52 Sermon Illustrations on Paganism

A couple of years ago, Jeremiah Johnston and his wife binge-watched the HBO series “The Man in the High Castle.” The series is set in a world where Nazi Germany and Japan won World War II and now occupy the United States.

It’s a world where euthanasia is mandatory, and the ashes of victims fall on passersby. In other words, it’s a world without Christianity, not to mention Judaism.

After watching the series, Johnston’s wife told him that he needed to write about what they had just watched. He did, and the result is his outstanding book, “Unimaginable: What the World Would Be Like Without Christianity.”

But Johnston’s book is not about a fictional world like the “The Man in the High Castle.” His book is straight out of history, about the real world that Christianity replaced — a pagan world that is showing signs of a comeback in this post-Christian age.

Johnston introduces us to the world in which Christianity was born, and eventually transformed. He tells the story of Hilarion, an otherwise-unremarkable Roman citizen who had traveled to Egypt. He writes to his pregnant wife that he may not make it home in time for the birth. So he wishes her “good luck” and then tells her what to do when the child is born: “If it is a boy, keep it; if it is a girl, throw it out.”

As I said, there was nothing remarkable about Hilarion or his attitude towards his soon-to-be-born child. As Johnston tells us, “ ... in the first-century Roman world ... killing an unwanted child was no big deal.” He quotes the philosopher Seneca, who wrote: “Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weak or abnormal.”

Into this world came Christianity, whose teaching and practice was 180 degrees from that of the surrounding societies. The early second century Christian document known as “the “Didache” told Christians, “Do not murder a child by abortion, nor kill it at birth.” The Epistle of Barnabas, which dates from a few decades later, similarly said, “Do not murder a child by abortion, nor, again, destroy that which is born.”

Believe it or not, infanticide is just one example of the cruelty and callousness that characterized the ancient world. Anyone who wasn’t a nobleman — emphasis on the “man” — was a potential, and often actual, victim of this same kind of cruelty: infants, women, slaves, and the poor to name but a few.

Against this backdrop, Paul’s declaration that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” had the potential to turn the world upside down (Galatians 3:28).

And that’s exactly what it did. It took time, and there were fits and starts, but Christianity made the world we now take for granted, possible.

As Johnston tells readers, the West’s rejection of Christianity threatens to undo this world. For those who scoff at such an idea, he lays out the recent historical record, which isn’t pretty. Evils such as scientific racism, which posits that some groups are inherently inferior to others, eugenics, and its ultimate expression, the Third Reich, all have their origins in worldviews that rejected Christianity.

He reminds us that these literally godless worldviews have left a body count in the hundreds of millions: the Holocaust, Stalin’s victims, the killing fields of Cambodia, and the estimated seventy million Chinese who died under Mao.

Given this historical record, it is unimaginable that we should want to revert to a world prior to Christianity. Or at last it should be unimaginable.

________

Resources:

Unimaginable: What Our World Would Be Like Without Christianity

Jeremiah J. Johnston | Baker Books | 2017

Unimaginable: What Our World Would Be Like Without Christianity, webinar

Warren Cole Smith, Jeremiah Johnston | Colson Center | February 2019

________

Copyright (c) 2019 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. “BreakPoint” is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

A new theology of ecology is being developed that sees the universe as our womb. The creation mandate in Genesis is seen as harmful. Father Thomas Berry is a key leader, and says the creation is God’s “primary revelation,” not the Bible. He sees evolution as a spiritual as well as material process. He feels Christians err in over-emphasizing personal redemption.

“The crucial issue, however, is not tolerance of other faiths. Where the Bible enjoins man to live in covenant with a transcendent God, Berry emphasizes a new covenant with his creation. Moreover, unlike the Book of Genesis, which is designed to desacralize nature, Berry’s new cosmology resacralizes the natural world and imposes certain values on its human offspring.

“It is one thing to rediscover the goodness of creation, quite another to regard the process of evolution as God’s primary word to man. To derive moral standards from the cosmos is to suppose that whatever has evolved is good - or would be, if humankind behaved itself toward other species. But Berry’s theory of the self-regulating universe does not take into account the existence of moral evil, despite the evidence in the world around him. The human species has no doubt sinned against the environment, but it has also sinned against itself - and God - which is why stories of redemption still possess power, even in an ecological age.”

Many areas of America are highly "unchurched." According to data from the National Council of Churches, 41% of residents in the average U.S. country are "unclaimed" by a recognized Judeo-Christian church. Residents in those areas with the weakest church attendance tended to be affluent (Aspen, Colorado, with 83% unclaimed), young (Yolo County, CA, 72% unclaimed, with a large student population that leans toward New Age and other alternative religions), and male (Nye County, Nevada, 79% unclaimed, an area dominated by the mining industry).

As might be expected, church attendance remains high in the Southeast, the traditional "Bible Belt." It is also high in the "Bible Sash" that runs up and down the Great Plains (consider Faribault County, Minnesota, where church attendance is at 100%). And in Rich County, Utah, 1,676 residents go to their Mormon temples on Sundays while the remaining 24 residents sleep in.

#3412

*

Over a hundred years ago, the great Dutch theologian Hermann Bavinck predicted that the 20th century would “witness a gigantic conflict of spirits.” His prediction turned out to be an understatement, and this great conflict continues into the 21st century.

The issue of Halloween presses itself annually upon the Christian conscience. Acutely aware of dangers new and old, many Christian parents choose to withdraw their children from the holiday altogether. Others choose to follow a strategic battle plan for engagement with the holiday. Still others have gone further, seeking to convert Halloween into an evangelistic opportunity. Is Halloween really that significant?

Well, Halloween is a big deal in the marketplace. Halloween is surpassed only by Christmas in terms of economic activity. According to David J. Skal, “Precise figures are difficult to determine, but the annual economic impact of Halloween is now somewhere between 4 billion and 6 billion dollars depending on the number and kinds of industries one includes in the calculations.”

Furthermore, historian Nicholas Rogers claims that “Halloween is currently the second most important party night in North America. In terms of its retail potential, it is second only to Christmas. This commercialism fortifies its significance as a time of public license, a custom-designed opportunity to have a blast. Regardless of its spiritual complications, Halloween is big business.”

Rogers and Skal have each produced books dealing with the origin and significance of Halloween. Nicholas Rogers is author of HALLOWEEN: FROM PAGAN RITUAL TO PARTY NIGHT. Professor of History at York University in Canada, Rogers has written a celebration of Halloween as a transgressive holiday that allows the bizarre and elements from the dark side to enter the mainstream. Skal, a specialist on the culture of Hollywood, has written DEATH MAKES A HOLIDAY: A CULTURAL HISTORY OF HALLOWEEN. Skal’s approach is more dispassionate and focused on entertainment, looking at the cultural impact of Halloween on the rise of horror movies and the nation’s fascination with violence.

The pagan roots of Halloween are well documented. The holiday is rooted in the Celtic festival of Samhain, which came at summer’s end. As Rogers explains, “Paired with the feast of Beltane, which celebrated the life-generating powers of the sun, Samhain beckoned to winter and the dark nights ahead.” Scholars dispute whether Samhain was celebrated as a festival of the dead, but the pagan roots of the festival are indisputable. Questions of human and animal sacrifices and various occultic sexual practices continue as issues of debate, but the reality of the celebration as an occultic festival focused on the changing of seasons undoubtedly involved practices pointing to winter as a season of death.

As Rogers comments: “In fact, the pagan origins of Halloween generally flow not from this sacrificial evidence, but from a different set of symbolic practices. These revolve around the notion of Samhain as a festival of the dead and as a time of supernatural intensity heralding the onset of winter.

How should Christians respond to this pagan background? Harold L. Myra of Christianity Today argues that these pagan roots were well known to Christians of the past. “More than a thousand years ago Christians confronted pagan rites appeasing the lord of death and evil spirits. Halloween’s unsavory beginnings preceded Christ’s birth when the druids, in what is now Britain and France, observed the end of summer with sacrifices to the gods. It was the beginning of the Celtic year and they believed Samhain, the lord of death, sent evil spirits abroad to attack humans, who could escape only by assuming disguises and looking like evil spirits themselves.”

Thus, the custom of wearing costumes, especially costumes imitating evil spirits, is rooted in the Celtic pagan culture. As Myra summarizes, “Most of our Halloween practices can be traced back to the old pagan rites and superstitions.”

The complications of Halloween go far beyond its pagan roots, however. In modern culture, Halloween has become not only a commercial holiday, but a season of cultural fascination with evil and the demonic. Even as the society has pressed the limits on issues such as sexuality, the culture’s confrontation with the “dark side” has also pushed far beyond boundaries honored in the past.

As David J. Skal makes clear, the modern concept of Halloween is inseparable from the portrayal of the holiday presented by Hollywood. As Skal comments, “The Halloween machine turns the world upside down. One’s identity can be discarded with impunity. Men dress as women, and vise versa. Authority can be mocked and circumvented, and, most important, graves open and the departed return.”

This is the kind of material that keeps Hollywood in business. “Few holidays have a cinematic potential that equals Halloween’s,” comments Skal. “Visually, the subject is unparalleled, if only considered in terms of costume design and art direction. Dramatically, Halloween’s ancient roots evoke dark and melodramatic themes, ripe for transformation into film’s language of shadow and light.”

But television’s “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown” (which debuted in 1966) has given way to Hollywood’s “Halloween” series and the rise of violent “slasher” films. Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff have been replaced by Michael Myers and Freddy Kruger.

This fascination with the occult comes as America has been sliding into post-Christian secularism. While the courts remove all theistic references from America’s public square, the void is being filled with a pervasive fascination with evil, paganism, and new forms of occultism.

In addition to all this, Halloween has become downright dangerous in many neighborhoods. Scares about razor blades hidden in apples and poisoned candy have spread across the nation in recurring cycles. For most parents, the greater fear is the encounter with occultic symbols and the society’s fascination with moral darkness.

For this reason, many families withdraw from the holiday completely. Their children do not go trick-or-treating, they wear no costumes, and attend no parties related to the holiday. Some churches have organized alternative festivals, capitalizing on the holiday opportunity, but turning the event away from pagan roots and the fascination with evil spirits. For others, the holiday presents no special challenges at all.

These Christians argue that the pagan roots of Halloween are no more significant than the pagan origins of Christmas and other church festivals. Without doubt, the church has progressively Christianized the calendar, seizing secular and pagan holidays as opportunities for Christian witness and celebration. Anderson M. Rearick, III argues that Christians should not surrender the holiday. As he relates, “I am reluctant to give up what was one of the highlights of my childhood calendar to the Great Imposter and Chief of Liars for no reason except that some of his servants claim it as his.”

Nevertheless, the issue is a bit more complicated than that. While affirming that make-believe and imagination are part and parcel of God’s gift of imagination, Christians should still be very concerned about the focus of that imagination and creativity. Arguing against Halloween is not equivalent to arguing against Christmas. The old church festival of “All Hallow’s Eve” is by no means as universally understood among Christians as the celebration of the incarnation at Christmas.

Christian parents should make careful decisions based on a biblically-informed Christian conscience. Some Halloween practices are clearly out of bounds, others may be strategically transformed, but this takes hard work and may meet with mixed success.

The coming of Halloween is a good time for Christians to remember that evil spirits are real and that the Devil will seize every opportunity to trumpet his own celebrity. Perhaps the best response to the Devil at Halloween is that offered by Martin Luther, the great Reformer: “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him for he cannot bear scorn.”

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther began the Reformation with a declaration that the church must be recalled to the authority of God’s Word and the purity of biblical doctrine. With this in mind, the best Christian response to Halloween might be to scorn the Devil and then pray for the Reformation of Christ’s church on earth. Let’s put the dark side on the defensive.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #2029]

(Excerpts, see file "Sports" in filing cabinet)

Article gives an overview of Olympic history, ancient and modern.

Notes pagan aspect of originals, compares to "one-world-ism" and similar sentiments in modern Olympics.

"The Olympics are pagan. This statement may raise some eyebrows, but I believe it is true. The word 'pagan' comes from the Latin paganus, which means 'of the earth.' The religious festivals and rituals expressed at the Olympics center on earth spirits and mother earth deities." (p.3)

Spargimino's arguments are well researched and soundly reasoned. The modern Olympic movement is an element of the revival of the religion of man. We are overwhelmed with this in Western society these days.

EX-MORMON HIPPIE

Downtown Salt Lake has become a growing spectacle with the Olympic signs, skyscraper banner pictures, commercial tents, bleachers and a new platform raised near the Mormon temple, but you will look in vain for any sign of the cross on any of the Mormon buildings. While in Hawaii I talked to a hippie who left the Mormon religion after seeing what? SATANIC SYMBOLS on the Salt Lake temple!

WHAT SYMBOLS TO REVERENCE?

The author of "Mormon Doctrine" LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote: "In succeeding centuries, the churches which came into being through an intermingling of pagan concepts with the true apostolic Christianity developed the practice of using symbolic crosses in the architecture of their buildings and as jewelry....All this is inharmonious with the quiet spirit of worship and reverence." (p.172)

Incredibly, the LDS "holy underwear" has MASONIC SYMBOLS and the Salt Lake temple has an extensive display of OCCULTIC SYMBOLS! Graven into the walls are inverted pentagrams or upside-down five pointed stars which are often linked to the occult. (Mormonism, Magic and Masonry, p.68). "The Pentagram, the sign of the Microcosm, was held to be the most powerful means of conjuration in any rite....with two points in the ascendant [upside-down star] it was the sign of Satan." (The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, vol. 2, p.552).

Did the Mormon founder Joseph Smith wear a Christian cross? Definitely not! According to Mormon author D. Michael Quinn, he had at his death "...a silver Jupiter medallion constructed according to the instructions for making `Magic Seals, or Talismans,' in Barrett's 1801 The Magus". (Mormonism and the Magic World View, p.66)

Millions of people observe Hallowe'en as a time to have fun, kick up their heels, go to costume parties, dress up as ghosts, mass murderers, goblins, ghouls, witches, warlocks, demons, and send their children "trick or treating." But WHY? What is behind this major holiday, whose commercial importance grows year by year? Is it all so innocent as millions assume? What does the Word of the Living God say about it?

According to the comic strip "Cathy," in the Sunday, October 29, 1995 Pasadena Star-News, in the past ten years Hallowe'en has tripled in size, and one out of every three adult men and women will dress up in full Hallowe'en costumes this year. Hallowe'en parties now rank third, right behind New Year's Eve and the Superbowl, and Hallowe'en is second only to Christmas for home decorations. "Cathy" asks, "What's going on here?? Can a generation raised on therapy find no better way to cope with stress than to put on a Batman suit??" She goes on, "Are we so repressed that we need to create a $400 million holiday to act out our fantasies??" Good questions!

Where did Hallowe'en come from, anyway? Why do so many people enjoy it, and dressing up in bizarre, ghoulish, and grotesque costumes? Is it all just innocent fun and games, and nothing to worry about? Or is there an occult, sinister, dark side to Hallowe'en that few people today suspect, or know anything about?

In the November issue of a religious magazine called The Plain Truth ... there is an article on Hallowe'en in a section called "Questions." The question they attempt to answer is: "How should a Christian view Halloween?"

Notice how they tippy-toe around this question in their answer. First of all, they admit: "Halloween, or All Hallows' Eve, falls on Oct. 31. It immediately precedes All Saints' Day on Nov.1. All Saints' Day celebrates the memory of Christian martyrs who suffered and died for the sake of the gospel [sounds like they are endorsing its observance, doesn't it?]... the Roman Catholic Church did not order the UNIVERSAL OBSERVANCE of All Saints' Day on Nov.1 until the ninth century. "In ancient Britain and Ireland, Oct.31 marked the eve of the new year and the pagan Celtic festival of Sambain (sic, it should be "Samhain") ... "At Sambain (sic), the souls of the dead were thought to come back and visit their homes. Bonfires were lit to scare evil spirits. Sinister figures -- witches, ghosts, goblins, and demons -- supposedly roamed about" (p.10).

It almost sounds as if they are admitting that the origin of Hallowe'en is distinctly PAGAN. But they also seem to be admitting that it is a "Christian holiday," now, and assert, "The pagan practices gradually swayed the celebration of All Hallows Eve."

Is it all right, therefore, for Christians to observe it? Or should all people steer far clear of this pagan celebration? The article concludes, in a weak-kneed, insipid, compromising stance, giving no advice whatsoever and never answers the original question! Rather, the magazine says: "Because of the pagan elements that long ago became attached to the evening, many devout Christians choose to avoid trick or treating and other Halloween customs. Christian parents often steer their children away from taking part is what they see as a celebration of darkness and mischief" (emphasis mine, throughout).

How quaint. How sweet. The implication, of course, is that the decision is yours to make -- that God's Word says nothing really about it one way or the other. The article concludes, "A dedicated Christian will not knowingly celebrate evil. With this in mind, many Christians avoid participation in the dark practices associated with the celebration of Halloween" (ibid.). Really? Is that all there is to it? The idea seems to be that you can celebrate it if you wish, so long as you avoid any purely "evil" or "dark practices" connected with it, whatever they may be. The message I receive from this is that you can go ahead, and have fun, but just "remember Christ" and don't do anything that would constitute a "dark practice." I suppose that means, don't murder, rape or kill somebody, dismember, or hurt anybody.

I found the Pasadena Star-News article far more informative and helpful, in exposing the true origin of this popular holiday. In an article "Unmasking Halloween traditions," Christopher Nyerges writes: "The roots of Halloween go back to the Celts. To the ancient Celts, there were six significant fire ceremonies during the year. The greatest of these were Beltane, the first of May, and Samhain, the last day of October. "The feast of Samhain (meaning `summer's end'), marked both their Feast of the Dead and the Celtic New Year. This time of the year, half-way between the autumnal equinox and the winter solstice, was a time of decay and death on the earth. "Samhain ushered in the darkest and most barren time of the year, a time fraught with ghosts, witches, demons, and fairies. "Fire rites, during which HUMAN AND ANIMAL SACRIFICES were made, were performed in the belief that they'd protect the crops and flocks from demonic influence" (Saturday, October 28, 1995).

The Celts believed that on the Feast of Samhain, the spirits of their ancestors would rise up from the cold fields and graves and come into the warm homes and cottages of the people, and had to be greeted with decorations and festivities, parties and acceptance, in order to get "protection" for the household from evil spirits during the coming winter months. Offerings were made to protect the household from malicious spirits or demons.

Says Christopher Nyerges: "Thus, in its origin, the Feast of Samhain was a rite designed to protect humans from the `evil' activities of the dis-incarnate. It was, if you will, a BARGAIN WITH THE DEAD so they'd stay away and cause no trouble during the next year."

The World Book Encyclopedia describes the origin of this holiday in these words: "The Celtic Festival of Samhain is probably the source of the present-day Halloween celebration. The Celts lived more than 2,000 years ago in what is now Great Britain, Ireland, and northern France. Their new year began on November 1. A festival that began the previous evening honored Samhain, the Celtic lord of death. The celebration marked the beginning of the season of cold, darkness, and decay. It naturally became associated with human death. The Celts believed that Samhain allowed the souls of the dead to return to their earthly homes for this evening. "On the evening of the festival, the Druids, who were the priests and teachers of the Celts, ordered the people to put out their hearth fires. The Druids built a huge, new year's BONFIRE of oak branches, which they considered sacred. They burned animals, crops, and possibly even human beings as SACRIFICES. Then each family relit its hearth fire from the new year's fire. During the celebration, people sometimes WORE COSTUMES made of animal heads and skins. They told fortunes about the coming year by examining the remains of the animals that had been sacrificed" (article "Halloween," p.25).

This Celtic holiday entered the Roman Empire after the Romans conquered the Celts in A.D. 43 and ruled Great Britain for about 400 years. During this time two Roman festivals of the autumn were combined with the Celtic Festival of Samhain. One of them, Feralia, was held in late October to honor the dead. The other honored Pomona, the Roman goddess of fruits and trees. Apples probably became connected with Halloween because of this festival. Says the Encyclopedia Britannica, eleventh edition, of Hallowe'en: "Hallowe'en and its formerly attendant ceremonies long antedate Christianity. The two chief characteristics of ancient Hallowe'en were the lighting of bonfires and the belief that of all nights in the year this is the one during which ghosts and witches are most likely to wander abroad. Now on or about the first of November the Druids held their great autumnal festival and lighted fires in honor of the SUN-GOD in thanksgiving for the harvest.

Further, it was a Druid belief that on the eve of this festival, Saman, LORD OF DEATH, called together the wicked souls that within the past twelve months had been condemned to inhabit the bodies of animals. Thus it is clear that the main celebrations of Hallowe'en were purely Druidical, and this is further proved by the fact that in parts of Ireland the 31st of October was, and even still is, known as Oidhche Shamhna, `Vigil of Samhan.' On the Druid ceremonies were GRAFTED some of the characteristics of the Roman festival in honor of Pomona held about the end of November, in which nuts and apples, as representing the winter store of fruits, played an important part. Thus the roasting of nuts and the sport known as `apple-ducking' -- attempting to seize with the teeth an apple floating in a tub of water -- were once the universal occupation of the young folk in medieval England on the 31st of October.

The custom of lighting Hallowe'en fires survived until recent years in the highlands of Scotland and Wales. In the dying embers it was usual to place as many small stones as there were persons around, and next morning a search was made. If any of the pebbles were displaced it was regarded as certain that the person represented would die within the next twelve months" ("Hallowe'en, p.857-858). But what happened? How did this ancient Druid, Celtic festival in honor of the "Lord of the Dead," and celebrated in worship of the "Sun-god," ever creep into the practice of the "Christian Church"?

Hallowe'en Enters "Christianity":

Many ancient pagan practices became incorporated into the practices of the early Church, including virtually every pagan festival known to the Romans and the inhabitants of the Roman Empire. Hallowe'en was no exception. The World Book Encyclopedia relates: "Many of the customs of the Celts survived even after the people became Christians. During the 800's, the church established All Saints' Day on November 1. THE PEOPLE MADE THE OLD PAGAN CUSTOMS PART OF THIS CHRISTIAN HOLY DAY. THE CHURCH BEGAN TO HONOR THE DEAD ON NOVEMBER 2. This day became known as All Souls' Day."

Writes Christopher Nyerges, in "Unmasking Halloween traditions": "In the 700s, the Roman Catholic Church authorities accepted the fact that they had failed in their attempts to eliminate the Samhain observations, which were considered `PAGAN.' Thus, as has often occurred when New Religion clashed with Old Religion, the names of the holy days were changed. Nov.1 became All Saints' Day, and the day before became the Hallowed Eve, or Holy Eve, which we today call Halloween. THIS WAY, THE OLD RELIGION PRACTICE OF SAMHAIN COULD CONTINUE, BUT NOW IT WAS A CHRISTIAN [sic] HOLY DAY. As a result, the members of the Catholic Church increased, everyone way happy and things went on as usual." How blatant! How plain! How clever and odious!

The Church could not conquer or stamp out the paganism in the hearts and traditions of the people, so it did the opposite -- it embraced, and took to its bosom, the paganism of old, and "baptized" it, and then called these pagan practices "CHRISTIAN"!

But what does Almighty God, and Jesus Christ, our Saviour, say about this sort of thing? Is it all right in God's sight if any of His people worship Him with the practices of ancient pagan religions? It is acceptable with God if we follow pagan-derived practices and call them "Christian"? Christ never observed Hallowe'en. None of the apostles observed it. None of the early churches in the first century observed it. It did not even become an official "Catholic" holy (sic) day until the NINTH CENTURY -- over 800 years after the time of Christ! The fact that Hallowe'en is making a huge successful comeback, today, and is observed by MILLIONS around the world, shows that paganism is itself making a tremendous leap forward under the guise of the modern "Christian" religion. Should any true Christian, or believer in the Messiah Yeshua, observe the popular holiday?

What the Word of God Says:

Jesus Christ very plainly said that man should not live by bread only, but by every word of God (Matt.4:4; Luke 4:4). All Scripture is given by God's inspiration and is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, and guidance in our lives (2 Tim.3:16-17). God's Word is truth -- truth to live by (John 17:17). What then does God's Word say about adopting and "baptizing" pagan practices and calling them "Christian" and following them? Is it all right to combine PAGAN religion -- the "old religion" -- with God's truth?

God's Word says:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you" (Deut.4:2).

God thunders in His Word: "Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God. When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations [pagan nations] from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; take heed to thyself that thou BE NOT SNARED BY FOLLOWING THEM ... and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. "THOU SHALT NOT DO SO UNTO THE LORD THY GOD: for EVERY ABOMINATION to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the FIRE to their gods. "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it" (Deut.12:28-32).

The prophet Jeremiah plainly tells us in straight language which brooks no compromise or misinterpretation: "Thus saith the LORD, learn NOT the way of the heathen ... For the customs of the people are VAIN . . ." (Jeremiah 10:2-3). The pagan origin of Hallowe'en, no matter how the Roman Catholic Church tries to whitewash it, or colorize it, or "Christianize" it, is plainly obvious for all to see. The real question is: Whom are we going to obey? The true God of heaven and earth, our Creator? Or the "god" of this world, Satan the devil, the real "god" behind the mask of Hallowe'en? The Scriptures tell us forcefully that Satan is "the great dragon," "that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which DECEIVETH THE WHOLE WORLD" (Rev.12:9). He is the master of subtlety and deception. He calls good evil, and evil good. He says, "What's the harm in observing Hallowe'en, and having a little `innocent' fun?" It is his purpose to delude, deceive, and destroy mankind by leading them into sin, lawlessness, and disobedience to the laws and Word of Almighty God.

When Caesar invaded Britain, he found the Druids leading the Britons in the worship of the sun-god and his consort, the queen of heaven. This was the same age-old "mystery" religious system that originated from ancient Babylon and Egypt. Samhain, the "lord of the dead," was none other than that old idolatrous figure Nimrod.

Says Alexander Hislop in The Two Babylons:

"The Druidic system in all its parts was evidently the BABYLONIAN SYSTEM. Dionysius informs us, that the rites of Bacchus were duly celebrated in the British Islands ... and Strabo cites Artemidorus to show that, in an island close to Britain, Ceres and Proserpine were venerated with rites similar to the orgies of Samothrace. It will be seen from the account of the Druid Ceridwen and her child, afterwards to be noticed -- that there was a great analogy between her character and that of the great goddess-mother of Babylon. Such was the system; and the name Dryw, or Droi, applied to the priests, is in exact accordance with that system. The name Zero, given in Hebrew or the early Chaldee, to the son of the great goddess queen, in later Chaldee became `Dero.' The priest of Dero, `the seed,' was called, as in the case in almost all religions, by the name of his god; and hence the familiar name `Druid' is thus proved to signify the priest of `Dero' -- the woman's promised `seed'" (p.81, footnote).

Hislop further tells us:

"The worship of Bel and Astarte [Nimrod and Easter] was very early introduced into Britain, along with the Druids, `the priests of the groves' ..... From Bel, the 1st of May is still called Beltane in the Almanac; and we have customs still lingering at this day among us, which prove how exactly the worship of Bel or MOLOCH (for both titles belong to the same god) had been observed even in the northern parts of this island ... every year, at Beltane (or the 1st of May), a number of men and women assemble at an ancient Druidical circle of stones ... They light a fire in the centre, each person puts a bit of oat-cake in a shepherd's bonnet. One piece has been previously blackened, and whoever gets that piece has to jump through the fire in the centre of the circle, and pay a forfeit. This is, in fact, A PART OF THE ANCIENT WORSHIP OF BAAL, and the person on whom the lot fell was previously burnt as a sacrifice. Now, the passing through the fire represents that, and the payment of the forfeit redeems the victim" (p.103-104).

One of Nimrod's names under which he was worshipped as a god, was "Molech," the god of fire. Molech was the god of barbarity, cruelty and blood. The name itself is a form of the Hebrew word `melek' which means "king." Nimrod was the first man after the Flood of Noah's time to become a "king" and to carve out for himself a "kingdom" on the earth (see Genesis 10:8-10). At first he was worshipped as the "revealer of goodness and truth," but gradually his worship was made to correspond to the darker and more forbidding side of his nature. The horrible rites associated with the worship of this fiend have made the very name a symbol of cruelty and terror, such as is associated with Hallowe'en. Only it was very read, not just pretend.

Says Hislop:

"In almost every land the bloody worship prevailed; `horrid cruelty' hand in hand with abject superstition, filled not only `the dark places of the earth,' but also the regions that boasted of their enlightenment. Greece, Rome, Egypt, Phenicia, Assyria, and our own land under the savage Druids, at one period or other in their history, worshipped the same god and in the same way. Human victims were his most acceptable offerings; human groans and wailings were the sweetest music in his ears; human tortures were believed to delight his heart" (p.151). Hislop relates that the Druids "offered human sacrifices to their bloody gods." He adds: "We have evidence that they `made their children pass through the fire to Molech,' and that makes it highly probable that they also offered them in sacrifice; for from Jeremiah 32:35, compared with Jeremiah 19:5, we find that these two things were parts of one and the same system.

The god whom the Druids worshipped was BAAL, as the blazing Baal-fires show, and the last cited passage proves that children were offered in sacrifice to Baal. When `fruit of the body' was thus offered, it was `for the sin of the soul.' And it was a principle of the Mosaic law, a principle no doubt derived from the patriarchal faith, that the priest must partake of whatever was offered as a sin-offering (Numbers 18:9, 10). Hence, the priests of Nimrod or Baal were necessarily required to eat of the human sacrifices; and thus it has come to pass that `Cahna-Bal,' the `Priest of Baal,' is the established word in our own tongue for a devourer of human flesh" (Two Babylons, p.232). Thus our word "cannibal" comes from the word "Cahna-Bal," meaning originally "priest of Baal." Also, Molech, the name for "King" Nimrod, another appellation of Baal, or Bel, was obviously connected with the "bon fires" that were lit by the ancient Celts in their celebration of "Samhain," "lord of the dead."

Thus the origin of the holiday we know as "Hallowe'en" is incredibly ugly, vile, and an abomination in the sight of Almighty God, and Jesus Christ. God Word says of this inhuman and vile pagan religion: "And they built the high places of BAAL, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this ABOMINATION . . ." (Jer.32:35).

God thunders: "They have built also the high places for BAAL, to burn their sons with fire for BURNT OFFERINGS unto BAAL, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter" (Jer.19:5). When we consider the horrible ancestry of this modern celebration of Hallowe'en, and its gruesome and grotesque connection with darkness and evil, how can a true Christian even imagine to have anything whatsoever to do with this hideous, horrible, and macabre eve of pagan glorification of Satan, witchcraft, demons, ghouls, sorcery, and diabolical Satanic deception? What should a true Christian do about such "holidays"?

God's Word clearly commands and instructs us: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with DARKNESS? And what concord hath Christ with BELIAL (Satan the Devil)? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with IDOLS? ... Where-fore, COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM, AND BE YE SEPARATE, saith the Lord, and TOUCH NOT THE UN-CLEAN THING; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

*

For an interesting twist, here is a Christmas sermon given in 1891 by the notorious American atheist, Robert Ingersoll:

The good part of Christmas is not always Christian -- it is generally Pagan; that is to say, human, natural.

Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.

It taught some good things -- the beauty of love and kindness in man. But as a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.

And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the old festival called Christmas.

Long before Christ was born, the Sun-God triumphed over the powers of Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin perceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the sun, and they celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a festival was natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is the worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed from the Pagans the best it has.

I believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy. We in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much like the English.

I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman. We take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days -- the more the better.

Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget -- a good day to throw away prejudices and hatreds -- a good day to fill your heart and your house, and the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #24552]

The Christmas tree is one of the most popular and cherished Christmas customs. Each year, 35-40 million live trees are purchased and decorated in the United States alone. But when, where, and how did this custom begin? What is the origin of the Christmas tree? What does it mean?

Many answers to these questions have been offered on the Internet. Some are completely erroneous. Some make no distinction between history and legend. Unfortunately, none of them give sources for their assertions about the Christmas tree (a problem with most web articles!) Given that dependable scholarly sources about the history of the Christmas tree are hard to come by, citation-less Christmas tree web pages are understandable.

In doing the research for this article, I found three works especially helpful. The first is "Christmas in Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan" by Clement A. Miles.(1) Though now a bit dated, Miles's work made use of the best scholarship of the time, much of which has not been improved upon(2), and therefore is still a valuable resource. Of equal value is Francis X. Weiser's "Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs."(3) Weiser's work only devotes several chapters to the customs of Christmas, but these are well researched and articulated. I also found "The Solstice Evergreen" by Sheryl Ann Karas to be helpful. Karas has done an admirable job researching the various ways that the evergreen has been used in various cultures over the centuries and this is the book's strength.(4)

What was the origin of the Christmas tree? As much as I would like to embrace as fact the oft-quoted story that Martin Luther was the first to set up a Christmas tree (or at least a lighted one), I cannot -- for the story is pure legend.5 Many years of intensive Luther scholarship has turned up nothing to support it.6 There is scholarly consensus, however, that the Christmas tree originated in Germany. Indeed, the earliest record of an evergreen tree being used and decorated (but without lights) for Christmas is 1521 in the German region of Alsace.7 Another useful description has been found among the notes of an unknown resident of Strasbourg in 1605, who writes that “At Christmas they set up fir trees in the parlors at Strasburg and hang thereon roses cut of many-coloured paper, apples, wafers, gold-foil, sweets...”8 Some fifty years later (about 1650) the great Lutheran theologian Johann Dannhauer wrote in his The Milk of the Catechism that “the Christmas or fir tree, which people set up in their houses, hang with dolls and sweets, and afterwards shake and deflower... Whence comes this custom I know not; it is child's play ... Far better were it to point the children to the spiritual cedar-tree, Jesus Christ.”9

Several conclusions can be gleaned from these quotations. First, we are told some of the items with which the first Christmas trees were decorated: paper roses, apples, Communion wafers, gold, foil, sweets, and dolls. Second, even in 1650 a noted scholar like Dannhauer did not know the origin of Christmas trees. Third, not all Christians approved of these trees, even in the beginning. Fourth, the first Christmas trees, as far as we know, did not have lights. According to Weiser, the first mention of lights (candles) on a Christmas tree is in the seventeenth century.10

From the mid-seventeenth century on the Christmas tree slowly grew in popularity and use. However, it was not until the beginning of the 19th century that the use of the Christmas tree grew into the general German custom that it is today. Also at this time it spread to the Slavic people of eastern Europe. The Christmas tree was probably first used in America about 1700 when the first wave of German immigration settled in western Pennsylvania. During the War of Independence, Hessian soldiers supposedly set up Christmas trees.11 It is widely held that the Christmas tree was first introduced into France in 1837 when Princess Helen of Mecklenburg brought it to Paris after her marriage to the Duke of Orléans. The Christmas tree made its royal debut in England when Prince Albert of Saxony, the husband of Queen Victoria, set up a tree in Windsor Castle in 1841.12 After this it grew in popularity, though in 1850 Charles Dickens was still referring to it as a “new German toy.”13

But from where did Christians get the idea of the Christmas tree? Was it a new idea or was there a historical custom upon which they were building?

Karas has amply demonstrated that evergreens have been a symbol of rebirth from ancient times. Bringing greenery into one's home, often at the time of the winter solstice, symbolized life in the midst of death in many cultures.14 The Romans decked their homes with evergreens and other greenery during the Kalends of January.15 Living trees were also brought into homes during the old German feast of Yule, which originally was a two-month feast beginning in November. The Yule tree was planted in a tub and brought into the home.16 However, the evidence just does not exist which shows that Christians first used trees at Christmas as a symbol of rebirth, nor that the Christmas tree was a direct descendent of the Yule tree. On the contrary, the evidence that we have points in another direction. The Christmas tree appears to be a descendent of the Paradise tree and the Christmas light of the late Middle Ages.17

From the eleventh century, religious plays called “mystery plays” became quite popular throughout Europe. These plays were performed outdoors and in churches. One of the most prevalent of these plays was the “Paradise play.” The play depicted the story of the creation of Adam and Eve, their sin, and their banishment from Paradise. The play would end with the promise of the coming Savior and His Incarnation (cf. Gen. 3:15). The Paradise play was simple by today's standards. The only prop on stage was the “Paradise tree,” a fir tree adorned with apples. From this tree, at the appropriate time in the play, Eve would take the fruit, eat it, and give it to Adam.

Because of abuses that crept into the mystery plays (i.e., immoral behavior), the Church forbade these plays during the fifteenth century. The people had grown so accustomed to the Paradise tree, however, that they began putting their own Paradise tree up in their homes on Dec. 24. They did so on Dec. 24 because this was the feast day of Adam and Eve (at least in the Eastern Church). The Paradise tree, as it had in the Paradise plays, symbolized both a tree of sin and a tree of life. For this reason, the people would decorate these trees with apples (representing the fruit of sin) and homemade wafers (like communion wafers which represented the fruit of life). Later, candy and sweets were added.

Another custom was to be found in the homes of Christians on Dec. 24 since the late Middle Ages. A large candle called the “Christmas light,” symbolizing Christ who is the light of the world, was lit on Christmas Eve. In western Germany, many smaller candles were set upon a wooden pyramid and lit. Besides the candles, other objects such as glass balls, tinsel, and the “star of Bethlehem” were placed on its top.18

Though we cannot be certain, it seems highly likely that the first Christmas trees that appeared in Germany in the early sixteenth century were descendants of both of these customs: the Paradise tree and the Christmas pyramids and lights. The Paradise tree became our Christmas tree. Decorations that had been placed on the pyramids were transferred to the Christmas tree.

For many Christians the Christmas tree still retains the symbolism of the Paradise tree. The tree reminds us of the tree in Eden by which Adam and Eve were overcome and which thrust them into sin. But more importantly, the tree reminds us of the tree by which our sin was overcome, namely the tree upon which Christ Jesus was crucified. Is it a stretch to refer to the cross as a tree? Hardly, for this is the language of the New Testament itself! For example, Paul writes in Galatians 3:13, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree” (quoting Deut. 21:23). And Peter writes, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” Therefore, the Christmas tree is a wonderful symbol and reminder of our salvation and forgiveness through Jesus Christ!

Some other interesting facts about the Christmas tree, some of which I haven't yet substantiated from the sources (so use at your own risk!) are:

• The first retail Christmas stand was set up by Mark Carr in New York City in 1851;

• Franklin Pierce was the first president to introduce the Christmas tree to the White House in 1856 for a group of Washington Sunday School children;

• The first lighted Christmas tree in public was in Boston in 1912;19;

• The first national Christmas Tree was lighted in the year 1923 on the White House lawn by President Calvin Coolidge.

__________

Updated: November, 2000

E-Mail Pastor Richard Bucher

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Clement A. Miles, Christmas in Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan (New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912).

2. Such as, A. Tille, Die Geschichte der deutschen Weihnacht (Leipzig, 1893); A. Tille, Yule and Christmas: their Place in the Germanic Year (London, 1899); H. F. Feilberg, Jul (Copenhagen, 1904); E. K. Chambers, The Medieval Stage (Oxford, 1903).

3. Francis X. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958).

4. Sheryl Ann Karas, The Solstice Evergreen: The History, Folklore and Origins of the Christmas Tree Rev. Ed. (Fairfield: Aslan Publishing, 1998).

5. The story has appeared in many forms. Here is how it appears in Karas, 111: “One clear cold Christmas Eve the famous Reformation leader Martin Luther was walking home through the woods. As it was a beautiful starry night, he paused for a moment to gaze at the sky in reverent meditation. He was in a grove of tall pines ... From where he stood it looked as though thousands of stars had settled on their branches. He proceeded to cut a tiny tree and took it home where he decorated it with small candles in metal holders to recreate his experience for his children. That glittering tree became a tradition for his family in the many Christmasses to come just as it has for many other families around the world.”

6. Another pure legend that is sometimes passed off as historical fact is the story of St. Boniface. As one web page puts it: “The first Christmas tree is said to have originated in 8th century Germany when a British missionary, St. Boniface, cut down a giant oak that crushed every tree in its path except a small fir sapling. Considering this a miracle, St. Boniface called it “the tree of the Christ child.”

7. J. Lefftz and A. Pfleger, eds., Elsässische Weihnacht, hereafter EW (Kolmar, 1941), cited in Weiser, 100.

8. Quoted in Miles, 265. The manuscript can be found in EW, 53.

9. Miles, 265, quoting from Tille, Deutschen Weihnachten, 259.

10. Weiser, 101, citing EW 55. A later explicit mention of candles on a Christmas tree occurred in a Latin work on Christmas presents by Karl Gottfried Kissling of the University of Wittenberg, written in 1737. See Miles, 266.

11. Karas, 106.

12. Though Miles claims it was alluded to as early as 1789.

13. As laid out in Weiser, 101. See also Miles, 267.

14. Karas, 3-5.

15. Miles, 268.

16. Karas, 103-104.

17. This is the thesis of Weiser, 98-100, which, in my opinion, is the most convincing.

18. According to Weiser, pictures of these “Christmas pyramids” can be seen in O. Huth, Der Lichterbaum (Berlin, 1943), 72ff.

19. Weiser, 102.

Outline of article:

"Christmas is Obviously Pagan Because:

There is No Biblical Command or Precedent for It

Christians Did Not Celebrate Christ's Birth Until the Time of

Constantine (AD 313)

The Date of Christmas and its Many Customs Come from Paganism"

Since authoring the articles on the Origin of the Christmas Tree and Santa Claus two years ago, I have received dozens of e-mail from readers who scolded me for celebrating Christmas at all. In one form or another, some with kindness, some with invective, they all asserted, “Don't you know that Christmas is based on pagan festivals and customs? Therefore to celebrate it is to embrace paganism and to sin against God.” In most cases the e-mailers admonished me to dig deeper into the “real” origin of Christmas. So I followed their advice - in a way. I began searching the web for others who held this position, and found a multitude of articles.

Consider the following quotations as examples. In his “Is Christmas Christian?,” Michael Schneider states:

This may be a shocking thought to some: but after wrestling with

the question for several years now, searching the scriptures and

church history, I have come to the conclusion that there is

nothing Christian about Christmas; that in its present

observance, as well as in its origin, Christmas is basically and

essentially pagan.

What I'm saying, then, is that the real Christmas has always been

pagan, and to make it a Christian celebration is to try to add

Christ or biblical elements to an essentially pagan holiday.

Rick Meisel echoes this sentiment in “Tis the Season for Pagan Worship”:

What many in Christendom have been celebrating -- Christmas -- is

a thoroughly pagan holiday -- in its origin, in its trappings,

and in all its traditions.

The modern conservative cry to put Christ back into Christmas is

absurd. Jesus Christ was never in Christmas.

I carefully read these and other articles and books because I wanted to know the basis for their argumentation. What I found is that, though there are minor differences, they all make the same basic argument and recycle the same reasons why Christmas is pagan [by “pagan” the various authors mean “non-Christian religions.”].

Their argument is this: “Christmas is obviously pagan because:

• There is neither Biblical command or precedent for it;

• Christians did not observe it until the time of Constantine (after

AD 313); only then did the Church of Rome introduce it;

• The Date of Christmas and its many customs all come from pagan sources;

• When Christians observe Christmas in any way they are participating

in paganism.”

It is my position that Christmas is certainly not pagan, though many customs have gravitated to Christmas that have pagan origins. Therefore, in this article I would like to respond to those that argue that Christmas is pagan. I will attempt to show that though at times their facts are correct, in most cases their logic is not, which causes them to make false assumptions and conclusions repeatedly.

Before proceeding, however, one more observation. Most of those who argue for the pagan nature of Christmas appear to be sincere Christians who want to base everything they believe and do on the Bible. They are not fanatics. They believe in and value the incarnation and birth of Jesus Christ. It is simply their belief that the annual celebration of Christmas past and present is pagan and therefore the Christian should have no part in it.

In fact, if the “Christmas is pagan” crowd merely presented their argument as “opinion,” there would be no urgent need to respond. But it is the fact that they condemn Christmas observers as guilty of idolatry and, and in some cases, suggest that Christians who do Christmas are risking their salvation that is just too much. For in so doing they are binding Christian consciences and robbing Christians of their God-given freedom, making unnecessary matters necessary. More on this later. Now on to the analysis.

THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THOSE WHO OPPOSE CHRISTMAS

The first part of the argument that the anti-Christmas literature makes is:

(1) CHRISTMAS IS OBVIOUSLY PAGAN BECAUSE THERE IS NEITHER BIBLICAL COMMAND NOR PRECEDENT FOR CELEBRATING CHRIST'S BIRTH.

This is often stated in the literature. Characteristic of this argument are these comments in “Tis the Season for Pagan Worship”:

There is no Biblical warrant, precedent, nor precept for

remembrance of the day of Christ's birth as a day of special

religious celebration. This is not to say that we shouldn't

remember Christ's birth and its significance, but for religious

commemorations or celebrations, we must have Biblical command or

precedent!

Someone says, “I know Christmas is of pagan origin, but I still

think it's not wrong for a church to have a special time for

honoring Christ's birth.” But since when did Protestants believe

that Christians have the right to add to the Bible? Is the

church a legislative body? Are we to follow the Bible in our

faith and practice, or the thinking of fallible men? If we have

the right to add a special holy day to the Christian economy,

then we can add 10,000 other things. Then we will be no better

than the false cults and the Roman Catholics who follow heathen

traditions!

Notice though, that we are commanded to remember Him in His death

(but no special day was specified for this either) -- “Take, eat;

this is My body which is broken for you; this DO in remembrance

of Me” (Luke 22:18,19; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). To commemorate His

death is Scriptural. Any day of the year will do. To

commemorate His birth is non-Scriptural, even extra-Scriptural

(Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:19), whether one chooses

December 25th or any other day.

Later the same author favorably quotes a 1871 sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly

we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement

called Christmas ... because we find no Scriptural warrant

whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Saviour;

and consequently, its observance is a superstition, because

[it's] not of divine authority.

Now it is certainly true that the Bible does not command the celebration of Christ's birth in specific words, and I won't pretend that there is. Is it not true, however, that Matthew and Luke included their accounts of Christ's birth, at least in part to be read in worship? As the people responded to such readings of God's Word in worship with their praise, were they not celebrating Christ's birth? Moreover, it is well known that the portions of New Testament were from a very early period incorporated into the worship of the Church (e.g., the Magnificat, Mary's song of praise in Luke 1:46-55; and the Benedictus in Luke 1:68-79); it is also well known that portions of the New Testament contain hymns or confessions used already in the Apostolic age (e.g., Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16).

More to the point, however, does the silence of Scripture make celebrating Christ's birth wrong? Is it true that when it comes to religious celebrations, the Bible must specifically give command or precedent? Is it true that creating a Christian festival is the same as adding to Scripture?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding, “No!” To say that Christians are forbidden to create a special day for worship unless it is specifically commanded in the Scriptures is ludicrous. Where did they get this idea? Actually there is a word for this: biblicism. Biblicism is the legalistic error that Christians can only do what the Bible specifically says to do. This led some of the radical reformers in the Sixteenth Century to rid their churches of organs, crosses, clergy vestments, and many other things because the Bible did not command such things.

Have these authors never heard of Christian freedom? Yes, the doctrine of the Christian Church must be based only on Scripture alone and we dare not add to or subtract from it. But in matters that do not involve doctrine, in matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden, Christians have freedom in the Church to do or say, add or create, or subtract and delete anything -- unless, as I said, it clearly contradicts an essential teaching of the Christian faith, or is found by the majority not to be edifying.

This, by the way, is the meaning of our Lord's words in Mark, which these anti-Christmas writers love to quote: “You lay aside the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men ... making the Word of God of no effect through your tradition” (Mark 7:8,13). Jesus was not scolding the Pharisees because they had traditions. He was scolding them because (1) their man-made traditions contradicted the commandment of God and (2) they told those who didn't follow their traditions that they were sinning, thus making them necessary matters of conscience.

Does annually celebrating Christ's birth contradict a commandment of God or violate an essential teaching of the Bible? Not at all. Do Pastors tell their parishioners that if they do not observe Christmas they are sinning? If they do, they are wrong. Since we are not commanded to celebrate Christ's birth annually, we are not sinning if we choose not to. But neither are we sinning if we choose to observe it. It should not be made a matter of conscience, a matter of sin, in either case.

Now some within the anti-Christmas camp would respond by saying, “Ah, but there is a passage that commands us not observe special holy days. It is wrong to celebrate Christmas because the Bible commands us not to observe “days, months, seasons, and years” in Gal. 4:9-11.

Thus, we find in “Is Christmas Christian?”:

Paul wrote to the Galatians in dismay, “Ye observe days, and

months, and times, and years! I am afraid of you, lest I have

bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:10-11). He wasn't

condemning them for observing those institutions commanded by

God, but for observing those of man's making, contrary to God's

law.

Actually, the “days, months, and times, and years” to which Paul referred were Jewish holy days, about which the vast majority of Biblical commentators agree. When this passage is placed in the context of the entire letter to the Galatians, this becomes obvious. The Galatians were being taught by Jewish-Christian false teachers that faith in Jesus Christ was not enough to be justified before God, that they also had to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. Paul focuses on this issue in 5:2-4:

Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision,

Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to

every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation

to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you

who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from

grace.

The problem was not that the Galatians were observing holy days and seasons. It is that they were being taught that such observances were necessary for their salvation, a complete contradiction of the Gospel that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Similarly, to observe Christmas because you believe to not do so would be sinful is wrong and you would fall under Paul's exhortation in Gal. 4 & 5. But to observe Christmas in your Christian freedom, because you choose to, not because you have to, is completely permitted before God.

In some of the literature in question, we are also informed that the Sixteenth Century reformers rejected Christmas because it was pagan, as did the Puritans in the Seventeenth. Moreover, it is stated that it wasn't until the Nineteenth Century that Christmas was observed in Protestant denominations. The idea is, if these Bible-believing scholars rejected Christmas, shouldn't we?

So, for example, we read in “Is Christmas Christian?”

It was for this very reason that in Calvin's Geneva you could have been fined or imprisoned for celebrating Christmas. It was at the request of the Westminster Assembly that the English Parliament in 1644 passed an act forbidding the observance of Christmas, calling it a heathen holiday

... When the Puritans came to America they passed similar laws. The early New Englanders worked steadily through December 25, 1620, in studied neglect of the day. About 40 years later the General Court of Massachusetts decreed punishment for those who kept the season: “...anyone who is found observing, by abstinence from labor, feasting, or any other way, any such days as Christmas Day, shall pay for every such offense five shillings.”

It was not until the 19th century that Christmas had any religious significance in Protestant churches. Even as late as 1900, Christmas services were not held in Southern Presbyterian churches. The pcus General Assembly of 1899 declared: “There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holydays (sic), rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed faith, conducive to will-worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

There is an element of truth in the above statements. It is true that many of the Reformation churches rejected or outlawed the celebration of Christmas, as did the Puritans, and some Protestant denominations after them. It is disingenuous, however, to claim that they did so because they believed Christmas to be pagan. Rather, as their statements show, they refused to observe Christmas because (1) they believed that Scripture forbade special holy days; (2) they perceived Christmas to be “Roman Catholic” based on non-Scriptural tradition; and (3) they rejected Christ-mass because they considered the Church of Rome's mass to be contrary to the Gospel.

That reformation movements strove to distance themselves from the Pope and the Church of Rome is not at all surprising. The whole point of the Sixteenth Century Reformation was to “reform” the abuses and errors in the Christian Church of their day, which in Europe was the Church of Rome. With the resurgence of Biblical scholarship and Biblical authority, these reformers began to see that there were a multitude of teachings and practices in the Church of Rome that were “doctrines of men,” that were not found in or supported by the Word of God. In their zeal for Biblical truth, however, many of these groups tried to remove all doctrines of men and everything that smacked of the Church of Rome, including Christmas and other major holy days, ceremonies, and fasts.

But not all reformers took this approach. In fact, the original reformer, the one who launched the Reformation, Martin Luther, did not. Luther, and the reformation that followed him, only discarded those human teachings and traditions that directly contradicted the Gospel and the Scriptures. All other traditions within the Roman Church were retained if they were found to be helpful and edifying. For Luther, the doctrines of men became problematic when they made matters of conscience out of things that were not articles of faith, such as food, drink, clothing, and days. According to Luther:

We do not condemn the doctrines of men just because they are the

doctrines of men, for we would gladly put up with them. But we

condemn them because they are contrary to the gospel and the

Scriptures. While the Scriptures liberate consciences and forbid

that they be taken captive by the doctrines of men, these

doctrines of men captivate the conscience anyhow (A Reply to the

Texts, LW 35:153; WA 10II:91).

For this reason Luther retained many things in the Roman Church that did not contradict the Gospel, such as the liturgical calendar, some holy days, and yes, Christmas. In fact, Luther wrote many beautiful Christmas sermons (which you can read at www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/mlserms.html) and hymns.

This was followed by the Lutheran Church. In one of their official confessions of faith, The Augsburg Confession of 1530, it states:

Concerning church regulations made by human beings, it is taught

to keep those that may be kept without sin and that serve to

maintain peace and good order in the church, such as specific

celebrations, festivals, etc. However, people are also

instructed not to burden consciences with them as if such things

were necessary for salvation (Augsburg Confession, XV, Book of

Concord. Kolb-Wengert edition).

Though at this time the Lutherans abolished numerous saints' days, they kept other festivals, such as Christmas, because they saw them as wonderful opportunities to teach about events in the life of Christ. What the Lutherans did reject was the Church's of Rome's version of the mass, which made the Lord's Supper into a re-sacrificing of Christ in order to merit God's favor. They also wanted to see unChristian legends and songs removed from the Church's celebration of Christmas. And they repeatedly stated that it was not sinful to fail to observe Christmas (See Instructions to Visitors, LW 40:298-299).

ARGUMENT 2: THE FIRST CHRISTIANS NEVER OBSERVED THE CELEBRATION OF CHRIST'S BIRTH UNTIL EMPEROR CONSTANTINE IN AD 313 OFFICIALLY TOLERATED CHRISTIANS.

The real argument here is that when the church was “pure” during the first three hundred years, Christmas was never celebrated. Only when the church became corrupt, during and after the time of Constantine, did the Roman Church adopt Christianity based on pagan ideas. In this scheme, Constantine is depicted as someone that willingly mixed Christianity with paganism.

As an example of this we read in “Is Christmas Christian?”:

There is no indication in the New Testament that the early

Christians observed Christmas at all. It can be demonstrated in

church history that, for probably the first 300 years after the

birth of Christ, Christians knew nothing of Christmas

celebration. It was only as the Church began to drift from

apostolic doctrine and practice into corruption that Christmas

began.

In 313 A.D. the Roman Emperor Constantine supposedly adopted the

Christian faith and declared it to be the official religion of

his realm. His embracing the Christian Church proved detrimental

to true Christianity. Constantine retained the traditional pagan

titles, and his coins still bore the figures and names of the old

Roman gods.

The Church became “the Roman Catholic Church” and its method

became compromise with paganism.

And “Tis the Season for Pagan Worship” chimes in:

The fact of the matter is this -- the early church did not

celebrate Christ's birth, but such celebration only came into the

church with the “Christianization” of pagan rites as Catholicism

was made the state religion by Constantine in the fourth century

A.D.

First, it shows a total ignorance of early Church history to imagine that after the apostles there was a time that the church was “pure.” One only has to read the church fathers and other church documents to discover that in many places the Church began to drift from apostolic doctrine and practice almost from the beginning. As early as the late First Century, there arose legalistic and rigorist mindset in the church that seemed to almost forget the Biblical teaching of grace. Scattered throughout the empire were churches calling themselves Christian which were in fact gnostics, who used both the Scriptures and their own sacred literature side by side. From the time of the apostles there were countless false teachers and teachings that invaded the church, and in many cases leading entire regions astray. The followers of the false teacher, Marcion (85-160), for example, filled the Roman empire with hundreds of congregations by the end of the Second Century. There certainly was an orthodox Church, but it was anything but pure, in the sense of, “without any error.” These early Christians were beset with as many temptations and errant philosophies from the world as Christians today are.

Second, the implication that Constantine was a “pagan” emperor in disguise, because he “retained the traditional pagan titles, and his coins still bore the figures and names of the old Roman gods.” needs clarification and correction. There is a distinct difference between the Constantine from 312-323 and the Constantine from 324 and after. In 312 he became the emperor of the western part of the empire, while Licinius became emperor of the east. About this period of 312-323, the noted W. H. C. Frend observed:

And what of Constantine during these years? The evidence points

to a consistent if stormy progress toward accepting the Christian

God as the one to whom exclusive service must be given ...

However, until his preparations for his final campaign by 323, he

did not abandon his allegiance to the Sun god, even though he

regarded himself as a servant of the Christian God ... For twelve

years the two allegiances were held in uneasy tension until the

“God of Battles” claimed his own ... The liberation of Rome was

attributed to the Sun on a Medallion struck at the time. Soli

Invicto Comiti continued to dominate the coinage. While other

Western issues show the Sun's orb resting on an altar. The

protection of the gods of the empire did not disappear from the

coins until after C. 319. (W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of

Christianity, Fortress Press, 1985, 484).

After 324 all this changed. In 324 Constantine defeated Licinius at the Battle of Chrysopolis, and he became sole ruler of the Roman empire. Now his ardor for Christianity new no bounds. In fact, so disgusted was he by the paganism of Rome, that he moved the capital of the empire to Byzantium, finishing it in 330, and renaming it Constantinople. He forbade pagan sacrifices and he decreed that there were to be no idolatrous worship and no pagan festivals of any kind.

Thus, there is no evidence that the “pagan” Constantine was somehow responsible for combining the celebration of Christ's birth with paganism by moving it to Dec. 25. If anything, the evidence shows a Constantine who became so committed to the Christian faith that he was steadily moving toward disallowing all paganism.

It is also an anachronism that during the time of Constantine, that the “Church became the Roman Catholic Church,” or that “Catholicism was made the state religion by Constantine in the 4th Century.” Actually it was Theodosius I who decreed that Christianity was the official religion of the empire in 379. There was no “Roman Catholic Church” in the Fourth Century. That name only came into existence after the Sixteenth Century Reformation. It is true that Theodosius made “Catholicism” the state religion, if by “Catholicism” one means true Christians over against heretics. The see of Rome was highly honored, but held no special position of superiority at that time.

Thirdly, while it is true that Christmas (the birth of Christ) was not listed as one of the chief Christian festivals in the first two centuries of the Church's existence, it is not exactly true that the first Christians never observed the birth of Christ until the time of Constantine. Actually there is evidence of the feast being celebrated in Egypt prior to 200 A.D. The Church father Clement of Alexandria tells us that certain theologians had claimed to have determined not only the year of the Lord's birth but also the day; that it took place in the 28th year of Augustus and on the 25th day of Pachon (May 20) (Stromata, I, 21). He also added that others said that he was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi (April 19 or 20). Another piece of evidence is De Paschae Computus of 243, which states that Christ was born on March 28, because, it says, this was the day that the sun was created. Clement also tells us that other Christians were in the custom of celebrating the Baptism of Christ (his Epiphany) on the 15th day of Tubi and others on the 11th of the same month (Jan. 10 or 6). This is significant because it became customary in many places for Christians to celebrate both Christ's epiphany and his birth at the same – a practice of the Armenian Church to this day.

(3) THE DATE OF CHRISTMAS (DECEMBER 25), AND ITS MANY CUSTOMS ALL COME FROM PAGAN SOURCES. THEREFORE CHRISTMAS IS PAGAN.

It is when the “Christmas is pagan” literature examines the origin of the dating of Christmas on Dec. 25, that the anti-Christmas advocates become convinced that Christmas is wholly pagan. This is their strongest argument. The argument goes like this: Since no one knows when Jesus was born, where did the Church get the idea of celebrating it on Dec. 25? From the pagans who had several festivals the time of the winter solstice which honored pagan gods. Where did the pagans at the time of the Roman empire get the idea? It came from the paganism of ancient Babylon, a paganism begun by Nimrod and his wife.

One example of this argument is “Are Christianity and Christmas Compatible?” by Adam Wiemers:

Why is Christmas celebrated on Dec. 25th? The answer is rather

surprising.

Just a little research reveals that Christmas was actually

adapted from a Roman celebration called Saturnalia. The

Encyclopedia Romana* explains that “at the time of the winter

solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar), Saturnus, the god

of seed and sowing, was honored with a festival.” The

encyclopedia goes on to state that “the Saturnalia did continue

to be celebrated as Brumalia (from “bruma,” winter solstice) down

to the Christian era, when, by the middle of the fourth century

AD, its rituals had become absorbed in the celebration of

Christmas.”

Isn't that alarming? The very ways that Christmas is celebrated are directly borrowed from a festival to a god of the Romans!

This is only partially true. It is certainly well known that the Bible does not tell us the exact date of Christ's birth. As we saw in the previous section, Christians have been trying to pinpoint that date since the early centuries of the Church. Nevertheless, no one can say for certain which date is accurate.

The Romans, like many other cultures at the time of the winter solstice, had various festivals. Saturnalia, was a festival that honored Saturn, the god of agriculture, from Dec. 17-24. It was the most popular festival of the year and did involve merrymaking, gift-giving, relaxed morality, and temporary freedom for slaves, who were allowed to do and speak whatever they wanted. But not unlike many of our Christmas feasts today, by the early Fourth Century, the religious aspect of Saturnalia had faded, and the secular merrymaking had come to the fore. It is not likely, however, that Christians chose Dec. 25 to celebrate Christ's birth on the basis of Saturnalia.

The earliest extant record of Christ's birth being observed on December 25 is the Chronography in 354 A.D. This document was based upon a calendar that dated it to about 336 (Herman Wegman, Christian Worship in East and West, New York: Pueblo Publishing, 1985, 103).The Chronography was a document of the Church of Rome that listed the various martyrs' feasts for the year. By the time that Chrysostom was Bishop of Constantinople (398-404), Christ's birth was being observed on Dec. 25 throughout Christendom, though the Church in Armenia observed it on January 6.

But how did it happen that the early Christians began observing Christmas on December 25? Why this date? There are two theories about why December 25 was chosen.

(1) The first theory holds that after careful research, Julius (337-352), Bishop of Rome, determined that Christ had been born on December 25; or at least he determined that December 25 was the best authenticated date in the Tradition. John Chrystostom states this in one of his writings (John Chrysostom, Homil. Diem Natal., 2; PL, 49, 552ff.). Chrysostom claims that Julius, after he had been requested by Cyril of Jerusalem, had the official records of the Roman census examined and determined that December 25 was the correct date. As Weiser points out, however, there is no evidence to back this up; in fact, “it was expressly stated in Rome that the actual date of the Saviour's birth was unknown and that different traditions prevailed in different parts of the world” (F. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs - New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1958, 61.).

(2) The second theory states that the Church of Rome deliberately chose December 25 as the date of Christ's birth to turn people away from a pagan feast that was observed at the same time. Since the time of the Roman emperor Elagabulus (218-222), the god Sol Invictus (he Unconquered Sun god), had been one of the chief deities worshiped by the Romans. When emperor Aurelian (270-275) came to power, he sought to restore the worship of the Sun god to prominence and make him the chief deity. In the last years of his reign, Sol was hailed as “The Lord of the Roman Empire.” Sol, along, with Jupiter, appeared on the coins Aurelian had minted. In 274, the emperor built a magnificent temple to Sun god, and established a new college of senators which he named “the priests of the Sun god.” Finally, December 25 was observed as “the birthday of the Sun god” (natalis solis invicti). Because the Sun god was identifed with Mithra, a popular Persian god that also was viewed as the Sun god, pagan celebrations occurred throughout the empire on Dec. 25 (see Clement A. Miles, Christmas, New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912, 23). The Church at Rome seems to have chosen this date to counteract this pagan feast of the sun god and turn people instead to the “Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings” (Malachi 4:2; Luke 1:78). Or put another way, Julius chose December 25 so that the Son of God rather than the Sun god would be worshiped. Though there no direct evidence that proves that the Church of Rome deliberately chose December 25 so that Christ's birth would replace “the birthday of the sun,” we do have sermons from fathers of the church who soon after this used this line of reasoning. For example, Augustine (354-430) in his sermon 202 and Leo the Great (440-461 -- PL 54 Sources chrtiennes 22) gives this line of reasoning.

Therefore, the second theory seems to be the probable one. December 25 was chosen not because it had somehow been proven from extra-biblical sources that Christ was definitely born on December 25. Rather the date was chosen to counteract a very popular pagan holiday that already had been occurring on this date.

Given what we learned about emperor Constantine in the previous section, it is likely that his embracing of Christianity and example influenced the Church of Rome in doing what they did. But there is no evidence of Constantine's direct involvement.

Now does the fact that the Church of Rome chose the same date to celebrate Christ's birth as a popular pagan festival mean that “Christmas is based on a pagan festival” or that “Christmas is pagan”? I don't think so! What kind of reasoning is that? It simply means that they chose the same day - why, we don't exactly know. Perhaps they chose it to keep Christians from taking part in the pagan festivities, or perhaps to entice pagans to join the Christian faith. If a group of Christians chose to celebrate Christ's birth on Halloween or on some well known Satanic day, would it be fair or right to accuse them of basing Christ's birth on paganism, so that from then on Christmas would be forever pagan? Of course not! In this case the Christians might be doing this to give themselves something Christian to celebrate on the day. Is that wrong? Placing a Christian feast on a well known non-Christian day does not make the Christian feast non-Christian. They are merely sharing the day. We worship our God on Sunday, which in Roman times, was the day dedicated to the Sun-god. Does that make our worship on Sunday pagan? Perhaps we should worship on Saturday. But that day in Roman times was named in honor of the god Saturn. Would that make our festivals on Saturday pagan? Of course not. But this is the kind of faulty logic used by the “Christmas is pagan” crowd.

It gets worse. The “Christmas is pagan” argument typically asks a further question: Where did the Romans get their pagan festivals at the time of the winter solstice? Answer: From the paganism of ancient Babylon, which was initiated by Nimrod and his wife, Semiramus. A classic example of this argument is found in a tract by the World Wide Church of God entitled, “The Plain Truth About Christmas,” here quoted at some length.

But if we got Christmas from the Roman Catholics, and they got it

from paganism, where did the pagans get it? Where, when, and

what as its real origin? It is a chief custom of the corrupt

system denounced all through Bible prophecies and teachings under

the name of Babylon. And it started and originated in the

original Babylon of ancient Nimrod! Yes, it stems from roots

whose beginning was shortly this side of the Flood! Nimrod,

grandson of Ham, son of Noah, was the real founder of the

Babylonish system that has gripped the world ever since .....

Nimrod built the tower of Babel, the original Babylon, ancient

Nineveh, and many other cities. He organized this world's first

kingdom. The name Nimrod, in Hebrew, is derived from “Marad,”

meaning “he rebelled.” ... Nimrod was so evil, it is said he

married his own mother, whose name was Semiramis. After Nimrod's

untimely death, his so-called mother-wife, Semiramis, propagated

the evil doctrine of the survival of Nimrod as a spirit being.

She claimed a full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a

dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth unto new

life the dead Nimrod. On each anniversary of his birth, she

claimed, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts

upon it. December 25th was the birthday of Nimrod. This is the

real origin of the Christmas tree. Through her scheming and

designing, Semiramis became the Babylonian “Queen of Heaven,” and

Nimrod, under various names, became the “divine son of heaven.”

Through the generations, in this idolatrous worship, Nimrod also

became the false Messiah, son of Baal the Sun-god. In this false

Babylonish system, the “Mother and Child” (Semiramis and Nimrod

reborn) became chief objects of worship. This worship of “Mother

and Child” spread over the world. The names varied in different

countries and languages. In Egypt it was Isis and Osiris. In

Asia, Cybele and Deoius..... Thus, during the fourth and fifth

centuries, when the pagans of the Roman world were “accepting”

the new popular “Christianity” by the hundreds of thousands,

carrying their old pagan customs and beliefs along with them,

merely cloaking them with Christian-sounding names ..... The

real origin of Christmas goes back to ancient Babylon. It is

bound up in the organized apostasy which has gripped a deceived

world these many centuries! In Egypt, it was always believed

that the son of Isis (Egyptian name for “Queen of Heaven”) was

born December 25th. Paganism celebrated this famous birthday

over most of the known world for centuries before the birth of

Christ. December 25th is not the birthday of Jesus the true

Christ!

So goes the argument, which is repeated by many different anti-Christmas authors. Where in the world did such an argument come from? This was the thesis of Alexander Hislop, who in the Nineteenth Century wrote a book entitled, “The Two Babylons: Or the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” It was Hislop's thesis that the Roman Catholic Church was a direct descendent of the paganism of Nimrod and ancient Babylon. One of his arguments was that some of the chief holy days of the Roman Catholic Church, such as Christmas, prove this to be so. The stamp of Hislop's thesis is found all over most of the anti-Christmas literature that I've seen. But is his argument sound?

Hardly. I have no doubt that Hislop consulted a vast amount of sources in writing his book. This is obvious in reading it. But some of its key arguments are flawed. He makes many philological leaps of faith to prove his points. For example, his entire argument rests on making the Babylonian “Ninus” the same person as the Biblical “Nimrod.” (Nimrod is mentioned in only three places in the Scriptures, Gen. 10:8-12, 1 Chr. 1:10, and Micah 5:6). Only then can he claim that the wife of Nimrod was Semiramis, and that both were worshiped as divine mother and son, etc. Hislop himself recognizes how important this is, in this very interesting sentence:

Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that

assumption explains what is otherwise inexplicable in the

statements of ancient history greatly confirms the truth of the

assumption itself (The Two Babylons, 25).

Got that? The point is that this turns out to be a big assumption. In other ancient literature, the father of Ninus was Bel, and it is said that he built the city of Nineveh. The Bible on the other hand says that Nimrod built Nineveh, and that Cush was his father. The way in which Hislop attempts to reconcile this contradiction is a truly remarkable example of literary gymnastics that is hardly convincing. He argues that Bel is the same as Hermes/Mercury, and the same as Janus/Chaos, which is the same as Cush. Right. (See for yourself by reading the “The Two Babylons,” 25-29).

It is possible that Nimrod, the grandson of Cush, led people into pagan worship. But the argument that all paganism, and especially that all pagan festivals at the time of the winter solstice, can be traced back to Nimrod, just doesn't hold. To say it is a scholarly stretch is an understatement. Yet most of the “Christmas is pagan” literature bases its arguments on Hislop's thesis.

Isn't it more likely, that many primitive cultures and religions would choose to celebrate the birth of their gods at a time when the sun began to grow stronger, and thus be reborn? Isn't it much more likely that this is the reason that so many pagan religions have festivals at the time of the winter solstice? I'll let you decide which thesis is stronger.

The last part of the third anti-Christmas argument to be considered is that the origin of the customs were pagan and therefore Christmas is pagan. It is well known that most of the customs of Christmas were also observed in pagan culture and religion. Lights and mistletoe, trees and gift-giving, merry-making and revelry, yule logs and holly, and yes, Santa Claus, all found use or expression in ancient pagan religion and culture (The reader is encouraged to read my articles on “The Origin of the Christmas Tree,” “The Origin of Santa Claus and the Christan Response,” and the “Christian Customs FAQ.”).

But is similarity the same as dependence or derivation? In other words, just because we use similar customs does it mean in every case that these are directly derived from pagan religions? Cultures all over the world have used lights and trees, gift-giving and revelry for their celebrations. Why is it assumed that because Christians use these things at Christmas that they have taken them directly from paganism? If it is discovered that pagans drank milk or hugged their families at their pagan festivals, does that mean that if Christians do so, they are engaging in paganism? But this is the kind of logic used by the anti-Christmas crowd.

Of course some Christmas customs are certainly taken from paganism. The use of the word yule and the various customs associated with it, for example, come from pagan culture. The word probably came the Anglo-Saxon geol, which meant “feast.” It is thought that among the Anglo-Saxons, the time of the winter solstice was a time of a great feast.

But so what? Is everything that was once used by paganism centuries ago, now off limits when Christians apply them to Christmas or other Christian festivals? Are we prepared to strictly apply that to everything we do? Why can't we use some of the same words, symbols or customs, which long ago ceased to be used in the worship of false gods? We need to remember that before pagans coopted them centuries ago, God had given many of the things used in custom, as good gifts to be enjoyed by his people. Why then can Christians not redeem these good gifts for their use as they celebrate Christmas? In my opinion, it is sufficient to point out to people the origin of these customs, and distinguish these “winter customs” from the true Christmas celebration, which has to do with the birth of God's Son, Jesus Christ. In my perfect world, people would call all of those customs “winter customs” or “holiday customs” rather than “Christmas customs.” “Christmas” would only be used to refer to the Christian holy day that remembers Christ's birth. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

We cannot and should not stop the peoples of the world from celebrating at the time of the winter solstice. There is obviously something in us that makes us want and need to celebrate at this time of the year. Therefore we should not be surprised that at this time of the year even non-Christians are celebrating “Christmas,” that is, using many of the customs now called Christmas customs.

I have not written this essay to condemn the “Christmas is pagan” crowd. And I certainly haven't written it to convince them that they must celebrate Christmas. Christians have never been commanded to celebrate Christ's birth annually. Therefore they are free to do so or not do so. I have written this essay, however, to those dear Christians who have been falsely taught that celebrating Christmas is celebrating paganism, and they are wracked with guilt because of it. My message to them is: you are doing nothing wrong to celebrate the birth of God's Son; in fact, praising and thanking God for the gift of His Son is beautiful worship in the sight of God. There is also nothing wrong with using some of the winter customs, provided you keep them in perspective and don't allow them to bury the celebration of Christ's birth.

May all who read this, have a truly joyous Christmas celebration.

__________

Dr. Richard P. Bucher, Pastor Dec. 14, 2001

SOURCES

Armstrong, Herbert W. “The Plain Truth About Christmas.” http://home.sprynet.com/~pabco/ptofxmas.htm

“Christmas.” Encyclopedia Britannica 2001, CD Edition.

“Christmas.” Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Hislop, Alexander. The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife. Loizeaux Brothers, 1990. Also at http://biblebelievers.com/babylon/

Meisel, Rick. “Tis the Season ... FOR Pagan Worship.” http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Despatch/vol94_xmas.html

Miles, Clement A. Christmas in Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912.

Reckart, Cohen G. “Christmas is Pagan.” http://www.jesus-messiah.com/html/christmas.html

“Saturn.” Encyclopedia Britannica 2001, CD Edition.

Schneider, Michael. “Is Christmas Christian?” http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/xmas_ch1.htm

Wegman, Herman. Christian Worship in East and West. New York: Pueblo Publishing, 1985.

Weiser, Francis X. Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1958.

*

Tradition says that the Apostle Peter was buried on Vatican Hill and excavations and inscriptions appear to confirm it. One inscription, in Greek, dating from about the year 160, read “Peter is in here.” Another is a prayer addressed to the Apostle on behalf of the Christians buried near him. Here too were found the bones of a sturdy old man, wrapped in crimson cloth, now thought by Catholic authorities to be those of Peter.

Not far from these inscribed stones, with their confidence in a day beyond death, was the tomb of the very pagan Flavius Agricola, with an epitaph celebrating wine and easy love.

Friends who read this, I’ll give you some advice: drink a toast

to Bacchus, with a crown of flowers on your head, and drink it a

long way from here. And never say no to sex with a good-looking

girl. When you die, dirt and the funeral pyre will get what’s

left of you.

The stone bearing this epitaph, one of the crudest of all paganism, as discovered by Bernini when he was excavating the area around Saint Peter’s tomb to lay the foundations for the great altar of the new Saint Peter’s basilica. The pope ordered it burned into lime, but some humanist copied it first.

*

I came across “The Complete Idiot's Guide to Paganism” in the library the other day and gave it a look. Old fashioned paganism is on the rise once again, and I wanted to see what they had to say about Wicca.

Those guides for “idiots” and “dummies” are often quite insightful, providing accessible summaries for a range of phenomena and schools of thought. But this time the “idiot” in the title seemed especially appropriate.

Carl McColman, the author, is described on the back cover as “a practitioner of nature spirituality,” “co-founder and former leader of a druid grove,” and “co-leader of an interfaith pagan meditation circle.” Busy boy, that Carl.

The passage that particularly prompted my wonder was one that justified “polyamory” as:

“...the belief that it's okay to love more than one person at a

time, as long as the love is expressed ethically and honestly to

all persons involved. Such love can be expressed sexually or

not. It might involve people who live together in a group

marriage, or it might involve people who love several different

partners who live in different places.”

He then offers the strangest justification for such behavior:

“Like many elements of paganism, polyamory has its connection to

nature. The bonobo, a species of chimpanzee whose genetic makeup

is extremely similar to humans, is remarkable for living in

peaceful societies where there's lots of monkey business going on

-- literally. Most bonobos are bisexual and, to put it

delicately, very active. ... Polyamourous pagans cite the

bonobos as evidence that sexual freedom occurs in nature and

therefore is a valid lifestyle option.”

That's an interesting way to validate behavior: Find some animal which does it, preferably a primate, and then claim that when you follow suit, you are natural and thus moral. I would suggest that Pagan Carl think twice about that approach to virtue. Otherwise, he could find himself defending a parent who ate his young because baboons sometimes do so. And is he suggesting it's okay to walk around naked and relieve yourself in public? Chimps do it. I could multiply examples, but you get the point.

He's misunderstood the true meaning of “natural,” as captured in the natural law approach to ethics. This perspective sees God-given design and purpose in creatures, and finds moral direction in encouraging the fulfillment of such purpose. It is not enough to find some instance or even a preponderance of something in the world. The pattern in question must lead to the flowering of the subject before it counts as good.

Let's take an acorn for example. Most acorns die before taking root. Some decay on the sidewalk. Squirrels eat some. Cars run over others. I'm pretty sure that less than one percent of acorns ever make an oak. But we don't say that the acorn which does its natural thing dies without germination. We reserve our admiration for the little fella who becomes a towering tree. Now THAT'S an acorn!

So the person who comes on the late night talk show and touts his immoral lifestyle, saying, “Hey, it's a new millennium, and everyone's doing it,” is as bright as a squashed acorn bragging that most acorns are squashed. And even if everyone is doing, it matters not. They can all be fools. The question is what the mature and fruitful people would be doing, if there were any.

That which makes for mature chimphood does not necessarily make for mature, human adulthood. God has created each kind with its own wiring and for its own purposes. And while polyamory might do for the bonodos, it most certainly will not do for the Bonos, or Smiths, or Clarks. To take our behavioral cues from the menagerie in opposition to the behavior cues of Scripture is the height of folly.

So let the pagans emulate the primates if they will, but stop them if they start to eat their kids, even if they object that it's only natural.

________

Mark Coppenger is pastor of Evanston (Illinois) Baptist Church and distinguished professor of apologetics at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Reprinted from the Illinois Baptist newsjournal.

*

Many early Christians violently opposed the innovations of Paul's approach to the faith [see #29499], and after his death at the hands of the Romans in about AD 67, few proselytised quite so radically. But Paul's version eventually became dominant, and this was because it successfully appealed to the most people.

THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY

• Early Christianity proved very popular with the lower echelons of Roman society. It provided them with gains in practical matters, status and present and future survival.

• This enhanced survival was quite real. Among the early Christians, there were higher rates of fertile marriages, and because they tended to band together for mutual support, fewer of them died from hunger and disease.

• Christianity was difficult to stamp out because of its flexibility, portability and in-built theology of martyrdom and resistance. Even the aggressive persecution that affected the early Christians from time to time simply confirmed them in their beliefs.

• A sufficient number of higher-echelon people found the new religion attractive enough to give periodic injections of significant resources and protection.

In AD 312, on his way to battle, the emperor Constantine is said to have had a vision, seeing the Christian cross in the sky accompanied by the legend: 'By this, conquer!’ (He did.) The following year, in the Edict of Milan, toleration of Christianity was officially sanctioned.

THE DEMISE OF PAGANISM

The end of paganism was not sudden or even rapid. It persisted well into the 5th century and beyond, even after the decisive triumph of Christianity at the highest level of Roman society.

Paganism was particularly popular in rural areas, and many of the élite continued to regard Christianity as unspeakably vulgar. In fact, one emperor – Julian the Apostate – declared himself a pagan on his accession in AD 361. But he only lasted two years, and his successor Jovian restored state support to the Christian Church.

But paganism did gradually disappear, for a number of reasons:

• It remained largely a temple system and hence was vulnerable to the destruction of these sacred buildings, and to the diminishing ability of the élite to endow and support them.

• This money disappeared into the temples themselves and was not redistributed to the needy among their supporters – a Christian practice that attracted many potential converts.

• Paganism attempted to deliver many of the same services as Christianity: freedom from sickness, demonic oppression, anxiety and so on. However, paganism was a 'user pays' system trying to compete with the Christians' free one.

• Women, while not enjoying equality, were nevertheless often seen to be better treated and to have more scope within Christianity.

As Christianity increased its grip, it began to persecute the pagans and to attempt to remove all trace of them from the Western world. At the same time, the Christian Church – now the official state religion throughout the West – was pouring its money into buildings and shrines and so increasingly resembling its former rival.

*

Google “Should Christians celebrate Halloween” and you'll get ABOUT ONE THOUSAND SITES covering everything from “it's completely harmless” to “it's completely hellish.” Here's site 1,001 that's somewhere in the middle:

ORIGIN OF HALLOWEEN

Halloween’s origins date back two thousand years to the Celtic New Year festival of “Samhain” (pronounced sow-in) named after their god of the dead. (If it’s been a while since World History class, the Celts occupied England, Ireland and northern France.) Samhain was also one of the four high days (sabbats) of witchcraft or, more accurately, Wicca.

On the night before the November 1 new year, Celts believed that Samhain and the dead would roam the earth causing all kinds of trouble. So the Celtic priests, Druids, would demand that all light be extinguished on Halloween night and sacrifices be made to prevent trouble.

To avoid “tricks,” the villagers would bake up “treats” to appease the dead. They would also dress up in ghoulish costumes and parade to the outskirts of town hoping the departed souls would follow them out of town.

After sacrifices, villagers would carry the fire, thought to be sacred, back to their homes in carved out vegetable shells.

In the eighth century Pope Gregory II moved the church festival honoring martyrs of “All Saints” to November 1 as a Christian alternative to the Celtic New Year celebrations. “All Hallow’s Eve” or “Halloween” means the “evening of holy persons” and was to be used in spiritual preparation for All Saints Day.

SO, WHAT SHOULD A CHRISTIAN DO?

The Apostle Paul deals with these kinds of issues when he addresses meat offered to pagan idols. Is this wrong for the Christian — who doesn’t believe in the false gods to whom the meat was offered — to eat meat offered to idols? Here’s Paul’s advice:

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an

idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but

one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or

on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet

for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things

came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus

Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed

to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having

been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak,

it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no

worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not

become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak

conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's

temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to

idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed

by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this

way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I

will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall

(1 Corinthians 8:4-13).

If Paul were alive today, he may write something like . . .

Don’t worry about the ancient association of these holidays with

paganism since we know there are no gods of sun and death, and

that the dead don’t roam the earth. You’re not appeasing Samhain

when you go “trick-or-treating” or sacrificing to the gods by

carving a jack-o-lantern. But if your family or friends have

reservations about these things, don’t encourage them to do

something they feel is “sinful.”

At least that's my opinion among the nearly one thousand other perspectives.

________

© 2005 James N. Watkins

*

If you have not decided how or where you want your remains to disposed of, there is a company here in the Washington, D.C., area that has an eco-friendly proposal: The people at EcoEternity of Middleburg, Virginia, propose to make trees, not burial plots, “the final resting places for the ashes of the deceased.”

For as little as $4,500, EcoEternity will place your ashes in a “bio-degradable urn” and bury them alongside a tree. As the urn decomposes, you “will become one” with your “personal” tree. Since up to 15 family members can be “become one” with a particular tree, the concept of a “family tree” will take on a whole new meaning.

Wanting to spend eternity as bark and other fibrous material is not a new idea: It is practiced in Europe, Canada, and “parts of Asia.” Its appeal lies in the fact that cremation is “less noxious and resource-consuming” than traditional burial.

What’s also true is that this idea could be possible only in a post-Christian culture.

Christianity has traditionally regarded cremation with — at best — some suspicion. One of the ways the early Church stood out from its pagan neighbors was the way that Christians treated their dead.

Pagans BURNED their dead. To early Christians, this was in keeping with the pagan denial of Christian beliefs about the afterlife, especially the belief in the resurrection of the dead.

In contrast, Christians BURIED their dead. Christian teaching about the Incarnation and the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit led them to treat the body with respect.

To this day, the Orthodox Church forbids cremation except when it cannot be avoided, like during epidemics or following natural disasters. While the Catholic Church permits it under more circumstances, it forbids cremation where the act “demonstrate[s] a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body.” It also prohibits the scattering of ashes or keeping them in your living room next to a bowling trophy.

Given this history, it is not a surprise that cremation has become more popular as Christian ideas have become less influential. Nor should it come as a surprise that cremation is most popular in the part of the country where people are least likely to attend church or identify themselves as Christians.

The treatment of the body is not the only pagan element to this story: Trees, you see, occupied a central place in pagan mythology throughout Europe and the ancient Near East. Folklore is filled with references to sacred groves and trees.

These groves were the sites of sacrifices, both of animals and humans, and were said to be the places were the gods and spirits dwelt and communicated with their worshippers. Not surprisingly, trees play a central role in revivals of paganism today.

Now, I doubt that any of this occurred to the people at EcoEternity. That only goes to show how post-Christian societies can drift backwards toward paganism without even being aware of it.

The way that the West treated its dead was tied to what it believed about Christ. But absent those beliefs, it was inevitable that in death, as in life, people would find themselves as plant food or — dare I say — lost in the woods.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #21507]

A few weeks ago, a reader asked about the origin of the wreath. She had heard that it was meant to be a symbol of Christ’s crown of thorns. That connection is a stretch, but the wreath and other Christmastime foliage have symbolized many things over the centuries, some of them Christian.

The wreath seems to represent a convergence of two lines of tradition. One one side, it’s probably related to circlets worn on the head. In cultures of the ancient Persian Empire, nobles wore diadems of fabric and sometimes jewels, and Greeks rewarded Olympic victors and other high achievers with laurel crowns. It’s unclear how such headgear was transformed into wall decor, but perhaps people just hung their crowns up as souvenirs. Neither Christmas nor Advent wreaths are worn as headbands, though for the Swedish festival of St. Lucia, on December 13, the family’s eldest daughter wears a headpiece decorated with greenery and nine lighted candles.

Though early Roman Christians used laurel in their Christmas decorations because it symbolized victory, glory, and cleansing from guilt, Europeans largely favored evergreens. This shows the modern wreath’s other heritage: German and Celtic solstice festivities. In cold, northern climates, people latched onto anything that represented light and life against darkness and despair. As a result, their favorite winter symbols included torches (analagous to Advent candles) and plants that stayed green all year. A wreath with burning candles, then, is related to the Yule log–a good-luck charm held over from the 12-day Norse winter festival of Jol. Christmas candles may also be related to Hanukkah candles, as both of the nearly concurrent observances celebrate holy light.

Though wreaths have no direct connection to Christ’s crown, holly does. European Christians in the Middle Ages said that its prickly leaves and red berries represented thorns and drops of blood. Some also believed that the cross was made of holly, though others believed it was made of oak. Holly used in Christmas decorations was often kept after the holiday for protection–against witchcraft in England and against lightning in Germany.

Decorative mistletoe, too, usually lasted beyond the Christmas season, until Candlemas (February 2) or even until the next year, when a new sprig took its place. The kissing tradition stems from an old Scandanavian custom whereby enemies who met under mistletoe in the forest would lay down their weapons and maintain a truce until the next day. Mistletoe is usually excluded from church decorations, for the obvious reason, but also because the plant was worshiped by Druids, who believed it could cure all diseases.

Perhaps the only Christmas plant without pagan superstitions attached to is the poinsettia. Dr. Joel Roberts Poinsett, the American ambassador to Mexico, brought the flower to this country in 1829. Mexicans call it the “flower of Holy Night” because its red bracts (they’re not petals) make a shape like the Star of Bethlehem. According to a Mexican legend, long ago a poor boy was afraid to enter the church on Christmas Eve because he had no gift to bring the baby Jesus. In prayer, the boy told God that he really wanted to bring a gift but could not afford one. When the boy opened his eyes, a poinsettia bloomed at his feet. He joyfully brought the plant inside, an act that might relate to the practice in many churches of decking the altar with poinsettias.

Every year around this time, the ritual begins anew. The weather cools off, leaves change color and Christians start arguing about Halloween.

And many people love this night. It gives folks an excuse to host parties, kick off the holiday spending season, and it provides economic stimulus for the dental industry. Others use it as an excuse to flirt with things much darker than plastic skeletons and creative jack-o’lanterns. But what is Halloween really about? Is there something spiritual behind all the ghoulishness?

“Halloween is a satanic holiday,” say some. “It’s a celebration of death,” insist others. Back when I was a kid, a series of comic-book style tracts went around claiming that Halloween was really a pagan holiday when medieval Druids used to carry out human sacrifice under a full moon.

I was surprised to learn that even modern pagans who love Halloween admit that this story is mostly made-up. As one self-professed pagan blogger at Patheos writes, “Halloween ... feels like a pagan holiday, and it’s been categorized as one for several decades now ... I sympathize,” he says, “but claiming that Halloween is ‘100% pagan’ is not a tenable argument.”

The very name “Halloween” means “holy evening” — a throwback to when Catholic Christians prepared for the Feast of All Saints on November 1st.

The history of the spooky costumes is unclear. Some sources say they date back to when Christians would dress up like demons — not for fun, but to disguise themselves from the marauding forces of darkness hoping to crash their celebration of their church’s heroes. Other sources say the costumes were originally about mocking Satan and his minions.

Kirk Cameron, who just finished a film about the history of Christmas, takes that view and is urging us to make the most of Halloween’s origins. How? Well, if you’re a Christian, he says you should be throwing “the biggest Halloween party on your block.” Cameron argues it’s a great way to make fun of the Devil and proclaim Jesus’ victory over sin and death to your neighbors.

Steven Wedgeworth, a pastor writing at the Calvinist International, gives a third perspective. In one of the best overviews out there on Halloween’s history, he concludes that neither story gets it all right. There are definitely echoes of paganism in Halloween, and All Hallows Eve had a major influence, too. But the holiday of today — especially the costumes and trick-or-treating — is a recent invention. Like the commercialized secular Christmas, he writes, Halloween as we know it has more to do with department stores than druids.

Well here’s my take: What Paul wrote in Philippians 4 should guide all our celebrations, no matter the day. Christians should think on “whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and commendable.” It’s hard to imagine that axe-murderer get-ups and sexually provocative costumes pass that test. And we should also consider his teaching on meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 10*. Idol worship is always wrong, but eating meat sacrificed to idols is a matter of conscience. If you can’t in good conscience participate in Halloween, there are plenty of other things to celebrate this time of year: Reformation Day, All Saints Day on November 1, the beauty of fall’s changing colors, and as always, the sovereignty of God over everything.

Now if your family is anything like mine, you’re more likely to find characters from Disney’s “Frozen” than a band of nightmare monsters in your living room. But if you and your kids do enjoy a little spooky stuff, don’t worry. As Paul Pastor writes over at Christianity Today, “monsters point us to God.” “No story worth listening to,” he says, “lacks a villain. And no villain worth fighting lacks monstrosity.”

And there’s no story with more monstrous villains or darker darkness than the story of Scripture. It’s an evil that’s not just “out there,” but it’s in our own hearts. And yet this evil in the world and in our hearts is a defeated evil because of Jesus Christ.

And so, wherever you land on Halloween, don’t fear. Any real evil out there is a defeated foe.

________

* The original says "1 Corinthians 9" which is incorrect.

(This commentary first aired on Oct. 31, 2014.)

Copyright (c) 2014 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Halloween in some form or another has been around for a long time. What we call Halloween originated in two other autumn festivals -- the ethnic Celtic celebration of Samhain and the Christian All Saints Day.

The Celtic harvest festival of Samhain (Gaelic - perhaps “Summer’s End”) possessed multiple facets in Celtic folklore that celebrated harvest, the dead and even the Celtic new year. Samhain probably derived from an earlier pagan celebration. Following custom among early and medieval Christian churchmen, Christian leaders often placed their holidays near popular pagan celebrations to wean their converts away from the pagan festivals. Hence, Pope Gregory III moved All Saints Day from May 13 to Nov. 1. Although never stated in any source that Gregory’s motive in the move was to counter the popular autumn festivals with pagan roots, his decision seemed to conform to previous practice.

All Saints Day, and its variants, All Hallows Mass and Hallowmas, never entirely disassociated itself in the popular imagination from the earlier association with pagan fall festivals and superstition. Much to the chagrin of church leaders of the medieval ages, popular observances preserved some of the older pagan features of the holiday, such as manifestations as autumn bonfires (from “bonefires”), maintaining links to the occult, folk magic and superstitions concerning the dead. These features were thought to be deployed most prominently on the evening before All Hallows -- therefore the modern name Halloween or “All Hallows Evening.” The term itself originated in Scotland.

In addition, new customs evolved that had little direct connection to the church-sanctioned holiday of All Saints Day (or the later All Souls Day on Nov. 2). For instance, some burned candles or used lighted hollowed-out turnips (“jack-o-lanterns”) to drive away the malevolent spirits of the dead on the eve of All Hallows. The custom of adults and children disguising themselves to fool these spirits and beg for food and coins on or near All Saints Day (“guising”) emerged as the origin of “trick or treating.” This popular custom of adults participating in guising even drew the negative comment of Shakespeare in his play “The Two Gentlemen of Verona” when the character Speed accuses his master of “puling [whining or whimpering] like a beggar at Hallowmas” (Act 2, Scene 1).

Not at all unlike many Baptist pastors today, both Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders of the Reformation era condemned the survival of pagan, occult and superstitious customs observed around All Saints Day and Halloween. Later, some Protestants eventually encouraged their people to observe instead a “Reformation Day” as a replacement for Halloween since Martin Luther started the Reformation on the eve of All Saints Day in 1517. This practice simply continued the long trend of supplanting questionable popular holidays with Christian observances.

In the early United States, some success in eradicating the pagan and occult practices associated with Halloween occurred. Many of the Christian groups who settled America like the Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers and Baptists refused to observe All Saints Day -- let alone Halloween.

Nevertheless, Halloween was rekindled as Celtic immigrants from Scotland and Ireland poured into the United States in the 1800s. They substituted the American pumpkin for the turnip to make their jack-o-lanterns; thus the most prominent decoration of the holiday became fixed in American culture.

Furthermore, as Irish politicians, policemen and fireman became dominant in the larger urban cities, they revived the old medieval custom of guising, but this time limited the practice to children. Reacting to their large Irish populations, big city mayors (often Irish themselves) of the 20th century declared an official “trick or treat” day usually on Halloween itself. Since many urban neighborhoods were thought unsafe for children, the Irish-dominated police and fire departments often provided Halloween costume parties or trick or treat stations at police precincts and fire stations. These and other Halloween customs among Scottish and Irish Americans quickly became accepted in mainstream American culture and even spread to rural areas of the South and West. By the mid-20th century Halloween was well on its way to joining Christmas in becoming the two top holiday events in the American cultural year.

Yet, even as most Americans, including its evangelical Christian community, found little harm in such Halloween customs as trick or treating, carving jack-o-lanterns, yard and home decorating or even costume parties for adults and children, a darker side of the holiday traced its genesis to the 1960s. The counterculture that emerged in that decade expressed some sympathy for genuine occult and pagan practices associated with the holiday. Groups that claimed pagan or satanic connections celebrated the holiday as their own. Real and exaggerated reports of trick or treat candy tampering (most reports usually turned out to be false) originated during this decade, and many parents questioned the wisdom of allowing their children to participate in civic-sponsored trick or treat observances. Although Halloween possessed a long history of largely harmless pranks, the 1960s witnessed outbreaks of “hell night” or the “devil’s night” in some communities that took human life and millions of dollars in fire damage. This destructive phenomenon largely was identified with Detroit and other large cities. The introduction of “gore” into Halloween culture, costumes and makeup owed much to George Romero’s 1968 film “The Night of the Living Dead.”

By the early 1970s many Christians had soured on these features of the Halloween holiday and they began an internal discussion about the holiday, asking themselves, “What do we do with Halloween?”

Since the 1970s the evangelical Christian and Baptist community have answered this question with diverse responses. Some Christians overlook Halloween’s excesses and allow their children and young people to participate in community and civic events, while other Christians have remained adamantly opposed to the holiday and renounce all features of the festival. Other Christian community leaders have used the time around Halloween to conduct “Hell Houses,” “Operation Nightmare” and similar events. These are designed as evangelistic events with the purpose of revealing to young people the reality of hell and a life without Christ. Although these are provided with the best of intentions, Hell Houses remain controversial and even many Christians have lamented that evangelistic efforts like these may lead to questionable conversion results.

The most emergent contemporary response to Halloween in the evangelical Christian community is to provide a Christian alternative to the popular holiday. Under such names as “Fall Festival,” “Holyween,” etc., many churches now offer the church itself as the focal point for providing a Halloween alternative. These festivals may provide some or all of the following: “trunk or treat” or a trick or treat alternative for young children, a fall décor for the church, costume parties for both children and teens, fall-themed games and amusements, seasonal foods and refreshments, bonfires, and other related seasonal activities. Generally, these churches discourage costumes with occult, pagan or “gory” themes and they refrain from calling these events Halloween parties. In addition, these churches also offer prayer and devotion before their festivities and also pass out evangelistic tracts to visiting community members.

Pastors who favor this response believe that it is better to embrace this option rather than allowing their people to participate in the popular but largely secular Halloween activities of the general culture. Ironically, this approach mirrored historic and contemporary efforts by Roman Catholics and Protestants to provide alternatives for the unpleasant associations of the autumn holiday. It is doubtful that “Fall Festivals” will replace Halloween on the calendar, but the churches that provide these Halloween alternatives serve a useful function. Parents of children and teens like the idea of a safe and Christian-themed environment for their Halloween alternative.

However Christians respond to Halloween, two certainties remain: Halloween will survive and Christians, following a centuries-old tradition, will offer alternatives to the festival’s worst features.

________

Stephen Douglas Wilson is dean emeritus and chair of the history department at Mid-Continent University in Mayfield, Kentucky.

Do you think our culture is messed up? Imagine what the culture of ancient Rome was like. Yet Christianity triumphed over it. How’d that happen?

In his book, “The Triumph of Christianity,” (which, by the way was one of Chuck Colson’s favorites) historian Rodney Stark describes the religious world on that first Christmas Eve in the Roman World.

It was a world in which the gods “were everywhere and thought to be undependable.” That’s because, apart from “some magical powers” and “perhaps the gift of immortality,” there was little to distinguish them from their human worshippers: “they ate, drank, loved, envied, fornicated, cheated, lied and otherwise set morally ‘unedifying examples.’ “

Not surprisingly, they didn’t care about their worshippers. All they wanted was to be propitiated.

In other words, they were not worthy of worship.

Roman society could be just as oppressive and undependable as the gods it worshipped. For most people, life in the empire’s cities could be fairly described, to borrow a phrase from philosopher Thomas Hobbes, as “nasty, poor, solitary, brutish, and short.”

It was into this world that Christianity was born. It triumphed because it offered an alternative to the oppression of Roman society and the dead-end of paganism, an alternative that was so compelling it outweighed the disadvantages of being identified as a Christian.

As Stark writes, “in the midst of the squalor, misery, illness, and anonymity of ancient cities, Christianity offered an island of mercy and security.” Here’s the thing: when you read Stark’s words, you realize that we also have something compelling to offer our contemporaries.

It starts with understanding that many of our contemporaries also worship deities that are undependable and scarcely distinguishable from their worshippers: that’s because they worship themselves.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “worship” as “the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.” This worship then transforms the worshipper. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “the Gods we worship write their names on our faces; be sure of that ... thus, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.”

Emerson didn’t foresee the age of social media in which we increasingly worship what we’ve become or at least what we imagine ourselves to be. Many pages on Facebook and Instagram can, with almost no exaggeration, be called shrines.

Of course, these deities are even more of a dead end than the pagan gods of Rome. What’s more, self-worship can be a lonely place. After all, the Greek gods didn’t play well together, either. While today’s pagans are far from anonymous, they are no less isolated than their ancient predecessors. A 2011 Cornell study found that the average American has only two “good friends.”

What we have to offer is remarkably — or not — similar to what the early Christians had to offer: what Stark called an “intense community,” a place where, instead of being surrounded by strangers, they are surrounded by “brothers and sisters in Christ.” A place that when the hard times come, as inevitably they will, “there [are] people who care — there are people who have the distinct responsibility to care.”

Stated succinctly, what we have to offer is a better way to be human.

That’s why, despite the often-distressing state of our culture, I am hopeful. The alternative we have to offer our contemporaries is just as desperately needed as what the early Church offered the Romans. What’s needed is for us to proclaim and embody that alternative.

If we do, it could be Christmas Eve once again.

________

Copyright (c) 2013 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Halloween has been a controversial American holiday for conservative Christians for several decades now. Putting it that way might itself be a surprise for some. Wouldn’t it rather be the case that Halloween has been controversial for centuries? If it were really an ancient tradition, whether catholic or pagan, shouldn’t we expect a longer trail of protest, embrace, or at least commentary? The surprising fact is that nearly all of the festivities and celebrations which are collectively thought of as “Halloween” practices are less than a century old, and their current widespread popularity and cultural force is really only about forty years old.

The classic “fundamentalist” critique of Halloween can be seen here. We should notice that there has always been a mixture of hysteria with common sense in these sorts of observations. Basically every claim there about druids and witches is false. I will explain more about this topic below, but our concepts of paganism, witchcraft, and even Satanism are all modern constructions, made by piecing together some bits of ancient lore with medieval Christian imagery and late 19th century and early 20th century occultism (You can read up on some of this here, though there’s much more to the story). The only carry-over into Halloween from this stuff is superficial. Making matters worse, the supposed “pagan” roots of Halloween are still propounded by more mainstream accounts. As we will see, the real history simply does not support these claims. However, there are some legitimate points to consider from the fundamentalist critique, namely in the areas of moral prudence. Once we remove the mythology from the Halloween critique, we still have to deal with the overt sexuality of more recent teenage and adult costumes and the sensationalism of gore. Holidays have always been known for allowing otherwise good folks to pretend to be bad for short time. But it is not obvious that Christians can defend participation in this sort of practice simply on the grounds that it is a frivolity.

More recently, James B. Jordan’s “Concerning Halloween” has been getting some widespread attention. American Vision has posted it online here, and one of the Veritas Press Omnibus texts even recommends it for a cultural-apologetic exercise. A recent video has also taken up Dr. Jordan’s argument and set it to verse. This sort of turning of the tables has a delightful quality about it, and there is a sort of imaginative genius at work in the article. Its thesis states:

The concept, as dramatized in Christian custom, is quite simple: On October 31, the demonic realm tries one last time to achieve victory, but is banished by the joy of the Kingdom.

What is the means by which the demonic realm is vanquished? In a word: mockery. Satan’s great sin (and our great sin) is pride. Thus, to drive Satan from us we ridicule him. This is why the custom arose of portraying Satan in a ridiculous red suit with horns and a tail. Nobody thinks the devil really looks like this; the Bible teaches that he is the fallen Arch-Cherub. Rather, the idea is to ridicule him because he has lost the battle with Jesus and he no longer has power over us.

There is certainly something to the point about righteous mockery. If you turn to the first page of C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters, you’ll see two quotes, one from Martin Luther and the other from Thomas Moore, which explain this point quite well. More than anything else, the Devil is defined by his pride. However, the claim that this idea serves as the foundation for Halloween lacks any historical support. The only source Dr. Jordan provides us in the article is the reference to Ray Bradbury’s Something Wicked This Way Comes, but it is not at all clear how this ties in to any sort of long-standing Christian tradition.

This essay will lay out the development of Halloween over the centuries and evaluate some of the various claims made about its tradition. While not attempting to dismiss all influence from earlier years, we will argue that these influences are mostly superficial and that the modern holiday known as Halloween is a novel and wholly secular construct. We will then evaluate it briefly as such, giving some rudimentary suggestions regarding Christian participation in Halloween.

Samhain

The pagan predecessor to Halloween is usually found in Samhain, the ancient Celtic festival which celebrated the end of Summer and the beginning of Winter. It was essentially a “Fall Festival” or a “Harvest Festival,” and nearly nothing is known about its particulars with any certainty. While it certainly included typical pagan religious rites, there is no evidence to suggest any overt fixation on death. Ronald Hutton has the most accessible treatment of Samhain in his excellent The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain. He admits that our knowledge of Samhain is minimal and plagued by anachronism: “To hazard any guess about the ancient religious significance of Samhain ... therefore, we are left completely dependent upon inferences projected backward from folklore collected in the last few centuries...” (365). He concludes rather modestly that the only things which can be reasonably attributed to Samhain are that it was a seasonal festival with bonfires and there was perhaps some thought that supernatural forces were at work:

Thus, there seems to be no doubt that the opening of November was the time of a major pagan festival which was celebrated, at the very least, in all those parts of the British Isles which had a pastoral economy ... There is no evidence that it was connected with the dead, and no proof that it opened the year, but it was certainly a time when supernatural forces were especially to be guarded against or propitiated; activities which took different forms in different regions. Its importance was only reinforced by the imposition upon it of a Christian festival which became primarily one of the dead...” (370)

As can be seen, Mr. Hutton actually says that the emphasis on the dead originated not with Samhain, but with the Christian practices which were later celebrated on or around the same time of the year. We can reasonably question how much if at all Samhain actually contributed to the celebration of Halloween. The scholarly consensus is that the contribution was minimal, mostly amounting to establishing a certain “tone” to the event, but even this could be accounted for by Halloween’s obvious Christian origins.

All Saints and All Souls

Halloween, as its name should make clear, has a distinctively Christian genealogy. Nicholas Rogers, in his book Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (a title more sensational than its text), explains: “ ... [Samhain] did not offer much in the way of actual ritual practices ... Most of these developed in conjunction with the medieval holy days of All Souls’ and All Saints’ Day” (22). The name “Halloween” is, as is well known, a contraction of “All Hallows’ Eve,” the night before All Saints’ Day, but we have to take into account the series of All Hallows’ Eve, All Saints’ Day, and All Souls’ Day to form the entire picture. Each of these days, in slightly different ways, celebrated the Christian departed and established the memorialization of the dead as a key part of Halloween.

All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day were relatively late additions to the Christian liturgical Calendar and always held a fairly minor place among Christian festivals. Thomas J. Talley’s The Origins of the Liturgical Year makes no mention of them at all. As the cult of the saints grew in importance, along with the various feasts for well-known saints, a feast to celebrate “all Saints” also arose. The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship explains that this first began as a general feast for both known and unknown martyrs somewhere around the beginning of the fifth century. This earlier form was celebrated in the Spring, and it was only the later Western tradition which moved it to the Fall:

The first mention of All Saints is found in a feast commemorating the transfer of relics of martyrs from the catacombs to the Pantheon in Rome by Pope Boniface IV and the consecration of that building on 13 May 609. The date seems to have moved to 1 November after the dedication on this day of a chapel to the Saviour, Mary, the apostles, martyrs and confessors in St Peter’s. Pope Gregory III (731-41) instructed that a short office of all the saints be recited there each evening. The feast of All Martyrs and All Saints and of Our Lady was renamed the feast of All Saints in 835. (5)

It is important to note the date of November the 1st was set in Rome, not in England, Scotland, or Ireland. No clear rationale is known for the change, though pragmatic reasons remain the most popular speculations. The feast of All Souls was fixed in 998, and the three-day festival was complete.

The Cluniac influence on both All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day is also significant, as members of that order were known for their “reputation for commemorating and interceding in prayer for [their] deceased benefactors” and for the emphasis they placed on purgatory and, later, on indulgences (Oxford History of Christian Worship 218). Halloween’s association with the dead, and even ghosts or spirits needing appeasement or aid, can all be attributed to the medieval views of purgatory and the folklore which popularly accompanied it. The making of “soul cakes” and the practice of “souling,” door-to-door singing in exchange for food or money, seem to have also attached themselves to the feasts of All Saints and All Souls, though it should be noted that these have nearly exact parallels in Christmas practices, especially Wassailing. Even the famous mischief and misrule so often connected with Halloween has possible antecedents in Martinmas and Twelfth Night.

For all of the spectacular imagery that has been taken from this period of history, the basic components of the Hallowmas celebrations seem to be rather simple: bonfires, almsgiving, the ringing of bells, and general rowdiness on the Eve before. The Oxford Dictionary of English Folklore sums the matter up like this:

From the Middle Ages through to the 19th century, there is no sign in England that 31 October had any meaning except as the eve of All Saints’ Day, when bells might be joyfully rung (as also on Christmas Eve and Easter Eve). Mournful tolling marked All Soul’s Day, as a call to prayer for the dead. (163)

One famous component of our modern Halloween can be attributed to the medieval focus on purgatory. This is the Jack-o’-lantern, though it did not yet have the name and was made out of turnips or gourds. Probably having an even earlier existence as mere illumination tools, these lanterns were given a unique meaning when the candles inside were said to symbolize the souls in purgatory. Of course, even this explanation, it should be noted, is largely conjectural on the part of later historians.

Re-forming Halloween

The next major stage of Halloween’s development comes in the Protestant Reformation. The Celebration of “Reformation Day” is not at all a modern phenomena, but dates back to the 16th century. The Lutheran Church has historically celebrated it as a liturgical feast, and it has been a civic holiday in Slovenia and throughout the western German states for centuries. The reason for affixing the Reformation to October 31st is that Martin Luther chose that date to write his famous 95 Theses, a critique of the practice of indulgences. As such, the festival of saints departed and, especially, souls in purgatory was a symbolically powerful occasion.

Reformation Day was never as significant an event in England, however. This was due in part to England’s unique political identity at the time of the Reformation. Henry VIII had actually tried to temper some of the more disruptive elements of Hallowmas, though he was not interested in abolishing the entire holiday. The early English Reformers were united in their opposition to All Souls’ Day and its purgatorial ideology, but it was not until Elizabeth I that the holiday was fully put down. Even here, this had as much to do with courtly drama as anything else. Ronald Hutton explains, “Queen Elizabeth’s accession date upon 17 November, representing a Protestant holy day slowly evolved to replace the traditional ecclesiastical rites abolished at the Reformation” (The Stations of the Sun, 387). Thus the traditional bells were now rung for an entirely new reason, and the songs and feasts were all in the Queen’s honor. An even more important national celebration would arise in November for England with their next Monarch. Guy Fawkes Day would quickly overshadow all of the late October and early November festivities.

Guy Fawkes Day is not very well known in America, but for 300 years it was the predominant autumn holiday for the English. While possessing many familiar externals: bonfires, dressing up, feasting, and rowdiness, Guy Fawkes Day gave them all a new meaning. It commemorated the foiling of a plot by a radical Catholic conspiracy to detonate an explosive device at Parliament. Thus, the festival fires now symbolized neither ancient spirits nor purgatorial fire, but the flames of hell against all traitors and especially the threat of Catholic and European power. These customs easily spilled over into English nationalism of all sorts, with many more effigies being burned than simply that of Guy Fawkes.

Nicholas Rogers illustrates how the Fifth of November managed to absorb Halloween within the English world:

As a night of high spirits and youthful rascality, and as a ritual of social reversal, Guy Fawkes Night eclipsed Halloween in England, as it would in Australia and New Zealand, where it was sometimes called Danger of Mischievous Night. Given the close proximity of the festivals, which fell within five days of one another, it was predictable that some of the souling rituals of Halloween would spill over to the Fifth of November. In Southrepps and other places in Norfolk, the turnip lanterns that traditionally symbolized souls in purgatory were much in evidence on Bonfire Night. In Lincolnshire, some of the fire rituals commonly associated with Halloween were transferred to the Fifth of November. Celebrants threw stones into the bonfire and on the following morning discerned their future from the way they were placed. In Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Derbyshire, thar cakes or parkins, usually made out of treacle and oatmeal, formed part of the festive fare. These were clearly reminiscent of the soul cakes distributed at Hallowtide, even though they were made of sweeter and heavier ingredients. (Halloween 37)

Guy Fawkes Day was always partisan and violent. When brought over to the New World, it mainly contributed to the history of mischief associated with Halloween, and it gave the festivities an unstable character. Something else would have to replace this stage in Halloween’s history, and that something else would, ironically, be the return of the Celtic tradition and the revival and reinvention of the name “Halloween.”

Romanticism and the Invention of Tradition

Most explanations of Halloween note that the holiday obtained particular prominence in North America thanks to Irish and Scottish immigrants. The assumption is usually that these immigrants were bringing over a longstanding “Celtic” tradition, that of Samhain, souling, and guising. When we look closer at this period of history, however, what we find is not so much an ancient and partially pagan tradition reasserting itself on new soil, but rather the invention of a socio-political identity and culture. This Pan-Celticism was itself just one facet of the larger Romantic movement which looked to history (and at times historicism) to re-create long-lost customs and communities as a means of combating the onslaught of modernity. Eric Hobsbawm’s The Invention of Tradition is dedicated to explaining how the Victorians created so much of what we now considered to be traditional, and one essay in that collection, “The Highland Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland” by Hugh Trevor-Roper, explains how much of what we think of as “Celtic” culture was actually constructed by the English nobility, particularly Prince Albert and his court. Imagery and artifacts that had localized identities, such as the tartan and the bagpipes, were universalized as ancient “Celtic” markers. Whereas the Scottish Lowlanders had traditionally looked down upon these things, viewing them as befitting a lower social class, all “Celts,” whether Irish or Scottish, Protestant or Catholic, were now unified and understood to be in a way pre-modern and anti-imperial. This carried over into North America, as well, and before long a “Celtic” culture was firmly established, even if it had tenuous connections with the actual history.

The most well-known literary figure of this movement of Celtic Romanticism is Robert Burns, and the most relevant of his works for our purposes is the poem “Halloween,” with its reference to fairies and historical allusion to Robert the Bruce. Rather than merely a residual folk tradition, this sort of “Halloween” was a highly stylized intellectual and cultural creation. No doubt, much of what Burns described, the fortune-telling rituals and belief in supernatural beings, had been common enough folk practices, but once he worked them into his poems, a new and portable “Halloween” culture was created. (It is worth noting that a similar “invention” occurred with Christmas at exactly this time. See Ronald Hutton’s argument in Stations of the Sun 112-12 and then Mark Connelly’s response in Christmas: A History 1-99.)

This version of Halloween took root in Canada and the American Northeast, at times in the form of ethnic celebration. “[T]he Caledonian Society’ observed Halloween with an annual concert of Highland reels, jigs, ballads, and the poems of Robbie Burns” (Rogers, Halloween 51). This sort of cultural emphasis spread throughout North America, and it predictably became more universalized:

[I]t is clear that Halloween was being adapted to the urban milieu of North America in which a conspicuous minority of Irish immigrants congregated. Judging from the accounts in the New York Herald, “fireside games” abounded, with Scottish and Irish immigrants humorously reenacting the contests and fortune-telling of their forebears and dressing up for the occasion. “The forests and dells of the United States are too cold and tramp-infested to be thickly populated with fairies and witches,” remarked the Herald with amusement in 1878, “but American ingenuity has devised an acceptable substitute, so if any one failed to see dancing fairies and witches innumerable last evening, it was because he did not make a tour of the parlours of his acquaintances.” (Rogers, Halloween 53)

Other supposedly “Celtic” features now incorporated into Halloween were guising, mumming and souling, various apple games, roasting nuts, indoor and outdoor fires, and the famous jack-o’-lantern, only now made out of the North American pumpkin. Some of the elements of our modern Halloween can be identified here, though they would still undergo considerable change. The “guising” of the time was a precursor to modern dressing up, but it would have been considerably simpler, mostly made up of carnival masks, burlap sacks, or imitation-historical garb. The emphasis on the supernatural, especially witches and spirits, did factor into this period, but it should be clear that it was understood as harmless and domesticated, much like the idea of a chubby elf who could fly around the world with magical reindeer. This was understood to be good-natured make-believe, but the attempted connection to a mythical tradition did open itself up to the inevitable blurring of the lines between fantasy and reality.

Spooks, Pranks, and Trick or Treat: The Modern Halloween

As interesting as the history we have laid out so far proves to be, it really only provides the embryonic stages of the modern Halloween. During the turn of the 20th century and especially after the first three decades, Halloween underwent another dramatic transformation, becoming fully modernized, secularized, and commercialized. In 1898, Martha Russell Orne wrote a pamphlet titled Hallowe’en: How to Celebrate It, which attempted to organize and universalize festive practices. She explained how Halloween should be “grotesquely decorated,” and she encouraged Jack-o’-lanterns to have “a demon-like expression given to the features” (quoted in Lisa Morton, Trick or Treat: A History of Halloween 69-71). This emphasis on horror incorporated features from the growing literary genre, taking cues from Washington Irving and Edgar Allan Poe, and later Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley. Bats and black cats soon became permanent Halloween symbols.

This emphasis on darkness was not really connected to any medieval customs, though it would be easy enough to create bridges between memorials for the dead and literary horror. Still, it was mostly controlled, with the classic imagery appearing on popular postcards and many of the games and parties being hosted by schools or community groups. The final transformation came when these elements combined with the tradition of pranking and hooliganism that had accompanied many holidays but especially Halloween.

A general rowdiness had tended to accompany every major holiday over the years, particularly on the various “eves” before. Though mostly forgotten today, Christmas was once famously decadent, complete with carousing and vandalism. Mardi Gras, still known for being raucous, is itself the “eve” of Lent. Halloween was no exception, and elements like Guy Fawkes Day and the celebration of primitive “Celtic” culture only added to its wild character. Lisa Morton writes:

Not everyone saw Halloween mischief as simply the fun-loving but ultimately harmless sport of young boys. As pranking became more widespread, it became more of a problem. Simply disassembling a gate–in fact, the name “Gate Night” replaced Halloween in many areas–was one thing, but disassembling the gate and then moving it into the centre of town where it might be piled in the middle of Main Street with dozens of other gates was more troublesome. In the 1920s, Halloween pranking spread into the rapidly expanding major urban areas, and became out-and-out vandalism. Although the simple pranks of the past–switching shop signs, or flinging a sock filled with flour at a man’s black coat–were still practised, so were far more destructive activities, including breaking windows tripping pedestrians and setting fires. In 1933, during the height of America’s Great Depression, destructive Halloween prank-playing was so virulent that many cities dubbed that year’s celebration “Black Halloween.” Vandalism was now described as the work of “hoodlums” rather than mischievous boys, and included sawing down telephone poles, overturning automobiles, opening fire hydrants to flood city streets and openly taunting the police. Local governments that were already struggling economically were overwhelmed, and many considered banning Halloween altogether. (Morton, Trick or Treat 75-76)

Nicholas Rogers supports this description:

... the conventions of rascality that invigorated turn-of-the-century Halloween took a long time to die. While youngsters would dress up in fancy costumes and masquerade in the streets, visiting houses for various treats, their older brothers would indulge in a different kind of devilry. As the Star quite casually reported of one small town east of Toronto: “Hallowe’en spirit held full sway in Whitby last night. Many a citizen found his veranda furniture hanging from spikes on telephone poles, while a number of gates were removed and steps taken away.” On a typical Halloween spree in interwar North America, fences were destroyed, signs and gates moved, roads barricaded, trolley cars immobilized, street lighting smashed, and outhouses tipped over. One eminent historian of Canada assured me that in his more youthful days in the 1930s he turned over as many as fourteen outhouses in one night of Halloween pranks. (Rogers, Halloween 78)

As a result, there began a concentrated effort to suppress this sort of civil disorder. It was this, more than any other supposed tradition, that accounts for our modern celebration of Halloween:

All manner of clubs and societies went out of their way to provide alternative events for Halloween. Lions, Rotarians, Kiwanis, religious groups, high schools, boys’ and girls’ clubs, women’s institutes, the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, and even the Sons of the American Revolution all rose to meet the challenge of rendering Halloween safe and sane during the interwar years. (Rogers, Halloween 81)

This sanitization and domestication of Halloween also explains its most-famous component: trick or treating. Whereas guising and pranking certainly offer some ancestral contributions, the modern practice is highly controlled and actually involves almost no “tricks.” Lisa Morton again explains:

While it’s tempting to draw connections between the New World’s institutionalized begging ritual and earlier, Old World traditions such as the masked house-to-house performances of the Grulacks or the Strawboys, Guy Fawkes begging or souling, trick or treat probably sprang out of more recent antecedents. In new York City, Thanksgiving, now celebrated in the USA with a traditional turkey dinner on the fourth Thursday of November, was compared in the 1870s with Guy Fawkes Day. It had become a rowdy festival of of thousands of boys organized in crews (similar to the Guy Fawkes crews who still parade in Lewes each year), who were rewarded with gifts of money. Costumed children were also recorded going from house to house begging food. (Morton, Trick or Treat 78)

Similar practices arose at Christmas and Halloween, and as the Halloween festivities began to become more orderly and supervised, trick or treating took on its modern form:

By the 1930s, the phrase in connection with Halloween and costumed children seemed to be working its way down through the northern USA, as states like Oregon reported that “young goblins and ghosts, employing modern shakedown methods, successfully worked the “trick or treat” system.” One of the first national mentions of trick or treat appears in an article of 1939 entitled “A Victim of the Window Soaping Brigade?,” which both refers to “trick or treat” as “the age-old Halloween salutation’ and makes it plain that the practice was a method of subverting rowdy pranking. Still, it wasn’t until after the Second World War–when rationing was over and luxuries like candy were once again readily available– that trick or treat finally spread throughout the entire USA. (Morton, Trick or Treat 79).

Halloween remained mostly a children’s holiday until the late 1970s when Hollywood took up the imagery and customs, and the holiday exploded in popularity. Adults increasingly participated in dress-up parties of their own, and the commercialization grew exponentially. More recently the horror elements have increased, though they have also taken on a camp element, most notably in the ubiquitous zombies.

Conclusion

And so as it turns out, Halloween is a subversion and transformation of dark ritual. Only it isn’t a Christian transformation of ancient paganism, but rather a modern secular domestication of youthful energy and rebellion. While there are several elements from earlier traditions involved in the modern Halloween, they are pieced together in new ways and given meanings quite distinct from their predecessors. As such, this must influence the Christian opinion of Halloween more so than fears of ancient paganism or medieval Catholicism. The question is not directly liturgical, but is rather moral, and especially has to do with social prudence.

The Christian Halloween is simply All Saints Day and, for Protestantism, Reformation Day. Understood rightly, these two are not different holidays, of course, but rather one and the same, as the great Protestant Reformers are themselves saints whom we commemorate. To continue this religious tradition is wholly appropriate and needs no further accommodation to other manufactured “traditions.”

Additionally, the question of participating in secular Halloween festivities should be answered by addressing the reasonable societal reception of those festivities and the kind of community being formed by them. If dressing up and trick or treating is simply a neighborhood event involving parents and children, understood as mere recreation with no larger significance, then it may well be harmless enough. As it inevitably evolves and constructs communities and identities in new ways, however, it does take on a new sort of power, and even if not understood as occultic, it is, in a way, spiritual, as it knits together the collective psyche. It will therefore need to be critically engaged. The prioritization of gore cannot be vindicated merely by an appeal to unseriousness. Christians must retain their valuation of life, even when at play. And the clearest moral danger in today’s Halloween is the immodest and lewd features that are continuously growing in popularity.

If our application is somewhat inconclusive, it is only because a proper evaluation of Halloween must begin with a proper understanding of it. That is what we have tried to do in this essay, by bringing to light the historical narrative and the very recent birth of the secular holiday. Superstition, especially of the reactionary Christian variety, is always unhelpful, and that is true for both the angry and friendly varieties. We have shown that the modern holiday, while incorporating various elements of recreated ancient paganism, medieval Christianity, early-modern Reformation and nationalism, and Celtic Romanticism, is nevertheless an entirely modern construct, coming into its own in postwar North America. This is our Halloween.

If you have not decided how or where you want your remains to disposed of, there is a company here in the Washington, D.C., area that has an eco-friendly proposal: The people at EcoEternity of Middleburg, Virginia, propose to make trees, not burial plots, “the final resting places for the ashes of the deceased.”

For as little as $4,500, EcoEternity will place your ashes in a “bio-degradable urn” and bury them alongside a tree. As the urn decomposes, you “will become one” with your “personal” tree. Since up to 15 family members can be “become one” with a particular tree, the concept of a “family tree” will take on a whole new meaning.

Wanting to spend eternity as bark and other fibrous material is not a new idea: It is practiced in Europe, Canada, and “parts of Asia.” Its appeal lies in the fact that cremation is “less noxious and resource-consuming” than traditional burial.

What’s also true is that this idea could be possible only in a post-Christian culture.

Christianity has traditionally regarded cremation with — at best — some suspicion. One of the ways the early Church stood out from its pagan neighbors was the way that Christians treated their dead.

Pagans BURNED their dead. To early Christians, this was in keeping with the pagan denial of Christian beliefs about the afterlife, especially the belief in the resurrection of the dead.

In contrast, Christians BURIED their dead. Christian teaching about the Incarnation and the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit led them to treat the body with respect.

To this day, the Orthodox Church forbids cremation except when it cannot be avoided, like during epidemics or following natural disasters. While the Catholic Church permits it under more circumstances, it forbids cremation where the act “demonstrate[s] a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body.” It also prohibits the scattering of ashes or keeping them in your living room next to a bowling trophy.

Given this history, it is not a surprise that cremation has become more popular as Christian ideas have become less influential. Nor should it come as a surprise that cremation is most popular in the part of the country where people are least likely to attend church or identify themselves as Christians.

The treatment of the body is not the only pagan element to this story: Trees, you see, occupied a central place in pagan mythology throughout Europe and the ancient Near East. Folklore is filled with references to sacred groves and trees.

These groves were the sites of sacrifices, both of animals and humans, and were said to be the places were the gods and spirits dwelt and communicated with their worshippers. Not surprisingly, trees play a central role in revivals of paganism today.

Now, I doubt that any of this occurred to the people at EcoEternity. That only goes to show how post-Christian societies can drift backwards toward paganism without even being aware of it.

The way that the West treated its dead was tied to what it believed about Christ. But absent those beliefs, it was inevitable that in death, as in life, people would find themselves as plant food or — dare I say — lost in the woods.

________

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #21507]

It's my turn to author an article that claims to penetrate the dark and obscure recesses of the origin of Santa Claus. How shall we understand the Santa Claus phenomenon? Is it pure paganism foisted upon an unsuspecting populace? Is Santa Satan in disguise (there is after all, the same letters in both names, as some guardians of all that is good remind us). Or is Santa a Christian after all, since he really is St. Nicholas, a Christian bishop of the fourth century? So which is it? Is Santa Claus harmless or hellspawn or something in between? Though knowing his origin can't decide all these questions, it still is an important point of departure.

Actually, the truth of the matter is that the modern Santa Claus is a conglomeration of sources, a legendary being that has evolved over the years. Along the way, pre-Christian legends, the story of St. Nicholas, Dutch immigrants to America, Washington Irving, Clement Moore, Thomas Nast, and the Coca-Cola company, all made their contributions.

THE SAINT NICHOLAS CONNECTION

It is well known that the name “Santa Claus” comes to us by way of the Dutch “Sinter Klaas,” which in turn, was a form of Saint Nicholas. Our modern Santa Claus took his name from the Christian Saint Nicholas so we need to begin with a look at this Christian bishop of the fourth century.

Throughout history Nicholas of Myra (d. 350) has been one of the most beloved saints even apart from the Santa Claus context. In fact, George McKnight claims that both in the eastern and western Church, Nicholas is “the object of extreme veneration, to a degree unequaled in the case of any other saint.”1 The first historical record of his veneration is the fact that the emperor Justinian built a church in his honor in Constantinople around the year 540. Nicholas is the patron saint of entire nations, including Greece, Russia, Sicily, and Lorraine, and many cities throughout Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Holland, and Italy. He is also patron saint of children, bakers, merchants, and mariners.

Ironically, very little factual information is actually known about this most popular saint. In the words of Weiser,

There is scarcely any definite historical fact known about him

except that he was bishop of Myra in Asia Minor; that he was cast

into exile and prison during the persecution of Emperor

Diocletian and released by Constantine the Great; that he died in

Myra about 350, and in the year 1087 his body was brought by

Italian merchants from Myra to the city of Bari in Italy, where

his relics are still preserved and venerated in the church of San

Nicola.2

The Feast of St. Nicholas on December 6 has been observed with great enthusiasm throughout Medieval Europe over the centuries. This enthusiasm was due to the many legends that had grown up around Nicholas: that he had distributed gifts to the poor at night through their windows, had fasted while a baby, had helped dowerless maidens, saved a city from famine, had aided a ship in distress, etc.3

Because of the gift-giving legends associated with Nicholas, it was held (especially in Belgium and Holland) that on the Eve the Feast of Nicholas, the bishop himself would come from heaven and visit children in their homes, giving gifts to those who had been good. Nicholas, decked out in full ecclesiastical garb (bishop's vestments, with miter and crozier), would arrive on a flying gray horse (or white donkey, depending on the custom). In some variations of the legend, he was accompanied by Black Peter, an elf whose job was to punish children who had been bad.

It is held by some scholars that the legends of Nicholas as gift-giver drew in part from pagan, preChristian sources. For example, the Teutonic god of the air, Odin, would ride through the air on a gray horse (named Sleipnir) each Autumn - so did Nicholas; Odin had a long white beard - so did Nicholas; a sheaf of grain was left in the field for Odin's horse - children left a wisp of straw in their shoes for Nicholas.4 Others claim that attributes of the Germanic god Thor, the god of thunder, were transferred to Nicholas. Thor was supposedly elderly and heavy with a long white beard; he road through the air in a chariot drawn by two white goats (called Cracker and Gnasher); he dressed in red; his palace was in the “northland;” he was friendly and cheerful; he would come down the chimney into his element, the fire.5 No definitive correlation has ever been found between the “visit of St. Nicholas” and pagan gods such as Odin and Thor. However the similarity is striking and some relationship seems likely.6

After the Reformations of the sixteenth century the Feast of St. Nicholas was abolished in many countries. Throughout northern Germany, for example, the Protestants encouraged veneration of the Christkindl (Christ-child) instead, who, it was said, brought gifts to children on Christmas Eve. As an example of this, a Protestant Pastor of the seventeenth century complains about parents who put presents in their children's beds, telling them that St. Nicholas has brought them. This is a bad custom, he says, “because it points children to the saint, while yet we know that not St. Nicholas but the holy Christ Child gives us all good things for body and soul, and He alone it is whom we ought to call upon.”7 Despite this new emphasis, the Nicholas legends prevailed in many places, especially among the Dutch.

SANTA CLAUS IN AMERICA

When the Dutch established their colony of New Amsterdam in America in the seventeenth century, they brought with them the traditional “visit” from Sinter Klaas (St. Nicholas) on the eve of December 5. Weiser thinks that when the English later took over the colony and renamed it New York, the English children began longing to have a kindly “Sinter Klaas” of their own that would bring them gifts. But because the English Protestants did not observe saints days, the Sinter Klaas visit was moved to Christmas Eve and observed then.8

Author Washington Irving (1789-1853), most famous for “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” and “Rip Van Winkle,” is important for the information he gives us on the Dutch version of Sinter Klaas in the early nineteenth century. Washington's 1809 work “The History of New York (also called the “Knickerbocker History”) was a satire on the transplanted customs of the Dutch of New York city. The “History” contained several references to the legend of St. Nicholas as observed by the Dutch. The St. Nicholas described by Irving was an old man in dark robes who arrived on a flying horse on the Eve of St. Nicholas to give gifts to children.

In his Folklore on the American Land,9 Duncan Emrich tells us of the next evidence we have of the American evolution of Santa Claus. It is a little know poem, “The Children's Friend,” first published in 1821. The poem went beyond what Irving had written, mentioning for the first time a flying sleigh and a reindeer. The poem begins:

Old Santeclaus with much delight

His reindeer drives this frosty night.

O'er chimney tops, and tracks of snow,

To bring his yearly gifts to you...

There is universal consensus that the person most responsible for shaping the American version of Santa Claus is Dr. Clement Clark Moore, a theology and classics professor at Union Seminary. What did Moore do to earn this honor? He wrote a simple poem for his children in 1822 entitled, “A Visit from St. Nicholas,” that begins with the now famous words,

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house,

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

In the hope that St. Nicholas soon would be there.

There is a legend that Moore wrote this poem on Christmas Eve, 1822, during a carriage ride to his home in Greenwich Village and that the inspiration for the St. Nicholas in his story was the jolly Dutchman driving the carriage. Closer to the truth is the observation of Emrich that Moore was probably inspired by Irving's Knickerbocker History and “The Children's Friend,” which he almost certainly would have read. Specifically Irving's description of Dutchmen in his story was Moore's inspiration for St. Nick, claims Emrich. It must also be said that it is possible that Moore was familiar with the stories about Odin or Thor that were mentioned above.

In any case, in describing St. Nicholas, Moore went beyond anything that had ever been said yet. It was Moore who increased the number of reindeer to eight and gave us their names. It was he who explicitly described Santa going up and down the chimney leaving toys in stockings hung by the fireplace. Moore's St. Nick was “chubby and plumpa right jolly old elf;” he carried a bundle of toys on his back; “he had eyes that twinkled, dimples that were merry, cheeks like roses, a broad face, and a little round belly.” It's interesting that Moore's Santa was also a small elf who flew in a “miniature sleigh” pulled by eight “tiny” reindeer.

The poem wasn't published until a year later, and that secretly, without Moore's consent. He didn't think it worthy of publishing. Many others did, however, as it was an overnight sensation. Only 15 years later did he permit it to be included in a volume of collected works.

It was Bavarian illustrator Thomas Nast, that gave us the picture of Santa Claus, now so common. Nast, the “father of American political cartooning,” drew more than 2200 cartoons for Harper's Weekly from 1862 through 1886. Many of these were of Santa Claus at Christmas time. Before Nast, St. Nicholas had been pictured as everything from a stern looking bishop to a gnome-like figure in a frock (as he had been pictured in the first edition of Moore's poem). Nast was clearly inspired by Moore's 1823 poem, but he also added additional features to the Santa Claus evolution, such as Santa's home at the North Pole, his workshop filled with elves, and his list of all the good and bad children of the world.

Believe it or not, the Coca-Cola company also contributed to the modern Santa Claus. Beginning in 1931 and for 35 years, Coke ran advertisements that featured a human-size Santa (not elf-size) drinking Coke. These ads contributed much to the modern image of Santa Claus (and the drinking of coke!)

CONCLUSION

When conclusions are drawn about the origin of Santa Claus, extreme statements should be avoided. This short article has shown that the modern Santa Claus has been shaped by many factors and is a conglomeration of myths and legends. I feel compelled, however, to make several observations.

First, it is absolutely inaccurate to claim that “Santa Claus is a Christian” or that “Santa Claus is St. Nicholas.” Though it is true that the historical St. Nicholas was a Christian man, the preceding has shown that the modern Santa Claus has nothing to do with Nicholas of Myra, other than his name. The modern Santa Claus has been greatly influenced by the custom of “the visit of St. Nicholas,” in which the saint would show up on the eve of his Feast Day to give gifts to children. But the custom of his “visit” is certainly not based on the historical man; rather it is based on legends attached to him, and it is possibly based on preChristian myths (about Odin, Thor, etc.) It is also a rather silly and misleading argument to state that “Nicholas was generous and Santa Claus is generous, so the same spirit permeates both.” Right!

Second, it is also absolutely inaccurate to claim that “Santa Claus is pagan” without any further explanation. We need to be clear what we mean by “pagan.” If by “pagan” we mean “non-Christian” then the statement is accurate in the sense that I gave in the paragraph above. However, because “pagan” has such a pejorative sense to it, I prefer to say that “Santa Claus is a fairy tale” along the lines of the tooth fairy - which leads to my next point.

Third, the real problem that Christians should have with Santa Claus is that he has been associated with Christmas. When we survey the history of the evolution of Santa Claus, the critical point occurred, in my opinion, when the St. Nicholas visit was transferred from December 6 to December 25. Christians would have no major problem with a make-believe custom about St. Nicholas bringing gifts on his own day. Christians do (or at least should) have a major problem with moving the St. Nicholas thing to Christmas and, even worse, calling it Christmas!

Put simply, do the Santa Claus thing to your heart's content, but don't call it Christmas! For Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ our Savior, nothing more and nothing less. Christians are rightly offended when the Santa Claus fairy tale is called Christmas instead. A good and practical solution would be to move the Santa Claus holiday back to its traditional date of December 6. But of course, it is highly unlikely that this will happen.

Perhaps Christians should celebrate Christ's birth at another time of the year - especially since we do not know the date he was actually born. January 6 is an improvement, but it is still too close to the Santa Claus fest, in my opinion. Again, I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen!

Ultimately it is impossible, of course, to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ without competition from other festivals and observances - no matter what date is picked. This is the reason why I have stated that the main problem is not the competing festivals (e.g., Santa Claus) themselves; the main problem is calling the competing festivals “Christmas.” Our message to the world should be, “Santa Claus, in and of itself, can be a fun custom. Just don't call it Christmas!”

__________

SOURCES:

1. George H. McKnight, St. Nicholas: His Legend and His Role in the Christmas Celebration and Other Popular Customs (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1917), 29.

2. Francis X. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1958), 338.

3. McKnight has a collection of these legends in St. Nicholas, 37-88.

4. McKnight, 24-25, 138-139.

5. Weiser, 113-114.

6. Some also think that other European “gift-givers” such as Lady Befana of Rome and Knecht Rupprecht of Germany point back to pre-Christian divinities. See McKnight, 16-17. But see Clement A. Miles, Christmas in Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan (New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912), 231-232.

7. Quoted in Miles, 230.

8. ibid., 113.

9. Duncan Emrich, Folklore on American Land (Little: Brown, 1972).

[From the website of the United Church of God (an offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God)]

History shows that December 25 was popularized as the date for Christmas, not because Christ was born on that day, but because it was already popular in pagan religious celebrations as the birthday of the sun. But could December 25 be the date of Christ’s birth?

A careful analysis of Scripture clearly indicates that December 25 couldn’t be the date for Christ’s birth. Here are two primary reasons:

First, we know that shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:7-8). Shepherds were not in the fields during December. According to Celebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays , Luke’s account “suggests that Jesus may have been born in summer or early fall. Since December is cold and rainy in Judea, it is likely the shepherds would have sought shelter for their flocks at night” (p. 309).

Similarly, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary says this passage argues “against the birth [of Christ] occurring on Dec. 25 since the weather would not have permitted” shepherds watching over their flocks in the fields at night.

Second, Jesus’ parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Luke 2:1-4). Such censuses were not taken in winter, when temperatures often dropped below freezing and roads were in poor condition. Taking a census under such conditions would have been self-defeating.

Given the difficulties and the desire to bring pagans into Christianity, “the important fact then which I have asked you to get clearly into your head is that the fixing of the date as December 25th was a compromise with paganism” (William Walsh, The Story of Santa Klaus , 1970, p. 62).

If Jesus Christ wasn’t born on December 25, does the Bible indicate when He was born? The biblical accounts point to the fall of the year as the most likely time of Jesus’ birth, based on the conception and birth of John the Baptist.

Since Elizabeth (John’s mother) was in her sixth month of pregnancy when Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:24-36), we can determine the approximate time of year Jesus was born if we know when John was born. John’s father, Zacharias, was a priest serving in the Jerusalem temple during the course of Abijah (Luke 1:5). Historical calculations indicate this course of service corresponded to June 13-19 in that year (The Companion Bible , 1974, Appendix 179, p. 200).

It was during this time of temple service that Zacharias learned that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would have a child (Luke 1:8-13). After he completed his service and traveled home, Elizabeth conceived (Luke 1:23-24). Assuming John’s conception took place near the end of June, adding nine months brings us to the end of March as the most likely time for John’s birth. Adding another six months (the difference in ages between John and Jesus (Luke 1:35-36)) brings us to the end of September as the likely time of Jesus’ birth.

Although it is difficult to determine the first time anyone celebrated December 25 as Christmas Day, historians are in general agreement that it was sometime during the fourth century. This is an amazingly late date. Christmas was not observed in Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire, until about 300 years after Christ’s death. Its origins cannot be traced back to either the teachings or practices of the earliest Christians.

For an interesting twist, here is a Christmas sermon given in 1891 by the notorious American atheist, Robert Ingersoll:

The good part of Christmas is not always Christian -- it is generally Pagan; that is to say, human, natural.

Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.

It taught some good things -- the beauty of love and kindness in man. But as a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.

And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the old festival called Christmas.

Long before Christ was born, the Sun-God triumphed over the powers of Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin perceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the sun, and they celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a festival was natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is the worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed from the Pagans the best it has.

I believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy. We in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much like the English.

I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman. We take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days -- the more the better.

Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget -- a good day to throw away prejudices and hatreds -- a good day to fill your heart and your house, and the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #24552]

Those blades of crabgrass that stubbornly poke through your front walk in the spring are wonders of nature.

No matter how often you pave over them, mow them down or douse them in weed killer, they keep sprouting, keep seeking the light.

Human souls are like that. You can break them, crush them, bury them under vast structures of state oppression, social custom, fear, superstition and ignorance. Still, though they love darkness, they seek light.

We sense the struggle between darkness and light within ourselves, and we see it play out around us -- never more so than at the approach of Easter.

The world does its worst to hide the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the central event of history. Its typical tactics: deny, distort, divert, distract. Jesus rising from the tomb is the biggest myth of all time, we're told. The cycle of natural life and death cannot be broken.

Historians and anthropologists often remind us of the pagan origins of Easter festivals. Some trace the word Easter back to Ishtar, Astarte and other ancient fertility goddesses of the Mediterranean. Most find it in Eastre (or Eostre), the north European Saxons' goddess of spring. The young Christian church seized on the popularity of the spring fertility festivals that pervaded agricultural Europe as an opportunity for evangelism. Early missionaries connected the feasts to Jesus' resurrection in order to tame the rowdy rituals, co-opt them -- and Christianize the pagan masses.

The strategy worked, perhaps too well. Today gaudy pagan traditions -- in countless variations, religious and secular -- still battle to overwhelm the holy season's Christian essence. Mardi Gras. Spring break. March Madness. Carnaval, the pre-Lenten celebration that takes over the streets in much of Latin America, finds perhaps its most bizarre expression in Salvador, the old Brazilian city named in honor of the Savior. There, African occult idols mingle with Catholic ritual and orgiastic street parties in a satanic parody of truth.

In places without a Christian tradition, other idols compete for people's hearts. In India the annual festival of Holi, celebrated March 26 this year, welcomes spring. During Holi, Hindus petition their gods for prosperity and playfully throw colored water on one another. But Holi has a darker aspect: Certain participants believe they can do anything on this day without repercussion. Some get drunk; others forcibly take the virginity of young girls.

Elsewhere, secular substitutes are offered to the masses -- or forced upon them. Such was the case in Russia under communism, where the state tried to eradicate millennium-old Christian traditions.

“Having eliminated religion from the public life of the nation, Soviet planners recognized the importance of creating rituals and events, which fostered social cohesion and a sense of identity,” writes Oxford scholar Alister McGrath in his recent book, “The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World.”

“Thus the Saturday just before Easter was celebrated as Communist Saturday .... The Soviets devised additional rituals as counterparts to the Christian rites of baptism and confirmation -- for example, the 'family event' to mark the birth of a new child, or the ceremony to mark admission to the Communist Party.”

But the truth cannot be denied forever. Relative religious freedom has returned to large parts of the old Soviet orbit. Christ's resurrection can be celebrated without fear of reprisal. But first it must be believed -- and embraced -- by a new generation.

In the years before 1989, when Czechoslovakia became a free country again, the meaning of Easter was limited to the welcoming of spring. Religious connotations were suppressed under the communist regime. Nowadays people are once again aware of the religious origin of Easter, but it hasn't become a serious religious holiday. Easter in the Czech Republic is a fun time. Many traditions are still observed and practiced, especially in villages. Many symbols of Easter are related to the spring and the beginning of new life. Pray, missionaries ask, that young Czechs will respond to the new life offered by the risen Christ.

The same appeal comes from Hungary.

“We are sharing the truths of the Bible with nonbelievers,” says a missionary there. “For the most part, the students in these groups seem to have firm head knowledge of the gospel, and will even admit that it makes sense. However, that information has not traveled to their hearts, and they are still unwilling to turn their lives over to Jesus. Please pray that as we approach Easter, they will begin to see both the personal nature of Jesus and their need to enter actively into a relationship with Him.

“Pray that they will see the truth of why Jesus died for them and the truth that He is the only way to the Father. Pray that they will fall in love with Jesus and desire to turn their lives completely over to Him.”

May all the peoples of the world see that truth and reach for it -- like blades of grass reaching for the light.

*