American Pragmatism and the Justification of Christmas

https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/reformers-disagreement-on-christmas-yields-lessons/

The Reformers were divided on the question of Christmas celebration.

The Church historian in question suggests we split the difference. Luther was for the celebration of Christmas and all of other traditions that he deemed did not specifically undermine or contradict the gospel. The Reformed wing of the Magisterial Reformation tended to argue that ecclesiology is also regulated by Scripture and therefore Christmas was suspect.

Davis dodges the theological issue and tries to create a binary dilemma between sacred and secular elements of the Christmas celebration - enjoy it, but be careful.

But that's not the issue if we're talking about the divide between the Reformers. This is to miss the point entirely.

Haykin (as we might expect) has a better understanding of the issue. We're given a good quote or two but then it's dropped.

And yet the real issue here touches on just what is meant by Sola Scriptura - the idea that Scriptura Alone is authoritative.

The Lutherans, today's Evangelicals, and most of those who claim to be Confessionally Reformed take a view that is better described as Prima Scriptura - Scripture is first but not the sole authority. Lutherans and Anglicans are quite keen to incorporate and utilize tradition. Evangelicals generally act on an ad hoc or even arbitrary basis - the criteria are often completely subjective.

Contemporary Confessional Reformed people tend to be less attuned to tradition but often embrace what is essentially a Lutheran stance toward worship and ecclesiology. They have departed significantly from their forebears and certainly the Puritan generation that wrote their confessions. But if you point this out to them you will be met with hostility.

And these waters are further muddied by the many New Calvinist types who wave the Reformed banner but are in actuality just Evangelicals that happen to believe in predestination.

It's true that Calvin did not take as much of hard-line position as did the later Puritans and it's well known that on the Continent the Reformed tended to embrace Christmas and be a little more lax when it came to the application of the Regulative Principle and related issues such as the Sabbath. I appreciate and prefer the Continental tradition over the British on certain points (such as the Sabbath) but Christmas is not one of them.

I often disagree with the Puritans and yet on the question of Christmas they were right - it's an abomination.

That said, I completely disagree with their political programme and the notion that the state should fine people for keeping the day. I would like to see it purged from churches but given the culture wars in America, there's little chance of that taking place any time soon. Thankfully for us, the observance in our congregation is minimal. We grit our teeth and bear it but we don't participate in any of the extra-curricular Christmas-related activities.

I find Davis' comments to be off point and unhelpful and actually if he wants to bring up the likes of Dickens then he should point out that almost all of our contemporary notions of what Christmas is are born of that period and in no small part influenced by his pen.

Davis thinks the culture just doesn't get it when Christians reject the holy day altogether. I'm sorry but I 'don't get' his way of thinking. It's just pragmatism. You could use that kind of argument for all kinds of things and completely lose your way. I can think of all kinds of areas of ethics wherein we could embrace unbiblical positions on the basis of his 'the culture won't get it' argument.

No, the rejection of Christmas provides an ample opportunity to speak to others (and other Christians) about the state of the Church and testify to the gospel and the abundant warnings in the New Testament regarding error and false religion. Ironically it's also a time I use to talk some history but the lessons I glean are very different from the blurred interpretations offered by Davis.

Obviously the author of the article (David Roach) sides with Davis and as such the article is completely unhelpful - apart from the lessons it demonstrates in flawed thinking and the still present influence of American Pragmatism and the role it plays in how many Christians approach questions of theology and historical interpretation.

We can either agree with those who claim Christmas is an abomination or we must say they were wrong - and then explain why and on what basis. The article never really addresses the question but this too is pragmatism is it not? The simple fact is this - the vast overwhelming majority of American Christians are going to celebrate the day - ultimately because they want to. They don't care what the arguments are.