The Ironies of Christmas
 

There are number of ironic things about Christmas that cause me to think a bit every year when it rolls around. I love Christmas. However, one of the most difficult ironies about Christmas, for myself at least, is its supposed connection to Jesus. Sometimes I wish I were more ignorant, but I know that the yearly celebration of Christ’s birth known as “Christmas” really has its roots in Roman Catholicism and paganism. I have neither the space nor the inclination to go into all that here. However, because “Christmas” is not in the Bible, we in the fellowship known as the churches of Christ have historically avoided the celebration of Christmas as a religious holiday, viewing it instead as simply a time to gather with family, give gifts and hold to some fun traditions that have lost their original pagan meanings. If we connected it to Jesus at all, it was only to be done at home and not in the church. To keep Christ out of Christmas, even if just at church, seems pretty ironic for devout believers in Jesus. More ironic yet, it is because of our firm belief in Jesus and the Bible that we (at least some of us) choose not to celebrate his birth. Nonetheless, I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with that. After all, the story itself is not only true, but greatly significant. What could be more important than the coming of God into the world? Two of the four Gospels (Matthew and Luke) devote a total of 180 verses recording the birth of Jesus. His birth fulfilled many prophecies spoken hundreds of years earlier. Great miracles, revelations and the attendance of angels accompanied his birth. And the yearly celebration of this event by hundreds of millions of people around the world is a tremendous testimony to its truth, in spite of all the pagan and Roman Catholic trappings.

And yet, the early Christians never celebrated Jesus’ birth. Ironically, outside of the two accounts in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ birth is never mentioned again in the rest of the New Testament. No doubt this is because the real significance of Jesus’ birth is in his death for the sins of the world. If there is anything more important than the birth of the Son of God into the world, it would be his death and resurrection. So much so, in fact, that the latter almost completely overshadows the former. Thus, it was his death and resurrection that was celebrated by the first century Christians, not once a year but on the first day of every week.

In recent years, many churches of Christ have begun to celebrate Christmas in the church. Many arguments can be made for doing so, some of which seem pretty good. Certainly we ought to commend the world for wanting to honor Jesus. We ought to try to be all things to all men (1 Cor 9.19-23), if we can do so without compromising God’s word (the key word is “if”). We ought to try to reach people where they are. How can it be wrong for a church to acknowledge Jesus’ birth and be happy about it? Couldn’t we rightly focus on that event at any time of year, just as we often focus on various other Biblical themes? Is it because the denominations do it that makes it wrong? These all have some merit. However, I wonder if our recent change on Christmas is not for the same reason the Roman Church invented Christmas to begin with, i.e. ‘If you can’t beat ‘em….” There’s probably some irony there as well. But perhaps the greatest (and saddest) irony of all is that those who shout the loudest to keep Christ in Christmas usually ignore Jesus the rest of the year.
 

© 2005 Randy Hohf