan, you are resting your argument completely on (possibly) first century
cultural practices/beliefs, not on Scripture.The principle of not celebrating Birthdays is based on avoiding false
worship. If a “new form “ of false worship arises in the 21st century, I won’t need the Bible to mention it specifically to know to avoid it. As I asked
DD, where did the various customs and practices of birthdays come from? Did
someone one day just say, “Hey, I have an idea, let’s put candles on a cake
and blow them out!” No. These were from false beliefs and pagan practices.
This is why historical records show early Christians rejected birthdays.
They felt it was intwined with false worship. Now, they COULD have been
wrong but we feel safe in merely imitating their stand.


If celebrating birthdays is pagan, then wouldn't also using the modern names
for the days of the week be pagan too? Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
etc. are all English versions of the names of pagan gods. And how about the
names of the months of the year? When you use them, aren't you giving
indirect praise to these defunct pagan gods and Roman Emperors?It’s no more wrong than saying Ba’al or Be’elzebub or Zeus, all of which
appear in the Bible. If a temple was called “Zeus”, it wasn’t wrong to say
‘That is the temple of Zeus.’ I am not praising Zeus and neither was the
writer of the book of Acts, Luke. But, if I went to the temple, made an idol
of Jesus and then bowed down to worship it, it would be wrong. And that’s
what Christendom has done. They took pagan practices (trees, etc.) and
thought that if they gave “Christian” names or meanings to them, it would
make it okay. But pagan practices are pagan practices, no matter what name or meaning you give to it.

The end result is that there are NO accounts of any servants of God
celebrating birthdays, only pagans doing such. There are a number of
historical records that state early Christians didn’t celebrate them, not
because of culture, but because of their stance against false worship. Is it
wrong today? I believe so but that is a different discussion. When it’s
obvious Jesus and his apostles DID NOT celebrate them, according to all
available data, can you see why you are going to have a difficult time
convincing me it IS okay to celebrate them?

[musicman]

The end result is that there are NO accounts of any servants of God
celebrating birthdays, only pagans doing such. There are a number of
historical records that state early Christians didn’t celebrate them, not
because of culture, but because of their stance against false worship. Is it
wrong today? I believe so but that is a different discussion. When it’s
obvious Jesus and his apostles DID NOT celebrate them, according to all
available data, can you see why you are going to have a difficult time
convincing me it IS okay to celebrate them?
I must differ with you in your assertion that there are no accounts of any of the servants of God celebrating birthdays. Haven't you read the account of Jesus' birth in Luke 2:8-14 at the angels and the shepherds rejoicing and praising God at the birth of His Son? Maybe they didn't have a "cake and candles", but they did celebrate His birth. If it was acceptable to celebrate the birth of Jesus on the day of His birth, why would it not be acceptable to celebrate His birth now?

I have three children of my own and I must tell you that on the day of their birth - my wife and I REJOICED!! We were (and are) so happy for the gifts that God had given us that we just couldn't help celebrating. How is it idolotry and a sin against God to celebrate the anniversay of that happy event?

Please forgive my asking, but why are you so focused on such a peripheral issue? Don't you know that you are "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel" when you focus your energy on these things and yet miss out on who Jesus is - the Living Word of God, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, the Creator of all things, the One who was, and is and is to come, the One who received the worship of Angels and men (in which it is only permissible to worship God), who raised the dead, who healed the sick, who took titles for Himself that only God could rightly claim? He is the One whom we must know and kneel before. With all the love of Jesus (that I do not deserve), I implore you to receive Him, God the Son, the lover of your soul - who took upon Himself our sin and paid the ultimate price for you and me. Look to Him.

It was said of the early American Puritans (perhaps unjustly) that they were worried that sometime, somewhere, someone might be having a good time. I think you are in danger of having the same type of attitude.

You mentioned that Jesus didn't mention many things that today would be considered wrong, like homosexuality. It's true that Jesus didn't mention it, but his Apostles did. That was my point. If birthdays were such a sinful thing, surely Paul (or one of the other Apostles) would have mentioned it - especially since he dealt with Gentile Christians so much. He instructs them regarding several issues that were "cultural" in nature. Why not birthdays? No matter how you spin it, you are equating Jewish (and early Christian) cultural practices with Scripture (if your sources are accurate) - that can get us into (and has) error very quickly.

[NonTrinitarian]

I must differ with you in your assertion that there are no accounts of any of the servants of God celebrating birthdays. Haven't you read the account of Jesus' birth in Luke 2:8-14 at the angels and the shepherds rejoicing and praising God at the birth of His Son? Maybe they didn't have a "cake and candles", but they did celebrate His birth. If it was acceptable to celebrate the birth of Jesus on the day of His birth, why would it not be acceptable to celebrate His birth now?
I already discussed this aspect with DDW earlier in this thread. There is a big difference between celebrating the initial birth of a child and a continuous observance of birthdays. At least that's how the early Christians saw it.


I have three children of my own and I must tell you that on the day of their birth - my wife and I REJOICED!! We were (and are) so happy for the gifts that God had given us that we just couldn't help celebrating. How is it idolotry and a sin against God to celebrate the anniversay of that happy event? And do you think I nor other JW's don't celebrate when our children are born? Again, not the same thing. If you want more information on the paganism of birthdays, I would be glad to give you some links to review.


Please forgive my asking, but why are you so focused on such a peripheral issue? Don't you know that you are "straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel" when you focus your energy on these things
No reason to apologize. I'm not straining a gnat, I'm merely trying to make sure my worship is "clean, undefiled and without spot from this world." (James 1:27) I am trying to make sure that I am not eating at the table of demons and the table of our Creator. (1 Cor 10:21) Again, the early Christians avoided birthdays because of false worship. Besides, I was just answering STR's thread on this. They're the ones who started it and began by making an incorrect statement that early Christians celebrated birthdays (not meaning the DAY of birth of a child). I'm just pointing out they are wrong.


and yet miss out on who Jesus is - the Living Word of God, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, the Creator of all things, the One who was, and is and is to come, the One who received the worship of Angels and men (in which it is only permissible to worship God), who raised the dead, who healed the sick, who took titles for Himself that only God could rightly claim? He is the One whom we must know and kneel before. With all the love of Jesus (that I do not deserve), I implore you to receive Him, God the Son, the lover of your soul - who took upon Himself our sin and paid the ultimate price for you and me. Look to Him.
uh, if you're wanting to get into a Trinity discussion, choose a different thread. Go to the Tennis Court and see Bill and me discuss the Gospels in this regard. BTW, the scriptures don't tell me to receive "God the Son", they tell me to receive the "So of God." Big difference.


It was said of the early American Puritans (perhaps unjustly) that they were worried that sometime, somewhere, someone might be having a good time. I think you are in danger of having the same type of attitude.
No. JW's can party like all others, only we keep it in a morally acceptable level and we do not include pagan practices in it.


You mentioned that Jesus didn't mention many things that today would be considered wrong, like homosexuality. It's true that Jesus didn't mention it, but his Apostles did. That was my point. If birthdays were such a sinful thing, surely Paul (or one of the other Apostles) would have mentioned it - especially since he dealt with Gentile Christians so much. He instructs them regarding several issues that were "cultural" in nature. Why not birthdays? No matter how you spin it, you are equating Jewish (and early Christian) cultural practices with Scripture (if your sources are accurate) - that can get us into (and has) error very quickly.
Ahh, now you are implying that early Christians did celebrte birthdays or that Paul did not think it was wrong. But all of the historical evidence is stacked against such a thought. Can you think of any other wrongs that Christians should not do that are not mentioned by the apostles? Since they were not mentioned, does it mean it is okay to do them? We live by principles. If a practice is stooped in false religion, it's wrong. The apostles didn't need to mention every false pagan practice in order to identify it as wrong.

[musicman]

NonTrinitarian: There is a big difference between celebrating the initial birth of a child and a continuous observance of birthdays. At least that's how the early Christians saw it.[/QUOTE]



I don’t see how there is a difference. Your line of reasoning seems illogical to me. If the tree I have planted in my yard is an orange tree in March, how could it possibly be an apple tree in February?



If Activity A is pagan on Monday, then Activity A should still be pagan on Tuesday, right?



Or, if Activity A is pagan on Friday, then Activity A was also pagan on Monday, too.



The opposite would be: if Activity A was not pagan on Monday, then Activity A would also not bepagan on Friday.



In other words, if celebrating and giving thanks to God for the birth of one’s child is not pagan on the day of that child’s birth, then it is also not pagan to celebrate and give thanks to God for that child’s birth on the anniversary of that event as well.



You can't have it both ways. Either celebrating the birth of Christ was pagan on the day of His birth or it wasn't. Obviously, as we’ve already seen in the Scriptures, it wasn't considered pagan when the angels and shepherds celebrated Jesus’ birth on the day of His birth - therefore, to celebrate the birth of Christ on an annual basis cannot logically be considered pagan either.



If, as you say, it is not pagan to celebrate the birth of a child on the day of its birth, but to do so again at a later date would be, then your line of reasoning seems to be saying that a sinful or pagan act would not be sinful (or pagan) the first time it was committed – it would only become sinful or pagan the second time.



Next, you keep saying that the early Christians thought that observing birthdays was pagan. I really don’t know whether your sources are correct or not, but as I’ve said before – the idea of celebrating one’s birthday is neither promoted nor condemned in Scripture. Your entire argument is based on the unsubstantiated opinion or unsubstantiated, so-called “historical” records. Even if your sources are correct, it is still a view that is not collaborated in the Bible. Just because the early Christians dressed, believed, or acted in a certain way doesn’t necessarily mean that it was God’s truth and to be put on the same inerrant level as Scripture.



You said your group practiced the instructions given by Paul to wear head coverings or for men to not cut their hair. You said you didn’t know the common length of men’s hair in the first century. I ask you, if somehow it was discovered how long the early Christians thought men’s hair ought to be, and to wear it differently was a “pagan” practice – would you cut your hair to conform to that? Paul says it is a shame for women to cut their hair – do the women in your church cut their hair? If they do they are violating first century practice. Paul told Timothy that the churches should not allow women to speak in the church – do the women in your church talk at your meetings?





NonTrinitarian: Again, the early Christians avoided birthdays because of false worship. Besides, I was just answering STR's thread on this. They're the ones who started it and began by making an incorrect statement that early Christians celebrated birthdays (not meaning the DAY of birth of a child). I'm just pointing out they are wrong.



I read Greg’s essay on “Is Christmas Pagan?” too and I do not recall him stating that early Christians celebrated birthdays.


NonTrinitarian: Ahh, now you are implying that early Christians did celebrate birthdays or that Paul did not think it was wrong. But all of the historical evidence is stacked against such a thought. Can you think of any other wrongs that Christians should not do that are not mentioned by the apostles? Since they were not mentioned, does it mean it is okay to do them? We live by principles. If a practice is stooped in false religion, it's wrong. The apostles didn't need to mention every false pagan practice in order to identify it as wrong.




I was not implying that early Christians celebrated birthdays. I don’t know if they did or not. All I said was that Paul, nor any of the other Apostles warned against celebrating birthdays. I just find it curious that since birthday celebrations were supposed to be such a common pagan practice (according to your historical records) that none of the Apostles ever mention it. As I pointed out previously, Paul and several of the other Apostles dealt a great deal with Gentile (mainly pagan in upbringing) converts to Christianity. You may recall in the book of Acts how he and the other church leaders met in Jerusalem to resolve the issue of what requirements Gentile converts to Christianity would have to meet? Remember the letter that was sent with Paul to take to the Gentile Christian churches? – it never mentions avoiding the practice of celebrating birthdays. I just find that unbelievable. If it was such a big taboo issue with the early Christians and all these non-Jewish, formerly pagan converts were joining the church, I find it extremely odd that none of the Apostles ever bring up the problem of celebrating birthdays in any of their epistles.



At this point, I’m afraid that I must respectfully give you the last word (at least for now). I’ve attempted to correct what I took to be false interpretations, assumptions and statements you directed at Greg’s essay regarding the celebration of Christmas, Biblical teaching, STR, and common sense. I am a newcomer to the TheologyWeb and I enjoy thoughtful and spirited debate. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

musicman

[NonTrinitarian]

NonTrinitarian: There is a big difference between celebrating the initial birth of a child and a continuous observance of birthdays. At least that's how the early Christians saw it.

Musicman: I don’t see how there is a difference. Your line of reasoning seems illogical to me. If the tree I have planted in my yard is an orange tree in March, how could it possibly be an apple tree in February? … In other words, if celebrating and giving thanks to God for the birth of one’s child is not pagan on the day of that child’s birth, then it is also not pagan to celebrate and give thanks to God for that child’s birth on the anniversary of that event as well.Obviously the Jews and the early Christians saw things differently from you as they did celebrate their child’s birth but did not celebrate his annual birthday. So either the whole Jewish and early Christian society didn’t understand logic or yours is wrong.

Next, you keep saying that the early Christians thought that observing birthdays was pagan. I really don’t know whether your sources are correct or not, but as I’ve said before – the idea of celebrating one’s birthday is neither promoted nor condemned in Scripture. Your entire argument is based on the unsubstantiated opinion or unsubstantiated, so-called "historical" records. Even if your sources are correct, it is still a view that is not collaborated in the Bible. Just because the early Christians dressed, believed, or acted in a certain way doesn’t necessarily mean that it was God’s truth and to be put on the same inerrant level as Scripture. As far as the reliability of the sources, you have the internet and the ability to research it yourself. Until counter-evidence is offered, the sources should rightly stand as accurate. Now, as I stated before, it wasn’t a ‘cultural reason’ for not celebrating birthdays, it was because they saw the paganism of it. Consider this: The Bible doesn’t say I can’t drive 90mph on the interstate but that doesn’t mean I can. It was not necessary for the NT to go through and list EVERY SINGLE PAGAN practice in order for us to know it is wrong to do that. With good reason too. More pagan practices would come later of which the Bible could obviously not mention. So it simply says to avoid these things in general. That’s why the 1st century Christians didn’t celebrate birthdays. They didn’t need to be spoon fed everything as they were guided by principles.

You said your group practiced the instructions given by Paul to wear head coverings or for men to not cut their hair. You said you didn’t know the common length of men’s hair in the first century. I ask you, if somehow it was discovered how long the early Christians thought men’s hair ought to be, and to wear it differently was a "pagan" practice – would you cut your hair to conform to that? Paul says it is a shame for women to cut their hair – do the women in your church cut their hair? If they do they are violating first century practice. Paul told Timothy that the churches should not allow women to speak in the church – do the women in your church talk at your meetings? What we do is look at the principle being taught. The point Paul was making is that men should not try to look like women and vice versa. Jesus had longer hair than JW’s do today. Jesus had a beard. JW’s don’t wear beards. Why? Because all things are lawful but not all things are advantageous. Paul, fully knowing circumcision was not required, went ahead and circumcised Timothy anyway. Why? To further his ministry with the Jews. We keep our hair trimmed to the acceptable level our society does. But we don’t go with society when it comes to false worship. So if it’s acceptable to commit adultery in our society, we don’t follow that culture. Birthdays were accepted in the Greek culture but Christians didn’t celebrate them. However, they did groom and dress according to the Greek culture. And what Paul was saying about women speaking in the church was in regards to teaching (as ministers) or openly questioning. Women do not "speak" in our congregations in that sense but they will tell you "hi" when you walk in.

I read Greg’s essay on "Is Christmas Pagan?" too and I do not recall him stating that early Christians celebrated birthdays. It’s implied as he did not mention that it was a later development.

I was not implying that early Christians celebrated birthdays. I don’t know if they did or not. All I said was that Paul, nor any of the other Apostles warned against celebrating birthdays. I just find it curious that since birthday celebrations were supposed to be such a common pagan practice (according to your historical records) that none of the Apostles ever mention it. As I pointed out previously, Paul and several of the other Apostles dealt a great deal with Gentile (mainly pagan in upbringing) converts to Christianity. You may recall in the book of Acts how he and the other church leaders met in Jerusalem to resolve the issue of what requirements Gentile converts to Christianity would have to meet? Remember the letter that was sent with Paul to take to the Gentile Christian churches? – it never mentions avoiding the practice of celebrating birthdays. I just find that unbelievable. If it was such a big taboo issue with the early Christians and all these non-Jewish, formerly pagan converts were joining the church, I find it extremely odd that none of the Apostles ever bring up the problem of celebrating birthdays in any of their epistles.There are a lot of pagan practices that the gentiles did that are not mentioned in the NT. This doesn’t mean they could do them sense it wasn’t written down anywhere in the NT. As far as the proclamation at Acts 15, are you proposing that the only things binding on Christians were to abstain from fornication, blood, things strangled and idolatry? I know you are not proposing that so your argument falls.

At this point, I’m afraid that I must respectfully give you the last word (at least for now). I’ve attempted to correct what I took to be false interpretations, assumptions and statements you directed at Greg’s essay regarding the celebration of Christmas, Biblical teaching, STR, and common sense. I am a newcomer to the TheologyWeb and I enjoy thoughtful and spirited debate. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.And I too have enjoyed talking with you. In the end, the evidence shows that the early Christians didn’t celebrate birthdays though they obviously celebrated the birth of a child. Their refusal was not due to culture, like hair lengths, greeting each other with a kiss, etc. Their refusal stemmed from their belief that is was against true worship. That the Bible does not specifically mention birthdays is no more significant than the many other things that are wrong to do which are also not mentioned in the scriptures. IE., pornography, smoking, child sex, masturbation, etc. (But with some here at Tweb, they may debate whether any of these are wrong too!)

Best regards,

[musicman]

Well, I’m taking the last word back – six months later! Since we are fast approaching fall and the holiday season, I am making a pre-emptive as well as a "last word" response to "non-Trinitarian’s" last word (way back in February 2004).

Quote by non-Trinitarian:

Obviously the Jews and the early Christians saw things differently from you as they did celebrate their child’s birth but did not celebrate his annual birthday. So either the whole Jewish and early Christian society didn’t understand logic or yours is wrong.

This is not obvious at all. You keep maintaining that Jews and early Christians never celebrated birthdays because they associated it with pagan practice – and yet, you say that they did celebrate the initial birth "day" of a child. Again, it is illogical to say that celebrating the child’s birth (initially) is not pagan idolatry, but celebrating one’s birthday as an annual event is.

You’ve said that either the whole Jewish and early Christian society didn’t understand logic or yours is wrong. Are you seriously saying that the early Christians were incoherent (illogical) in their faith and practice? On the other hand, if you believe my logic is wrong – please show me where. By that I don’t mean give me more of your "sources" – I mean demonstrate for me how it is coherent (logical) to say that celebrating one’s birth on the day of one’s birth is not pagan, but celebrating it annually is.

I addition to this, I still have several problems with your thesis:

First of all your documentation may be of questionable value (I don’t know because you haven’t listed your sources yet). Just because an idea or theory is published somewhere doesn’t make it true. Ancient events, attitudes, and customs must be documented and collaborated by a number (more than one or two) of reputable sources (and over a period of time) before putting much faith in a particular theory. Why? Because archeology is not a "hard" science. It is like putting together a puzzle with pieces that can, many times, fit in a variety of ways. Sometimes pieces that we thought fit in a certain place and time turn out not to fit at all – or is even made up.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that archeology is so fluid a science that we can’t make sense out of the past. I’m just saying you need to be careful of presenting something from the ancient world as being "fact" if the person (or persons) saying it are few and far between. For what it is worth, I have studied the Bible, Biblical history, and cultural practices of the ancient world (heck - and I’m just an avid history buff) for over thirty-five years (on my own and at seminary). Outside of my study on Jehovah’s Witnesses, I have never, ever read (or heard of) any source that stated such attitudes regarding celebrating birthdays were held by first century Jews and early Christians. I know that doesn’t prove anything, but I think it is odd that it is only Jehovah’s Witnesses who declare birthdays to be pagan.

Since you are the one making the claim that documentation exists supporting your view, you logically are the one who carries the burden of proof. Please give us your specific documentation (it would be nice if you would provide names of articles, books, authors, along with their bibliographical references so that everyone can check out your sources). It is a cop out for you to say, "you have the internet and the ability to research it yourself. Until counter-evidence is offered, the sources should rightly stand as accurate". Why should we, your readers, have to provide you (or ourselves) with the documentation for your thesis? Until you present your documentation for our scrutiny, we don’t know that your sources should "rightly stand as accurate".


Secondly, even if your sources are accurate – and, even if it could be demonstrated that first century Jews and Christians viewed celebrating birthdays as pagan – that still would not, in and of itself, be enough authority to say that Christians today should not celebrate birthdays (or Christmas). Why? Because as it has already been said, no where in scripture are birthdays denounced as pagan. It is the Bible that is to be our authority for doctrine, faith, practice, and Christian behavior.

You’ve said "driving 90 mph" on the interstate isn’t mentioned in the Bible, but we know that we shouldn’t do it. If the posted speed limit is less than 90 mph, I would agree with you, but the problem with your example is that while automobiles didn’t exist in the first century, the celebration of birthdays did. Paul, who ministered to pagan gentiles, never required them to avoid celebrating birthdays in any of his letters. Neither did any of the other New Testament writers. I say again, if celebrating birthdays was considered pagan by the early Christians, then surely, given that birthdays were a cultural practice of the time, at least one of the New Testament writers would have mentioned it somewhere. But they don’t.

At best, your argument rests on non-scriptural authority. You keep saying that the early Christians were guided by principles and that these are what we need to be following today. I would agree that we need to follow Biblical principles of the early Church, but not early Christian cultural practices.

An interesting Biblical passage I’ve read regarding cultural practices of the day is when Paul says in Colossians 2:16-17, "therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

Also in that same chapter, Paul says in verses 20-23, "Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch’? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."


In other words, celebrating birthdays or not celebrating birthdays has no spiritual value either way (unless you are adding some specific sinful behavior such as drunkenness or sexual immorality). The true reality is, as Paul says, "found in Christ". What have you done with Christ? Have you accepted Jesus the Christ, Messiah – Son of God, Emmanuel (God with Us), the I AM, the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, the resurrected Lord – as Lord of your life? That is the real question.

[Preacherman]

is christmas pagan?....hmmm, is saturnalia christian????

[Kane]

Dear Greg, (or whomever)

I am (Not) surprised to see that you have, as most Believers do, taken the classic approach with reguard to Christmas. I would have hoped that an intellectual giant, one whom I greatly respect, would have thought this through better lenses of scripture. Why would the Father give us a prescribed manner of worship, (only for us to reject it, and substitute it for another) if He was not concerned with syncretism? Syncretism is defined as a merging of two beliefs, especially in religion. Repeatedly throughout the scriptures, God has made abundantly clear that we are to obey His Commands, (IE everything, including the manner of worship) by not mixing our religion with other types and or practices. In fact, he goes to such an extreme, that He says not mix even our crops, cloth, or animals (Lev. 19:19, Deut.22:11), for the same reason. In everything we do, purity was to be the focus. Certainly the scriptures should speak to this.... They do. Consider the following verses: Duet. 18:9 - When you enter the land which YHVH your Elohim (God) gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations." It then continues in vs. 12 "For whoever does these things is detestable to YHVH. And because of these things, YHVH your Elohim (God) will drive them out before you." He continues in Deut. 20:17-18, "But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, the Jebusite, as YHVH has commanded you. In order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods so that you would sin against YHVH your Elohim." Scripture does, contrary to your teaching, teach us that to practice the manner of worship that pagans do in an effort to worship OUR God is wrong. That is Bible. That is not opinion.
Consider: God states that Worship of HIM is not to imitate the ways and practices of those nations that are pagan around them. As HIS people we are to represent HIS way of prescribed worship. He even goes to the extreme of saying that it is detestable! - (words used only for sins as heneous as Homosexuality, idolatry, etc.) Your information about the Egyptian manner of circumcision, though true, is far from relevant. God has at his power the ability to sanctify anything, whether it is a ritual practice or otherwise. The very act of sanctifying is to make clean and Holy what was not. We, as a community, or as a church have never had the ability to sanctify, unless doing something through His prescribed methods. Otherwise why not "sanctify" a prostitute? OR how about a "Holy" rave party, in the name and to the Glory of Jesus? That is ludicrous because it rejects the very instructions given to us initially, in favor of our "sanctified" practices.
Historically, Christmas has a very shallow background. Under Aurelian (270-275CE) December 25th was decreed Dies Natalis Invicti Solis (the birthday of the Unconquered Sun). Bishop Chrysostom (Bishop of Constantinople 398 - 403 CE) explained clearly that Christmas was to replace the pagan festival of the Sun - (Mithras) in one of his homilies:"On this day also the birthday of Christ was lately fixed in Rome, in order that while the heathen were busy with their profane ceremonies, the Christians might perform their sacred rites undisturbed. They call this (December 25th; Kal.Jan viii as the Romans wrote it.) the birthday of the Invincible One (Mithras); but who is so invincible as the Lord? They call it the Birthday of the Solar Disc; but Christ is the Sun (Actual spelling)of Righteousness." Does that seem like a coincidence? You have mentioned Saturnalia; what of Brumalia and the other holidays associated with the customs we now call ours? In addition to this, there is no clear evidence that Messiah was born on the 25th. This is not a "reasonable" defense.
Clearly there is no prescribed scriptural reference to celebrate the coming of the Annointed One. (Christos - gk.) (This contrasted with the appointed set times given in Lev. 23.) Some have argued that the "tree" written in Jer. 10:1-5, bears a striking resemblence to a Christmas Tree. Either way, what good can possibly come from a tree being cut down, in similar manner as Pagans did for such a great time, being adorned with decorations, and sung about. Look at the lyrics of "O Christmas Tree" and find me one reference of Messiah... There is none. The fruit of Christmas is wonderfully intergrained with the believer and non-believer alike. Where are the distinctions? God's concept of Holiness is at it's Heart one of seperation. Scripture declares: "Be ye Holy as I am Holy." and "Come out and Be seperate." Clearly, in light of good scholarship, Dec. 25th was at best an attempt at a substitution for holidays that the believers themselves had not yet given up. (See Luke 9:23-25) When will we as followers of Messiah learn that to truly follow Him, we must walk as He walked. (1st Jn 2:6) That includes His celebrations, and His manners of worship. There can be no other way. Anything else becomes a relativistic argument, and one that does not reflect the life of the Messiah. But don't worry Greg, I am still going to support STR anyway. Even if I don't see eye to eye with you on some issues. If anyone would like to discuss this further, I can be reached @ tigerchyld@hotmail.com Until then, May Yahshua (Jesus) guard us all in His grace and His love until we arrive at unity of purpose. Amen.

[musicman]

Dear Greg, (or whomever)

I am (Not) surprised to see that you have, as most Believers do, taken the classic approach with reguard to Christmas. I would have hoped that an intellectual giant, one whom I greatly respect, would have thought this through better lenses of scripture. Why would the Father give us a prescribed manner of worship, (only for us to reject it, and substitute it for another) if He was not concerned with syncretism? Syncretism is defined as a merging of two beliefs, especially in religion. Repeatedly throughout the scriptures, God has made abundantly clear that we are to obey His Commands, (IE everything, including the manner of worship) by not mixing our religion with other types and or practices.

Kane,

I enjoyed reading your historical analysis of Christmas. However, I must respectfully disagree. I would like to post something from a previous discussion I had with someone else on this very same topic of syncretism. Here it is:

I think you are reading in something that really isn’t there in regard to Greg's explanation of why Christmas is not a pagan celebration. I grant you that the process he describes is somewhat similar to "syncretism", but I'm not sure that syncretism, in the strictest sense of the word, is what really happened.

Let me explain. First of all, I must admit that I had to look up the meaning of syncretism (the “attempt or process of reconciling/fusing two differing beliefs”). Now, I completely agree with you that there are disturbing examples of syncretism that occurred in Church history. That being said, however, if syncretism means the attempt to reconcile or fuse two opposing beliefs together, then I think that is something different from what Greg describes in his essay on Christmas and paganism.

I believe it is different in at least two ways. First, the examples you give regarding certain practices of the Roman Catholic are activities that have no basis in Scripture, (i.e. the worship of saints). Worshipping or praying to Christian saints is completely against Scriptural teaching to begin with – only God is to receive such worship and our prayers. Anything else is already idolatry. What I am saying is that your example of syncretism is an attempt to mix two practices from two differing beliefs which are both non-Biblical. So, I don’t see a “true” mixing or reconciliation of Christian belief with pagan belief. I see error being combined with error.

Now, I realize that the celebration of Christ’s birthday is nowhere mentioned in Scripture either, but at least the idea of celebrating or commemorating the Incarnation and birth of our Savior is not violating any Biblical teaching (except in Non-Trinitarian’s view) that I am aware of.

Second, the pagan symbols (holly, evergreen branches and garland, trees etc.) are not innately “pagan” in and of themselves (as opposed to statues of idols, human sacrifice, etc.). An evergreen tree is merely an evergreen tree. We can put whatever symbolism we want on it, but the tree itself is not “pagan”. So, if Christians take these items and give new meanings to them, that is not “syncretism” or a “reconciling” of two opposing beliefs – it is the expunging (or ignoring) of the old with the new. I don’t see any reconciling going on with paganism in the development of the Christmas celebration. However, I do see Christians “redeeming” symbols that were formerly pagan and giving true meaning to them in order to glorify God. As a result, the old pagan meanings for those symbols have died out (except for a very, very small number of modern, westernized pagans of today). This is not the same as taking a pagan, man-made idol and attempting to “Christianize” it.

Paul, the Apostle, discussed the issue of eating meat offered to idols (1 Corinthians) because it was causing dissension in the church at Corinth. Remember that he pointed out that since idols were really nothing, eating meat sacrificed to an idol or not eating meat offered to an idol didn’t help or hurt us spiritually (our motive for eating or not eating could though, but that’s another issue). Similarly, I think whether you do or don’t celebrate Christmas is not going to “hurt” you spiritually one way or the other.

Anyway, I must respectfully disagree with you regarding your analysis of Greg’s essay. I don’t believe that “syncretism” as it is strictly defined, was what happened with Christmas. Maybe it has with other practices, but I don’t believe it did here.

Back to the present. Well, I hope this made some sense to you. I think Christmas is a truely wonderful time of year. It is the one time you can walk through a "pagan" shopping mall and hear the words to, "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing". When I do, I marvel at God's ability to get the message of the Gospel into our secular world - almost covertly. There will be people standing before God on Judgment Day claiming ignorance of His message of salvation, but God will say, "Hey! What are you talking about? Weren't you shopping in the mall on December 10th, 2004? The Gospel message was being sung all around you - year after year. No, there is no excuse."

I say, along with Scrooge's younger nephew in A Christmas Carol, "Christmas a humbug!? Never, I say, 'God bless it'". Or, at least he said something like that.