Ian Boyne
WHILE MULTIPLE millions of people all around the world will celebrate Christmas today, there is still controversy as to whether this festival truly honours Jesus Christ or whether a secular nation like the United States has any business officially sanctioning any religious holiday.
In the United States, where secularist forces have been doing battle with an assertive Religious Right which sees itself as embattled, pressure has been mounting to drop the 'Christ' out of Christmas and
to convert the festival into a secular holiday. Evangelical President George Bush, who
is mindful of criticisms that he is too ideologically close to Christian fundamentalists, has been making concessions to the secularists by issuing Christmas cards wishing people 'Happy Holidays' rather than 'Merry Christmas'. The Christian Right who helped to put him in power feels betrayed and is up in arms, using its media to launch a broadside against the attempts to totally secularise America, 'God's country'.
Christmas has been controversial since it began
in the Fourth Century as a political compromise by the Roman Christians to pry away the Romans from their pagan Saturnalia festival, dedicated to the sun god. The pagans had December 25 as the celebration of the birth of the sun god and it was immensely popular. Emperor Constantine pulled
off a cultural coup when he adopted the popular pagan festival and transformed it
into a Christian festival, reinterpreted in the light of the Christian story.
The coup has been the most spectacularly successful in history, as Saturnalia is long dead and Christmas is the most popular single observance in the entire world. Even in the heyday of communism, when a third of mankind was under communist rule, Christmas was strong in the communist counties and today Christmas is strong in post-Christian Europe, godless Scandinavia and fires up excitement in people in non-Christian countries.
PAGAN ORIGINS
But there is a serious theological debate over the appropriateness of using an historically pagan festival to worship Christ.
First, it is undeniable that Christmas pre-dated the Christian religion. The winter solstice goes way back in antiquity.
All the trappings of Christmas the mistletoe, the gift-giving, Santa Claus, even the revelry have ancient, pagan origins associated with the winter solstice. Theologians have not sought to deny the unmistakable link between pagan customs and the origin of Christmas. Nor have they denied that Christmas began as a political manoeuvre to capture the minds of the masses to Christianity and to give them a festival equally enthralling as the Saturnalia. Every culture has had its festivals and celebrations.
Some sectarian Christians are deeply offended that the Roman Christians should take an avowedly pagan festival to use it to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. For this reason they have remained vehemently opposed to the celebration of Christmas, carrying out a ceaseless polemic against Christmas.
There are weaknesses in the argumentation of both sides on this debate. Orthodox Christians have shot back that it is misguided to oppose Christmas simply because its roots are in paganism. In fact, they insist that, strictly speaking, Christmas is not pagan the festival it replaced was. Everything about Christmas is Christian the story of Christ's birth, the visit of the Magi, Mary's virgin birth, Jesus being born in a manger etc. The Christmas tree, they retort, is not used to honour Mithra or Bacchus or Saturn but Christ, the Son of Righteousness.
Besides, they rightly point out that the biblical writers, particularly those in the Old Testament, employed imagery and exploited mythologies used by pagan Near Eastern neighbours with a liberality
and richness that would amaze sectarian Christians such as
the Jehovah's Witnesses and followers of Herbert W. Armstrong. The entire book
of Esther, for example, where Yahweh or Elohim is not mentioned once, utilises a lot
of the imagery of and makes frequent allusions with Marduk, Baal and Tiamat.
The pagans also had their agricultural feasts like the Jewish Feasts of Leviticus 23 and things like temples, sacrificial system, the priesthood and baptism all existed in pagan cultures. Besides, every student of cultural anthropology and history should know that Western culture has been influenced by a variety of cultures, including pagan culture. There are many practices and customs which we have which are pagan and even those stoutly opposed to Christmas don't even know. So some of the opposition to Christmas comes out of pure ignorance and underexposure.
EVIL AND THE EVERGREEN TREE
But what is undeniable also is that the Old Testament writers maintained a strong polemic against the adoption of pagan worship customs. The use of evergreen trees was particularly condemned. Israel was told not to consecrate hill shrines where the pagans had their asherah. Indeed, that is why Yahweh centralised the worship places because of the need to avoid using the worship sites of the nations which frequently had the asherah.
That the evergreen tree is now a major symbol in the celebration of the birth of christ and though we know December 25, was not the day, we observe the day, as Romans say we are free to do,in honour of Christ.
But here's my point: The Bible already has a festival which appropriately and meaningfully celebrates the birth of Christ. Why not use that rather than a man-made one which had its roots in paganism and came out of expediency, John 1:14 says, "And the Word became flesh and tabernacle (or dwelt) among us." The Greek word is skenoo which means to tabernacle. There was a feast in the Old Testament called the Feast of Tabernacles.
It was the high point of the Jewish liturgical year, the most joyful, the most festive of all the festivals. It was characterised by much rejoicing, dancing and celebration for God's goodness and blessings. This would be a most appropriate festival to use to honour the birth of Christ. The Incarnation is vitally important. One of the critical mistakes made by the Jehovah's Witnesses and the early Armstrongites (including sadly many of them today) is that they have downplayed the birth of Christ, saying what was important was His death.
THEOLOGICAL OVERSIGHT
This is a serious theological oversight. The birth of Christ God's taking on human flesh is the most significant event in human history. The death on the Cross could not bring about redemption and is not significant outside of who Jesus really was God Incarnate according to Biblical teachings and orthodox theology. The coming of God in human form, the birth of the Last Adam who was to fulfil what the first Adam did not do, is significant enough to warrant celebration. The Jehovah's Witnesses have no festival to celebrate the birth of Christ, insisting, in fact,that all birthday celebration is pagan.
One of the key passages in the Psalms concerns the procession to Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles (Psalm 118:26-27) It says: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." This is a famous Messianic passage. The Incarnation marked the time when God pitched his tent (tabernacle) with mankind. God's Shekinah glory dwelt in the temple in the Old Testament period but in Bethlehem. He dwelt (tabernacled) in human form. This is profoundly important. Philippians 2 also highlights the importance of the Incarnation. The Feast of Tabernacles is the appropriate and most meaningful festival to celebrate the birth of Christ.
Indeed, indications are this was when He was really born.
CHRIST'S BIRTH
Hear the respected Seventh-day Adventist scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi in his book, God's Festivals in Scripture and History : "It is generally agreed that Christ's ministry began when He was about thirty years of age (Luke 3:23) and lasted three and one-half years until His death at Passover (March/ April)Then backtracking we arrive much closer to the Feast of Tabernacles (September/ October) dating of Christ's birth than to December 25. Indirect support for a September/October dating of Christ's birth is provided by the fact that from November to February shepherds did not watch their flocks at night in the fields?.
Interestingly, even an early Church, Father Gregory of Nazianzus (Ad 329-389) in his Sermon on the Nativity connects the birth of Christ to the Feast of tabernacles. He said: "The subject of today's feast (December 25) is the true Feast of Tabernacles. Indeed, in this feast the human tabernacle was built by Him who put on human nature because of us."
It was anti-Semitism and the desire to purge Jewish customs from the church which also influenced the Roman church not to officially adopt the Feast of Tabernacles to celebrate the birth of Christ, even when some early church fathers knew that was an appropriate celebration, rather than pagan Saturnalia.
Now that we know, why can't we make the change?
Samuele Bacchiocchi asks the right question, a question even his fellow Seventh-day Adventists would do well to answer, their having rejected Tabernacles and having now embraced Christmas (Just watch 3ABN!): "Why celebrate the birth of Christ at the wrong time of December 25, a date derived from pagan sun worship when the Feast of Tabernacles provides us with Biblical timing and typology for commemorating such an important event?"
