In my younger years, I had always assumed Christmas was a universal Christian practice. I had no idea there were Christians who didn't celebrate it, and I was especially shocked when, upon becoming a Christian myself, I went on to discover there were those who actively opposed the celebration. Using various arguments, they not only contend that Christmas is pagan in origin, but that Christians who do celebrate are actively sinning. The most extreme among these will even claim that those who celebrate it are not saved.
On the flip side, there are those who believe Christians are somehow obligated to celebrate Christmas, and some denominations even present this as a requirement for salvation. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, recognises Christmas Day as a "holy day of obligation" (CCC 2177), on which, save for legitimate excuses like family needs, "...the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body...."
There are all manner of views regarding Christmas, ranging from the absolute, unequivocal right to celebrate, and the absolute inexcusability of doing so. I feel I am in a somewhat advantageous position to discuss this issue. Most people who speak about this issue tend to not only take a side, but follow it through. If you vocally support Christmas, you probably celebrate it. If you vocally oppose it, you probably abstain. In both scenarios, you can easily be accused of bias. I, however, take a very firm view on one side, yet act on the other. It is my firm contention that every Christian, so long as their conscience is clear, has the absolute right to celebrate Christmas. However, for various personal reasons, I tend to avoid it wherever possible. I do not like the lights, or the music, or the snow, or most of the movies (The Grinch and A Christmas Carol being notable exceptions). In fact, Christmas is the one time I might actively avoid going to church. Because I am so strongly biased in one direction, yet believe in, and argue for, the other side, I cannot be reasonably accused of such bias. With that out of the way, here is my overview of how I believe every Christian should respond to Christmas.
Stop making it a tribal thing
I believe one of the primary ways we tend to fail as a Church, not only with regard to Christmas, but with regard to everything, is that we so often make everything carnal. Pay attention to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?"
Scripture is filled with calls to Christians to unite under Christ, speaking the same thing, and ceasing with silly divisions. It is, quite frankly, contrary to our faith to bicker over stupid things like this. If this article should exist at all, it should merely be a sermon on what the Bible says, helping to grow my fellow believers. Instead, it exists to address divisions the Bible says should not. So many arguments against Christmas focus on which groups tend to celebrate it. "You can't celebrate Christmas because it's a Roman Catholic thing". Ok? You do realise the Roman Catholic Church, heretical though it is, still teaches many good things, right? Am I supposed to reject the Trinity because the Roman Catholic Church believes it? Am I supposed to suggest Joseph is Christ's literal father because Catholics place too heavy an emphasis on Mary's virginity? Am I supposed to avoid church because Roman Catholics also worship on a Sunday? There's only so far you can take this tribalism thing, and if you take it far enough, you're going to create a whole new denomination that is just as bad as, if not worse than, the denomination you most demonise.
Now again, this does not mean I support the Roman Catholic Church in any way. Visit the Reaching Catholics page on this site, you'll see I'm about as anti-Catholic as a reasonable man can get. And I'm not even just talking about Roman Catholicism here, nor even really just Christmas. I want this to be applied more broadly, because far too often, we find something we don't like, we pin it to this group we don't like, and suddenly we're justified because "that group is bad". But Scripture tells us this attitude is carnal, and it makes us babes in the faith. But we are only supposed to be babes in malice. In maturity, we need understanding (1 Corinthians 14:20).
The sufficiency of Scripture
But obviously, if we're all going to unite, we need a thing that unites us. And it's not going to be enough to just say "well we unite under Christ", because we all claim allegiance to Him. That's literally the name of our religion: Christ-ianity. Not that we shouldn't unite under Him, of course, but simply saying that doesn't tell us how to unite under Christ. So what does? Here is what Paul, a hand chosen Apostle of the Lord Jesus, tells us:
"But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:13-17).
These are some very big claims. Literally, Paul tells us here that the Bible is all we will ever need. Evil men and impostors will grow worse, but we have the Scriptures. These are a shield against deception, knowledge of salvation, a goldmine of doctrine, a rod of reproof and correction, and an instructional guide. And just in case that list isn't enough, Paul follows it up with "...that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Try though they may, false teachers will never be able to circumvent this: The Bible is all a man of God will ever need. Now, I don't mean that in a woodenly literal sense. As James says, "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." (James 1:22-25). But you can't be a doer of the word unless you are a hearer first, and the Bible is all you need to be a doer is to be a hearer.
This means we need only look to the Bible to answer the Christmas question. If the Bible says "celebrate Christmas", we have no option but to celebrate Christmas. If the Bible says "don't celebrate Christmas", we can't celebrate Christmas. If the Bible gives us the liberty, but not obligation, to celebrate Christmas, then we may or may not celebrate Christmas. Whatever the Bible says, neither man nor group can say otherwise.
Scripture gives us the liberty
Not surprisingly, Scripture gives us the liberty, but not obligation, to celebrate Christmas. The issue of liberty is actually quite prominent throughout the New Testament. Not so much in the Old, which presents some very restrictive laws for the Jews to follow under the Old Covenant. However, under the New Covenant, we are no longer under those laws. In fact, they are quite explicitly repealed.
The chief Scripture repealing the law is the book of Galatians, in which Paul not only reminds the Galatians that the law has served its purpose as a guardian until Christ came (Galatians 3:22-25), but he actually anathematises anyone who preaches a law-based Gospel (Galatians 1:8-10). Note how he follows this up: "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." (Galatians 4:8-11).
Now, as we will see shortly, Paul is not entirely opposed to the observance of days, months, seasons, or years. But he certainly doesn't speak very positively of how the Galatians do it. Weak and beggarly elements, he calls them. We are not to be in bondage to them. You want to celebrate a time or season? Go for it. "...let no one judge you...", he says, "...in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17). But woe betide you if you bind, or become bound, to do so.
In fact, he goes on to say "Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh." (Colossians 2:18-23).
So wait, which way does Paul lean? Is it right or wrong? Is it good or bad? On the one hand, he says let no one judge you for celebrating these things, as abstaining from them is false humility, but in another place he says don't be bound to these celebrations because it's bondage to an old covenant?
The answer is in the binding. You cannot be compelled to celebrate a given season, and you cannot be compelled to abstain. Romans 14 sums this issue up rather well, telling us that ultimately, it all comes down to one's personal conscience. We may, as verse 5 says, esteem one day (in this case, Christmas) above another, we may esteem all days alike. The key is "...Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it...." (v5-6a). To that end, we are not permitted to judge each other.
There is one caveat. It is permissible to celebrate anything your own conscience permits, but it is not permissible to celebrate that which your own conscience does not permit. To that end, the chapter concludes "...whatever is not from faith is sin." So what if you're not celebrating Christmas from faith? What if you've been convinced that it is somehow immoral to celebrate Christmas? Well, if you do it anyway, now it is a sin.
Conscience can't purify everything
Having said all that, there are of course a great number of things your conscience cannot purify. You can't purify murder, theft, adultery etc., just by claiming to be fully convinced, in your own mind, that you are justified. Now, normally, with liberty issues, verses used against the liberty in question are ambiguous enough to not cover the subject at hand without assuming they are as a starting point. "...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness..." (Ephesians 5:11), for example, is a common one. It's 100% true that we should expose, rather than partake in, the unfruitful works of darkness. But this does not prove that, in this case, Christmas is one of those unfruitful works. Therefore, no one can say "we shouldn't celebrate Christmas because the Bible says not to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.
But the anti-Christmas brigade actually have a fair few verses they believe are quite explicitly against Christmas. Most commonly, Jeremiah 10:1-16, supposedly, prohibits the Christmas tree. Is this really the case? Let's look at the passage:
"Hear the word which the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the Lord: “Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; Do not be dismayed at the signs of heaven, For the Gentiles are dismayed at them. For the customs of the peoples are futile; For one cuts a tree from the forest, The work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and gold; They fasten it with nails and hammers So that it will not topple. They are upright, like a palm tree, And they cannot speak; They must be carried, Because they cannot go by themselves. Do not be afraid of them, For they cannot do evil, Nor can they do any good.”
Inasmuch as there is none like You, O Lord (You are great, and Your name is great in might), Who would not fear You, O King of the nations? For this is Your rightful due. For among all the wise men of the nations, And in all their kingdoms, There is none like You. But they are altogether dull-hearted and foolish; A wooden idol is a worthless doctrine. Silver is beaten into plates; It is brought from Tarshish, And gold from Uphaz, The work of the craftsman And of the hands of the metalsmith; Blue and purple are their clothing; They are all the work of skillful men. But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation.
Thus you shall say to them: “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens.” He has made the earth by His power,
He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion. When He utters His voice, There is a multitude of waters in the heavens: “And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth. He makes lightning for the rain, He brings the wind out of His treasuries.”
Everyone is dull-hearted, without knowledge; Every metalsmith is put to shame by an image; For his molded image is falsehood, And there is no breath in them. They are futile, a work of errors; In the time of their punishment they shall perish. The Portion of Jacob is not like them, For He is the Maker of all things, And Israel is the tribe of His inheritance; The Lord of hosts is His name."
From the first few verses, it is clear why opponents of Christmas have chosen this verse as some kind of condemnation of Christmas trees. Learn not the way of the Gentiles, for they chop down trees and decorate them. Sounds like a Christmas tree to me. However, the inclusion of context eliminates this interpretation. To begin with, Jeremiah 10:1-16 reveals its own context. It isn't simply cutting down a tree to decorate within the home. It speaks of the skill of a craftsmen for a reason: The context here is idolatry.
Perhaps this is the reason Isaiah 44:9-20 is not cited nearly as often. This passage describes the identical concept, even specifying that it speaks of a pine tree. Observe: "Those who make an image, all of them are useless, And their precious things shall not profit; They are their own witnesses; They neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed. Who would form a god or mold an image That profits him nothing? Surely all his companions would be ashamed; And the workmen, they are mere men. Let them all be gathered together, Let them stand up; Yet they shall fear, They shall be ashamed together.
The blacksmith with the tongs works one in the coals, Fashions it with hammers, And works it with the strength of his arms. Even so, he is hungry, and his strength fails; He drinks no water and is faint.
The craftsman stretches out his rule, He marks one out with chalk; He fashions it with a plane, He marks it out with the compass, And makes it like the figure of a man, According to the beauty of a man, that it may remain in the house. He cuts down cedars for himself, And takes the cypress and the oak; He secures it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it.
Then it shall be for a man to burn, For he will take some of it and warm himself; Yes, he kindles it and bakes bread; Indeed he makes a god and worships it; He makes it a carved image, and falls down to it. He burns half of it in the fire; With this half he eats meat; He roasts a roast, and is satisfied. He even warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm,
I have seen the fire.” And the rest of it he makes into a god, His carved image. He falls down before it and worships it, Prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”
They do not know nor understand; For He has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see,
And their hearts, so that they cannot understand. And no one considers in his heart, Nor is there knowledge nor understanding to say, “I have burned half of it in the fire, Yes, I have also baked bread on its coals; I have roasted meat and eaten it; And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?” He feeds on ashes; A deceived heart has turned him aside; And he cannot deliver his soul, Nor say, “Is there not a lie in my right hand?”"
The similarities between Isaiah 44 and Jeremiah 10 are staggering, and because of the specific mention of the pine tree, Isaiah 44 would actually make a better case against Christmas trees, which are traditionally pines. But the obvious spanner thrown in those works is that Isaiah 44 is more specific about far more than just the species of tree. It goes into greater depth about the decoration and crafting. Not that Jeremiah isn't also clear. But by pointing out how much more is done with the wood, Isaiah makes it clear that the context is the futility of idolatry. You cut down this tree, you use half of it as firewood, yet the rest of it you craft, and bow down, and worship, as if it can somehow deliver you from wrath? It's absurd!
Both passages have the same context. It's nothing to do with simply bringing a tree into the house to decorate. The sin here is idolatry. You turn the tree into a god. Not even the conscience may cleanse this particular sin. But this is not what Christians do when they decorate Christmas trees. They don't carve it up, bow down to it, or call it a god. They put the whole thing up, make it look pretty, and pray the cat doesn't knock it over.
Historical debates
But it's not just Christmas trees people object to. There are other elements of Christmas that many Christians associate with paganism. On top of this, even unbelievers will accuse Christians of simply stealing pagan festivals and putting a Christian twist on them. The most extreme among these will use it as evidence that Jesus, rather than being a historical figure, is just a remix of fictional gods like Horus or Mithras.
Now, I don't intend to derail this article by addressing conspiracy theories like Jesus Mythicism. Suffice to say for now, they all fail on the basis that either Christianity doesn't teach the thing that pagans did about their gods, pagans didn't teach the things that Christianity does about our God, or both.
The most common example is the date: December 25th. Was this date really taken from paganism, or was Jesus really born then? In truth, the answer is a probable no to both. Regarding the birth of Christ, there is a lot of debate, not only regarding the actual date of His birth, but even the very year. There are various proposals for why December 25th was chosen, with the most interesting being the so-called "Integral Age" theory. That is, supposedly, the Jews had a tradition wherein a prophet's lifespan would be "perfect", with them dying on the day they were conceived. Thus, if Jesus was crucified on March 25th, He must have been conceived on March 25th, thereby meaning He was born on December 25th.
Now, how true any of that is can be reasonably disputed. I'm certainly not presenting it as my view on why the date was chosen, I just highlight it because it's the one I hear least often. In reality, however, explanations on why the date was chosen are as difficult to verify as how accurate the date is. Jesus, in all likelihood, was not born on December 25th, nor was He even born in 1 A.D.
Adding to that, if you look up the origins of Christmas on a search engine, you will receive a vast array of conflicting results, just as you will for the origins of various traditions, such as the aforementioned Christmas tree. And on their own, they're all quite convincing, especially if you allow the sloppiness typically shown by those presenting it. "Saturnalia was celebrated on December 25th, that's where Christmas comes from". Well, actually, no, that's not the case. It was a week long celebration beginning on December 17th and ending on December 24th.
Ultimately, you can make the case for any origins story for the date of Christmas, but it would make little sense to suggest that Christmas should be judged by those. Such an attitude is unsustainable. Do we assume wearing a pair of Nike trainers is the same as worshiping Nike, the Greek goddess of victory? Do we associate those who drive Volkswagens with the Nazis who invented them? Do we even look at our fellow Christians wearing crosses and suggest that they are Romans, and would have gladly nailed Christ on the cross themselves? None of these things are sensible, nor is it sensible to condemn Christians who celebrate Christmas based on the particular origins story we find most convincing.
Santa Claus
The one good point opponents of Christmas have is that, since the Bible explicitly prohibits most forms of lying, and Santa Claus is absolutely a lie, Santa Claus is an inherently sinful element of Christmas. This is something I can absolutely get behind. I thoroughly discourage parents from telling their children about this omniscient magic man who lives in the North Pole where he works until he breaks into your house every year, leaving all sorts of gifts in exchange for cookies and carrots.
The practical element alone is sufficient to prove this point. I remember a few years ago, a poor mother appealing to her rich Facebook friends to be mindful of spoiling their children. Why? Because when rich kids get scores of presents, but poor kids only get three or four, they feel alienated by Santa.
Think about that for a moment. If a poor child sees a rich child with more presents than them, they feel neglected by a fictional character. Or perhaps they may even question their own moral character. "Was I not good enough? Is it even worth putting in so much effort to get on Santa's nice list if this snobby little bully gets more than me anyway?" This sort of trauma is horrible. But what surprises me is that this mother puts the burden on her friends not to spoil their children, rather than recognise the position she has put herself into by actively lying to her child.
Even scarier than this, however, is the mistrust that builds up around this issue. See, Santa Claus doesn't exist. Santa Claus doesn't see you when you're sleeping, or know when you're awake, and he certainly doesn't encourage you to be good for goodness' sake. But Jesus does. However, when you lie about the former, you cast doubt on the latter. How many atheists talk about Santa Claus, comparing Jesus to him?
So even when we set aside the fact that we serve a God who cannot lie, and commands us to imitate this, the lies we do tell about this red-suited home invader shatter a sacred bond of trust, cause unnecessary trauma, and may even damage a child's faith to the extent of apostasy!
Far greater is the truth. See, Santa Claus doesn't exist, but there is a man behind the myth. This man is Nicholas of Myra, a 3rd century Christian leader noted for his charity and humility (not to mention punching the odd heretic). Even the idea that Santa Claus comes down one's chimney comes from one account of Nicholas dropping large sacks of money down a man's chimney to save his daughters from resorting to prostitution.
Now, as legendary as punching Arius is, it's probably not a good idea to teach children to resort to violence against those whose beliefs they find undesirable. But the charitable aspect of his life is certainly one worth imitating. Far greater than this is the God Nicholas served. Teaching children about him not only gives them a good example to follow, but gives them the impression that you are to be trusted, as is the God we all serve. While the world lies about a fat man with a flying sleigh, they receive the truth. They can even participate! They don't care if their presents really come from Santa, they can leave cookies out for Mommy and Daddy. They can enjoy movies about Santa, knowing it's all pretend. It's all good fun, once the truth has been revealed.
Satan's own war on Christmas
Ultimately, whatever your views on Christmas, it's not going away. But there are far more than Christians who are weak in faith (Romans 14:1) who wish it would. See, however individual people may keep or leave Christmas, ultimately, there is a major element of truth in it. Our Nativity scenes tend to portray some major inaccuracies, but the accounts upon which they are based are very real. An angel really did visit Mary to announce that she, in her virginity, would conceive the Son of God. She really was betrothed to a man named Joseph, there really was a census called, they really did travel to Bethlehem, Mary really did give birth in a stable, Jesus really was worshiped by shepherds and magi etc. It's all real. And it's all devastating to Satan.
The result of this is that when Christians try to destroy Christmas in opposition to paganism, they actually end up linking arms with real pagans against our Christian brethren. In the name of "diversity and inclusion", the world tends to suppress Christmas. They argue that it is offensive to wish someone a merry Christmas, simply because it's rude to assume they celebrate your religion. Really? Atheist: Merry Christmas! Jew: Don't assume I share your religion! The Jew is closer to faith in Christ than the atheist!
Satan has a very clear agenda, then. First, he wants to get Christ out of Christmas, then he wants to get rid of Christmas altogether. He doesn't want Christians celebrating the birth of Christ. Just take a step back for a moment and ask, does anyone actually believe Satan's grand plan involves convincing Christians to sin every 25th of December... by remembering the time Jesus entered our world? Does that make any sense at all? Celebrate Christmas or don't, but to suggest Satan takes pleasure in those who do, while God takes pleasure only in those who don't, is a weird concept.
A Gospel opportunity
Nicholas of Myra is far from the only useful element of Christmas for spreading truth. Scripture tells us to walk wisely and redeem the times, because the days are evil (Ephesians 5:15-16). This doesn't refer to specific days, but to all days. Satan doesn't take days off, any more than God does. Therefore, strictly speaking, neither should we. Not that we can't have days of rest, or holidays, or things like this. But we can use every day as a witnessing opportunity.
Christmas is a particularly big one. It's not like Halloween, wherein Satan himself brings the world to our doorstep so we can preach to them, but Christmas is certainly a big time wherein we can not only preach our faith, but have ample opportunity to live it out.
See, winter is a tough time on our kind. We're not like bears, able to hibernate so the season passes us by like the night. Nor are we penguins, living our whole lives in snow, so that winter makes little difference to us. Winter is rough, bringing with it many extra expenses, particularly to heat our homes. If we even have them. Tragic as it is, many people still live on the streets, which is far from ideal when frost coats the ground. Christmas provides ample opportunity for us to preach our faith, and live it out.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Scripture shows us that we all have an individual choice to make regarding Christmas, and we are 100% free to make it for ourselves, between us and God. Those who celebrate have no right to judge those who do not, and those who do not have no right to judge those who do. Those who celebrate are not sinning. Those who do not celebrate are not sinning. The one exception is when one's own conscience is violated, for whatever is not of faith is sin. There are individual sin elements, such as lying to our children about Santa Claus. These cannot be purified by our conscience, but they can be divided from Christmas itself. Thus, Scripture's final word on this matter would be "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31).