This one from Damian Thompson over at the Telegraph really made me smile (in a dark and sinister way) and sums up the problem of Turkey joining the EU for me:-
Headquarters of Turkish campaign for EU membership is…a confiscated Christian building
Turkey’s political elite is obsessed with joining the European Union. But senior players in the EU – in a rare moment of clarity amid their delusional fantasies of a federal Europe – are reluctant to let in a country which is increasingly hard to distinguish from the rest of the Islamic world. Here’s a tip for Turkish campaigners for EU membership: if you want to win over Herman Van Rompuy, best not set up your headquarters in a building confiscated from your country’s oppressed Orthodox Christian minority.
Christian fathers put in jail for shunning explicit sex education lessons – International organization fighting for parents protecting their children
An international human rights organization today announced it will pursue a civil lawsuit on behalf of parents who want to control their children’s education and withhold them from explicit sex education and play-acting classes required by the German government.
Joel Thornton of the International Human Rights Group told WND the government in Salzkotten, Germany, is sending the fathers of the children to jail for terms of one week because they have refused to turn their children over to school officials for mandated sex classes.
According to a report from Richard Guenther, European director for the IHRG, eight families of Christians have decided to withhold their children from required sex education classes in Salzkotten.
Sex education classes in Germany are explicit, and the issue is one of the major reasons why families – and not just Christian families – choose to homeschool their children even though the government has maintained its illegality since the days of Hitler.
The students who are being held out of sex education classes also are not being allowed by their parents to participate in a play-acting program called “My Body Belongs to Me,” which essentially teaches children how to engage in sex, the report said.
Guenther reported that one father already has served his week in jail and is scheduled to be released this weekend, while the fathers of seven more families still are facing a similar fate.
The government already has imposed fines on the families, which continue to accrue. Thornton said the families are being targeted with a “Bussgeld,” a fine described as “repentance money” designed to show contrition for wrong behavior.
The families so far have refused to pay because that would be admitting guilt.
Thornton said the cases being brought against the families – whose names are being withheld for the protection of the children – reveal the dedication among German officials to punish parents who refuse to hand over their children to the state for education purposes.
The government’s determination is evident, Thornton said, whether parents are objecting to an explicit sex class or whether the family chooses to homeschool their children.
“Unlike American officials, German officials do not recognize the right of parents to opt their children out of offensive classes such as sex education which overrides the parent’s beliefs or desires for their own children,” Thornton said.
“One of the reasons for this is that German officials view the children as belonging to the state, particularly during the time they are in school,” he said.
So the IHRG has launched a new “radical approach” in Germany.
“Early next year, January or February, we will be filing a civil lawsuit on behalf of a number of homeschool families to try and force the court to recognize the rights of parents to control the education of their children,” Thornton said. “We will not continue to only react to these forceful actions by state officials against these families.”
Michael Farris, who heads the U.S.-based Parental Rights website, said it’s not surprising that the German government is reacting the way it is.
“They basically believe that the government knows best in every sector of life,” he said.
He said the actions also align with the general international sympathy for U.N. protocols such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which essentially gives children rights to make their own decisions on every facet of their lives.
He cited a case a decade ago when the government of Wales allowed parents to opt children out of sex programs and it was found to have been in violation of the convention because it did not first consult the children about their desires.
{…..}
Germany has been notorious for its treatment of parents decide to homeschool their children. Just weeks ago, a mother and father in Archfeld were fined $181 for homeschooling their children by a judge who spared them the jail sentences demanded by the prosecutor, according to the Home School Legal Defense Association.
But the ruling from the judge, identified only by his surname of Drier, said the parents were guilty under the criminal law in the German state of Hessen of homeschooling even though they were providing a good education for their children.
He fined them 120 euros, or $181.
“We recognize in our German basic law about philosophical and religious conviction and that parents have rights, but the basic law also includes that it is the state’s role to educate all children,” the judge ruled.
Practical Homeschool Magazine has noted one of the first acts by Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools and school-related issues.
In 1937, the dictator said, “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”
Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, commented previously on the issue, contending the government “has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion.”
Drautz said schools teach socialization, and as WND reported, that is important, as evident in the government’s response when a German family in another case wrote objecting to police officers picking their child up at home and delivering him to a public school.
“The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling,” said a government letter in response. “You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. … In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement.”
One very significant – yet often neglected – Old Testament passage is Numbers 11:29. There Moses says this: “I wish that all the LORD’S people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!” All Christians today should have a similar desire. We greatly need the prophetic word in these dark days.
The church of Jesus Christ is in desperate need of prophets today. We so often lack a sure word from God, and we seem to be a church which has lost its way, floundering on a sea of easy believe-ism, personalities, programs, and marketing.
Indeed, our situation today is not all that dissimilar to what we read about concerning Israel, just prior to the monarchy being established: “The word of the LORD was rare in those days” (1 Sam. 3:1). In fact, later prophets would warn about a dearth of the word: “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘when I will send a famine through the land – not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD’” (Amos 8:11).
We seem to be experiencing that famine right now. Thus we need watchmen to once again sound the alarm. We need prophets who will act much like the watchman as found in Ezekiel 3 and 33. Of course there are those today who claim to be acting as watchmen. But we have several warnings in Scripture about those who are not properly doing their job.
For example, Paul in 1 Cor. 14:8 warns about an uncertain sound coming forth from those who should be our sentinels: “If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?”
An even stronger warning comes from the prophet Isaiah. He says this about false watchmen: “Israel’s watchmen are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all mute dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep. They are dogs with mighty appetites; they never have enough. They are shepherds who lack understanding; they all turn to their own way, each seeks his own gain” (Isaiah 56:10-11).
Often those who should be sounding the alarm have been asleep, instead of alert and vigilant. And Jesus, in his parable of the sower, also sounds this warning: “While men slept, the enemy sowed tares in the field” (Matt. 13:25). It is because those who should be awake were in fact asleep that the enemy was allowed easy access to do his work.
With so many false prophets, or careless and reckless prophets, how can we know who is the real deal? Scripture does give us information describing the marks of a true prophet. For example, they are a people of the Book. They will always draw God’s people back to God’s Word, and what they say will always line up with Scripture.
Also, they will weep for the people. A prophet has a broken heart. Consider Jeremiah, known as ‘the weeping prophet’: “Oh, that my head were a spring of water and my eyes a fountain of tears! I would weep day and night for the slain of my people” (Jer. 9:1).
Others can also be mentioned. Micah also knew much about tears: “Because of [Israel’s sin] I will weep and wail; I will go about barefoot and naked. I will howl like a jackal and moan like an owl” (Micah 1:8).
True prophets are also often unwilling prophets. They are not self-appointed, and it often takes a bit of convincing to get them on board. Think about Moses for example. Or Jeremiah:
“The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’ ‘Ah, Sovereign LORD,’ I said, ‘I do not know how to speak; I am only a child.’ But the LORD said to me, ‘Do not say, “I am only a child.” You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,’ declares the LORD” (Jer. 1:4-8).
They will also declare the whole counsel of God. They will give the bad news as well as the good news. Thus they will proclaim all of God’s Word, as Paul states in Acts 20:27. They will comfort the afflicted, but also afflict the comfortable.
And of course they will seldom be popular. Indeed, the only popular prophets in the Bible were the false prophets. A real prophet will always meet opposition and resistance. We read this about Jeremiah for example: “Jeremiah was put into a vaulted cell in a dungeon, where he remained a long time” (Jer. 37:16).
Or as Jesus put it, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37).
And needless to say, a true prophet fears God, and not man. They only fear one thing, and that is to disobey their Lord. Human rulers and officials offer no fear to them, only the living God whom they represent.
The marks then of a false prophet are easy to come by – they are basically the opposite of the marks of the true prophet. Thus a false prophet will usually be quite popular. He will tell people what they want to hear, not what the need to hear. He will promise peace, when destruction is coming. His word will not come to pass. And he will lead people away from God, not to God.
Consider these last two points in more detail. Yahweh warned that even if a prophet’s words come to pass, if they lead people away from God, then he is a false prophet, worthy of death: “If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ … That prophet or dreamer must be put to death” (Deut. 13:1-2,5)
So who does the prophet minister to? Just to God’s people? No, he will give a word to all people. The prophet speaks to both God’s people and to the world. Recall all the prophetic words which are given to the pagan nations: Is. 13-21; 23,24; 34; Jer. 46-51; Eze. 25-32; 35; 38,39; Joel 3; Amos 1,2; Zeph. 2; Zech. 9;12; Nahum (which deals with Assyria); and Obadiah (which deals with Edom).
Modern day prophets
It seems that a number of Christians can be more or less designated as modern day prophets. These are people who are fearless as they proclaim the word of God, and take seriously their responsibility as a watchman. A.W. Tozer certainly comes to mind here. He rightly said, “We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.”
Leonard Ravenhill is another man who could be included here. A few quotes of his indicate why he qualifies:
-“If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified.”
-“How can you pull down strongholds of Satan if you don’t even have the strength to turn off your TV?”
-”My main ambition in life is to be on the Devil’s most wanted list.”
David Wilkerson, still alive, would be another candidate. But they do not just have to be evangelicals or Pentecostals. Think of someone like Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Russian was certainly a prophet who withstood the evils of godless communism.
We could mention many others, such as the late apologist Francis Schaeffer; or the great Christian abolitionist, William Wilberforce. Or consider a singer and songwriter whose life was cut short at an early age: Keith Green. He produced a few powerful albums before his untimely death, such as “No Compromise”.
His songs often had a strong prophetic edge to them. Consider but one example, “Asleep in the Light”. The opening lyrics are these:
Do you see, do you see
All the people sinking down
Don’t you care, don’t you care
Are you gonna let them drown
How can you be so numb
Not to care if they come
You close your eyes
And pretend the job’s done
“Oh bless me Lord, bless me Lord”
You know it’s all I ever hear
No one aches, no one hurts
No one even sheds one tear
But He cries, He weeps, He bleeds
And He cares for your needs
And you just lay back
And keep soaking it in,
Oh, can’t you see it’s such a sin?
And a bit later, he offers this verse:
The world is sleeping in the dark
That the church just can’t fight
Cause it’s asleep in the light
How can you be so dead
When you’ve been so well fed
Jesus rose from the grave
And you, you can’t even get out of bed
Oh, Jesus rose from the dead
Come on, get out of your bed.
We desperately need more men and women like this. And yes, I mention women here. All of the above examples have been men. But the Bible speaks of prophetesses as well. These include Miriam (Exodus 15:20); Deborah (Judges 4:4); Huldah (2 Chron. 34:22); an unnamed prophetess (Isaiah 8:3); Anna (Luke 2:36); and four daughters (Acts 21:9).
While we may not all called to be prophets, we all can have a prophetic ministry. We at least need to have the same spirit that we read about in Amos 3:8: “The lion has roared, who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken, who can but prophesy?”
Dr Rowan Williams said ministers were wrong to think that Christian beliefs were no longer relevant in modern Britain and he criticised Labour for looking at religious faith as a “problem” rather than valuing the contribution it made to society.
The Archbishop also suggested that the “political class” was too remote from the concerns of most people, who still had God in their “bloodstream”. In his only interview in the run-up to Christmas, he called on ministers to be more willing to talk about their own beliefs.
Dr Williams told The Daily Telegraph: “The trouble with a lot of Government initiatives about faith is that they assume it is a problem, it’s an eccentricity, it’s practised by oddities, foreigners and minorities.
“The effect is to de-normalise faith, to intensify the perception that faith is not part of our bloodstream. And, you know, in great swaths of the country that’s how it is.”
His comments risked reigniting the public row between the Church of England and Labour over the state’s treatment of faith groups. A Cabinet member was recently forced to deny there was a “secular conspiracy” to silence them.
The Archbishop’s claims that religion was seen only as something for minorities echoed those of a Church-backed report, which accused the Government of paying “lip service” to Christianity while “focusing intently” on Muslims.
Asked if he believed political leaders should be more open about their religious beliefs, the Archbishop replied: “I don’t think it would do any harm at all. I think part of establishing their human credentials is saying, ‘This is where my motivation comes from. I’m in politics because this is what I believe.’ And that includes religious conviction.”
Despite the Church of England’s influence and its position as the established religion in the country, there have been repeated claims in recent years that Labour has tried to keep faith out of the public sphere.
The tendency was summed up by Alastair Campbell when, as spokesman for Tony Blair, the former prime minister, he said: “We don’t do God.”
However, fears over the development of home-grown Islamic terrorism led the Government to pour more than £50 million into projects aimed at preventing radicalisation in mosques.
The Archbishop’s claim that the Government only saw religion as a problem was backed by the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, the former Bishop of Urban Life. He said: “He’s absolutely on the ball. Religion is seen as being a problem because of the connection between radical Islam and terrorism that has tainted all religions.
“What seems to be forgotten is the contribution of religion in the mainstream to social action. It’s quite clear that within the Government and the Opposition there are people of faith. The problem is that somehow the connection between what they see as their private faith is allowed to marginalise the significance of the contribution of faith communities to the life of this nation.”
In the interview, the Archbishop went on to propose a new “supermarket ombudsman” to protect Britain’s rural economy.
He also dismissed Pope Benedict XVI’s bold invitation for disaffected Anglicans to cross over to Rome as “theologically rather eccentric”, and predicted that few would take up the option because they could not accept papal infallibility.
I will say that I haven’t read the declaration that this article speaks of, but if it is as Israel Today report, then I for one feel heartily sickened. I have witnessed so much anti-Jewish sentiment and bias from some quarters of the “Christian” community, that I would not be surprised if this analysis is accurate.
Unfortunately, many Christians are informed by hopelessly biased mainstream media and politics, are virtually Old Testament illiterate (especially relating to Jewish history and prophecy) and easily sucked in to “Supersessionism and replacement theology or fulfillment theology” positions, which are unbiblical and thoroughly dangerous, as history has proved time and again.
In a lengthy declaration labeled as a message of “faith, hope and love,” dozens of Arab Christian leaders from various churches represented in the region denounced Israel as the main obstacle to peace and rejected the validity of the biblical link between the Jews and the land.
Published on Friday by regional leaders of the Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican and Baptists churches, the document, titled “A Moment of Truth,” lamented that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process had reached an impasse, and that there was now little hope of reversing “Palestinian suffering.”
“We, a group of Christian Palestinians, after prayer, reflection and an exchange of opinion, cry out from within the suffering in our country, under the Israeli occupation, with a cry of hope in the absence of all hope, a cry full of prayer and faith in a God ever vigilant, in God’s divine providence for all the inhabitants of this land,” read the statement. “Today we have reached a dead end in the tragedy of the Palestinian people.”
Israel was solely blamed for the situation. In a section titled “The reality on the ground,” the Christian leaders listed the reasons peace had not been reached, including Israel’s security wall, the presence of Jews in Judea and Samaria, Israeli checkpoints, the jailing of Palestinian terrorists, and Israel’s control of a unified Jerusalem.
Like their Muslim counterparts, the Christian leaders insisted that the suicide bombings and other attacks against Israelis that necessitate many of the above measures are not terrorism, but rather legitimate resistance:
“Israel justifies its actions as self-defense… In our opinion, this vision is a reversal of reality. Yes, there is Palestinian resistance to the occupation. However, if there were no occupation, there would be no resistance, no fear and no insecurity.”
That position, of course, ignores the fact that Arab terrorism against Israel began long before 1967, when Israel liberated the so-called “Palestinian territories” from Jordanian occupation and took possession of them in line with the original UN mandate for the region.
The leaders then took aim at Evangelical Christians around the world that support Israel based on biblical precepts.
“[Jesus] came with ‘a new teaching’ (Mk 1:27), casting a new light on the Old Testament, on the themes that relate to our Christian faith and our daily lives, themes such as the promises, the election, the people of God and the land,” read the statement.
“For this reason, it is unacceptable to transform the Word of God into letters of stone… This is precisely the error in fundamentalist Biblical interpretation that brings us death and destruction when the word of God is petrified and transmitted from generation to generation as a dead letter. This dead letter is used as a weapon in our present history in order to deprive us of our rights in our own land,” it continued.
The Christian leaders insisted that the biblical mission of universal salvation had everything to do with the land itself and the body of believers in it, and not with the Nation of Israel, as defined in scripture. They were adamant that the Bible offers no spiritual or divine mandate for the Jews to have sovereignty over the land today:
“We know that certain theologians in the West try to attach a biblical and theological legitimacy to the infringement of our rights. Thus, the promises, according to their interpretation, have become a menace to our very existence.
“We declare that any use of the Bible to legitimize or support political options and positions that are based upon injustice, imposed by one person on another, or by one people on another, transform religion into human ideology and strip the Word of God of its holiness, its universality and truth.
“We also declare that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives the Palestinians of their basic human rights, bestowed by God.”
Many will recognize these positions as thinly-disguised Replacement Theology. While the church leaders are not calling for Jews to be expelled from the land, they are disputing the Jews’ right to lay claim to biblical promises, since in the Christians’ view, those promises are either no longer valid, or have been transferred to “the Church.”
Ironically, while the bulk of the statement rejected the politicization of spiritual matters when they were used to justify Israel’s right to the land, the Christian leaders demanded political “justice” and the fulfillment of their political aims in the name of “Christian love.”
Israel is home to many Arab Christian-run ministries that advocate peace and reconciliation, both good and biblical goals. However, with very few exceptions, their idea of reconciliation is nothing short of Jews getting on their knees and begging for forgiveness for “stealing” Arab lands, and offering to unconditionally return that land.
Vatican officials have expressed cautious optimism about the latest round of negotiations with Israel toward the completion of a juridical accord—despite negative reports circulating in the Israeli media.
After a negotiating session in Rome on December 10, diplomats representing the Holy See and the government of Israel reported in a joint statement that their work had been conducted in an “atmosphere of cordiality and mutual understanding,” and said that they were anxious to continue their talks. But the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth quoted the head of the Israeli delegation as saying that the talks had reached a crisis.
Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, said that the talks had not broken down. “It is true that we have decided not to cause a rupture, and to agree to disagree, at this stage,” he reported. But he said that the negotiating session on December 10 had ended with “a feeling that we have gone back,” and earlier progress toward a final accord had been reversed.
The AsiaNews service, citing officials close to the negotiations, said that Ayalon’s statement may have been designed to placate Israeli hard-liners, who oppose any concessions to the Vatican. An AsiaNews analysis concluded that an accurate account of the December 10 talks would be closer to the “mutual understanding” mentioned in the joint statement.
Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
I took the hand of my toddler son as we made our way into the local shop on the small and remote Scottish island where earlier that year I had been installed as minister. It was Christmas week. The store was brightly decorated and a general air of excitement was abroad.
Without warning, the conversations of the customers were brought to a halt by a questioning voice from beside me. My son’s upraised index finger pointed at a large cardboard Santa Claus. “Daddy, who is that funny-looking man?” he asked.
Amazement spread across the faces of the jostling shoppers; accusing glances were directed at me. Such shame–the minister’s son did not even recognize Santa Claus! What likelihood, then, of hearing good news in his preaching at the festive season?
Such experiences can make us bewail how the Western world gives itself over annually to its Claus-mass or commerce-mass. We celebrate a reworked pagan Saturnalia of epic proportions, one in which the only connection with the incarnation is semantic. Santa is worshiped, not the Savior; pilgrims go to the stores with credit cards, not to the manger with gifts. It is the feast of indulgence, not of the incarnation.
It is always easier to lament and critique the new paganism of secularism’s blatant idolatry than to see how easily the church — and we ourselves — twist or dilute the message of the incarnation in order to suit our own tastes. But, sadly, we have various ways of turning the Savior into a kind of Santa Claus.
Santa Claus Christianity
For one thing, in our worship at Christmas we may varnish the staggering truth of the incarnation with what is visually, audibly, and aesthetically pleasing. We confuse emotional pleasure — or worse, sentiment — with true adoration.
For another thing, we may denigrate our Lord with a Santa Claus Christology. How sadly common it is for the church to manufacture a Jesus who is a mirror refection of Santa Claus. He becomes Santa Christ.
Santa Christ is sometimes a Pelagian Jesus. Like Santa, he simply asks us whether we have been good. More exactly, since the assumption is that we are all naturally good, Santa Christ asks us whether we have been “good enough.” So just as Christmas dinner is simply the better dinner we really deserve, Jesus becomes a kind of added bonus who makes a good life even better. He is not seen as the Savior of helpless sinners.
Or Santa Christ may be a Semi-Pelagian Jesus — a slightly more sophisticated Jesus who, Santa-like, gives gifts to those who have already done the best they could! Thus, Jesus’ hand, like Santa’s sack, opens only when we can give an upper-percentile answer to the none-too-weighty probe, “Have you done your best this year?” The only difference from medieval theology here is that we do not use its Latin phraseology: facere quod in se est (to do what one is capable of doing on one’s own, or, in common parlance, “Heaven helps those who help themselves”).
Then again, Santa Christ may be a mystical Jesus, who, like Santa Claus, is important because of the good experiences we have when we think about him, irrespective of his historical reality. It doesn’t really matter whether the story is true or not; the important thing is the spirit of Santa Christ. For that matter, while it would spoil things to tell the children this, everyone can make up his or her own Santa Christ. As long as we have the right spirit of Santa Christ, all is well.
But Jesus is not to be identified with Santa Claus; worldly thinking — however much it employs Jesus-language–is not to be confused with biblical truth.
The Christ of Christmas
The Scriptures systematically strip away the veneer that covers the real truth of the Christmas story. Jesus did not come to add to our comforts. He did not come to help those who were already helping themselves or to fill life with more pleasant experiences. He came on a deliverance mission, to save sinners, and to do so He had to destroy the works of the Devil (Matt. 1:21; 1 John 3:8b).
Those whose lives were bound up with the events of the first Christmas did not find His coming an easy and pleasurable experience.
Mary and Joseph’s lives were turned upside down.
The shepherds’ night was frighteningly interrupted, and their futures potentially radically changed.
The magi faced all kinds of inconvenience and family separation.
Our Lord Himself, conceived before wedlock, born probably in a cave, would spend His early days as a refugee from the bloodthirsty and vindictive Herod (Matt. 2:13-21).
There is, therefore, an element in the Gospel narratives that stresses that the coming of Jesus is a disturbing event of the deepest proportions. It had to be thus, for He did not come merely to add something extra to life, but to deal with our spiritual insolvency and the debt of our sin. He was not conceived in the womb of Mary for those who have done their best, but for those who know that their best is “like filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6)–far from good enough–and that in their flesh there dwells no good thing (Rom. 7:18). He was not sent to be the source of good experiences, but to suffer the pangs of hell in order to be our Savior.
A Christian Christmas
The Christians who first began to celebrate the birth of the Savior saw this. Christmas for them was not (contrary to what is sometimes mistakenly said) simply adding a Christian veneer to a pagan festival–the Roman Saturnalia. They may have been doing what many Christians have done in marking Reformation Day (which happens to fall on Halloween), namely, committing themselves to a radical alternative to the world’s Saturnalia, refusing to be squeezed into its mold. They were determined to fix mind, heart, will, and strength exclusively on the Lord Jesus Christ. There was no confusion in their thinking between the world and the gospel, Saturnalia and Christmas, Santa Jesus and Christ Jesus. They were citizens of another empire altogether.
In fact, such was the malice evoked by their other-worldly devotion to Christ that during the persecutions under the Emperor Diocletian, some believers were murdered as they gathered to celebrate Christmas. What was their gross offense? Worship of the true Christ — incarnate, crucified, risen, glorified, and returning. They celebrated Him that day for giving His all for them, and as they did so, they gave their all for Him.
One Christmas Eve in my teenage years, I opened a book a friend had given to me as a present. I found myself so overwhelmed by its teaching on my recently found Savior that I began to shake with emotion at what had dawned on me: the world had not celebrated His coming, but rather had crucified Him.
Doubtless I was an impressionable teenager. But should it not cause us to tremble that “they crucified my Lord”? Or is that true only in song, not in reality? Are we not there when the world still crucifies Him in its own, often-subtle ways?
The truth is that unless the significance of what Christ did at the first Christmas shakes us, we can scarcely be said to have understood much of what it means, or of who He really is.
Who is He in yonder stall
At Whose feet the shepherds fall?
‘Tis the Lord! O wondrous story!
‘Tis the Lord! the King of glory!
At His feet we humbly fall,
Crown Him! Crown Him, Lord of all!
And we might add:
Who is He on yonder cross
Suffers for this dark world’s loss?
‘Tis the Lord! O wondrous story!
‘Tis the Lord! the King of glory!
At His feet we humbly fall,
Crown Him! Crown Him, Lord of all!
