I am reminded this time of year of a part of our heritage as Reformed Christians that has often been ridiculed by critics. I refer to the refusal on the part of our 16th and 17th century spiritual forbears to celebrate Christmas--a practice which set them apart not only from Roman Catholics but from a good many other Protestants as well. Anglicans and Lutherans in particular had no problem with preserving that part of the traditions established by the Roman church, and in the face of criticism from Reformed Christians (as well as Anabaptists) they often did so with defiant relish. But all of the more "radical" Protestants insisted that Christmas-observance had to go.

    Massachusetts Bay Colony, which is often treated as an illustration of Reformed piety in its pure form because the Puritans who lived there had near-complete control of the civil as well as ecclesiastical institutions, actually went so far as to ban the observance of Christmas for a period. This did not last; the colony was forced to retreat on that front (as well as many others) once it lost the autonomy it originally enjoyed. But the very fact that the leaders of the colony would take such a step has been a symbol for critics, ever since the days of the original Roman and Anglo-Catholic attacks on Reformed teaching, of the "extremism" (and authoritarianism) of the Puritans.

    So why did they do it? Part of the reason was standard Reformed practice: they did not see any good evidence in the Bible or the records of the early church that celebration of the birthday of Jesus was an accepted practice among his earliest followers. But no less the reason was also their reaction against what those observances had become under Catholic auspices.  The Christmas season had become an occasion for celebrations that tended to reflect pagan beliefs and customs far more than anything that might be recognized as authentically Christian. Or as Increase Mather put the matter in 1687, "The generality of Christmas-keepers observe that festival after such a manner as is highly dishonourable to the name of Christ."

    I am not so jaded about what Christmas has become in our time that I want to return to the policy adopted by the Puritans.  I never cease to be moved by the wonderful sacred music we hear in our churches at this season, for example, and I am sure I am not alone in thinking that our practice of the Christian religion would be significantly diminished if it did not include the celebration of Advent. So on that score, at least, I am happy that few of us adhere to the original Reformed idea any more. But by the same token I am not happy about much of the rest of what Christmas has become in our time, and for that reason I find it difficult to to dismiss (much less mock) the concerns that originally gave rise to the refusal to celebrate Christmas--which seem to me to be terribly prescient. The solution our forbears adopted to the problem posed by holiday practices that "dishonor Christ" may seem these days to be excessive, but that is hardly because we have solved the problem. If anything, the problem appears to be worse today than ever before. And the obvious question is what can we do about it if we are not prepared to be as "extreme" as the Puritans were.  Is there a sensible alternative? Surely this is a matter that deserves serious reflection and discussion in our churches, and I wish I could see more evidence of it than  presently is available.