At this time of the year we hear much about the "spirit of Christmas" and what it should mean to men and women. All kinds of "spirits" are available, even some to drink. Every ridiculous practice known to man becomes a celebration of the birthday of Christ. For years New Testament Christians have tried to show the pagan and Catholic origin of this celebration and to teach that nothing religious is scripturally connected to December 25.
"Joseph Fort Newton wrote once: 'Only God could have thought of Christmas. Its beauty is beyond the wit of mortals.'" (Paul S. Stauffer, minister of First Christian Church, Louisville, KY in The Christian, Dec. 22, 1963). Again, "Christmas is a message about God that brings awe and wonder to the heart of man." "Christmas declares to us that God has taken the initiative and has entered our lives through a child born in a manger." "Christmas calls for our response in faith to him who said, 'Behold I stand at the door and knock'" (From Paul Stauffer in the same article).
In the same journal and the same issue, the editor, Howard E Short, says, "Yet, we cling to him, we worship him and we rejoice at Christmastime, celebrating his birth" (page 8). But hear this from the same issue by Carl R. Brown: "Would it seem irreverent to think of Jesus playing the part of Santa Claus? Or would it be irrelevant? I trust it would not be either . . . Maybe Jesus would borrow a Santa Claus outfit and call the children to come to him." (page 23).
To anyone who knows anything about the word of God, this is too close to blasphemy for comfort. The very idea, suggesting that Jesus play "Santa Claus" and act out the heathen and Catholic celebration of something wholly apart from anything revealed in the word of God.
In the Christian Standard, the official publication of the Christian Church, Dec. 14, 1963 we have an admission that the celebration of the birth of Christ is without scriptural authority. "Many practices in our churches are non-scriptural, that is, we could not, as try we might, give book, chapter, and verse for their observance. Some, such as providing meeting houses and preparing the Communion emblems, and necessary means to the accomplishment of commanded practices... Try, for example, to document the use of baptistries, hymn books, or candle-lighting services! ...We begin by conceding that we do not know the actual birth date of Christ, either the day or the year." (Buel B. Buzzard, page 3-4).
This is an effort to pave the way for justifying the religious observance of Christmas. Doesn't this sound about like some liberal-minded brethren today who want to justify practices not found in the word of God?
To show that the present digression from the faith has gone much beyond what most will admit, let me quote from the Tampa Tribune of Monday, Dec. 16, 1963: "But soon I began to learn more about the real meaning of Christmas, the time of the year the world has set aside to celebrate as the birthday of Christ.... And since we are celebrating his birthday, I think it proper that we ponder, at the same time, some of his teaching and his examples for living among our fellowman." Do you know who wrote this? It was not one of the liberal Christian Church, but you would think so by the language. This was written by Fred Dudney, an elder of the Manhattan Avenue Church of Christ, one of the two liberal churches in Tampa. Do you not see that orphan homes and sponsoring churches are only a part of the digression? This reflects the attitude toward the word of God that brought into being the Christian Church and other denominations that began in error.
In the same issue of the Tampa Tribune, "Rev. Dr." Harold A Bosley, pastor of Christ Church
Methodist in New York said, "One wonders whether it is possible to rescue the deeper meanings of
Christmas from the ways in which we have become accustomed to living during this season." Both this
"pastor" of the Methodist Church and the "pastor" of the liberal Church of Christ want to get Christ in
"Christmas" in spite of the fact that God did not put one thing about Christmas in the faith delivered to
the saints.
A little before December 25, most people get sentimentally religious; at least they get the idea that this day is somewhat sacred because it is "the birthday of Christ." Denominational preachers, and we might add, some liberal preachers in the church, decry the commercial abuse of this "sacred day" of the year, and call for a more solemn and religious observance. They plead for "us to put Christ back in Christmas" But when was he ever in "Christmas"?
Many liberal churches will observe this "holy" day by the "Church Christmas Party" and have all the lighted candles and symbols of the birth of Christ. Some will preach about "putting Christ back in Christmas." How long will it be before they begin the special mass on this day just as Roman Catholicism does it today?
Christmas observance as the birthday of Christ began with Catholicism. It spread throughout the world by a combination of commercial businesses and denominations seeking something special on this day. The daughters of Catholicism truly partake of the characteristics of this apostate body. What makes us so sad is the attitude toward Christ and his word that is bringing some elements in the church to this same sinful practice. There is not one single thing about "Christmas" that is religious or sacred. Christ not one time authorized anybody, Jew or Gentile, to observe his birthday. We do not know when he was born. We do not know how or what to do in observing his birthday. Christians remember his death and resurrection every first day of the week. We are instructed to do this, but we are not authorized to celebrate anything about his birth.
"But what harm does it do?" What harm does counting beads do? What is wrong with wearing the collar in reverse and putting on long robes of the "clergy" in worship to God? What harm is there in worshiping God with an instrument of music? The answer to these is the answer to the question about observing December 25 as the birthday of Christ. The harm is that it is not authorized by Christ, and thus a work of iniquity.
Fred Dudney, one of the elders of the Manhattan church of Tampa, wrote an article in the Tampa Tribune on Monday, December 16, 1963 in which he attempted to show the "real meaning of Christmas." After telling what Christmas meant to him as a boy, he said, "But soon I began to learn more about the real meaning of Christmas, the time of the year the world has set aside to celebrate as the birthday of Christ." It will do no good to say that he said "the world" set this day aside and observed it, because in the beginning of the second paragraph he said, "And since we are celebrating his birthday..." This "we" does not include faithful Christians for they do not observe this day with any religious significance at all unless it falls upon the first day of the week, and then it is observed just as every other first day.
No man honors Christ more than I do. With all my ability I honor and respect his name and his word. I obey his will and do not try to adopt religious days that originated in apostasy and pay honor to Christ contrary to his word.
We wonder if Charles Houser, the preacher at Manhattan church is in agreement with Fred Dudney on this observance of Christmas? If not, will he try to correct this error before the world? I wonder if his brethren at Florida Avenue church sympathize with him in his "celebrating" Christmas as the birthday of the Lord? If they do have this same attitude toward the word of God, will they be courageous enough to announce their beliefs to the world? If they do not share the liberal views of Fred Dudney, will they oppose him openly and tell the world that they do not believe in this unauthorized religious observance?
What an opportunity Fred Dudney had to teach the truth on this matter to thousands of people. Instead
he gave encouragement to religious error. If one of the elders where I preach should teach or practice
this day in celebration of the birthday of Christ, I would rebuke him and teach him the truth, and I
would teach the world the truth on the subject. We will see if his brethren at Manhattan and Florida
Avenue will correct him. They will do one or the other. Their silence will indicate approval of his false
teaching.
--Articles reprinted from the Forest Hills bulletin (Dec. 22 & 29, 1963)--