Dec25mass?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
It is pointed out to those who wish to avoid using the word Christmas, that XMAS does not suffice as a replacement since the x in Greek is supposedly short for Christ. I don't know if that is the origin or not of the xmas shorthand. As I recently posted, I'm not overly scrupulous about using Christmas and used xmas a lot in the past; we are to speak so as to be understood and Scripture gives us some leeway as James Durham points out, which I also recently remarked on and have posted on in the past. However, note his qualification at the end. Maybe Dec25mass will suffice instead of xmas if one wants to avoid the term?
"II. For the second, seeing it gets this name to be called the Lord’s day, it may be questioned here concerning our manner of speaking of days, calling the Lord’s Day Sunday, the next day after it Monday, etc., which has the first rise from superstition, if not from idolatry, some of them being attributed to planets, as Sunday and Monday; some of them to idols, as Thursday, etc. But to speak to the thing itself, look to the primitive times, we will find Sunday called the Lord’s Day, and the days of the week by the first, second, third, etc. But the names of days, being like the names of places and months, folks must speak of them as they are in use, and scripture warrants us so to do. Acts 17:22, Paul is said to stand in the midst of Mars hill. Acts 28:11 speaks of a ship, whose sign was Castor and Pollux. So, March, January, July and August, are from the idols Mars and Janus, or derived from men that appropriate more than ordinary to themselves. And though it was ordinary to Christians in the primitive times to call this day the Lord’s day among themselves, yet when they had dealing with the Jews, they called it the Sabbath, and when they had dealing with the heathen, they called it the Sunday. And so, though it be best to speak of days as scripture names them, yet it is agreeable with scripture to design or denominate them as they are in use among a people, especially where no superstitious use is in naming of them." James Durham, Commentary on Rev. 1:10.
 
Last edited:
It is pointed out to those who wish to avoid using the word Christmas, that does not suffice as a replacement since the x in Greek is supposedly short for Christ. I don't know if that is the origin or not of the xmas shorthand. As I recently posted, I'm not overly scrupulous about using Christmas and used xmas a lot in the past; we are to speak so as to be understood and Scripture gives us some leeway as James Durham points out, which I also recently remarked on and have posted on in the past. However, note his qualification at the end. will suffice instead of xmas if one wants to avoid the term?
"II. For the second, seeing it gets this name to be called the Lord’s day, it may be questioned here concerning our manner of speaking of days, calling the Lord’s Day Sunday, the next day after it Monday, etc., which has the first rise from superstition, if not from idolatry, some of them being attributed to planets, as Sunday and Monday; some of them to idols, as Thursday, etc. But to speak to the thing itself, look to the primitive times, we will find Sunday called the Lord’s Day, and the days of the week by the first, second, third, etc. But the names of days, being like the names of places and months, folks must speak of them as they are in use, and scripture warrants us so to do. Acts 17:22, Paul is said to stand in the midst of Mars hill. Acts 28:11 speaks of a ship, whose sign was Castor and Pollux. So, March, January, July and August, are from the idols Mars and Janus, or derived from men that appropriate more than ordinary to themselves. And though it was ordinary to Christians in the primitive times to call this day the Lord’s day among themselves, yet when they had dealing with the Jews, they called it the Sabbath, and when they had dealing with the heathen, they called it the Sunday. And so, though it be best to speak of days as scripture names them, yet it is agreeable with scripture to design or denominate them as they are in use among a people, especially where no superstitious use is in naming of them." James Durham, Commentary on Rev. 1:10.
I would generally agree with Durham, but I think the issue for many is the use of Christ's name in "Christmas" in light of the 3rd Comm. I don't believe the other examples (names of days and months based on idols) are in the same category.
 
I am more or less in agreement with Andrew, but am open minded, I may ask my Session as well. The difference between the above is syncretism vs. plain paganism. As an example, when people say they are observing "Christmas" they are employing the name of Christ in their celebration, which is 1) unfounded on the word of God and RPW; 2) they have literally zero thoughts or mention of Christ, and how then is it not a 3CV?

But again, I am open to other thoughts from those of the same/similar persuasions.

Edit: I had those outside the church in mind for point 2), which I forgot to mention.
 
Even John Knox used the word Christmas in his letters as a time marker (something like "I'll be there by"). I guess you both are more scrupulous than he was. ;)
 
Maybe ;)

I'm open to argumentation otherwise, but my conscience must be convinced logically. I even err on the side of not disagreeing with my forefathers in the faith, to prevent chronological snobbery; but helpers of our faith ought not be necessarily lords of our conscience.
 
Maybe ;)

I'm open to argumentation otherwise, but my conscience must be convinced logically. I even err on the side of not disagreeing with my forefathers in the faith, to prevent chronological snobbery; but helpers of our faith ought not be necessarily lords of our conscience.
Gillespie also uses the term several times in his Dispute against the ceremonies; even Roy Middleton uses the term in his 1993 historical introduction (FPCoS man!). Again, these are writing to be understood in letters or in polemics. The Scottish First Book of Discipline uses it in naming the "fond feasts of our lady" to be rejected. It would be another use which may not escape Durham's qualification in the common banter around this time. I generally try to avoid it; never use it as a greeting; but I think we can be overscrupulous and even silly if in a polemical piece against Christmas one uses xmas or "that which shall not be named," etc. But I've suggested Dec25mass. Someone else suggested Antichristmas, which works, I suppose, if in constant iconoclast mode.
 
Gillespie also uses the term several times in his Dispute against the ceremonies; even Roy Middleton uses the term in his 1993 historical introduction (FPCoS man!). Again, these are writing to be understood in letters or in polemics. The Scottish First Book of Discipline uses it in naming the "fond feasts of our lady" to be rejected. It would be another use which may not escape Durham's qualification in the common banter around this time. I generally try to avoid it; never use it as a greeting; but I think we can be overscrupulous and even silly if in a polemical piece against Christmas one uses xmas or "that which shall not be named," etc. But I've suggested Dec25mass. Someone else suggested Antichristmas, which works, I suppose, if in constant iconoclast mode.
Would you perchance give your opinion on point 2) (and it's subsequent edit) in post #3? That's my main reservation. I could see it somehow in a sense as a time marker from necessity, but I sense inconsistency in my position.
 
Would you perchance give your opinion on point 2) (and it's subsequent edit) in post #3? That's my main reservation. I could see it somehow in a sense as a time marker from necessity, but I sense inconsistency in my position.
I don't know. Do we stop using Christian when it clearly covers a broader category than orthodox believers and is misused? Again, I'm really not talking about unrestrained use by believer or unbeliever, but, as said, speaking so as to be understood. If the term cannot be used ever, at all, without culpability, then one of our founding Presbyterian documents is tainted. So for me I think it is reasonable to avoid common banter use but a blanket prohibition even to polemics and historical writing seems extreme.
 
I don't know. Do we stop using Christian when it clearly covers a broader category than orthodox believers and is misused? Again, I'm really not talking about unrestrained use by believer or unbeliever, but, as said, speaking so as to be understood. If the term cannot be used ever, at all, without culpability, then one of our founding Presbyterian documents is tainted. So for me I think it is reasonable to avoid common banter use but a blanket prohibition even to polemics and historical writing seems extreme.
I appreciate the honesty with your answer. Christian, is a biblical term, of which the scriptures say we ought not be ashamed to suffer as one; whereas "Christmas" isn't (as we are all aware).

I think you are correct, insofar as discussing a time markers and controversial polemics go, at least out of necessity of cogent discussion. I'm still not really sure what to make of unbelievers celebrating "Christmas", a "holiday" that has the name of Christ in it, and yet all the while is a very self-centered day. They take the name of Christ upon their lips, and yet their hearts are far from him. There it is, in the very prefix of its moniker, and yet Christ is not in all their thoughts. I'm not sure how that's anything other than a 3CV?

Either there is inconsistency in my position, or the discussion is more nuanced than black and white. I will confess I'm not sure where I stand, and I will have to consider it more. Thanks for your input
 
I think it is reasonable to avoid common banter use but a blanket prohibition even to polemics and historical writing seems extreme.
This is where I am at. I don't use it verbally (with students it has always been innocuous enough to simply refer to an upcoming "Winter Break"). I will use it when quoting others. When people say "Merry Christmas" to me, I usually say "Happy New Year." In writing to fellow believers, I prefer to use "Christ-mass" in order to give them pause to consider, especially with the "keep-Christ-in-Christmas" follk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top