Responding to “Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?” by Charles Halff – Part 1

I recently read an article by Charles Halff entitled “Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?” In it, the author argues that Christmas is an unbiblical, pagan celebration that Christians should not participate in. While there is much here that we as Christians need to thoughtfully and prayerfully consider and Mr. Halff should be commended for raising the issues, there are also a number of points with which I must disagree. I will attempt to address each of these over the next several posts.

Mr. Halff’s first argument against celebrating Christmas is that it is not a biblical doctrine: “If our blessed Lord had wanted us to celebrate His birthday, He would have told us when to celebrate it and how to celebrate it.” In support of this assertion he notes that there are only two birthdays mentioned in Scripture, both of which are associated with murder. He concludes that God did this purposely to show that He "has no pleasure in birthday celebrations or anniversaries."

It should be noted that there is a third possible mention of birthdays in Job 1:4. If this is in fact a birthday, then it clearly is not associated with murder, which would completely derail this argument. But since it is open to dispute, I will give Mr. Halff the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Nevertheless, to say that Pharaoh's birthday in Genesis 40:20-22 is associated with murder is itself a bit of a stretch. The fact is, the text does not say explicitly why Pharaoh had his baker killed. The best explanation is that there had been an assassination attempt since both the baker and the cupbearer were imprisoned together and these would have been the two chiefly responsible for Pharaoh's meals. If someone had tried to poison Pharaoh, these two would be among the first to be suspected. It may be that both were incarcerated while an investigation took place. Then, as foretold by the two men's dreams, the baker was implicated in the plot and the cupbearer exonerated. Admittedly this is speculation, but it is the explanation that best fits all the facts. Romans 13:4 had not been written yet, of course, but it was true even then and indicates that it was well within Pharaoh's God-given responsibility to execute a criminal.

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that my explanation of Pharaoh's birthday is wrong and Mr. Halff's is correct, Mr. Halff's conclusion is still on shaky ground. It cannot be assumed that because something is presented in a negative light in a narrative passage that God is prohibiting it. There are at least hundreds, if not thousands, of very clear, explicit prohibitions throughout Scripture. God could very easily have said, "Thou shalt not celebrate birthdays", but He did not. The celebrating of birthdays is not the point in Genesis 40 nor in the accounts of Herod's birthday recorded in Matthew 14 and Mark 6.

To illustrate, if I were to employ this line of reasoning with other narrative passages I might conclude that it is wrong for a Christian to be a bank teller because the only time that money changing is mentioned in the Bible is when Jesus throws them out of the temple. Similarly, the only time that bathing is ever mentioned in the Bible it leads directly to David's and Bathsheba's adultery, so certainly no true believer should ever take a bath! It is a logical fallacy to draw a conclusion the original author did not intend based on a detail from the story. (For more on this, I recommend the books Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer or Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson.)

In summing up his point, Halff says that the Bible “tells us everything we need to know for our spiritual lives … We don’t have to go outside the Bible for anything.” and he references 2 Timothy 3:16. This is a terrible misapplication of this verse. You cannot conclude from a positive assertion (all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness) that the negative inverse (all that is not Scripture is not profitable, etc.) is valid.

Furthermore, while I concur that all Scripture is profitable, that does not mean that Scripture is complete or comprehensive about every subject, especially when it comes to innovations that appeared long after the Bible was written. For example, the Bible says nothing about television. Certainly there are many principles in the Bible which should inform our decisions about how best to use television (Psalm 101:3), but we are not surprised that the Bible does not mention television directly -- how could it? Similarly, as Halff rightly points out later in his article, the celebration of Christmas was not instituted until the fourth century, so it is no mystery that the Bible doesn't mention it. To make the absence theologically significant is very poor reasoning. (The relatively late origin of Christmas is an important issue in its own right and will be dealt with in my next post.)

To be continued...

Thoughts about the recent election

Well, it's now been a whole week since Obama was elected president of the United States and we're all still here. Maybe this is not the sign of the end of the age that some evangelical conservatives predicted after all. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily a fan. In fact, I ended up voting for the other guy - despite the significant reservations I had about him! As far as I'm concerned, the great commandment/great commission task goes on regardless of who is in power in Washington.

Having said that, I read something significant this week that made me pause and think. It's from a book I just finished entitled, "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Gregory A. Boyd. I can't recommend the book without qualification (you can read my very brief review here) but I can guarantee that it will make you think. Here is one quote that particularly resonnated with me in light of the recent election. You'll find it on page 136 of the 2005 Zondervan hardback edition:

"...more than a few have noticed the comic irony in the fact that the group most vocal about 'the sanctity of marriage,' namely evangelical Christians, happens to be the group with the highest number of divorces in the United States, which itself has the highest divorce rate in the world!"

Mr. Boyd and I may not see eye-to-eye about everything, but it is very difficult to argue with this tremendous insight. Maybe it's about time we in the American church turned our attention away from the splinters in the eyes of those we disagree with politically and became more concerned with the planks we have jutting out of our own myopic orbs. And perhaps the results of this election have been ordained by God just for this purpose.

Then again, what do I know? Like I said, I voted for the other guy...

Celebration of a life well-spent

This past Monday I made a very brief visit to N.E. PA to celebrate the home-going of my old friend Wyman Ritchie. For those who did not have the priviledge to meet Wyman before he was promoted to glory, he was a church planter in Vermont for many years who spent his twilight years in Clarks Summit, PA near Baptist Bible College and Seminary. During my seven years at school there, Wyman and I met for coffee almost every week. He would often share with me his life and ministry experiences, ask me about what I was learning in school, challenge my theology, and hold me accountable in my own spiritual development. To say that he was an important influence in my life is a hopeless understatement.

Wyman had many diverse ministry experiences throughout his life. Most of them will go unnoticed and unrecorded by the world at large, though they are extremlely significant to those of us who were touched by him. Many, undoubtedly, would not even call the time he spent with me and others like me "ministry", but they would be dead wrong. It is of no matter. Wyman's Lord knew what he was up to, and even now he is enjoying the gracious rewards for his labors. Wyman exemplified many godly qualities, but to me the most important were an unwavering devotion to the Word of God and an earnest commitment to live his life consistently according to the pattern he found within its pages.

The last conversation I had with Wyman was just about a week before he left this earth. I can think of no better way to help you understand the man. Sent home from hospice because he wasn't dying fast enough, confined to a hospital-style bed in his living room, and having extreme difficulty breathing, I asked him how he was doing -- a stupid question, I know. In answering, he said not a word about his health, nor even about how he felt about his health. Instead, he told me about the opportunities the Lord had given him to share his faith with the doctors and nurses who had been caring for him. That was Wyman. Though he would strenuously object, nevertheless I aspire to be like him in many ways. I will miss him, but fortunately not for very long.

See you later, Wyman. I'm looking forward to our next conversation.

Because you asked ... thoughts about the Islamic "Common Word"

I received the following questions concerning the response of some Christian leaders to the Islamic document, "A Common Word Between Us and You".

***

Some of my radical separatists friends are making a big deal out of this letter authored at Yale responding to Muslin's leaders reaching out to Christians. Since several prominent evangelicals, colleges and associations signed this letter (Rick Nathan, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Fuller U., Biola U., Asbury U., Wheaton U., etc.), I wanted to get your opinion.

Are the "Christian" authors implying that:

• We have the same God as Muslins?
• We sinned against Muslins during the Crusades and the War on Terror?
• That we owe apologies for these sins?
• That the Muslin god is a god of love?
• Would you have signed this? Why?
• Is this a big deal?

***

Although it is quite lengthy, you can read the entire document here if you are interested. The Christian response referred to above is here. Here are my answers to the questions:

Personally, I would not worry about this too much. After reading both documents (the original open letter from the Muslims and the Christian response) I think that, at best, it is tremendously naive. All that the scholars on both sides are advocating is for a peaceful dialog between us on the basis of our common values in loving God and our neighbors (i.e., in this context to us, the Muslims; to the Muslims, us). Neither is even asking to be "accepted" by the other side to the degree that we should cease to witness to them, as did the "Catholics and Protestants Together" document of a few years ago.

I'm all for peaceful dialog, especially if it gives me an opportunity to share Christ. However, the reason the document writers say that they want this dialog is to help put an end to the hostilities between our nations. Maybe Islamic theologians have some influence over their political rulers, but Christian theologians lost almost all of our influence in the public arena (aside from swaying a few votes here and there) years ago. Frankly, I don't think that this stands much of a chance anyway, considering that Christ promised that wars and rumors of wars would only increase as the end times approached.

If there is anything at all to be worried about from this, it is the implicit assumption that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. We do not. Allah is nothing like Jehovah and we need to make sure that everyone understands this.

Have some Christians (or, at least, those who called themselves Christians) sinned against Muslims in the crusades and the war on terror? Yes. Have they done the same to us in return? Yes. Should those who have committed the sins confess and make it right? Absolutely. Should "Christendom" as a corporate entity apologize to "Islam" as a corporate entity for this? I'm not sure how you could really do this since "Christendom" does not have a single, representative mediator (other than Christ Himself) as Israel did in the time of the prophets. However, this sentiment has been expressed dozens of times over the years from many, including the Pope on down and I don't have a problem with it if they strongly feel that way.

Would I have signed this document? No, but not because I find it highly objectionable. Does it bother me that Rich Nathan, Rick Warren, and Bill Hybels, et al. have signed it? Not really. Perhaps they felt that they needed to because of the national profile they have and how it would reflect upon them by similarly high-profile Muslims and even non-believers if they didn't. I don't think that the ministry of any of these men will have much impact one way or the other because they signed. Depite our doctrinal differences with them, none of these men are characterized as being overtly ecumenical or universalist. (Probably Fuller Seminary is the most ecumenical of the institutions you listed.)

By the way, if you are interested, you can go to the website of the National Association of Evangelicals and read from Leith Anderson himself (current President of the NAE) why he signed it - click here.

I would say that this is really nothing to spend a lot of time fretting over. Nothing will come of it and it has little bearing on anyone's faith or testimony.

Of course, this is just my opinion...