Have you ever made one?  Have you ever kept it past the middle of January?! 

There is nothing in the Bible about such resolutions.  In fact, when I went on-line to look up the origin of the practice at Wikipedia, I found this fascinating description.  It is asserted that the tradition of making New Year's resolutions dates back to the Babylonians. Babylonians, from historical records, are the first ones to fest New Year and also are known to have set New Year resolutions. The most common of their resolutions was said to be “to return the borrowed farm equipment.”

But while there’s nothing in the Bible about making New Year’s resolutions, there’s plenty in the Bible about making promises (“vows”) to the Lord.  Such “discipline” was a part of the 18^th century “methodistic” approach to spirituality that John Wesley advocated. That included resolutions about daily Bible study and journaling and weekly times of fasting and prayer. Jonathan Edwards is remembered for the 70 resolutions he made over the years, determining to read over his list once each week.  You can find the whole list at this web site: http://www.reformed.org/documents/Edwards/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Edwards/j_edwards_resolutions.html

I would love to hear about your resolution.  In fact, it would be interesting to have many of you post your resolutions as comments to this blog.  It would encourage all of us to pursue the commitments we’ve made.  And it would add a degree of accountability as we invite others to ask us how we’re doing in keeping the resolutions we’ve made public!

It doesn’t have to be anything too big or dramatic. Mine is a simple one.  Several times over the years I have started using Charles Spurgeon’s classic daily devotions: “Morning and Evening.”  But I never completed it.  After I missed a day here and a day there, I gave up.  This year I’m going to get all the way through … all 365 mornings and evenings!  Ask me how I’m doing in a month or two!

When Christians make New Year’s resolutions, there are several things that distinguish them from those of non Christians.  First, we look for something that will have spiritual (eternal) as well as temporal (material, physical, this-worldly) benefit.  Second, we aim for something the Lord wants us to do, not something we want.  Third, we pursue it to please Him, not to impress others.  And fourth, we do it in His strength, not our own.

Now it’s your turn.  What is your New Year’s resolution?  Post it as a comment to this blog.  Then let’s check on one another to see how we’re doing.

2.  Why Reject Christmas?

The argument I hear most often is that we shouldn’t observe Christmas (or have anything to do with it) is because of its origins in paganism.  The Biblical principle is right on target.  We’re to live separated lives (Rom. 12:1-2), not joining ourselves to unbelief (2 Cor. 6:14ff).  But I disagree that a refusal to enter into Christmas festivities is a correct application of that principle.  The names of the days of our week (Sunday, Monday, etc.) all have pagan origins as well.  Will we refuse to participate in the use of those names for that reason?  Of course not.  No one today has any awareness of what those ancient pagan origins might have been.  That’s all been lost in antiquity.

Did Christmas have a pagan origin?  No.  Christmas was a new celebration that replaced an old pagan one.  There’s a difference.  There was indeed a pagan celebration at the same time of the year.  It appears to have been the Roman Feast of Saturnalia.  Christians have no business celebrating such a feast.  We don’t, and neither did our forefathers.  When that day was conscripted for the celebration of Christ’s birth, it wasn’t an accommodation of Jesus to paganism.  Quite the opposite was true.  It was the triumph of Jesus over paganism.  As Hank Hanegraaf has written, “the church was not ‘endorsing’ a pagan ceremony but ‘establishing’ a rival celebration.”  And the Christian version won!

This is by no means the only situation in which Biblical concepts have triumphed over secular or pagan ones.  Scholars have found evidence that suggests that circumcision may have been practiced in ancient Egypt.  If that is correct, there’s another instance in which new and glorious meaning overcame a practice that had pagan origins.  Pagans used to worship the sun in its rising, thinking it was a god.  I will celebrate sunrise for an entirely different reason.  It marks the gift of another day from my God, and brings me one more day closer to the return of Christ, the Light of the World.

A related objection is that the name Christmas is itself an outgrowth of the heresies of Roman Catholic worship at the “Christ Mass.”  Certainly we reject all of the idolatrous dimensions of the Roman mass with its theology of a repeated sacrifice of Christ at the hands of a priest.  But my preaching about Christ’s incarnation has nothing whatsoever in common with the Roman liturgy.  Feel free to change the name if you must, but don’t take away the celebration.  I don’t really see the need to change the name, anyway, since I’ve never met anyone in the church’s I have pastored who felt we were perpetuating a Roman Christ Mass, not even former Catholics who had come to Christ.  And they would have been the ones most sensitive to that potential danger.

A second objection to the celebration of Christmas is that we don’t know that Jesus was born on December 25^th.  In fact, the odds are probably 364 to 1 that He was born on some other day of the year.  But that doesn’t invalidate the celebration of that event on a date  that has become so widely accepted as a reasonable place in time in which to focus our thoughts on the incarnation.  We’d have a hard time finding someone who is absolutely convinced that it was on December 25^th.  And we’d have an even more difficult time finding someone who believed that there is some special spiritual significance that requires making it that day.  It’s simply become a convenient time to make sure it’s remembered.

A third objection is drawn from Paul’ words regarding the observance of special days in Colossians 2:16ff and Rom. 14:5ff.  In both passages, Paul reaffirms the freedom we have in Christ.  To impose one day above another as a mandatory religious celebration is clearly forbidden (option number one above).  Also forbidden would be any attempt to attach some unique spirituality to the day or to a celebration of what it represents.  Paul is the champion of the freedom inherent in the gospel that enables me to choose to regard days as all equally holy and to use particular days in particular ways (e.g.: Christmas) as I find that they aid me in my love for Christ.

In a real sense, this is an extension of Paul’s argument over the matter of eating meat offered to idols.  There is no legal standard to which Paul appeals so as to prohibit the practice on “legalistic” grounds.  He regards it as something to be judged case by case.  The guiding principle is how it will help or hinder others in the faith.  Thus, he writes in 1 Cor. 10:23, “All things are lawful but not all things are profitable.  All things are lawful but not all things edify.”  In the present context of this article, I would conclude that Christmas celebrations are lawful.  The deciding factor is whether or not they are profitable, whether or not they edify.  And the answer to that, I would suggest, is a resounding, “YES!”  One needs only to listen to the exuberant praise of a congregation singing “O Come, All Ye Faithful” on Christmas Eve.

3.  What About Christmas Practices?

If the concept of a Christmas celebration is indeed permissible, what about some of the practices associated with it.  Some who will tolerate a minimal observance of the season will bristle at common practices that have come to be associated with it.  Practices that are not sinful (we’re not talking about the office party with free-flowing liquor and bawdy behavior).  But practices that some regard as having no legitimate connection with the gospel.

In the first place, what should we think about Christmas trees?  Are these, as some would contend, a modern form of idolatry?  After all, Jeremiah 10 does warn about cutting trees out of the forest and then decorating them with silver and gold.  But this was for the purpose of shaping that tree into the statue of a permanent wooden idol, one that (as Isaiah also described them) cannot walk or see or hear or speak.  That’s a far cry from the temporary adornment of the Christmas trees in our homes, trees that are thrown into the trash or stored in the attic soon after New Year’s.

It was very interesting to discover the origin of our practice.  It apparently began in the Middle Ages in Germany with what were called “paradise trees.”  These were decorated with apples to symbolize the tree of life in the Garden of Eden.  This is the same tree that Revelation says will populate the streets of heaven.  These were not idols before which people bowed in worship.  No, they were attractive reminders of the life lost in the Garden but waiting to be given afresh in heaven through the work of Christ.

One dimension of a Christian celebration of Christmas is the opportunity to engage unbelievers in conversation about the true meaning of Christmas.  Many families find joy in doing that with Chrismons on their tree.  These are symbols of the faith (like triangles, Chi-Rhos, Alpha/Omegas, crosses, crowns, fish, etc.) hung on the tree as ornaments.  Not only do they make great conversation starters for non believers.  They’re also great teaching tools about the real meaning of Christmas that we can use with our own children and grand children.

In the second place, what about exchanging gifts?  Questions arise about the commercialism and greed this engenders.  There certainly is a danger of that happening.  But then Satan is an expert in perverting every good thing God gives us.   What is wrong with doing as the Scripture tells us in Acts 20:35, to discover that it is more blessed to give than receive?  Certainly, this is a challenge to Christian parents to train their children to discover the truth of that passage. But Christmas gifts present an ideal opportunity to do precisely that, modeled after the joy of our God in giving Himself for us in the person of His Son.

In addition, Jehovah’s Witnesses claim this practice of gift giving is tied to pagan  occultic practices because the magi who brought gifts to Christ were astrologers.  That’s nonsense.  The magi weren’t “star-gazers” but rather men of great wisdom and insight.  Some have suggested that their insights into the significance of a star and the birth of a King came as a legacy from the teaching of the prophet Daniel when he served in the Persian courts centuries earlier.

In the third place, what about Santa?  Surely we can and ought to dispense with this fairy tale figure, right?  Not so fast.  As you should remember, there is some substance to the traditions surrounding the “real” Santa.  He’s not the same one Charles Dickens popularized in his fictitious story, “Twas the night before Christmas ….”  “Santa Claus” is an anglicized form of the Dutch name, “Sinter Klaas.”  That, in turn, refers to a Christian Bishop of the fourth century known to posterity as Saint Nicholas. 

We have no reason to perpetuate the mythology of a chubby fellow who lives at the North Pole.  But we can remind our children that the real Saint Nick was a Christian who believed in the Lord Jesus as his Savior.  While traditions about him may have been exaggerated over the years, those traditions include the assertions that he was kind and generous toward children and that he was one of the delegates at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. when it ratified the Nicene Creed.

Conclusion

Let’s go back to Romans 14:5,6 once more.  This passage clearly gives us freedom to celebrate Christmas (or Easter, or Pentecost), though not to require that others do so.  Neither may we condemn others in areas where God does not condemn them.  What should drive us is a desire to exalt Christ in all things.  And what a wonderful opportunity we have to do that at the very time of year when people’s hearts are softened by reminders of the gospel all around them in the Christmas music and message.

Many years ago, the magazine “Christianity Today” carried a mini-article that pointed out how so many of the elements of our Christmas celebration can be reminders of the essentials of the gospel.  May this be true for you and for your family this season.

At Christmas time I think of snow … “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.”  And a tree … “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”  And lights … “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”  Gifts, of course … “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord ….  When He ascended up on high, He gave gifts unto men.”  Singing … “He hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God.”  Laughter … “Then was our mouth filled with laughter.”  Yes, food and joy and merriment … “Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy and drink thy wine with a merry heart.”  And above and beyond all else, love … “To know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.”  “Love one another, as I have loved you.”

I wish you a snowy, soul cleansing Christmas, a tree that radiates light, one over-arching Gift and many gifts, songs and laughter, food and merriment, and love enough to satisfy you.

Dr. Seuss has given us “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.”  And Hollywood’s movie version is now making the rounds again on television.  Are there also ecclesiastical “Grinches” in our churches who are trying to steal Christmas from us?  (Please don’t write back that I’m mean-spirited because I called them “grinches.  It’s only a joke!  Really. Sort of.)

I see three possible views regarding the celebration of Christmas in the church’s life.  Without taking too much time on each, let me briefly scan the field.

Option 1.  We Are Required to Celebrate Christmas

One view would say that we are required to do so.  There’s a sense in which this would seem to be the position of the Roman Catholic Church in its adoption of a mandatory lectionary as well as a liturgical calendar with all of its ecclesiastical seasons.  Since this is imposed on all confirmed Catholics by the Church’s magisterial authority, I presume that they would regard it as a sin not to celebrate Christmas.  (Apparently Scrooge was not a Catholic.)

Option 2.  We Are Forbidden to Celebrate Christmas

A second view would say that we are forbidden to do so.  This would be the position of those who take a very literalistic view of “The Regulative Principle of Worship.”  While all of us Reformed believers hold to that principle, these would apply it more narrowly than most.  Since the Bible nowhere commands the celebration of Christmas (or Easter, or Palm Sunday, or even Mother’s Day), many of these regard such holidays as sinful offenses to God.  No Christmas carols in this camp; at least, not in December. 

Option 3.  We Are Free to Celebrate Christmas

A third view would say that we are free to do so.  More than that, these would feel that we are wise to do so, taking advantage of the opportunity to preach Christ.  This is probably where most of us find ourselves, hopefully by conviction, not by default.  It is the view that I hold and will seek to encourage in this short article.  At the outset, let me say that in holding to this view of freedom, I would never require those who do not wish to celebrate Christmas to do so.  I would hope that they, in turn, would not prohibit me from doing so.

I should mention at the outset that some would feel that my view actually does require those who do not wish to celebrate Christmas to do so.  They would claim that if I as a pastor/preacher lead a worship service that has a Christmas focus, I am requiring people who are present to celebrate Christmas with me.  But if I were to sit in the church of one of my critics, by that same argument he would be requiring me to “celebrate” whatever he has chosen to preach on that day, to observe whatever Biblical event is the focus of the service as he has planned it.  That’s unavoidable.

Here’s how I plan to proceed.  We’ll first look at what I consider to be an adequate basis for celebrating Christmas.  Next, we’ll look at some of the objections that are brought by those who feel it is improper to do so.  Then, we’ll look at several practices associated with Christmas observance which some find objectionable.

1. Why Celebrate Christmas?

My reason for celebrating Christmas is very simple.  The Bible celebrates it.  I know that’s not the same as identifying a particular day or season and giving it the name Christmas.  But Christmas is the celebration of the incarnation, as recorded in Matthew 1.  It is the joyful commemoration of the historic event in which God the Son took on human nature in Luke 2.  It is an opportunity to give praise to the Savior who humbled Himself by taking on the form of a servant as described in Philippians 2.

I am a musician as well as a pastor/professor.  As I wrote in a previous blog, it excites me to read the Gospel of Luke and find what appear to be four inspired Christmas carols as part of Luke’s nativity narratives: Zechariah’s “Benedictus,” Mary’s “Magnificat,” the angels’ “Gloria,” and Simeon’s “Nunc Dimittis.”  The uniqueness of these paeans associated with Christ’s birth clearly give legitimacy to the celebratory character of what took place in Bethlehem.  By the way, it also makes me wonder if Luke was not only a journalist and historian and physician, but also a musician, since he alone took note of those “songs.”

In other places of Scripture, God has clearly commanded His people to commemorate redemptive events that have occurred in space and time.  Every time we see a rainbow, we are to remember God’s promise to Noah and his descendants after the flood.  The Passover, as it was transformed into the Lord’s Supper, is a frequent reminder of the broken body and shed blood of our Redeemer.  Altars erected throughout Israel by the patriarchs and seasonal festivals like Tabernacles (yes, I know they’re part of the “old” covenant) were often a way of reminding future generations what God had done at that place or time.

Are these the only things in redemptive history we are permitted to celebrate? Do we need specific commands for each distinct event recorded in the Bible before we’re permitted to celebrate anew their occurrence and significance?  Such authorization would certainly be needed if we were talking about elements of worship.  But that’s not the issue here.  Similarly, is such a pattern of celebrating past events so inherently tied to the Old Testament that it ought to be jettisoned along with Levitical priests and animal sacrifices?  No, I don’t believe so.  This is not a worship issue so much as it is a cultural phenomenon common to people of all ages, a practice in which God delights to see us celebrating what He has done for us?

One way to answer that question is to realize that we are to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).  That means that we will preach about Noah in the ark, Moses in the bulrushes, David in the green pastures, and Daniel in the lion’s den, as well as Jesus in the manger, beside the Jordan, at the temple, on the cross, and on the throne.  I’ll preach about the angels appearing to Mary and then to the shepherds.  I’ll preach about the journey from Nazareth.  I’ll preach about the baby in Bethlehem.  I’ll preach about the gifts of the magi.  I’ll also preach about (and perhaps celebrate) Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost, because they’re all in the Bible.

If those who oppose any observance of Christmas are right, then I’m not permitted to preach about those events of Jesus’ nativity during the month of December.  That’s off limits.  Christmas in July … or in April … or in October … but never in December.  The same logic that says I’m not required to preach about Christ’s birth in December also says I’m free to preach about it in December, if I choose to.

And that’s exactly what I choose to do.  Not because it is an ordinance of the church.  That would amount to making man’s traditions and rules equivalent to Scripture, which we are forbidden to do.  But because I deem it a wise and helpful thing to do.  At the very time that so many people in our culture have their minds attuned to Christmas, I want to preach about it to take advantage of the fact that they’re already thinking about it.

You might respond that the thinking of many of these folks is not Christ-centered, but instead focused on reindeer, jolly elves, and sale catalogues at toy and computer stores (aren’t those last two the same?).  Tragically, many of these misdirected people are Christians whose attention is on the commercial aspects of the holiday.  Does that mean that I should not preach about Christ in those circumstances?  Just the opposite is true.  It seems to me that this is the ideal time to preach about the real Christ so as to correct their faulty thinking.

There are already plenty of reasons for non Christians to regard Christians as “weird.”  Central elements of the gospel are legitimate and necessary causes for stumbling to those whose hearts have not been revived.   But what will be the reactions of those outsiders when they hear that we refuse to celebrate the birth of the one we regard as God in the flesh, the birth that changed history, the birth that is the key to our sins being forgiven so that we might receive the gift of eternal life?  Though they won’t agree with us, they can understand why we observe the Sabbath, why we won’t watch some kinds of movies, why we won’t adopt deceitful business practices.  But can they understand why we won’t celebrate the birth of our blessed Savior?  Would this not be creating an unnecessary obstacle to reaching them?

(The next blog will consider reasons why some say we shouldn’t celebrate Christmas, and will also look at the ways we celebrate this sacred holiday.)

A new major motion picture for children opens tomorrow, December 7.  TV ads for “The Golden Compass” make it look like one of the most exciting fantasy adventures of our time.  The computer graphic animation and special effects are superb. The same company that produced Tolkien’s trilogy, “The Lord of the Rings,” has now brought this more recent trilogy to the big screen.  It bears a striking resemblance to C. S. Lewis’s Narnia tale, “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.”  Don’t be surprised to hear that children will have flocked to see it this weekend.

But not everyone realizes that the author, Philip Pullman, has written that he (his own word here) “loathes” Lewis’s writings.  And his track record proves that he also loathes C. S. Lewis’s God!  He said the Narnia fantasy is "one of the most ugly and poisonous things I ever read."  Pullman is one of a growing number of modern-day evangelists … evangelists for atheism, that is!  Catholic League president Bill Donohue describes the movie as militant “atheism for kids.”  Someone has said “this is The DaVinci Code for children.” 

All of the well-known Christian cultural analysts have issued strong warnings about it.  That includes Charles Colson (Breakpoint / Prison Fellowship), James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Donald Wildmon (American Family Association), and Al Mohler (Southern Baptist Seminary).  In fact, Mohler has a very well-balanced evaluation in which he encourages Christians not just to throw stones at the movie, but to engage those who see it by helping them to understand its destructive anti-Christian world-and-life-view.  (Check out Mohler’s commentary at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1065 )

On his commentary, Mohler urges parents to take heed to the warning flags that are being raised.

This is not just any fantasy trilogy or film project.  Philip Pullman has an agenda -- an agenda about as subtle as an army tank.  His agenda is nothing less than to expose what he believes is the tyranny of the Christian faith and the Christian church.  His hatred of the biblical storyline is clear.  He is an atheist whose most important literary project is intended to offer a moral narrative that will reverse the biblical account of the fall and provide a liberating mythology for a new secular age.

In other words, Pullman thinks that what the world needs most is to kill God and get rid of the church (which he calls the “Magisterium” in the novels).  His books (and now this movie) are indoctrination materials to enlist young minds in an army that can rid society of these twin religious evils.  He told an Australian newspaper that he is "saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry (Potter) has said.  My books are about killing God."

“The Golden Compass” is based on the first of three books in Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy.  The anti-theism (not merely a-theism) in the first book is relatively benign.  But in the second and third books (The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass), these themes become much more prominent.  It shouldn’t surprise parents that children who see the movie will want to read all three books.  And this is exactly what producers and promoters hope. 

As one Christian commentator has written (Tom Gilson, a staffer with Campus Crusade),

And they surely don’t want them to stop at the first book. The second book is entitled The Subtle Knife. That happens to be the name of the one weapon that can kill God. The third book tells us that God is relieved to be killed. He’s a rather pathetic character, tired of all the responsibility, “half-crazed with age and infirmity,” in SparkNotes’ words. He had been rather mixed up about things all along, though. The Satan figure in the trilogy was the one who brought freedom to humans. God—and the dominating, violent, fearful church—fought against this freedom. Pullman cheers for their downfall.

We included a two page bulletin insert about this movie here at Lake Osborne last Sunday morning.  I hope you read over its contents.  It offered a good summary of the plot, including some quotes that reveal the not-so-hidden theme, along with recommendations for how Christian parents should respond.  In case you missed it, here is Al Mohler’s very helpful description.

The entire premise of the trilogy is that Lyra is the child foretold by prophecy who will reverse the curse of the Fall and free humanity from the lie of original sin.  Whereas in Christian theology it is Jesus Christ who reverses the curse through His work of atonement on the Cross, Pullman presents his own theology of sorts in which the Fall is reversed through the defiance of these children.  As Pullman insists, Eve and Adam were right to eat the forbidden fruit and God was a tyrant to forbid them the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

The supernatural element of Pullman's story is "Dust," which is seen by the Magisterium as original sin but is presented by Pullman as the essence of life itself.  In The Golden Compass, Lyra is given an "alethiometer" or "golden compass" which is filled with Dust and tells the truth to one qualified to operate it.  Readers are told that a great battle is coming in which forces fighting for human freedom and happiness will confront (and destroy) the Magisterium and God.

In the last volume of the trilogy, a character known as Dr. Mary Malone explains her discovery to Lyra and Will:  "I used to be a nun, you see.  I thought physics could be done to the glory of God, till I saw there wasn't any God at all and that physics was more interesting anyway.  The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all."

Should you go see the movie or read the book to be able to effectively combat its heresies?  Probably not.  You don’t need to view or read pornography to be able to argue against it.  And the money you spend on the movie ticket or the book will only add fuel to those who will interpret those financial profits as qualifying it to be called a “blockbuster.”

Let’s make sure that we Christians are not only known for what we OPPOSE.  Let’s continue getting the message out there about what we PROPOSE.  The message of godless anti-theism is one that enslaves people in a hopeless life of meaningless pursuit of pleasure that ends at the grave.  Our message of Christian theism is the one message that sets people free from guilt and gives meaning for this life and for eternity.

Well, maybe he wasn’t.  But then maybe he was.  There are a number of very unique qualities about this man God used to give us the Gospel of Luke and also the book of Acts (which is really part 2 of his Gospel).  Luke was a physician … he told us about Jesus sweating great drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Luke was a highly educated man … his Greek is of a very high literary quality, both in grammar and in vocabulary.  Luke was a careful researcher when it came to history … he interviewed eyewitnesses and accurately identified locations and the titles of government officials.  Luke was a missionary … notice in Acts when the description of Paul’s journeys shifts from “they” to “we.”

But I can’t help but wonder if he wasn’t also a musician.  He is the only one of the four Gospel writers who chose to record the four “nativity carols” sung to celebrate Jesus’ birth.  These Scriptural texts have been set to music many times by some of the greatest composers in the history of sacred music.  They bear the titles of the opening line in the Latin translation. 

There is young Mary’s “Magnificat” (Luke 1:46-55), when she rejoiced in spontaneous song when visiting with Elizabeth, the mother-to-be of John the Baptist. There is Zechariah’s “Benedictus” (Luke 1:68-79), when he was finally able to speak again at the circumcision of his and Elizabeth’s “miracle baby” after nine months of his tongue being silenced for his unbelief.  There is the angels’ “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” (Luke 2: 14), when the sky over the Bethlehem shepherds exploded in heavenly celebration.  And there is aged Simeon’s “Nunc Dimittis” (Luke 2:29-32), when this godly, praying saint was privileged to see the infant Messiah in the temple and gave thanks that he was now ready to die in peace since he could never see anything more wonderful than what he was gazing on at that moment!

Perhaps this is one reason the church has always had a wonderful treasury of Advent and Christmas carols and hymns.  In the Trinity Hymnal, the editor ( J ! ) has included forty one of the best!  They come from countries all around the world, and from all ages of hymnody.  Here are just a few examples, some going back as far as the 4^th century!

   Spain – Of the Father’s Love Begotten

   Latin empire – O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

   England – What Child Is This?

   Austria – Silent Night!  Holy Night!

   America – O Little Town of Bethlehem

   France – Angels We Have Heard on High

   Poland – Infant Holy, Infant Lowly

   Germany – From Heaven High I Come to You

The church has always loved to sing about the Savior’s birth.  Maybe we learned it from Luke!