If You Don’t Like Christmas Don’t Celebrate It

Now that its nearly Christmas its time for the annual self-righteous bashing of the way we celebrate Christ’s birth in December rather than His actual birthdate. A friend sent me this article via email and it made my stomach turn.

When this subject is broached, many Protestants and Catholics become quite emotional, often becoming firmly entrenched concerning the December 25 date in spite of the facts. Many simply enjoy the season and feel that the actual day of Christ’s birth is irrelevant. Biblical and historical scholars are equally divided over this question as well. Christmas, however, is founded on the premise that Jesus was born on December 25, and a person who is truly striving to follow the Bible will see that the celebration of Christmas is based upon falsehood.

The author is right in that many feel the actual birth date of Christ is irrelevant. Or more correctly put, relevant but our faith doesn’t hinge on the actual date. The author is completely wrong when he says the celebration of Christmas is based on a falsehood. The article goes on with a well researched argument as to why the December 25th date is actually not Christ’s real birth date, and I’ll leave that to my readers to look at.

Why is it important that we know when Jesus was born? We certainly do not use this knowledge to celebrate His birthday—He tells us to commemorate His death, not His birth (I Corinthians 11:23-26). The true date, however, destroys the entire foundation of the Christmas holiday. It also points to the proper time of His ministry, crucifixion and resurrection, helping to disprove the Good Friday—Easter Sunday tradition also. Lastly, and maybe most importantly, it renews our faithin God’s Word—that it is true, verifiable and historically accurate.

Here is the point the author is missing: almost everyone already knows all of this. We don’t care. The “true date” doesn’t destroy any foundation of Christmas, because regardless of when Jesus was born, December 25h is when we celebrate the holiday. Period. Its no more disrespectful or detrimental to the Christian faith than my celebrating my son’s birthday on the Saturday before the Tuesday he was actually born. I’m also insulted at the ridiculous notion that we’re not to celebrate Christ’s birth. While I agree His death and resurrection are far more crucial and should be celebrated far more than what they are, to simply write off His birth as something we shouldn’t celebrate is just flat out stupid. At Christmas we decorate trees with our families and buy gifts for our loved one’s in Christ’s name while celebrating His birth and that is something that doesn’t get diminished in God’s eyes by one date or the other. While its true that church leaders backin the day decided to celebrate Christmas in December on the 25th to answer many pagan rituals that transpired during that time and to bring happiness to an otherwise depressing season, those goals aren’t exactly “heathen” and if Christ’s birth is so irrelevant as the author claims than it shouldn’t matter that we hang holly and buy presents on the 25th or any other day. While secular society has indeed commercialised Christmas into the biggest holiday event of the year its not up to the author or any other man to decide for themselves that Christmas should not be celebrated in the winter. To place such theological importance on this is so mind-bogglingly fruitless its no wonder atheism has gone up a few percentage points.

Love: The Evidence Of A Creation

Ravi Zacharias once said (probably more than once) that every human goes through 4 struggles: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Or, as I like to say, “where am I from, why am I here, what do I do now, and where am I going?” Not one human being in history has not thought about, and struggled with, all 4 of those questions. No matter how intellectually proficient we may be, no matter what our faith system or lack thereof, we’ve all struggled with those questions and concepts. Its a fact of human nature. One might say the very fact we struggle with those questions is evidence enough that we’re not simply formed from random chance. Only a Creator could adequately explain all 4 of those struggles.

So we look at love. The Bible explains it like this:

⁴ Love ^(A)is patient, love is kind and ^(B)is not jealous; love does not brag and is not ^(C)arrogant, ⁵ does not act unbecomingly; it ^(D)does not seek its own, is not provoked, ^(E)does not take into account a wrong suffered, ^{6 (F)}does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but ^(G)rejoices with the truth; ^{7 [a](H)}bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

What’s funny is that people from all faiths and no faiths love to use this verse in their wedding ceremonies, yet the divorce rate is over 50%. But when a human actually looks at this description of love and he/she are honest with themselves, they’ll see that what is being described is entirely beyond our human nature. While atheists like to point to an inherited sense of obligation humans have toward one another in a tribal sense, the above definition of love doesn’t even enter the equation. Even in marriage, where this verse is used and abused over and over again in ceremonies, love only goes so far. Everyone has a line that once its crossed, they end the marriage. This is the exact opposite of how God intended marriage to be however. The Bible repeatedly even refers to the relationship between Jesus and His Church as a “marriage”. Have we humans not repeatedly crossed the line? Yet does God “divorce” us? Just the opposite.

So why is it that in society today, love is seen as some emotion? You hear it all the time, its about feelings, warm fuzzy feelings. Problem is, no matter how “in love” with someone you may feel at the time, those feelings are here one day and gone the next. Then what? Love is a choice. We have to choose to make a conscious decision to love someone in the way being described here. Its the only way love makes sense. If we simply adhere to our human nature every time, those “feelings”, that’s how you get a divorce rate over 50%. That is how you get broken relationship after broken relationship, because every relationship is based on how someone feels at the time. That isn’t love, that is pure selfishness. Yet love exists. In an amoral, meaningless universe formed from a random event of time, matter, and chance, love has no place and cannot exist. But in a Creation, where beings were formed with a design, a purpose, and are born with longing for meaning, worth, and acceptance, love not only makes sense, but its required.

Richard Dawkins: This Is The Best He Can Do?

Well most Christian apologists would not want to put anything by Richard Dawkins into the limelight, but I happen to think his arguments against the existence of God to be so infantile that their exposure only help my cause of sharing the Gospel. Its not that Richard Dawkins is stupid. The man has written lots of books on science and has a great mind for the subject. Where he goes wrong is where he attempts to use science as some reason to excuse God from any rational discussion of origins, an idea so absurd its hard to comprehend why so many people have been swayed by such an idea.

Here is a video, a piece of an interesting debate between Dawkins and Alister McGrath which is a prime example. Dawkins throughout many of his lectures and books likes to make the claim that God would “have to be infinitely more complex”, and likes to make the claim that its mere chance and geography that people woship God. Fact is, as Alister points out, God by definition is not someone or something that would reside within the natural order. Science is the study of the natural order. So pointing out scientific issues in regards to God’s existence is simply a waste of time. If God exists, the Creator, than He created the natural order. Its laughable that intellectual atheists, in an attempt to disprove the supernatural, use laws within the natural order to make their claim. Hello? If there was concrete, natural, physical evidence, like say, a satellite photograph of God in Heaven, than He would cease to be supernatural. The idea of using finite human logic and applying it to a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eteranal being is even more laughable. “God would have to be….” is the worst and most illogical start of a sentence one can utter in a discussion of God.

One thing Dawkins is right about, is the fallacy in believing in God simply because there is no better explanation. Dawkins rightly concedes that science has no answer in regard to origins, it can never have that answer, but that its no reason to believe in the Christian God over any other theory. He’s correct. But Christianity isn’t rooted in a desperate “I need answers” state but rather is backed by the common sense in looking at the world and seeing a design, a document with 66 books written by over 40 authors spanning thousands of years in perfect coherency, etc. Not all of which is concrete evidence proving the faith but it is concrete evidence that the “God Delusion” as Dawkins puts it has more to do with intellect and human spirit than it does desperation. If anything, the fact that over 90% of the world believes in some sort of Creator puts guys like Dawkins in an elite minority. How Dawkins’ arguments against the existence of God and others like it are considered so intelligent is beyond me.

Examining The Doctrine Of Eternal Security

One of the biggest divides in the Protestant Church is the issue of eternal security, or “once saved always saved”. Denominations are split into two categories, labeled Calvinists (after John Calvin) or Arminians (after Jacob Arminius), the former ascribing to eternal security and the latter just the opposite.

Scripture is replete with wisdom that would seem to support both sides. Problem is, both can’t be correct about such a doctrine.  I’m not a Calvinist by any means, but the idea that one can reject Christ later after accepting Him and experience the complete and total transformation that takes place as a result is simply fallacious in my view. God says He predestines those He foreknew to be conformed to His image. (Romans 8:29) Now its common for the Arminians to say “when the Bible says “elect”,  it really means that God elects those whom He has seen will at some point accept Christ.” Problem: that is the exact opposite of election, and reduces God to being a fortune teller rather than an almighty Creator of all. The reason people lean that way though is clear: in the humanistic sense, this type of salvation is terribley unfair. How is it fair to predetermine someone be saved and not someone else through no merit of their own? How is it fair to reward someone who has lived in depravity all of his/her life and then grant them salvation with a mere death bed conversion?

Well that is the human condition. Even those who devoutly believe in God, we still compare His character, actions, and His written instruction with humanistic ideas of morality and fairness. But the fact is, its not fair Jesus die and pay the penalty for everyone’s sins, while He Himself was blameless. Another fact is that God is the highest principle, to say predestination is unfair would imply there is a principle higher than He that He must ascribe to and there isn’t one. What He says, literally is. Humans, no matter what their walk with Christ, will always have their own standard by which to judge God, rather than let God judge their standard according to His will. Truth is truth, regardless if it makes us uncomfortable or not. This is a vast simplification of the entire debate however.

This Is Why Public School Sucks

This story makes me laugh and and yet fills the heart with dread for where our education system has taken this society. A couple in New Hampshire removed their child from the local high school because the required reading material happened to be a book written by socialist hag Barbara Ehrenreich. The book is basically liberal propaganda that the minimum wage should be higher in all 50 states based on antecdotal evidence and obscene disgust for anything that resembles fair.

Bedford High School recently assigned a book to its students entitled Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, a book that refers to Jesus Christ as a “wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist.” Fox News reports, “The book is a first-person account of author Barbara Ehrenreich’s attempts to make ends meet while working minimum wage jobs in Florida, Maine, and Minnesota. But in addition to taking aim at the American Dream, and arguing for a higher minimum wage, Taylor says Ehrenreich also takes aim at Christians and other groups in the book and uses foul language.”

Very nice how we have another liberal lunatic mocking anything and anyone that resembles Christianity, and its equally hilarious how she refers to Jesus as a socialist in the same book that advocates socialism. Good one Barbara. You just gave your “poor me” stories and your book loads of credibility with that one (note the sarcasm). So not only does she write a book that attempts to validate a policy based on nothing more than her own experience that tramples all over the Constitution but she mocks Jesus at the same time. Of course its fashionable for atheist liberals to either mock Jesus because His teachings don’t coincide with their ideology, or use His teachings to somehow validate their ideology. That’s the downfall of a living, Holy Bible: it will get abused, not used. Here is an excerpt from the book that the story printed:

It would be nice if someone would read this sad-eyed crowd the Sermon on the Mount, accompanied by a rousing commentary on income inequality and the need for a hike in the minimum wage. But Jesus makes his appearance here only as a corpse; the living man, the wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist, is never once mentioned, nor anything he ever had to say. Christ crucified rules, and it may be that the true business of modern Christianity is to crucify him again and again so that he can never get a word out of his mouth.

Absolutely classic. First of all, we live in a capitalist society Barbara, so “income inequality” is not the job of the U.S. government. Second of all, demanding an employer who put in the time, effort, work, to pay what the U.S. government thinks is fair, is not exactly a moralist position. One could easily argue, and I will, that it is the personal responsibility of each of us in America to provide for ourselves, even if it means working 3 jobs. As an employer, I’m paying what the job is worth, not what someone tells me they can live off of. Not to mention John Stossel has profiled volunteers living on minimum wage and with the right decisions, they did just fine. But these days, liberals expect everyone of all income classes to be able to have the same cars, the same satellites, the same healthcare, and the same retirement as those who busted their ass since their first day of high school putting themselves into position to have those things without government assistance. But its typical that liberals like Barabar would bash Jesus for not advocating a higher wage with divine assistence. I won’t even get in to the absurdity in her remarks about Jesus, or point out the fact that she’s claiming we need a wage increase, while WRITING A BOOK about how rough it was for her trying to make ends meet. Guess what Barbara? You must have made them meet because here you are, living the American Dream and getting fat off of your profits. I’d say think before setting pen to paper but apparently you can make money either way so what do I know?

Be that as it may, this is another example of our broken public education system, mainly because its controlled by the U.S. government.

 

No Credit For Humanity

Being secure in one’s salvation is crucial to walking in faith with Christ. This isn’t to say that those who don’t believe in the doctrine of eternal security are somehow less Christian, as both Jacob Arminius and John Calvin are two of the greatest theologians in history and both have faith in redemption through Christ that I don’t think could be questioned.

While both viewpoints are able to find what could be interpreted as Biblical support, I find its crucial to take the Bible for what it says:

Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. -2 Corinthians 5:17

How can I have the power to uncreate myself? If I’ve truly been saved, and felt that redeeming miracle through Christ, how could I possibly undo such a miracle? Can I unmake the ocean? Can I undo a birth? Not kill a human being, but literally undo it? Of course not.

Its not that we love God, but that He loves us. Its not that we chose God, its that He chose us. 1John 4:10 says it all. We get no credit as a totally morally depraved species. We cannot be saved through action of our own, nor can we be holy through action of our own. It is our human nature that even as Christians, we desire to control. Complete and arbitrary rule of God sounds good in a sermon, but humanity is still uncomfortable, even those of us who have experienced salvation, with the notion that God in His sovereign rule decides if we’re saved, not us.

The Weeping Of Jesus

At my Monday night group we talked a lot about relational evangelism and the tough questions most agnostics ask to confront us on the loving kindness of God. A perception that is common amongst non-believers is that a loving God would take away all pain of His followers, and that those who profess to worship Him spend our lives in a painless bubble. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider this one verse:

“Jesus wept”. (John 11:35 NKJV)

Its the shortest verse in the entire Bible, and yet easily one of the most profound. One thing in my personal walk with Christ that surprises is the amount of emotional pain involved in being His disciple. The authentic Christian (that isn’t to say perfect, but real) feels a grief for people he/she never knew they were capable of. The fact that the Son Of God in human form wept over one human being puts the entire act of salvation into perspective, considering that on one hand He wept for one individual He died and felt an infinitely greater amount of pain for the entire world. Further, when its considered that the vast majority of humanity will reject this act…well, it puts the Lord’s own emotional capacity into perspective. We were, after all, created in His own image. But if we truly profess to love Christ, and in so profess to love other people, the only logical conclusion is that we are going to feel a greater emotional pain. Our world has just now been extended from merely family and close friends to basically any who don’t know Christ. People we may not have any reason to even acknowledge in our previous Christless life are now at the top of our priority list. Such grief! But at the same time, what joy in serving our Lord!

But the key in considering all the above is that in relational evangelism, its important to express to the non-believer that we are more than capable of empathizing, that we were once at the point they are in now, that we too were sinners in need of a Savior.

Secular Humanism: A Question of Morality

I’ve met many atheist/agnostics who would roll their eyes at the idea among Christians that not believing in God results in immorality. I would have to agree. Atheists or agnostics may not interpret moral behavior based on God’s will, but they are certainly capable of living in a moral fashion and more often than not, they do. My question however, is what point is moral behavior in an amoral universe? I’ve discussed this at length in previous posts, that morality, even in terms of being a meaningless mechanism of coexistence, makes no sense in an amoral universe. First, the humanist would have to point out why coexistence is moral. Otherwise, having a code to help coexist is pretty meaningless in and of itself. Life would have to be a moral issue to begin with, otherwise protecting that life serves no ultimate purpose.

Further, what exactly is the ultimate goal? What is “progress”? Secular humanism is a philosophy that basically makes the progression of the human race the center of its discipline so this question is rather paramount. What is “progress”? What is “productive?” Both imply that the human race is headed somewhere. My question: where?

Getting Drunk: Not Cool, Just Dead

I’m not against drinking alcohol. While I don’t do it myself for personal reasons, mainly because alcoholism is so prevalent in my family, I don’t ascribe to the notion that drinking in itself is a sin. Getting drunk however, most certainly is. But the real issue I have with this is that not getting drunk, especially as a teenager, really doesn’t even need a preacher with a Bible to show justification. This is one of those Biblical concepts that has literally billions of real life examples, like this one here:

The tragic death of a teenage girl from alcohol poisoning led to a prison sentence Monday.Everyone involved in the case said the one-year sentence was less important than the message sent by the death of 15-year-old Makamae Au Mook Sang last July. She died of acute alcohol intoxication after playing a drinking party with hard liquor. She went with friends to a party hosted by Michael Clark, 25, at his parents’ house in Hawaii Kai.

Now I’m not here to beat up Michael, whose tolerance and enablement of underage drinking led to this girl’s death. (though he needs it and a one year sentence, for the record, is a joke) There was a time when getting drunk and getting high, doing dirt was cool and rebellious. Not anymore. If you don’t do these things as a teen you’re just abnormal. But for all the young teens out there: you’re not cool. You’re not being a rebel. You’re not being a non-conformist. You are not “just blowing off steam”.  Getting drunk and puking everywhere, doing things and saying thinks you don’t remember but regret the next day, doesn’t make you feel good. You can lie to yourself all you want, but when drunkenness is so common (and it is) among teens in high school, its ceased to be rebellous. You are not standing out. You may have found acceptance among other drunks, but it only takes the slightest twist to end up like this poor girl. She’s not cool. She’s not “down”. She’s just dead.

Shout Out To The Ladies

Ladies, if you’ve never read the passage Luke 7:36-50, then do so because you’re in for a real treat. Of course this passage is meaningful for everyone. But each Gospel is unique, even the three Synoptics, who are labeled that way due to their similarities. Luke was unique in that it placed special emphasis on Jesus’ ministry to the “unwanteds”, slaves, sinners, poor, helpless, and women.

Here we have a story of a woman, a sinner, who just knows there’s something to this Jesus and washed his feet with her tears. Is there any act more humble, more meek, more symbolic? Here’s Jesus, eating at a prominant Pharisee’s house, a place where a sinner like her wouldn’t dare even look at, and she barges in, interrupts the whole meal, and performs one of the most tender acts anyone did for the Son of God while He walked in the flesh. The Pharisee’s reaction:

“Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.” (Luke 7:39 NASB)

Its worth noting that the consensus among most who read this passage is that she was some sort of prosititute, but that is never even implied nor made clear in any actual translation. But suffice to say, this chick was obviously bad news. But Jesus, being the stud He is, saw the love, repentence, and humbleness that would probably have to be pushed out of this Pharisee with a flaming hot poker.

“A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. “You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. “You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. “For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” (Luke 7:41-47)

Yup, that’s our Jesus. But here is the coolest part ladies. Wait for it….

Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” (Luke 7:48)

Just like that. A woman who was obviously the lowest of the low, guilty of sins we’ll never know, but obviously great and numerous enough to be considered untouchable, now after only a few moments of love and kindness toward Jesus with a repented heart, she walks out of there with a clean slate. A new woman. She at that moment grew as close to God in Heaven as any Pharisee could ever hope to get, without money, promises, or stature. Just love and repentence.

Now again, this passage applies to everyone. But women hold a special place in God’s great scheme. Whether your shacked up with a boyfriend, drinking, using drugs, on your way to an abortion clinic, or just coming back from one….whether or not your sins seem great or small, Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, Savior, Messiah, and all in all The Man, will never deny you forgiveness. He’ll always be there to pick you up, show you who you really are in His eyes. Let Him do it. Dump your sins, your guilt, your stature, your worry, your fears all at His feet. No matter how insignificant you may feel, trust me, you won’t feel that way for long. “Your sins are forgiven” aren’t just reserved for special parables to prove a point. Jesus wants to utter them, He wants to make it happen. No matter where you’re at in life, where you think you fit, do like this woman and search Him out. Let no one stop you, ignore the remarks, ignore the hate. Its a drop in the bucket to what you’ll feel when you hear those words “Your sins are forgiven”.