f you wish to contend that the celebration of Christ’s birth in December, together with various aspects of celebrating that birth, is in essence the taking over and transformation of pagan festivities, say so. I won’t disagree. But “saying Christmas has nothing to do with Christ is simply false.” It is to confuse the origin of a celebration with its significance for those who celebrate it.

Inexplicable though it seems, the date of Christ’s birth is not known. The gospels indicate neither the day, the month, nor the year. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, p.656, vol. 3, 1967.)

What history tells us:
Despite the beliefs about Christ that the birth stories expressed, the church did not observe a festival for the celebration of the event until the 4th century. The date was chosen to counter the pagan festivities connected with the winter solstice; since 274, under the emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the “Invincible Sun” [or Saturnalia] on December 25. (Christmas, The 1995 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia)

Though the substitution of Christmas for the pagan festival cannot be proved with certainty, it remains the most plausible explanation for the dating of Christmas. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, p.656, vol. 3, 1967.)

The decoration of the evergreen tree is of Pagan origin and predates Christ’s birth:
Jer. 10:2-4 “Thus sayeth the Lord, learn not the way of the heathen … for the customs of the people are vain: for one cuteth the tree out of the forest … they deck it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.”

Man’s customs and traditions, even if heartfelt, are not recognized by God as true worship:
Mark 7:6-7, Matthew 15:9 “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites…in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the traditions of men…thus making the word of God of none effect.”

This is not an assault on anyone’s beliefs.
The aim, is not to offend -
But to enlighten.

Glad all went so well. No credit necessary! (But movie royalties we need to discuss.)

I hope Steve T. lets us know how his celebration went.

Our son Mark sang in the choir at Duke chapel’s Lessons and Carols at 11 pm Christmas Eve, and the choir processed out to “O Come All Ye Faithful,” finishing by arriving outside in the cold air at 12:04 am with the stanza, “Yea, Lord, we greet thee, born this happy morning”! Very cool.

My only regret is not having the foresight to get the proper credit cited in the bulletin. Maybe I can make this up if I get the movie deal!

Merry Christmas,
Mike C.

Thanks for this thoughtful comment. And thanks for taking Advent seriously in your preaching!

The additional laudable motivation you point out may in fact be at work, sort of like “Jesus is the reason for the season.” I generally tend to be a “both/and” rather than “either/or” person, so perhaps my sentence should say “not MERELY Jesus’ birthday”—but that has nearly no rhetorical or theological punch! More importantly, however, the similarity (human birthdays, Jesus’ “birthday”) is meager because the contrast between the two sorts of events is so profound. I do worry—seriously worry—that children, in particular, who sing “HB, Jesus” are going to grow up thinking that Christmas marks the birth of a great human being, a George Washington or MLK. These kinds of people may deserve honor, and their births should perhaps be celebrated, but Christmas is—or should be—something completely different for Christians.

In any event, I think we are agreed that the church needs to move people beyond the HB, Jesus—quickly. The verses of “Hark the Herald…” aren’t bad either, but it’s not as singable in my view and a little less theologically direct.

I remember this post from last year, and I certainly appreciate your intent to de-trivialize our Christmas celebrations. God knows we need it. Our church, in fact, used our Advent sermons this year to try to re-imagine Christmas through the Biblical stories of Christmas. Would that we would succeed in that endeavor!

I’d like to suggest, though, that perhaps another, laudable motivation is at work in the birthday phenomenon, the desire to reclaim Christmas as being about Jesus instead of retail recklessness. At our best we celebrate birthdays, I think, as a way of saying to someone “We celebrate that you have been born into our lives.” “We would be impoverished had you not been born.” When we celebrate Christmas as Jesus’ birthday we are celebrating and giving thanks for the life that culminated in the events of Good Friday and Easter. Were it not for those events, of course, we’d all forget his birthday, but because of those events, His birth is worth celebrating.

I might also quibble with the thesis of your first paragraph. I’d like to affirm what you affirm (Christmas is the celebration of the incarnation of the second person of the trinity) without denying what you deny (Christmas is Jesus birthday, setting aside the historical problem of celebrating it on Dec. 25…). Of course we are celebrating the incarnation of the divine Son, and I believe (along with Paul, I think) in the pre-existence of the second person of the trinity. But unless we believe in the pre-existence of Jesus of Nazareth, then it seems that his birth is still an event worth celebrating.

Finally, thanks for the suggestion of “O Come All Ye Faithful” as a better “happy birthday” song. That’s worth thinking about and possibly implementing in our church context.