Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Xmas or Christ-mass?

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

There are many articles and papers written to show that Christmas, and other holidays like Easter, are thoroughly unbiblical, and are intended to sway the Christian community away from practicing such “man-made holy-days.” No doubt the authors of such papers have the best interest of the Christian Church in mind, and are not simply jumping upon the bandwagon of “reformed thought” in order to add another notch to their theological belt. However, when these articles begin to substantiate the claim that Christians should have nothing to do with the holiday of Christmas, the weightiest arguments they bring forth are two fold: 1) The appeal to the pagan roots of idolatry, and 2) the history and witness of the Christian Church.

First, writers appeal to the pagan roots of the holiday as a means to deter Christians from practicing such abominable vestiges even though the a 21st century Christmas is not blatantly practicing the same rites as the Babylonians or druids of old once did. For instance, the Christmas tree is set up in some corner of the living room, decorated and lighted, and gifts abound and grow under the tree as December 25th draws near. The appeal is then made to Jeremiah 10:3-4 where idolatry is condemned. It says, “For the customs of the peoples are futile; For one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple.” Here we see idolatry based in the practice of cutting down, setting up, and decorating a tree. Or they quote Jeremiah 2:20, “For of old I have broken your yoke and burst your bonds; And you said, "I will not transgress,' When on every high hill and under every green tree You lay down, playing the harlot.” Here the evergreen tree was used to promote false religion and idolatry. God was angered at the Israelites for their religious syncretism and their participation in these practices. Idolatry is certainly condemned by God and no Christian should ever be disobeying and transgressing the first table of the Law of God (commandments 1-4) by profaning the worship of God with idols.

The second appeal is made to the history of the church and its practices. Surely this is an important note to make, and that petition to such testimony is warranted. We could cite the reformers such as Luther and Calvin, the pastors of Geneva city-state, the Waldensen Confession, the Puritan Divines such as Edmund Calamy, Samuel Rutherford, James Durham, Increase Mather, Thomas Vincent, John Owen, Andrew Clarkson, Ebenezer Erskine, William Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff, James Fisher, John Willison, John Brown, Robert Shaw (and many more), The Westminster Confession, the Directory of Publick worship, The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and their confession, and various other creeds and confessions. These diligent writers will make it known that the church did not practice this holiday until sometime after the 4th century, and show varied proofs that most opposed the practice altogether, condemning it out rightly. Christ-mass following the Roman Catholic Practice is anti-biblical. Here we see the siege to discourage the practice and participation of Christmas is usually based on these 2 points. I would agree.

Before I give my own view, I would like to address the two avenues above which are the usual lines of reasoning in dissuading Christians from partaking in the Christmas holiday.

The first argument is certainly important. Christians are certainly never to participate in idolatrous worship. However, the case against Christmas on this point is not that Christians are out rightly bowing down to a tree and worshipping it, or profaning Christ by setting the Yule log on the fire, or desecrating the glory of God by exchanging gifts with one another. I have never met a Christian who blatantly setup a green tree in their home to practice idolatry. The argument presented in the first point above is not directed by those writers against people who setup idols in their home and bow down to them after supper for family devotions. Rather, the argument stems from the pagan practices which lie behind what Christians do with those Christmas trees, Yule logs, wreaths, etc. in days of old. Scripture everywhere condemns idolatry, but the argument that because something has pagan roots is no argument against Christmas. Why is this? Some may believe I am going to appeal to Romans 14 and the Christian’s liberty with holy days as the argument against this. But that passage does not address the situation rightly, and, as a matter of fact condemns such days. Rather, I appeal to 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. It asserts the following:

Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him. 4Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 9But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Did Paul have any problem eating meat sacrificed to idols? Not at all. Paul ate the meat. Even though the meat had pagan origins, he still ate it. Even though the cow or bull was offered as a sacrifice for devils, slain and drained of its blood, cut up and used in the ceremony, Paul still had no problem eating it. Paul’s determent to eat meat sacrificed to idols was the consideration of a weaker brother in front of them knowing where it came from.

Christ-mass (yes I spelled it correctly) cannot be condemned because it has pagan origins. Christmas, as pagan as it might be, and as many pagan ideologies it may possess, cannot be condemned because 1000 years ago or 500 years ago or 5 days ago someone bowed down to the tree and committed idolatry with it. People hang picture frames through their home to display photos, made from wood – should that deter them since they knew it was once a tree, and someone 500 years ago worshipped trees? What about planting an evergreen tree in your yard? The Christian is not bound by such instances.

Secondly, the appeal to men may be helpful, but the opinions of men, no matter how renown they may be, should never be the basis of setting the Christian's conscience. Scripture should. The Christian conscience should be captive by the Word of God alone. However, Christians should always weigh and consider the prominent and distinct men of the church (the gifts of Christ to His chosen people) in difficult areas of theology and doctrine. It is certainly helpful and edifying to the soul to see what the councils, creeds, puritans and magisterial reformers thought. In the case at hand, most of church history is opposed to the involvement of the Christian in the celebration of Christ-mass. Even the city-state of Geneva in 1546 stated they would reprimand anyone who observed the day, believing it was a retreat to Romanism – the heretical monster they were breaking away from. (“Those who observe the Romish festivals or fasts shall only be reprimanded, unless they remain obstinately rebellious.” - Register of the Company of Pastors (Geneva, 1546)). However, the break from the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation is wholly another point to speak about in comparison to the Christmas celebration many desire to invoke today without any reference to the Catholic Church. I am unaware that Calvin ever wrote against Rudolph’s shiny red nose.

At this point you may wondering what my position is. It was needful to state the former arguments and positions before going onto what I believe is the crux of the argument against Christmas and other like “holy-days.” Knowing that one cannot utilize pagan origins, nor the opinions of men (perse), as arguments against the practice of Christmas, what biblical grounds would I have against it?

Take Christ out of Christ-mass and there you have it. If Christ was taken out of the picture altogether, XMAS would be acceptable to the Christian. Like Father’s day or Mother’s Day, holidays to exchange gifts and have parties together with family and friends is quite acceptable. The contention that arises is when one places Christ within the Christmass scheme to use it as a day to commemorate and remember His birth, that it becomes a direct violation of the Regulative Principle of worship. Upon the violation of this principle of worship lies the ground by which every Christian should see Christmass as abominable. It is true that extreme debt, excess financial strain, Christmas party debauchery, a-whoring after material wealth, unbridled children demanding certain gifts and throwing tempter tantrums when they are refused them, and the like, also are added into the bag of those things which Christians should oppose during the “jolly season.” However, it is upon the principle of God’s command in worship that Christmas becomes detestable.

I'm all for Frosty the Snowman, Jack Frost, winter wonderlands, chestnuts roasting on an open fire, exchanging presents, eating candy canes, enjoying really good egg-nog, stuffing stocking, watching "Elf" with Will Ferrel, or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer with that classic sung by Burl Ives, as well as all the other holiday festivities. Why? Well, they have nothing to do with Jesus Christ and the birth story, or the incarnation. They do not violate, in any way, the Regulative Principle. They are fictional characters.

If you are not familiar with the Regulative Principle, there are a host of articles on A Puritan’s Mind explaining it. Briefly, the Regulative Principle teaches that worship is construed only by the direct commands of God in His Word. You, friend, don’t have the right to set up a day of worship about Jesus Christ that God has not set up. God chose the Lord’s Day. There is nothing about Christ-mass in Scripture. To allow into worship what is not expressly commanded in the Bible, whether that is for a day or for the regular Sunday service, is false worship. It is a worship fabricated by men, and this violates the principles of worship that God has commanded. For instance, if men say that drama or mime is acceptable in worship because God has not expressly commanded that it not be done, they are violating the Regulative Principle. God expresses states what He does command and does not need to expressly forbid what He does not.

Scriptural examples abound for this principle abound, and you can go and study the longer article version of this podcast under Christmas on the What’s New Page in order to read it and ponder it slowly.

The principle is ratified in passages such as Deuteronomy 4:1-2 which says, “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Jesus said, “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:8-9)” When men introduce their own ideas into worship, they have violated the Regulative Principle that Christ has given. Paul calls this “will-worship” in Colossians 2:23 which states, “These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, [translated literally “will-worship”] false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” Here we see that self-imposed religion, or the worship of one’s own will, violates the principles God has expressly set.

Secondly, we must define whether or not Christmass actually falls under the category of worship. Is setting aside a certain day, once a year to honor Christ’s birth, a violation of the Regulative Principle and worship? Apart from asking this question, the Christian should be the first to realize that giving gifts, Santa Claus, Christmas Trees, Yule Logs and the like, have absolutely nothing to do with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The closest in any of these is the giving of gifts, but we do not give gifts to Christ as the Magi did (which was for a specific purpose) but rather, we give them to one another. How is this honoring to Christ? I have yet found anyone who can justify any of these things in a lawful connection to Christ and His Word. It just does not exist. Instead, they are following, blindly, the Roman Catholic institution of the Christ-mass. Father’s, check your church history before making Christmas day to teach your children about Christ’s birth, or disregard it if you are trying to be more Roman Catholic.

If one were to take one day a month to meditate on the incarnation in their private devotions, there would be no contention. It is the formalizing of a specific day to honor Christ which is the problem. Public or private worship is still to be regulated by God’s Word and not the imaginations of men’s minds.

I’ve received a number of letters, much like St. Nick, about Christ-mas. OK, they were really emails, not letters. But in today's technologically savvy world, it’s much the same thing. No, no, these are not about what people would like for Christ-mas in terms of presents, but they are wondering whether they ought to celebrate Christ-mas at all at HOME apart from the church, or create some special time at HOME apart from anything the church fails to do or not do during "advent" and Christ-mas time. In thinking about how many Christians deal with "Santa Claus" and all that Xmas represents at HOME, there are some considerations to take into account that way heavily on this idea of "the holiday of Christ-mas." Christians must continually think about how ideas that are formulated in our society affect the way culture works in and out of the church, and in and out of the home. The best case scenario is that a godly church does not mimic the world or its culture, but rather arrests that culture with the Gospel. In the instance of holidays and special days that may be part of the American Culture, or any culture for that matter, still, the Gospel should arrest those ideologies and submit them to a godly action.

One must remember how things usually work out - what the church teaches usually filters into the homes of Christians . (Godly teaching should affect the church in a godly way, and unbiblical teaching or error hinders the work of the church). For example, if corporate worship includes something that violates the Regulative Principle of Worship, Christians that have thought through what God requires of His people in church should never teach their children, or anyone else in their family, that error. Parents must help their families "screen" things like that, even if it is an error propagated by a godly pastor. However, if one has a church that teaches that Christmas is not OK for corporate worship, then there should be no problem whatsoever developing some family "traditions" during the holiday season that surround things at HOME, and not church, on Christ's incarnation. Those traditions, though, ought never to include "paganistic ideas" or that Christians should "recapture" those paganistic ideas for the sake of family fun. For example, the Christmas tree, in this instance, is a pagan religious idea (simply put) that has nothing to do, whatsoever, with Christ's birth. Christians should not include Christ-mas trees in their homes if they are going to incorporate them into some religiously significant event. But teaching children, or family members about Christ's birth during the month of December is also not prohibited by the Scriptures in any way. One simply must be careful not to equate the "worldly ideas" or "paganistic ideas" of Christ-mas with Jesus Christ. He simply does not belong there. The two do not mix. One could, for argument's sake, teach their family about the birth of Jesus Christ at ANY time of the year. (And they should!)

Some people believe Xmas trees, mistletoe, Santa, Rudolph, the Bumble and Frosty the Snowman are paganistic idols. They believe that taking those things out of Xmas and turning things to Christ, or introducing foreign ideas that have no place in the Christology of Jesus Christ to their family at "Christmas", is OK. It is really the reverse. Santa is as much an "idol" as Nemo was in Finding Nemo, or "Jiminy Cricket" was in Peter Pan. If one has a problem with Santa, or his elves, then one must accordingly have a problem with any other fictional character from Johnny Tremain to the legends behind Davy Crocket, Superman, or Kit Kittredge. However, if parents are using Santa and his gifts to lie to their children, that is a very different matter. It is sinful against both their children and Jesus Christ to lie. Parents should not lie to their children at any time; especially about a fat man in a red suit that rewards children based on works.

If someone wants to create some religiously significant time with their family as it is dictated in the Bible, there is no sin there. If, for example, a father wants to use the month of July each year to teach his family a four week teaching on the cross of Christ, he should do it. It could become a family tradition to do so. If a mother wanted to teach her children about the Holy Spirit in November, then by all means, she should do so. Christians, however, should be cautious to "equate" what is done at home with what the church will wrongly give a "stamp of approval" for during the season of "Christ-mas". In other words, "Jesus is the reason for the Season" is just a load of bunk. Jesus Christ is not only Lord of the season, but He is Lord of every day and every minute of every day, and, in fact, upholds everything in every moment and is the One in whom "we live and move and have our being" every day of the year. His incarnation extends to every moment of every time in the monumental significance of human and creative redemption. The incarnation is not just for December 25th, July 8th or March 12th, dates that have absolutely no religious significance whatsoever, unless they fall on the Lord's Day and are, in fact, observed as the Lord's Day. Christians must be careful about how they use something lawful and good at a time when it can be misconstrued. The incarnation is lawful, good and theologically necessary for salvation. But December may be a "cliché" month to visit that topic. One may measure their bondage to that cliché by their ability or non-ability to use ANOTHER month to teach their family about the incarnation. Reader, could you celebrate the meanings that you hold in Christ-mas in, say, August, or February? If not, you may be more bound to the secularization of Romanism than you may be willing to believe.

This writer continues to vote for taking Christ out of XMAS so there is no confusion on the issue, and instead teaches about the incarnation and birth of Christ ALL YEAR ROUND. In that way, every "theological" base is covered, and one may still be able to enjoy "Elf" on TV during December, a candy cane or two, and a nice honey baked ham during the secular holiday of Christ-mas - a fun time if one uses it lawfully.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Exit Interview – Why a Reformed Pastor is Leaving the Ministry

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

I spoke to a Reformed Pastor this past week, and he is in a dilemma. He is in a financial crisis. No, the crisis does not run around the current economical trends of wall street and main street and the current bailout bill that the government is instituting to inject life into the financial sector. Rather, this pastor’s financial crisis surrounds being a Reformed minister and supporting his family as a Reformed minister.

Now, I am not referring to mainline denominational lines where pastors will refer to themselves as Reformed because they have a copy of the Westminster Confession on their bookshelf, or even that a denomination may say they hold to the Westminster Confession in their book of church order while at the same time having a hoopla worship service adorned with everything but the kitchen sink. No, I am referring to a truly Reformed Pastor who desires to preach the truth, but cannot afford to preach the truth in the midst of a postmodern age that is more interested in hoopla than the truth.

This pastor has gone to bible college AND seminary, having more than the typical MDiv degree that most current Presbyterian pastors have. This brother is a step up. If he were a house, and a price value was placed on him as a house with special improvements, he would be worth more and have more equity than the general houses of the neighborhood.

This pastor is an exceptionally good preacher, has a wonderful heart for ministry, loves the truth, and loves the God of truth. His desire is to see people transformed by the Word of God. His problem is that his church has 12 people on a regular Sunday. With his own family, and possibly a visitor, his maxes out at about 17-20.

Can a minister, worthy of his wages as Christ states, live on the 3% average tithing of 3 other families? The answer to that is a resounding no. So what does he do? He goes out to find another job and becomes a tentmaker. In that other job his interests are now divided and it begins to take a toll on his health and his family. He is now working full time, and at the same time holding ALL the responsibilities of a pastor. The people still need counseling. He still needs to prepare sermons, and the order of worship each week. But even now, in the midst of his second job, the economy is starting to affect that as well. Now what does he do?

Well, he has to reinvent himself again. He has to think, at 49 years old, of going to school and learning a new trade that will benefit him and help support his family. Remember, he has 7 years of school and two degrees, but they are useless degrees in our day to provide for his family.

At this point his zeal for preaching is displaced for fear of losing his house, feeding his children, and caring for his family. The ideal he once had for the ministry has become shattered.

The emergent church is winning. This pastor cannot compete with the churches who cater to the flesh. People are far more interested in seeing the bouncing ball during a hoopla service bounce across the screen while they hold a parade in their sanctuary, than they are hearing a sermon about sin and salvation. What does a Reformed Pastor do? There is, for lack of a better phrase, no money in reformed theology.

In talking with this pastor, he conveyed that unless he is willing to sell out and compromise on 70% percent of his ministry, he will never have a church that would be able to support his family. He would never have a church bigger than 12. He would never have a church that competes with 7 other emergent churches that have gone the way of Balaam across his small town and in his area. How can he compete with a church that has Starbucks in the foyer?

This pastor will leave the ministry. Then where does he go? There is no church in his area for hundreds of miles where he could attend in good faith, or the few others in his area that attend his church services. There is no place to go for him. So in leaving the ministry by necessity, he leaves the church. In leaving the church, who knows what will spiritually happen to his family and his own walk with Christ.

For the Reformed pastor, this is not a happy story, or an unfamiliar one. Reformed theology may be true, and the Gospel may be housed inside TULIP and Calvinism, it may be given to the saints by Christ Himself through His providential oversight of HIS pastors, but it is in contest with mega churches and their ministries who are willing to compromise for the sake of having MORE ministries and willing to turn their churches into mini malls. The entertainment factor is winning out over the truth.

That tells us two things – 1) people are willing to peddle the word of God for profit, and 2) people are willing to let them. The flesh would be far more content with a Java Chip Frappacino before the band starts, than hearing a sermon on the crucified Savior and the mortification of the flesh in obedience to His commandments.

Reformed Theology will never lose out to the emergent church and its non-theology since Christ said that the gates of hell will never prevail against the truth. Those churches, their pastors and their members will be sorely judged for their wickedness and contempt for the truth. But the emergent church will cause Reformed Churches to close and press true pastors to find new employment.

Listener beware. If your pastor is more interested in a bouncing ball during the Sunday morning sermonette, or they constitute a new committee for restructuring the foyer to serve coffee, then the devil is visiting your church and may steal the truth away from you for the sake of modernity without you being the wiser. In our age there is no more scary an idea than the truth being given up for modern conveniences and entertainment.

This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.

Monday, June 09, 2008

Glamorizing the Ministry

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

I’ve run across too many preachers who desire to preach because they believe that their calling is based on affinity more than the true calling of the ministry. What do I mean? Affinity is defined as “a natural attraction or feeling of kinship.” Sticking particularly with those not seeking to preach the Word of God for profit as most TV preachers do, but rather who have an affinity to Reformed Theology and desire others to know its truths, such preachers often solidify their affinity for the ministry with theological kinship.

Think about the pastor of your local church. When they were not pastors what determined their calling? How did they share their calling? What definable traits deemed their calling genuine? What criteria did the elders of your church place upon that man as he solidified his ministerial position with your church body?

There is a great portion of one’s pastoral calling that frequently is tied to the glamorization of the ministry due to their affinity with theological giants of the past. When “wanna be” pastors find Reformation Theology, and the richness of those further definable points of interest in Post Reformation Theological views, there is an insatiable need to share those truths which further develops into an affinity with those giants of old to “be like them.”

At that point, ministry changes. Pastoral ministry should not be set upon the affinity with theological giants of the past. Ministry is not about sitting in one’s study perusing over tomes of Puritan literature in order to bring about a Sunday sermon that shakes the rooftops as puritan experimental preaching did 400 years ago. It is not about locking one’s self behind closed doors to study all day long. It is not based on the glamorization of Reformation history brought back to life by a pastor’s false affinity.

Scholarship behind closed doors is one thing. But that is not ministry. It is certainly not pastoral ministry. It could be that one may be called to be scholarly and to lock their doors in order to study for some evangelical end.

To speak more directly, pastoral ministry is about being called of God to sacrifice your life for the good of the sheep that God sends you to for His glory. Think of God’s pastors of old. Noah watched the destruction of the human race and then continued to preach to 7 people for years and years. His church was his household. What about Moses who left Pharaoh’s court to be with the persecuted brethren? The prophets? Well, Isaiah’s life was no picnic. Jeremiah – the weeping prophet? Jonah, who ran from God? Amos, whose ministry lasted all but 30 minutes, or the time it took to stand up and read Amos aloud? John the Baptist got his head cut off. Even God’s own Son, Jesus Christ was sent to die. His apostles longed to be in heaven, but as Paul said, he would rather stay for it is better for the church that he does. Suffering, persecution and sacrifice. Pastoral ministry is not glamorous. It is not about memorizing the sermons of the Reformers, or being “Reformed”. Such a glamorization will cause you to fall from that lofty height, that fantasy place, very quickly.

People often find fantastical outlets to remedy their hum-drum lives. Movies, games, drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, fantasy of all kinds. But in the highest calling a man may be called to, to pastor the flock of God, the foundation of that calling can never be the fantasy of glamorizing the ministry. It makes the up and coming minister no better than drug addict who will crash after a few hard years, or less, of real life ministry. The drug wears off quickly. The glamour disappears, and he finds himself standing in the midst of people with real needs and real life pains and he will not know what to do because he thought ministry was simply about preaching puritanical sermons and getting that Sunday afternoon pat on the back from his parishioners. Remember that even the great men of history saw through such a façade. Jonathan Edwards was ejected from his church, and he was one of the greatest puritan affiniates ever.

That is why James is so hard on those who want to be teachers. There is a great difference between enjoying Reformational theology and being called of God, truly to lead His people.
James 3:1, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.

Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind –for more on the Gospel, Reformed and Puritan Theology, and more of the Wild Boar, visit http://www.apuritansmind.com.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Easter - The Devil's Holiday

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

What do we find when entering into Roman Catholicism’s “borrowing” of paganism? We find their continued alliance with breaking the regulative principle, and the replacement of true worship, with worshipping that which is unholy. They institute unscriptural burdens such as Lent, fast days, sacred rites that control their kingdom with superstitions and false religion guised in the cloak of “authority” and hide the truth from people to damn them for all eternity. One such deception is their introduction of the “Christian festival of Easter.” Look around and you will see the world-wide acceptance of the chocolate bunny and hardboiled egg. It is harmless, right?

What does one find when looking at the celebration of Easter? The term “Easter” is certainly not Christian, and is of Chalcedonian origin. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people at Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use today. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar – the devil or Satan. Worship of the devil in this way was introduced to the English people through the Druids who worshipped the devil through nature.

Take a moment and note that Romanism or Druidism for that matter, would not openly say “they are worshipping the devil.” Of course they would deny it. However, the Scripture is exceedingly clear that any doctrine not brought to men through the Triune Godhead, and the Savior Jesus Christ, is a doctrine of demons and therefore, a worshipping of the devil. This certainly applies not only to the contemporary church when it introduces destructive heresies, or twists Paul’s words to their own destruction, as Peters states, but also applies to false religious ideas that pull people away from the one true Savior and only God Jesus Christ. One cannot introduce false religion without partaking of demonic influences and devil worship in that light.
As a result of Druidic worship, and influences that have penetrated into Romanism, contemporary Christendom of almost every flavor still has those influences lingering today in their worship, and their Sunday morning bulletins around the time of Easter. The Druids would worship in lighting a fire in the center circle and each worshipper putting in a “bit of oat-cake in a shepherd's bonnet; they all sit down, and draw blindfold a piece from the 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.” Scripture deems this “walking through the fire” or “fire sacrifice.” God condemns the practice of making children walk through the fire in Leviticus 18:21, “You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.”

Easter, then, traces back through Astarte was also worshipped in ancient times, and that from the name Astarte, whose name in Nineveh was Ishtar, the religious workings during the month of March and April, as now practiced in most of Christendom, are called by the name of Easter. In ancient times the pagans called this time of the year Easter-monath.

Even Socrates, the ancient philosopher, describes the different ways in which Easter was observed in different countries in his time during the fifth century. He states, “Thus much already laid down may seem a sufficient treatise to prove that the celebration of the feast of Easter began everywhere more of custom than by any commandment either of Christ or any Apostle." (Hist. Ecclesiast.) Even Socrates, the pagan philosopher knew Easter was not a Christian doctrine.

Where did people begin worshipping “gods” on Easter? Hislop explains, “The forty days' of fasting during the Romanist Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess. Such a Lent of forty days, "in the spring of the year," is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil-worshippers of Koordistan, who have inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. It was held in spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, where he gives account of Mexican observances: "Three days after the vernal equinox...began a solemn fast of forty days in honor of the sun." Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt which was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god. At the same time, the rape of Proserpine seems to have been commemorated, and in a similar manner; for Julius Firmicus informs us that, for "forty nights" the "wailing for Proserpine" continued; and from Arnobius we learn that the fast which the Pagans observed, called "Castus" or the "sacred" fast, was, by the Christians in his time, believed to have been primarily in imitation of the long fast of Ceres, when for many days she determinedly refused to eat on account of her "excess of sorrow," that is, on account of the loss of her daughter Proserpine, when carried away by Pluto, the god of hell. As the stories of Bacchus, or Adonis and Proserpine, though originally distinct, were made to join on and fit in to one another, so that Bacchus was called Liber, and his wife Ariadne, Libera (which was one of the names of Proserpine), it is highly probable that the forty days' fast of Lent was made in later times to have reference to both. Among the Pagans this Lent seems to have been an indispensable preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing, and which, in many countries, was considerably later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine and Assyria in June, therefore called the "month of Tammuz"; in Egypt, about the middle of May, and in Britain, sometime in April. To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by a complicated but skilful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity--now far sunk in idolatry--in this as in so many other things, to shake hands. The instrument in accomplishing this amalgamation was the abbot Dionysius the Little, to whom also we owe it, as modern chronologers have demonstrated, that the date of the Christian era, or of the birth of Christ Himself, was moved FOUR YEARS from the true time. Whether this was done through ignorance or design may be matter of question; but there seems to be no doubt of the fact, that the birth of the Lord Jesus was made full four years later than the truth. This change of the calendar in regard to Easter was attended with momentous consequences. It brought into the Church the grossest corruption and the rankest superstition in connection with the abstinence of Lent. Let anyone only read the atrocities that were commemorated during the "sacred fast" or Pagan Lent, as described by Arnobius and Clemens Alexandrinus, and surely he must blush for the Christianity of those who, with the full knowledge of all these abominations, "went down to Egypt for help" to stir up the languid devotion of the degenerate Church, and who could find no more excellent way to "revive" it, than by borrowing from so polluted a source; the absurdities and abominations connected with which the early Christian writers had held up to scorn. That Christians should ever think of introducing the Pagan abstinence of Lent was a sign of evil; it showed how low they had sunk, and it was also a cause of evil; it inevitably led to deeper degradation. Originally, even in Rome, Lent, with the preceding revelries of the Carnival, was entirely unknown; and even when fasting before the Christian Pasch was held to be necessary, it was by slow steps that, in this respect, it came to conform with the ritual of Paganism. What may have been the period of fasting in the Roman Church before sitting of the Nicene Council does not very clearly appear, but for a considerable period after that Council, we have distinct evidence that it did not exceed three weeks.”

So we have the history of “Easter” and its popular observances today confirm the testimony of history as to its Babylonian character, such as the hot-crossed buns that are so tasty.

The hot cross buns of Good Friday, and the dyed eggs of Easter Sunday, figured in the Chaldean rites just as they do now. The "buns" were used in the worship of the queen of heaven, the goddess Easter, as early as the days of Cecrops, the founder of Athens--that is, 1500 years before the Christian era. Jeremiah 7:18 states, “The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.” Jeremiah uses the word "bun" which is where the concept was derived. The Hebrew word was pronounced Khavan, which in Greek became sometimes Kapan-os. The Hebrew shows how Khvan, pronounced as one syllable, would pass into the Latin panis, "bread," and the second how, in like manner, Khvon would become Bon or Bun. The hot cross buns are not now offered, but eaten, on the festival of Astarte; but this leaves no doubt as to where the original idea came from.

What about the Ishtar Eggs? Where do we get bunnies and eggs in baskets and egg hunts during a Christian holy-day? The origin of the Paschal eggs is just as pagan. The ancient Druids bore an egg, as the sacred emblem of their order. Hislop says, “In the Dionysiaca, or mysteries of Bacchus, as celebrated in Athens, one part of the nocturnal ceremony consisted in the consecration of an egg. The Hindo fables celebrate their mundane egg as of a golden color. The people of Japan make their sacred egg to have been brazen. In China, at this hour, dyed or painted eggs are used on sacred festivals, even as in this country. In ancient times eggs were used in the religious rites of the Egyptians and the Greeks, and were hung up for mystic purposes in their temples. From Egypt these sacred eggs can be distinctly traced to the banks of the Euphrates. The classic poets are full of the fable of the mystic egg of the Babylonians.” Hyginus, the poet states, “An egg of wondrous size is said to have fallen from heaven into the river Euphrates. The fishes rolled it to the bank, where the doves having settled upon it, and hatched it, out came Venus, who afterwards was called the Syrian Goddess"--that is, Astarte, or Easter. So the Easter Egg became one of the symbols of Astarte, and its occult meaning had reference to the ark during the time of the flood, in which the whole human race were shut up, as the chick is enclosed in the egg before it is hatched.
The egg, then, became used as a symbol for the whole world as Noah and his family, after the destruction was the “whole world” floating on the waters of the flood. Hislop states, “The coming of the egg from heaven evidently refers to the preparation of the ark by express appointment of God; and the same thing seems clearly implied in the Egyptian story of the mundane egg which was said to have come out of the mouth of the great god. The doves resting on the egg need no explanation. This, then, was the meaning of the mystic egg in one aspect. As, however, everything that was good or beneficial to mankind was represented in the Chaldean mysteries, as in some way connected with the Babylonian goddess, so the greatest blessing to the human race, which the ark contained in its bosom, was held to be Astarte, who was the great civiliser and benefactor of the world. Though the deified queen, whom Astarte represented, had no actual existence till some centuries after the flood, yet through the doctrine of metempsychosis, which was firmly established in Babylon, it was easy for her worshippers to be made to believe that, in a previous incarnation, she had lived in the Antediluvian world, and passed in safety through the waters of the flood. Now the Romish Church adopted this mystic egg of Astarte, and consecrated it as a symbol of Christ's resurrection. A form of prayer was even appointed to be used in connection with it, Pope Paul V teaching his superstitious votaries thus to pray at Easter this specific prayer, “Bless, O Lord, we beseech thee, this thy creature of eggs, that it may become a wholesome sustenance unto thy servants, eating it in remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (Scottish Guardian, April, 1844).

That Semiramis, under the name of Astarte, was worshipped not only as an incarnation of the Spirit of God, but as the mother of mankind, we have very clear and satisfactory evidence. There is no doubt that "the Syrian goddess" was Astarte (LAYARD'S Nineveh and its Remains). Now, the Assyrian goddess, or Astarte, is akin to simply worshipping the devil. Astarte is not Jesus Christ, is not the Triune Godhead, is not biblical, but everything that God prohibits. The bunny with its fertility connotations and the ancient pagan festivals that used rabbits as symbols of fertility in Babylonian times or the use of eggs, or the use of candy (which derived from the use of pomegranates and oranges that were also used in ancient times of pagan rituals) is identified as devil worship by any thinking Christian. It is no wonder that the use of the symbol of the dove itself as a Christian symbol did not come from the idea of the Spirit resting as a dove upon Christ during His baptism, but as a representative of the Mother of the gods, in whom that Spirit was said to be incarnate, was celebrated as the originator of some of the useful arts and sciences. And we find very readily in Greek mythology that the character attributed to the Minerva, whose name Athena as a synonym for Beltis, the well known name of the Assyrian goddess. Athena, the Minerva of Athens, is universally known as the "goddess of wisdom," the inventress of arts and sciences.
We have Rome borrowing pagan rituals to change the date of Christ’s entrance into the word by 4 years to compensate amalgamating the celebration of devil worship with Christianity; the adoption of Ishtar, or Astarte, Easter, as a Papist degradation of worship; the violation of the regulative principle in deeming a day to be worshipped as such, the entrance of eggs from Druidic worship, or pomegranates and oranges that turned into chocolate bunnies and Ishtar eggs for a candy basket to give on Easter Sunday, and the Babylonian influences of pagan rituals through every aspect of Easter and we find you, reader, going out this week to apply this all to little Johnny and little Debbie because everyone else is doing it at church.
If you want to be a Papist, then call yourself a Papist, or a Druid, or a Grecian worshipper of the devil. Don’t call yourself Christian by upholding a blatantly obvious demonic holy-day that God abhors. When you partake of such wicked schemes, God’s anger is aroused, and He states in Deuteronomy 32:17, “They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known.” When you give your child their Easter basket, recall God’s words, and heed the Psalmist in Psalm 106:37, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons.” Know that you serve the same blasphemies that Romanism has brought into Christendom, and that the Scriptures rightly warn the covenant people of God that they should abstain from such things and be separate. 1 Timothy 4:1 states, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.” When you worship using the devil’s teachings, you give heed to demonic influences and introduce them to your children. You might say, “Hey, come on. It’s just a chocolate bunny, some jelly beans and a few hardboiled eggs right?” No. It is a giving of your mind, heart and family over to the trinkets of the devil and the worship of his holy-day that has been resurrected and founded on demonic influences and teachings – it is devil worship. If you celebrate Easter, you spit in the face of Jesus Christ who is to be worshipped not on one day in the year on “Resurrection Sunday”, but all the days of all your life – for He is the Redeemer of the Covenant people of God every day.

There is a great difference between the works of the devil and the works of the Triune God. The devil deceives by subtle manipulation (Hey, Easter is not all bad), and the Triune Godhead commands nothing more than perfect obedience to His will and Word (Thou Shalt not worship any other gods, nor shall you worship God according to the commandments of men). The devil wants you to worship Jesus Christ in the manner that demonic teachings lay out Easter. God commands you to worship Him as His Word dictates. Deuteronomy 4:2 states, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.” The devil is the father of lies and wants you to believe the lie that Easter is a Christian holiday, like Lent and Christmas. But our true Father is in heaven who commands us today, as Acts 17:30-31 states, “to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead," who is Jesus Christ. Talk about that day and wonder, Christian, if you will stand when He appears. There is safety in appearing in the righteousness of Christ on the Day of Judgment. But there is no safety in any degree of comprises for the sake of a few jelly beans.
Post Script – I do not want Christians to be leery of buying a bag of jelly beans or eating a Cadbury Egg. It is not that jelly beans or chocolate bunnies are evil in and of themselves. Buy some jelly beans during the 4th of July and have at them. Make some chocolate bunnies and eat them up during January or September. But do not associate yourself or your family with the Romanist amalgamation of pagan rituals during the March-April time of Lent, Good Friday, Palm Sunday and Easter. Those associations are in direct violation of God’s commands, and those associations overrule your plea to Christian Liberty because God is very clear about His worship. As Revelation 19:10 states, “Worship God.”

This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.

Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind –for more on the Gospel, Reformed and Puritan Theology, and more of the Wild Boar, visit www.apuritansmind.com.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Small Groups - The Abdication of Pastoral Responsibility

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

For some reason, contemporary pseudo pastors seem to believe that their main objective is to win souls and grow their church. They win souls by offering an Arminian Gospel, and they grow their church by incorporating those won over into some kind of assimilation into a corporate-like environment. No doubt it works well. Most companies operate by taking new employees, and assimilating them into the structure of the company with specific tasks that will aid the overall streamlined environment. These companies thrive as communication is passed down from the CEO to various departments, that in turn, oversee those departments to the company’s greater good. This is, again, much like many contemporary churches whose pastors abdicate their pastoral responsibility for integration through a man-centered incorporation to their corporate empire. How else can they afford their new Lexus or beachfront summer condo. Numbers means revenue, and revenue means success.

What’s the secret? Small groups. As corporations have departments, contemporary churches have small groups.

What are small groups? Besides being a blatant disregard for the pastoral duties of overseeing the flock personally, and manageably, small groups give mega congregations the ability to divide up (as if Christ desires His church to be divided) and to learn watered down lessons about self-esteem, church ministries, or whatever doctrines a contemporary church deems suitable to “fellowship with the saints.” Leaders of small groups are called “Small Group Champions” or “Lay Leaders”. Such people are chosen by the pastor, or as Christianity Today writer Fred Smith states, that small group champions are “identified” as “promising people” who can “take on” the guidance of a small group. Smith lists 10 requirements for church ceos to identify small group champions, and 4 conclusions that would read well in any article in the business section of the Wall Street Journal or Fast Company Magazine, like: What will this person do to be liked, or can the CEO Pastor provide a suitable environment for this person to succeed? Of course, there was no mention to glorify God, or ability to take on pastoral duties. No, the contemporary church cares little for those things.

In an article called “Confession of a Small-Group Leader” Joe Higginbotham said of himself that his group was successful because “The nonchurchy, spontaneous atmosphere of our group was its most basic appeal.”

The Good News of South Florida Newspaper said that “small groups need to be managed”. Of course they do, much like any corporate department.

This gives rise to the new phenomena of the “church without walls”. Small Groups extending into the world where people, in a non-churchy environment, managed by champion leaders, and chosen on the basis as to whether they will be liked or not, has a trendy kick to it. Realize listener that the feel good church of the future must continue to create trendy applications in order for you, the non-denominational, unchurched attendee feels a sense of belonging that is indiscriminatory. Don’t you feel good about that?

But, as false shepherds continue to propagate such irreverent anti-biblical concepts to abdicate themselves from actually caring for the flock as a flock in expository biblical teaching, and pastoral duties, more and more mainline denominations are picking up bad habits of such abdication because they see that their churches are losing ground to that which is more trendy and popular. In allowing others to take over pastoral responsibility, churches are growing, so they think, erroneously, that it can’t be all bad if growth is inevitable. Growth, they think, in numbers, gives them the ability for their church to do good. But what does that have to do with the glory of Jesus Christ?

True pastors, however, hold to the Bible. The Bible is quite plain on this point. Pastors are not to abandon their flock, or give up their responsibility to preaching and teaching the truth to them.

Ephesians 4:11-12, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.”

Now, many pseudo pastors will whine and wail on this note, and hold steadfast to the corporate principle that their churches are thriving because small group departments are succeeding. But if that’s the case, the best thing that small groups actually do is demonstrate that the pseudo pastor who is leading that church is no pastor at all. The success of the small group over their leadership and preaching of the flock themselves is a true sign that demonstrates their inadequacy to take a leadership role and equip the flock, and further demonstrates that their abdication is a sign that they should have never been behind the pulpit in the first place.

This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.

Friday, January 04, 2008

The New Year

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

Contemplation is the hallmark of the wise. Solomon said, in Proverbs 6:6, “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.” Consideration or reflection, taking time out to do so, is one of the most godly and important aspects in the Christian life. Without reflection and consideration one would not excel in their sanctification.

In thinking about the New Year, one of the most obvious reflections arises from the familiar figure by which life is compared to a journey, and the different years of life to successive stages in our course. Just as a traveller is reminded, by looking on a mile-stone, that he has left another stage behind him, and that he has one fewer in his journey ahead, so the commencement of another year should awaken the thoughtful reflection, how large a portion of life is already past, and how much less remains for us before we reach our final destination. Were life bounded by a limit which, besides being fixed and certain in itself, was also ascertainable by each of us – could we all count securely on the full tale of forty years – even on that supposition we might be expected to be seriously impressed by the succession of one year after another, each vanishing away, and leaving a smaller number before us? A young person may say, “Twenty years are gone how short they seem in the retrospect! Yet if I travel fifty more, my race is run!” And the man of mature age might say, “More than half of my allotted time is expired, and in less time than I have already spent here on earth, I shall be in eternity.”

Thus, as one stage after another was completed, it is natural to count how many mile-stones have been passed, and to figure out how few remain before us. But how much more natural, and how deeply solemn the thought in the actual circumstances of our case, that we have reached another distinct landmark in our course – we, who “know not what a day may bring forth,” and who are passing on with the assurance that beyond a certain limit, we cannot live.

At the same time we remain in the scope of the constant hazard of an early and unexpected death! The maximum of life is known – the minimum of life no man call tell. It is a journey which may extend to seventy years, or it may terminate in one year. It is a voyage on a flowing stream, whose utmost reach may carry a few onward for seventy years, but it is a stream which has many divergent channels opening at every point into the great ocean of eternity.

Might not the close of one year and the commencement of another be expected, in such circumstances, to suggest the thought that we have really no certainty except in regard to the years that are past and gone? What do we know? We know that those years they are gone forever, and can never return. But what about the future? We know only this, that our years are drawing fast to an end, and that possibly this may be our last year. Every person has one life. Every person has one life in which to roam the earth and make something of themselves in the light of God’s ever piercing eye. We know what years have been passed over, but at any coming moment we may drop down and die. How long is a moment? How many moments do you have left? The commencement of a new year is only a proof that we are nearer, by one long interval, to the end of our journey. We are nearer, by the time that has passed, to heaven or hell. If the last step – the step by which we pass from this life into eternity is so awful that the very thought of it harrows up our feelings, and makes our flesh creep and our blood run cold, should not every step we take in advance towards it be solemn, and should not every year, which brings us nearer to death, leave us more ready to die? And are you so certain, listener, that the moment you step into eternity that you will be safe under and covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ and His work in redemption for His elect? Are you one of those who contemplates the New Year in light of the work you will do for God, and are you certain that the New Year will shine forth as one which brings you that much closer to your Savior? Certainly, this is something that wise men contemplate.

This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.

Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – the series on Election and Reprobation has just been completed. Go to www.apuritansmind.com and click on “What’s New?” There you will find information on this 9 part lecture series. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology that honors the Lord Jesus Christ, visit http://www.apuritansmind.com.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Take Christ Out of Christmas

Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.

There are many articles and papers written to show that Christmas, and other holidays like Easter, are thoroughly unbiblical, and are intended to sway the Christian community away from practicing such “man-made holy-days.” No doubt the authors of such papers have the best interest of the Christian Church in mind, and are not simply jumping upon the bandwagon of “reformed thought” in order to add another notch to their theological belt. However, when these articles begin to substantiate the claim that Christians should have nothing to do with the holiday of Christmas, the weightiest arguments they bring forth are two fold: 1) The appeal to the pagan roots of idolatry, and 2) the history and witness of the Christian Church.

First, writers appeal to the pagan roots of the holiday as a means to deter Christians from practicing such abominable vestiges even though the 21st century Christmas is not blatantly practicing the same rites as the Babylonians or druids of old once did. For instance, the Christmas tree is set up in some corner of the living room, decorated and lighted, and gifts abound and grow under the tree as December 25th draws near. The appeal is then made to Jeremiah 10:3-4 where idolatry is condemned. It says, “For the customs of the peoples are futile; For one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple.” Here we see idolatry based in the practice of cutting down, setting up, and decorating a tree. Or they quote Jeremiah 2:20, “For of old I have broken your yoke and burst your bonds; And you said, "I will not transgress,' When on every high hill and under every green tree You lay down, playing the harlot.” Here the evergreen tree was used to promote false religion and idolatry. God was angered at the Israelites for their religious syncretism and their participation in these practices. Idolatry is certainly condemned by God and no Christian should ever be disobeying and transgressing the first table of the Law of God (commandments 1-4) by profaning the worship of God with idols.

The second appeal is made to the history of the church and its practices. Surely this is an important note to make, and that petition to such testimony is warranted. We could cite the reformers such as Luther and Calvin, the pastors of Geneva city-state, the Waldensen Confession, the Puritan Divines such as Edmund Calamy, Samuel Rutherford, James Durham, Increase Mather, Thomas Vincent, John Owen, Andrew Clarkson, Ebenezer Erskine, William Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff, James Fisher, John Willison, John Brown, Robert Shaw (and many more), The Westminster Confession, the Directory of Publick worship, The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and their confession, and various other creeds and confessions. These diligent writers will make it known that the church did not practice this holiday until sometime after the 4th century, and show varied proofs that most opposed the practice altogether, condemning it out rightly. Here we see the siege to discourage the practice and participation of Christmas is usually based on these 2 points.

Before I give my own view, I would like to address the two avenues above which are the usual lines of reasoning in dissuading Christians from partaking in the Christmas holiday.

The first argument is certainly important. Christians are certainly never to participate in idolatrous worship. However, the case against Christmas on this point is not that Christians are out rightly bowing down to a tree and worshipping it, or profaning Christ by setting the Yule log on the fire, or desecrating the glory of God by exchanging gifts with one another. I have never met a Christian who blatantly setup a green tree in their home to practice idolatry. The argument presented in the first point above is not directed by those writers against people who setup idols in their home and bow down to them after supper for family devotions. Rather, the argument stems from the pagan practices which lie behind what Christians do with those Christmas trees, Yule logs, wreaths, etc. in days of old. Scripture everywhere condemns idolatry, but the argument that because something has pagan roots is no argument against Christmas. Why is this? Some may believe I am going to appeal to Romans 14 and the Christian’s liberty with holy days as the argument against this. But that passage does not address the situation rightly, and, as a matter of fact condemns such days. Rather, I appeal to 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. It asserts the following:

Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge.
Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2And if anyone thinks that he knows
anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God,
this one is known by Him. 4Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to
idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other
God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on
earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6yet for us there is one God, the
Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7However, there is not in
everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat
it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
8But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better,
nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 9But beware lest somehow this liberty of
yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10For if anyone sees you
who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him
who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11And because of
your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when
you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin
against Christ. 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never
again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Did Paul have any problem eating meat sacrificed to idols? Not at all. His conscience was clear knowing that food “does not commend us to God”; whether we eat it or not. Trees do not commend us to God, nor do Yule logs, wreaths, or turkey and ham made for the Christmas occasion. These things do not make us better or worse towards God in and of themselves. Paul ate meat that was sacrificed to idols. He abstained from the eating of meat if it would cause those who would bock at the practice to stumble in their faith. Either way, eating or not eating, Paul did not defile his conscience by it. Shall we ask the question, “What went on in ceremonial rites which allowed these meat markets to offer meat sacrificed in this way?” We could go into the abominations of the pagans, their sacrifices, their temple prostitution, their wicked practices with other man-made Gods, in reality worshipping the devil, and the like. We could simply use our imaginations about this and in some cases our imaginations would not be graphic enough to consider what heathen idolatries occurred against the Living God. But Paul ate the meat. Even though the meat had pagan origins, he still ate it. Even though the cow or bull was offered as a sacrifice for devils, slain and drained of its blood, cut up and used in the ceremony, Paul still had no problem eating it. Paul’s determent to eat meat sacrificed to idols was the consideration of a weaker brother. If there was a weaker brother who could not handle, in his own conscience, the thought of eating or practicing such a thing, because Paul was the stronger and more mature Christian, free in Christ to eat what God had made, he still, nevertheless, would have abandoned the practice. He would not have abandoned eating meat sacrificed to idols because of the meat’s pagan origins, but because of his love to the brother in question.

Christmass (yes I spelled it correctly) cannot be condemned because it has pagan origins. Christmas, as pagan as it might be, and as many pagan ideologies it may possess, cannot be condemned because 1000 years ago or 500 years ago or 5 days ago someone bowed down to the tree and committed idolatry with it. (People hang picture frames through their home to display photos, made from wood – should that deter them since they knew it was once a tree, and someone 500 years ago worshipped trees?) The Christian is not bound by such instances if they are not bowing down to it, and their consciences are cleared before Christ because they have studied and thought through the implications and biblical/historical information on the subject, if that was all there was to it.

Secondly, the appeal to men may be helpful, but the opinions of men, no matter how renown they may be, should never be the basis of setting the Christian's conscience. The Christian conscience should be captive by the Word of God alone. However, Christians should always weigh and consider the prominent and distinct men of the church (the gifts of Christ to His chosen people) in difficult areas of theology and doctrine. It is certainly helpful and edifying to the soul to see what the councils, creeds, puritans and magisterial reformers thought. In the case at hand, most of church history is opposed to the involvement of the Christian in the celebration of Christmas. Even the city-state of Geneva in 1546 stated they would reprimand anyone who observed the day, believing it was a retreat to Romanism – the heretical monster they were breaking away from. (“Those who observe the Romish festivals or fasts shall only be reprimanded, unless they remain obstinately rebellious.” - Register of the Company of Pastors (Geneva, 1546)). However, the break from the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation is wholly another point to speak about in comparison to the Christmas celebration many desire to invoke today without any reference to the Catholic Church. In any case, the appeal to men cannot bind the conscience of the Christian, as helpful they may be in their exegetical prowess.

At this point you may wondering what my position is. It was needful to state the former arguments and positions before going onto what I believe is the crux of the argument against Christmas and other like “holy-days.” Knowing that one cannot utilize pagan origins, nor the opinions of men (perse), as arguments against the practice of Christmas, what biblical grounds would I have against it?

If Christ was taken out of the picture altogether, XMAS would be acceptable to the Christian. Like Father’s day or Mother’s Day, holidays to exchange gifts and have parties together with family and friends is quite acceptable. The contention that arises is when one places Christ within the Christmass scheme to use it as a day to commemorate and remember His birth, that it becomes a direct violation of the Regulative Principle of worship. Upon the violation of this principle of worship lies the ground by which every Christian should see Christmass as abominable. It is true that extreme debt, excess financial strain, Christmas party debauchery, a-whoring after material wealth, unbridled children demanding certain gifts and throwing tempter tantrums when they are refused them, and the like, also are added into the bag of those things which Christians should oppose during the “jolly season.” However, it is upon the principle of God’s command in worship that Christmas becomes detestable.

I'm all for Frosty the Snowman, Jack Frost, winter wonderlands, chestnuts roasting on an open fire, exchanging presents, eating candy canes, enjoying really good egg-nog, stuffing stocking, watching "Elf" with James Caan and Will Ferrel, or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer with that classic sung by Burl Ives, as well as all the other holiday festivities. Why? Well, they have nothing, in the way I am explaining here, to do with Jesus Christ and the birth story, or the incarnation. They do not violate, in any way, the Regulative Principle.

It is necessary to explain, briefly, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and then also argue that high thoughts of Christ, or any kind of meditation on Christ, is worship – no matter how short or long that time is. First, the Regulative Principle teaches that worship is construed only by the direct commands of God in His Word. To allow into worship what is not expressly commanded in the Bible, whether that is for a day or for the regular Sunday service, is false worship. It is a worship fabricated by men, and this violates the principles of worship that God has commanded. For instance, if men say that drama or mime is acceptable in worship because God has not expressly commanded that it not be done, they are violating the Regulative Principle. God expresses states what He does command and does not need to expressly forbid what He does not. (That would take volumes.)

Scriptural examples abound for this principle. Genesis 4:3-5 says this, “And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.” God did not accept what Cain brought, though Cain may have brought it sincerely. Sacrifices were to be of blood, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Cain’s heart was wrong, and his sacrifice was not what God had commanded of him.

Another example is in Leviticus 10:1-3 which is a cornerstone for the Regulative Principle. It says,

“Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in
it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had
not commanded them. 2So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. 3And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke, saying: “By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.”” So Aaron held his peace.”

Here Nadab and Abihu offered something (strange fire) on the altar, but God had not expressly forbid them from doing so. God had only told them what they were supposed to do, not what they should not do as well. You may search all through the passage and never find one instance of God forbidding them not to offer this “strange fire.” Here we see God’s mind on the principle. God killed them for disobeying Him though God had not expressly forbidden the practice. This should cause all to stop and think about how we must be careful to know the mind of God on matters of importance such as worship.

Another example is in 2 Samuel 6:3-7,

“So they set the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of
Abinadab, which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drove
the new cart. And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the
hill, accompanying the ark of God; and Ahio went before the ark. Then David and
all the house of Israel played music before the LORD on all kinds of instruments
of fir wood, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on sistrums, and
on cymbals. And when they came to Nachon's threshing floor, Uzzah put out his
hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. Then the
anger of the LORD was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his
error; and he died there by the ark of God.”

Uzzah did not want to see the ark of God fall into the mud. It was toppling on the ox cart that they were using to transport it. God had expressly stated that they were to transport the ark with poles, not on an oxcart. Numbers 4:6 and 15 says,

“Then they shall put on it a covering of badger skins, and spread over that a
cloth entirely of blue; and they shall insert its poles…And when Aaron and his
sons have finished covering the sanctuary and all the furnishings of the
sanctuary, when the camp is set to go, then the sons of Kohath shall come to
carry them; but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die.”

Uzzah did not use the poles expressly commanded by God; he used an ox cart. 1 Chronicles 15:13-15 states,

“For because you did not do it the first time, the LORD our God broke out
against us, because we did not consult Him about the proper order." So the
priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD
God of Israel. And the children of the Levites bore the ark of God on their
shoulders, by its poles, as Moses had commanded according to the word of the
LORD.”

Not only did Uzzah not use what was expressly commanded (the poles), rather, he used what he wanted (the ox cart). His transgression did not stop there.

Uzzah also touched the ark because he did not want the mud to defile the sacred object. But the Lord killed him because the mud was cleaner than Uzzah.

The principle is set in such passages above, and ratified in other passages such as Deuteronomy 4:1-2 which says, “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Also, Deuteronomy 12:30-32 says, “…take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, "How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.' You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” In these verses God is specific to inform the Israelites that they should not add or take away from the law, or sore judgments will come upon them. Two of the more poignant verses are from the lips of Christ and Paul. Jesus said, “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:8-9)” When men introduce their own ideas into worship, they have violated the Regulative Principle that Christ has given, even if Christ has not expressly forbidden it. Paul calls this “will-worship” in Colossians 2:23 which states, “These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, [translated literally “will-worship”] false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” Here we see that self-imposed religion, or the worship of one’s own will, violates the principles God has expressly set, though the Bible may not expressly forbid such practices. Jeroboam did this very thing in 1 Kings 12:32-33, “Jeroboam ordained a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the feast that was in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. So he did at Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made. And at Bethel he installed the priests of the high places which he had made. So he made offerings on the altar which he had made at Bethel on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, in the month which he had devised in his own heart. And he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and offered sacrifices on the altar and burned incense.” God did not command this. Jeroboam took this upon himself to institute. This pertained to worship and violated the Regulative Principle.

Some may appeal here to the feast of Purim in the book of Esther saying that they imposed a time of worship. This is not the case at all. The feast of Purim was not worship. Esther 9:18, 26, and 28 state, “The Feast of Purim: But the Jews who were at Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth day, as well as on the fourteenth; and on the fifteenth of the month they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness…So they called these days Purim, after the name Pur. Therefore, because of all the words of this letter, what they had seen concerning this matter, and what had happened to them…that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city, that these days of Purim should not fail to be observed among the Jews, and that the memory of them should not perish among their descendants.” This was not worship. It was a day of feasting. It was a day of gladness, but not an institution of worship like Nadab and Abihu and their strange fire, or Jeroboam and his sacrifices. Some appeal to The Westminster Confession in their statement concerning lawful days of “thanksgiving” in order to appeal to a day of thanksgiving for Christmas. However, The Westminster Confession says the following, “The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. (WCF Chapter 21, Section 5; They use Esther 9:20-22 as a proof text for “and thanksgivings upon special occasions”, not for worship.) The Westminster Confession makes the distinction between worship which appears in the first part of the paragraph, and then separates other days of spiritual edification by the word “besides.” They are not the same, and appeal to them is unwarranted.

We see then that God has set the Principles by which sinful men may approach him, and any addition or subtraction to that institutes a self-willed worship which is abhorrent to God.

Secondly, we must define whether or not Christmass actually falls under the category of worship. Is setting aside a certain day, once a year to honor Christ’s birth, a violation of the Regulative Principle and worship? Apart from asking this question, the Christian should be the first to realize that giving gifts, Santa Claus, Christmas Trees, Yule Logs and the like, have absolutely nothing to do with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The closest in any of these is the giving of gifts, but we do not give gifts to Christ as the Magi did (which was for a specific purpose) but rather, we give them to one another. How is this honoring to Christ? I have yet found anyone who can justify any of these things in a lawful connection to Christ and His Word. It just does not exist. Instead, they are following, blindly, the Roman Catholic institution of the Christ-mass. Check your history....

In attaching homage to Jesus Christ and the honoring of His incarnation to Christmas, men are setting apart a solemn day of worship by their own accord. Churches go to great lengths to celebrate “the advent of our Lord”. They light candles, and confer with church tradition to make this a season where they especially remember His birth in the month of December. In doing this they are instituting a day, or series of days of worship (if there are special events ensuing) which are not instituted in Scripture and are additions to God’s prescribed rule of authority. The only day set by God in the Scriptures for solemn worship and remembrance of Christ in any way, is the Lord’s Day or Christian Sabbath. To create another day would violate the Regulative Principle. Men should never impose their ideas of worship on God and believe God will accept them.

Whenever Christians have thoughts of Christ or of God, they are beginning to engage in worship. Jeremiah Burroughs in his book Gospel Worship defines worship simply as “thoughts about God.” The interaction of the mind of man to the mind of God, to think His thoughts after Him, is worship. The opposite of having thoughts of God and worshipping Him, is to suppress and remove God from the thoughts; Psalm 10:4 states, “The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts.” The Christian is to have his thoughts fixed upon God. We are to be living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to Him every minute of every day – but there are also times of public and private worship which take place at God’s command. Colossians 3:2 states, “Set your mind on the things above…” Isaiah 26:3 says that the righteous’ “mind is stayed on You.” Meditating and thoughtfulness about God is worship. Formal worship, gathering together as a body of believers in a church setting to hear preaching and teaching, etc., is commanded of God to His people. Private worship is still worship, though it be done in the home. In either case, creating a day for formal worship, such as Christmas, is a violation of the principles of worship. If one were to take one day a month to meditate on the incarnation in their private devotions, there would be no contention. It is the formalizing of a specific day to honor Christ which is the problem. Public or private worship is still to be regulated by God’s Word and not the imaginations of men’s minds.

One final thought is important to add: If Christmas were wholly biblical, and centered around the worship of Christ, and the glorification and honor of God, why would the world enjoy it? The world loves Christmas. They revel in it. If it were something truly biblical, or something truly edifying to the soul, then they would hate it and would not be able to stand it. Isaiah 53:1-3 states,

“Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty
that we should desire Him. 3He is despised and rejected by men.”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, which the very purpose of the incarnation, is abhorrent to the world – they hate it. They reject the Gospel and despise Jesus. They do not desire nor love Him. But they love the holiday season. Some Christians desire to “reclaim” Christmas and put the “Christ” back in “Christ-mas.” But what the participating Christian has done is taken the world and adapted himself to it. He is to be salt and light, being transformed from the world, not giving into it. Not only does he break the principle of worship set in the Word of God by God Himself, but he also associates himself with the world; he adapts himself to their practices with a “Christian twist.” Moreover, we know that “friendship with the world is enmity toward God.”

It is true, that on account of the Bible’s direct witness to the Regulative Principle, most of the good theologians and pastors of the church throughout history have rejected such practices as participating in Christmas, or Easter, or the like, until we have happened upon our more theologically lazy century. Defining worship and the Regulative principle is of utmost importance, and no Christian should be theologically lazy about what God requires of them. They should study the subject diligently that they would be able to give an answer for the hope that lies in them.

1 John 2:15-17,

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world,
the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world--the lust of
the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but
is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who
does the will of God abides forever.”

This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.

Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – the series on Election and Reprobation has just been completed. Go to www.apuritansmind.com and click on “What’s New?” There you will find information on this 9 part lecture series. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology that honors the Lord Jesus Christ, visit www.apuritansmind.com.