But What about Liberty of Conscience?
Individual Liberty
I want to end this thesis by repeating once again that it is not the intent of this book to impose Christmas as a “holy day” upon God’s people. It is not a holy day. Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:16 render all Old Testament holy days as no longer holy. It is precisely because they are not holy that Paul insists on liberty and says, “let no one judge you” with respect to them (Col. 2:16). This command means that no one can judge a person who has chosen not to celebrate Christmas as if he is somehow in sin. But this command also means that such a person may not judge those of us who desire to celebrate Christmas Jewish style as being in sin. As Paul said in Romans 14, “He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it” (v. 6). Christmas celebration is an issue of liberty.
Church Liberty
But what about church-celebration of a non-holy day? It is my view that this would be no different than the church calling for a fast day or a day of thanksgiving. The Westminster Confession of Faith not only declared the freedom of people from “holy days,” but also balanced this by saying that it was quite proper for a church to have “solemn fastings and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner” (WCF 21.5). In other words, the worship that occurs on such days can be holy without the day itself being holy. The great reformer, Turretin, summarized this view well when he said,
The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord’s day alone, and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ … we deny that those days are in themselves more holy than others; rather all are equal. If any sanctity is attributed to them, it does not belong to the time and the day, but to the divine worship. Thus, the observance of them among those who retain it, is only of positive right and ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept.105
Does Church Liberty Conflict with Personal Liberty?
But doesn’t the church’s liberty to celebrate Christmas infringe on private liberty to not so celebrate? I believe that Turretin’s comments in the preceding paragraph answer this objection. The only way that such a conflict would arise would be if the church added ceremonies that are not a part of normal church worship (such as having a Christmas tree, a candlelight ceremony, an outdoor service facing the sunrise on Easter, passing of Easter eggs, etc.). But these “extras” conflict with the regulative principle of worship in their own right.
However, if there is no “element of worship” that is being added on these festival days, the question can be asked, “Which portion of the service would violate a person’s conscience?” If singing a traditional “Christmas hymn” in July would not violate the regulative principle, then why would singing the same hymn in December do so? If preaching on Matthew 1-2 in August would not violate the regulative principle of worship, then why would preaching on such a text in December violate a person’s conscience? So long as a church’s celebration of Christ’s birth in December could also be done on another portion of the year, there is no way in which the church’s liberty and the individual’s liberty needs to come into conflict.
Perhaps Paul’s own practice will illustrate this point. When the Judaizers said, “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1), Paul vigorously opposed their call for circumcision (Acts 15:1-41), and refused to submit to their demands that Titus get circumcised (Gal. 2:1-5). To submit to circumcision in those circumstances would have been tantamount to compromising the Gospel. When the other side pushed its own agenda and said that no one could get circumcised (Acts 21:21), Paul resisted that extreme as well and said that circumcision was a matter of liberty (Acts 21:22-26). As far as Paul was concerned, “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters” (1 Cor. 7:19). Circumcision was no longer a commandment of God. Yet it is interesting that immediately after the Jerusalem Council Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-5). What makes this even more significant is that Paul circumcised Timothy (verse 2) immediately before the two of them delivered the Jerusalem decrees to all the churches (Acts 16:1-5). He was making a point that anyone can engage in circumcision, so long as they do not consider it to be a means of salvation.
Paul treated the issue of festivals in exactly the same manner. When the Jews insisted that the Gentiles had to follow the ceremonial law to be saved, Paul said that it would be better not to “observe days and months and seasons and years” at all if it would give people that idea (Gal. 4:10). It’s not that all day-keeping was forbidden. In fact, Paul told the same Galatian church that they were under “orders” to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath (“as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: on the first day Sabbath [literal Greek] let each one of you lay something aside” [1 Cor. 16:1-2]). Obviously Paul did not intend to prohibit all day-keeping. Galatians 4:6 and Colossians 2:16 need to be taken in the context of the threat of Judaizers destroying the Gospel.
Once Paul had established that neither circumcision nor day-keeping could be a basis for salvation, he immediately went on to say that both can continue to be an issue of total liberty within the church. Indeed, Paul delighted in celebrating Jewish feast days with a Christian accent. For example, Paul said, “I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem.” He was not just attending the feast; he was keeping it or observing it. Paul saw no contradiction with doing so. Some people read Colossians 2:16-17 only as an abolition of Jewish day-keeping and fail to see that Paul’s words “let no one judge you … regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths” also prohibit “Scottish Reformation” brothers from judging those of us who delight in celebrating such days, not as holy days, but as what the Confession calls days and seasons of thanksgiving. It is clear that Paul delighted in the refreshing celebration of those same Jewish festivals (see for example Acts 18:21; 20:16; 1 Cor. 16:8). If Christmas is seen as a thanksgiving day for the incarnation, there is nothing in Scripture that would say it was wrong. Likewise, if we celebrate the birth of Jesus in the Jewish Christian way that Jesus (John 10:22) and the early church did, it could make this special thanksgiving day even more Christ-centered. Celebrating Christmas Jewish style has given our family a renewed sense of covenant history and has been a wonderful educational tool. It has certainly been fun for our children to have eight days of gift giving rather than one or two.