West Port Experiment

Classic Presbyterianism has been enjoying a small renaissance. It seems like every day I’m encountering new people and pastors embracing the “regulative principle of worship,” singing psalms exclusively, removing instruments in church, and objecting to holy days of human origin, such as Christmas. Sacred cows are a-falling, or at least are being questioned.

With respect to Christmas, then, it’s been reassuring to see more and more voices pointing out its pagan origins, and more and more being willing to cross the personal Rubicon … and not looking back. I rejoice in these things and thank the Lord for any and all Reformation gains. But I am concerned that for some, even good fathers and brothers in the faith, certain concessions are made that I fear leave a weed in place to grow back in full force. In other words, I respectfully express my concern about the informal retention of Christmas while officially going on the record as against it.

I don’t relish challenging likeminded brothers, especially those in our shared margin of Reformed Christianity. But I am concerned enough about the purity and longevity of the cause to appeal for a more thorough reformation of December 25. I’m also submitting this for general consumption many months in advance so as to win a hearing before the personal pressure is on, the stakes are up, and Bing Crosby is crooning his way back into our heads and hearts.

So, here goes. From where I stand – and I am open to correction – there are basically two positions amongst Reformed Christmas ‘non-observers’ on private Christmas observance. The first, which I adopted nearly 23 years ago when I first was challenged by the regulative principle, abandons Christmas in every meaningful respect, both in the church as well as in the home and private life. The second is the approach that makes a distinction between a secular observance of Christmas and a religious one. Both would reject a formal, ecclesiastical observance involving a church service on December 25 and sermons on the nativity in the weeks preceding. However, the second position would view as permissible the gathering together with family and relatives who unreservedly celebrate Christmas in the home (religiously or not), with all the customary trappings. So as I understand things, Christmas here is excluded within public worship, since that is governed by the regulative principle. But if the celebration is outside public worship and celebrated in a private manner, it ceases to be worship and may be considered as a lawful, secular social gathering like any other. Further, the motives and conceptions of family and friends who view Christmas as lawful both ecclesiastically and socially do not impinge on the freedom of the Christian who eats and drinks with a clear conscience, since “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.”

For more than twenty years now, we as a family have treated December 25 by and large as just another day. To be sure, we have made January 1 a family celebration of our own, in which we give gifts to our children. One could certainly argue that this is little different than doing so on December 25 and under a Christmas tree. I cannot deny that were there no Christmas at all, we likely would do no such thing. But I think I can say in good conscience that our motivations have been to honor what we perceive is the will of the Lord in removing all remnants of idolatry while at the same time giving some concession to our children who invariably hear of the joy that other families share on December 25, but from which they must refrain because of their parents’ conscience. I pray that they will come to see that this was the safest path given the circumstances and that they will not be drawn into full-fledged Christmas observance on our account. (And so far, we are encouraged.)

The reason for our practice is simply one of consistency with the law of worship and the imperative to remove vestiges of idolatry, lest that idolatry reemerge in force. Further, while I admit that the ‘secular/religious’ (S/R) position was initially attractive, I ultimately found it unconvincing. First, the distinction seems too fine. Perhaps it is theoretically satisfying to some and truly frees their conscience (which I hardly doubt), yet I don’t think it’s very plausible for those less cerebral within our churches. Frankly, this seems to pertain more to our women than our men (no offense intended, ladies; and I know there are yet many brave “Jenny Geddeses” among us!), and most certainly for our baptized children. Children definitely can’t process the S/R Christmas distinction. For them, you either celebrate Christmas or you don’t. There is either a tree or there is not. There are presents or there are not. Stockings are “hung by the chimney with care,” or there are not. I am very much concerned that among Christmas non-observers, our next generation will discard all lines they see as arbitrary or inconsistent. Sadly, we do not have to look too far to see the fruit of private Christmas celebration on the public worship of God. There are many psalm singing churches out there that celebrate Christmas in the church, no doubt because it was cultivated and cherished first at home.

I’m also relatively confident that the S/R position is also lost on the unbeliever. What uncertain sound are we giving when we say that Christmas is wrong, and yet functionally we do the very thing every typical English-speaker does? And of lesser, but still considerable importance, what does it say to other Christians and Reformed folk who hear us say that we officially object to Christmas, but do most all of what they generally associate with it? (Social media exacerbates this problem, opening easy windows for the world to gaze right into our homes.)

Next, I am somewhat concerned about the confusion, awkwardness, and (at least sub-surface) tension within a congregation when there is a wide and obvious disparity of practice here, at least where such congregations ostensibly don’t observe Christmas. I think it is much easier to embrace those among us who have no scruples about Christmas at all (who unabashedly celebrate Christmas, but know they are guest minorities) and to explain such differences to our children. For myself, I am not keen to make this a term of communion. Yule-loving Martin Luther has long been on my top ten ‘bear-hug list’ for when I get to glory! But I assure you it is much harder to explain to children the practice of those, including office-bearers and their children, who do not ‘celebrate Christmas’ and yet ‘celebrate Christmas.’ I say the following with no spite or personal animus. Our children live with realities as they are, as we all should. Yet it does not serve the interests of building an esprit de corps among young people where there is such an “uncertain sound.”

Fourth and most crucial of all, the law of worship reaches well beyond the church. Of course, a distinction must be made, or formal worship becomes meaningless. “When ye come together” in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:18, 20, 33-34, 14:26), the regulative principle strictly pertains to and controls public worship. Things that are perfectly lawful do to in the privacy of one’s own home become wholly inappropriate in the sacred courts. Women may speak at home, but not in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Hearty meals may be enjoyed at home, but not when we partake of the sacramental feast (1 Cor. 11:22, 34). Holding this line keeps us from a suffocating pietism on the one hand or making the church service a man-centered free-for-all on the other. Cromwell epitomized this when he removed the chapel organ and brought it into his private parlor for personal enjoyment.

But while the regulative principle in this strict, narrow sense expires with the benediction and the dismissal of the assembly, the law of worship continues. The 2nd Commandment ever goes with us. Worship in the private and domestic sphere is governed by the law of worship as well, only in a mode that varies from the way it does in church. (How it does exactly requires another lengthy discussion altogether.) We worship God in church, at home, and in our private closets. When we do so, we must do what God commands us and not worship him after our own inventions.

Much of idolatry is private or civil – or as sociologists call it more politely, ‘folk religion.’ The sin of superstition is not just an in-church problem. Crossing oneself, praying to the saints, making private religious shrines and doing homage at or near them – all these things are folk idolatry, practiced privately under one’s own roof. The Bible is full of such instances of idolatry, which it condemns. Rachel stole Laban’s household gods (Gen. 31), and Jacob later had to purge his clan of these handheld talismans (Gen. 35:2). From private religious gestures (Job 31:26-27), to popular shrine veneration (Judg. 8:27), to superstitious ritual washings before meals (Mark 7:6-8), to state-compelled idolatry under open sun (Dan. 2), all worship devised by man is sinful, wherever that is.

The ethic of the Old Testament was to destroy all idolatry, root and branch, in public tabernacles as well as private tents (Deut. 7:5, Isa. 30:22). The “high places” must be thoroughly removed, or the full-blown cancer will return in force (2 Ki. 17:11, 2 Chron. 15:17, 17:6). The principle carried into the New Testament as well. “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 Jn. 5:21; cf. Acts 19:19). Consequently, our forefathers concluded that it was our responsibility to “disapprove, detest, and oppose all false worship,” and, “according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry” (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 108).

To be clear, I am not saying that the law of worship applies equally and in the exact same way outside the church as inside it. And we certainly need to exercise some sanctified common sense when we seek to apply it at home, such as in family worship. If it applied in the exact same way, then Paul’s “at home” permissions are made null and void; and at the extreme, family and church are merged. But at the same time, let’s candidly acknowledge that idolatry is a very present danger at home, and indeed, in our very hearts.

In terms of objections, one might think that this concern is over-fine and over-scrupulous. To be sure, we confessional Presbyterians can at times strain at gnats! And I am very much wanting to value the “weightier matters of the law.” Yet, our Lord did in the same breath countenance the tithing of “mint, cummin, and anise.” We all know that our Lord is a jealous God, and that small matters to us may indeed be much, much larger to the Lord. Let us be wary of mishandling the ark, whether in the tabernacle or outside of it.

It could also be objected that the S/R distinction is possible in our modern age, where ‘middle ground’ is much more plausibly neutral. But I fear that the ‘secular’ is far less secular than we tend to imagine. We live in a society that has been so shaped by the Enlightenment and the triumphalism of modern science and technology, that it is hard not to approach life outside the four walls of the church as a kind of spiritual vacuum. We secular moderns no longer believe in ghouls, ghosts, and goblins, and so it can seem as though that modern Christmas has been shorn of all its traditional superstition. Sacred Christmas is now secular Christmas, de-fanged, neutered, and therefore benign. But I’m skeptical. I think that even modern man is irreducibly and irrepressibly religious. Civil religion is alive and well in the U.S., and Christmas is Exhibit A. And what is more, has Rome really breathed its last? Could it possibly revive and utilize a secular Christmas to drawing the ‘wayward’ back to the fold? And if not, what of the danger of our ancestral heathenism? Studies show that in the non-religious vacuum of “the nones,” old nature religions are resurfacing with surprising popularity. I pray these threats may not come to pass. But I think the safest path is to treat every remnant of idolatry the same way at all times.

Then there is the question of liberty of conscience. Again, I am not advocating this as some term of communion; I’d rather folks be persuaded than forced. But at the same time, I would urge charity by those who feel greater freedom here. If you find our austerity unnecessary, do at least have a care not to unnecessarily let us know about your freedoms.

But for those with freedom, I would just ask in closing: is our position here, after all, that of the “weaker brother?” Or is there something compelling after all, given the broad reach of the “law which is spiritual?” Could it be that (advance) winter cleaning actually does deserve a re-think? The very question may be frightening. It may seem that change is just not possible at such a stage in life, that the sticker shock is, well, shocking. But always resolve the principle first. And what is the path of duty in your particular case? Then trust God, and step out in obedience. “Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass” (Psalm 37:5).

Oh, and by the way, I’ve learned that if it is at all possible to work through contentious issues well in advance, it’s best. “As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” If you need to do some early ‘love legwork,’ do it. Treat the in-laws to a special dinner. Give them a special gift. In August, and not early December (much less January)! Prep the kids by talking to them well in advance – and between you and your spouse, come up with some alternative that squares with your conscience, but is tender to the “least of these.” If it’s your wife that will find things hard to let go, increase the dates, and the flowers, and the backrubs. (And if she’s a ‘blue banner’ gal already, keep it up all the more!) Overcompensate if you must, short of sinning. It probably won’t make everything go swimmingly, but it very well may make things somewhat easier for everyone. And at the least, you’ll be able to look into angry eyes, confident that you’ve given them no justifiable reason for their anger.

So, friends, it’s July. But December will be upon us before we know it. And it’s never too early to clean house … or for that matter, too late.

* * * *

Postscript. This article addresses an even narrower question than the general one, ‘Is Christmas biblical?’ If you have never really explored this before, watch this sermon on man-made holy days. Also, more narrowly on Christmas, have a look at the following resources, here, here, and here.