The Last Pilgrims, A Book, A Possible Future For Those Who Survive!

 

Michael Bunker, author of the Amazon.com bestselling non-fiction book Surviving Off Off-Grid, would  like to introduce you to one of the most exciting, heart-pounding, and  unique novels to come around in a generation.  More than your typical  post-apocalyptic faire, The Last Pilgrims could  well be one of the most important and prescient novels of our time.  Twenty years in the future is five-hundred years in the past.  It is just two decades after the worldwide societal collapse and the Vallenses, an Amish-like “plain people” living and surviving in what was once Central Texas, are under attack by the King of Aztlan and his armies. The pacifistic Vallenses are defended by the shadowy Ghost Militia and their inspiring leader Phillip, a militant freeman who wages a guerilla war with Aztlan.

Jonathan Wall and the thriving agrarian community of Vallenses have prospered by living the simple and sustainable ways of the past.  In a massively depopulated world, balkanization is a reality and monarchy is back.  A corrupt kingdom arises, led by a king who cannot abide freemen on lands that he covets.  Just as the Vallenses send off a plea to the benevolent King of the South States, a mysterious assassin misses his target: Jonathan Wall.

Phillip “the Ghost” is on a personal mission to save the Vallenses – even if it is against their will, while Jonathan’s own son David and his fearless teenage daughter Ruth are led to challenge their pacifistic upbringing and question whether or not the time has come for the Vallenses to fight for the land, the people, and the God they love.

The Last Pilgrims is a modern re-telling of the forgotten history of the Ancient Waldenses – simple farmers who lived in the valleys of the Alps for hundreds of years despite repeated attempts to annihilate them.  Full of tragedy, adventure, humor, and love, The Last Pilgrims is a rare post-apocalyptic saga that takes history and casts it into the future, while examining that future in light of the errors of the present and the past.

Posted in Daily Journal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Should a Christian Celebrate Christmas?

Christmas PostCard - 1908 Germany

To find this article go to www.biblicalagrarianism.com and search Christmas.

There is no Biblical warrant, precedent, nor precept for remembrance of the day of Christ‘s birth as a day of special religious celebration. This is not to say that we shouldn’t remember Christ’s birth and its significance, but for religious commemorations or celebrations, we must have Biblical command or precedent! The fact of the matter is this — the early church did not celebrate Christ’s birth, but such celebration only came into the church with the “Christianization” of pagan rites as Catholicism was made the state religion by Constantine in the fourth century A.D. Since the Word of God does not support the tradition of Christmas, a Christian’s conscience ought not and must not be bound.

The following outline describes the origin of Christmas (with its associated pagan customs, symbols, and terminology), details the Scriptural support against celebrating Christmas, attempts to show that celebrating Christmas violates the spirit of every one of the ten commandments, attempts to demonstrate that celebrating Christmas does not fall in the realm of Christian liberty, and attempts to debunk eight of the major rationalizations Christians put forth for celebrating Christmas.

I. The Origin of Christmas
A. A Long Evolution — Christmas customs are an evolution from times long before the Christian period — a descent from seasonal, pagan, religious, and national practices, hedged about with legend and tradition. Their seasonal connections with the pagan feasts of the winter solstice relate them to ancient times, when many of the earth’s inhabitant’s were sun worshipers. As the superstitious pagans observed the sun gradually moving south in the heavens and the days growing shorter, they believed the sun was departing never to return. To encourage the sun’s return north (i.e., to give the winter sun god strength and to bring him back to life again), the sun gods were worshipped with elaborate rituals and ceremonies, including the building of great bonfires, decorating with great evergreen plants such as holly, ivy, and mistletoe, and making representations of summer birds as house decorations. The winter solstice, then, was the shortest day of the year, when the sun seemingly stood still in the southern sky. Observing the slowdown in the sun’s southward movement, and its stop, the heathen believed that their petitions to it had been successful. A time of unrestrained rejoicing broke out, with revelry, drinking, and gluttonous feasts. Then, when the pagans observed the sun moving again northward, and a week later were able to determine that the days were growing longer, a new year was proclaimed.
B. Not Among the Earliest Christian Festivals — Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. It was not celebrated, commemorated, or observed, neither by the apostles nor in the apostolic church — not for at least the first 300 years of church history! History reveals that about 440 A.D., the Church at Jerusalem commenced the celebration of Christmas, following the lead of Roman Catholicism (see I.C.). It was sufficient for the early Christians that Jesus, their Lord and Savior, had been born. They praised God that Jesus Christ had, indeed, come in the flesh. The day and the time of His birth had no relevance to them, because Jesus was no longer physically on earth. He had returned to heaven. And it was the risen, exalted Christ to whom they looked, and that by faith — not a babe laid in a manger. Jesus Christ is no longer a baby; no longer the “Christ-child,” but the exalted Lord of all. And He does NOT somehow return to earth as a baby every year at Christmas-time — though this is the impression given even in certain hymns sung in Protestant services. (See sub-report.)
C. The Role of Religion in Ancient Rome — Seemingly forgotten is the essential role religion played in the world of ancient Rome. But the Emperor Constantine understood. By giving official status to Christianity, he brought internal peace to the Empire. A brilliant military commander, he also had the genius to recognize that after declaring Christianity the “state” religion (Constantine forced all the pagans of his empire to be baptized into the Roman Church), there was need for true union between paganism and Christianity. The corrupt Roman Church was full of pagans now masquerading as Christians, all of which had to be pacified. What better way than to “Christianize” their pagan idolatries. Thus, the Babylonian mystery religions were introduced by Constantine beginning in 313 A.D. (and established a foothold with the holding of the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.). The Constantine-led Roman Church was more than willing to adapt and adopt pagan practices in order to make Christianity palatable to the heathen. Constantine used religion as a political tool, totally devoid of any true spirituality:
  • Pagan rituals and idols took on Christian names (e.g., Jesus Christ was presented as the Sunof Righteousness [Malachi 4:2] replacing the sun god, Sol Invictus ).
  • Pagan holidays were reclassified as Christian holidays (holy-days).
  • December 25th was the “Victory of the Sun-God” Festival in the pagan Babylonian world. In the ancient Roman Empire, the celebration can be traced back to the Roman festival Saturnalia, which honored Saturn, the harvest god, and Mithras, the god of light; both were celebrated during or shortly after the winter solstice (between the 17th and 23rd of December). To all ancient pagan civilizations, December 25th was the birthday of the gods — the time of year when the days began to lengthen and man was blessed with a “regeneration of nature.” Moreover, all of December 25th’s Babylonian and Roman festivals were characterized by 5-7 day celebration periods of unrestrained or orgiastic revelry and licentiousness.
December 25th was particularly important in the cult of Mithras, a popular deity in the Old Roman Empire. Robert Myers (a proponent for celebrating Christmas) in his book Celebrations, says:
“Prior to the celebration of Christmas, December 25th in the Roman world was the Natalis Solis Invicti, the Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun. This feast, which took place just after the winter solstice of the Julian calendar, was in honor of the Sun God, Mithras, originally a Persian deity whose cult penetrated the Roman world in the first century B.C. … Besides the Mithraic influence, other pagan forces were at work. From the seventeenth of December until the twenty-third, Romans celebrated the ancient feast of the Saturnalia. … It was commemorative of the Golden Age of Saturn, the god of sowing and husbandry.”
In order to make Christianity palatable to the heathen, the Roman Church simply took Saturnalia, adopted it into Christianity, and then eventually many of the associated pagan symbols, forms, customs, and traditions were reinterpreted (i.e., “Christianized”) in ways “acceptable” to Christian faith and practice. (In fact, in 375 A.D., the Church of Rome under Pope Julius I merely announced that the birth date of Christ had been “discovered” to be December 25th, and was accepted as such by the “faithful.” The festival of Saturnalia and the birthday of Mithras could now be celebrated as the birthday of Christ!) The pagans flocked into the Catholic places of worship, because they were still able to worship their old gods, but merely under different names. It mattered not to them whether they worshiped the Egyptian goddess mother and her child under the old names (Isis and Horus), or under the names of the “Virgin Mary” and the “Christ-child.” Either way, it was the same old idol-religion (cf. 1 Thes. 1:8-10; 5:22 — Paul says to turn from idols, not rename them and Christianize them). Roman Catholicism‘s Christmas Day is nothing but “baptized” paganism, having come along much too late to be part of “the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).
D. “Christianization” of Pagan Customs, Symbols, and Terminology — Christianity had to undergo a transformation so that pagan Rome could “convert” without giving up its old beliefs and rituals. The actual effect was to paganize official Christianity. “‘A compound religion had been manufactured, of which … Christianity furnished the nomenclature, and Paganism the doctrines and rights.’ The idolatry of the Roman world, though deposed from its ancient pre-eminence, had by no means been demolished. Instead of this, its pagan nakedness had been covered with the garb of a deformed Christianity” (W.E. Vine). Pagan customs involving vestments, candles, incense, images, and processions were all incorporated into church worship and continue today.
The following customs and traditions associated with Xmas all have pagan/heathen origins. (“Xmas” is the more preferable form for the day, since it at least leaves the name of our Savior out of the heathen observance.) Naturally, Christians would not keep these customs for such evil and perverse reasons, but the fact of their origins remain — “the customs of the people are vain” (Jer. 10:3), and should thereby be carefully considered by all who know and love the Lord:
1. The blasphemous “Christ’s Mass” shortened to “Christ-mas” — The Roman Catholic “Christ’s Mass” is a special mass performed in celebration of Christ’s birth. In this mass, Jesus is considered both the priest and the victim, represented by the Catholic priest who offers Him as a sacrifice each time the mass is performed. In offering this “sacrifice,” the priest believes he has the power to change the bread and the wine of the Communion into Jesus’ literal flesh and blood, requiring the people to worship these elements as they do God Himself. This is obviously a denial of the gospel, and thereby, a false gospel (a re-doing of the sacrifice for sin — Heb. 9:12, 24-26; 10:10,12,14). Yet, many who cry out all year long against the blasphemous Roman Catholic system, at year-end embrace Rome’s most blasphemous abomination of them all — Christmas!
2. Nativity Scenes (tainted with paganism) — Nearly every form of pagan worship descended from the Babylonian mysteries, which focus attention on the “mother-goddess” and the birth of her child. This was adapted to “Mary-Jesus” worship, which then easily accommodated the multitude of pagans “converted” to Christianity inside Constantine’s Roman Catholic Church. If anyone were to erect statues (i.e., images) of Mary and Joseph by themselves, many within Protestant circles would cry “Idolatry!” But at Xmas time, an image of a little baby is placed with the images of Mary and Joseph, and it’s called a “nativity scene.” Somehow, the baby-idol “sanctifies” the scene, and it is no longer considered idolatry! (cf. Exo. 20:4-5a; 32:1-5a; 9-10a).
3. Christmas Tree — Evergreen trees, because of their ability to remain green through-out the winter season when most other forms of vegetation are dormant, have long symbolized immortality, fertility, sexual potency, and reproduction, and were often brought into homes and set up as idols.
The full mystical significance of the evergreen can only be understood when one considers the profound reverence the ancient pagans had for all natural phenomena — “To them, Nature was everywhere alive. Every fountain had its spirit, every mountain its deity, and every water, grove, and meadow, its supernatural association. The whispering of the trees … was the subtle speech of the gods who dwelt within” (W.M. Auld, Christmas Traditions). This is nothing but nature worship or Animism.
The custom of bringing the tree into the home and decorating it as is done today has legendarily been attributed to Martin Luther. In truth, the modern custom has been lost in obscurity, but almost every culture has some such tradition. For ages, evergreen trees would be brought into the house during the winter as magic symbols of luck and hope for a fruitful year to come, It may also be that the star with which many of today’s trees are topped did not originate as a representation of the star that the wise men followed, but rather a representation of the stars to which the ancient Chaldean astrologers looked for guidance.
The first decorating of an evergreen was done by pagans in honor of their god Adonis, who after being slain was brought to life by the serpent Aesculapius. The representation of the slain Adonis was a dead stump of a tree. Around this stump coiled the snake — Aesculapius, symbol of life restoring. From the roots of the dead tree, then comes forth another and different tree — an evergreen tree, symbolic to pagans of a god who cannot die! In Babylon, the evergreen tree came to represent the rebirth/reincarnation of Nimrod as his new son (Sun), Tammuz. In Egypt, this god was worshiped in a palm tree as Baal-Tamar. (Heathen people in the land of Canaan also adopted tree worship, calling it the Asherah — a tree with its branches cut off was carved into a phallic symbol.) The fir tree was worshiped in Rome as the same new-born god, named Baal-Berith, who was restored to life by the same serpent. A feast was held in honor of him on December 25th, observed as the day on which the god reappeared on earth — he had been killed, and was “reborn” on that day, victorious over death! It was called the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun.” Thus, the annual custom of erecting and decorating evergreen trees was brought down to us through the centuries by the pagan Roman Catholic Church — the paganism of Tammuz and Baal, or the worship of the sun, mingled with the worship of Aesculapius the serpent. Whether erected in private homes or in churches, decorated or not, the evergreen tree is a glaring symbol of this false god.
4. Christmas Wreaths — In pagan mythology, evergreen means eternal life and a never-dying existence. Made from evergreens, Christmas wreaths were most frequently round, which symbolized the sun (just as do halos in most religious art). Hence, the round Xmas wreaths stand for an eternal sun, a never-dying or self-renewing sun. In addition, the round form can also relate to the sign of the female, which stands for the regeneration of life. Because of these pagan associations, the Christian church was initially hostile towards the use of wreaths and other evergreen derivatives. But in the same way it Christianized other pagan traditions, the church soon found a way to confer its own symbolic meanings. For example, the sharp pointed leaves of the “male” holly came to represent Christ’s crown of thorns and the red berries His blood, while the “female” ivy symbolized immortality (Sulgrave Manor, “A Tudor Christmas,” p. 6). Such wreaths now not only adorn churches at Christmas time, but are also appearing during the equally pagan Easter season.
5. Mistletoe — The use of the mistletoe plant (which is poisonous to both man and animals) can be traced back to the ancient Druids. (The Druids were pagan Celtic priests who were considered magicians and wizards.) It represented the false “messiah,” considered by the Druids to be a divine branch that had dropped from heaven and grew upon a tree on earth. This is an obvious corruption of God’s prophetic Word concerning Christ, “the Man the Branch,” coming from heaven. The mistletoe symbolized the reconciliation between God and man. And since a kiss is the well known symbol of reconciliation, that is how “kissing under the mistletoe” became a custom — both were tokens of reconciliation. The mistletoe, being a sacred plant and a symbol of fertility, was also believed to contain certain magical powers, having been brought to earth from heaven by a mistle thrush carrying it in its toes (hence the name). It was once known as the “plant of peace,” and in ancient Scandinavia, enemies were reconciled under it (yet another reason why people came to “kiss under the mistletoe”). It was supposed to bring “good luck” and fertility, and even to protect from witchcraft the house in which it hung.
A kiss is also something which is, at times, associated with lust. So the practice of “kissing under the mistletoe” also had roots in the orgiastic celebrations in connection with the Celtic Midsummer Eve ceremony. At the time the mistletoe was gathered, the men would kiss each other as a display of their homosexuality. (The custom was later broadened to include both men and women.) Kissing under the mistletoe is also reminiscent of the temple prostitution and sexual license proliferating during Roman Saturnalia.
6. Santa Claus — Santa Claus or “Father Christmas” is a corruption of the Dutch “Sant Nikolaas.” (“Saint Nicholas” was the 4th century Catholic bishop of Myra in Asia Minor, who gave treats to children; he was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, “regarded as a special friend and protector of children.” The red suit comes from the fact that Catholic bishops and cardinals in Italy wear red.) Santa Claus was also known as “Kriss Kringle,” a corruption of the German “Christ Kindl– Christ Child. This has to be one of the most subtle of Satan’s blasphemies, yet most Christians are unaware of it.
Originally, the Santa Claus concept came from the pagan Egyptian god, Bes, a rotund, gnome-like personage who was the patron of little children. Bes was said to live at the North Pole, working year-round to produce toys for children who had been good and obedient to their parents. In Dutch, he was called “Sinter Klaas.” Dutch settlers brought the custom to America. In Holland and other European countries, the original Santa Claus was actually a grim personage who traversed the countryside, determined to find out who really had been “naughty or nice.” Those who had been acting up were summarily switched. The association of Santa Claus with snow, reindeer, and the North Pole suggests Scandinavian or Norse traditions of the Yuletide season. (In Babylonia, also, the stag [reindeer] was a symbol of the mighty one, Nimrod. The symbolism of antlers worn on the head of a noble leader would demonstrate his prowess as a hunter, and thereby, influence people to follow him.)
Santa is the blasphemous substitute for God! He is routinely given supernatural powers and divine attributes which only GOD has. Think about it. He is made out to be omniscient — he knows when every child sleeps, awakes, has been bad or good, and knows exactly what every child wants (cf. Psa. 139:1-4). He is made out to be omnipresent — on one night of the year he visits all the “good” children in the world and leaves them gifts, seemingly being everywhere at the same time. He is also made out to be omnipotent — he has the power to give to each child exactly what each one wants. Moreover, Santa Claus is made out to be a sovereign judge — he answers to no one and no one has authority over him, and when he “comes to town,” he comes with a full bag of rewards for those whose behavior has been acceptable in his eyes.
Santa Claus has become one of the most popular and widely accepted and unopposed myths ever to be successfully interwoven into the fabric and framework of Christianity. It is a fact that Christ was born, and that truth should greatly rejoice the heart of every Christian. But the Santa Claus myth distorts the truth of Christ’s birth by subtly blending truth with the myth of Santa Claus. When Christian parents lie to their children about Santa Claus, they are taking the attention of their children away from God and causing them to focus on a fat man in a red suit with god-like qualities. All of this teaches the child to believe that, just like Santa, God can be pleased with “good works,” done in order to earn His favor. Also, they teach that no matter how bad the child has been, he will still be rewarded by God — just as Santa never failed to bring gifts. Even in homes of professing Christians, Santa Claus has clearly displaced Jesus in the awareness and affections of children, becoming the undisputed spirit, symbol, and centerpiece of Christmas.
7. Christmas Eve — “Yule” is a Chaldean word meaning “infant.” Long before the coming of Christianity, the heathen Anglo-Saxons called the 25th of December “Yule day” — in other words, “infant day” or “child’s day” — the day they celebrated the birth of the false “messiah”! The night before “Yule day” was called “Mother night.” Today it is called “Christmas Eve.” And it wasn’t called “Mother night” after Mary, the mother of our Lord — “Mother night” was observed centuries before Jesus was born. Semiramis (Nimrod’s wife) was the inspiration for “Mother night,” and “Child’s day” was the supposed birthday of her son (Tammuz), the sun-god!
8. Yule Log — The Yule log was considered by the ancient Celts a sacred log to be used in their religious festivals during the winter solstice; the fire provided promises of good luck and long life. Each year’s Yule log had to be selected in the forest on Christmas Eve by the family using it, and could not be bought, or the superstitions associated with it would not apply. In Babylonian paganism, the log placed in the fireplace represented the dead Nimrod, and the tree which appeared the next morning (which today is called the “Christmas tree”) was Nimrod alive again (reincarnated) in his new son (sun), Tammuz. (Still today in some places, the Yule log is placed in the fireplace on Christmas Eve, and the next morning there is a Christmas tree!)
Today’s Yule log tradition comes to us from Scandinavia, where the pagan sex-and-fertility god, Jule, was honored in a twelve-day celebration in December. A large, single log was kept with a fire against it for twelve days, and each day for twelve days a different sacrifice was offered. The period now counted as the twelve days between Christmas and Epiphany was originally the twelve days of daily sacrifices offered to the Yule log. (What, then, are we really doing when we send “Yuletide greetings”? Are we really honoring Christ by sending greetings in the name of a Scandinavian fertility god? These are the same customs being practiced today as in ancient paganism! Only the names have changed.)
9. Candles — Candles were lit by the ancient Babylonians in honor of their god, and his altars had candles on them. And as is well known, candles are also a major part of the ritualism of Roman Catholicism, which adopted the custom from heathenism. Candles approached the Yule log in ritual importance. Like the Yule log, they had to be a gift, never a purchase, and were lighted and extinguished only by the head of the household. Such candles stood burning steadily in the middle of the table, never to be moved or snuffed, lest death follow. The Yule candle, wreathed in greenery, was to burn through Christmas night until the sun rose or the Christmas service began (Sulgrave Manor, “A Tudor Christmas,” p. 9). Obviously, candles should have no part in Christian worship, for nowhere in the New Testament is their use sanctioned.
10. Giving of Gifts — The tradition of exchanging gifts has nothing to do with a reenactment of the Magi giving gifts to Jesus, but has many superstitious, pagan origins instead. One prominent tradition was the Roman custom of exchanging food, trinkets, candles, or statutes of gods during the mid-winter Kalends (the first day of the month in the ancient Roman calendar). This custom was transferred to December 25th by the Roman Church in keeping with the Saturnalian festival and in celebration of the benevolent St. Nicholas. [Is it not the height of ridiculousness to claim that giving one another presents properly celebrates Jesus' "birthday" (not that there is anything necessarily wrong in giving each other presents)? But what are we giving Him, if indeed we are specifically celebrating His incarnation?]
11. Christmas Goose — The “Christmas goose” and “Christmas cakes” were both used in the worship of the Babylonian “messiah.” The goose was considered to be sacred in many ancient lands, such as Rome, Asia Minor, India, and Chaldea. In Egypt, the goose was a symbol for a child, ready to die! In other words, a symbol of the pagan “messiah,” ready to give his life (supposedly) for the world. This is obviously a satanic mockery of the truth.
12. Christmas Ham — Hogs were slaughtered and the eating of the carcass was one of the central festivities of the Saturnalia. Each man would offer a pig as a sacrifice because superstition held that a boar had killed the sun deity Adonis. Hence, the tradition of the Christmas ham on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day.
13. Christmas Stocking — According to tradition, a poor widower of Myra, Turkey, had three daughters, for whom he could not provide a dowry. On Xmas-Eve, “Saint Nicholas” threw three bags of gold down the chimney, thereby saving the daughters from having to enter into prostitution. One bag rolled into a shoe, and the others fell into some stockings that had been hung to dry by the fire. Hence, the beginning of the tradition of the “Christmas stocking” or “boot.”
14. Christmas Cards — The first British Xmas card can be dated back to 1843. The first cards featured pictures of dead birds! Evidently, the popularity of hunting robin and wren on Christmas Day made the dead bird image an appropriate one for “holiday” cards. Often the text of the cards would also have a morbid tone. Later, the cards displayed dancing insects, playful children, pink-cheeked young women, and festively decorated Christmas trees. The first actual Xmas cards were really Valentine’s Day cards (with different messages) sent in December. Mass production of Xmas cards in the United States can be traced back to 1875. Initially, the manufacturers thought of Xmas cards as a sideline to their already successful business in playing cards. But the “tradition” of sending cards soon caught on, leading to a very profitable business by itself.
15. Christmas Carols — What do you suppose the reaction would be by a church’s leaders if its pastor were to propose that the following hymns be introduced into the church to commemorate the birth of Christ? After all, the tunes are quite lovely.
Hymn #1 — A hymn by a Unitarian minister (Unitarians reject the Trinity and full deity of Christ) that does not mention Jesus Christ and reflects the liberal social gospel theology of the 19th century.
Hymn #2 — A hymn by an American Episcopal priest, the fourth verse of which teaches Roman Catholic superstition about Christ coming to be born in people during the Advent season.
Hymn #3 — A song, the words by an Austrian Roman Catholic priest, the music by a Roman Catholic schoolteacher, containing the Roman Catholic superstition about halos emanating from holy people, with no gospel message.
Perhaps you would expect the church’s leaders to be very upset. It might surprise you to learn that they were upset when they suspected that the pastor might somehow prevent them from singing them! You see, those three hymns were already in the church’s hymnals! The pastor did not have to introduce them. The three theologically incorrect “Christmas carols” referred to above are It Came Upon the Midnight Clear, O Little Town of Bethlehem, and Silent Night. (See the sub-report for an evaluation of some of the most popular Xmas carols found in church hymnals today.)
E. European Xmas Traditions — In the early days of Christianity, as it moved north and west into Europe, many pagan celebrations were encountered. For example, in the late-6th century in England, the Angles and Saxons were found celebrating Yule. The Christian evangelists thought they would fail in any attempt to rival, suppress, or stamp out such long held customs, so they simply adopted popular dates for their own “special rituals and hallowed services.” In other words, it was easier to establish a festival celebrating the birth of Christ if it conveniently coincided with an existing popular pagan feast day. In this way, the pagan peoples (albeit potential converts to Christianity) could continue with their usual celebrations at this time of year, but the reason for the merrymaking could be redefined and attributed to Christ’s birth rather than to any pagan rituals. As paganism eventually died out and Christianity became widespread, Christmas became increasingly more associated with its religious foundations than any others (Sulgrave Manor, “A Tudor Christmas,” p. 2).
It was left to the Puritans to denounce everything. For them, Christmas was rightfully part popish, part pagan, and was forbidden to be kept as a holiday or feast day. The attack began in 1644 when the Puritans controlled the Parliament; December 25th was changed to a Fast Day. By 1647, even the Fast Day was abolished as a relic of superstition, synonymous with the Church of Rome. No observation on December 25th was any longer permitted, but the day was to be observed as a normal market-day. Christmas was accurately depicted by such names as the Profane Man’s Ranting Day, the Superstitious Man’s Idol Day, the Papist’s Massing Day, the Old Heathen’s Feasting Day, the Multitude’s Idle Day, and Satan — that Adversary’s — Working Day. In those days, any Christmas celebrations would be broken up by troops, who would tear down decorations and arrest anyone holding a service. Some who celebrated it in Europe were also thrown into prison. Because of the riots that broke out following the banning of Christmas, the celebrations and revelry were restored in 1660 by King Charles II, a Roman Catholic (Sulgrave Manor, “A Tudor Christmas,” p. 3).
F. American Xmas Traditions — America’s settlers (the “founding fathers” of so-called “Protestant America“) rightfully considered Christmas a “popish” holiday. In fact, it was only in the early 1800s that several founding members of the New York Historical Society “invented” Christmas. Before then, it was illegal in colonial Massachusetts to even take December 25th off work. Christmas was forbidden as “unseemly to ye spiritual welfare of ye community.” (It was banned in Massachusetts in 1659, and this law remained on the books for 22 years. In Boston, public schools stayed open on December 25th until as late as 1870!) It wasn’t until 1836 that any state declared Christmas a holiday (Alabama), and then there were no more state declarations until the Civil War. It was not until 1885 that all federal workers were given Christmas Day off. The so-called Xmas customs and traditions were later concocted more for commercial purposes than for religious.
Quoting from a 12/23/83 USA TODAY article about Christmas: “A broad element of English Christianity still considered Christmas celebration a pagan blasphemy. The Puritans, Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, Calvinists and other denominations brought this opposition to early New England and strong opposition to the holiday lasted in America until the middle of the 18th century.” Henry Ward Beecher, a Congregationalist, wrote in 1874 of his New England boyhood:
“To me Christmas is a foreign day, and I shall die so. When I was a boy I wondered what Christmas was. I knew there was such a time, because we had an Episcopal church in our town, and I saw them dressing it with evergreens, and wondered what they were taking the woods in the church for; but I got no satisfactory explanation. A little later I understood it was a Romish institution, kept by the Romish Church.”
II. Scriptural Support Against Celebrating Christmas — Unacceptable Worship
A. 2 Chron. 33:15-17
— The Israelites had kept the old pagan form (the high places of Baal), but had merely introduced the worship of God into that form — a refusal to let go of pagan worship forms (i.e., God was to be worshiped in the Temple, not on the high places). This was unacceptable worship because the right object of worship was mixed with wrong forms of worship; i.e., the mixing of godly worship with ungodly form. Likewise, is not the celebration of Christmas the taking of a celebration established by pagans and for pagans, and then introducing the worship of Christ into that pagan form?
B. Deut. 12:29-32 — God warned His people Israel to destroy all vestiges of pagan worship that they found in the “Promised Land.” Not only did God want to prevent His people from being enticed to worship false gods, but He also specifically revealed that He did not want His people to worship Him in the same manner in which the heathen worshiped their gods. We know, therefore, that our Lord is displeased by practices which profess to honor Him, but which are copied from the tradition of false religions. The command here was to worship God only in His way, i.e., do only what God commands — not adding to God’s commands nor taking away from them. Therefore, is not “putting Christ back into Christmas,” worshiping “the Lord your God their way”? Is there any command in the Bible to give special reverence to the Scriptural account of Christ’s birth more so than to any other Scripture, let alone even a suggestion to celebrate or commemorate His birth in any way whatsoever? God never intended for His people to be imitators of the pagan customs of the world, but has called us to be separate and set apart.
C. Lev. 10:1,2 — Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire to the Lord. Is not the celebration of Christmas, with all its pagan symbols and forms, a “strange fire” unto the Lord, and is not this form of worship contrary to what God commands?
D. 1 Sam. 15:1-3, 7-9, 21-23 — Saul disobeyed God’s prophet in order to worship God in his way. Is not the celebration of Christmas one of man’s ways of worshiping Christ? There is certainly no Biblical command to offer worship in this manner.
E. 2 Sam. 6:2-7 — David attempts to transport the ark on a “new cart” instead of using the rings and poles as the Law required (Exo. 25:12-15). Additionally, the “transporters” of the ark were not even authorized to carry it (1 Chron. 15:2, 13-15); i.e., the ark was not only transported in the wrong way, but was transported by the wrong people! Is not the celebration of Christmas the wrong way (pagan forms and tradition) with the wrong people (the heathen of the world join right in with the professing Christians)?
F. 1 Ki. 12:26-33 — In order to unify the northern ten tribes of Israel, ungodly King Jeroboam set up pagan idols, not in place of God, but as new focal points for directing worship to God. He even instituted a new festival on a new day; i.e., a new religious holiday of his own choosing. Even though the true God of Israel was still to be the object of worship in the new religious holiday, both the holiday and the worship were not authorized by God nor accepted by Him (1 Ki. 13:1-3; 15:29,30). Why? Because the concocted mixture of error with truth constituted false religion! Likewise, is not the celebration of Christmas a religious holiday of man’s own choosing, replete with pagan symbols and forms, all under the guise (by sincere Christians at least) of worshiping the one true God and Savior? But does not this worship form and system still constitute false religion, and thereby, make it unacceptable to God? And besides, where in the Bible do Christians have the right to add a new holy day to the so-called Christian calendar, any more than King Jeroboam had the right to add a new holy day to God’s theocratic calendar?
G. 1 Cor. 8:4-13; Rom. 14:1-13; 1 Cor. 10:14, 18-21 — These passages concerning Christian liberty are discussed in more detail under Roman numeral IV. [Christian liberty can best be defined Biblically as "the freedom to engage in practices not prohibited by the Scriptures or denying oneself what is permitted (i.e., a moral choice of self-discipline) in order to be a more effective witness for God." So the question must first be answered, "Is Christmas permitted?"] Briefly, some claim that Paul is teaching that the participation in pagan forms condemns no one, and therefore, participation in Christmas and its forms, even though arising out of pagan idolatry, is inconsequential. However, Paul nowhere approves participation in acts of idolatry, of which the participation in the pagan forms of Christmas comes dangerously close to doing. Instead, Paul is speaking of the liberty to continue in Jewish days of worship/festival that had been previously ordained under the Jewish law. There is certainly no liberty to bring outside pagan forms into the church’s worship services. Likewise, there is no liberty to Christianize Babylonian/Roman pagan holy days as special days.
Christians in the first century churches had the liberty to observe Old Testament holy days and feasts (days that had previously been revealed by God) if they were so immature as to do so. The weaker brother, Paul wrote, was at that time not to be censured for continuing to attach some importance to the Old Testament holy days, as a clear knowledge of their abolition in Christ was not yet given to him (the weaker brother). But to observe a pagan holy day is something this passage does not sanction. They certainly did not have the liberty to regard Babylonian/Roman pagan holy days (days that were invented by the devil) as special days. Again, that would have been idolatry, worldliness, and perhaps even a form of Satan worship on their part. Therefore, how can the observance of Christmas Day, or any other Babylonian/Roman Catholic holy day, be a matter of Christian liberty?
Yet when some of us refuse to regard the pagan holy days as special days, we are the ones often referred to as the “weaker brother” in this matter! Are we opposed to such days because we are “weak in faith”? Faith would be defined as believing what the Word of God says about a matter and acting upon it. It was by faith that we stopped regarding pagan holy days as special days. Would we be more mature Christians if we would start regarding such days again? It would certainly be much easier on our families and us.
III. Christmas and the (Spiritual) Violation of the Ten Commandments (reverse order)
A. Do Not Covet — Children learn to covet the gifts of others, to drool over the Christmas catalog, to drag their parents endlessly through toy stores, all in the name of “the Christmas spirit.”
B. Do Not Bear False Witness – “Jesus is the reason for the season!” is the Christian battle cry to “put Christ back in Christmas,” when in actuality, there is not only no Biblical warrant for Christmas, but its roots are in pagan worship systems. Nevertheless, professing Christians lie to their children about Santa Claus, the supernatural, sorcerous false “god” of Christmas, whose “gospel” is one of works salvation along with unconditional acceptance and rewards. Parents lie to their children for years about the god-like character of Santa Claus, in effect asking them to trust in a false god and a lie, and then don’t understand why later in life their children won’t believe and trust in the true God, Jesus Christ.
C. Do Not Steal — Christmas spending patterns could never stand the test of Biblical stewardship; i.e., Christians, in celebrating Christmas, “steal” the Lord’s resources by ignoring their proper use; lavishly spend these resources on worthless and useless trinkets (in many cases); and withhold resources from those in need, while at the same time claiming to never have enough money to buy good Christian books, pay for home schooling, or buy Bible helps for their children. (Christians could also be helping the spiritually needy by buying and giving them tracts, books, etc.) We “steal” from our families what they need and what we owe them in order to buy gifts for those who don’t need them.
D. Do Not Commit Adultery — At this “special” time of the year, lustful thoughts are actually encouraged; e.g., teens are allowed to go to parties and stay out later, thereby having temptations put in front of them that otherwise wouldn’t be there. Christmas parties for adults also encourage evil thoughts through the use of the mistletoe, etc. (According to Matt. 5, such thoughts constitute adultery. At the very least, spiritual adultery is encouraged by the “season.”)
E. Do Not Murder — Envy and hate of my brother (which, according to Matt. 5, is equal to murder) because he has more than me or because he receives a larger Christmas bonus than me, is encouraged at Christmas time. We also tend to spiritually sacrifice our children to the “god of Christmas” via greed, selfishness, etc.
F. Honor Father and Mother — Christmas gift-giving is not an honor to parents; the term “exchanging” gifts (i.e., giving in expectation of a return) is a dead give-away of the mockery associated with this tradition.
G. Remember the Sabbath and Keep It Holy — Although we recognize that the Lord’s Day is not the “Christian Sabbath,” clearly the Lord’s Day is to be kept for worship and observed as such. Yet when Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, or the day after Christ-mas falls on a Sunday, most churches adjust the Lord’s Day to accommodate Christ-mas, usually by canceling the regularly scheduled Sunday evening service. Most of its members are too busy or too tired to attend services anyway.
H. Do Not Take the Lord’s Name in Vain — “Christ” and “mass” are two words that are totally opposite from one another, and to connect the two is to blaspheme the name of Christ. By taking a pagan celebration, “Christianizing” it, and calling it a celebration of the birth of Christ, is most certainly taking the Lord’s name in vain. (A good example of the willingness of the professing church to profane the name of the Lord would be the title of a popular children’s Christmas concert production — The Divine Ornament. Imagine, identifying our Lord with a pagan ornament to hang on a pagan tree! What insult! What blasphemy!) In addition, some professing Christians use religion (“Christ’s birthday”) as a cloak to cover the evils of covetousness, idolatry, greed, immorality, etc. — all excuses to give vent to evil lusts.
I. Do Not Make Yourself Any Carved Image — Nativity scenes, “pictures” of Christ, Christmas cards with “pictures” of Jesus, etc., all violate this command. God has given us His Word, not images, to teach us about Christ (1 Pe. 1:23; Dt. 4:12, 15-19).
J. Have No Other Gods Before Me — The “god of Christmas” is idolatrous! Looking to the Christmas season for happiness, joy, and fulfillment, rather than through a pure, personal, and Biblical relationship with Jesus Christ, is idolatry.
IV. Is a Christian’s Decision to Celebrate Christmas a Part of Christian Liberty?
A. Romans 14:1-13
— This passage is speaking of Jews who were observing the Old Testament Jewish holy days/festivals and dietary laws even though they were now believers in Christ; but they were also judging their Gentile brothers-in-the-Lord who did not observe the Jewish customs. Likewise, the Gentile Christians were judging their Jewish brothers who were seemingly caught-up in ceremonial law. Paul was thusly saying, “To you Gentile Christians — leave the Jewish Christians alone, because they are not violating any Scriptural commands by their actions (i.e., it’s a “disputable” matter [doubtful or gray area] and not a moral issue). To you Jewish Christians — it’s okay for you to observe the Jewish festivals and dietary laws because they were given by God in the Old Testament, and thereby, are considered to be previously approved worship forms, but don’t judge your Gentile brothers, because there is no Biblical command for either of you to continue to observe these things.” (Actually, it wasn’t “okay” [see IV.C. below], but Paul allowed it as an act of an immature/weaker brother [see II.G. above].) If a moral issue is involved (i.e., a practice that is covered in Scripture), then this passage and its application to Christian liberty (i.e., the freedom to engage in practices not prohibited by Scripture) would obviously not apply. And as brought out earlier in this report, the celebration of Christmas appears to be such a moral issue, because its celebration is not only not from God, but is from ancient paganism itself!
B. 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 — The Gentile Christians, who had been raised in an idolatrous system, were having a problem with their Jewish brothers who were eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. (Apparently, this was the only “healthy” meat available.) Similar to the Romans 14 passage above, Paul says that eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols is not a moral issue, and thereby, is not prohibited. However, Paul does not say that it is okay to go into the pagan temple itself; in fact, in other passages (1 Cor 10:14, 18-21), Paul specifically prohibits getting involved with the pagan feasts. In other words, it’s not a moral issue to partake in the byproducts of a pagan religious system (note, however, that there is no indication here that the Jewish Christians were using the “idol meat” as part of their worship), but it is not okay to partake in the religious system itself (because the corrupt character of the participants would be harmful for believers). Rather, we must be separate from the worldly system (2 Cor 6:14-7:1). Therefore, when items (byproducts) associated with a pagan religious system not only develop religious associations of their own, but have been integrated into what would otherwise be true Christian worship (as the celebration of Christmas has clearly become in our culture), then we should pull away from them so that there is no confusion over our allegiances.
C. Galatians 4:9-10; Colossians 2:16-17 — Both these passages of Scripture refer to the Jewish holy days under Old Testament law. If Christians were not even to observe the Old Testament holy days — days that did have divine sanction, for a time — they certainly don’t have the liberty to observe pagan holy days!
D. James 4:11 — James is saying that Christians may only judge a brother on matters determined in God’s Word (i.e., moral issues). If a matter is not covered in the Word, then these are matters of Christian liberty (á la Rom. 14:1-13 and 1 Cor 8:4-13), and he who judges in these areas of Christian liberty is, in effect, judging and condemning the Word of God as being an imperfect standard to which the judge, thereby, refuses to submit. On the other hand, since we have clear Scriptural precept that condemns the things that go on around December 25th in the name of Christ, the celebration of Christmas does not appear to be a matter of liberty, but one of moral conduct.
V. The Right Response
A. Quench Not the Holy Spirit (1 Thes 5:19-22)
— Test all things against the Scripture and line-up beliefs and actions with what is true (i.e., do not treat with contempt the Word of God). If one is convinced that to celebrate Christmas is sin, then he and his family must not compromise with the world or the church by participating in any Christmas celebrations (Rom. 14:23).
B. Avoid Traps of the Devil:
1. Lack of Zeal — One who never considers why he does certain things, but he just does them because he always has or because his parents always have; one who acts on emotions rather than on facts.
2. Lack of Truth — One who does things for good reasons and right motives (i.e., plenty of zeal), but not in truth.
C. Realize that Christians Celebrating Christmas as the Day of Christ’s Birth Makes No More Sense than Adding Any of the Following Days as Special Days of Christian Celebration: — (Remember, the Bible’s focus on the birth of Christ is for the sole purpose of documenting his virgin birth, his incarnation, and the fulfillment of His prophetic Messiahship. Like the tongue-in-cheek suggestions below, one must also remember that there is no Biblical warrant, precedent, nor precept for the remembrance of the day of Christ’s birth as a day of special religious celebration.)
1. Baptism Celebration — Why not have three days of swimming parties in the summer in order to celebrate/symbolize Christ’s three days in the grave? We could even pick a time based upon our speculation of when John the Baptist baptized Jesus!
2. Ascension Celebration — Why not have one day set aside every year for hot-air balloon rides in order to celebrate Christ’s ascension to heaven?
3. Miracle Celebration — There is considerable Biblical focus on Jesus’ miracles (even more than on his birth), so why not have one day set aside every year to celebrate the first of Christ’s miracles? And since that was the turning of water into wine (John 2), why not have “Christian” wine-tasting parties?
D. Avoid the Rationalizations that:
1. “Christmas Provides a Festive Time to Share the Gospel” — One cannot take something condemned in God’s Word and “use it” to spread the Gospel; neither will God bless it to spread His Word. Unacceptable worship and the “mixing-in” of unholy/pagan forms is surely not the normal means through which God blesses the faithful. Satan works to blend together his system with God’s system, because when unacceptable worship (paganism) is blended with true worship (God’s truth), true worship is destroyed. In fact, any time one mixes pagan ideas and practices with the pure religion of Christ, it is condemned in Scripture as the heinous sin of idolatry! God has always detested taking those things dedicated to idols and using them to worship Him. As a matter of fact, this “special time of the year” is probably more a hindrance to the receptiveness of the gospel message than a help. Much of the celebration observed by our contemporary society deludes people into assuming that God is pleased, when in reality, He is offended by false religion, pseudo-worship, and alien philosophies. The ecumenical spirit and a counterfeit “love” under the guise of “peace and goodwill among men,” more than likely dulls one’s sensitivity to his desperate need to repent of sin and be reconciled to a holy God.
2. “Christmas is Merely the Honoring of Christ’s Birth” — Someone says, “I know Christmas is of pagan origin, but I still think it’s not wrong for a church to have a special time for honoring Christ’s birth.” But since when did Protestants believe that Christians have the right to add to the Bible? Is the church a legislative body? Are we to follow the Bible in our faith and practice, or the thinking of fallible men? If we have the right to add a special holy day to the Christian economy, then we can add 10,000 other things. Then we will be no better than the false cults and the Roman Catholics who follow heathen traditions! [Besides, celebrating Christ's birth is a form of worship. But since Christmas is a lie, those who celebrate it are not worshiping in "spirit and truth" (John 4:24).]
3. “All I’m Doing is Putting Christ Back into Christmas” — The modern conservative cry to put Christ back into Christmas is absurd. As detailed earlier in this report, Jesus Christ was never in Christmas. It’s a lie to say He was. He has no part in a lie. When anyone takes the truth and mixes it with a lie, they no longer have the truth. They have changed the truth into a lie. Neither is it possible to take a lie and mix it with enough truth to change the lie into the truth. You still come out with a lie. One may say, “Well, I know it’s not the truth, but I’ll put Christ back in Christmas and glorify God in it then.” No, you won’t. Christ never was in Christmas. You cannot change a lie into the truth. It should in reality be called Baal-mass, Nimrod-mass, Tammuz-mass, Mithras-mass, or Mary-mass. Christ-mass is a lie. Why use a lie as a good time for a fundamental truth (the incarnation) of the Christian faith?
4. “I’m Using Christmas to Witness for Christ, Just Like the Apostle Paul Did” — Some say that all they are doing is taking the “truth” from Christmas (i.e., the incarnation of Christ) and “cultivating” it as the Apostle Paul did (Acts 17/Mars Hill), taking the opportunity of the season to witness to a lost world. This would be fine if these Christians were actually doing only as Paul did. Paul, in addressing the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill, proclaimed to them that their “unknown god” to whom they had erected an altar, was none other than “the God who made the world and all the things therein.” Paul was not intimidated by the pagan surroundings and symbolisms, nor did he berate the Greeks for their error, but merely showed them the truth of the gospel of Christ.
But do Christians really use the “opportunity presented by the season” in the same way as Paul used the opportunity of the pagan altar? Do Christians personally stand in front of their hometown public displays of Xmas (Nativity scenes, etc.) and preach the gospel? To paraphrase Paul, do they say: “Men of Indianapolis, I see that in every way you are very religious; what you worship as something unknown, I am going to proclaim to you”? Do they come out of the public schools, where they have just attended their children’s Xmas programs, and preach to the attendees about the true God who has been grossly misrepresented in the program they have just witnessed?
Hardly. Even to most of those who understand the true origin of Xmas, this “unique time of year” means inviting unbelievers into their homes to gather around the Xmas tree, to enjoy the beauty of the wreaths, absorb the heat from the Yule log, etc., reasoning that they are only using the pagan forms and the pagan festival season as an opportunity to witness. If Paul meant this in Acts 17, he would have met the people in the Athenian temple or in his or their homes, gathering around their idols that he had Christianized and was now using as a part of his worship. Most of the people who decorate their homes and churches with Xmas trees, holly wreaths, Nativity scenes, etc., all supposedly to be used as “opportunities” via “Xmas coffees,” neighborhood “grab bag” gift exchanges, Xmas concerts, etc., are thoroughly convinced that they’re doing God a service. And since they are not involved in the crass secular “commercialization” that the world revels in, but have instead “put Christ back in Xmas” (so to speak), they reason that all is Biblical and pleasing to God.
5. “It Doesn’t Mean Anything to Me” — Many Christians who routinely make a habit of picking-and-choosing which Biblical commands they will or will not obey, have likewise carried this practice over into a justification for celebrating Christmas. They claim, “but the Christmas tree, mistletoe, Santa Claus, etc., don’t mean anything pagan to me, so I’ll exercise my Christian liberty and partake in all of it.” Obviously, if one were to take such a cavalier approach to the physical world (i.e., “I can drink rat poison because I choose not to regard it as poison”), it would likely lead to a quick physical death. Why, then, do Christians think they can avoid spiritual harm by ignoring God’s spiritual warnings?
6. “The ‘Connection’ Has Been Broken” — There are those who clearly recognize the pagan nature of the various Christmas worship forms and practices. Nevertheless, many of these Christians claim that because of the long passage of time from their pagan inception to the present (6,000 years?), the “connection” to paganism has been sufficiently diminished to allow the adoption of these forms and practices into our Christian worship and celebration. While it may be true that most symbols have lost their original demonic meaning and significance in a modern society, it is strangely bizarre and ironic that Christendom seeks to commemorate Christ’s birth with the faded symbols of Satan. And even though some of God’s people may be naive and ignorant about the source of these things, surely God is not. Can such things please Him? And think about this — if it were possible to “disconnect” current practices from their pagan/occultic roots, why does Scripture not provide us any guidelines as to:
(a) how much time is necessary for the “neutralization”/disassociation process to occur; and (b) which of the hundreds of ancient pagan rites would then be acceptable for adaptation into Christian worship (since some are obviously much more pagan/occultic than others)?
7. “There Are Hundreds of Other Items of Daily Life that Have a Pagan Origin” — It is said, “Such things as the wedding ring, certain clothing customs, the modern division of time into hours and minutes, the names of the days of the week, etc., all have pagan connections in their origins, so isn’t it a contradiction on your part to say that their meanings have sufficiently changed while Christmas’s meanings have not?” But we are not saying that their meanings have changed. The question is one of using things of pagan origin in our worship of Christ. So we would ask the question back, “Which of these pagan items do we focus on to celebrate the birth of Christ? Or which of these is ‘Christianized’ and brought into our weekly worship of, or our daily devotion to Christ, as you do with the pagan forms and traditions of Xmas?” The origin and meaning of a custom, tradition, or form does not take on significance unless it is somehow specifically incorporated into, or lined up with, our worship. As we have already detailed in the section on Christian liberty (Section IV.B.), these rings, clothing customs, etc. would be merely the byproducts of paganism, not paganism itself, and they have developed no religious connotations or associations of their own, as have the Xmas customs and traditions.
8. “Baptism (and Circumcision) Have Pagan Origins and God Still Gave Their Use in Scripture, So What’s Wrong With Using the Pagan Forms of Christmas?” — This argument is frequently made by pastors who say that to be consistent, those who would have us forbid the forms, symbols, and traditions of Christmas should also be calling for us to abandon believer’s baptism; i.e., shouldn’t the would-be banners of Christmas be saying, “Since the ancient mystery religions practiced forms of baptism, therefore baptism is a pagan custom and should be outlawed for the believer in Christ”? This is a strange argument for anyone to make, particularly a theologian (and, in our opinion, reveals a low view of Scriptural admonitions). If baptism were absent from the Bible, as using pagan forms and traditions to celebrate or commemorate the birth of Christ are totally absent, there would then be no Biblical justification for baptism. But God has not commanded us to celebrate or commemorate Christ’s birth in any way. He has commanded us to baptize (Matt. 28:19).
E. Abstain From the Observance of Christmas — What, then, ought to be the Christian’s response to this and other pagan and Roman inventions? It cannot be denied that they are pagan, pure and simple, from beginning to end. God gives us specific instructions in His Holy Word: Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen … (Jer. 10:2). These words are perfectly clear. What rational options do we have as Bible believing Christians?
VI. Conclusion
The very popularity of Christmas should cause the Christian to question it. Anyone and everyone can celebrate Christmas without question — outright pagans, nominal Christians, and even Buddhists and Hindus. If, in reality, December 25th were a date set by God to remember the birth of Jesus, there is no doubt that the world would have nothing to do with it. After all, God has commanded one day in seven — the Lord’s Day — to worship Him. Does the world observe it? Of course not. As expected, the world loves Christmas, but hates the Lord Jesus Christ (John 15:18, 23-25). It shuns anything pertaining to true religion. Shouldn’t the Christian be just a little suspicious of a celebration in which the whole sinful world can join without qualms?
One way to test the Scripturalness of our practices is to reflect on what we would expect missionaries to teach new converts in a foreign culture. We assume that they would use the Bible as their guidebook. If they could start new local churches without importing American culture encumbered with Roman Catholicism, liberal Protestantism, and crass commercialism, wouldn’t it be wonderful? Missionaries who have urged new converts to forsake all pagan superstitious relics have later been questioned about the apparent inconsistency of their own American Christmas customs. Nationals perceived them as idolatrous even though the missionaries were oblivious to that possibility!
When Christmas is exposed for what it really is, this angers people. It angers Evangelical Protestant people! And there is reason why it does so. When the pagan celebration of Christmas is rooted up, and rejected, then what has become a Protestant tradition is, in effect, being rejected! And that is why people become angry. It began as a Roman Catholic holy day, and then it became a Protestant holy day. And if anyone dares show it up for what it really is, they face the wrath of the Protestant religious machine. And these days, that can be very ugly.
Christmas is a thoroughly pagan holiday — in its origin, in its trappings, and in all its traditions. Perhaps we should contemplate the words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, delivered in a Lord’s Day sermon on December 24, 1871:
“We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it, whether it be said or sung in Latin or in English; and secondly, because we find no Scriptural warrant whatever for obsobserving any day as the birthday of the Saviour; and consequently, its observance is a superstition, because [it's] not of divine authority. Superstition has fixed most positively the day of our Saviour’s birth, although there is no possibility of discovering when it occurred. …
“It was not till the middle of the third century that any part of the church celebrated the nativity of our Lord; and it was not till very long after the Western church had set the example, that the Eastern adopted it. Because the day is not known, therefore superstition has fixed it; … Where is the method in the madness of the superstitious? Probably the fact is that the holy days were arranged to fit in with the heathen festivals. … We venture to assert that if there be any day in the year of which we may be pretty sure that it was notthe day on which the Saviour was born, it is the twenty-fifth of December. … regarding not the day, let us, nevertheless, give God thanks for the gift of His dear Son.”
And from Dr. H.A. Ironside’s Lectures on the Book of Revelation (1920: p. 301):
“It is a lamentable fact that Babylon’s principles and practices are rapidly but surely pervading the churches that escaped from Rome at the time of the Reformation. We may see evidences of it in the wide use of high-sounding ecclesiastical titles, once unknown in the reformed churches, in the revival of holy days and church feasts such as Lent, Good Friday, Easter, and Christ’s Mass, or, as it is generally written, Christmas. … some of these festivals … when they are turned into church festivals, they certainly come under the condemnation of Galatians 4:9-11, where the Holy Spirit warns against the observance of days and months and times and seasons. All of them, and many more that might be added, are Babylonish in their origin, and were at one time linked with the Ashtoreth and Tammuz mystery-worship. It is through Rome that they have come down to us; and we do well to remember that Babylon is a mother, with daughters who are likely to partake of their mother’s characteristics …”
And, finally, from Alexander Hislop’s 1916 classic, The Two Babylons: Or the Papal Worship:
“Upright men strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostasy went on, till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under Pagan superstition. That Christmas is a Pagan festival is beyond all doubt. The time of the year and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin.”
We can summarize by saying that nowhere in Scripture are we commanded to commemorate the birth of our Lord, and God the Father evidently deemed it unwise to make the date known. Hence, it will always remain unknown and is not to be ceremoniously remembered and celebrated. (In fact, as pointed out in the Ironside quote above, God has warned us about getting entangled with any special days [Gal. 4:10]). Notice though, that we are commanded to remember Him in His death (but no special day was specified for this either):
“Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; this DO in remembrance of Me
To commemorate His death is Scriptural. Any day of the year will do. To commemorate His birth is non-Scriptural, even extra-Scriptural (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:19), whether one chooses December 25th or any other day.
If God had desired us to remember the day of Christ’s birth, He could have left us the precise date. But if He had, He would have vindicated every astrologer in the past 2,000 years. In occult circles, the anniversary of a person’s birth is the most important metaphysical day of the year. The Bible recognizes no such significance. It is intriguing that there are only two birthday celebrations recorded in the entire Bible and they were both those of ungodly kings — and both resulted in an execution (Gen. 40:16-22 and Matt. 14:6-10/Mark 6:21-27)!
The Apostle Paul says: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross [not the manger] of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. 6:14). By itself, we find no salvation in the birth of the Lord Jesus, for salvation was only made possible through His death (i.e., His shed blood) and resurrection. Our focus should be on the cross and our ascended Savior, not in a cradle.
Those who love Jesus should certainly rejoice that He was born and lived amongst us as a man. But if we truly want to glorify Him and bear testimony of who He is, we must stop marrying that blessed gift with the debauchery of paganism. If we want to honor His birth, let it be done as He would have done it: year-round unselfishly serving our fellow man as an unending act of love for our God. Let us put away all of the mixture of pagan customs and take up His mantle and His pure worship, and show the confused world that there is a difference.
BIBLIOGRAPHY/SOURCES
1.   Assemblies of Yahweh. The Case Against Christmas. Sacred Name Broadcaster, Bethel, PA,23 pp.
2.   Becker, R.F. The Truth About Christmas. Chapel Library, Venice, FL, 36 pp.
3.   Blanton, Raymond. The Christmas Lie. Highways & Hedges Tracts, Liberty, SC, 13 pp.
4.   Buday, George. The History of the Christmas Card. Putman Pub., New York, 1954, 304 pp.
5.   Dager, Albert James. “The Origins of Christmas Traditions,” Media Spotlight Special Report Redmond, WA, 1985, 2 pp.
6.   Dickey, D.J. & Shetler, Earl. “Should A Christian Celebrate Christmas?” Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Vernonia, OR, 10/89: three-part sermon series — each on a 90-minute audio cassette tape.
7.   Dossey, Donald. Holiday Folklore, Phobias and Fun: Mythical Origins, Scientific Treatments & Superstitious “Cures.” Outcomes Unltd. Press, Asheville, NC, 1995 (paper ed.), 232 pp.
8.   Elwell, Walter A. (Ed.). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1984, pp. 218-221.
9.   Halff, Charles. The Truth About Christmas. The Christian-Jew Foundation, San Antonio, TX, 13 pp.
10. Halff, Charles. “Is Christmas a Jewish Holiday?” Message Of The Christian Jew. November-December 1993, pp. cover, 1,2 & 7.
11. Helgerson, John C. Considering the Christmas Issue. The Church of the Open Bible, Burlington, MA, 12/31/90, 12 pp.
12. Hislop, Alexander. The Two Babylons: Or The Papal Worship. Loizeaux Bros., Neptune, NJ, 1959:Second Edition, 330 pp.
13. Kohler, John. Our Baptist Heritage. Heritage Baptist Church, Salem, IN, Vol. 2, No. 3, 11/92, 8 pp.
14. McCurry, Robert. The God Man Has Made. Heritage Press, Sharpsburg, GA, 8 pp.
15.  Nissenbaum, Stephen. The Battle for Christmas. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1997, 381 pp.
16. Pink, A.W. Xmas . Chapel Library, Venice, FL, 6 pp.
17. Schneider, Michael. Is Christmas Christian? Chapel Library, Venice, FL, 15 pp.
18. Spurlin, Ed. Where Is The Christ In Christmas. Voice in the Wilderness, Milford, NH, 11/92, 8 pp.
19. Spurgeon, C.H. “Joy Born At Bethlehem,” A Sermon: Delivered on Lord’s Day Morning, December 24th, 1871. Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, pp. 697-698.
20. Unknown. My Lord Has Not Told Me To Do It: The Christian and “Christmas. ” Chapel Library, Venice, FL, 4 pp.
21. Unknown. 10 Reasons Why Christmas Is Unscriptural. Chapel Library, Venice, FL, 8 pp.
22. (Vine, W.E.), Gospel Tract Publications. The Collected Writings of W.E. Vine, Volume 5. Glasgow, Scotland, 1986, pp. 436-439.
23. Willcock, Shaun. The Pagan Festivals of Christmas and Easter. Bible Based Ministries, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 1992, 76 pp.
24. Wilson, Greg. Let’s Keep Christ Out of Xmas. Landmark Independent Baptist Church, Homestead, FL, 4 pp.
Biblical Discernment Ministries – Revised 11/2002
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/xmas/celeb.htm [www.rapidnet.com]
Posted in Daily Journal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Last Pilgrims

Wanted to share this new book that is coming out soon. A book written by the author of Surviving Off -Off Grid, Michael Bunker.

The economy has finally collapsed and the world plummets into turmoil. 20 years later the world is a different place. Turn back time and you will have a medieval style setting.  Come and share the journey with the Vallenses , a plain people who survive as a community of believers, many trials and temptations. Get to know some of  the characters that become true heroes and the ones that win your heart. A battle between good and evil continues in a New world order that takes place in Texas.

Learn real survival skills and possibly some real life situations in this exciting futuristic drama. You will find yourselves cheering for the heroes has they fight for freedom and safety for the Vallenses against the Aztlan ( a wicked evil king) , who seeks to bring whats left of the world into a one world religion.

You can read the first 24 chapters for free at www.thelastpilgrims.com If you like Jericho you will love this epic novel.

Now watch this amazing book trailer and catch a glimpse of our possible soon to be reality!

For those that have ears to hear and eyes to see the truth

Debylin

Posted in Daily Journal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What I have been thinking about lately

A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY OF WITNESSING TO THE WORLD
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981)

 

 

 The Apostle reminds us that at a time of apostasy, at a time of gross godlessness and irreligion, when the very foundations are shaking, one of the most striking manifestations of the lawlessness is “disobedient to parents” (2Ti 3:2)…When will the civil authorities learn and realize that there is an indissoluble connection between godlessness and a lack of morality and decent behav-ior?…The tragedy is that the civil authorities—irrespective of which political party is in power—all seem to be governed by modern psychology rather than by the Scriptures. They all are convinced that they can deal with unrighteousness directly, in and by itself. But that is impossible. Unrighteousness is always the result of ungodliness, and the only hope of getting back any measure of righteousness into life is to have a revival of godliness  That is precisely what the Apostle is saying to the Ephesians and to ourselves (Eph 6:1-4). The best and the most moral periods in the history of this country, and every other country, have always been those periods that have followed mighty religious awakenings. This problem of lawlessness and lack of disci-pline, the problem of children and of youth, was just not present fifty years ago as it is today. Why? Because the great tradition of the Evangelical Awakening of the 18th century was still operating. But as that has gone, these terrible moral and social problems are coming back, as the Apostle teaches us, and as they have always come back throughout the running centuries. Present conditions therefore demand  that we should look at the Apostle’s statement. I believe that Christian parents and children, Christian families, have a unique opportunity of witnessing to the world at this present time by just being different. We can be true evangelists by showing this discipline, this law and order, this true relationship between parents and children. We may be the means under God’s hand of bringing many to a knowledge of the Truth. Let us therefore think of it in that way.

From life in the Spirit in Marriage,Home&Work:An Expostion  Of Ephesians 5:18 to 6:9 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Daily Journal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Of the Respective Duties of Husband and Wife

 

 

 

A Body of PRACTICAL Divinity by John Gill

 

Having considered Public Worship in all its branches, I now proceed to treat of Private Worship; by which I mean, not merely the private teachings and instructions of a master of a family, to those who are under his care; nor private conferences of the saints, by which they may edify one another; nor private reading of the scriptures, which are to be searched whether the things heard in the ministry of the word are true, and which are to be read in the family for instruction; nor private prayer, in the closet or in the family; nor private singing the praises of God, which may be performed in like manner: which are all branches of private worship, and have been touched on in the preceding Book. But what I mean by private worship, and intend to treat of, are the personal, relative, domestic, and civil duties incumbent on particular persons, in their different relations to one another; and so every other duty and good work: which all come under the name of “cultus”, or “worship”; being all to be performed with a respect to God, under his authority, according to his will and command, and in obedience to it, and with a view to his glory. In this manner all relative and mutual duties are to be performed; the subjection of wives to their husbands is to be made as “unto the Lord”, the Head of the man, and in obedience to him; and husbands are to love their wives, “as Christ loved the church”, according to his pattern and example, and as influenced by his love (Eph. 5:21, 29). Children are to obey their parents “in the Lord”, as being what he requires, and has encouraged by his promise; and parents, as an act of religion, are to bring up their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:1, 4). Servants are to be obedient to their masters, “as unto the Lord”, as his servants, and “doing the will of God from the heart”; and “with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, fearing God”. And masters are to do their duty to their servants; “Knowing that they also have a master in heaven”, to whom they are accountable, (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-24, 4:1) and subjects are to obey magistrates, as being the “powers ordained of God”, and magistracy an ordinance of God; and magistrates are to protect their subjects, and to be “terrors, not to good works”, but for the encouragement and praise of them, and for the discouragement and punishment of those that are evil (Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Peter 2:13, 14). God has a concern in all these, and men have a concern with him in them. These I shall briefly treat of in their order; and begin with the respective duties of husband and wife, which are summed up in these two general comprehensive ones; “love” on the one part, and “reverence” on the other, (Eph. 5:33) and these arise from a conjugal union and marriage relation between the said parties; marriage is an union of male and female, of one man and of one woman in lawful wedlock, agreeable to the original creation of man, (Gen. 1:27; Mal. 2:15) and agreeable to the course of Providence, which has been kept to ever since in all ages and nations; there being continually nearly the same number of males and females born into the world, at most as thirteen to twelve, or fourteen to thirteen; the surplus on the side of the males, being a provision by the wise Orderer of all things for a supply for war, for the seas, &c. and by this conjugal union, male and female, become one, even one flesh, (Gen. 2:24; Matthew 19:6) which union is therefore very near and strict, and, indeed, indissoluble but by death, excepting in one case, unfaithfulness in the one to the other, by adultery or fornication, (Rom. 7:2; Matthew 5:32) and this state is to be entered into with mutual consent; indeed, with the consent of all parties who have a concern in it; with the consent of parents and guardians, under whose care single persons may be; and especially with their own consent, for none are to be forced into it against their wills; no, not by their superiors; it must be their own voluntary act and deed: and being thus entered into, it is a very honourable state; “Marriage is honourable in all”, (Heb. 13:4) it being an institution of God, and that of God in paradise; by whom our first parents were directed to it, in a state of purity and innocence; God made the woman for an help meet, and brought her to the man, proposed her to him, whom he approved and accepted of, and she became his wife, (Gen. 2:18, 22-24) it was the Lord’s act and deed, and to him Christ ascribes the act of marriage (Matthew 19:6). Christ honoured it by his presence, and at such a solemnity wrought his first miracle, and manifested forth the glory of his Deity, (John 2:1, 2, 11) and what makes this state yet more honourable is, that the marriage of Adam and Eve was a type and emblem of the conjugal union of Christ and the church, (Eph. 5:32) Adam was a figure or type of Christ, and, among other things, in his marriage; and Eve, the mother of all living, was a type of the church; Adam was first formed, and then Eve; Christ was before the church, and, indeed, before all things; Eve was formed from Adam, from a rib taken out of his side; the church has her original from Christ, and her subsistence by him; all her grace, blessings, and happiness, are from him; her justification and sanctification are from him, signified by the blood and water which sprung from his pierced side. Eve was brought by the Lord to Adam, not against her will, but with it, and by him presented as a proper match for him, which he approved and accepted of; and the church was brought to Christ, and given to him by his Father, to be his spouse and bride, whom he liked, accepted of, and betrothed to himself; and her consent is obtained by the drawings and influences of his Father’s grace: and though this is no direct proof of, yet it has a favourable aspect upon, and may serve to illustrate the “supralapsarian” scheme; that Christ had an interest in his church, and she in him, and was espoused unto him before she fell in Adam; this marriage transaction between Adam and Eve being before the fall. Moreover, marriage is honourable with respect to the ends of it; which even before the fall, and supposing Adam had stood, hereby he would have had an help meet; and the first law of creation would have been carried into execution, increase and multiply; a godly seed, a legitimate offspring would have sprung from hence; families formed and built up, and the world peopled with inhabitants; and since the fall the ends and uses of it are to preserve chastity, to prevent incontinence, and to avoid fornication; as well as to answer the other ends: and particularly this state appears honourable: when the duties of it are observed by both parties; as,

1. First, love on the part of the husband. “Husbands love your wives”, Ephesians 5:25 instances of which are in Isaac, Jacob, Elkanah, and others (Gen. 24:67, 29:18, 20; 1 Sam. 1:5). The nature and manner of showing it, and the reasons of it, might be observed.

1a. First, the nature of it.

1a1. It is superior to any shown to any other creature whatever; as to the neighbour, who, though to be loved by a man as himself, yet a man’s wife is himself, and loving her is loving himself, the other part of himself, (Eph. 5:28) parents are to be loved, but a wife before them; for a man is to leave father and mother, and to cleave to his wife, (Gen. 2:24) children are to be loved, but the wife before them; as well as the husband by the wife; “Am not I better to thee than ten sons?” (1 Sam. 1:8) and Christ is to be loved before any relations (Matthew 10:37; Luke 14:26).

1a2. It should be a love of complacency and delight, taking pleasure and delight in her person, company, and conversation, (Prov. 5:18, 19; Eccl. 9:9) as is the love of Christ to the church, who is his Hephzibah, in whom is all his delight.

1a3. Should be chaste and single, as the love of Christ is, (Song 6:9) and for this reason a man should not have more wives than one, whereby his love would be divided or alienated, and hate the one and love the other, as is commonly the case; and therefore the law provided for the firstborn, of whichsoever it might be (De 21:15, 17; see 1 Cor. 7:2).

1a4. It should be mutual; the wife is to love the husband, as the husband the wife, (Titus 2:4) and generally her love is the most strong and affectionate, (2 Sam. 1:26) and the reason why the husband is more frequently exhorted to it, it may be, is because most wanting in the performance of it.

1b. Secondly, the manner, or how, and in what way it is to be expressed; not in words only, but in deed and in truth; by real facts, which speak louder than words.

1b1. In making all proper provision for her temporal good, signified by “nourishing” and “cherishing” her, (Eph. 5:29) which include food and raiment, and all the necessaries of life; he is to “provide things honest”, decent, convenient, and suitable, to his rank, state, condition, circumstances, and abilities; and he that “provideth not for his own”, especially for his own wife, his own children and family, “is worse than an infidel” (Rom. 12:17; 1 Tim. 5:3).

1b2. In protecting her from all abuses and inquiries; as she is the weaker vessel, she is to be taken under his wing and shelter; he is to be a covering to her, as Abraham was to Sarah; which may be signified by the ceremony used at marriage, or by which that act is expressed, a man’s spreading his skirt over the woman, (Gen. 20:16; Ruth 3:9) he is to expose himself to danger, and even risk his life in her defence, and for her rescue (1 Sam. 30:5, 18).

1b3. In doing everything that may contribute to her pleasure, peace, comfort, and happiness; “he that is married” is to care “how he may please his wife”; nor does the apostle blame him for it; but rather commends him for it, or recommends it unto him (1 Cor. 7:33). “Hatred stirreth up strifes”, contentions, quarrels, the consequence of which is confusion, and every evil work; “but love covereth all sins”, conceals faults, and hides failings and infirmities (Prov. 10:12).

1b4. In seeking her spiritual welfare; her conversion, if unconverted, and her spiritual peace, comfort, and edification, she being an heir with him of the grace of life; by joining with her in all religions exercises; in family worship, in reading, in prayer, in praise, in Christian conference and conversation; by instructing her in everything relating to doctrine, duty, and church discipline; in answer to questions she may and has a right to ask him at home (1 Cor. 14:35). To all which are opposed hatred and bitterness; “Husbands love your wives, and be not bitter against them”; not giving bitter language, threatening words, sour looks, and especially bitter blows; which is cruel, churlish, barbarous, and brutish, unbecoming the man and the Christian.

1c. Thirdly, the reasons or arguments enforcing this duty of the love of a man to his wife, are such as follow.

1c1. The nearness between them, she is his own flesh; and “no man ever yet hated his own flesh”, which would be monstrously unnatural; she is “himself”, the other part of himself, and to be loved as his own body, which to love is a principle[1] in nature (Eph. 5:28, 29, 33).

1c2. The help, advantage, and profit he receives by her; she is provided as an help meet for him, and becomes such to him in the affairs of the family, (Gen. 2:18) she is his companion, and which is used as a reason why he should not deal treacherously with the wife of his youth, (Mal. 2:14) she is his companion in prosperity and adversity; shares with him in his cares and troubles, in his joys and sorrows; sympathizes with him in all conditions, weeps when he weeps, and rejoices when he rejoices; she is a partner with him in the blessings of grace now, and will be a partner with him in eternal glory.

1c3. The glory and honour she is unto him; “The woman is the glory of the man”, in whom are seen his power and authority, (1 Cor. 11:7) one who is loving and chaste to him, and is careful of her family affairs, does him honour, and is a credit and crown to him, and makes him respectable among men; his heart safely trusts in her, and through her conduct he is known and respected “in the gates” (Prov. 12:4, 31:10, 11, 23).

1c4. The strongest and most forcible argument of all to a good man, is the love of Christ to his church; which is the pattern and exemplar of a man’s love to his wife and most strongly enforces it, (Eph. 5:25-28).

2. Secondly, the duties on the part of the wife, are reverence, subjection, obedience, &c.

2a. Reverence; and “let the wife see that she reverence her husband”, (Eph. 5:33) which reverence is both internal and external; she ought to think well, and even highly of him, and not despise him in her heart, as Michael, Saul’s daughter, did David her husband, (2 Sam. 6:16) and she should speak of him and to him in a respectable manner, as Sarah did to Abraham, calling him Lord (1 Peter 3:6; Gen. 18:12).

2b. Subjection and submission to him; “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands”, not to others; “as unto the Lord”, the Lord Christ, the head of every man, and so of the church; “and as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything”; that is, in things relating to family affairs; not in anything that is contrary to the laws of God and Christ; for God is to be obeyed rather than men, than any man, than husbands themselves, (Eph. 5:22, 24) and this subjection and submission is not a servile one; not like that of servants to their masters, or of handmaids to mistresses, and much less like that of slaves to tyrants, or who have taken them and hold them captives; but as the body, and members of it, are subject to the head, by which they are governed, guided, and directed to what is for their good; and that in a wise, tender, and gentle manner.

2c. Obedience. the apostle directs, that wives be “obedient to their own husbands”, (Titus 2:5) Sarah is an example of this; and an instance we have of her immediate and quick obedience to the orders of Abraham, (1 Peter 3:6; Gen. 18:6).

2d. Assistance and help in family affairs, agreeable to the original end of her creation; guiding the house with discretion, keeping her children and servants in good order and decorum; abiding at home, and managing all domestic business with wisdom and prudence (1 Tim. 2:14; Titus 2:5).

2e. Assuming no authority over her husband, as not in ecclesiastical, so not in domestic matters; seeking to please him in all things, doing nothing without his will and consent, and never contrary to it; not intermeddling with his worldly business and concerns, but leaving them to him (1 Tim. 5:11, 12; 1 Cor. 7:34).

2f. Continuance with him in every state and circumstance of life; going with him wherever God in his providence, and his business in life call him; as Sarah with Abraham in the land of promise, in Egypt, and elsewhere; she should do as Ruth proposed to Naomi (Ruth 1:16). There are reasons why the wife should be found in the performance of these duties. Some,

2f1. Taken from her creation, time, manner, and end of it; Adam was formed first, and then Eve; and therefore in point of time had the superiority; the man was made not of and for the woman; but the woman was made of and for the man, and to, be an help meet and assistant to him (1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:8, 9; Gen. 2:18).

2f2. From the consideration of the fall, and her concern in it; “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression”, at least first, and the means of drawing her husband into it; and therefore it is part of the sentence denounced upon her for her transgression, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (1 Tim. 2:14; Gen. 3:16).

2f3. From the man being the head of the woman; and therefore she should be in subjection to him as such (1 Cor. 11:3 Eph. 5:23).

2f4. From her being the weaker vessel, and therefore standing in need of his shelter and protection.

2f5. From her own credit and honour concerned herein; as it would be to her discredit and dishonour to behave irreverently, and to be disobedient; to submit to him, “as is fit the Lord”, is decent and becoming, (Col. 3:18) and so to be is ornamental to women, and the best ornament they can deck themselves with; “Being in subjection to their own husbands” (1 Peter 3:3-5).

2f6. The chief argument of all is taken from the subjection of the church to Christ, (Eph 5:22, 24). In short, both parties should consult each other’s pleasure, peace, comfort, and happiness, and especially the glory of God; that his word, ways, and worship, may not be reproached and evil spoken of through any conduct of theirs (Titus 2:5).

Posted in Daily Journal | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Public Undressing of America

“…and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.”—2 Samuel 11:2

Swimwear in American culture does not possess a dark and mysterious origin buried somewhere in the annals offashion antiquity. A trip to the public library and several hours of research will unfold a provocative and revealing story. The rise and progress of swimwear in our culture reveals not only a great deal of flesh, but also a great deal about our society. Kidwell and Steele observe that “the history of swimwear is connected to our changing perceptions of modesty and immodesty. Throughout its history, the swimsuit has typically been the most revealing form of sportswear and it has forced an uneasy alliance between modesty and sexual display.”

Several works of fashion history specifically chronicle this “uneasy alliance.” I have quoted them freely so that I will not be accused of “inventing” this story to make my point. These books are not written from a Christian perspective. Hardly. They did not seep out of the fevered brain of some mean-spirited, fundamentalist preacher. And this is what makes them valuable: they don’t  tell the story from the viewpoint of Christian modesty. My desire is to let them speak in their own words, for it is their  testimony that the swimsuit was the primary player in the undressing of America. In fact, the histories of swimwear and fashion generally present the story of how America undressed as a good  one, a liberating one. I find it a sad one. Bathing costumes can be traced to around 350 B.C. in Greece and later to Rome where bathing and swimming reached the peak of their popularity. A mural found in Sicily’s Piazza Armerina pictures young maidens wearing scanty garments that are dead ringers for modern bikinis. However, water sports went out of style after the fall of the Empire and did not reappear until the early 1700s in French and English spas. The attire was a toga-like garment for both men and women. Later in the early 1800s, going to the beach for recreation began to catch on in America; but all the water activities were strictly segregated with each sex either on its own secluded stretch of beach or alternating in springs or pools at different hours. When fashionable sea resorts became popular, so did swimming and sunbathing. However, aside from these toga-like garments, no real prototypes for bathing attire seem to have existed throughout history. Hence, the rise in popularity of swimming and sunbathing presented a new challenge to the world of fashion. And what was this new challenge? First was the new situation of men and women frolicking together in mixed water sports. Prior to this men and women swam nude or with little on in segregated groups. Though there have been some exceptions to this, segregation was the general practice. Into this new atmosphere of men and women together in the water, a great need for a new garment arose. This garment would have to be functional in a way that streetwear could not be. Street clothes became heavy when saturated with water and even dangerous. However, because the new garment had to be less bulky to allow greater freedom of movement, it became more and more abbreviated for both sexes. This truly was something new: more and more men and women together with less and less on their bodies. Here lay the heart of the challenge: with men and women freely swimming and playing together in the water, there had to be a garment that would liberate the body for movement. Yet woven into the fabric of our society were the vestiges of a Biblically-influenced modesty. The Christian perspective emanated from the Scriptural account that God gave garments to cover the body, but the demand for greater body movement required this new garment to uncover the body. Fashion designers understood that this seaworthy apparel would have to conceal, yet they well knew that to give its wearers liberty of movement, it would by its very nature reveal. “This amphibious costume would have to be something of a sartorial paradox, a form of undress that functioned as a symbol of dress.” Once men and women were no longer segregated in their seaside activities, an inevitable aquatic striptease began. The remaining attempts to retain some trace of modesty and yet liberate the arms and

 Claudia Brush Kidwell and Valerie Steele, Men and Women: Dressing the Part , (Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1989), 118.Lena Lencek and Gideon Bosker, Making Waves: Swimsuits and the Undressing of America (San Francisco, California: Chronicle Books, 1989), 11.

legs explains why early swimwear had the awkward and bulky appearance that our culture presently finds so amusing. Nevertheless, we must not miss this point: these early, funny looking swimsuits were, at least for a time, an attempt to continue the time honored, Christian ideal of covering the body. Swimwear designers wrestled with a perplexing problem: swimwear had to function in the waves and on the beach, from the dressing room to the water’s edge. The standards of modesty at that time clearly demanded concealmen, yet functionality in the water demanded abbreviation . And given the fact that the fashion industry was not generally guided by God’s Word, nothing but the old-fashioned view of modesty stood in the way of exposing more and more of the body. What the evidence reveals and what we must bear in mind is that the streamlining and deletions in swimwear were clearly by design Here we must pause and reflect on this fact: what was taking place on the beach was the beginning in modern times of the violent clash between the Holy God as the designer of clothes and sinful men as the designer of clothes. Fashion designers did not view swimwear as simply functional garments with a specific use like overalls. They envisioned their creations as highly fashionable garments, and therefore designed them both to reveal  and arouse . What they clearly understood is that this new aquatic garment was merely a symbol of dress. This is why swimwear ultimately evolved into a form of nakedness thinly disguised as dress. Moreover, they were aware that they were undressing the American public and constantly challenged the legal limits of public nakedness. I challenge you, dear reader: read the books penned by the fashion industry; read their histories of the trade; you will discover that fashion’s guiding perspective is often sexual attraction, not the Word of God. And this is an underlying theme in this article: instead of being guided by God’s Word, the voice from heaven, American culture is driven by Fashion, the voice of fallen men. Here it will be instructive to examine the influence of Europe on our society, especially that of France. Although the American colonies were founded upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they gradually drifted away from God’s word and then from the holiness and modesty which the Gospel promotes. How did this happen? The 1800s proved to be a most turbulent time in our once Christian nation (I’m not implying that everyone was a Christian, for this certainly wasn’t the case. Nevertheless, the American colonies had inherited and were growing up in a world and life view that was generally Christian. This was clearly reflected in many of America’s laws.). During that period the cracks in the dam of our waning morality began to give way to the pressure of European style, philosophy, political thought, and theology. This phenomenon was not new: the great preachers John Owen and Thomas Brooks both chronicled a similar decline in England at an earlier period and roundlycondemned the corrupting influence of European fashion!

Hereunto of late have been added vanity in apparel, with foolish, light, lascivious modes and dressings therein, and an immodest boldness in behavior52  among men and women. These corruptions, which, being borrowed from the neighbour nation…have brought forth the fruit of vanity and pride in abundance. And it is the most manifest evidence of a degenerate people, when they are prone to naturalize the vices  of other nation among them… But you will say, What sins were there among the professing people in London…?

Ans. I answer, That there were these seven sins, among others, to be found amongst many of them…[1.]

First, There was among many professors of the gospel in London too great a conformity to the fashions of the world.

How many professing men in that great city were dressed up like fantastical buffoons,54  and womenlike Bartholomew-babies, to the dishonour of God, the shame of religion, the hardening of the wicked, the grieving of the weak, and the provoking of divine justice!…[Zephaniah 1:8] is a stinging and flaming check against all fashion-mongers, against all such as seem to have consulted with French, Italian, Persian, and all outlandish monsters, to advise them of all their several modes and fashions of vice, and that are so dexterous at following of them, that they are more complete in them than their pattern. Certainly, if ever such wantons be saved, it will be by fire. Strange apparel is part of the old man, that must be put off, if ever men or women intend to go to heaven…Cyrian and Augustine draw up this conclusion: that superfluous apparel is worse Owen’s original word is conversation John Owen, The Nature and Causes of Apostasy, in The Works of John Owen,  W. H. Goold ed. Vol. VII (Johnstone & Hunter 1850-53; reprint ed., Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust), 207.

Brooks’ original word was antics , which means buffoon or one that practices odd gesticulations. These were dolls sold at Bartholomew Fair

. They were flashy, bespangled dolls offered at the fair, which celebrated at the Feast of St. Bartholomew. A national and international event, it was a spectacular display of musicians, acrobats, freaks, wild animals, side-shows, and the like. than whoredom, because whoredom only corrupts chastity, but this corrupts nature…O sirs! What was morecommon among many professors in London than to be clothed in strange apparel, a la mode de France? Though the Word of God commands, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewingof your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God,”  the American fashion industry began to ape European fashion. Swimwear manufacturers knew exactly  the course they planned to follow, and it wasn’t the Word of God: “…in part thanks to the influence of the more daringly cut French swimsuits, the American bathing costume underwent a revolution. Until that time, bathing attire had been modeled on streetwear…by the 1890s, however, underwear began a relentless if slow migration outward that would come to a full, triumphal exposure in the bikini of the 1960s”It should be no surprise then for us to learn that “what the conceivers of the suit strove to suppress was the natural association between underwear and swimwear, a cogent and undeniable comparison. It was also true that the women’s swimwear industry in its early stages was closely affiliated with the bra and girdle industry, just as men’s wear for swimming was intimately, as it were, connected with the underwear business.” The reasons for this “suppression” should be obvious: under garments have a blatantly erotic appeal. And American culture, with its “decency” theory of clothing, was not prepared in those days for such a flagrant display of sensuality. Clearly the purpose underlying swimwear design was exposing human anatomy in a more sensual package. This could not be successfully achieved on the streets of the city. But in the name of recreation and especially sports, an amazing dichotomy of thought  began to permeate our society. At the turn of the century, what was naked and lewd in the city was suddenly perfectly justifiable and permissible at the beach. This should make the child of God think. This shift from streetwear to underwear as a model certainly can’t be defended as a move toward modesty. Moreover, in the name of sports, recreation, and following suit with European fashion, Americans began legitimizing public nakedness. As one account aptly puts it: “The history of the American swimsuit is the square-inch-by-square-inch story of how skin went public in modern times.” It’s the drama of how flesh, fabric, technology, and media have engaged the Christian view of modesty in a relentless tug of war down by the seaside. This struggle between concealment and display, fabric and skin, modesty and nakedness is a continuing story of how American society— including many Christians—has shed its clothes in public. Two questions, then, must be answered: first, why was skin not  public in America until modern times? The answer here is simple. Our culture in general sprang from a Biblical worldview that included covering  the body. The second question is what change in our society put skin on display? The evidence seems to be that Christian morality and its attending modesty, which had previously served as resistance to public nudity, simply caved in to growing public pressure.

The voice of God’s Word was slowly but surely drowned out by the voice of an increasingly secular media, the fashion industry, and public opinion. Consequently, our culture’s basis for modesty eroded, almost to the vanishing point. Let me put it another way: no one held a gun to America’s head and said, “Strip or die!” The fashion industry simply said, “This is what the fashionable wear”—and our culture eagerly disrobed. Furthermore, once swimming attire rid itself of the model and coverage of streetwear, a radical transformation took place. Human anatomy was cast in a bold, provocative new light: because the swimsuit became increasingly brief and tight, it became increasingly erotic. This controversy ignited the fires of discord and debate that raged throughout the early decades of the twentieth century. As the swimsuit shrank, the clamor and disputes increased. While every shifting inch of fabric set off another volley of contention, increasing exposure of more flesh successfully stripped away the resistance to public nudity. It is easy to grasp the reason for the intense heat of this pitched battle: the stakes were extremely  high. This single garment made it possible to expose and eroticize parts of human anatomy which had previously been concealed. The human body was on display in public in a way previously unthinkable in American culture.

Thomas Brooks, London’s Lamentations, in The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, A. B. Grosart ed. Vol. VI, (Edinburgh, Scotland: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), 51, 52. Romans 12:2.  Lencek and Bosker, Making Waves , 33.n  Richard Martin and Harold Koda, Splash! A History of Swimwear,  (New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc, 1990), 58. Lencek and Bosker, Making Waves , 91.

The conflict erupting over swimwear was not simply a matter of taste: the metamorphosis of the bathing suit forced our society to reassess its views of modesty. This was a culture war, a war of worldviews. As a people we shifted from the Biblical view of covering the body to an exhibitionist view of showing off the body. The sad outcome is that our society—including its churches—doffed its robe of Christian modesty and stood proud and naked on the beach. To illustrate this point, let’s chronicle the evolution of America’s public undressing during the 1900s: Women’s arms were exposed in the first decade. Though this may seem laughable to some in our day, this was a major shift in thought. Women’s arms and shoulders were usually covered in public. This change, however, was just the beginning.

The controversy of body concealment versus body display raged on into the 1920s as legs and backs were progressively bared. Cleavage appeared in the 1930s. In their headlong pursuit for more freedom and maximum exposure, swimwear designers jettisoned the overskirt which had been standard fare for most feminine swimming attire. Both men and women wanted to showcase their tan bodies, so the legal prohibitions which were designed to protect public modesty were regularly challenged and all but discarded. Public resistance barely whimpered, slid its clothes off, and joined the crowd.

A technological tour-de-force took place in the 1930s and 1940s, and a major shift in swimwear design followed. New fiber and fabrics allowed the body beneath to come out. These fabrics made it possible to expose more of the body’s curves. The body hidden underneath the bulky old suits of the past was now literally emerging

into the light of day. A two-piece suit first appeared in 1935 on the pages of fashion magazines. This bared a few inches of flesh between its two parts. Though some wore this daring item, it would not really become fashionable until the 1940s. During the 1940s and 1950s two-piece suits bared the midriff. Also popular was the maillot, which was designedwith holes and openings to reveal midriff and sides. The maillot focused on the hips and became tighter.

Once again, new fabrics made this possible. Elasticated knits accentuated the curves of the body in a way that was previously impossible. Now the body underneath could be amply exposed, emphasized, and exploited in breathtakingly skintight costumes, while its designers could declare that it was “covered.” The maillot inched ever lower on the bosom and crept higher on the leg. Most of the newest suits went strapless. Bared shoulders and skin-tight waistlines and bosoms filled the shoreline like high tide. During this period when swimming attire focused on the body’s curves, men with cameras focused on them too. Models smiled and bared themselves for the media, their bodies adorning virtually every kind of advertisement.

Young sirens in bathing suits became a standard item for American merchandising which marketed everything from automobiles to political campaigns. The navel was exposed in the 1960s and 1970s. Then in the 1970s high cuts revealed hips. Designers bared women’s thighs sometimes to the waist, which bedazzled the America public with yet another erogenous zone. This made the so-called “conservative” one-piece suit more erotic than ever. And with each new fashion season, the creators of swimwear shifted and manipulated the new fabrics to unveil yet another part of the body. Their garments virtually shouted at onlookers, “Look here! Now look there!” And in the 1980s and 1990s even more radical expressions like thongs revealed breasts and buttocks. The designer’s intentions quite obviously were to disrobe and showcase parts of the human anatomy which had never before been “up for grabs” in public. Their constant eroticizing and de-eroticizing portions of the body and their perpetual search for the next erogenous zone to expose screams design . A brief look at three of the swimsuit’s most famous designers should make this abundantly clear. Uninterested in his family’s business which specialized in making drop-seat underwear, Fred Cole went to Hollywood to become an actor. When this didn’t work out, he later joined the family business. Cole’s heart was apparently set on crafting swimwear, not long johns. His creative energies were animated by the conviction that a swimsuit was “not so much a garment to swim in but something to look beautiful in.” He “dreamed of spectacular women with the velvety eyes and shapely limbs of silent screen actresses. He envisioned them in dramatically cut bathing suits that transformed the body into a living theater of the Id…” Driven by this, he. designed his first suit with a “deeply scooped front and armholes, low-slung waist, and diminutive skirt aboveshort trunks.” The result? “A dizzying vision of sexuality.” Margit Fellegi, the”crazy Hungarian” from Chicago, regularly challenged the textile industry to create fabrics that would hug the body’s curves the way she visualized them. “Her particular genius lay in finding that unexpected approach to the body that made it at once disturbing and seductive…Whatever the device, there was always an element of shock in her suits.”Carol Schnurer, a plump and benign woman with graying hair and steel-rimmed glasses, “dedicated her life to persuading other women to take off as many clothes in public a possible.” In 1931, she designed, “the forerunnerof the two-piece suit. Her own showroom models were so horrified by the unprecedented exposure of bare midriff that they refused to put it on.” Surpassing all others in the fashion industry, swimwear designers have stunningly triumphed in changing public opinion regarding modesty. It is crystal clear that their creations are designed to expose as much human flesh to the public as possible. And yet, there remains in our society a few lingering twinges of bashfulness. As one historian notes, “Even today, when the body has become a marketable package, making a public appearancein a bathing suit can be a disquieting experience.” I must raise two questions here: l) Given that modern swimsuits were designed to promote public nakedness and remain the most revealing form of clothing, why do so many Christians wear them in mixed company andencourage their young people to do so? 2) Why do Christian ministers and leaders expose God’s young men and women to the disquieting experience of “greater body exposure” in the name of evangelizing them? As the above authors admit, there is a forced and uneasy alliance between modesty and sexual display. The Bible speaks of covering the body; the world promotes uncovering  the body. Should preachers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ be involved in promoting sexual display for which our young people would have been arrested sixty years ago? The reason that swimsuits can be “disquieting” is because they expose the bodies of those who wear them. Let’s face the truth—a bathing suit tells a more honest story about you than any other form of dress. Young women know that other young women and especially young men will really see whether they are full-busted or flat, what their legs and derrieres are shaped like, whether they have chunky or lean thighs, pretty skin, roundness, boxiness— it’s all out in the public in swimsuits. Swimwear by design is the classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. It was devised to offer nudity and  covering at the same time. If one wants to see a women with as few clothes on as legally possible, he need look no further than swimwear advertisements. Given the connection between the two, we shouldn’t be surprised that these are virtually indistinguishable from underwear advertisements. So if clothing can’t be dispensed with altogether, swimwear at least gives the appearance of nudity. That’s what it’s designed to be. When the new “Molded-fit” swimsuits were introduced in 1933, they were actually touted as the answer to “nude bathing.” An advertisement from then raved, “No other human device can even approximate that utter freedom, that perfection of fit, at rest or in motion, that airy but strictly legal sense of wearing nothing at all.” This was not written in the 60s nor did it appear in Playboy or Penthouse—it was Harper’s Bazaar in 1933!  What I hope the reader will see is that swimwear was intentionally a prime player in America’s not-so-subtle slide intopublic debauchery. For over 100 years, this single garment has served as the most important vehicle for the public undressing of America. Swimwear manufacturers have been primary players in “drawing the line in the sand” in the culture war between Christian modesty and nakedness. They have set the standards for what is exposed and what is concealed, while neither their standards nor their ethics are drawn from the Word of God. History clearly demonstrates that their vision has often collided violently with the laws of the land; but more importantly, it has also collided violently with the holiness of God. Sixty years ago, dressing this way was called “indecent exposure.” Today some pastors, Sunday School teachers, and Bible conference leaders call it “Christian liberty” and “a thing indifferent.” To believe that a garment designed to eroticize various parts of the body is a thing indifferent manifests the dichotomy of thought men-.tioned earlier. Here’s what the dichotomy produces: men and women who would never dream of walking out the front door in their undergarments will parade their nearly naked bodies publicly in swimwear. How many of you ladies would stand in your front yard in only your half-slip and bra? Have you considered that they probably cover more than what you wear to the beach? The dichotomy also produces people who sit in church on Sunday decrying public immorality, while remaining unaware that the garment they will wear to the next retreat would have landed them in jail for public nakedness a few decades ago! A woman wearing a so-called “modest” onepiece swim suit today would have been arrested  in 1922, as newspaper archives reveal. How did this happen to men and women whose bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit? Though there is today a resurgence of the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace and a renewed cry for holiness, somehow the swimsuit has managed to survive within the professing Christian (and even the Reformed) community. Not only has it survived, but it thrives  and is actually defended and dignified as a “liberty” for God’s people. This is perplexing. However, I shall offer a few suggestions in the chapters to come as to how this came about. Prior to that, however, we will consider the stage on which American Christians have performed their sanctified striptease. As we shall see next, it has truly emerged as a theater of the erotic.

 

VI. The Theater of Carnality

“I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?”—Job 31:1

God created beaches. They are a beautiful part of His creation. The splendor of the sand, waves, and sun reflect the glory of their Maker. Lovely as they are, however, they have become the sad theater in which a fierce battle for modesty was lost. During the latter years of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th, going to the beach nearly evolved into a religion for Americans. Between the media hype that constantly touted “healthy recreation” and the fashion industry’s brilliant and strategic success in presenting swimwear as “fashionable,” a mental dichotomy developed in the American mind that has not left us: nakedness which was unacceptable oncity streets quite literally became high fashion on the beach. The atmosphere of the beach not only justified nakedness, but became a new theater of eroticism whose lure was too intoxicating and seductive for most human beings to ignore. A few pulpits decried the obvious moral outrage of the new mentality; but they were soon silenced, rarely to be heard from again. The rush to the beach opened the door for justifying public nakedness. This “retreat to the beach” is so deeply entrenched in the American psyche, that many of us are probably unaware that men and women frolicking together in the surf was virtually unknown in human history until the mid-1800s. As the cry for more “functional” swimwear arose, the public’s morality slipped right off with its outer garments and was laid aside like an old, empty dress. The beach became the stage on which the main character of a new morality play was purposely, progressively, and provocatively disrobed: the female body.“For women, the preservation of modesty became a crucial concern during the last three decades of the nineteenth century, when they made the uneasy transition from bathing to swimming…by mid-century men, women, and children were escaping to this seasonal world (the beac)h by the thousands as a retreat from the pressures of urbanization and industrialization, and out of this pleasure culture the “summer girl” was born. She took obvious delight in tantalizing male vacationers with her daring antics and costume…As the summer girl and her more conservative followers became the common sight on public and private beaches, bathing developed into a highly social form of coed recreation. Functional bathing clothing was no longer adequate, and women adopted styles that showed off their charms…contrary to popular etiquette codes, young men not only refused to avert their eyes but some of the more brazen “Kodak fiends” often gathered at the water’s edge to watch these living pictures of ‘Venus rising from the Sea.’ ”It is obvious that for our culture has become extraordinarily clever at concocting beach “pastimes.” Every kind of organization can find some reason for gathering at the beach—from vacations and watersport events to seminars and church retreats. Love for the beach and the “Undressed Life” is so deeply embedded in modern American culture that to question its propriety is thought to be the height of legalistic Pharisaism, a return to Puritanical kill-joyism. Nevertheless, even modern fashion historians rightly observe that “swimming is a social

Male nudity is dealt with in this article as well; however, the main emphasis will be the female because in our culture the fashion industry understands what the pornography industry does: female nakedness makes more money than its male counterpart. provocation, an edge that may allow for slightly naughty, covertly sensuous behavior. In fact, those who in the nineteenth century saw the beach as a place of indulgence and arid iniquity were not entirely wrong.” They also point out the painfully obvious: “The fun-in-the-sun mentality encouraged a heightened sense of body awareness, and women’s swimsuits became increasingly more revealing.” Body awareness—as if men were not body “aware” enough already! The beach as the “progressive strip show” has veritably streamed towards the real goal of its erotic race: total nudity. In the 1970s, “hair and skin had to be in peak condition, muscles in tone, for exposure in swimwear. The body was in fashion, particularly on the beach, and there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that the swimsuit, however delicious, was merely a frame for it…all swimwear gradually lost coverage, gained shock appeal, feel appeal, as new soft and shiny fabrics were used…but the daring were no longer wearing teeny weeny bikinis: they were removing them at least the top half, on all the leading beaches of the world.” This burlesque, of course, could not be acted out in the work place; but the beach provided the ultimate frontier for pioneers willing to brazenly challenge the old morality. Swimwear not only legitimized nakedness but its Siamese twin, voyeuris . The female form was no longer merely a fantasy hidden under layers of cloth and petticoats: it was now a stark, sensual reality for all those who wanted to look. Though righteous Job said, “I made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?” (Job 31:1), American men established gazing and fantasizing on the “maids” as a red-blooded tradition. “Spectatorship is…inherent to swimming…what we fail to see in the streets…is palpable at the beach…swimwear and spectatorship are indivisible in concept.” If Christians are unaware that the world views the beach this way, they need to wake up. The lost man generall sees the beach as the theater of the body. Do you doubt this? Then consider the following: “If swimwear would ultimately provide the modern imagination with the eroticism of alternatively concealing and revealing the body, the undeniable, first situation of bathing was nakedness…People-watching, the great bourgeois voyeurism, is even more interesting when bathing involves an intimate dialogue between clothing and body seldom if ever glimpsed as candidly elsewhere in the spectacle of modern life.” In other words, at the beach you can see more of what you cannot legitimately see anywhere else: live, naked flesh. Not only that, it’s actually packaged to make it more erotic than most total nudity would be. Let’s face it: packaging is generally far more erotic than raw nudity. Alison Lurie, author of The Language of Clothes , observes that “some modern writers believe that the deliberate concealment of certain parts of the body originated not as a way of discouraging sexual interest, but as a clever device for arousing it. According to this view, clothes are the physical equivalent of remarks like “I’ve got a secret”; they are a tease, a come-on. It is certainly true that parts of the human form considered sexually arousing are often covered in such a way as to exaggerate and draw attention to them.” Kidwell and Steele add that “clothes are especially sexy when they call attention to the naked body underneath.” Every human being that is even slightly aware of his or her sexuality knows this. The same thing applies to short skirts, tight pants, skimpy tops, shorts, and a variety of clothing that conceals and reveals the body underneath. The fashion industry does not believe that the principle purpose of clothing is to cover the body; it believes that the principle purpose of clothing is sexual attraction. This is the very opposite of Christian modesty. It’s sad but true: the great dichotomy is alive and well today, and it resides in the minds of a staggering number of pastors and youth leaders. They believe that this arena of legitimized nudity is the ideal place to teach impressionable young men and women the “faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness” (Ti 1:1). How can this be? There are many possible explanations for this confusing phenomenon. Time and space will only allow for a few. Some who claim to be men of God are simply unregenerate and will therefore relentlessly fight to clothe fleshly pleasures in the robes of religion. Some professing men of God do not lead—they instead are led by the desires of their people (and particularly by the women and the “youth group”). Others, who are sincere men of

Martin and Koda, Splash!, 58. Kidwell and Steele, Men and Women, 118-120. Probert, Swimwear in Vogue Since 1910 , (New York: Abbeville Press, 1981), 80.Martin and Koda, Splash!, 43, 19, 21.
.Lurie, The Language of Clothes, 212-214. Kidwell and Steele, Men and Women, 56.

God, have so many furious battles in various areas that they simply have not reflected on nor studied the issue. And there are some who have studied the issue over the years and have concluded that this is a thing indifferent, a matter of Christian liberty. Let’s take a look at one possibility that might explain why this dichotomy exists in some men of God.

If you want to read more please go to.. http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/archive/pdf-english/cmod.pdf

sorry for all the different font sizes. It wouldn’t paste any other way.. but a very good and important read.

Debylin

Posted in Daily Journal | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Pic update

Here are some photos I have been saving up. I somehow lost my camera cord and have to borrow one  in order to download photos. So it has been a while! There are a few surprises I hope you enjoy!

These below I have made for clients. Some place mats and tablecloth. A couple ceramic pieces.

Below is some art work I have done over the last few months.

My first water color

The next pics are of around our homestead.

Some winter scenes.

The Dog

Amish dog

She's getting big

Passover table

In Good Company

Prayer knapps

Gotta love those Texas skies

blooming cactus

We have our first chick.. it is now 3 months old

Meet the twins. Our new kids.

This is George

This is Gracie

Here with their mom kitty

Well that is it for now. I thank the Lord for His provisions and surprises!  There are some new and upcoming things happening and I will Lord willing keep you updated.

So for now take care and God bless those who have ears to hear!

Posted in Daily Journal | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment