CONSIDERING "CHRISTMAS RECONSIDERED"
by Richard Burkard
The Worldwide Church of God's doctrinal changes have brought a verse in Proverbs to my mind. The Contemporary English Version puts it quite bluntly:
"Don't be stupid and believe all you hear; be smart and know where you are headed." (Prv. 14:15)
One issue where WCG members have wrestled with where they're headed is the celebration of Christmas. For a few years it seemed too touchy a topic for widespread discussion at services, either from ministers or in fellowshipping. But now the Church leadership has come clearly to the side of observing the Advent season leading to Christmas (Worldwide News, January 1999, pg. 3). In fact, Pastors have orders from Headquarters that they "must provide meaningful worship opportunities during the Advent season for members who desire to celebrate the Incarnation...." (WN December 1998, pg. 9) A Churchwide survey found 59-percent support for celebrating Jesus's birth "during the Christmas season." (WN April 1999, pg. 10) Even the September-October 1999 Plain Truth had a long article challenging the notion that Christmas and similar days are pagan.
Some members have turned to one particular book to "reform" their thinking about the holiday. Christmas Reconsidered is written by Ralph Woodrow -- a minister who once wrote and preached against keeping Christmas, but no longer does. I know of one WCG small group that even ordered several copies of this book, to study and discuss together.
Mr. Woodrow argues his point by mixing Scripture and logic with a bit of heart-tugging. In the process, he takes readers on a winding journey through a variety of related and unrelated topics. He's apparently persuaded many people; WCG leaders invited him to Pasadena a few years ago to discuss his beliefs, then offered his literature to members. Yet to my knowledge, no one in the WCG has openly questioned or taken issue with his writing or conclusions.
I did not grow up in the WCG - but after reading WCG publications in my teenage years, I turned against keeping Christmas. So when a fellow member offered me this book to read, I borrowed it as a challenge. This article is based on an examination of Christmas Reconsidered over several weeks of study.
We'll quote directly from the book (which you now can download directly from Mr. Woodrow's web site), then present our thoughts/comments of response. Where parts of the book have no response, you may conclude I agree with the author -- or then again, after reading this entire article, you may find I really DON'T. So please hear me out COMPLETELY -- and with a Bible handy, let's begin:
++++++++++++++++++++
PAGE 4: "As time went on, I would be quoted as though I were some 'authority' on the anti-Xmas position...."
THE PLAIN TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTMAS, the main WCG booklet against the holiday, never quoted Mr. Woodrow directly. It quoted more authoritative works, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia and Adam Clarke's Commentary.
PAGE 5: "It has been said that one can be as straight as a gun barrel theologically, and as empty as a gun barrel spiritually.... a person could become a doctrinal detective, looking for heretics -- but with a hot head and cold heart."
AND VICE VERSA?! The author's point is well taken about being balanced, as opposed to radical stands. But some people can appear spiritually straight, yet lack sound theology. WCG Pastor General Joseph Tkach once noted this as a "myth that makes us miserable." (sermon video, 8/2/97) And people CAN have hot HEARTS and cold HEADS -- "a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge...." (Rom. 10:2, KJV)
(By the way, note the author's admission on this page that some Christmas opponents "have a good spirit about it....")
PAGE 6: "I have known a number of people who switched from keeping Christmas to an anti-Christmas position. I have never seen this produce any real spiritual fruit."
IN MY CASE, thank God, it DID! That "teenage rebellion" against the holiday was one of several changes that took me down a path to accepting Jesus, and baptism by a WCG Pastor. And if "fruit" is defined by converts and numbers, the WCG gained thousands of people through this position and others.
PAGE 6: "If God considers Christmas celebrations to be Baal worship (as some claim), doesn't it seem he would greatly bless a group that forsakes Baal?"
SEE JOHN 7:24! "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment." Big numbers don't always equal big blessings in this life. The WCG has long taught this -- first regarding its membership rolls, more recently regarding Church income. A favorite verse of WCG spinoff groups speaks to this -- of not despising "The day of small things." (Zech. 4:10) The BIGGEST payoff comes later!
PAGE 8: "Was Paul a compromiser when he said: 'Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews....'"
COMPROMISE WITH FREEDOM?! Under the New Covenant taught by Paul (or at least, as now taught by the WCG), Christians have the freedom to keep Old Covenant customs if they wish -- or NOT to do so, if they wish. So Paul's "becoming as a Jew" (which seems to refer to Acts 21:23-26) was NOT really a compromise; he merely moved from one side of a freedom "spectrum" to another.
P.S. Substitute "Christmas" for "the law" in the passage the author cites here (I Cor. 9:20-21), and you could easily argue that people CAN be brought to Jesus Christ through NOT keeping December 25!
PAGE 9: "Christians who hold a radical position against Christmas have sometimes ended up on the side of atheists.... they inadvertently are joining in with those who forbid prayers, Bible reading, or religious expression of any kind in schools! Is this good fruit?"
EMOTIONAL QUESTION-BEGGING. The author implies Christians and atheists should ALWAYS be at opposite poles. If a prayer were required, only NOT to God (for example, to Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany), the two groups might find themselves as "strange bedfellows" in agreement. Further: some Christians support a total ban on pornography. Is this bad fruit, because it's similar to Communist censorship of "free speech?"
PAGE 10: "The concept that something is wrong because it is not mentioned in the Bible -- a 'Bible-only' position -- can be pressed to absurdity...."
TRUE, BUT.... This is one area of theology where the WCG greatly changed its thinking during the '90s. The stance of keeping only Biblically-mentioned Holy Days seems to be slowly washing away. Yet the Bible gives broad hints in several areas AGAINST keeping Christmas -- such as the unstated day of Jesus's birth, the argument that disasters happen on birthdays, and others.
PAGES 10-11: "They met in.... rented buildings (Acts 28:30)...."
"A HIRED HOUSE," the KJV says; "his own rented house," the NIV says -- implying it's a house where Paul lived, similar to the author's earlier example. (Some might use this verse as a dig against the WCG trying to have Church-owned buildings for worship, but I wouldn't go that far.)
PAGE 12: "While it is true, and important, that [church] growth and development be within the guidelines of scripture, it does not need a specific verse for every action it takes."
TRUE, BUT.... While the Bible IS silent about relatively small matters, such as Bible helps and colors of covers (mentioned earlier on this page), Jesus's birth is comparatively bigger. Some WCG ministers claim it was the biggest event ever -- and many Christmas promoters must agree; else why would they keep the day? Yet if it IS such a big event, why do we not see any mention of Christmas celebrations in the New Testament -- or any mention of an exact date?
PAGE 13: "When Peter's shadow passed over the sick and brought healing, was there scripture for this?"
YES -- JOHN 14:12! "Anyone who has faith in me...." Jesus prophesied, "will do even greater things than these...." The hope of crowds for healing from Peter's shadow could be considered a "greater work" than Jesus did, since the Bible does not record Jesus healing in this way. (Acts 5:15-16 -- note the passage does NOT say specifically that healing directly followed when the shadow passed; perhaps it did, but perhaps it didn't.)
PAGE 13: "When afflicted people were delivered through handkerchiefs and aprons, did Paul have scripture for this?"
HE COULD HAVE, based on John 14:12 cited above, perhaps combined with Matt. 9:20-22 -- where an ill woman who touched the "hem of His garment" (KJV) was eventually healed. (Acts 19:12) Keep in mind that Paul traced the things he preached back to "revelation from Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:12)
PAGE 13: "Following the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah.... 'comes the Israelite custom that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate....' [Judg. 11:40, NIV inserted] This is no hint that this custom of setting aside days.... is wrong."
NOT SO FAST! "The custom seems to have been a diversion to this particular purpose of a vegetation festival after the fashion of the annual weeping for TAMMUZ." (New Bible Commentary, 1970 edition, pg. 269) And Ezekiel declares such weeping for Tammuz DETESTABLE! (8:14-15)
Several Old Testament verses mention customs in NEGATIVE terms. "Do NOT follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came...." (Lev. 18:30) And regardless of whether the Christmas tree comparison is valid, the Bible DOES say, "The customs of the people are worthless...." (Jer. 10:3)
PAGES 13-14: "Because of national victories in the days of Esther.... [Adar 14 was set aside by Jews as Purim.] There was no Biblical command whereby GOD told them to do this -- THEY set aside a day as a time of festivity and gift giving. This was not wrong."
TRUE, BUT.... Just because Scripture mentions something does NOT necessarily make it right! The Old Testament mentions the murder and overthrow of several kings, but I doubt Mr. Woodrow would declare each of those acts right and justified. Note also that Purim recalled an event on a KNOWN date (Esth. 9:16-17). We don't know for sure when Jesus was born; keep reading for more on that.
(Side point: the WCG used to be strongly against military service - but changed its views in recent years. How do spinoff groups still against military service justify Old Testament conquests, such as the one described in Esther? I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on this.)
PAGE 15: [Examples of Biblical imbalance] "He [Jesus] wore a beard (Isa. 50:6), so all men must wear beards."
ARE WE SURE that this passage refers to Jesus? The language seems to suggest it, and some commentaries put this verse in a "Servant Song" section leading to Jesus's crucifixion in Isaiah 53. But several apostles received similar persecution and treatment after Christ's death.
PAGE 15: [Examples of Biblical imbalance] "Jesus and the apostles did not use silverware (Mt. 26:23), so we must all eat with our fingers."
BREAD WITH SILVERWARE?! John's account specifies a piece of BREAD was dipped into the dish. (Jhn. 13:26) We don't use silverware to eat bread NOW, unless a knife is used for spreading butter, honey, etc.
PAGE 16: [Examples of Biblical imbalance] "We should all kiss each other (Rom. 16:16) and bow down (Ruth 2:10), since these customs are mentioned in the Bible."
POINT WELL TAKEN on "holy kisses" -- though perhaps Russian Christians actually DO that, as it's more common in that culture. It seems the WCG (and perhaps ALL spinoff groups) still remain "picky and choosy" with the New Testament, just as Church leaders say it used to be with the Old Covenant. But shouldn't Christians "bow down" to one another in HUMILITY, as typified by the Passover foot-washing service? (Jhn. 13:4-5)
PAGE 16: [Examples of Biblical imbalance] "Asa.... went to the doctors and died (II Chr. 16:12), so it is wrong to go to doctors. The Bible says to call the elders of the church (Jms. 5:14)...."
INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING -- as admittedly, the WCG once had on this topic. Upon further review of the Bible, this changed in the last few decades. Physicians were used by Joseph, and Luke the doctor was called "beloved." (Plain Truth About Healing, 1988 ed., pgs. 38-46)
To be fair, we must note this quote in the Healing booklet: "God has nowhere in His Word specifically commanded Christians to avoid doctors or checkups...." (pg. 38) Substitute "Christmas" for "doctors," and you have one of Mr. Woodrow's key arguments!
PAGE 17: "There were ancient temples, prior to the time of Moses, that included a special, sacred room.... Was Moses mixing in paganism, when his plans for the Tabernacle called for the same?"
GOD COMMANDED IT! (Ex. 26) But arguments like this lead to one of two conclusions, either of which are potentially painful for Christians:
A) God "borrowed" from pagan religions in setting rules for Israel -- implying a lack of originality, creativity or knowledge; or....
B) God honors practices similar to Christianity, if they're done by OTHER cultures and civilizations.
Mr. Woodrow rejects argument B on page 19 -- but I get the impression that the WCG ACCEPTS this view. Some ministers used to quote Psm. 111:10 to suggest God blesses ANYONE who rests on the Sabbath, whether Israelite/called or not. More recently, the focus has been more cultural -- such as ministers learning lessons from Maori traditions in New Zealand.
That leaves argument A -- which in my eyes seems to lower God's standing and ability, and even demean Him a bit. Isn't God smart and wise enough to develop worship methods and practices that make Israel (and by extension, Christians) MORE esteemed and honorable than other nations? It begs the question: how far did God go to make Israel a "peculiar people?" (Ex. 19:5/Tit. 2:14, KJV)
PAGE 18: [Deut. 12:30-32] "In context, the practices referred to were horrid abominations, like burning their sons and daughters in a fire! To apply this to a Christian family celebrating is pretty far-fetched."
IS IT? The key phrase in this passage is, "detestable things the Lord hates." [NIV unless noted] God calls many things detestable, such as weeping for Tammuz (cited above re: page 13), inaccurate weights and measures (Deut. 25:15-16, Prv. 20:23) -- and even women wearing men's clothing! (Deut. 22:5) So practices that we might consider "minor" or "traditional" earn the word "detest" from God.
PAGE 18: "Moses.... condemned the setting up of pillars to honor false gods. Yet Moses himself set up pillars.... before which sacrifices were offered...."
NOT A COMPROMISE with paganism, if we consider the shape, construction and purpose of the pillars. A scripture cited here, Deut. 12:3, refers to carvings of gods ON them [note NIV margin of 7:5]. As best we can tell, Moses's pillars in Ex. 24:4 had NO carvings of gods on them. They represented the 12 tribes of Israel, NOT God Himself.
PAGE 18: "Moses, who said not to make an image of anything, did himself make an image of a snake and held it up before the people...."
MISLEADING. Moses didn't say this originally -- God did, at Mount Sinai! And the context of Ex. 20:4-5 is against idols for WORSHIPPING (even though some religious groups take this so literally that they refuse to take photographs). In Num. 21:8-9, God instructed Moses to create a snake on a pole -- NOT to worship IT, but to heal people from a plague of snake bites. Eventually, though, that pole BECAME an object of worship, replacing the God who ordered its construction. For that reason, Judah's King Hezekiah ordered its destruction, which was considered "right in the eyes of the Lord." (II Kng. 18:3-4)
Let's apply this Biblical example. Can people, wittingly or unwittingly, worship THINGS rather than God? Yes! (Rom 1:25) And many do with Christmas-related paraphernalia, such as trees, Santas and mistletoe. (Perhaps the cross as well, from watching what some people do around Easter.) Paul warned against putting human images ahead of God's glory. (v. 23)
And do we NEED these images to worship God? Some apparently think they do -- but the evidence from Scripture indicates we don't.
PAGE 19: "Consider.... sometimes bizarre cults that come and go. The fact that they may teach SOME Christian concepts, does not make them Christian!"
WHY NOT? If they teach and preach in the name of Jesus, as even the WCG now emphasizes: "Whoever is not against us is FOR us." (Mk. 9:40; note, of course, Lk. 11:23) By extension, events and actions that originate in paganism CAN be called pagan. It's not necessarily a condemnatory judgment -- it's FACTUAL!
PAGE 20: "Were it not for the birth -- and life -- of Jesus Christ, there would be no Christmas. It is not simply a pagan celebration to which the name of Christ was later attached."
HUH?!?! On page 18, he admits, "Romans exchanged gifts at mid-winter festivals." The very encyclopedias he cites point out that the Catholic Church adopted Christmas to replace such festivals. (Plain Truth About Christmas, pgs. 9-10) Theoretically, I suppose there would be no NAME of Christmas, but it might be kept under other names.
PAGE 21: "Would the fact that 'Harvest Night' was held on the same night as Halloween, make them one and the same?"
TRUE, BUT.... Some Protestant groups might object to this sentence, arguing their "Christian" alternative events on October 31 are FAR from the common Halloween tradition. But I make a different argument: why not celebrate a "Harvest FESTIVAL" instead -- one mentioned in the Bible, that can also focus on Jesus? Namely the Feast of Tabernacles! (Deut. 16:13-15; Zech. 14:16)
PAGES 22-23: "The [hypothetical] church that started as a 'split' has survived and BOTH churches are doing well.... suppose a man comes along and preaches that the second church should be closed down.... Would not reasonable people cry out: 'That was then; this is NOW!'"
IF THE MESSAGE is based around UNITING the churches, this would seem to be Biblical! The history of Christianity includes denominational mergers, as well as splits. Some small congregations in developing countries have merged into WCG in recent years. And the United Church of God and "Church of God Christian Fellowship" recently began a joint task force on working cooperatively. Will this lead to a reunion? We'll see.
Paul urged the Corinthian church to be "perfectly united in mind and thought." (I Cor. 1:10) John wrote that those who "belong to us" should have "remained with us," instead of departing. (I Jhn. 2:19) John's context, of course, involves people that he called "antichrists." (v. 18) But can't it also apply to groups that break from established church bodies, for whatever reason?
PAGE 23: "If some parts of today's Christmas celebrations stemmed from pagan roots.... we would still need to weigh the right or wrong of things as they stand NOW."
OK: DRUNKENNESS; SPENDING sprees of hundreds of dollars that some people cannot afford; time and peer pressure of buying gifts, cards and mementos; bouts of depression; lies about Santa Claus to children. There's MUCH about the holiday that arguably can be called wrong!
PAGE 23: "The origin of a CUSTOM does not necessarily determine its present meaning. Nor the custom of a WORD...."
TRUE, BUT.... If so many customs connected with Christmas have NOTHING to do with Jesus (e.g. Santa, mistletoe, wreaths), why should we allow such baggage to enter in? Why clutter a message of the Lord with, to borrow a WCG word, ":nonessentials?"
PAGE 25: "Are we going to put down every Christian group that uses the word chapel in their name, as though they have some hidden agenda...."
A BIBLICAL WORD -- "chapel" appears once in the KJV (Amos 7:13, regarding Israel's national temple at Bethel). The KJV margin translate "chapel" as "sanctuary," and so does the NIV. If a church body wants to call the building where it meets a chapel, I see no problem. But to NAME the church body "chapel," as opposed to "church of God," is not really Biblical.
PAGE 25: "Ministers of religion.... who serve in the armed forces, are called chaplains. Are we going to belittle every chaplain as a phony...."
NO, BUT.... Why not call them what they are -- MINISTERS? (Or else some other New Testament title, such as Apostle or Pastor.) The WCG seems to straddle the line on this one; ministers of OTHER denominations are increasingly identified in church publications by their preferred title (e.g. "Reverend"), while WCG members increasingly are told they are "ministers."
PAGE 26: "'Cathedral' has acquired a broader meaning. There are several churches that come to mind that use names like Christian Cathedral...."
NOT IN KJV! (See also response to pg. 25, regarding "chapel.":)
PAGE 26: "The word church.... is said to have developed.... from a primitive word (CIRCE in Old English or KIRKE in German) which has been linked with 'circle.' It was used to describe religious sites marked by circles of stones or trees with the Celtic and German areas...."
GO FARTHER BACK! The American Heritage Dictionary traces the word to the Greek, with this interesting root: "KURIAKOS, of the Lord, from KURIOS, Lord." So "church" is not as pagan a word as some might suggest!
(For an interesting side study, check how many times "circle" or "round" appear in the Bible, and how they're used.)
PAGE 28: "Because of Jesus, 'Calvary' has acquired an awesome meaning...."
WHY NOT "GOLGOTHA?" This is a small point, perhaps, but the crucifixion site is called "Golgotha" in three of the four KJV Gospels, while only one calls it "Calvary." (Lk. 23:33) In fact, the NIV never says "Calvary" at all -- simply "the place called the Skull!" The NASB, CEV and Moffatt translations never use the word, either. Yet the name of Calvary appears far more often in songs, church names, etc. Why? Easier to pronounce? Easier to rhyme in a hymn?
PAGE 29: "Why strive about words to no profit (II Tim. 2:14)?"
THE WCG PROBABLY emphasized wording too much in the past -- such as saying "Eternal" instead of "Lord" in Old Testament readings. Some argue the goal was to avoid "sounding too Protestant." Yet Jesus warned the words that we say DO and WILL matter in the final judgment. "By your words you shall be acquitted, and by your words you shall be condemned." (Mt. 12:37) Or as Rush Limbaugh might put it - "Words mean things."
PAGE 30: "Some take the feasting of Job's sons and daughters, 'every one his day' (Job 1:4), to mean birthday celebrations."
NOT SUPPORTED by other translations or commentaries that we checked. The NIV translates this: "His sons used to take turns holding feasts in their homes...." A son's "day" to host a feast could have fallen every seventh week or month, depending on the rotation -- not necessarily on a birthday.
PAGE 31: "It is by flawed reasoning that some would draw the following conclusions: During the birthday celebrations of both Pharaoh and Herod someone was put to death, so observing birthdays is evil.... Pagans observed birthdays, so birthday celebrations are pagan...."
WHY WOULD SCRIPTURE mention them, if there were NO lessons for us? Are they there simply to "add color" to the account? Or were they "examples.... written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come"? (I Cor. 10:11)
Wrapped in this issue is a key change of "mindset" in WCG theology during the last decade. Do we accept "circumstantial evidence" of the Bible to reach conclusions on issues ranging from birthdays to Sabbath observance? Or do we demand a definitive "thou shalt...." or "thou shalt not...." from Scripture for what we preach and believe? It's easy to say the WCG has moved from the former to the latter, especially when it comes to Holy Days. Yet the Church contradicts this when explaining OTHER issues -- such as a women's role in worship services. Paul's clear command against women speaking during services (I Cor. 14:34-35) is declared "culturally bound," and not applicable today.
Mr. Woodrow does NOT dispute the statement that the Bible has NO positive portrayals of birthday celebrations. His argument FOR birthdays appeals to the heart and emotions, but is NOT really based on Scripture.
PAGE 31: "To honor a loved one on his or her birthday can be one of those special times of warmth and friendship.... [Strictness against this] is an oddity which fails to make any real point for righteousness."
PERHAPS, IF we apply an old WCG principle that was used for issues such as wine-drinking: a thing is NOT wrong, but the USE of it can be. The Church has backed away from former strictness on the birthday issue, perhaps for that reason. Admittedly, I also have -- along with others in spinoff groups. The Biblical examples obviously went to an extreme.
But note this bit of wisdom from Solomon: "The day of death [is] better than the day of birth." (Ecc. 7:1) Verse two implies he's waxing philosophically about death here. Yet consider it in the light of Jesus Christ:
1. His BIRTH does not reconcile us to God -- his DEATH does! (Rom. 5:10)
2. The death and resurrection are symbolized in baptismal ceremonies, but His birth really ISN'T! (Rom. 6:3-4)
3. The Lord's Supper/Passover/communion lets us "proclaim the Lord's DEATH until He comes." (I Cor. 11:26) Although the WCG now notes the "bread of life" that believers take, it's in reference to ETERNAL life through the resurrection; Jesus's physical birth has nothing directly to do with it!
A quick concordance check finds Jesus hardly mentioned His birth, other than John 18:37 -- and Paul scarcely mentions it, while emphasizing Christ's DEATH and its deep meaning. And Christ's death is mentioned in all four Gospels, while the birth is detailed in only TWO.
(The Assemblies of Yahweh sect, of Sacred Name Broadcast fame, claims Jewish rabbis in the first century were memorialized on the anniversary of their DEATH, NOT their birth! Admittedly, I have not double-checked this claim.)
PAGES 33-34: "Counting back 267 days (considered the normal length of pregnancy) from the Feast of Tabernacles, brings us to December 25th, or close to it, for the time of the conception of Jesus Christ!"
LET'S CHECK. In recent years, the Feast's first day has occurred as early as September 20 (1994), and as late as October 18 (1986). A rollback of 267 days leads us to the period of December 27-January 24. But we remember to figure the ten-day adjustment Pope Gregory XIII made to the calendar in 1582, and adopted by the English as an 11-day adjustment in 1752. (Has Time Been Lost? , 1972, pgs. 6-10) That gives us the time range of December 16-January 13. BUT the common date of Christmas would have to be adjusted, too -- back to December 14! So the range is close, but not quite there!
(But are we being presumptuous to think Mary's pregnancy lasted the FULL nine months?! Could God have started the process "a few weeks along?")
PAGES 34: "Without the miraculous CONCEPTION of Christ there could have been no birth nine months later.... the time of the conception, then, is not without its own unique importance."
ARGUMENT SHIFTING. Mr. Woodrow seems to strain for ANY reason to celebrate December 25. Yet he doesn't take the logical extension, based on page 31, to argue that most people should celebrate their conception dates! (I've personally wondered how vehement anti-abortionists deal with their own children's "birth days," but that's another matter.)
One practically could adapt the author's arguments FOR Christmas, and turn them AGAINST marking conception dates:
1. Angels sang at Jesus's birth - NOT His conception. (Lk. 2:13-14)
2. No supernatural signs were given to mankind about the conception, other than John the Baptist leaping in the womb.
3. No scriptural evidence exists of any "conception celebration," good or bad.
PAGES 34-35: "Could it be than within the same season that the Jewish people observed the Feast of Lights.... he who is 'the LIGHT of the world' (Jhn. 8:12).... was conceived within the womb of Mary?"
SPECULATION! -- as I think the author would admit. A check of Hanukkah dates, similar to what we did above, shows a range for the first day in recent years between November 28 and December 26. Roll back 11 days from there, and Hanukkah's first day anciently fell between November 17-December 15.
This statement also begs a question: if Jesus WAS conceived or born during Hanukkah, why didn't He refer to it when He attended Jerusalem's Feast of the Dedication? (see page 14) He spoke of SHEEP (Jhn. 10:26-27) -- but NOT explicitly of shepherds! He never brought up the words "light" or "sun" here, either. Either Jesus let a perfect opportunity to draw those analogies slip away (and we can't honestly say He was "forgetful" about such things; see 7:37-39) -- or He decided they were NOT appropriate for that occasion!
(We can't assume the people around Jesus understood the light analogy already. After all, they demanded to know if Jesus actually WAS the Christ in John 10:24!)
By the way, why doesn't Mr. Woodrow use John 10 to argue for keeping HANUKKAH -- since after all, Jesus apparently marked it? This would seem the more logical argument, in terms of celebrating a holiday.
(In 1993, the WCG seemed to hint that it might start doing exactly that. A Mark Kaplan sermon tape was sent to all congregations that centered on John 10, and Jesus revealing Himself then. But the Church obviously went in a very different direction -- and Mr. Kaplan would up leaving.)
PAGE 37: "Jesus' baptism occurred on or near the anniversary of His birth (Lk. 3:23)...."
HUH?!?! Where does this verse say THAT?: "Now Jesus himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry...." This may be the ancient story, but he gives no source for it one way or the other.
The WCG and other groups have agreed over the years that Jesus's ministry began at age 30, and lasted 3 ½ years. Presuming an autumn birth, a "start date" of His birthday would be logical for a spring crucifixion. And Mark notes that after the baptism, "at once the Spirit sent him out into the desert" to face Satan's temptations. (Mk. 1:12-13) While the connection is plausible, some might argue that Mr. Woodrow leaps to a conclusion based on this verse.
PAGE 37: "The Gnostics.... believed Jesus of Nazareth BECAME the 'Christ' at His BAPTISM.... Eventually, through the influence of Valentinus, January 6 was set aside to honor this event, called 'Epiphany'...."
OTHER ACCOUNTS DISAGREE! One encyclopedia suggests the day has TWO histories: baptism in the Eastern Orthodox church, and "the manifestation of Christ to the gentiles, represented by the MAGI" in the west. (Webster's One-volume Encyclopedia, 1985 ed., pg. 301) Mr. Woodrow's book does not comment on when the "Wise Men" visited Jesus -- something the WCG once cited as an example of how the Bible is DISTORTED by long-held tradition. (Mt. 2:1, 11)
Incidentally, there's evidence that January 6 has roots in Egypt, as the day of that culture's winter solstice -- and "Alexandrian pagans" marked their god's birthday on the night of January 5! (The American Book of Days, Hatch, 1991 ed., pgs. 34-35)
PAGE 38: "The very low elevation of the Jordan where Jesus was baptized.... enjoys a very mild winter climate."
LET'S CHECK. My NIV Bible has a map suggesting the baptism occurred about 20 miles east of Jerusalem, on the other side of a hilly range. In recent years, Jerusalem has had an average high-low January temperature of 51-41 degrees, and a record winter low of 26. (The World Almanac, 1992 ed., pg. 211) The average roughly compares with San Francisco or Savannah, Georgia (pg. 207). So a January baptism in that sort of climate is possible -- but the water probably would be a little chilly.
PAGE 39: "That some shepherds did face cold weather may be seen in Jacob's complaint to Laban, that he had suffered from frost by night (Gen. 31:40)."
LOOK WHO'S TALKING! This is the same Jacob who declared years before that he was ESAU.... and that "the Lord thy God brought" venison or wild game to his dad, when it was really GOAT meat from the family stock! (Gen. 27:19-20) The same Jacob "deceived Laban.... by not telling him he was running away...." (31:20) Perhaps Jacob WAS accurate when he discussed weather conditions -- but his track record indicates he could be exaggerating or outright lying.
But let's assume Jacob is truthful here. "Flocks were kept out in the fields by night from April to November...." (New Bible Commentary, pg. 893) Haran is about 300 miles north of the Jerusalem area, so a frost there in October or November might indeed be likely. However, this would rule out a December 25 birth!
PAGES 39-40: "When Luke [2:8] mentioned shepherds abiding in their field.... might these words suggest.... that these shepherds were very poor.... without shelter for their flock or houses or themselves -- regardless of what season it was.... If so, there is a beautiful contrast between the shepherds and the wise men who were, apparently, very rich."
REACHES FOR CONCLUSIONS. The presumed contrast requires looking BEYOND Luke -- for he didn't write about the wise men; MATTHEW did! To be fair, since both books were written under God's inspiration (II Tim. 3:16, KJV), it IS possible. Yet that again raises the question of why Mark and John were not inspired by God to dwell on Jesus's birth at all!
PAGES 40-41: "Would any believer in Christ advocate doing away with our calendar simply because the YEAR of Christ's birth may not have been exact?"
PERHAPS.... IF it meant adapting a calendar God instituted all along -- the "Jewish calendar," with holy days tied to it that point toward Jesus Christ! The WCG used to publish this sort of calendar each year; nowadays it's considered wrong even to call it "sacred."
Personally, I had trouble with the old WCG claim that "Jewish" days, weeks and months were accurate, but the number of the YEAR was not. Perhaps it provides an accurate 6,000-year count, leading to Jesus's coming?! (Even if that count puts that coming more than 200 years away.)
PAGE 41: "To now disassociate [December 25] from Christ and make it into a non-religious, cultural folk festival, could hardly serve any valid purpose."
TRUE! YET it's become exactly that today! Whether it be the U.S. culture of mass merchandising (the holiday has been transferred that way to Japan), or European traditions such as mistletoe and Yule logs, many people have turned Christmas into a folk-like tradition, devoid of Christ -- as even Mr. Woodrow admits. Some might put this description on Kwanzaa as well.
PAGE 42: "Santa symbolism is good.... He wants children to be good, to honor their parents, and do right! He's 'making a list and checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty or nice,' so he can reward good, not evil."
"ENEMIES LIST" SYMBOLISM is good?! I thought it was bad fruit to stand alongside Communists and infidels! (Note on pg. 9) Then there's the symbolism of his being fat, which opponents of gluttony and dietitians might challenge! But let's be more serious about this:
1. The symbolism of "do good so you'll get a gift" is driven by WORKS, instead of GRACE! That's NOT how the New Covenant operates (Eph. 2:8-9), and doesn't really teach a way of LOVE that is "not self-seeking." (I Cor. 13:5)
2. How does lying to children about Santa teach them to honor their parents? Unlike cartoon ducks or mascot bears (pg. 45), which are obviously fictional, Santa is often presented to youngsters as a REAL person -- and in some cases, as a substitute for Jesus! (I've even heard ADULTS speak this aloud during December, with words such as, "Santa lives in my heart.") Santas hired by shopping malls are certainly human. This DOES "bear false witness" -- and Jesus warns, "Everyone who loves and practices falsehood" will be left OUTSIDE His holy city! (Rev. 22:15)
3. If Santa is depicted based on his history from the fourth century, it gives the misleading impression that he is immortal. ONLY Jesus is immortal now! (I Tim. 6:16)
PAGE 43: "Wild claims are sometimes made, like: 'Christmas is Nimrod's birthday.' There is very little about Nimrod in the Bible. In history he is only an obscure, ancient figure. He lived thousands of years ago.... yet -- amazingly! -- some claim to know exactly when he was born: December 25th!"
THIS HAS BASIS, or so the WCG used to argue, in ancient writings about Nimrod. His mother/wife Semiramis purportedly claimed the December 25 date as Nimrod's, and used gifts under evergreen trees as proof. (Plain Truth about Christmas, pg. 11) This argument was based on Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, which the Church now rejects as "poor scholarship," and C. Paul Meredith's dissertation Satan's Great Deception, which has become a very hard volume to find.
(But perhaps Mr. Woodrow's REAL point is that people who claim we can't figure out Jesus's birthday CAN figure out Nimrod's -- thus making an argument in favor of marking December 25th. If so, the argument's a pretty good one!)
PAGE 44: "The Bible even records people using little make-believe stories...."
OBVIOUSLY MAKE-BELIEVE! Even Jesus did it -- can you say "parables?" Yet in the examples Mr. Woodrow cites, as well as the ones Christ told, a clear explanation of the story soon follows. Not so with Santa in many homes; the myth rolls over from one year to the next, unless the child brings it up.
PAGE 45: "When we make sin out of things that are not sin, we cloud and confuse the real issues."
TRUE, BUT.... lying IS sin -- whether about Santa, in this context, or something else!
A liar "denies that Jesus is the Christ." (I Jhn. 2:22) Some who substitute the "spirit of Santa in their hearts" may do exactly that, wittingly or not. And "all liars" face the penalty of the second death in the lake of fire! (Rev. 21:8)
PAGE 47: "Though the word ax (or axes) appears 18 times in the Bible (KJV), the word [in Jeremiah 10] translated 'ax'.... is not the ax that a lumberjack would use to cut down a tree, but is, more specifically, a carving tool."
NOT SO FAST. Various translations admittedly go back and forth between the wording "ax" and "chisel." But Strong's Concordance indicates the Hebrew word is in fact "ax" -- from a root for "to hew." Dictionaries define "hewing" as EITHER chopping down, as in a tree, OR making/shaping, as in building canoes.
(The alternate rendering of "tongs" for "ax" in Strong's hints at the division over this word.)
PAGE 47: "Jeremiah spoke against worshipping an idol made from a tree, not the tree itself."
TECHNICALLY TRUE, BUT.... would Jeremiah necessarily endorse tree worship, anyway? He noted some people worshipped false gods "under every spreading tree" (3:13), perhaps thinking they could hide from God that way.
Mr. Woodrow stops short of condemning tree worship (there's only an offhanded mention on pg. 49) -- perhaps because that's not the point of his book. But Romans 1:25 warns against worshipping "created things" as opposed to the Creator!
PAGE 48: "The idols Jeremiah described, 'speak not' -- implying a mouth, but no speech. The same point could not be made if Jeremiah was speaking of a Christmas tree -- no one expects a Christmas tree to talk! These idols apparently had legs, yet could not walk. They must be carried...."
PRESUMES FACTS NOT in evidence! The LORD (whom Jeremiah is REALLY quoting in 10:1-5, not himself) could be comparing the true God, who is described in the Bible as speaking and walking (Gen. 3:8-9, etc.), with a tree that obviously cannot do either -- using an absurd comparison to make His point.
PAGE 49: "I have seen anti-Christmas books which argue that people worship the Christmas tree BECAUSE THEY BOW ON THEIR KNEES TO PLACE PRESENTS AROUND IT! The very weakness of this argument exposes its absurdity."
NOT THAT ABSURD, if these people aren't bowing their knees before God or Jesus Christ AT ALL! "At the name of Jesus every knee should bow...." (Phil. 2:10) How many "committed Christians" give up prayer time during December, while hurrying to meet Christmas obligations? How many non-Christian Christmas keepers make time to pray at all? Some well-known radio ministers have mentioned that Jesus can easily get lost in the year-end rush of things. (To be fair, this easily can happen to Feast-keepers, too....)
PAGE 50: "In those earlier times, [Christmas] trees were decorated with fruit, which some considered symbolic of fruit on the tree of life (Rev. 22:2). Today's round Christmas tree balls are simply stylized fruit. For some, anything ROUND is a pagan symbol.... Round is not wrong."
THE TREE OF life comparison, admittedly, is one I've never read or heard before. The author gives no source for it, nor does he for several other statements in his book. BUT:
1. How many kinds of fruit really are ROUND? Check your supermarket produce aisles, and you'll find not all of them are. Oranges, apples, grapes, grapefruit, peaches and blueberries obviously are round. But bananas are not -- nor are lemons, limes, figs, strawberries, pears, raspberries, etc.
2. Why include symbolism of the tree of life -- from a time well after Jesus's SECOND coming -- to mark His FIRST coming? (And while we're at it, why display FRUIT and not LEAVES, which Rev. 22:2 also mentions?)
3. Does Jesus ever compare HIMSELF to a tree in Scripture? Luke 23:31 makes an indirect comparison, but certainly not to the "tree of life."
As for, "round is not wrong" -- despite complaints by groups such as the "Congregation of God Seventh Day,": this is true. BUT how is the round thing USED? Some people through the centuries have used eggs, orbs and the sun as ways of worshipping false gods -- or even AS false gods. The true God accepts no such substitutes of ANY shape -- save for the One He gave us: Jesus Christ fulfilling Old Testament sacrifices. (Heb. 9:11-14) Again, we're warned against worshipping and serving "created things more than the Creator." (Rom. 1:25)
PAGE 50: "Not ALL 'customs' are evil.... neither are ALL 'traditions' wrong."
OF GOD OR MEN? That is the key Biblical specification on such matters. Jesus went to synagogues on Sabbaths to "keep the day holy" -- a custom specified by GOD in Ex. 20:8! And "traditions" passed on by Paul were probably very different from those of the Pharisees, whom "let go of the commands of God" or "nullify the word of God." (Mk. 7:8, 13)
(For details on the Judges 11 reference here, see the comment about page 13.)
PAGE 51: "Some object to the STAR decoration that is commonly placed at the top of a Christmas tree.... But a much more feasible explanation for the star would be.... the star that led the wise men to Bethlehem."
FAIR ARGUMENT, but could be better argued. It assumes the star actually led the wise men TO Bethlehem. The star "stopped over the place where the child was." (Mt. 2:9) But the wise men came to a HOUSE (v. 11) -- "AFTER Jesus was born in Bethlehem." (v. 1) Since Joseph and Mary TRAVELED there (Lk. 2:4), they could well have returned to their HOME in Nazareth by the time the wise men arrived!
PAGE 52: "Some refuse to salute the flag -- they suppose it is an idol. But a country's flag is a standard.... the Israelites had standards and ensigns about their camp."
TRUE, BUT.... "Standard" in the Hebrew DOES translate "flag." But some people turn flags INTO idols, by the way they display and honor them. Example: the Confederate battle flag in the U.S. South.
PAGE 53: "Some have pointed out x's in Christmas... But some would carry it far beyond this. To them the whole season is BAD, DETESTABLE AND EVIL! Is it?"
DETESTABLE, YES! (See comment about page 18.) As for EVIL: Paul warns that Israel was an example against "setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were.... 'People sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in PAGAN revelry.'" (I Cor. 10:6-7) Substituting a false god, which is referenced here, makes the true God angry (Ex. 32:6-10). And "evil communications [such as lying] corrupts good manners." (I Cor. 15:33, KJV)
Admittedly, I found no scripture connecting the word "bad" with this topic. But Jesus DOES warn that at the end of the age, "bad fish" WILL be separated from good ones. (Matt. 13:48-50)
PAGE 53: "To an unbiased observer, there is an undeniable warmth provided by Christmas.... There is an overall feeling of peace on earth, good will toward men."
MISUNDERSTANDING OF KJV translation! The RSV puts Luke 2:14 in a very different light: "Peace among men WITH WHOM He is pleased." Or in the NIV: "On earth peace to men on whom his favor rests." God's peace is dependent on God's FAVOR. Is God's favor on EVERYONE? No -- otherwise everyone would be saved now! (II Cor. 6:2, etc.)
PAGE 54: "There are many examples within the scriptures of people gathering for times of celebration, religious or otherwise. Feasts provided the basis for a number of Jesus' parables...."
SO WHY NOT recommend keeping the Biblical feasts and celebrations -- since Jesus and His disciples kept them?
PAGES 54-55: "Radio stations which might normally not play hymns at all, do so at the Christmas season. For those who seem to have a resentment for the season, would they prefer rock music?"
EMOTIONAL QUESTION-BEGGING. Rock music CAN be religious, WITHOUT engaging in the Biblical errors and falsehoods that commonly occur at Christmas; watch the Dove Awards if you think otherwise. Of course, some recent Christmas season songs are so IR-religious that they're almost disgusting! Take, for example, "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer," and carols "sung" by dogs and cats!
PAGE 56: "Generally speaking, customs that encourage kindness and friendliness are to be commended."
TRUE. SO.... why not practice the ones GOD established in the Bible? (See comment on page 54)
PAGE 56: "For anyone to traumatize children by telling them that Christmas is an evil day, can hardly be justified.... they distort the real picture regarding right and wrong. People who become too petty about nonessential points, do harm to their families and themselves."
PERHAPS THE WORD "evil" for the day does indeed go a bit too far. "Unbiblical" and "unscriptural" might be better terms, for they establish the Bible as the standard -- and the place to turn to determine whether something is right or wrong. It's better as well to emphasize the aspects of Christmas that ARE wrong, such as lying. Those aspects ARE essential to proper godly living.
PAGE 57: "Though today's Christmas celebration is a composite of many concepts and customs, the basic story of Christ's birth remains intact. It is not pagan."
TRUE, BUT.... The birth indeed is not pagan. But so many things SURROUNDING the birth ARE, that the real point is often lost! Why not strip all the pagan parts away, by marking days GOD specifies?
PAGE 58: "There is no reason to suppose that observing Christmas, or NOT observing Christmas, is an essential of the Christian faith.... like one eating meat, another eating only herbs...."
TRUE, BUT.... Several thoughts come to mind here. For one thing, if the day is NOT essential, why has the WCG developed such a high-pressure campaign in favor of marking it? A guest Pastor told our congregation in December 1998 that to evangelize people with Old Testament festival dates would appear "weird," and come across as "nonsense." Yet the WCG did exactly that for decades, and built a denomination with several thousand more members than the Church has today. (Of course, how many in the past were really committed to Jesus Christ is open to question.)
Then again, could we not say that some aspects of Christmas observance ARE essential to real Christian living? (See comment about page 56) We've touched on some of them: lying to children, creating days under false or questionable pretenses while ignoring God-established Holy Days listed in the Bible, and pagan excesses that have become commonplace during the Christmas season.
Mr. Woodrow goes on to draw an "application" from Romans 14, substituting Christmas for sacred days, or eating and drinking. Indeed, the passage notes "each of us will give an account of himself to God." (v. 12) But could we not argue that the issue here is JUDGING others, or not OFFENDING others -- and NOT whether days are right or wrong? (v. 13, 15, 21)
The passage concludes with a difficult challenge for Christians, one that Mr. Woodrow surprisingly does NOT quote: "Whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God." (v. 22) In other words, do what you believe and SHUT UP! (Notice the link there?) This is hard, because humans naturally want to tell others about things or ideas they consider good -- whether it be the "good news" of Jesus, a new brand of toothpaste, or a "new revelation" from the Bible. (Posted, for instance, on the www.cg web site. Oops.)
By extension, people who keep Christmas may "let out" that belief in relatively small ways -- such as Santa stamps on envelopes or holiday-design napkins. If this offends non-Christmas keepers, should the keepers have their own private "Christmas clique?" Or should NON-keepers be required to "cover up" the historical and Biblical evidence against keeping the day? Either way seems to promote congregational division.
A grandmother in a church I used to attend said cliques are inevitable. Mr. Woodrow probably would agree. He writes, "Differences of opinion can.... be healthy for a church." (page 59) But looking at what's happened to the WCG in recent years, I personally have doubts about this. It certainly works against the "perfect unity" that Paul wanted. (I Cor. 1:10)
PAGES 58-59: "Motives can be right on either side, even though their conclusions differ. God, who looks on the heart, accepts people on both sides and so should we."
IS THIS TRUE? Here's a key point of demarcation between denominations. Many would agree that God is "no respecter of persons." (Acts 10:34, KJV) But read on to verse 35 in the NIV: ".... but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." So one key question becomes: what IS "what is right?" James 2:8 gives a clear definition: the royal law -- "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Presuming we accept the apparent WCG standard, that the New Testament defines how we live, Paul sets the bar here: "Do what is right in the eyes of everybody." (Rom. 12:17) The context here is against taking vengeance when you've been wronged. Paul phrases this a bit differently in II Cor. 8:21, concerning the handling of offerings: "....Do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men." The only other specific NIV instruction is for children to "obey your parents in the Lord" (Eph. 6:1).
On the contrary, bribing ministers for spiritual gifts is NOT right (Acts 8:18-21) Peter later gives a lengthy list of ways to identify those "which have forsaken the right way" (II Pet. 2:15, KJV) -- from despising authority, apparently both heavenly and earthly, to riotous carousing and covetous greediness (v. 10, 13-14, and really the entire chapter).
There's also the matter of whom and what God ACCEPTS. Several New Testament passages (all based on the KJV) instruct us about this -- and Paul challenges believers in Eph. 5:10 to learn these instructions:
How do these relate to Christmas? Herbert Armstrong wrote that giving to the Church, and by extension to God, historically DROPPED during December (Plain Truth about Christmas, pg. 19) Thus, the labor of the Work became tougher. (You may have heard some ministries appeal to your tax return, by requesting year-end deductible donations.) But some Christmas critics probably go too far by pointing fingers at people attempting to do good works during December, such as dinners for the homeless.
Whether worship amid the traditions and lies of Christmas is really reverent could be argued either way. But does the keeping of an untrue custom constitute RIGHTEOUS service? Not to me.
PAGE 59: "Spiritual maturity is not measured on the basis of whether one keeps Christmas, or not, but on the greater issue: that we accept one another in Christ. This is not compromise, but CONCERN."
TRUE, BASED ON Romans 15:7: "Accept one another.... just as Christ accepted you." But note Ephesians 1:6, where translations have a marked difference. The KJV says the grace of Christ "has made us accepted in the beloved." The NIV leaves this part out completely. (The NASB and Moffatt capitalize "Beloved," to imply Jesus. Other New Testament uses of "beloved" indicate Paul actually could mean the Church.)
And so I accept Ralph Woodrow, but NOT necessarily everything he believes or writes. As the WCG has admitted certain areas of wrong teaching, some ministers and members have jumped into the ditch across the road -- assuming EVERYTHING was wrong, and embracing everything and everyone "Orthodox" that will embrace the Church back. Yet the New Testament reminds us of a good test to use, whether we're studying Herbert Armstrong booklets, current WCG articles or volumes by outside ministers: "Prove all things; hold fast to which is good." (I Thes. 5:21, KJV)
To reply to this article, e-mail: wwwcg
© 2000-02 Richard Burkard/www.LaughLine.com, All Rights Reserved.