A very COVID Christmas: Why pandemic guidelines are not an assault on religious liberty

 It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas is going to be a dud this year. The Coronavirus is surging around the country and the US is setting records on an almost daily basis for new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. State and local governments are issuing new public health restrictions and guidelines that will be in place over the holiday. For many Americans, such as those in California, that means that Christmas will be celebrated under shelter-in-place orders.

I’m seeing a lot of posts in my social media feeds from friends and politicians who believe that the COVID guidelines represent an assault on religious freedom or a resumption of the War on Christmas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What Rep. Jordan and many others fail to acknowledge is that the Coronavirus pandemic is a real public health threat and that the illness is spread from person-to-person. Travel and public gatherings – Christmas or otherwise – represent an opportunity for infected people to spread the virus around the country and quite possibly end up killing their loved ones.

It isn’t a matter of Dr. Fauci and others simply being grinches who want to destroy Christmas, it is a question of the health and lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

A few weeks ago, I described how the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the idea of emergency public regulations in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo. While the Court prevented New York from instituting onerous regulations that singled out religious services, it did not say that all restrictions on religious groups were unconstitutional. Rather, the Court agreed that “stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.”

In the decision, the Court laid out a test for whether such restrictions were permissible under the First Amendment. To be constitutional, the regulations must first address a legitimate local problem such as COVID clusters in local churches. Second, religious institutions cannot be singled out for more restrictive regulation than secular organizations. However, there is a loophole here. Rules can be narrowly tailored if the government can show that there is a compelling state interest. Temporarily closing the doors of churches that ignore all health guidelines and host superspreader events could be such a compelling interest.

I’ve always believed that freedom must be tempered with responsibility. When people act irresponsibly with their freedoms, those rights often tend to get restricted and limited. It is no different in a pandemic.

Yes, you have the right to go to church and to Christmas gatherings, but you also have the civic duty to act responsibly and not act as an agent of infection to your family and community. Choosing to exercise your rights in a responsible manner helps us to keep our freedoms as well as showing Christian love to your neighbors.

The Coronavirus pandemic does not mean that Christmas is canceled. It does mean that we need to find alternative ways to celebrate. In the 21st century, we have the ability to celebrate the birth of Christ while minimizing the risk to our high-risk friends and family.

What would Jesus do?

Originally published on The First TV

Believing In Christmas Is Logical

I have a confession to make. I doubt sometimes.

I was raised in a Baptist church. I was in one of the families that, if church was being held, we were there. I was saved at an early age and grew up believing without question. For many years, I never seriously considered the possibility that God was not real or that the Bible was not accurate.

A few years ago, that changed for a couple of reasons. First, I started a job and had a coworker who was an atheist. The nature of flying jobs is that you spend a lot of time with the other crewmembers and get to know them very well. On long trips, the two of us spent a lot of time talking, solving the world’s problems and discussing the nature of God and religion.

They say that it isn’t polite to discuss politics and religion, but that is because too many people can’t disagree agreeably. My atheist friend, who I’ll call Rob, and I were different. We both liked logic and reason and could have long discussions over difficult topics in a calm manner. Sometimes we would agree and sometimes we would agree to disagree.

Rob was unlike the stereotypical atheists. He was sympathetic to religion, once telling me that he wanted to believe but simply could not. Still, he saw the value of religion as a tool for instilling morality, which he thought made the world a better place. When our families had dinner together and my kids said the blessing, he bowed his head in a very unatheistic manner along with the rest of us.

In fact, Rob, despite his atheism, was one of the most moral and charitable people that I’ve ever known. He was generous to a fault and always ready to help others who were in need. As we walked around various cities on layovers, he would frequently give money to homeless people. I remember more than once watching him slip money into the pockets of people sleeping on the street. His charitable heart put me to shame.

Rob was an analytical guy. In his examination of spiritual matters, he ultimately came to the conclusion that the universe and mankind were the result of random chance. We discussed the astronomical odds against the earth forming just at the right spot in a solar system and orbiting just the right type of star to allow life to develop as well as the minuscule chance that evolution would blindly steer developing life into a higher intelligence. He acknowledged the slim probabilities but maintained that the one chance out of billions was the number that had come up.

The second factor in my questioning was my diagnosis with skin cancer. I wrote about my stage one melanoma after it was removed almost two years ago now. While my cancer experience was much less traumatic and invasive than many, it was the first time that I had faced a real health crisis that could have killed me. In the wake of the melanoma, I realized with my gut what I had known intellectually for years: that death could come at any time.   

With that realization and with my place in eternity on the line, I didn’t want to trust blindly in a religion that I’d never really tested. If we do due diligence before buying a house or car or committing to a new job, shouldn’t we research our religious beliefs? If God is real, what we believe about him and what we do about those beliefs is the most important decision of our lives.

Religion is really a two-fold question. The first question is whether God exists. The second, in a world with many different religions preaching wildly diverging beliefs, is which is the most correct and appropriate path to God.

Logically, there are three possible outcomes. The first possibility is that there is no God, in which case, the whole point is moot. The second possibility is that there is a God but you pick the wrong belief system, which could be disastrous for your soul. Finally, the third possibility is that there is a God and you choose wisely with the result being that you spend eternity in heaven. This is the optimal outcome, but it is especially important to avoid the second.  

There are many evidences for God including the improbability that random chance got us to where we are, but one of the most interesting to me is a scientific study in which British researchers found evidence that consciousness continues after death. The AWARE study found that 40 percent of patients with cardiac arrest were conscious while they were clinically dead and prior to resuscitation. Dr. Sam Parnia pointed out that the memories described by the patients were not merely hallucinations but “detailed recollections of visual awareness in this case were consistent with verified events.”

So, I did what countless people down through history have done before me. I questioned God and put him and the Bible to the test. I looked at other religions to see how they compared. I read about ancient history and the documentary evidence for the Bible. I read about the problems and inconsistencies in the Bible. I wrote about this spiritual journey in another article after I came to the conclusion that God is real and the Bible is as true as imperfect humans can make it.

“The Bible As History” by Werner Keller became one of my new favorite books. I was astonished at how much archaeology backed up Biblical accounts. Although direct archaeological support for the Flood and the Exodus are still scant at this point, there is an abundance of evidence for Israel’s kingdom period. Further, over the past few years, I’ve watched as reports of new discoveries roll in that lend more support to Biblical claims. Although the Flood and the Exodus are difficult to prove, they are also difficult to disprove.

Two other very good books, Lee Strobel’s “The Case For Christ” and Warner Wallace’s “Cold Case Christianity,” built a similar case for the validity of the New Testament. Both men began their investigations as skeptics and ultimately found that the evidence for the God of the Bible was so strong that they became believers.

In contrast, the skeptical claims against the Bible crumbled as I investigated them. Prophecies from Islam seemed vague and unfulfilled compared with those of the Bible. There seems to be no archaeological support at all for the Book of Mormon. Other religions teach that good works earn your way into heaven or that people sent to hell are given a second chance. The lack of exclusivity from these religions argues against them. If they are true and you don’t pick them, it’s no harm and no foul. Atheist claims often seem to rely on the position that they cannot understand God and therefore deny his existence or, as with Rob, hold that natural processes, however improbable, must be true.  

But Christianity is different. It claims to be an exclusive path to God. It also has both archaeological and documentary evidence to back up its claims. If Christianity is true and you don’t pick it, you’ve missed the boat.

The evidence for Christianity is not limited to scholarly works and logical reasoning, however. There have been many instances in my life where there has been evidence of the supernatural. I described in the discussion of my melanoma how a prophetic dream led me to the doctor after several dermatologists had ignored the cancer on my face. My wife and I also once experienced what seems to have been a physical manifestation of a spirit that left a mark on her body with no physical explanation.

I discussed all this with Rob, who said that he wished he could have similar experiences and then maybe he could believe too. In Rob’s case, the resistance to belief seemed to be rooted in a bad experience with the church from years earlier. This was a tragic example of how hypocrisy and bad behavior by God’s people can undermine the Gospel.

My experience with Rob is one reason that I’ve been so critical of the church’s support for Donald Trump. Rob’s belief was made even more difficult by what he saw as hypocrisy in supporting a man whose life and actions contradicted their beliefs and principles.

So why am I writing this on Christmas Eve? A common theme for generations has been that the original Christmas gifts were God’s gift of his son Jesus (“Yeshua” in his original language) to save mankind and the offer of forgiveness for our sins. It’s true that these gifts form the foundation of both Christmas and Christianity in general, but modern seekers are not limited to the Biblical narrative.

Another Christmas gift that God has given to 21^st-century seekers is the gift of accumulated science and scholarship that backs up the first century Gospels. We have at our disposal 2,000 years of research that can help us determine that God’s gift of Jesus and his offer of forgiveness are true and our only hope of salvation.

The tragedy is that all too often the actions of Christians alienate seekers like Rob. Emotional reactions to hypocrisy and bad behavior can trump the objective truth of the evidence. All believers should strive to not be the reason that people turn away from God and should pray for those like Rob who have been led astray.

Even with all I’ve experienced and read, sometimes faith doesn’t come easy. But questioning God is not sinful and can ultimately make your faith deeper. Sometimes belief is more of a choice than an emotional response.

Jesus told Thomas, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.” Today, we can’t physically see Jesus face-to-face, but we can see the evidence of his existence and his actions more than any other generation since that of Thomas and the other disciples. We just have to look at the evidence and decide how to react to it.

Merry Christmas.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Born To Die

Almost everyone is familiar with the Christmas story. The tale of how Mary and Joseph were turned away from the inn and gave birth to the Son of God in a stable is traditional holiday fare. Even those who consider the story to be a myth have at least heard it and recognize the characters.

That familiarity can be a problem. Many of us have heard the tale so often that it loses its impact. We have heard the story for so many Christmases now that it becomes part of the background, like Christmas carol muzak in a department store or mall, and we fail to appreciate the impact of Christmas.

The real impact of Christmas lies beyond the manger scene. Christmas is really about what the newborn infant would do some 30 years later as an adult.

Christmas reminds me of the scene in Talladega Nights in which Will Ferrell leads his family in a mealtime grace, addressing the prayer to “little baby Jesus.” Baby Jesus in the manger is a nonthreatening image that is easy to celebrate because a newborn infant is not controversial and makes no demands of us.

The problem with limiting our view of Christmas to the manger scene is that the babe in the manger came to shake things up and make difficult demands of us. The newborn baby was an infant on a mission. The baby Jesus was born to die.

If we fast forward about 30 years to see the ministry of the adult Jesus, we would get two central themes to his message. One, that we should love our fellow man, is another common Christmas theme. As Bill and Ted put it, Jesus taught that we should “be excellent to each other.”

But Jesus’ second theme is even more important. Beyond loving others, Jesus taught that we should love the God who created us and seek after him.

In fact, the most important message from Jesus’ preaching can be distilled down to two verses. In John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” In this verse, Jesus made the controversial and earthshattering claim that he is God. A few chapters later in John 14:6, he made another extraordinary claim. “I am the way and the truth and the life,” Jesus said. “No one comes to the Father except through me.” In two short statements, Jesus overturned the conventional wisdom that priests and sacrifices were needed to approach God.

Jesus’ statements were either the ravings of a madman or the herald of a new way of looking at life and God. After a few short years of itinerant preaching, he would be executed by the Romans with the complicity of Jewish leaders. Far from being a tragedy, however, Jesus’ death sealed his victory. It was why he had come in the first place. As Jesus had previously explained to his disciples, he “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).

You see, like Jesus, we are also born to die. I once saw a t-shirt that said, “Life is sexually transmitted and always fatal.” We are dying from the day we are born.

Unlike Jesus, who as the Son of God holds the ultimate power over death, we are its mercy. As sinners, we are doomed to eternal separation from God as punishment for our misdeeds. It is in this realization that Jesus’ mission is made clear. He did not come to bring world peace or military triumph. Contrary to what prosperity gospel preachers say, he did not come to give his followers worldly wealth or to heal the sick. Even though he is capable of doing all these things, Jesus came to give us a chance at eternal life and the ability to triumph over death.

Christmas is about hope. The hope that would ultimately be fulfilled by the adult Jesus on the cross. The baby in the manger would grow up to sacrifice his life for ours, but the gift of sacrifice must be accepted.

While the baby in the manger makes no demands of us, the resurrected Jesus who died on the cross demands that we put aside all other paths to God, believe in him, and make him Lord of our lives. In return, we receive salvation and eternal life, the ultimate Christmas gifts. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why Was The Christmas Star Visible From Afar But Not Noticed In Bethlehem?

There are many mysteries about the miracles that form the basis of Jesus Christ’s claim of divinity. Jesus is claimed to have healed the sick and raised the dead of the Roman province of Palestine during his short ministry. These miracles made him famous and inspired disciples to follow him but from a modern perspective, they are impossible to verify. The witnesses to these miracles are long dead. Even Lazarus and the others that Jesus restored to life eventually returned to the grave. However, there is one miracle associated with the life of Jesus that should be easy to verify because it was apparently visible from around the world.

The miracle of the Christmas star occurred at the time of Jesus’ birth and according to the Biblical account was visible to learned travelers from a distant land. Matthew tells us that the Magi saw a star that they recognized as symbolizing the birth of the king of the Jews and traveled to Jerusalem “after Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea” (Matt. 2:1). The star apparently appeared at the time of Jesus’ birth (2:7) and lasted months until the Magi could make their journey from a distant land. The problem for Christian believers is that other observers of the time don’t report significant astronomical events around the time of Jesus’ birth. The lack of reports would seem to rule out stars as well as nebulas and comets.

Beyond the lack of extrabiblical support for a stunning celestial display, there is another problem with the story of the Christmas star. There is a paradox in the Bible’s claim that the Magi could see the star from thousands of miles away while King Herod seemed ignorant of it only five miles away in Jerusalem. Any obviously bright star would be easily visible to anyone who looked up at night, yet Herod and his court were unaware of it.

Further, consider that stars typically seem to move when viewed from the earth’s surface. The location of stars is fixed in space, but the earth’s rotation makes them appear to move. A star that rises in the east would set in the west a few hours later yet the Bible says that the star “stopped over the place where the child was” (2:9). The typical depiction of the Christmas star as an immense, blindingly bright star hovering above the Bethlehem stable seems more and more unlikely.

The problems with identifying the star of Bethlehem seem insurmountable. The star was allegedly seen clearly from a great distance away but unobserved in and around Bethlehem. The meaning of the star was so obvious that the Magi left on an international trip yet other astronomers around the world missed it entirely. Stars normally move but this one was reportedly stationary. The problems are so difficult that many consider the Christmas star to be nothing more than a myth.

A clue to the answer can be found in the original Greek text of the New Testament. In his fascinating look at the historical foundations of the Bible, “The Bible As History,” Werner Keller pointed out that in verse two, the Greek word translated as “star” for thousands of years is actually plural rather than singular.

Keller offers a theory as to the identity of Matthew’s Christmas stars. For hundreds of years prior to the time of Christ, Jewish exiles had lived in Babylon. Babylon, located to the east of Palestine in present-day Iraq, was also the home of an advanced school of astronomy. Clay tablets discovered by archaeologists that date back to more than 400 years before the time of Christ detail calculations by which the Babylonians could predict the paths of the planets, which of course look like stars when viewed without a telescope.

Two planets in particular may have been of interest to the Magi. Jupiter, the king of the planets, was considered to be a royal star and was also associated with luck. The second largest planet, Saturn, was associated with Israel according to ancient Jewish traditions described by Tacitus, a famous Roman historian. 

Keller describes how Jupiter and Saturn came together not once but twice in 7 BC. The first conjunction occurred on May 29 and was followed by a second on October 3. He writes that the journey from Babylon to Jerusalem would have taken about six weeks by camel caravan in Biblical times. It would have been unwise to undertake such a journey across Middle Eastern deserts at the beginning of summer but an October departure would have placed the Magi in Jerusalem in late November. This would place the birth of Jesus prior to the onset of winter in Palestine when shepherds would have still had their flocks in the fields (Luke 2:8).

Frederick Larson of BethlehemStar.com has a similar theory but arrived at a different date for the star’s appearance. Larson looked at the movements of the heavens and found an interesting occurrence over a period of months in the years 3 and 2 BC. At that time, Jupiter and Regulus, a star the Romans considered royal, entered a triple conjunction that would certainly have attracted the attention of Babylonian astrologers.

Larson also provides an answer for how the star could have stopped above the stable in Bethlehem. If the Magi were observing Jupiter from Jerusalem as it entered retrograde, the planet would have appeared to stop over the town of Bethlehem, five miles to their south. One of the dates that this could have occurred was December 25, 2 BC.

Regardless of which celestial event is the particular one observed by the Magi, the theory that the eastern travelers observed astrological signs that pointed them to the newborn Messiah is an idea that can overcome the difficulties inherent in a traditional reading of the Christmas story. The astrological event would have been visible to trained observers but would not have been apparent to King Herod or the people of Judea. The meaning of the signs would have been lost on other astronomers who were not aware of the association of various planets and stars with Israel and Judaism.

The search for the Christmas star has lessons for those who are seeking God. At the outset, it seemed that it was impossible that the account of the star could be more than a myth. The very idea seemed to make no sense and the problems presented by skeptics seemed insurmountable.

Upon closer inspection, however, when the original writings and understanding of the Bible’s writers were taken into account, it turns out that there is a rational explanation that can back up the story of Matthew’s Magi. As it was with the ancient Jews, who thought the Messiah would be a military leader who would overthrow the hated Romans, our problem with the Christmas star lies in our lack of understanding of what the Bible’s writers were trying to convey. When we put aside our preconceived ideas about what the star must have been, we find the answer was there all along.

The lesson of the Christmas star is that God answers those who seek him. While not all of the answers and explanations to Biblical questions are readily apparent, we do have enough answers to know that Christian faith can be based on verifiable facts and does not have to be a blind faith. The Bible’s accuracy is a launching point for the relationship with Christ that offers our only hope for conquering death.

That is the true meaning of Christmas. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Christmas Carol Countdown

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/prayitnophotography/6497990917

If you’re like me, one of your favorite things about the Christmas season is the Christmas music. As a traditional person and a Christian, I love classic Christmas carols, but there are many new Christmas songs that I also enjoy.

Christmas songs range from the sublime to the awful (“Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer,” I’m looking in your direction). Almost any singer who has recorded more than two albums has also released a Christmas album. When it comes to Christmas, there is no shortage of variations to choose from, even though you might not be able to tell this from the Christmas Top 40 repeated ad infinitum on the department store muzak.

To celebrate this Christmas, I have put together a list of ten Christmas songs that are among my all-time favorites. Some are religious, some are not. Some are old, some are new. Feel free to disagree and list your own favorite Christmas songs in the comments.

10. “Please Come Home for Christmas,” The Eagles. I like many kinds of music, but, first and foremost, I’m a classic rock fan and The Eagles are the one of the greatest classic rock groups of all time. Their Christmas song is in the vein of “Blue Christmas,” but The Eagles version is a more bluesy, personal plea that resonates with anyone who has ever spent a Christmas away from their loved ones. The Christmas season can be a very lonely one for some people. “Please Come Home for Christmas” isn’t as well known or as oft-covered as “Blue Christmas,” but, for my money, it’s a much better song.

9. “Christmas 1915,” Celtic Thunder. This song combines my love of classic Christmas carols with my love of history. “Christmas 1915” tells the story of the World War I Christmas Truce when Christmas-loving German and British soldiers very nearly derailed the war. The sampling of “Silent Night” to underscore a temporary lull in the brutal trench warfare is tear-inducing. The song represents both the best and worst instincts of man as soldiers cease fighting in celebration of the birth of the Savior only to kill their fellow revelers in hand-to-hand fighting the next day. If you can listen without getting choked up, you’re a better man than I am.

8. “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day,” Burl Ives. Like “Christmas 1915,” this carol laments how far man has strayed from God’s ideal. In this world, “hate is strong and mocks the song of ‘peace on Earth, good will to men.’” The song was written in 1863 by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, as he pondered how his son, a Union soldier, was severely wounded and almost paralyzed during the Civil War. The song ends with the stirring promise of the bells that “God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; The Wrong shall fail, The Right prevail, With peace on earth, good-will to men.”

This version is performed by Burl Ives, a singer and actor most popular in the 1950s and 1960s. You may recognize Ives’ voice from other classic Christmas songs such as “Holly Jolly Christmas,” “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” and “Frosty the Snowman.”

7. “I’ll Be Home for Christmas,” Bing Crosby. Many popular Christmas songs seem rooted in war when families were ripped apart by fighting. This is also the case for “I’ll Be Home for Christmas.” Written in 1943, the song represents a letter home from an American soldier fighting overseas in World War II. “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” was a fervent desire that would not be fulfilled for most soldiers for another two years, but they would be present with their families “if only in my dreams.” The song is an anthem for those who are separated from their families at Christmas.

The song was originally recorded by crooner Bing Crosby, who also had popular versions of many other Christmas songs that were destined to become Christmas classics. A bit of trivia is that the B-side of the original single of “I’ll Be Home For Christmas” was “Danny Boy,” a ballad now associated with St. Patrick’s Day.

6. “Mary Did You Know?” Pentatonix. “Mary Did You Know?” is a new classic written by Christian comedian, Mark Lowry. The song asks Mary a rhetorical question. Yes, she knew that she was giving birth to the Son of God because the angel told her, but did she really understand the impact of that her son would have on the world. Could any mortal have comprehended that “when you kiss your little baby, you kiss the face of God?” Unlike many contemporary Christian songs, the theology is deep here. This beautiful version of the song is by acapella group, Pentatonix.

5. “O Little Town of Bethlehem,” Elvis Presley. No list of Christmas songs would be complete without an entry from The King. Elvis Presley is more known for “Blue Christmas,” but the song is so ubiquitous that it has become a parody of itself. There is even a cover performed by Porky Pig (it’s worth a listen). I prefer my Christmas blues by the Eagles, but I like to hear the velvet voice of Elvis praise the King of Kings in traditional Christmas carols.  

4. “Hark the Herald Angels Sing,” Johnny Cash. This is another traditional carol with many great versions. The song is a hymn by Charles Wesley that mixes an explanation of Christian theology with the joyous news that Jesus was “born that man no more may die, born to raise the sons of earth, born to give them second birth.” This is the ultimate meaning of Christmas: That Jesus, “our Emmanuel” (literally, “our God with us”), was born to die for our sins. The Christmas nativity points directly to the cross of Easter.

This version of the song is performed by Johnny Cash, the country music singer with one of the most distinctive voices in the world. Cash was not just singing a song. His belief in Christ changed his life and saved his marriage and career. When he sang about the joy of Christ’s birth, Cash meant every word.

3. “Joy to the World,” Celtic Woman. It’s easy to see the angelic chorus above Bethlehem on a dark night two thousand years ago when you close your eyes and listen to this song. The song, which is based on verses of the Bible (Psalm 98, 96:11-12 and Genesis 3:17-18), is a heavenly birth announcement. Celtic Woman is a world-renowned Irish ensemble.

2. “Silent Night,” Michael Bublé’ and the Trinity Boys Choir. “Silent Night” was originally an Austrian carol, written in German by Franz Gruber and Joseph Mohr in 1818. The soft, tender song paints a picture of the sleeping town of Bethlehem where “shepherds quake at the sight” of angels attending to the newborn King of Kings. Unlike the boisterous celebration of “Joy to the World” and “Hark the Herald,” “Silent Night” is quietly worshipful. It is almost as if the singers want to avoid waking the sleeping infant or inhabitants of the town. This is the perfect song to end a Christmas Eve candle service on a reverent note.

Michael Bublé, who performs this version, has recorded one of the most popular Christmas albums of recent years. The German lyrics are performed here by German singer Adaliz von Goltz.

1.“O Holy Night,” Josh Groban. This is my favorite Christmas carol. The song seems to sum up the meaning of Christmas in a moving, solemn song. “O Holy Night” was originally written as a poem based on the Gospel of Luke by Placide Cappeau, a French wine merchant, in 1847. Adolphe Adam set the poem to music soon after.

This beautiful song is a serene moment in the tumultuous Christmas season. It is pause for reflection on the holiness of the moment. The final stanza hints at the ultimate promise of Christmas that will be fulfilled on Christ’s return: “Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother; And in His name all oppression shall cease.”

This version is performed by Josh Groban, an American singer and songwriter. You can hear the original French lyrics performed by famed tenor, Enrico Caruso, here.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

-Luke 2:14

Merry Christmas to all!

https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/contributors/christmas-carol-countdown-OpVyru8PsUCGUm-dlTUHDA

When Christians banned Christmas

publicdomainpictures.net

We hear a lot about the war on Christmas, but few remember that, once upon a time, Christmas was completely banned. This wasn’t in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. It happened right here in America. The story begins with the Pilgrims. Yes, those Pilgrims. The same ones that we celebrated a few weeks ago when we had Thanksgiving dinner.

Conventional wisdom has it that the Pilgrims came to the New World in search of religious freedom. That’s true to a certain extent. They left England originally to avoid persecution, but they first settled in Holland. In Holland, they had religious freedom, but they had several complaints about life there.

According to Christianity Today, the Pilgrims didn’t like living in Holland because it was a hard place to make a living. They also thought that Holland, with its permissive culture, was not a good place to raise their children. The Pilgrims left Holland for America because they want a more pure and holy society.

As we all know, the Pilgrims moved to America in 1620. What many don’t think about is that, once established in New England, the Pilgrims were absorbed into the larger Puritan movement. The Puritans were reformers in the Church of England who rejected many of the trappings of the English church.

As the Puritan colonies in New England were growing, Puritans in the mother country were actually revolting against the king. The English civil war was fought between the Royalists, also called Cavaliers, who supported Charles I, the Catholic king, and the pro-Puritan forces of Parliament called “Roundheads.” The Roundheads were led by Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan military leader. After the Roundhead victory in 1645, Cromwell became the military ruler of England and the Puritan Parliament canceled Christmas.

Puritans hated Christmas because, even then it was largely a secular holiday. Christmas was celebrated with raucous partying and drinking, two things that were very unpopular among the Puritans, who were literally “puritanical.” After all, the Pilgrims had left Holland a few years earlier to escape this sort of sinful culture. They didn’t want it follow them to Massachusetts.

The Puritans also noted that Christmas was not Biblical. The Bible didn’t mention when Jesus was born and there was no record of early Christians celebrating the Nativity.  Puritans associated Christmas with the pagan Roman festival of Saturnalia and the winter solstice. Puritans also viewed every day as holy and spurned the idea that holidays were more special than any other day.

In Puritan England and Massachusetts, work went on as normal on Christmas Day. People who openly celebrated Christmas could be fined. In England, the Christmas spirit was hard to break. Pastors who attempted to preach on Christmas Day were arrested. Pro-Christmas sentiment ran so high that Parliament ordered shops to stay open and ordered that they be protected from violence and intimidation by people offended that they were open on the holiday.  

After Cromwell’s death in 1658, Christmas returned to England in 1660 when the monarchy was restored. The ban on Christmas lasted much longer in Puritan Massachusetts. Royal pressure led to lifting of the Christmas ban in 1681, but the holiday still wasn’t popular. The royal governor of Massachusetts held a Christmas Day service in Boston under the protection of redcoat troops in 1686. Anti-Christmas sentiment flared up around the time of the American Revolution due to its association with the crown. While not banned, Christmas wasn’t widely celebrated in New England as late as the 1850s. Christmas became an official holiday in Massachusetts in 1856.

With the Christian concern today that secular forces are trying to eliminate Christmas, it’s ironic to think that it was Christians who once banned the celebration of the birth of Christ. Truth can definitely be stranger than fiction.

Originally published on The Resurgent

   

'Happy Holidays' flap is a snowflake issue

Pixabay.com

I’m a fan of Christmas. I am a Christian and I celebrate the holiday as a commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ, who I believe is the Son of God. Even though I joyfully celebrate Christmas, I recognize that not everyone does. For that reason, I’m not concerned in the least about the “Happy Holidays” controversy that erupts every year.

Every year there is a wave of indignant posts on social media where people denounce the phrase “Happy Holidays” as an assault on the Christian message of Christmas. People often take the greeting, as well as many other trivial matters such as a redesign of the Starbucks holiday coffee cup, as attacks on the Christian religion and react with anger and hostility.

Christmas greetings even became a political issue when Donald Trump vowed last year, “If I become president, we're gonna [sic] be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ at every store ... You can leave happy holidays at the corner.”

I’m not offended when someone tells me “Happy Holidays.” Christmas is a holiday and is included in that greeting. The phrase doesn’t exclude Christmas. Rather it includes New Year’s Day, Hanukah, Kwanzaa and probably even Festivus. The phrase is simply a recognition that there are other holidays that occur within the December time frame and bundles them into one greeting. It also has the advantage of being easier to say than “Happy Merry Christmahanakwanzika.” Stores often use “Happy Holidays” because not all their customers celebrate Christmas and it is poor marketing to alienate and offend your customers.

More and more, the flap over saying “Happy Holidays” seems to be a snowflake issue. By that, I don’t mean a winter precipitation problem, but an issue similar to the liberal faux outrages by those sensitive souls derided as “snowflakes.” These universally offended types find something to be outraged about in everything and it seems that many conservatives are taking a cue from this behavior on several issues. Christmas is one example.

Why do conservative Christians feel offended when some people choose not to say “Merry Christmas?” Christianity is a voluntary religion. People have to choose to accept Christ. Belief in Christ and repentance cannot be forced. Isn’t it equally futile to try to force people to pay homage to Christ by saying “Merry Christmas” when they don’t want to?

The United States has freedom of religion. People should be free to celebrate and say, “Merry Christmas,” but they should also be equally free to say “Happy Holidays.” The government has no constitutional role in determining appropriate holiday greetings.

There is a real war on Christmas in some quarters. Bans on nativity scenes, Christmas trees and banning “Merry Christmas” are clearly wrong and, to use the liberal phrase, intolerant. There are attempts by some to turn Christmas into a “winter break.” These attempts should be resisted and haven’t been widespread for the most part. How many of us have personally been involved in such an attack on Christmas? Not me. I’ve only read of them in the outrage media.

Saying “Happy Holidays” should not be considered an attempt to excise religion from the public square. The word “holiday” is actually derived from the Old English word for “holy day.” When someone wishes you “Happy Holidays,” they are actually telling you to have a good holy day. Christmas, along with Easter Sunday, is one of the most holy of holy days for Christians.

To take the matter a step further, even the word “X-mas” is not an attack on Christmas. The “x” is not crossing “Christ” out of Christmas, according to students of the Greek language and theology. The “x” is actually shorthand for a Greek word meaning “Christ” that starts with the Greek letter “Chi,” which looks the same as our “x.” Far from being a modern invention, the shorthand has been in use for over a thousand years.

For snowflakes who do get hot and bothered when someone tells them “Happy Holidays,” there is a simple solution. My response when someone gives me the controversial phrase is to give them a big smile and say, “Merry Christmas” in a friendly way. Often they’ll respond back with “Merry Christmas” as well. This technique even worked before Trump won the election.

Don’t be a snowflake. Let’s focus on important issues and not trivialities.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Santa Claus: Fact or fiction?

Santa Claus visits the author's home.

As Christmas approaches, I once again don my tinfoil hat to delve into the world of conspiracy theories.  In this edition, I examine what is reputed to be one of the world’s oldest and largest conspiracies.  If true, this conspiracy would dwarf the Kennedy assassination, the Roswell incident, and the cover-ups of the September 11 attacks.  This conspiracy would involve millions of people around the world over hundreds of years and reach all the way to the US military’s North American Air Defense Command (NORAD).  It permeates the film and publishing industries as well as retail stores throughout the Western world.  I speak, of course, of the Great Santa Claus Conspiracy.

For years, it has been alleged that Santa Claus is a myth.  Conspiracists point to the outlandish claims regarding the Red-Suited Elf:  That he purportedly operates an aerial sleigh pulled by eight flying reindeer (nine if Rudolph is included), that this sleigh is of sufficient cargo capacity to carry enough toys to satisfy the world’s population of children and, as Dave Barry might put it, “enough candy to meet the nation’s zit needs well into the next century.” 

The conspiracist’s claims have shown up in numerous popular culture references over past decades.  A Norman Rockwell painting called “The Discovery” shows a shocked boy finding a Santa suit in his parent’s dresser.  A popular Christmas song, “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus,” also alleges that Santa is really the child’s father in disguise.  Numerous television shows, movies, and comic strips make similar accusations.

One of the most significant objections is why elves toiling in the toy shops of the North Pole produce toys that are so similar to toys produced by conventional corporations that they can be readily exchanged at local retailers.  Don’t Santa’s elves respect copyrights and patents?  (Granted, this doesn’t seem to stop the Chinese either.)  Similarly, the financial burden of giving free toys to the children of the world would be staggering.  Charity is not cheap.

The conspiracists, however, ignore inconvenient facts that do not support their claims.  For example, the reality is that Santa Claus is a historical figure.  Originally known as St. Nicholas, Santa was a bishop of the Christian church in Myra, Turkey in the fourth century AD.  St. Nicholas was persecuted and imprisoned for his faith by the Roman Emperor Diocletian.  St. Nicholas took Jesus’ instruction to the rich, young ruler to “sell all your possessions and give to the poor.”  He was known for his generosity and for being a protector of children.

Many stories and legends grew up around Nicholas.  In one, a poor man could not afford the dowries that were customarily required to entice men to marry his three daughters.  Since they could not find husbands, they were destined to be sold into slavery.  On three separate occasions, Nicholas supposedly tossed bags of gold into the window of their house to provide a dowry for the girls.  The bags reportedly landed in stockings or shoes by the fire, giving rise to the custom of children hanging up stockings to await Nicholas’ gifts.

1863 depiction of Santa Claus by Thomas Nast

St. Nicholas died on December 6, AD 343 and therefore cannot be the modern Santa.  Instead the example that St. Nicholas set for Christian charity and loving compassion for children inspired many other copycat Santas throughout the centuries.  The name “Santa Claus” may be a corruption of the Dutch (“Sinter Klaas”) and German (“Sankt Nicklaus”) names for St. Nicholas that appeared in New York City after the American Revolution.  The combination of Old World terms is appropriately American.

When Santa’s origins are taken account, the objections of the conspiricists can be explained.  For example, since Christmas is celebrated only by Christians, Santa is not required to visit all the children in the world.  Christians make up only about one third of the world’s population, which shortens Santa’s itinerary markedly.  Not even all Christian children celebrate Christmas with Santa.  A growing number of Christian parents do not teach their children about Santa.  In these cases, the parents clearly give the Christmas gifts.  Santa doesn’t go where he isn’t invited and his workload is further reduced.

Similarly, the fewer gifts required would also ease Santa’s financial burden.  Further, growing up in northeast Georgia, the author’s parents explained that although Santa provided and delivered the toys to good boys and girls, he did require a contribution from the parents.  Subsequent fact-checking with my classmates confirmed that the story was consistent.  My friend’s had heard the same thing.  This explains the reason that Santa’s gifts reflect socioeconomic level.  If the parents must help Santa defray the cost of gifts, not all parents can afford dirt bikes, ponies, solid-gold iPods, etc. 

A reasonable for explanation for the apparent copyright infringement by North Pole toy workers is that Santa likely works out licensing agreements with the major toy companies.  Licensing is a common practice in many industries in which the product’s developer gives other companies the legal right to produce their own version.  In Santa’s case, the licensed products are indistinguishable from toys made in conventional factories. 

With respect to the conspiracy claims of the various media, there are also numerous other conspiracy claims on various subjects.  There are a myriad of unproven theories about every subject under the sun, some plausible, most not.  In just the past few years, we have been subjected to claims of a “vast right wing conspiracy” against President Clinton, claims that President Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and claims that President Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim.  Just because it’s in print, it doesn’t mean it’s true.

The conspiracy against Santa Claus has been going on for over one hundred years.  In 1897, eight-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Sun asking for the truth about Santa.  The paper’s editorial response makes many excellent points about the Santa conspiracy.  First noting that the Santa skeptics are the product of a skeptical age who lack the ability to believe in anything that they cannot see.  It also points out the maxim of scientists that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Like many things in life, reality is not limited by what we can see.  We can’t see the wind, but we know it is there.  We can’t see an atom, but we take it on faith that its subatomic bonds will not allow a chair to fade into nothingness as we sit down.  We can’t see God, but we know He is there because He makes His presence known in the world through His creation (Romans 1:20).  

Similarly, we may not see Santa Claus flying through the sky on Christmas Eve, but we can see the effects of his annual journey.  We see Santa in the Christmas Spirit of hope through Christ, generosity to our fellow man, and childlike faith.  The colors of Santa’s suit (and Christmas in general) reflect the Christian origins of the holiday.  Red represents the blood of Christ that was shed on the cross to pay for humanity’s sins.  White represents the purity and holiness of Jesus.  The green of the holly and Christmas trees stands for the hope of eternal life.  Silver and gold are associated with the Christmas star as well as the treasures brought by the Magi.

Whether there is one Santa or a hundred thousand Santas around the world, there is ample of evidence of the Santa’s mark on the world.  The compassion and generosity of Santa Claus helps us to see the love and hope that Christ offers the world.  If Santa were nothing but the product of a vast, Christmas conspiracy, the world would be a colder and darker place indeed.

Will terrorists attack this Christmas?

Photo by Salvatore Vuono 

As Christmas approaches, the one-year anniversary of the attempted Christmas bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on December 25, 2009.  The attack by Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian Muslim, failed when a bomb sewn into his underwear failed to detonate properly.

Terror attacks are often planned for symbolic dates or for times when the terrorists can obtain maximum publicity.  For example, an attack on Los Angeles International Airport set for New Year’s Eve, 1999 was foiled by alert Customs agents.  More recently, the FBI foiled a car bomb attack in Portland, Oregon scheduled for Thanksgiving weekend, 2010. 

The date of September 11 was significant in Muslim history as the date of a battle in 1683 in which the army of the Ottoman Empire was defeated in the Battle of Vienna, Austria by the Holy League, an alliance of European countries.  The battle marked the high water mark of the Ottoman Empire and the end of Muslim hopes for control of Europe.

The FAA recently issued a notice stating that, while there is no specific threat, pilots – and Americans in general – should be vigilant and report suspicious activity.  Given the increasing number of terrorists uncovered in the US and terror attacks by American Muslims, this advice should not apply only during the holiday season.

The fact that Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport is a major international hub makes it an attractive target for terrorists.  Many attempted terror attacks, including the Underwear Bomber’s, now originate from other countries due to increased security at US airports.  Atlanta’s large numbers of flights to and from other countries make it a statistically likely target. 

Whether terrorists try to strike us this holiday season or not, they will continue to attack Americans.  By exercising vigilance, we can hopefully prevent attacks and save lives.  

Photo credit:   

http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=659

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/will-terrorists-strike-this-christmas ">