Should we have a Christmas tree?

Ans.—It all depends on the purpose of the heart. Generally speaking, the day is used as a public holiday, for feastings and pleasures in which our blessed Lord Jesus has no place. It were far better in such case that Christ's holy name were not associated with it. On the other hand, a large number do think of Christmas as a celebration of our Saviour's birth, and associate innocent pleasures with it for the children, such as a green tree hung with lights and little presents, often accompanied with suited hymns. Let us not condemn such, though thankful when the joy takes more spiritual forms.

(Vol.41, p.50). Editor's note: earlier contributors to Help and Food were not so equivocal. See the following article, taken from Vol.18, p.341 THE OBSERVANCE OF CHRISTMAS With many the associations of Christmas are suggestive of childhood's joys and of tender reminiscence of scenes of delight in the home circle. In this spirit it is perhaps still observed socially in the family, for the children's sake, by some who are aware that the day itself, in its religious claim and character, has no foundation in Scripture. The question that presents itself therefore is: Can the day be observed innocently in this social way, apart from its false religious character? It is said that the day celebrated as Christmas, was once the day of a wicked heathen, feast called Saturnalia; and the season suggests the winter solstice as the occasion of the feast—the period of daylight being about to increase. The day being handed down as a Christian festival, and its name, “Christ-Mass,” tells the rest. A corrupt church, a corrupt ritualistic sentiment, introducing a novelty among many other novelties, to please—not God, but men. This consideration, of course, is a very serious one, and calls to mind a fertile source of shame and sorrow to the Church: self-will at work—human choice in place of obedience; as among the Galatians, giving occasion for the rebuke, “Ye observe days and months and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have be-stowed upon you labor in vain.” Let us consider the serious nature of this departure from simplicity. It is that setting aside God's word which, as an evil principle at work, has wrought confusion and corruption far and wide in the Church's history, as of old it wrought the ruin of Israel. This, then, is the meaning of the day—the establishment of a religious custom, of a sacred day with-out any command from God. If we do this, where shall we stop? There is no stopping place; and the evil result we have referred to in the previous paragraph. What, then, is the obligation of the faithful Christian? Should he not consider the observance of the day as a dishonor to the Lord, being disobedience, and therefore opening the door to further departures and dangers, as we have seen? And as to observing it socially with the children in the home circle, ignoring its origin and ecclesiastical claims, can this be done if we have at heart the things that are Christ's? Can we do it without giving up our character as warriors—leaving to others more faithful than ourselves to fight the Lord's battles and defend the truth? Would it not be a compromise as to the truth, a provision for self indulgence, and a dangerous allowance of the enemy within our borders? The very notice that may be taken of a refusal to observe the day becomes a testimony to the truth, both to people without and to the children at home. And the absence of such testimony tends to perpetuate indifference to an evil which the day represents. The day is enjoyed with zest by the world in common with the Church, and this is a sufficient warning to us. It is one of the wiles of the devil, against which we need to take to ourselves the “whole armor of God.” It is a victory of Satan if he can get our hearts attached to a thing that is unscriptural and worldly in its origin and character. Such an attachment must enfeeble us in the conflict for the enjoyment of our Canaan possessions, and mar the clearness of testimony in the family that should direct the children in the way of reverence for God's word and uncompromising obedience.

"F. D." You enquire, "Is it right for Christians to avail themselves of 'Good Friday' and 'Christmas-day' for the purpose of meeting together for worship and edification?" There is a great deal to be said on both sides of this question. We should, of course, say, all things being equal, it is well to meet together for worship and edification as often as we can, and well too to avail ourselves of every opportunity of bringing people under the sound of the gospel. Furthermore, there are many who are engaged in business or in manual labour all the week, to whom a meeting on a week-day would be a great boon. All this would make the matter plain enough, were there nothing more to be considered. But then there are many who object to aught that might look like a sanction of Christendom's observance of the above named days, an observance resting wholly, as we know, upon a traditional basis, and having no authority whatever in holy Scripture. Who knows whether December 25 and Good Friday are really the anniversaries of the events which they are said to commemorate? There is not a shadow of authority in Scripture for either the one or the other. It is not that the mere fact of the world's observing these days should lead us to object thereto, for on that ground we should also refuse to observe the Lord's Day; but then we must remember the words of the apostle, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." If we can avail ourselves of these days, just as we should of any national or local holiday, then by all means let us do so. But, on the other hand, care must be taken not to lend our countenance to superstitious observances resting on a traditional foundation. The careful study of Romans 14 would put the heart into the right attitude touching this question. Whether it be a matter of eating or not eating, observance or non-observance, we are to bear with one another in subjection to the authority of the one Lord. This fine moral principle regulates everything. We have no right to lord it over each other's conscience. For ourselves we must say that we feel only too thankful to attend a meeting for worship, edification, prayer, or gospel testimony, whenever we have an opportunity. But, at the same time, we would desire to respect the conscience of our brethren who feel a difficulty as to Christmas Day and Good Friday.

In Romans 14 the Spirit of God gives us further teaching on the subject of days from another point of view. We have suggested that this chapter referred especially to the Jewish believers who had been brought up to such things; and there are many even Gentiles in our own day who are in a very similar position. They have been brought up to forms and ceremonies, and they have a conscience that they should observe them. We are to bear with these saints, and remember they keep the day as to the Lord. We sometimes hear very bitter things said against those who keep Christmas day. It is true that "Christ was not born in December. The time at which Mary went to visit Elizabeth proves that, if compared with the order of the twenty-four courses of the priests. Zecharias was the eighth course" (J. N. Darby). But there are many dear children of God who esteem this day above other days: not in the spirit of Galatians 4, but in the spirit of Romans 14. To such the Spirit says, "He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord." Rom. 14:6. And to those who judge and criticise their brethren for this act, the Lord says very plainly, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own Master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand … But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ … Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Rom. 14:4, 10, 13. It is true that the one who is under the dominion of days and meats is called by the Holy Spirit "weak in the faith." But we are to receive such, and not judge him. (See Rom. 14:1.) And in all these things may we ever remember the words: "Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace." Rom. 14:19.

It was as easy to worship the mother of God as the mother of the gods. But everywhere drunkenness in honour of the saints, and even in the churches, took the place of drunkenness in honour of demigods, the great Augustine and other fathers being witnesses. Such were festal anniversaries, Christmas having been (and it is still celebrated in heathen countries) the worst of heathen festivals, to celebrate the return of the sun from the winter solstice, without a pretence that Christ was born that day, but as they could not stop the revelry, they put Christ's birth there. Such, in real fact, is the church's celebration of anniversaries and saints' days. This is certain, that the apostle declares that it was a return to heathenism, so that he was afraid his labour was in vain — avowedly turning the great and mighty parts of Christianity, by which God acted on souls, to bring them into blessed and divinely-wrought relationship with Himself, individually and collectively, into certain outward events, or outward facts, and exclusively to their announcement as occurring at particular times. "I am afraid of you."

Yet these poor Christians now desired to return to the weak and beggarly elements from which, when heathens, they had been delivered, through the knowledge of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus! Mark well that all their ceremonies are but the same thing as paganism, the elements of the world. Even if those who subject themselves to them be Christians, yet the principles according to which they walk are the elements of the world, and their practices are heathen practices. We learn this here as doctrine, but the history of the church shews it to us as a fact. Holy days and holy places were taken from the heathen, who had holy places and days on which they held festivals in honour of deified men, such as Theseus, Hercules, and others. The names of saints were afterwards attached to these places and days, and the saints celebrated instead of the demi-gods.

85 St. Augustine has told us what was done, and how it began. He sought to put an end to these evil habits, not to the days, but to what was practised upon them, for they got drunk in the churches. This occurred in Africa, and the same thing was done elsewhere. The feast of the Nativity was the worst of all the pagan festivals, and it is still celebrated among the heathen in the East. Not being able to prevent those who, emerging from paganism, called themselves Christians, from continuing the disorders practised at this festival, the leaders of the church decided to put in its place the Nativity of Christ. Augustine also says, respecting the memory of the saints who took the place of Theseus, etc., that the church thought it better for people to get drunk in honour of a saint, than in honour of a demon. It is certain that Christ was not born in December. The time at which Mary went to visit Elizabeth proves this, if compared with the order of the twenty-four courses of the priests. Zacharias was the eighth course.

December 24 or 25 was observed among all Pagan nations in honour of the birth of the son of the "Queen of heaven." No such festival as Christmas was ever heard of in the Christian Church until the fourth century. It was then in the time of Constantine that December 25, the Pagan holiday, was adopted by the Church, and called "Christmas" and made the birthday of Christ. (See "The Two Babylons" by Alex Hislop.)

"Christmas," as supposed season of this event, was substituted as a festival for the birthday of Mithra, the Sun-God (Neumann, p. 31).

125 The truth is, all this system is a mere mixture of Judaism and heathenism. The heathen temples were built over the relics and tombs of heroes and demigods. They sprinkled themselves with holy water on going in, for which they had a place at the entry. They had their images, which they justified in the same way — their priests, their chancels. They believed that every admirable man had gone to heaven, and there interested themselves in the affairs of those who prayed to them. Their temples were built in a similar manner. Rome has not been able to exclude Christ, but it has overwhelmed Him with heathenism, as far as possibly can be, the clergy having accommodated it to popular customs to win the people. Thus the direction given to Augustine, when sent to the Saxons, was to adopt their feasts and customs as much as possible, and give a Christian turn to them. Christmas day is a curious example of this. No one knows the day Christ was born. The Greek church kept His birth and baptism together on the 6th of January, called Epiphany. Hear again M. de Beugnot, 2:265: "The Romans had acquired in their religion an excessive passion for public festivals; and Christianity, far from opposing a disposition which required only to be directed with more wisdom, adopted a part of the ceremonial system of the old worship. It changed the object of the ceremonies, it purified them of their old filth, but it retained the epoch at which many among them had been celebrated. It is thus that the multitude found in the new religion as much as in the old the means of satisfying its ruling passion."

126 Think of the blessed Lord sitting at the well of Samaria, and teaching that men should worship in spirit and in truth, for the Father sought such to worship Him, and the "church" taking care the ruling passion for shows should be gratified! The author adds in a note, "The Saturnalia (a festival of unbridled joy) and many of the festivals were celebrated in the calends of January. The Nativity (Christmas) was fixed at the same epoch. The Lupercalia, pretended festivals of purification, took place in the calends of February. The Christian purification was placed on the second of February. For the feast of Augustus, celebrated in the calends of August, was substituted that of St. Peter, de Vinculis, fixed on the first day of that month." So, he adds, to the Ambarvalia, St. Mamert substituted rogation days for country people; so numberless temples became dedicated to worship called Christian. At this day the Pantheon (that is, the temple of all the gods) is dedicated to all the saints. It is well known that the statue of Peter at Rome was a statue of Jupiter Olympius, and they took out the thunderbolt and put in the keys. It all hangs together.

191 It was the system. The Romans were passionately fond of festivals and processions. The Saturnalia and other feasts were at the end of December. Christmas was fixed there; the Lupercalia in the end of January. It was a feast of purification. The purification of the Virgin Mary was fixed there. St. Peter de Vinculis replaced Augustus Caesar, and so of many others. See Beugnot, 2, 263, etc., where the concessions to pagan usages are enlarged on and justified. It is difficult to do this when they sanctified drunkenness by dedicating it to martyrs instead of demigods. M. Beugnot admits that their martyrs' festivals were a very large concession made to ancient manners, for all that passed while they lasted was little edifying! It was that system Vigilantius attacked and Jerome defended. Christians went to the heathen feasts, as Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others testify; they resisted, as in the case of Pope Gelasius and others, and when paganism fell, and the populations entered in crowds, they gave them Christian festivals, so-called, to replace the heathen ones. It was a whole system.

Necessarily, the things in which one has to yield here, therefore, are things indifferent. That is what the apostle is speaking of, of meats and drinks and days. It is supposed that on both sides the authority of the Lord is owned. One cannot be really liberal in things that are not one's own. One can give up one's own liberty where it is simply a question of that, and not only we can, but we ought. The supposition here is of religious scruple entirely, not of people without conscience, but of conscience in fact rigidly governed by that which to them, whatever be the truth of it, is the will of the Lord. If a man eats, he eats to the Lord, or if he eats not, it is still to the Lord; if he observes the day, he observes it to the Lord, or to the Lord he does not observe it. Here a question may be raised with regard to the Lord's Day. How does the principle here affect that? It would seem that it does not come into the question; just because the Lord's Day is given us not in the way of legal command, but as a privilege which must be accepted as privilege in order for the observance to be anything really acceptable to God, — not that it is supposed that a Christian could have a scruple religiously about observing the day in this case or on this ground. Religious scruples are the whole matter here and who could scruple to avail himself of the privilege of giving up a day to the Lord, a day free for him to be occupied with his own things, and in such a manner as we find Scripture before us? Question here, therefore, could scarcely be made. What the apostle has before him is, of course, as the meats and drinks show, the Jewish distinction of meats and days, which has passed away, but which, nevertheless, may have a real power over the minds of some who realize that these things were once given of God, and who do not see how He has brought us out of them. Here the principle applies which the apostle has stated elsewhere, that to those who were under the law he became as under the law, "not being myself under the law," as he carefully adds; "that I might gain those that are under the law." These are the questions, but the principle as we have said, the first principle here, is that the conscience is to be before the Lord alone; and that we are to leave every Christian free to act before God. We must not judge. The Lord will do that. "Every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue confess to God." It is of the first importance that in every question of conscience this should be maintained.