Why Celebrate His Birth?

This time of year, folks of a more conservative persuasion in the Evangelical end of the American christian church have problems with the celebration of Christmas.

To be clear, this is not the usual disgruntled complaints about how "our" holiday has been spoiled via rampant commercialization, nor the even more recent complaint that it has lost its significance because the politically correct crowd insists on greeting everyone with "Happy Holidays" to avoid offending Jews, Muslims and others who, for a variety of reasons, don't celebrate the birth of our Lord with the same enthusiasm that we do.

And it is not the variety of arguments against the holiday couched in religious terms: Christmas, they complain, is variously a "made up" holiday (not biblical), it's based on a pagan holiday (December 25 is not the actual date of our Lord's birth) and uses a pagan symbol (the evergreen tree). And then there's the whole Santa Claus business ... a subject that could consume a blog post all on its own! The following Web sites illustrate some of the common complaints lodged against Christmas and also outline some of the common arguments against rejecting Christmas for these reasons:
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/christians-who-dont-celebrate-christmas-heres-why
https://www.equip.org/article/should-christians-celebrate-christmas/
http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/christmas/christians_and_christmas.htm

The reticence I speak of, however, is that of the deeply conservative evangelical who objects to the fact that Christmas today seems to takes precedence over, and in many ways, it's celebration overshadows, that of Easter. Easter, they contend, is the single most important day in human history. It should take precedence. Some think Easter alone should be celebrated. One argument is put subtly, but so well, here, by R.C. Sproul: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/it-sin-celebrate-christmas/.

Now, for a Christian, what Jesus did on the cross really is the pivotal moment in history. It makes the eradication or at least the significant de-emphasis of Christmas a rather tempting argument. But I've been around long enough to see many such arguments arise, gain strong followings, create movements that result in frequently vocal action groups, but then peak and fade, or worse, cause some sort of split in a denomination or local fellowship. I'd like to suggest that most such movements, including the dismissal of Christmas, are little more than tempting distractions from our mission — the irritating horse flies we keep trying to swat, causing us to miss sighting that massive catfish teasing at our hook. How often we forget that Jesus called us to be fishers of men (and women), not fly swatters.

I'd like to suggest we evangelical types stop worrying about what folks we can't control do about Christmas. In fact, I'd like to see us celebrate both Christmas and Easter, and make as big a deal about each as we're able, and to do so without the need to make one more important than the other.

Before anyone throws a stone, let me appeal to no less than the theological proposition that Jesus is both "fully God and fully man." This notion is absolutely central to Trinitarian belief and to call oneself an Evangelical Christian, I believe one still must cleave to the Trinity.

There is little doubt what Easter celebrates, and I won't long belabor the point. Suffice it to say that Jesus substitutionary death on the cross and subsequent resurrection as the "first fruit" of many to come merits celebration and fully justifies its position as the focal point of Jesus ministry and the focal point of our worship in the sharing of the Bread and Wine. And there's little argument about that.

That said, ask a Christian what we celebrate at Christmas, you can get a variety of answers, some amusing, others embarrassing. That's probably why were confused about the holiday. Only a few will mention the Incarnation. And some of the who can manage that much can't tell you the significance of that word. What, after all, does "Incarnation" actually mean that has an impact on me? That sounds like a bit of a selfish question, but it's an honest one. And it can be fairly asked of the Easter story. And easily answered. What does Easter mean for me? that's an easy one: Jesus suffered for my sin. Implication? I don't have to suffer. That is GOOD NEWS. Jesus also rose again from the dead, and word is, he has the power to raise the dead. Even me. that is even BETTER NEWS. See what I mean?

So can we do the same with the Incarnation? Well .... Uh .....

Okay, try this on. Why did Jesus have to come as a baby? And why to poor parents in Bethlehem? In what is now known as the 1st century? Why not put him on the earth as a full-grown man, on his shiny white horse. Born to the royal house? Or better yet, on a tank? Or at the head of an army? How about in 2018, with the power of the Internet at his disposal?

I think Jesus came as a baby because we come that way. He came with nothing because most of us do as well. I don't go for any children's story/song nonsense about "the little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes." I'm sorry. Jesus was an actual baby. He cried when he was hungry or hurt. Just like us. Jesus pooped his pants until he was potty trained. He was as helpless as a baby when he was a baby. He went to the synagogue school, learned to read, memorized scriptures. He grew up and experienced life and relationships and disappointments just like us. He experienced puberty and, yes, he was tempted sexually. If you deny that one, then you are a heretic. Further, Jesus called twelve disciples, under the direction of the Hoy Spirit, but he also made three special friends, not connected with his ministry, whom he visited when he happened to be near Bethany: Lazarus, Martha and Mary. They did not follow him around, or go out on missions like his disciples. They were his dear close friends who offered him their home. They were those special people whose company he preferred to that of others. To cry when You are hurt or disappointed, to poop your pants, to experience hunger, to form treasured friendships, even to be tempted sexually — these are normal human experiences. Not sins. Jesus was fully human yet did not sin. That is why he could go to the cross in your place. In mine.

And he came in his time, not in ours, because the Gospel is passed on person to person, face to face, in the context of close relationships. You can't do real relationships on the Internet. Although, Heaven knows, those online chat sites sure do try.

The point of Christmas is that He was just like you and me, but was so successfully. If he was not fully human, only without sin (what we celebrate at Christmas), then Easter is a sham.

Truth is, Easter was impossible without Christmas. You cannot have the one without the other. So celebrate both we should. In fact, we must. For history is replete with illustrations of how easily we have forgotten that without what he has been (perfectly human) and what he's done (suffered for our humanity) we would have nothing whatsoever to celebrate.