Is Christmas a "Children's Story" or Serious History?

“It’s Santa!” shouts the screaming chorus of kids as a jolly Saint Nick enters the store. Granted, my own children love Santa. And Rudolph. And Frosty the Snowman. Whenever my children see Santa roving through the mall or at a store, their faces beam with excitement, and when I ask what Christmas show they want to watch, “Frosty the Snowman” comes out quickly. In addition to these classic Christmas characters, my wife and I also read a few pages every few evenings of that timeless novella A Christmas Carol, by Charles Dickens (its actual title is Christmas Carol in Prose Being: A Ghost Story of Christmas; I prefer the former for whatever it’s worth). It continually stands as a wonderful story with a great reminder that “giving is better than receiving” (my summary of Acts 20:35). Ergo, no wonder so many children have incredible and nostalgic memories surrounding the Christmas season thanks to these stories and so many more. 

But why do so many, now as adults, also hear the Christmas story, and they seem to cast it to the wayside of how they live their lives? In other words, have we Christians made the Christmas narrative just another “children’s story” that sends us back to times of yesteryear because it sounds “warm and fuzzy” and makes us think of when we played a shepherd, angel, or wiseman for the church Christmas program? How is it that thousands of people who rarely go to church show up for a Christmas service, hear the nativity story, and don’t darken the door until Easter or the next Christmas? Or why can Christians faithful in their church attendance leave a Christmas program and focus mostly on the music and how many people showed up? Though I certainly don’t know everyone’s reasons, I’d like to share one point, especially to myself, on why this may be the case: we Christians may not be presenting the Christmas narrative as serious history written by a serious historian.

Specifically, let’s quickly examine the context of Luke 1 to better understand the well-known Christmas event of Luke 2. First, Luke, the author of the Gospel bearing his name, was a physician (Colossians 4:14), Consequently, we can assume that he took details seriously (would you want a physician who prescribed the wrong medication to you or asked, “Which leg am I doing surgery on again? Ah, forget it. It doesn’t matter”). But we don’t have to assume that as these other points should prove my assertion.

Second, Luke makes it clear that everything in His Gospel came from other historians who wanted to preserve the Christian faith and witness. In 1:1, Luke states, “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us” (King James Version). Note that Luke is pulling accounts from numerous historians (“as many have taken in hand”) to display what Christian adults believe (“which are most surely believed among us”). Therefore, Luke is not setting up His Gospel to be read as a fairytale but rather as history that serious-minded people believe. 

Third, Luke makes clear that people who had a peripheral or third-person knowledge about Christ’s life did not author these accounts. Rather, these historians directly witnessed what Luke shares. In 1:2, he says, “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word” (emphasis mine). Luke continues to establish his case for the historicity of Christianity by basing his assertions on people who saw what occurred. Fairytales don’t operate that way. They stem from incredible imaginations. We don’t know if Luke was creative, and, frankly, it doesn’t matter. He just says that his narrative comes from what people saw. 

Fourth, Luke puts together these eye-witness accounts in an orderly manner so that his readers can follow a clear plotline about Christ’s life. He declares in 1:3, “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.” This verse reveals Luke’s seriousness about the life of Jesus and telling it in a way that represents Christ’s life fairly. In essence, how Luke tells this story matters because the details of the events hold significance. Thus, we sense again Luke’s aim at being a trustworthy and proficient historian who accurately recalls reality. 

Fifth, Luke wants his historical account to strengthen the religious faith of others. He says in 1:4, “That thou (referring to Theophilus mentioned in v. 3) mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” Theophilus’ faith, like ours, depends on the historical facts concerning Christ’s life. The virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, His death and resurrection - all of these are historical statements which Luke claims to be fact. Juxtapose Luke’s approach to a fairytale. Who in their right mind would claim for their religious beliefs to emanate from a “pie-in-the-sky” plot that they fully knew was made up? I don’t think many people. So it is that Luke understands that the faith of Theophilus, in addition to the millions of Christians coming after him, rely on the truthful, historical recounting of the Gospel narratives such as his. 

Last, Luke words his Gospel account to highlight historical circumstances. For example, in 1:5 he talks about the historical persons Herod and Zacharias and in 2:1-2 mentions Caesar Augustus and Cyrenius. Again, this wording reemphasizes Luke’s desire to show the historicity of his account by relating dates of historical figures to what is occurring in Christ’s life. 

Consequently, based on these preceding six points, we as Christians should approach the Christmas narrative as one of strong, serious history rather than another Christmas “children’s story.” But you may ask, “How does this approach of ‘serious history’ affect our daily lives, especially in the Christmas season?” Fair question. I encourage all of us to make clear to our children that Christmas has many wonderful, fictional stories we can appreciate and admire, but we must emphasize that the birth of Christ is a very real, historical event that changes all human history. 

Second, we should be careful how lightly we may present this historical fact. Am I saying get rid of the children’s Christmas program? No. But could we present the story more seriously? I think so. But regardless of somebody’s take on this second point, if we aren’t making it clear that this event actually happened and our presentation fails to reflect this factual occurrence, then we are doing an injustice to Luke’s serious pursuit of writing history.

 Last, with a gracious and loving spirit, we should challenge those who view the Christmas story as another fairytale. Share with them that Luke was a serious historian who made it very clear he’s not writing to people who could care less about what really occurred. Point out that Christians should handle truth, research, and reality with utmost care and concern. And knowing history makes all the difference: God the Son really did come as a human being, live a perfect life, die on the cross for our sins, was buried, and rose again from the grave three days later. And those are historical facts you can base your eternal destiny on.